Sitting of 15 May 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Money) Bill (Standing Orders applicable therto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitioners for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
London County Council (Money) Bill.
Bill to be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Read the third time, and passed.
Halifax Corporation Provisional Order Bill, Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Gas) Bill, Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, Marriages Provisional Order Bill.
Read a second time, and committed.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (INDUSTRIAL DISEASES).
Copy presented of Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 6th May, 1916, extending the provisions of Section 8 of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, to other Diseases [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Boroughs of Eastbourne, Lewes, and Swansea;
Urban District of Rowley Regis
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA (INDIA OFFICE, RETIREMENT AT SIXTY-FIVE).
Return presented, relative thereto [Address 10th May; Mr. Secretary Chamberlain]; to lie upon the Table.
ROYAL OBSERVATORY (EDINBURGH).
Copy presented of the Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Astronomer-Royal for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    EXCHANGE OF DISABLED MILITARY PRISONERS.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the hospital ship offered by His Majesty's Government to facilitate the exchange of disabled military prisoners will also be used to transport German and bring back British civilian prisoners from internment?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The suggestion made by my hon. Friend has been carefully considered, but there are practical difficulties in the way of its adoption, which I shall be happy to explain to him. The repatriation of British and German invalid civilians will not be prejudiced by the decision not to use the hospital ship in question for this purpose.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs how soon he expects the Swiss Medical Commission to arrive in this country to take evidence as to German prisoners qualified by illness to be sent to Switzerland; and whether he can give the House any details as to the destinations or probable departure of the first batch of British prisoners for Switzerland?
    Lord R. CECIL: I regret that I do not know the exact date on which the Swiss Medical Commission will arrive in this country, but the Swiss Government are fully alive to the urgency of the matter; we understand that the first batch of British prisoners will be sent to Chateau d'Oex and its neighbourhood. It is hoped that the first batches of prisoners may leave this country and Germany by the end of this month.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what arrangements have been made for the supervision of the German prisoners sent over to Switzerland? Will they be interned in like manner as they are here?
    Lord R. CECIL: I should like notice of that question.

  ENEMY AIRCRAFT (INSURANCE OF RAILWAYMEN).
  Mr. TICKLERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to insure the whole of the railwaymen against injuries by reason of enemy air craft or bombardment while on duty or proceeding to or from duty on the company's premises, so that compensation will be paid in the event of injuries being received; and, if the existing Workmen's Compensation Act requires amendment to bring in these men, will he take prompt measures to deal with the same?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies which I gave on the 23rd February and the 12th April to questions by the hon. Member for Derby, of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy. I fear I cannot add to those replies.

  FOOD PRICES.
  Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has ob-
  1106
  served the continued rapid rise in the prices of food and other necessaries of life and how heavily this bears upon the poorer sections of the community, whose wages are in consequence seriously shrinking in value; whether at the same time he has also observed the excess profits made by shippers, manufacturers, traders, and the commercial classes generally; and whether he can give the House an assurance that the Government propose to take immediate action to regulate the supply and prices of food and other necessaries?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I have repeatedly given in this House to questions of a somewhat similar character. My hon. Friend must be well aware that all aspects of the subject to which he refers have long engaged the anxious and unremitting attention of the Government, and any practicable action to ameliorate the situation is being and will be taken, short of steps which by their nature are likely to defeat the main object by restricting supplies.

  HICKORY TOOL-HANDLES (IMPORTATION).
  The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT:
  5. To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether under recent restrictions of Imports Orders the import of axes with hickory handles and of axes without handles is permitted, while the import of hickory handles without axe-heads is prohibited; and, if so, what is the object of this discrimination, which acts to the detriment of the home manufacturer?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: This question is postponed until to-morrow.
  The HON. MEMBERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the fact that the Order whereby the import of hickory or ash tool-handles is prohibited, unless in the case of any particular consignment a certificate can be produced showing that they are urgently required for Government purposes, will have the effect of depleting the stock of such handles in this country, so that in the event of large numbers of spades and shovels being required by the military authorities on an emergency the manufacturers would not be able to supply them without great delay?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope the answer to Question 6 will cover the answer to Question 5. I have given directions that a general licence should be issued for the importation of hickory tool-handles into the United Kingdom.

  TIMBER SHORTAGE (EMPLOYMENT OF CANADIAN WOODMEN).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any arrangements have been made by the Government for Canadian woodmen to come to this country to cut timber; and, if so, how many it is proposed to bring over and when are they expected to arrive?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Arrangements have been made for a battalion of Canadian woodmen, 1,500 strong, to be raised in Canada to work in this country for the Home Grown Timber Committee. A large number of the men have already arrived, and are at work.
  Mr. KING: Will these men be under military law?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot answer that. If the hon. Gentleman will approach the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture he will let him know exactly the terms on which they are working.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Are these men cutting timber?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is this the season for it?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: We are so short of timber that we cannot avoid taking some, although the sap may be rising. We are cutting where least damage will be done.

  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES COMMITTEE.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state if the Sir Hugh Bell who has been selected by the Board of Trade to serve upon a Committee appointed in connection with the iron and steel industries to consider trade after the War is the same Sir Hugh Bell who has recently circu-
  1108
  lated a pamphlet setting forth his conviction that we could not if we would and should not if we could capture German trade, and advocating that Germany should be encouraged to sell us all she can?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Sir Hugh Bell is a distinguished ironmaster and a member of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence. No matter what Sir Hugh Bell's views on fiscal questions may be, I have no doubt that he will effectively discharge his duties as a member of the Committee on the Iron and Steel Industries.
  Mr. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he thinks he can get wellsidered views on the future from a Gentleman who now state that his prewar convictions are so strongly planted that no change in conditions can alter them?
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange a discussion between my hon. Friend (Mr. Shirley Benn) and the gentleman in question?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is always great difficulty in getting any gentleman from any of these commercial committees who had not some views on the fiscal question before the War. In my experience I have found that consistency in their views is not restricted to Free Traders.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is this Sir Hugh Bell the same Sir Hugh Bell who has recently circulated a document to Members of this House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question has already been answered by the right hon. Gentleman.

  ALIEN ENEMY FIRMS AND COMPANIES.
  Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that dissatisfaction prevails in Australia owing to the Board of Trade in this country refusing to issue a list of alien enemy firms over whom either a controller or a supervisor has been appointed; whether he is aware that full lists of alien enemy companies are published in the Australian journals, and will he say why this course is not followed in this country; whether he is aware that many people in

  1109
  this country have no desire to do business with German firms and that, owing to alien firms adopting British names, it is difficult for traders to know with whom they are actually dealing; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that lists of enemy companies have been published in Australian journals. The names of companies and firms in respect of which an Order is made requiring the business to be wound up are published in the "London Gazette." I do not think it advisable to publish the names of other companies and firms in which there are enemy interests on account of the injustice which would result in certain cases to the British shareholders and the undesirability of damaging a business when the enemy interest may be transferred to British subjects under the provisions of Section 4 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is there any reason why there should not be published a list of those companies where the majority of shares are held by Germans or alien enemies? What earthly reason is there why they should not be published?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I intended to convey in the second part of my answer the reasons which have actuated the Board of Trade. If we had not passed the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1916, I think there would be great force in the objection taken by my hon. Friend.

  BRITISH MOTOR CAB COMPANY (ARBITRATION AWARD).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the stoppage of several hundreds of motor drivers employed by the British Motor Cab Company; whether he is aware that this company, acting with the union representing the men, placed on the 26th of April before a Court of Arbitration, constituted by the Chief Industrial Commissioner, the points in difference between the company and the men; that the award of the Court was against the claim of the company; that the company, the day after receiving the award, entirely ignored it by requesting the workmen to sign a document in favour of the course rejected by the arbitrators; and whether, in view of the public incon-
  1110
  venience occasioned by the stoppage, he will bring pressure to bear upon the company to conform to the terms of the award?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the fact that difficulty has occurred in connection with this matter, and the Department are in communication with the company and with the men's representatives.
  Mr. W. THORNE: In the event of a firm or company going to arbitration, and the Arbitration Court deciding against them, and the following day they insist upon the workmen signing an agreement contracting out, what position are you going to take up in regard to the company?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If and when the case arises I will try to deal with it.
  Mr. THORNE: That is the case here.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot go beyond the statement in this case. Communications are passing between the company, the men's representatives, and ourselves.

  IRISH RAILWAY EMPLOYES (HOURS AND WAGES).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the rates of wages paid by the Irish railway companies to the various grades of their employés and the number of hours worked by each grade daily; if any increase in wages has been granted to meet the 50 per cent. increase in the cost of living since the outbreak of war; and, for the purpose of comparison, will he give the same information regarding employés of railways in Great Britain?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman up-to-date information on the rates of wages paid to and the number of hours worked by the employés of the railway companies. An increase of wages has, I understand, been granted in certain cases by way of a war bonus, varying on the Irish railways from 1s. to 2s. a week, and of 5s. a week on the British railways.

  PETROL SUPPLIES.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the dearth of petrol for necessary purposes, such as the requirements of the medical services in

  1111
  country districts where long distances have to be traversed; and whether he is prepared to consider regulations which would secure that the supply for such necessary purposes should not be interfered with by its use for purposes of luxury and amusement?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the position in regard to petrol in this country, and I appointed a Committee to consider what measures are necessary to secure adequate supplies of petrol for the purposes of the War and other essential needs, including medical services. This Committee are now inquiring into the whole subject.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Regulation of the Board of Trade in reference to railway trains has largely accentuated the dearth of petrol throughout the country by leading to the increase of private motor cars?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have been making inquiries on that subject since it was first raised in the House and I cannot find that there has been any great increase in the use of private motor cars. As far as I can ascertain the number of private motor cars in use is lower than before.

  IMPORTS (PROHIBITION).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the case of an established business which has had to be closed down altogether owing to the complete prohibition of certain imports; and whether he is prepared to provide any compensation for losses thus inflicted upon individuals in the interest of the nation as a whole, or whether he will permit reduced imports, as in the case of wood pulp and paper, to enable the business to be carried on?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will furnish me with specific instances of the facts alleged in the first part of the question I will consider them; but, in any case, I cannot undertake to provide monetary compensation. It must be evident that if all prohibited articles were treated similarly to paper and wood-pulp, the prohibitions would largely fail of their effect.

  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (WAKEFIELD).
  Mr. BROOKESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a prisoner of war at Wakefield has ordered from time to time electrical accessories from a London firm, and that among them a number of pocket flash-lamps have been included; whether, in October, 1915, prisoner of war, R. Hitner, who is interned at Wakefield, wrote to a London firm asking them to for ward six to twelve samples of pocket-lamps, and in February this year two dozen pocket-lamps, and that these goods were duly delivered to the German prisoner; and, if so, will he explain why the authorities allow a prisoner of war to receive flash-lamps and for what purpose are they used?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The War Office have no knowledge of these circumstances, but are obtaining information.

  GERMAN NAMES (ALTERATION).
  Captain CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the desirability, in fairness to persons of British extraction, whose names were assumed by persons of German nationality between the outbreak of war and the 12th October, 1914, as for instance in the case of Karl Klosch, who during this period assumed the name of Charles Bathurst, of making the prohibition of such assumption which became operative on the latter date retrospective as from the 4th August, 1914, so that all such piracy during the War may receive like treatment?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The prohibition to which he refers is already retrospective. Article 25A of the Aliens Restriction Order prohibits both the assumption and the continued use by an alien enemy of a name other than that by which he was ordinarily known before the War. I have no information as to the particular case referred to in the question, but will be glad to make inquiry if the hon. Member can furnish me with details.

  ZEPPELIN L15 (CAPTURE OF CREW).
  Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Great Yarmouth steam drifter YH 887, in the service of the Admiralty as a patrol boat, found the Zeppelin L 15 damaged in the Thames estuary and made a rope fast to it and took on board the commander and four of the crew of the airship, and held on for an hour until a cruiser arrived; and, if so, will some recognition of an honorary nature be made of this service?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The drifter, YH 87, which is presumed to be the one referred to, was one of three patrol vessels to whom the Zeppelin surrendered. The conduct of officers and men of all three was all that could be desired, but the circumstances do not call for any exceptional recognition.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (MANUFACTURE).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that the business of making artificial limbs and supports has now become one of great national importance, he will make representations to the Appeal Tribunal which recently refused exemption to Mr. J. Bush, of Wakefield, who is engaged in that business and has work in hand which cannot be completed if he joins the Army, with the object of inducing the tribunal in question to reconsider his case?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): As I have previously explained, I cannot interfere with the decision of a tribunal in an individual case of this kind.

    MEDICAL EXAMINATION (MARRIED MEN).
    Sir. A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the recruiting officer at Mansfield has refused to allow married men who desire to know at the earliest date whether their services will be required to be medically examined unless they first attest; whether he is aware that at other places facilities have been given by the recruiting officers to married men without their attesting; and whether he will direct the recruiting officer at Mansfield to give like facilities to the married men in his district?
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I have called for a report as to why such men are not examined by appointment if they wish to be.

    RAILWAY LOADER (EXEMPTION).
    Mr. THOMASasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a railway loader named Norman M. Williamson holds a certificate (No. 823) of exemption from the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916, which was issued by the East Ham Local Tribunal, the exemption being conditional whilst he contiues in his present occupation; that the local recruiting officer has now summoned him to join the Colours on 17th May and informed him that the exemption certificate is void as from 1st May; and, having regard to the fact that Williamson is still following his occupation as a railway loader, whether the recruiting officer has made a mistake in this case?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have called for a report.

    TIME-EXPIRED MEN (RECALL TO COLOURS).
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a time-expired man who as recently as six weeks ago was a sergeant and discharged from the Service with the commendation of the colonel commanding his battalion will, on being recalled to the Colours under the new Military Service Act, be entitled to the rank and emoluments that he enjoyed before he was discharged from the Service?
    Mr. TENNANT: He will be recalled to the Colours in the rank in which he left.

    BADGES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any special corps or regiment now exists in which officers or soldiers who are experts in various subjects are included; if so, what are the special badges or marks worn on the uniform of such men; what are their rates of pay; and whether any Members of Parliament not officially shown by the War Office in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 6th January, 1915, to be borne on the strength of any other regiment are serving in this special corps or regiment?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no special corps or regiment into which all experts in various subjects are put, but there are

    1115
    experts in different corps and different arms. No special badges have been devised, so far as I am aware, to indicate these experts. There is no general rate of pay for experts, and as there is no special corps it follows that the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. Speaking generally I am somewhat in the dark as to what my hon. Friend has in mind. Possibly he will enlighten me.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the meaning of the green badges that I see officers wearing on their coats? It is quite an innovation.
    Mr. TENNANT: I believe it is Intelligence.

    DEFECTIVE EYESIGHT.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an officer who has been required to resign his commission on the ground of defective eyesight or ill-health is exempt from the Military Service Act and from the Bill now passing through the House?
    Mr. TENNANT: An officer who has ceased to hold a commission in consequence of ill-health is excepted from the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916, and also under the Bill at present before the House.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will define the status of a man who offered to attest under the Derby recruiting scheme and was rejected in consequence of his holding a certificate showing that previously he had been discharged from the Army as incorrigible and worthless; if he will state whether men in such circumstances will be liable to serve under the present Military Service Bill; and, if so, will they be regarded as conscripts?
    Mr. TENNANT: Such a man, unless he now re-enlists or attests, will be liable under the Bill now before the House.
    Mr. THORNE: If a particular individual has got the certificate mentioned in this question, will it be forcible upon the authorities to take him because the man has applied on one or two occasions and has been absolutely rejected?
    Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars I will inquire.

    MEDICAL CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he can state, for the convenience of men already rejected on medical grounds, the names and numbers of the certificates which, if held by them, will obviate any further medical inspection; and (2) whether an unattested man rejected under the Derby scheme who has received an armlet as a reject and possesses rejection form No. B 2512 A, totally medically unfit, or B 2505 A, will be requested to submit to further medical examination under the new Bill?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question in terms of the names and numbers of the certificates. He knows as well as I do that Army forms are capable of being wrongly used and that they have been wrongly used. He may, however, be assured that no man known rightfully to hold a certificate of rejection on medical grounds issued by an authorised official would be required to be re-examined unless there be reason to believe that his medical disability was of a temporary nature, or of a nature which does not preclude his employment in some form of military service.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the large amount of anxiety amongst men who hold these certificates, and is he absolutely unable to give the names and particulars of any certificates which will exempt these men from re-examination?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is Yes. I believe that is so—there is some anxiety. There is no certificate which has been issued, so far as I am aware, which exempts a man from all forms of military service.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's first answer will he assure the House that it is not the intention of the military authorities to lower the standard for the Army, making the men more unfit?
    Mr. TENNANT: Certainly it is not the intention of the military authority to lower the medical standard for general service. What I want the House to realise is that we have other categories besides general service.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: What the men ask for is a certificate stating the position.

    1117
    They wish to know whether they are absolutely rejected or not, and can the right hon. Gentleman devise some means of enabling the men to get to know?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will see if some means can be devised; it is a very difficult thing.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will raise this point to-morrow night, on the Motion for Adjournment.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether men who at present hold certificates of exemption from military service for medical reasons and who are re-examined and subsequently called up for service will be entitled to adequate financial compensation in the shape of pensions in the event of breakdown in health following military service; and if he will state that the War Office will accept full financial responsibility for men called up in the circumstances named?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Such men will not be called up unless the medical authorities are satisfied that they are fit for service in the category in which they are placed. They will therefore be upon the same footing as other soldiers for pension.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the four sons of Mr. G. A. Dunn, hat manufacturer, of Stockport, named, respectively, Randolph, Clifford, Howard, and Lloyd, have secured exemption from the Hertfordshire Tribunal from military service as conscientious objectors; whether he is aware that at the hearing of their appeal Mr. Frampton, a barrister, who appealed on their behalf, stated that his clients would refuse to kill rats or mice even if they attacked their crops, and if they saw a cat killing a rat they would try and prevent it; and if he will state whether the military authorities intend to appeal against the decision of the tribunal?
    Mr. TENNANT: A report is being obtained.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) if he will make an immediate inquiry into the treatment of a number of conscientious objectors who belong to Darwen, Lancashire, who were taken to the military barracks at Preston and there subjected to the grossest ill-treatment, being forcibly stripped and marched round the barrack
    1118
    square practically undressed, and after being put in uniform one of them was taken into a room and, on the testimony of a person there, brutally kicked around the room until his groans could be heard outside; in view of the fact that statements of similar and worse treatment of conscientious objectors are coming from many other districts, will he take immediate steps to have this brutal conduct on the part of the military stopped and proper punishment meted out to those responsible for it; and (2) what action he has taken upon the allegations of D. S. Parkes, a conscientious objector to military service, who has been convicted by a district court-martial at Winchester on charges of refusal to obey military orders; that on his arrest under the Military Service Act, 1916, he was placed in the guard room at Whitehall and informed that he would be shot at dawn for refusing to give information demanded; that he was insulted by the non-commissioned officer in charge of the guard room, who also placed a bayonet to his heart; that he was then taken into another room, where a rifle was pointed at him and then he was told that he was graciously pardoned; that this action was repeated later, a rifle being loaded in his presence and an order given to a soldier to fire; and, if no action has been taken upon these serious allegations, will he order a thorough inquiry at once into the alleged conduct of the non-commissioned officers, and soldiers who tortured this man?
    Mr. TENNANT: As my hon. Friend has not seen his way to respond to the appeal I made last week, reports have been called for about these two cases.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask if an action for assault can be brought in the Courts in a case such as that alleged in this question to have been committed?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot answer that hypothetical question.

    MEDICAL BOARDS.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can state what will be the constitution of the Medical Boards which are to examine men previously rejected for the Army on medical grounds; whether such Boards will include civilian doctors of good standing in each locality where a Board is set up; or, if the constitution of such Boards is not uniform, what will be the variations in the constitution of such Boards?
    Mr. TENNANT: The Medical Boards by which these men will be examined are those which have been appointed and are working in each recruiting area. The presidents are appointed by the War Office and the members are appointed in the commands.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many Boards there are in each tribunal?
    Mr. TENNANT: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any superior Medical Boards to which an appeal can be made against the decision of the first Board?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would ask my hon. Friend to give me notice of that question. There are two Boards. I am not aware that an appeal lies from one to the other.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Will the War Office consider the propriety of having at least one civilian doctor in view of the fact that the new examinations are re-examinations, and awake a great deal of public interest and anxiety?
    Mr. TENNANT: As my hon. Friend is aware, we have utilised and are utilising the services of a large number of civilian doctors.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the number of these Boards be such as to ensure adequate and proper examination of each individual instead of having the work scamped?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

    TIME-EXPIRED MEN (SCALE OF BOUNTIES).
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL(by Private Notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can now state the scale of bounties which it is proposed to give to time-expired soldiers retained in or recalled to the Army under the Military Service Bill?
    Mr. FORSTER: Bounties will be given to men, the depots of whose units are in the United Kingdom, who having become time-expired since the outbreak of war are now recalled to or retained in the Service on the following general lines:

    Men of short service, e.g., Territorials, Special Reserve

    £15

    Men of thirteen years' service or upwards

    £20

    Men of twenty-two years' service or upwards

    £25

    As the House will see, these are bounties of a very generous kind.
    As regards men retained in the Service, the bounty may be drawn as to one-third in cash, the balance being paid, with interest at 5 per cent., on the man's death or discharge from the Service.
    Men who have left but are now recalled to the Service will have the option of drawing the whole or any part of the bounty in cash on being called up, any balance undrawn being treated as above.
    Men who on being called up are passed into the Reserve and returned to civil employment will not be eligible for the bounty unless or until they are called up for military service.

  TRANSVAAL (PASSPORTS FROM ENGLAND).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State, for the Colonies, concerning the refusal by the High Commissioner of South Africa of a certificate of domicile to Mr. C. Jennings, who, after residing and working for two years and four months and qualifying for inclusion on the voters' list in the Boksburg district of the Transvaal, returned to this country in September last for the purpose of taking back to his home in the Transvaal his wife and child, and who cannot now obtain a passport in consequence of the action of the High Commissioner in refusing him a certificate of domicile, if he will make suitable representations to the High Commissioner of South Africa in order to enable Mr. Jennings to return home, or, in the alternative, if a certificate of domicile cannot be granted, if he will take steps to obtain a grant for Mr. Jennings from the Rand Munitions Association, a body formed for the purpose of assisting, by grants of money to pay their passage, men who come to this country to work in munition factories, seeing that Mr. Jennings, being unable to return home is now working at a munitions factory, and could therefore, presumably, have obtained a grant if he had come here with the intention of taking up his present employment?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I regret that I am unable to assist Mr. Jennings either to return to South Africa or to obtain a grant from the Rand Munitions Association.

  CEYLON DISTURBANCES.
  Mr. GINNELLasked what action, if any, was taken by Sir Robert Chalmers against Mr. Mitchell, superintendent of the Panawatte estate, Ceylon, on whose orders, without charge or trial, certain Punjabi soldiers executed by shooting Wattegedera Gamaralalage Serahami on the 13th June, 1915, after the disturbances, in which he was not involved, had ceased; and whether Sir Robert Chalmers has left Mr. Mitchell still in power in Ceylon or has brought him to Ireland?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no reason to suppose that there is any foundation for the allegation in the question. The last part of the question does not seem to call for serious reply.
  Mr. GINNELL: How was this man slain?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no information.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will you not inquire?

  WAR LOAN (CONVERSION OF CONSOLS).
  Mr. NEVILLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of Consols and Annuities which were converted into New 4½ per cent. War Loan; and what is the amount of such Consols and Annuities now outstanding?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The final figures are not yet available. The following are the appropriate figures as at 31st March, 1916:
  Converted into 4½ per Cent. War Loan 1925–1945:

  Consols

  £255,200,000

  2½ per cent. Annuities

  8,200,000

  2¾ per cent. Annuities

  1,100,000

  Amounts outstanding on 31st March, 1916:

  Consols

  £280,500,000

  2½ per cent. Annuities

  21,600,000

  2 ¾ per cent. Annuities

  2,700,000

  The £255,200,000 Consols converted include £35,800,000 which were formerly held by the Post Office and Trustee Savings Bank Funds and were converted in connection with subscriptions through the Savings Banks to the 4 ½ per cent. Loan.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    EXECUTION OF EDWARD KENT.
    Mr. W. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Bishop of Cork and the Lord Mayor, who exerted themselves with success to prevent any disturbances in Cork, applied for the body of Edward Kent, who was executed on the sentence of a field court-martial, with a view to its burial in consecrated ground, and were refused?
    Mr. TENNANT: This probably refers to Thomas Kent. Edward Kent was executed in Dublin. In either case the answer is that it is regretted that the removal of the body in this and similar cases is not considered to be expedient.
    Mr. O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the family of this man are most respectable people who suffer more from the accusation of murder against him even than from his execution, and will he publish the evidence that was given at the court-martial which will prove that the tragedy for which this punishment was inflicted arose out of resistance to disarmament?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of which I should like to see a copy.
    Mr. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the evidence which will conclude the whole matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think that I must defer an answer to that. The hon. Gentleman must give me notice.

    ARRESTS.
    Mr. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any official information showing that three principal teachers of the Christian Brothers' Schools at Charleville were arrested while teaching their classes and marched handcuffed through the streets to an unknown destination; and, if so; whether, seeing that the small group of local Irish Volunteers have no firearms and that the town and district have been entirely free from any insurrectionary disturbance and have contributed an exceptionally large number of recruits to the Army, orders will be given to discontinue proceedings of this kind?
    Mr. TENNANT: No official information has been received of the incident described. Inquiry is being made.
    Mr. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland on what charge Mr. Louis D'Alton, of Tipperary, has been arrested; if he has been deported to England; will he be returned to his own country for trial if he is to be tried; and whether he is aware that no insurrectionary disturbance of any kind has taken place in Tipperary?
    Mr. TENNANT: Mr. D'Alton was arrested under the Defence of the Realm Act. It is expected that a statement will he made at an early date as to the steps which the Government will take to deal with this and other similar cases.
    Mr. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that four sons of Widow Boylan, of Dunboyne, county Meath, seventy-five years of age, were arrested by the military on 3rd May, and have not since been heard of by their mother, whose only support they were; whether none of these men took any part in the insurrection, and two of them were not even members of the Irish Volunteers; and whether, for the sake of humanity, the old woman will be apprised of the fate of her sons and permitted to communicate with them?
    Mr. TENNANT: I learn that all four sons have been sent to England. Inquiry is being made into their cases.
    Mr. O'BRIEN: What is the object of deporting these men to England?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is a question of policy which, I think, should be addressed to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Alderman James J. Kelly, J.P., ex-high sheriff of Dublin, was arrested on 26th April by the military authorities and deported to England and detained fifteen days without trial; if he can state what charge, if any, was made against Alderman Kelly; and if he will be compensated for the loss sustained by the action of the military authorities?
    Mr. TENNANT: The facts as stated are correct. Mr. Kelly was arrested on suspicion, but, on investigation of the facts, it was determined that no charge should be preferred, and he has been released. The Government cannot recognise any claim to compensation.

    IRISH CATHOLIC PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELL,who had the following question on the Paper addressed to the Prime Minister: [Seeing that large numbers of Irish Catholic prisoners in Stafford and other English prisons were prevented from attending Mass last Sunday, notwithstanding the protests of the Catholic chaplains, whether the right hon. Gentleman will have this restriction removed next Sunday and all succeeding Sundays], said: I have been asked to postpone this question.
    Mr. TENNANT: I wish to make a reply, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of questions addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister relating to military matters in Ireland, but I have not yet received the necessary information which will enable me to reply to them. Perhaps hon. Members will put their questions down again. I hope to be able to answer in a day or two.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the manner of proceeding by the military in certain counties of Ireland is causing the greatest exasperation amongst those citizens who hitherto have had no sympathy with the Sinn Fein movement?
    Mr. O'BRIEN: How soon can we have a statement made in reply to the questions which are upon the Paper? Where are we to look for information except in this House?
    Mr. TENNANT: In relation to these military questions I hope to be able to answer them in two or three days.
    Mr. GINNELL: I assume the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to answer Questions 57 and 58, but will he answer No. 59, which refers to occurrences of two years ago?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think it advisable, if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough, to postpone this question until the Prime Minister is in his place.
    Mr. GINNELL: When will that be?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot definitely say.
    Mr. O'BRIEN: May I say, with regard to the Prime Minister, that with all my heart I wish him success in his mission? I assume that the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer the question which I have on the Paper?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I cannot, but I will give the hon. Gentleman the information as soon as possible.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I may assume that the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to answer certain questions down in my name?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot pretend to reply to them. The House will realise that owing to the congestion there are great difficulties of communication.

    P. H. AND WILLIAM PEARSE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will say what were the terms that P. H. Pearse asked for before his surrender; why his expressed desire to see his mother between sentence and execution was refused;; why the letters and other matter written by him immediately before his death have not yet been delivered to the persons to whom they were addressed; when they will be delivered; and, seeing that the position of William Pearse in the Volunteer Force was quite a subordinate one, what ground was there for executing him other than his relationship to P. H. Pearse?
    Mr. TENNANT: P. H. Pearse surrendered unconditionally. His desire to see his mother before his execution was not refused, but every endeavour was made to meet it, the Reverend Father Aloysius being sent in a motor car to bring her to him. Owing, however, to the firing which was still going on the car was unable to get through. All letters and papers written by him immediately before his death were delivered to the persons to whom they were addressed on the 3rd May. William Pearse was tried, convicted and sentenced to death by court-martial, and the General Officer Commanding duly confirmed the sentence.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, although Mr. Pearse ultimately surrendered unconditionally, what terms he asked in the first instance?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I am quite unable to say.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why his young brother, a minor in every respect, condition, and age, and not a signatory of the republican proclamation, has been shot?
    Mr. TENNANT: He was convicted by a court-martial.
    Mr. GINNELL: Was he convicted of any offence but that of being a brother of P. H. Pearse?

    ALLEGED SHOOTING IN DUBLIN.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War by whose order during the fighting in Dublin little boys and girls running about in terror were caught by soldiers and shot out of hand on the pretext that they were carrying messages; why they were not imprisoned, when the truth or falsehood of that pretext could be tested; and whether any officers or soldiers have been or will be tried for these acts?
    Mr. TENNANT: No such order was given. There is no evidence to lead one to believe in the truth of the allegations made in the question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will any inquiry be made?
    Mr. TENNANT: No.

    DUBLIN FUNERALS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why at first no mourners were allowed to follow to the graves the remains of those who fell in the recent rebellion in Dublin; why only one mourner was afterwards allowed to follow; with what object were the coffins stopped and opened on the way; and, if anything was discovered to justify that desecration, will he say what it was?
    Mr. TENNANT: It was found impracticable in the first instance to allow mourners to attend funerals, but as soon as possible one mourner was allowed to attend. It was deemed inadvisable to permit a larger following. In many cases it was necessary for the purpose of identification to open the coffins.

    DEPORTED PRISONERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will state what action the Government propose to take in dealing with the deported prisoners from Ireland; and whether the Government will bear in mind the precedent established by General Botha as regards the clemency shown to the prisoners in the South African rising?
    Mr. TENNANT: The Government hope soon to be in a position to state their decision respecting the action to be taken in dealing with the prisoners deported from

    1127
    Ireland. In the meantime I can assure the hon. Member that there is every desire to deal as leniently with these persons as the circumstances may permit.

    GAELIC LEAGUE, LONDON (RAID BY MILITARY AUTHORITIES).
    Mr. GINNELL(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it was with the knowledge of the Prime Minister and of the Government that the policy of exasperating the Irish in this country was begun by the military raid last Friday—at the time of the Prime Minister's arrival in Dublin on a mission of peace—on the Gaelic League in London, a literary and non-political society appealing to all Irish people without distinction, and, having regard to the far-reaching consequences of such a policy, whether the military authorities will suspend the extension of it to all Irish societies and Irish residents in Great Britain until the Prime Minister and the Government have had an opportunity of reconsidering the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: As the hon. Gentleman only sent this message to me as I came into the House, it is obviously impossible for me to give any kind of reply at the present moment. I think he would do well if he waited until the Prime Minister returns.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any assurance that the military will be restrained in this work until the Prime Minister returns?

  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD.
  Colonel NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) if he can state whether the Metropolitan Water Board are proceeding with their new reservoir at Staines; and, if so, what is the total cost of this undertaking; whether, in the interests of economy, the Government has taken any action towards requesting the Metropolitan Water Board to discontinue such works during the period of the War; and (2) whether the contract for the central offices of the Metropolitan Water Board at Rosebery Avenue is still being proceeded with; and whether he has taken any action with a view to curtailing this and other municipal works during the period of the War?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The work on the reservoir in question has been stopped, I understand, by the Ministry of Munitions. The discontinuance of the building in connection with the new head offices was considered by the Capital Issues Committee, but in view of the heavy and disproportionate expense which would have been involved by a temporary cessation it was decided that the existing contract should be allowed to be completed. As regards the general question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him on Thursday last by the President of the Local Government Board.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE).
  Colonel NORTON - GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has yet received a resolution submitted to the Hove Town Council to the effect that in view of the appeal made by the Government that local authorities should do everything possible to discourage any expenditure during the War period on other than absolutely necessary and urgent work it is the opinion of this council that representations should be made to the Local Government Board or other Government authority on the question of the repainting of houses in Brunswick Square, etc., asking for direction as to whether this may be deferred until next year; and, if so, will he authorise all such works to be postponed for the period of the War?
  Mr. LONG: I have received a communication from the Hove Town Council on this subject. The requirement referred to is a statutory one, and I have no authority to give any directions with respect to it.

  OFFICERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many generals and other officers of the age of sixty-five are at present re-employed with His Majesty's Forces; whether these officers are drawing pensions in addition to the full pay and allowances of their rank; and whether he will give an undertaking that all officers upon attaining the age of sixty-five shall ipso facto cease to be employed

  1129
  and that all re-employed officers shall be called upon to relinquish their pensions during such times as they are drawing full pay?
  Mr. FORSTER: The numbers could not be ascertained without a considerable amount of work. Under the existing Regulations re-employed officers, as a rule, retain their retired pay. I cannot give the undertaking asked for in the latter part of the question.

  BURIAL OF SOLDIERS.
  Mr. NEVILLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is the practice to bury in his blanket a soldier killed in action; and whether it is the practice to charge the soldier's dependants 6s. 9d., or any other and what sum, for such blanket?
  Mr. FORSTER: Soldiers killed in action are frequently buried in their blankets. It is, of course, not the practice to make any charge for the blanket, and if my hon. and learned Friend has knowledge of any case in which such a charge has been made. I hope he will let me have full particulars.

  DEATH SENTENCES ON SOLDIERS.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of men over twenty-one shot by order of court-martial and the number of those under twenty-one shot by order of court-martial during the War on the various scenes of operations; and whether he will inform the House if any allowances are made to the dependants of such men?
  Mr. TENNANT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 26th January. In reply to the last part of the question, I would inform him that the issue of separation allowance in such cases is continued for twenty-six weeks from the date of notification of death.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will give an undertaking to the House of Commons that no death sentences shall be carried out upon any soldiers serving in France or other places until the record of the case has been submitted to competent legal authority in London for confirmation?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is unnecessary to submit such sentences to legal authority in London, as, under present practice, no such sentence is ever carried out without being submitted to the Deputy Judge Advocate-General in France.

  HOLY PLACES OF ISLAM.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in the course of assurances given by the British Government or any of the Allied Governments during the War that the holy places of Islam would be respected, any indication has been given or any question raised of the exact number, extent, and localities of such holy places; and whether he will indicate whether Baghdad and Jerusalem are considered to be holy places included in the Government undertaking?
  Lord R. CECIL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. For a definition of the holy places of Islam, I would refer the hon. Member to the announcement which was published in the extraordinary "Gazette of India," of the 2nd November, 1914.
  Mr. KING: Can I have a copy of that sent to me?
  Lord R. CECIL: I will send the hon. Member an extract from it.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the Noble Lord if he does not think that Mahomedans are likely rather to resent questions showing complete ignorance on the questions of holy places of Islam?
  Lord R. CECIL: I am not responsible for the questions put down.
  Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I was asked by a very distinguished Mahomedan to bring this matter forward, and that my questioner is really very well informed?

  MEN CALLED TO COLOURS.

    SCHEME OF RELIEF.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister if he can now indicate when he hopes to be able to introduce the measure establishing the Statutory Committee to administer the fund for the relief of enlisted persons who have exceptional financial liabilities?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. As I have previously stated, it is not at present contemplated that any legislation will be necessary.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in answer to me the Prime Minister used the words "Statutory Committee"; and how can a Statutory Committee be appointed without legislation?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am not aware that that expression was used; it never has been contemplated.
    Mr. HOGGE: When are we to have this information, so that we may have an opportunity of discussing it?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I hope to issue a White Paper shortly, which will enable the hon. Gentlemen to deal with the question.

  COMPULSORY SERVICE IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister at what age compulsory military service commences and terminates in the following countries: Germany, Austria, Turkey, France, Belgium, Russia, Italy, Japan, Serbia, Montenegro, and Great Britain?
  Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The particulars asked for by my hon. Friend are too voluminous to be suitable to be given in an oral reply, but I will send my hon. Friend a statement. When he receives it he will be good enough to discriminate between time of peace and time of war. I am informed that no claim for discharge holds good in wartime in the case of Germany, Austria, and France, even if the upper age limit specified for those countries has been reached. In war-time Austrian and German conscripts are called up for active service at any time after their seventeenth birthday.
  Mr. THORNE: Will the reply be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, if my hon. Friend desires it. [See Written Answers, 16 th May.]

  AIR SERVICES.
  Mr. BROOKESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is taking steps for the establishment of an Air Board; and whether, in that case, he can announce its personnel and also the exact scope of its duties?
  Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has asked me to reply, and to say that a statement will be made on the subject to-morrow.
  Mr. BROOKES: Seeing that various Members of this House are preparing their speeches for to-morrow, and that there are various Amendments, would it not be possible to give us the particulars to-day?
  Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Member is not in an unique position. There are other people also preparing speeches.

  SUMMER TIME BILL.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that in 1911 memorials in favour of the unification of British and Irish time were presented from all parts of Ireland from county and urban councils, chambers of commerce and other representative bodies, and railway and steamship companies, and that the Uniform Time Bill, which was framed in accordance with these representations, received general acceptance; and if the Government will bring in a Bill immediately to effect unification so that it may be brought into operation simultaneously with the Summer Time Bill?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Baronet to the full statement on this proposal, which I made in the course of the Debate last Monday. If the change is to be effected it could be done more conveniently when normal time is restored on 1st October, than when summer time is introduced on Sunday next. The former proposal would involve putting back the clock time in Ireland by only thirty-five minutes; the latter would involve putting it forward by one hour and twenty-five minutes.

  STEEL HELMETS (KHAKI COVERS).
  Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is

  1133
  aware of the demand from the Western front for khaki covers for steel helmets, which can otherwise be easily seen from a distance; whether he is aware that many thousands have recently been supplied from private sources; whether the War Office has supplied any; and whether he will issue immediate instructions, to save further casualties, that such covers are to be provided with every helmet?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Commander-in-Chief reports that all existing helmets are provided with covers or rough paint. The question of which method is the most efficacious is engaging his attention, but he is not yet in a position to make a recommendation.

  WORKHOUSE OCCUPATION (MILITARY USE).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether in some cases when the military authorities have taken over workhouses and infirmaries, a number of male and female inmates have been engaged to do indoor and outdoor work in connection with these institutions; whether in some cases a small weekly allowance is being made to these people ranging from 1s. to 3s. a week, while in other cases no allowance is being made; and will he see that these workers are all placed on a uniform scale of allowance of not less than 3s. a week?
  Mr. FORSTER: I have no knowledge of the cases referred to by the hon. Member. If he will give the names of hospitals concerned I will have inquiries made.

  BRITISH PRISONERS (BULGARIA).
  Mr. MALCOLMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing that the Bulgarian Government gives no daily pay to British officer prisoners interned hi Bulgaria, he will immediately refund with interest to those officers' accounts the amounts hitherto deducted in the belief that Bulgaria was paying them?
  Mr. FORSTER: The amounts deducted have already been recredited.
  Mr. ASHLEY: With interest?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot answer.

  LIGHTING REGULATIONS (METROPOLITAN AREA).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that many householders at the West End of London have failed to provide dark blinds for the top-story windows of their houses; and will he give such instructions to the police as will ensure the letter of the law being observed in this respect?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The police endeavour to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Lighting Order both in the spirit and the letter. The provision of dark blinds is not compulsory if the lights are adequately screened.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of checking the light at the source? Is he not aware this is a very important matter, and probably this would assist very much to attain the end I desire to attain?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, it is a matter of much importance. I have written to the hon. Member suggesting that he should place himself in direct communication with the authorities in Scotland Yard.

  AUSTRALIAN SILVER COINAGE.
  Mr. PRIMROSEasked whether Australian silver coinage is legal tender in Great Britain?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. PRIMROSE: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make some arrangement, in view of the presence of so many Australian troops in this country?
  Mr. McKENNA: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a very large profit on the coinage of silver, and I think that the Government which gets the profit should confine the circulation of the silver to its own area.
  Mr. PRIMROSE: Is there not a very great profit in the purchases of the Australian troops?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but I do not think that one matter can be set off against the other.

  NEW WRIT,
  for the County of Lancaster (South West, Widnes Division), in the room of Colonel William Hall Walker (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Can the President of the Local Government Board say whether it is intended to sit late to-night, and how far he intends to go with the Military Service Bill?
  Mr. LONG: The hour to which we shall sit depends, of course, on what happens in the Debate. The Government propose to finish the Report stage of the Bill tonight, and we hope to take the Third Reading also. There are really, if you eliminate the mass of Amendments standing in the name of one hon. Member, only two or three outstanding questions, one of which was debated in Committee, and, having regard to the great urgency of the matter, I hope the House will assent to our
  finishing the Report stage and taking the Third Reading to-night.
  Mr. JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a good part of the Bill was discussed in Committee in the early hours of the morning; and, in view of the great public interest taken in the remaining points, can he see his way to give another day?
  Mr. LONG: What my hon. Friend has said is the strongest argument in favour of our proceeding at once with the consideration of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any time though opposed."—[Mr. McKenna.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 29.

  Division No. 15.]

  AYES.

  [3.37 p.m.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Morgan, George Hay

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Grant, James Augustus

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Murray, Major Hon. Arthur C.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Haslam, Lewis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bird, Alfred

  Hinds, John

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Blair, Reginald

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Prothero, Rowland Edmund

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Brace, William

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brookes, Warwick

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bryce, John Annan

  Illingworth, Albert H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S.

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Robinson, Sidney

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Rowlands, James

  Cassel, Felix

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Rutherford, Watson, (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Cator, John

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Shaw, Hon. A.

  Coats, Sir Stewart A. (Wimbledon)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Swift, Rigby

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Currie, George W.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Thorne, Willam (West Ham)

  Dixon, C. H.

  M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. T. J.

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Fell, Arthur

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Wardle, George J.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Forster, Henry William

  Meux, Sir Hedworth

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Williams, Thomas J.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Younger, Sir George

  Mr. Gulland and Mr. James Hope.

  NOES.

  Anderson, W. C.

  King, Joseph

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Glanville, Harold James

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Roch, Walter F.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Snowden, Philip

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  John, Edward Thomas

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Morrell, Philip

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Nuttall, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Hogge and Mr. Thomas.

MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
As amended, considered.
MILITARY SERVICE BILL.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Conscientious Objector.)
  Paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the principal Act shall not apply except in cases where the objector was, before the first day of June, nineteen hundred and fourteen, a member of a recognised religious denomination one of whose tenets was opposition to combatant military service.—[Sir F. Banbury.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Frederick Banbury—
  Sir J. D. REES: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask if it is insufficient, in order to put an Amendment on the Paper, to pass in the Order Paper on which are the printed Amendments and to indicate that the hon. Member concerned wishes to adopt one as his Amendment, his own Amendment being previously ruled out of order on the ground that it would, if adopted, involve an alteration in the principal Act?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I did not understand a word of what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Sir J. D. REES: Then I will try again. Is it insufficient, in order to have an Amendment placed upon the Paper, to hand in the Paper on which are the printed Amendments, and to indicate that you wish to adopt an Amendment already on the Paper as yours in place of the one which has been ruled out of order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does this refer to the new Clause relating to the conscientious objector?
  Sir J. D. REES: No, Sir. It is an Amendment further on.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Frederick Banbury.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This proposed new Clause provides that the conscientious objector shall not be exempted from the operations of this Act unless he was, on 1st June, 1914, a member of a recognised religious denomination one of whose tenets is opposition to combatant military service. At the present time there is no definition of what is a conscientious objector. Consequently the tribunals are put in a very awkward position, and many have, in differing fashion, given exemptions to men who applied on the score of conscientious objection. One of the advantages of this new Clause is that it will give a definition on which the tribunals will act; and, if it is carried, all the tribunals will have to do will be to ascertain what are the recognised religious denominations one of whose tenets is objection to combatant military service, and, having ascertained this, to discover whether or not the applicant was a member of one of these religious denominations on 1st June, 1914. It may be said that there is no such thing as a conscientious objector. I myself rather hold that view. But I believe I am correct in saying that under the old Militia Ballot Act Quakers were exempted. That being so, I think it is reasonable that people who have always been exempted in this country under the old laws of military service should continue to be so exempted. One of the results of my new Clause would be to simplify the work of the tribunals, and to ensure that similar decisions would be given by them. That is a very great advantage even if there were no others. No one can deny that a very large number of men who have applied for exemption on the ground that

  1149
  they were conscientious objectors have only an objection to going through the hardships of a campaign. I do not think that anybody in any part of the House—of course, I do not allude to hon. Members who are against compulsory service altogether—but, leaving those hon. Members out, I do not think there is any hon. Member in any part of the House who would desire that a man, because he objected to fighting for his country, should obtain exemption by making a statement that he is a conscientious objector. When the first Military Service Act was passed, as the House knows, it applied only to unmarried men of a certain age. Now that every man between the ages of eighteen and forty-one is to be brought in, the number of conscientious objectors will probably be very much enlarged, and as I gather that the Government desires to proceed quickly with this Bill, it shows that it is necessary to obtain for the defence of the country every man you can possibly get. Therefore, I think it is doubly necessary at the present moment to ensure that men who come forward and ask for exemption are really genuine conscientious objectors, who have been brought up during the great part of their lives under a religious denomination which says, rightly or wrongly, that combatant military service is, in their opinion, wrong.
  The only objection I can see to my new Clause is that it might be held that, as it is not retrospective, it would create two classes of men, and that men who up to the present time have been exempted, who were really not members of a religious denomination such as I have outlined, would be in a better position than the men who would come under the operation of this present Bill. Of course, one way of meeting that would be to make the Clause retrospective. I myself do not propose to do that, although, of course, if the Government would accept the Clause provided it was retrospective, I would be quite willing to accept their suggestion, but I did not put that down myself because I am not a very great believer in retrospective legislation, and you cannot always avoid hard cases. I think we ought to have had a Clause of this sort in the first Bill.
  Major NEWMAN: It was proposed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It was proposed und not accepted, and therefore we did not have it; but because we made a mis-
  1150
  take in the first Bill, that is no reason why we should not rectify it now. I think it would be fairer to the people who have been already exempted to allow them to continue to be exempted sooner than bring them in, but if there is any desire on the part of the Government to object to the Clause on that ground, I should be very glad, if this Clause is read a second time, to put in an Amendment which would bring everyone under its provisions. I think I have put my reasons clearly and shortly before the House, and I express an earnest wish that the Government will accept the new Clause, and if they will not, I sincerely trust Members on all sides of the House will support me by going to a Division.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I am sorry not to be able to support the new Clause for this reason: Either the new Clause ought to have been entirely to get rid of the conscientious objector or this particular legislation ought not to have been proposed. The position is this, as I take it: Parliament has deliberately decided and put in a statute that a certain class of people ought to be treated in a certain way. This particular class, so long as that statute remains as it is, is entitled to have the same treatment whether or not it belongs to a religious denomination having for one of its tenets the particular object in view. We have had, I can say, at the Central Tribunal not a very large number, hut a certain number of cases of conscientious objectors, who were obviously quite conscientious, who had held those opinions for a very long time, and who had proved by independent evidence that they held those opinions, but who, belonging in one case to the Church of England, in other cases to no church at all, we felt, were entitled as the Act stood to exactly the same class of exemption and treatment as those who belonged, say, to the Society of Friends, or the Christadelphians, or the Plymouth Brethren, or any other body whose tenets are perfectly well known, and the basis of whose good faith is quite clearly understood. It might be quite right for the House to consider whether it was wise in having any conscientious objection exemptions at all. That, I agree, is quite possible. I express no opinion whatever about that. I am not dealing with that point now, and it would be out of order, I imagine, but if my right hon. Friend had gone the whole hog, as I should have rather

  1151
  thought he would, as is his habit on these occasions, I might or might not have supported him.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the Clause be read a second time it will be quite easy to amend it.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: That may be, but I should have liked to have seen the principle in the new Clause itself, and then we should know exactly where we are. The new Clause imposes a limitation, which I do not think ought to be the case, and, so long as the conscientious objector Clause stands in the original Act, this limitation would be unfair.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. BARNES: I have voted for nearly all the stages of this Bill, and I am not going back upon what I have done. But it may be of interest to the right hon. Baronet to know that, if there is any point of the Bill which has given me some little trouble and misgiving, it is this point, and I have come to the conclusion, and did at the beginning, that the door ought to be wide, rather than narrow, to the real conscientious objector. I am not troubled about the application of the principle of compulsion, because I know of no greater principle than the safety of the State, but I think that, while we have regard to the safety of the State, we should also have regard to, I will not say the rights, but the peculiarities of the individual, because, after all, the person of strong conscientious convictions, or of strong intuition which generally precedes intellectual convictions, is a very valuable asset to the community. It keeps us going, so to speak; it keeps us from getting stagnant. Therefore, I want to have the utmost regard for that, and, while I have been in favour, since the first day of the War, of prosecuting the War with all the material resources under our control, I have been at the same time always glad that there are some amongst us who, at any cost, and at any sacrifice, are willing to keep the spiritual fires burning in preparation for the dawn of a better day. That is to say, I am having regard only to the real conscientious objector, the man who, deep down in his nature, feels the impulse of some law which he, perhaps, cannot understand, or even explain, but which he knows in some mysterious way is going to be, at some time or another, a guiding light and beacon to a troubled
  1152
  world. Under his shield many have crept more quaking than Quakers, but with them I am not concerned. Let us, take the position now of the real conscientious objector. What is his position under the Bill? He is at the mercy of a multitude of tribunals who may give, and do give, conflicting decisions in regard to him, who do not understand him, and I am afraid in some cases do not try to understand him. The position was put in a nutshell by my hon. Friend beside me. Three brothers were brought up in the same family inheriting the same characteristics, all going into the world at the same time. We may assume their conscientious convictions were pretty well all of the same sort, but one is exempted, one gets conditional exemption, and the other is relegated to the Army. We all know of representations every day of men with really sincere consciences being sent to prison. I saw a picture the other day which was revolting to me of two conscientious objectors being tied together. A system which admits of that being possible cannot be considered satisfactory, and the country and the public will not stand it, and it is up to those who think, like I do, to stand up here and voice their conscientious objections. The conscience of the country would be against that sort of thing.
  What is the proper remedy? Whatever else it may be, it cannot be the remedy which is now put before the House, which is not new because it was propounded a few weeks ago from the same bench, and, to my amazement, a night or two afterwards was endorsed by the Minister of Munitions. It was proposed that, certain questions should be formulated in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman proposes, and that a man should be treated according to the answers he makes. The man had to state how long he had belonged to a certain sect, and his exemption would depend upon whether or not that sect had as one of its tenets an objection to combatant service. I submit that that is no remedy, and I object to it on two grounds, one being fundamental and the other practical. First of all, I want to remind the House that a conscientious objection, or conviction, is a personal attribute which cannot be organised into sects, or churches, or bodies of any sort. In the second place, we may have

  1153
  a multitude of tribunals throughout the country, each one of which might give a different meaning and value to the same answer that might be made. I think either of those two grounds is sufficient to condemn the proposal now before us. What was aimed at in the Bill, and by the majority of the House at all events, was not to give heed to a man as part of a lump, but to give heed to the men individually to ascertain what their conscientious convictions were, and deal with them in that way, and therefore this proposal is quite outside that proposition.
  In the second place, the practical objection is no less strong. This proposal would introduce an element of unfairness as between man and man. It would give an advantage to the Christadelphians, although I am not quite sure about it, and I do not think the Christadelphians object to combatant service. What the Christadelphian objects to is placing himself under the control of the military or anybody else; therefore, so far as I know, this proposal would roughly divide those claiming to be conscientious objectors into two classes, Quakers and all others. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Unless they could show that they were members of the Quaker body, one of the tenets of which is objection to combatant service, then, under the provisions of this Amendment, they could not get exemption. That is unfair to a member of the Church of England, the Wesleyan body, or any other body who may not object to combatant service. A man may none the less be sincere in his conscientious objection to combatant service, and what we have to do is to have regard to that particular man and not to the particular church or organisation or anything else to which he might happen to belong.
  I believe absolutely the best case of a conscientious objection put before the tribunal of which my hon. Friend and I are members was that of a man who said he belonged to some small dissenting Wesleyan body and had administered to the spiritual needs of an eastern town for eight or ten years. He did not belong to any particular denomination, one of the tenets of which was objection to military service, and he was absolutely the strongest case we had had, and we have had a great many. Under the operation of this Clause that man would have got no consideration at all. I feel sure that the Member for West Leeds (Mr. Edmund Harvey) and those voicing Quakers in
  1154
  this House do not ask for preferential treatment for Quakers, but they ask that every man should be taken upon his own individual bottom and treated accordingly. There is, however, one practical objection which seems to me absolutely fatal to this proposal. We are dealing with young men, many of them in their teens, who have not made up their minds what they are going to do in life, and what does my right hon. Friend propose? He proposes to go back to June, 1914. We are now nearly in June, 1916, or at least we shall be when this Bill becomes operative, and under this measure we seek to take young men of eighteen years of age, and it is actually proposed that if a lad before reaching the age of sixteen has not found himself, so to speak, and made up his mind what his attitude is to be upon this the greatest question we have to deal with in this life, if that lad before he is sixteen years of age has not made up his mind, he is dragged into the Army—
  Sir F. BANBURY: The point of that is simple. Too often the man who desires to shirk suddenly becomes a conscientious objector, but under my proposal he must have been a real conscientious objector.
  Mr. BARNES: That does not touch my point. Whatever else the right hon. Gentleman may seek to to do, his Clause means that unless the young fellow I have mentioned had made up his mind upon these greatest problems in life before sixteen years of age, willy-nilly you are going to drag him in and compel him to be a soldier. On that ground alone, as well as on the other grounds I have mentioned, I say that this Clause is absolutely impossible. It narrows the scope of the Bill and defeats its object, and in addition, it introduces an element of unfairness. I think the House would be well advised to take absolutely the opposite course. The ideal, to my mind, is that we should have one tribunal, and that all cases should be sent forward to that tribunal. By that means you would have like weight given to like evidence, and you would have every man getting something like fair play. In giving like weight to like evidence and treating men individually, weight should be given to the representations made to the tribunal whether a man's conscience is regulated by religious, moral, or social inspirations.
  I admit now that that is absolutely impossible, and it has been made impossible

  1155
  by the many fraudulent claims to conscientious objections. Instead of their being some 2,000 or 3,000 really conscientious objectors, they have now been magnified out of all proportion or relation to the facts, by a large number of people coming before the tribunals who have discovered a conscience within the last month or two in order to escape doing their duty. Therefore my ideal is absolutely impossible, largely because of that fact. We might, however, do a little in the direction I have indicated. There is an Amendment following this which proposes to give a man who has been treated by an Appeal Tribunal differently to similar cases which have been treated by the Central Tribunal a right to claim to have his case reheard. I think that is a step in the right direction, and I do not know whether we could not go a little further. The Central Tribunal might claim to bring a case before the Appeal Tribunal. I am not going to commit myself at this moment to that proposal, but I do commit myself to the other, because I think it is reasonable. If a man has been treated unfairly by the Appeal Tribunal, and if he finds that the Central Tribunal has dealt with cases similar to his more generously than he has been dealt with, I think that man has obviously a right to have his case reheard whether by the Appeal Tribunal or the Central Tribunal. I have an open mind as to whether I shall go further in this matter, but, at any rate, I shall go in a direction quite opposite to the proposal which is now before the House.
  Mr. HOLT: I want to say a word or two about the proposal of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) because it does appear to me to be as near as possible the exact opposite of everything I hold to be right. The right hon. Baronet denies the right of any person to have a conscience at all. The proposal of the Bill is that the State shall substitute its collective conscience for that of the private individual in order to decide whether you ought to serve in the Army or not, and the right hon. Baronet comes forward with a proposal that only those persons may be exempted from following the direction of the State who happen to belong to a church which gives them a contrary direction. In other words, the only excuse he would admit for not accepting the direction of the State rather than that of the in-
  1156
  dividual conscience is the direction of the Church. In this Protestant England, because after all it remains a Protestant country, the right hon. Baronet comes forward and says, "You must be a slave, either to the State or to the Church, and, if the two conflict, then the Church is to be the master. That is the doctrine put forward by the right hon. Baronet. As for the philosophic doctrine, I think it is about as bad as any doctrine could be, and I do not think it will obtain very much acceptance in this country.
  The right hon. Baronet has shown himself to be exceedingly ignorant of the constitutional principles of Nonconformist bodies. There are a large number of Nonconformist Churches which have no tenets on this subject at all. Every religious body is not exactly like the Church of England. Every religious body has not got a set of tenets like the Thirty-nine Articles laid down by Act of Parliament telling him exactly what he has to do in every conceivable circumstances. It may be interesting to the right hon. Baronet to know that one tribunal, at any rate, has decided that no member of the Church of England can be a conscientious objector, because of the provisions of the Thirty-seventh Article. Those Nonconformist bodies with which I am associated, and others, have always deliberately refused to lay down tenets on this and similar subjects because they believe that they are essentially matters for the judgment of the private individual. How can you go to people who have joined an organisation which leaves these things to the private conscience, and say, "You cannot be granted exemption because you belong to a body which has left it to the private conscience"?
  I want to make it quite plain that I have no sympathy whatever with the fraudulent person, whether it is a matter of conscientious objection or anything else. Fraud is bad whatever the motive may be. When you are dealing with the real genuine conscientious objector you have got to recognise that a man may object on political and other grounds as well as religious grounds. I do not think it occurs in the case of this particular War, but take the case of the South African War. The Minister of Munitions (Mr. Lloyd George) would have been a conscientious objector then. I should have been and a great many other persons in this House would certainly have been

  1157
  conscientious objectors. There were persons who were conscientious objectors to the Crimean war, and who objected to that war, not on religious grounds, but because they thought it was a wicked and a. foolish war. There were conscientious objectors to the war against the American Colonies, not because they objected to war on principle, but because they thought—and there were those who resigned their commissions—that war was wrong. I do not believe there is a single person who objects to this War, because they think it is a wrong war. I very much doubt if there is such a person, but, if there is, he is just as much entitled to exemption as the person who objects on religious grounds.
  I listened with very great admiration to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), but there was one statement which he made which seemed to me to be exceedingly dangerous. He told us that he recognised nothing superior to the safety of the State. Does he remember that is precisely the reason the Germans gave for invading Belgium? If that doctrine of the safety of the State is to be put above the rights of individual conscience it may lead you in the long run to the greatest abominations. We are in this War to fight Prussian militarism, and you could not have a better example than this Clause on the Paper. It is Prussian militarism in its very worst and final form. I do not think those who have no sympathy with the conscientious objector quite realise how miserable the position of a genuine conscientious objector is. That man is being dragged into a war with all its horrors, which he has got to suffer as much as other people, ex hypothesi against his judgment. He is made to suffer what I think is one of the most unpleasant circumstances that can occur, the feeling that the nation to which you belong is engaged in committing a great wrong. I do not know a greater humiliation than that. It must not therefore be assumed that he is not suffering in his objection.
  I believe the existence of the conscientious objector and the necessity there is for making provision for him is really fundamentally a denial of the right of Parliament to pass this Bill. When it is necessary for the State to make provision for the conscientious objector, that is in itself a proof that the State is going beyond its true and proper functions.
  1158
  Therefore, I should like to deal with the conscientious objector by taking his public declaration made before the justices of the Petty Sessions that he is a conscientious objector, and letting that settle it. If the man is a liar and a coward his neighbours will know it, and it will lead to well-merited punishment in the loss of his friends. There is no other logical settlement of the difficulty of the conscientious objector. If that cannot be done, surely it ought to be possible for the Government by administrative action to make quite certain that none of these unpleasant scandals ever occur. Surely it is possible to make quite certain that the person whom they are satisfied, after he has been two or three days in prison, is really a conscientious objector, and is going to persevere in his objection, comes out of prison and returns to private life. There are plenty of ways of getting rid of a person who is not suitable for the Army without conceding any principle at all. I hope therefore that we shall find some Amendment which will materially improve the very wrong position in which the conscientious objector is now placed, and in the meantime I heartily support my right hon. Friend in opposing this new Clause.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to say one word upon the extraordinary argument of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He seemed to think the Clause made us all slaves to the Church, and that it was only those people who were slaves to a Church who would be exempted. The hon. Member is entirely mistaken in the meaning of the Clause. The Clause does not do that; it provides evidence of a man's conscientious objection in that he voluntarily belongs to a Church which has those particular tenets. It is not at all that the Church places those tenets on his shoulders and makes him a slave of the Church. It is an attempt on the part of my right hon. Friend to find some means of sifting the honest from the dishonest conscientious objector. The hon. Member, however, is perfectly correct when he says that the only logical way of dealing with this question is by a public declaration before a magistrate that the man has a. conscientious objection. But if that is so, why have a Compulsory Bill at all? What is the object of having a compulsory Bill? Everybody who can come in and who has not any keen feeling against the War may

  1159
  come in, but under the hon. Member's proposal anybody might go before a magistrate and say, "I have a conscientious objection, not on any religious ground, but on some other ground." He might, as two Constituents of my own who came to me to-day, have a conscientious objection, not because he believed the War was wrong or because of any religious reason, but because he had a shop and was married and had children, and there was nobody else to look after his business. Those men have a conscientious objection, not for religious or political reasons, but for other reasons, and their objection, from my point of view, has just every bit as much justification as the objection of a large number of whom we have heard this afternoon. We cannot possibly pass a compulsory Bill which is to be open to all these kinds of loopholes such as has been suggested this afternoon.
  I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), and, if I understood him rightly, he based his arguments on one or two grounds. First of all, he said the tribunals were not uniform in their decisions. He found one tribunal letting a man off in one part of the country, and another tribunal in another part of the country making a man in precisely the same position serve. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, and this Amendment is a means of guiding the tribunals and making them give uniform decisions. If you can go before a tribunal and say, "I claim exemption because I belong to a particular Church, and because I believe in the particular tenets of that Church," there is some guidance to the tribunal. But the moment you get outside some form or regulation of this kind, the door obviously must be open to the different varying views of the chairmen or members of the tribunals. My right hon. Friend went further, and complained of unfairness as between one conscientious objector and another, because the decisions of the tribunals were not uniform. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) has said one word about the unfairness as between the conscientious objector and the man who is fighting. Surely it is equally unfair on any man who is taken under the provisions of this Bill. I do not say a word as to the man who has gone voluntarily, but surely it is unfair that one man
  1160
  should be taken compulsorily under this Bill and that another man merely because he has a conscientious objection should be let off. What is the difference between, the conscientious objector and the man who is brought in under this Bill? Each, of them has got the benefit of the Army, and of every provision of the State. What right—I want to go a little deeper into this matter of conscience—has a man to set up his own conscience unless he can prove that he has held it for a long time-past on some particular religious ground? I know the argument used by a lot of hon. Members who are not particularly keen on any particular religious denomination. I agree, and I said, on a previous occasion when I spoke, that this is only providing a loophole. Logically, there should be no such thing as a conscientious objector. Logically, no man when the country is at war, fighting for its very life and existence, has the right to stay in the country and not take his part in its defence. He has no right whatever. The man who is a conscientious objector and who will not fight for his country is in reality fighting for the Germans.
  Mr. R. C. LAMBERT: What about the clergy?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: You have exempted the clergy.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In France, as everybody knows, the clergy go. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here!"] I should be perfectly willing. Hon. Members cannot quite catch me on that ground. My views, at all events, are logical. If hon. Members; will look at the Order Paper three months ago, they will see that I had an Amendment down.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Then you did not vote for it.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was speaking at a recruiting meeting, and there are occasions when it is not possible for a Member of Parliament to break his engagements. These men not merely get the benefit of the Army and Navy's protection, but they also get the benefit of the protection of men who are compulsorily made to fight. I say that they themselves are fighting for the Germans in: refusing to fight, and any able-bodied man who refuses to fight under the provisions of this Bill is doing just as much good to the German army as if he killed one of our own soldiers, for he reduces the number of men available for the defence

  1161
  of this country. I want hon. Members who take these very strong views, and who issue circulars throughout the country with regard to the conscientious objector, to realise that we have conscientious objectors in our ranks, and that many of us are just as conscientious in our view that every single man ought to fight. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that there might be two or three thousand honest conscientious objectors. But there are many thousands who are not honest in their objections. An hon. Friend near me suggests there are 17,000. The No-Conscription Fellowship, in a circular which they have issued, claim to represent 15,000 conscientious objectors, men who object not merely to combatant service, but who object to all kinds of service, and would not even take the post of a man in order to release him for combatant service. These men, in fact, will do nothing for the Army, they will not make munitions, and they will do no kind of work in order to help their country in this time of war.
  What feeling can we have for men of that kind? What feeling can we have in this House of Commons when we are imposing compulsory service right and left up and down the country on married men as well as single men? What feeling can we have for men who say that for conscience sake "I will not even make munitions; I will do nothing whatever to help my country in its time of trouble"? There was a man before the Central Tribunal only the other day who claimed exemption and admitted he was being kept by his father, who makes his money in munition work. I think the tribunal did quite right in declining to allow his exemption. Why will not hon. Members opposite leave these conscientious objectors to put forward their own views? Why do they take part in this bogus agitation throughout the country? I would like to draw their attention to one of the pamphlets issued by the No-Conscription League. It states that the country must be flooded with literature from headquarters in the course of the next few weeks, that no public men or women must be left in ignorance of the situation, that the Churches much be made to realise by organised picketing what is happening, that the Press must be bombarded with letters from the conscientious objector, that resolutions must be submitted to every possible organisation, and that the strongest pressure must be brought to bear by deputations and other methods on Members of Parliament. Ap-
  1162
  parently they think that by bringing pressure to bear on Members of Parliament they can make us feel that there are certain votes which may be cast against us if we do not fall in with their views. I would sooner lose those votes than give way to the conscientious objector in my Constituency.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I hope we may be able to decide this question without embarking on the more controversial aspect of the subject, because that will not help us. The Government cannot accept this new Clause for reasons which I will give very briefly. Some have been given already; one was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) and another by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Black-frairs Division (Mr. Barnes). Whatever the views of individual Members may be as to the conscientious objector, what we all desire is to dispose of this very serious difficulty. You are not going to dispose of it by this Clause. You are not going to dispose of the conscientious objector by laying down a hard-and-fast rule as to the way in which decisions shall be arrived at. The greater part of the trouble which we are suffering under now is caused not by want of guidance for the tribunals, but by the fact that the men upon whom the tribunals have pronounced their decision refuse to accept the decision and to be governed by it. That is the cause of the trouble, and you are not going to remove that by laying it down as the right hon. Gentleman proposes, that the only conscientious objector to be exempted is he who holds certain religious views. I do ask my right hon. Friend how this Clause is to be worked. He suggests that no man is to be admitted to make a claim of this kind unless before the 1st day of June he was a member of a recognised religious denomination. But a great many of the tribunals would have the utmost difficulty in deciding what is a recognised religious denomination, and therefore in seeking to remove one difficulty from the tribunal you will simply be imposing upon them another. Taken altogether the tribunals have done their best. I have had a better opportunity probably than most hon. Members of reviewing their action. I have reviewed their decisions not only in cases here and there, but it has been my duty since they were established to watch their working

  1163
  and follow their decisions, not in a limited number of cases, but very generally all over the country, and I say without any hesitation whatever that, taken altogether, they have done their work admirably and with a single-minded desire to do their duty of the country. They would certainly object very strongly if their existing difficulties were added to, and if they were called upon to satisfy themselves that the claimant belonged to what is really a religious denominations, which comes within the Clause moved by my right hon. Friend.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Only this morning I was talking to the chairman of one of the tribunals, and he told me that if he had not had a pressing engagement he would have come down and voted for my Clause, because he thought it would render their work more easy.
  Mr. LONG: I do not claim to speak for every member of the tribunals. I do not suggest that there are not chairmen or members who hold views similar to those entertained by the gentleman referred to by my right hon. Friend. But I am convinced that the great body would object to the proposal of my right hon. Friend, I hope the House will not accept this Amendment. Our difficulties are very great. The House knows what line the Government have taken all along. It knows what line I have taken as representing the Government in this most painful controversy. I entirely share the views expressed by some hon. Gentlemen to this extent, that I am wholly unable, although I have done my best, to understand the position of the conscientious objector. I cannot understand the position of a man who claims all the rights and privileges of citizenship and yet is not prepared to defend those rights. In some cases, no doubt, he is absolutely conscientious and sincere, and he may have proved the sincerity of his convictions by the life he has lived and the work he has done. But, unhappily, as I have stated before, and I regret to have to repeat it—yet it is necessary it should be repeated—unhappily, at a very early stage of the consideration of this measure there grew up an agitation in the country on behalf of what were called the conscientious objectors, and no trouble was taken by many of those who took part in the agitation to make it clear that there must be the strongest possible evidence of the sincerity and reality of the views held by these claimants. The result has been—
  1164
  and I speak with full knowledge—that you have multiplied the number of these objestors a hundredfold.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars has expressed an opinion, which most of us held at the time when we first approached the consideration of this, question—namely, that an ideal solution would be the selection of some particular tribunal. But that ideal has been rendered absolutely impossible by the fact that you have got the conscientious objector multiplied more than a hundredfold, and it would therefore be beyond the power of any single tribunal to deal with all the cases. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has made an appeal to the House. Judging from the speeches we have listened to, both here and in the country, people hold his view pretty strongly. My hon. Friend said he wanted people to think more of the men who are in the trenches. I do not believe that anybody except those who have been in the trenches—even those who have visited the trenches as onlookers —can really appreciate how bitter is the trial that these men undergo and how thankful they would be to be released from it. Hon. Members have been talking in this House as if the whole population were divided into two classes: the conscientious objector with very high motives, who does not want to fight, and everybody else who does want to fight. Fighting is not a pleasure, it is a duty. It is a sacred duty in defence of citizenship. If I thought that the adoption of this Amendment would simplify the work of the tribunals in coming to a decision, I would support it. But that is not our difficulty. The difficulty is not in coming to a decision; it is in sifting the wheat from the chaff, it is in separating the real from the false; and this Clause is not going to help us to do that. You cannot do it by laying down a hard-and-fast rule. My right hon. Friend's theory is that men who did not hold these views before the War cannot honestly hold them now.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear!
  Mr. LONG: Well, but is that true? Is any man in these days going to urge that because a man cannot prove—how is he to prove it to begin with—
  Sir G. YOUNGER: A great many of them can.
  Mr. LONG: I know that. A great many of them can prove it, but how in every case can it be proved? I ought to have

  1165
  said in many cases. What I meant was that you want to sift the real from the sham, because I regard it as a sham, a hideous sham. The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) speaks with great experience, because he is a member of the Central Tribunal, and he says that in some cases they are able to prove by the evidence of their lives that they have held these convictions for a long time. That may be so, but there may be men who hold such convictions quite sincerely but who were never faced with this problem before and who never realised that a time would ever come when they might be called upon to interfere in military matters.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They ought not to get off.
  Mr. LONG: What are you going to do? You cannot settle this thing on the floor of the House of Commons. I beseech my right hon. Friend to realise that we who have had to administer this thing are talking about what we know when we speak of the enormous difficulties which we have had to face. You are only going to add to them if you refuse the right of application to men whose views are just as sincere as the views of those who belong to a religious denomination. There are plenty of men who belong to no religious denomination at all, or who profess these views, not as the result of a particular faith they may possess, but who hold them for different reasons. If they are sincere in their opinions you have no right to apply to them any religious or theological test. You have no power to do it. It is quite true that by doing it you might facilitate the work of the tribunals. I can quite understand the chairman of the tribunal quoted by the right hon. Baronet being in favour of the Clause, because it would certainly make their work easier. Of course it would, because it would cut out so many cases. But would that be reducing our difficulty of dealing with the conscientious objector? You would only multiply the number of men who would complain that the State had treated them unjustly. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) had good reason to warn us, as he did, that we must realise that what we want to avoid, if we can, is the creation of an opinion among people who are not conscientious objectors, and who have no sympathy with them, a feeling that the State is not dealing justly or fairly with these cases. I believe that, on the whole,
  1166
  the State is dealing fairly and justly with these cases, and that these difficulties are likely to become not greater, but less. An Amendment of this kind, however, would have no practical effect in solving the problem, and I hope the House will accept the advice of the Government and will reject the right hon. Baronet's proposal.
  Mr. MACMASTER: One great blight upon military matters is the fact that so much recognition has been given to conscientious objectors. It has had the effect of creating a great number of people who have taken advantage of the cry of being conscientious objectors, whereas in reality they are mere frauds. I am quite willing to concede that there are men, such as Quakers and the Society of Friends, who honestly entertain these views. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet makes ample provision for them. The Amendment proposes a test by which the tribunals may determine who has a conscientious objection and who has not. What could be more reasonable, when a man comes before a tribunal and says, "I have a conscientious objection to combatant service," than to say to him, "Is that part of your religious creed that you have held in the past; do you belong to a denomination of which this is one of its fundamentals? If so, we are willing to hear you." The form in which the matter is now presented before the tribunals enables anyone to come forward and say, "I have a conscientious objection to combatant service." The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) suggested that it need not necessarily be a religious objection, and that it might be an objection of a political character or an objection to a particular war. If objections of that kind were allowed, what would arise? Any man could come forward, no matter how great the national emergency, and say, "I object to this or that course, to this or that war," and the nation would be at the mercy of a number of people who would say they would have nothing to do with combatant service.
  The opinion of the State, whenever its destiny and existence are at stake, must be the supreme test, and the State must decide in regard to its national existence what shall be done when it is at war with a foreign nation. For any individual to come forward in these circumstances and say, "I object to fighting; I object to shedding blood, although the nation says it is a national necessity," seems to be a perfectly preposterous and untenable

  1167
  position. However much we may be disposed to respect people who for generations past have given their adherence to the tenets of the Quakers and the Society of Friends, we must draw the line closely, and it does not by any means follow that it is an unfair test to say, "Has this been part of your religious faith? Has it been part of your religious creed in the past? If so, we will accept that and exempt you." But to allow anybody to come forward and say, "I object to combatant service on the ground of my conscience as against the national interest and against the national conscience," is to put the State in the position of making it impossible for it to carry on the War. In the face of the great War in which we are engaged and taking into account those who are fighting so gallantly for us on sea and land, it appears to me that the conscientious anxiety of men should be to come forward and not to shield themselves behind the miserable excuses that so many devise in order to take advantage of the exemption provision.
  Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member who has just spoken would certainly have no right, based upon the logic of the case he has just presented to the House, to condemn Germany for any acts in this War. He laid it down clearly that his view of the question is purely one of the State, and that the State in all matters must be supreme. There must be no liberty of conscience and no individual is to have the right to think for himself! That was the essence of his case, as I understood it. If that is so, what right have you to complain of anything that Germany may do, because Germany herself will say, "As far as we are concerned, the State is all supreme."
  Mr. MACMASTER: Are there any conscientious objectors in Germany?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes; there are.
  Mr. THOMAS: I do not know whether there are or not. It has no immediate connection with my argument. The hon. Member stated clearly and definitely that so far as he is concerned his view is that the State should be supreme. The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) gave the House certain definitions of conscience. He lectured the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) on not understanding the real question of conscience, and went on to give an illustration by saying that there were two of his constituents in the Lobby
  1168
  who were so concerned, not about their consciences, but about their financial losses, that they wanted him to vote against the Bill.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is not quite correct. They want me to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo).
  Mr. THOMAS: Exactly. You said it was their conscience, and you went on to say their case was on all-fours with that of the conscientious objector with which we are now dealing. Does the hon. Member or does this House admit that in dealing with this question you can buy them off with an Amendment like that of the hon. Member for Poplar? I want to put the matter on another ground. The hon. Member and many of his Friends in this House declared that no matter what the law said, no matter if the King signed a Proclamation that Home Rule was to be put into operation, they would defy it. The present Secretary of State for the Colonies, in answer to a question of mine across the floor, said that so far as he was concerned he knew many officers whose consciences would not allow them to take up arms in defence of the law. I put the question whether that was to apply to a private soldier, and the right hon. Gentleman's answer was—
  "Certainly if his conscience tells him to do it."
  If that is the position, what becomes of the claims of hon. Members who do not under stand what conscience means? Does it really mean that it was not conscience, but a political opinion? Does it really mean that all the exhibitions that were made and all the threats of armed force that were made were not actuated by the dictates of conscience, but were purely party politics? Because, if it does not mean that, and if that is what you do not mean, then I put it to you—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would put it to the hon. Member, is this a desirable moment to open up all these old sores? It must lead to a reply and the reply will lead to a rejoinder, and we should be back again where we were three years ago. I would put it to the hon. Member whether there is not ample material for him to deal with this Clause without opening up all these old sores, which we are all at present anxious to salve.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. THOMAS: I should be very sorry if any of my remarks were regarded as reopening the Irish question, but it did

  1169
  appear to me to be an illustration. I will take another case—I hope it will not be ruled out. It arose when the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) was dealing one Friday afternoon with another highly controversial question. I remember that the whole House was immensely impressed, not only with the speech, but with the sincerity of that speech. He made it perfectly clear that in his judgment what was morally wrong would never be legally right, and he developed it to an extent that, I believe, impressed many Members of the House. This is clearly a question of conscience. I am not a conscientious objector—I have never opposed this Bill on those grounds—but I know many conscientious objectors who are not cowards, men who will risk anything, men who would say to you to-morrow, "If the penalty is to be placed against the wall, then shoot me." We cannot argue with these people because they immediately say, "My conscience tells me," and it is unfair to assume that it necessarily follows any religious conviction. I remember when quite a young man hearing a great argument on religion, and I heard a man arguing with another and persuading him that religion was all rot. His knowledge of the Bible was far superior to that of the other, and in argument and debate he was simply tearing the other one to pieces, but the other man innocently turned round and said, "You may argue and you may have all your knowledge, but there is something here that tells me I am right. It is my conscience." That has always impressed me, because I am satisfied we have to place ourselves in the position of these men to really understand the situation. After all, from the practical standpoint, will they ever make soldiers? Are we at this time rendering public service or assisting our country by having armed guards overe these people? Would it not be much better to face the issue practically and honestly and say, "If you will do work which is of real national service we will give you an opportunity to do it." [An HON. MEMBER: "What work?"] I would put them to agriculture. I know a man at this moment who is in gaol. He has had practical experience of farming. He was brought up on the land and he is quite willing to go back to the land. Would it not be better for this man to be working on the land than to be in gaol? I have no sympathy with the humbug who has just
  1170
  developed a conscience—I do not want to deal with these people—but we ought to deal fairly and honestly with people who undoubtedly are some of the best citizens in this country.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I am glad the Government do not propose to accept this Amendment, because I am sure it would not be found to work well. Apart from the other difficulties which have been mentioned, it would be almost impossible to discover in every case whether the teachings of a particular denomination were or were not inconsistent with military service. I have listened with great interest and respect to the various speeches which have been delivered from different points of view, and it seems to me that on both sides there is, if I may say so without disrespect, a little confusion of thought. I do not think the State ought to extend indulgence to the conscientious objector because of sympathy with him That is not the point. Even if he is perfectly sincere he may often be a very wrong-headed person. The reason why it seems to me indulgence ought to be shown to the sincere and genuine conscientious objector is because it is wrong to force a man to do what he thinks sincerely is immoral or irreligious. It is not sympathy. I do not think that with my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) it is a matter of sympathy. The point of view is what is right for us to do. It is to us a familiar problem of government all over the British Empire. A Mahomedan thinks it wrong to eat the flesh of a pig. We think that to be a very unreasonable prejudice, but we should act very wrongly if we compelled Mahomedans to eat the flesh of pigs, because it is wrong to force a man to do what he thinks is wicked, however foolish his opinion.
  An HON. MEMBER: That is a religious objection.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: That is a religious objection, but it really does not matter. What is wrong is to force a person to do what he thinks morally wrong. That is really the essence of it. It is wrong to make him go against his own sense of right so that he feels that if he conforms to the law he is defiled and polluted. It must be a serious moral objection. I do not want to release a person who merely says, "I am a conscientious objector," but really means he does not approve of the policy of the War, or something of that kind. That is not a true, moral or religious objection. It must be an objection so

  1171
  intense that he feels actually within him that he would be behaving wickedly if he conformed to the law. I believe this to be a very limited class of person. I do not believe there can be a large number of them. I quite recognise that it is difficult to ascertain which they are and which they are not. The only suggestion I can make is that, first of all, the obligation should be thrown on the objector to make good his case. The presumption should be that his objection is not well founded. He should have to show that it is. Secondly, I would throw, as I do not think is done in the principal Act, the express obligation on the tribunal of finding, aye or no, whether he does sincerely think that what he is asked to do is immoral or irreligious or not, because I think a good many tribunals have approached the subject in a hopelessly muddled-headed frame of mind. They have entered into long casuistical discussions, and put hard cases in order to show the objector what a fool he is. We do not set up tribunals to play the part of a modern Socrates, and go about teaching people they are something when they are really nothing. That is not the function of a tribunal. The function of a tribunal is simply to determine, what is essentially a question of fact, whether a man sincerely thinks he is going to be forced to do what is immoral or irreligious.
  The final suggestion would be that there should be some power, not in the conscientious objector but in some authority, to order a rehearing where it is manifest that a mistake has been made. I cannot see that there will be any objection to that, and I believe if you had some machinery of that kind, and if you insisted on the conscientious objector doing some work of public utility which he is willing to do—a few are not I know—and those had better be detained or deported somewhere. The proper course with a man who refuses to do anything is to deport him, and to say, "if you feel it impossible to do any duties you are called upon to do, whether civil or military, appertaining to the society, you cannot belong to the society any longer." You would say it to a person in a club. Even if it were a club formed for an immoral purpose, like a gambling club, and a member had a conscientious objection to gambling, he could not complain of being expelled
  1172
  from the club. Therefore strictly, in logic, the ultimate solution of the difficulty of the conscientious objector would undoubtedly be to deport him. But for the commoner case of a person who will do some other work, after the matter has been fully investigated in the tribunal and it has found expressly whether he is sincere or insincere, and with the power in some authority to order a rehearing in an extreme case where a mistake has been made, I believe you would find a practical solution, and that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will exempt the person who is conscientious and compel the person who is insincere.
  Sir F. BANBURY: As it is perfectly evident that the Government will not accept the Amendment, and that the majority in the House are against it, and if I do not ask leave to withdraw the Debate will go on probably until the dinner hour and much valuable time will be lost, and my desire is to get the Bill passed, although I do not think the case for my new Clause has been met by the arguments of my right hon. Friend, in order to assist the progress of the Debate I ask leave to withdraw it.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeal Tribunal Decisions to Conform with Central Tribunal Decisions.)
  A man whose appeal from a decision of a local tribunal has been heard and determined by an Appeal Tribunal may apply to the tribunal for a rehearing of his appeal on the ground that the decision of the Appeal Tribunal conflicts with the decision of the Central Tribunal in a like case, and the Appeal Tribunal, if they consider the ground of the application established, shall rehear the appeal.—[Mr. Edmund Harvey.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. KING: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that the hon. Member has taken part of a new Clause of mine on page 113? May I appeal to him and to you that this first Clause of his might be deferred until we come to my new Clause, in which I have this new Clause of his and two paragraphs in addition? If this is discussed and decided upon it will preclude the Debate upon the whole of my Clause.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot set aside the hon. Member for Leeds. His name appears here and it is my duty to call him.
  Mr. HARVEY: I am perfectly prepared to give way to the hon. Member.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can move which of these Clauses he likes.
  Mr. HARVEY: Would it entirely shut out the hon. Member if I move this?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No doubt it would. If the hon. Member does not move it he can move any of the other Clauses.
  Mr. HARVEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I may take it that if the House agrees to the Second Reading of this Clause the hon. Member might insert the additional Sub-sections by way of Amendments. I hope that can be done. I put this down with a view to obviating a part of the difficulty which I think the whole House recognises has arisen with regard to the inequality of decisions, sometimes even on the same tribunal, but more especially among the different tribunals in different parts of the country, and the fact that the present law allows of no way by which there should be an absolute right of appeal to the Central Tribunal and no way by which the very worst inequalities can be removed. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) has indicated that he is in favour of this Amendment, and would like it to go a bit further. I have put down purposely the very minimum which I think might be suggested in the way of removing this difficulty. It will not remove the whole difficulty, but it will allow an Appeal Tribunal, when it sees that its decision conflicts with the decision of the Central Tribunal, to rehear the case. It still leaves the decision in the hands of the Appeal Tribunal itself, therefore, if the Appeal Tribunal is determined to adhere to its decision it can do so. Cases have already occurred where a tribunal has wished to revise its decisions but has doubted whether it should do so in order to bring its decision into line with that of the Central Tribunal. A case like that would be met by this very modest proposal. I hope my right hon. Friend may see his way to accept it, and that in so doing one of the difficulties may be at least partially removed. I am not going to repeat the instances of the difficulties that have occurred. I will,
  1174
  however, mention one. Two intimate friends who live on each side of a river in the north of England, who are exactly in. the same position, whose whole life and views and attitude are exactly the same, have received quite different treatment. One has. received exemption, conditional on his undertaking work of national Importance, and he is quite satisfied with that, and is going to do good useful service for the State. The other, coming before a different tribunal, has failed to get the only exemption which would meet his conscientious views, and he is now suffering in a military prison in. consequence of that inequality of decision. This is a sort of thing which might be removed by a new Clause of this kind. I hope the Government may see their way to accept it.
  Mr. KING: I beg to second the Motion. It is a very flattering occasion for me, because the hon. Member has taken bodily the exact words of this Clause from an Amendment which I had on the Paper for the Committee stage. Although that Amendment did not commend itself to the Government, there was one Member in the House who, at any rate, saw its virtues and was so impressed with it that he has appropriated it. It is perfectly obvious, as the right hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) has pointed out, we have in this proposal an opportunity of doing away with what is a standing difficulty, even a standing scandal, in connection with the tribunals, namely, the inequalities and gross differences that arise in the-decisions of these tribunals. I have opposed this Bill, but I do desire that if it is to be worked for months to come, bringing about a great deal of personal hardship and sacrifice in the lives and' families of thousands of our fellow citizens, it should be worked with as great a sense of justice and equality as possible. Unless we have some such provision as this Clause, which will enable the different and very varying decisions of tribunals and Appeal Tribunals in different parts of the country to be, as it were, co-ordinated and brought into line, I cannot see anything else but a growing scandal and a great feeling of inequality of treatment in the administration of this Act. I could easily give instances that have come before me to bear out this point of view. I hope the President of the Local Government Board and the Government will consider that this is a practical suggestion, that it has got the support of Members

  1175
  like the right hon. Member for Black-friars, and that they will give it the most earnest attention that is possible.
  Mr. LONG: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. E. Harvey) must have put this Clause down without quite realising what the effect of it would be. He described it as a very moderate proposal. It certainly is. So far as I am advised it would really have no effect, because it is almost impossible to decide if the cases are alike. What I said a few minutes ago is, I do assure the House, true, and that is, that upon the special presentment of his case by each applicant the whole thing turns. The contentions most frequently and most earnestly urged on behalf of conscientious objectors by the hon. Member (Mr. Harvey) and those who are acting with him, is that the conscientious objector ought not to be governed by any general regulations such as that foreshadowed in the Clause of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), but that he must be governed by his own individual conscience, by his own personal conviction, and the tribunal must be satisfied, if it can, not only that his convictions are sincere, but that there is evidence of the reality of them as shown in his previous life. Therefore, it is almost impossible to lay down that any two cases are really alike. Take the case, the most plausible case, which was given a short time ago of three brothers who received different treatment. I do not admit for a moment that there is any prima facie evidence that because they are brothers they necessarily take the same views as conscientious objectors. They are brought up in a particular environment, but it is to be proved that they think the same.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: This is a particular case. It is a family which I happen to have known for thirty years, and I have watched these boys grow up. I know they were trained up in exactly the same way, and they hold practically the same opinions now, and they were taught those opinions by their parents.
  Mr. LONG: That may be. But one swallow does not make a summer. The fact that my hon. Friend knows these three men, who were brought up in the same environment and hold the same views now, does not dispose of the other main fact, that you may bring up a family
  1176
  of sons in the same environment, with the same opportunities of education and the same method of training, but when they come to the age of maturity and form their own opinions and take their own lines in life, one may be totally different from the other. It does not follow at all that the case against the present action of the tribunal is proved because there were three brothers, each of whom received different treatment. The only way to deal with cases of this kind, if it is possible to do it at all, is somewhat on the lines suggested by my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil). It is not by a hard and fast rule of this sort that you can deal with it. My hon. Friend (Mr. E. Harvey) has advocated the case of the conscientious objector, not only with the greatest courtesy, but with very great ability, and he has throughout done his utmost to solve this difficult problem of separating the genuine from the sham. He has only had the genuine objector in his mind. He will agree with me that where you have, say, the Quakers, which, as a great historical body, hold a particular view, and that view embraces the whole body, the question is not so difficult; but that does not exhaust—I wish it did—the list of conscientious objectors. I am proud to say that there are many Quakers who, although they hold this objection to taking life with absolute sincerity, and hold it as an historical fact in connection with their religious views, have taken a most honourable and brave part in this War. Many of them are engaged in one of the most dangerous occupations of all, that of mine sweeping. Many of them have been in France. If the Quakers as a body were all that we had to deal with, there would be no difficulty at all; but you have to deal with other cases, and in dealing with these cases I am sure hon. Members will see that the tribunals must have regard to the individual, to the evidence of veracity that he is able to adduce, and other proofs he is able to give before his case can be accepted. To tie them down in the way suggested would really defeat my hon. Friend's object and would introduce complications in the machinery which we have established which we should regret. Under these circumstances I hope the House will support the Government in objecting to this Clause.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I hope the House will take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman and reject this Clause. There is one reason which has not been given by the right hon. Gentleman. This Clause

  1177
  has been dealt with up to now as if it referred only to the conscientious objector, but it refers to any case in which the Appeal Tribunal differs from the Central Tribunal. When I tell the House that the Central Tribunal deals with 16,000 or 17,000 cases, over and above conscientious objector cases, it will obviously be seen that if any Clause of this kind is to be accepted it must be limited to the one class which it is intended to deal with and not extended to cases as a whole, otherwise it will involve an appalling waste of time and energy. I would like to confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has said in regard to cases of brothers not necessarily being the same. Only this morning there was a case of two brothers before the Central Appeal Tribunal. They were brought up together and they asked for a totally different thing. One was ready to do one thing and the other was ready to do nothing whatever except what he chose to do and what his conscience allowed him to do. One was not quite ready to undertake combatant service, but he was perfectly willing to go to the Royal Army Medical Corps or to do ambulance duty. The other would under no circumstances do anything of the kind. These are two cases which entirely back up my right hon. Friend's suggestion in regard to the three brothers. I do not think it was the conscience of these brothers the hon. Member spoke of. How can he tell whether they think alike?
  Mr. JONES: Better than any tribunal, because I have known these young men for thirty years.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: It is not a question of any tribunal, but it is a question of the men themselves. They are the people who tell the tribunal what their conscientious objection is. The tribunal has to find out whether they are honest in that objection, and, if so, they give the necessary exemption to suit the ease. You cannot bring up this case of the three brothers as one of any force at all. Cases are individual, personal. Conscience is something or other. An objector the other day said it had only begun to operate a short time ago. I do not know how a conscience operates, but that is the expression he used. These men, like the two men whose cases I have just referred to, have each a conscience, which is operating, with the result that if the tribunal is to do its duty properly it ought to consider each case and estimate its value.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I am sure that my hon. Friend (Mr. E. Harvey) is not wedded to any form of words or to any special proposal so long as his object is achieved. What he wants, and I believe what the House wants, is that there should be some opportunity whereby, in cases which seem; to have been decided wrongly, there might be a chance of rehearing. I would ask the President of the Local Government Board to see whether these cases cannot be met. I have in my mind three cases of men in the North of England who, at the present time, are undergoing sentences of, I think, several months' duration. These three men are all willing to do work of national importance. They were all willing to go to the Friends' Ambulance unit, and one of the military representatives, who knew these three men, supported their claim, and was extremely anxious that we should find them service in that unit. But their case could not be reheard, and at the present time these men are in prison instead of doing national service to the country. I am perfectly certain that everyone in this House desires that cases like that should be met. I think we also want to remember that the Pelham Committee was set up several weeks after this Act came into operation. There are a considerable number of men in prison to-day who are only too anxious to do work of national importance under that Committee. It does seem to me perfectly clear that in the interests of the country, as well as in the interests of justice, there should be some way found by which these men may have their cases reheard, and that they may be able to give service to their country instead of being in gaol. How it is to be done is a small matter, so long as it is done, and I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to see that these cases are met and to allow these men to serve their country in the way that they desire, and in the way that they feel they can serve the country.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: No one wishes genuine conscientious objectors to be imprisoned when they are willing to do work of real national value, but I think that this particular Clause is not adapted to what is required. I may point out that the information which has been sent round by the Central Tribunal as to a number of cases which are more or less difficult has been very useful. I hope that the Central Tribunal will continue to send specimen cases to all tribunals in the country, and to send them periodically. The cases to

  1179
  which my hon. Friend refers nearly all arose before there were Appeal Tribunals. They certainly arose before the proper habit by conscientious objectors of offering work of national value became developed. I take this opportunity of expressing the hope that my right hon. Friend will consider whether there is not some power in connection with the Crown's prerogative of mercy of setting these men free to do the same kind of national service which other men of identical opinions are being allowed to do by the Appeal Tribunals. It is because we can only deal with past cases in that way, and because I support my right hon. Friend as to the present procedure, which is becoming well settled, that I venture to make this suggestion.
  Mr. RENDALL: I see the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has explained in the way of adopting the Amendment proposed, but it does seem to me that a way out of the difficulty ought to be found. Personally, there is a way out, though I suppose that it would be very troublesome, and cause a great many more appeals than the right hon. Gentleman desires. In law cases, the party who loses may ask for leave to appeal, and if it is refused he may go to a further Court of Appeal and ask for leave to appeal and give grounds for his application, and that superior Court may give him leave to appeal, which has been refused by the Court below. It seems to me not unreasonable that when the Appeal Tribunal have heard a case and given a decision it should be open either to the military representative of the conscientious objector or the person who has been refused what he wants to go to the Central Tribunal and explain the grounds on which he thinks that the Appeal Tribunal was wrong in refusing leave to appeal to the Central Tribunal, and that then the Central Tribunal, having the facts before it, should be able either to refuse or to grant the application. No doubt this would lead to a good many extra appeals, and, therefore, to delay; but it seems to me possible for the right hon. Gentleman to devise ways and methods whereby some legal, some judicial, assistance should be given to the Appeal Tribunal or the Central Tribunal which would give a chance of appealing on the lines suggested.
  Captain CASSEL: I think that in this Amendment and some of the later Amendments it is desirable to have some limit of time when it is decided whether a man is a soldier or not. This leaves it open to a man after he has joined the Colours to come forward and make an Appeal. It is most desirable in the interests of military discipline that the question whether a man is to be a soldier or not should be finally decided before he joins the Colours. When once he joins the Colours he should be a soldier, and not in any different position from any other soldier. What this Amendment would do is that for a perfectly indefinite period—say six months or a year hence—under some decision given, a man already serving for some time can come forward and say under that decision, "I claim a rehearing of my case." There has actually been a case before a court-martial where a man took the objection—of course it was not a proper objection at all—that he had a conscientious objection, and it is most undesirable that a large number of men should be in such a position that you cannot tell for certain whether they are soldiers or not. This opens a very wide vista. Every man against whom a decision has been given, who is now actually called up to the Colours, could come forward with this claim, even on the very eve of being sent out with a draft. I have said nothing about the conscientious objector before he comes to the Colours, but by the time he comes to the Colours he is a soldier, and he ought to know it, and his status ought not again to be altered.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Nobody who is taking part in this Debate has ventured to deny that a very great injustice has been inflicted in not a small number of cases by the varying decisions of local and Appeal Tribunals. Therefore, the question which we have to face is: what steps can best be taken to remove these injustices, and establish machinery which will reduce to a minimum the likelihood of similar conflicting decisions in the future? I agree with the President of the Local Government Board that the proposal made in this new Clause is not likely to be very satisfactory in its working. I think that its operation would be extremely limited, and that it leaves too much to the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. Under this Clause certificates could only be reviewed with the approval or assent of the Appeal Tribunal. May I refer to something which has not yet been mentioned in the Debate? That is the importance of dealing with the

  1181
  object aimed at in this Clause is all the greater because of an Amendment of the principal Act made in the present Bill. Under the existing Act it is always open to a person holding a certificate of exemption to claim a review of that certificate, but that protection is being taken away by this Bill, and the review can only be undertaken by the tribunal which granted the certificate. Under Clause 4 a certificate of exemption may be granted under the principal Act subject to the conditions that the certificate should not be open to review. That is going to add enormously to the number of grievances created by this Act. I do not blame the Government for not accepting this Amendment in its present form, but it is most important that they should deal with the matter, and by some machinery achieve the object which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds had in moving this new Clause.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: It is quite obvious that this Amendment has been put forward with the view of undoing mistakes that have been made, particularly in the case of conscientious objectors. I quite agree with what has been said as to the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of doing it in this way. But the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has said repeatedly that it is not in the interests of the country that any genuine conscientious objector should be compelled against his will to this form of protest, namely, going to prison. The difficulty has been to sift the real conscientious objector from the sham. I suggest that the very best test you can have is the fact that a man has gone to gaol, and remained there rather than serve. At any rate that is an excellent test, and if there are many cases such as we have heard of this afternoon, in which a man says, "I am prepared to take any form of service for my country's good in this time of War, except that under military control," the tribunals should be able to satisfy themselves that that man is conscientious in his view, and then order some form of work of national value. If the tribunal has made a mistake in saying that this man is not conscientious, and the mistake is shown by the fact that the man is in prison, and is willing all the time to do the work which he has offered to do, but still has the conscientious objection to work under military control, we cannot say, because the tribunal has made a mistake, that that mistake must go on for
  1182
  ever. It seems to me that if there are men still in prison who are willing to do work of national importance, but who are so strong in their conscientious objection to do it under military service, that it would be in the interest of the country that the military should, perhaps, put these men under certain conditions, or even discharge them from the Army under certain conditions. I should have thought it quite possible for all these cases now in prison to be reviewed by the Army. Never mind what the tribunals say. The Army is now in a better position to judge whether a man's conscientious objection is genuine or not by what has happened. In some way or other the Government should adopt machinery of this kind. It would remove a great amount of hardship, and would release men to do what we want them to do—valuable work for the country at this time.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: I do not wish to press the form of this new Clause, but I hope very much that the appeal to the Government will meet with a response in some other way. To save time, I beg to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Certificates to Extend to Objection to All Military Service.)
  Sub-section (3) of Section two of the principal Act, which provides that any certificate of exemption in the case of an application on conscientious grounds may take the form of exemption from combatant service only, shall not apply to a case, where the applicant has established his conscientious objection to the undertaking of all military service.—[Mr. Harvey.]>
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. HARVEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This new Clause which I propose is one I have put down in order to make the Bill in accordance with a decision of the Central Tribunal. A great deal of confusion has arisen, in fact, because a number of the tribunals considered that they could give exemption only from combatant service. They held that view in spite of the instruction from the President of the Local Government Board, and there have been decisions recently which have also confirmed some of the tribunals

  1183
  in that view. It is quite true that Parliament in passing the original Act provided, in regard to those men who could not conscientiously undertake military service, not only absolute exemption, but made provision of exemption conditional on undertaking work of national importance. I believe if that conditional exemption had been granted nine-tenths of the difficulties which have arisen might have been avoided, but the tribunals insisted on giving exemption only from combatant service, and men are going daily to military prisons rather than be unfaithful to their belief—men who are eager to do work for the nation acccording to their conscience.
  May I give two instances giving the genuine sort of case I have in view. I could give a great number of cases, but these two are personally known to me; they are the cases of two men who asked to be allowed to do civil work, and were refused by the tribunals. They went before the Appeal Tribunal, and their claim was rejected there. They again tried the local tribunal in order to have the matter reviewed, thus showing their earnestness in their objection to military service; and again their application was rejected. They were arrested as deserters; they were sentenced in the Civil Court first, and then handed over to the military; and, finally, both of them were rejected, after a period of short imprisonment, on medical grounds. One has written to me asking that he should be given work of national importance, notwithstanding that he is absolutely free and need do nothing if he were a selfish man. The other man returned to certain training duties which he had performed before. If these men had not been rejected on medical grounds they would be at this moment suffering a severe penalty in a military prison, when all the while they were not only willing but eager to serve their country in accordance with their conscience. These are two instances out of a large number of cases of men who are really willing and anxious to help, but who are not allowed to help because the tribunals insist on giving a form of exemption which does not really meet their conscientious objection in any way. The Clause I now propose will not in any way alter the scope of the Act, but will make clear the position, and make it
  1184
  easier for the tribunals to give the right kind of exemption in dealing with these cases.
  Mr. MORRELL: I beg to second the Motion.
  The point of this Clause, as I understand it, is that where a man has a sincere conscientious objection, and where the tribunal believes that he has made good his case, the tribunal must not give him what is called, non-combatant service except with his own consent. There is no doubt many conscientious objectors regard what is called non-combatant service as every bit as bad as ordinary military service. They do not recognise the distinction. They say non-combatants form part of an Army; they are asked to obey military orders; they are part of the military machine. On the other hand, a large number of them are perfectly willing to undertake work of a particular character. It seems to me that in the case of these men the Government would be getting rid of one of the greatest difficulties if they allowed them to do work of national importance, and to be freed from military duties to which they conscientiously object. I hope the Government will allow this alteration to be made. There is one other case in addition to those which my hon. Friend mentioned. More than a month ago I called attention to a man called Ernest Chaplin, who was an official in the education department of the London County Council. That man came before two tribunals, and each of them allowed his conscientious objection, and in each of them he said he was quite willing to undertake any work of national importance if it was not in the Army or under military control. They refused, and the result is that to-day this man, instead of doing work for his country, has suffered all sorts of indignity; he has been wrapped in a blanket, and so on, and now he is in a military prison. He might now be doing excellent work for his country in agriculture or in other ways, and he is quite willing to undertake such work, but has been prevented from doing so.
  Mr. LONG: I understand that this Clause is moved with the object of clearing up some misunderstanding

  1185
  which is said to have arisen in consequence of the decisions of some of the tribunals, and also in consequence of a decision given in one of the Courts—
  Mr. HARVEY: The obiter dicta of a justice.
  Mr. LONG: The Clause which is submitted goes further than has been stated, but if it is made clear that there is a change wanted in order to make the law as it has been declared by the Government, declared by the Bill, and as it appears in the original Act, then, if words are required, I will have them put in, but I do not think they are required.
  Colonel YATE: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to make any change in the law as it now stands. I could not follow his argument.
  Mr. LONG: There has been a certain interpretation placed upon the power of granting a certificate of absolute exemption, and it is suggested that some remarks were made by a judge in a recent case to the same effect; but what we desire is, not that there should be an alteration of the law as it now stands, but that the law should remain as it was when the original Act was passed, and that that law should be carried out.
  Colonel YATE: I am glad to hear that, because it is quite clear that all the difficulties that have recently arisen on this question are due very largely, almost entirely, to the non-observance of the statement or announcement which the Prime Minister delivered to us when he introduced the Military Service Bill, on the 5th of January last. The Prime Minister then told us that:
  "In the days of the great French war, when Mr. Pitt and his successors were in power, and when they enforced the Compulsory Militia Bill, they expressly exempted the only people who in those days had conscientious objections to Government service—the people called Quakers."
  He then went on to say:
  "It is suggested, in the case of such men, that the exemption which they should get, and which I am certain is all that they would claim, should take the form of exemption from military combatant duties only."
  The House of Commons will remember that the Prime Minister repeated this, and emphasised the words "combatant duties only." The pledge then given by the Prime Minister has not been fulfilled. When it came to be put into the Bill, instead of the words being "shall be exempted from combatant duties only," the word "may" was used, and the
  1186
  Government therefore have only themselves to blame for all the difficulties which they have been called upon to face ever since. I think I am right in saying that one hundred years ago, the Quakers were a perfectly distinct sect, they wore a distinctive dress, and had a distinctive manner of speech. It was well known in those days who was a Quaker and who was not. Nowadays nobody knows who is a Quaker and who is not. There is another point. All these Quakers, these conscientious objectors, must remember that no nation or body of Quakers can exist for a day by themselves. They can only exist under the protection of people more virile than themselves, who will give them the necessary protection. In return for that protection we should demand ungrudging service given in other ways. The hon. Member for Hexham gave some pathetic stories of the feelings and woes of some of the conscientious objectors. I would like the hon. Member to say what would have been the feelings and woes of the conscientious objectors if the British nation had failed to protect them.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to be generally discussing the question of conscientious objectors. That is not the point at the present time. The House is considering a very negative Amendment, if the hon. and gallant Member will look at that Clause particularly.
  6.0 P.M.
  Colonel YATE: I will not pursue the matter further. I will, however, point out that the hon. Member for Leeds asks for entire exemption from military service, and the point is whether entire exemption can or should be given. As far as I have considered the matter, it seems to me that this point has been decidedly given against them. I have here a cutting from the "Leicester Daily Mercury," a paper which is consistently opposed to me on questions of politics. The hon. Member will agree that the "Leicester Daily Mercury" is entirely opposed to me, but it is a sound paper on national questions. It says:
  "The danger is that young men not Quakers suitable for military service may shirk their duty under the plea of conscience It is only right that such claimants for exemption should have to satisfy the tribunals of the reality and bona fides of their objections."
  I think the whole country agrees with the "Leicester Mercury" on this question, and all the Liberal newspapers of the country, that entire exemption should not

  1187
  be given to conscientious objectors, but that it should be purely limited to non-combatant duties.
  Sir J. SIMON: This is a very narrow point and one that does not call for long discussion, but it is most desirable that there should not be a misunderstanding about it. The first part of the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate) shows that he, at any rate, does misunderstand it. The position, unless my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board corrects me, is this. Properly understood it is competent for a local tribunal to grant a conscientious objector absolute exemption. It is possible for the tribunal to do so, but it is not compulsory on it to do so, and in most cases I should think, quite rightly, they do not grant absolute exemption but grant exemption from combatant service. But it is very important that local tribunals should not be under the impression that they have no power to grant more because it was most expressly stated by the Government when the Bill was carried that they were to have that power. If I may say so I have no doubt the language of the Sub-section does get that power for them. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding on the point. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has been quite fair about this, and I do hope that he will consider whether in another place he cannot put in something which will be merely declaratory. I do not agree that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. E. Harvey) is the right form to do so. The sort of form which is wanted is something of this sort. "It is hereby declared that where a local tribunal is satisfied that the case of a conscientious objector should be met by complete exemption it is competent so to grant it." As long as that is stated on the face of the Bill we shall not be altering an Act of Parliament, but making it plain that that is what the Act intends to do.
  Mr. LONG: Quite.
  Sir J. SIMON: Some people took the view that the law did not allow such a thing to be done and that is largely how confusion has been created in the minds of some persons.
  Mr. ANDERSON: There is another point in connection with this Clause which is of some importance. I quite agree that under the original Act any local tribunal
  1188
  if it so desires has the right to grant either a temporary certificate of exemption or a conditional certificate or an absolute certificate. The other point which is important is as to whether it is advisable that non-combatant service should be forced on those who regard combatant and non-combatant military service in practically the same light. I ask whether it would not be far better in those cases instead of forcing non-combatant service upon a man who will go to prison rather than accept it, to see that he gets work—civil work—of a national character. I am quite sure if the President of the Local Government Board would consider that point he will find it is really the crux of this Amendment and its solution would get rid of nine-tenths of the difficulties with regard to the conscientious objector. I am quite sure it would be better from the standpoint of the nation itself instead of putting these people into prison to put them on some work of national importance. Putting aside every other aspect except the purely practical, I think that is a point of view which ought to appeal to the Government. Therefore we ask that those men who are willing to accept work of national importance and national consequence shall be given such work to do, and shall be given the option of such work. From that point of view I hope the Government will find a way of introducing a form of words to make it easier for the tribunals to see their way in regard to this matter.
  Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I am very glad to have heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman, as it seems to indicate that we are getting a little closer to agreement on this subject. I hope my right hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment. The mover of the Amendment, with the very best intentions, I have no doubt, would succeed really in doing great injury to the objects aimed at and would not achieve the object he has in view. I think it will be generally admitted that there is no desire to unduly press or persecute the man who has a bonâ fide conscientious objection. Everybody would agree to respect the real feeling of the conscientious objector, such as we have seen in the case of the Quakers and of other religious denominations. But what we wish to get hold of is the man who under the cloak of conscientious objection tries to escape his national duty. I think we must leave it to the wisdom and common sense of the tribunals to

  1189
  decide who has a bonâ fide conscientious objection and who has a false conscience. That in many cases will be very easy to decide. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should form with the military authorities a Committee or Conference of a small number of men to discuss and decide upon the system which he is to apply to the man who has admittedly a conscientious objection.
  I think that one of the great difficulties which arises, and which my right hon. Friend feels in dealing with this Bill, arises from an inherent weakness in the Bill itself. The Bill is labelled a Military Service Bill. If it had been, as I wish it had been, a Bill that would really lay down the principles of national service in time of war, we should have had a much wider scope to deal with, and we would not have been brought up against this objection. I suggest that the Conference or Committee should lay down a certain class of work to which men who are recognised as bonâ fide religious objectors might be relegated at once by the tribunal. We must trust to the common sense of the tribunals to discriminate between the man who is a sham and the man who has a real conscientious objection. I have no desire to deal leniently with the man who is shamming, but there are a number of men who, we must recognise, have conscientious objection. Let me mention an experience which I had in Russia some years ago. I received a very interesting description from the Commander-in-Chief of the Caucasus of his manner of dealing with conscientious objectors, in that country at the time of the Russo-Turkish War. With his assistance I visited a number of the villages where those people lived. I had his assurance, and I had the opportunity of seeing for myself, as to the valuable national service they rendered and were prepared to render in time of war while at the same time securing their own feelings against the shedding of blood. I think it is quite possible for us to do something in that way which would relieve the feelings of the hon. Gentlemen behind me. I do not share their feelings in many ways, but at the same time I respect them. I think we ought to try and find a way out of this difficulty, and therefore I throw out that suggestion.
  Mr. LONG: Let me state quite clearly again what I said before. I said that I could not accept this Clause because it
  1190
  would alter the law, and that I am not prepared to do. But I am prepared to put in declaratory words making it clear that the law is now what we know it is. There appears to be some doubt on the matter, and those words would be declaratory of what it is, and that is all.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's declaration, although I would have been glad if he had gone further, I ask leave to withdraw.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Imprisonment in a Public Prison and Recognition that the Man has not Enlisted on Failure to Observe Terms of Certificate of Exemption.)
  Where a man to whom a conditional certificate of exemption has been granted under the provisions of the principal Act fails to comply with the condition on which the certificate was granted, he may be brought before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if he satisfies the Court that his failure to comply with the conditions of his certificate is due to a conscientious objection, the Court shall sentence him to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years, and he shall not be deemed to have been enlisted and transferred to the Reserve.—[Mr. Harvey.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. HARVEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The object is where an exemption has been granted conditional upon work of national importance, and there is failure to comply with the condition, the punishment should be civil imprisonment up to two years rather than that there and then the man should become a soldier. If the tribunal has rightly decided that he has a conscientious objection, and if there is failure on his part to comply with that condition, it does not follow that the conscientious objection is removed, and the punishment, if there is punishment I maintain should be civil punishment and not punishment declaring the man to be a soldier to which it is admitted he has an objection.
  Mr. MORRELL: I beg to second the Motion. I think the Clause follows the true line of getting a way out of this difficulty—that is to say, by treating these men as civilians and not attempting to force

  1191
  them to be soldiers against their will, and then put them to work of national importance of a civil character. If they decline to perform that work punish them as civilians. Instead of doing so you treat them as soldiers, and you have now 300 of those men in irons and in imprisonment in military prisons because they will not do what their conscience forbids them to do. The several Clauses moved by my hon. Friend give the only true line of treatment of this subject. Give them work of national importance of a civil character, in agriculture or whatever it may be, and if they do not fulfil it, imprison them by means of the Civil Courts.
  Mr. LONG: I am sure that this Clause is not one that should be accepted. It would mean calling in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to review the decision of the tribunals, giving them a fresh power of imprisonment and creating a new offence. That would be an immensely complicated machinery. Obviously, it could not be a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; it would have to be some other Court, and if the cases were sent to the Assizes it would lead to immense difficulty and delay, and not lead to the friendly settlement which we all desire.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Conscientious Objection to Extend to All Military Service.)
  To the grounds on which, under Section two, Sub-section (1), of the principal Act, a certificate of exemption from the provisions of the Act may be granted, shall be added the ground of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of all military service.—[Mr. Harvey.]
  Clause brought up, an read the first time.
  Mr. HARVEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause makes it quite clear that one of the grounds upon which a man may claim exemption is that of conscientious objection to the undertaking of all military service. That Las been met in the Act by the form of exemption provided, but already, both in the tribunals and outside, it has been stated that the only ground on which exemption is given in the Act is that of objection to combatant service, and that has been given as the reason for granting exemption from combatant service only. That was not the intention of the Government. It was clearly the intention of Par-
  1192
  liament, when the Act was passed, that those whose sincere objections extended beyond combatant service to all forms of military service should be met in the way specifically provided. It would greatly assist the smooth working of the Act by the tribunals if that were made clear in the way proposed. The only way in which, cases of miscarriage of justice can be avoided is by having some explanatory words inserted, making it perfectly clear that these cases are intended to be met.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I beg to second the Motion.
  If we are to get over the difficulty, as I believe this House desires to do, it is absolutely essential that far more exemptions should be granted conditionally on, the applicant doing national service, rather than exempting them merely from combatant service. Here again it is obvious that in the national interest something wants doing in order to bring this about. If one talks to the military representative it is clear that the last thing that they desire is to have all this difficulty in the different military garrisons. When we look at the matter from the labour standpoint, we know that at the present time we are having to import men from Denmark, Portugal, and other places, and it seems to me that it is very unwise that we should be giving in the tribunals exemptions which these men cannot accept, whilst all the time many of them are willing to do necessary work under hard conditions involving an element of sacrifice. I hope that, either by accepting this Clause or in some other way, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet this difficulty. If he does, I believe that he will remove a large part of the problem with which we are faced and of which we desire to find a solution.
  Mr. LONG: As I have already said more than once, the Act does contemplate certificates of absolute exemption from all military service, but I confess that while I understand the objection which springs from a sincere determination not to take human life, it is very difficult to believe that there are many cases in which total exemption should be granted relieving men even from doing work which results not in taking life, but in actually saving life or lessening human suffering. My hon. Friend says that these views are sincerely held. I am bound to assume that they are. But many Quakers have willingly undertaken work of a dangerous kind which has

  1193
  the result of saving life, because it prevents mines from destroying ships and their crews. It is intended that this exemption should be only in certain exceptional cases. That is the law to-day. I have already said that I will insert words of a declaratory character making it quite clear that that is the law. I cannot go further and add words of this kind, which would really give undue prominence to cases of total exemption.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I think the right hon. Gentleman has very fairly met the position of my hon. Friends. Therefore, while I quite admit that I should like to have seen this proposal in the original Act, I think to put it in now would give special prominence to a point of view which might not be helpful. I hope that the declaratory statement will be so framed as to call attention to the exemptions conditional on doing work of a national character. In that method alone lies the real way out. I know one Appeal Tribunal which, in every case as far as I am aware where they were satisfied that the conscientious objection was genuine, have given the objector time to find some kind of national service. In one or two cases the kind of national service found revealed the fact that the man was not a conscientious objector. When he went to work on munitions at a higher salary it rather showed that his views on war had more regard to his personal safety than anything else. On the whole, the giving of that opportunity week by week, and day by day, has proved very helpful.
  Mr. WARDLE: If the Government are going to insert a declaratory statement they might as well make it complete and cover all the points at issue. If they do that I feel sure that the difficulty in which we find ourselves will be largely met. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Clause or carry it to a Division. In trying to get out of one difficulty he has certainly put himself into another. Many of my hon. Friends have time after time raised strong objections to industrial conscription, and yet now they are willing to impose industrial conscription of a very hard character upon the conscientious objector. I cannot understand that attitude of mind. Therefore I hope that we shall have a perfectly clear declaratory statement applying to the whole matter and not one part of it. We shall then, I think, get rid of this difficulty.
  Mr. KING: I am sure we are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for
  1194
  his promise to insert a declaratory statement of what the law really is, particularly as many legal persons presiding over Appeal Tribunals have taken the opposite view. But the promise of a declaratory statement does not meet the cases which have been decided by the tribunals. I have a young friend who, from the time when he first came before the local tribunal, has again and again offered to do work on the land or any national work not under military authority. He is now suffering twelve months' imprisonment. From the very first he has been most consistent in expressing his willingness to do work of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman now says he has the right to claim. Unless we have something more than a declaratory statement so that a way out may be provided for cases of that kind it will be no good at all.
  Mr. HARVEY: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's promise to insert a declaratory statement, I beg leave to withdraw the Clause,
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Procedure in Cases of Conscientious Objection.)
  Where a man who has applied for exemption for military service on the ground of a conscientious objection and, failing to secure such exemption, has been enlisted under the principal Act, or under this Act, refuses on conscientious grounds to obey an order given him by his superior officer, he shall forthwith be tried by court-martial and, if it appears to the Court that there is reasonable ground for believing that his refusal to obey such order was due to conscientious motives, the matter shall be referred for trial to a Civil Court which may order the man to engage in a work of national importance as an alternative to military service, under regulations to be made by Order in Council under this Act, and subject to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years if he fails or refuses to comply with the order of the Civil Court.—[Mr. Harvey.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. HARVEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause is of the utmost importance. I do not think there is any proposal of mine that would go further towards getting

  1195
  rid of the worst cases of difficulty under this Act. What we have all felt troubled about has undoubtedly been the knowledge that a number of sincere men, who, although their opinions may meet with strong disapproval, are men of high character, and men who, in many cases, are giving their lives to the service of their fellow men, are at this moment in military prisons suffering the penalty of disobedience to their superior officers, although from the moment they were technically deemed to be soldiers, they have not ceased to protest that it was contrary to their deepest religious and conscientious convictions. There are a number of other men equally sincere awaiting arrest as deserters, because in their consciences they feel that they cannot undertake this service, although they are willing and anxious to serve their country in other ways. It is very hard to speak unmoved on a question like this when one has personal friends concerned. In a number of cases I know of men for whose character I can vouch absolutely and for whose religious sincerity I can vouch. These men have been placed in this painful and difficult position by the operation of an Act of Parliament which was expressly framed to safeguard such men and to prevent such things happening. I do not like to go into a number of details, but I would like to take three cases which have come from a certain Appeal Tribunal. I will not mention the name of the tribunal, because I do not want to make an attack upon tribunals. These tribunals, I believe, have tried to do their duty under difficult circumstances.
  What I want to show is that it is impossible, under the machinery of the Act, to prevent serious miscarriage of justice, and that it is absolutely essential that there should be some provision, whether by legislation or administration, to deal with cases which have passed through the tribunals without being satisfactorily handled. Unless this can be done you will have the most serious cases of injustice, and you will have a growing sense of discontent and indignation throughout, not merely a limited section of the community, but on the part of a very large number of men and women who do not in any way agree with the position taken up by those who are suffering. The particular tribunal I have in view had to deal with a large number of cases. Let me, however, without taking another instance,
  1196
  deal with the three to which I have referred. These cases are vouched for by people personally known to me, and I can answer absolutely for them. In one case the tribunal refused to consider the evidence of a minister of religion because it was not written on official paper. His testimony as to the character of the man went by the board, because the tribunal said that the evidence might have been forged, and "we have no evidence in the case." The minister himself wrote to me complaining of the injustice of the thing Leave to appeal was refused. He lost his case, although he was a Sunday school superintendent and teacher whose personal character was known very well in his neighbourhood and would not be questioned there.
  The second case was also that of a village workman, who was the only support of his widowed mother. This mother is suffering from a fatal disease, and has the utmost need of her son at home. He is aged twenty-one. The tribunal, after ascertaining his age, questioned him on his position, and asked him why it was he had made no protest during the Boer War? If an Appeal Tribunal can conduct a case like that, and take away a youth's certificate—already granted by the local tribunal, after asking questions of that nature—one must, I think, consider that there is a real reason to find some means to redress acts of injustice that are committed after such hurried and imperfect examination. The third case was the case of a man of a different social status, though all were equally cases of injustice. This man was dealt with by the same Appeal Tribunal. He had been granted, by the local tribunal, exemption from combatant service only. He appealed. He claimed to be granted exemption conditional on doing work of national importance, the only form of exemption which would meet his case. The military representative, who had never put a question to him at the local tribunal, appealed at the same time, stating the case was not one of bonâ-fide conscientious objection. This man is known to a number of personal friends of mine. He is still an undergraduate. He has spent part of his vacations in social work in East London. He is a deeply religious man. I have testimonies from various college authorities, who have known him for long, and they speak in the highest terms of his character. His father also writes about him. He says that he does not share his son's views, and he has another son who

  1197
  is fighting, and has been mentioned in dispatches. He says his son "has worked amongst the poor during the vacations and his life was to be given to their service, "and before God, I vow his sincerity as a conscientious objector." "His whole life," continues the father, "has been that of a peacemaker, and this statement can, if necessary, be proved up to the hilt." This man had his exemption absolutely taken away by this Appeal Tribunal. I have been reading through the evidence. The chief ground for the action of the Appeal Tribunal seems to have been that he was in the habit of taking tea, coffee, cocoa, and tobacco, and therefore, by taking those articles, was responsible for paying duties, some of which might go to the cost of the War. On that ground the Appeal Tribunal, which had already used the same argument in other cases, said: "This man cannot have a sincere conscientious objection, and his exemption must be taken away." It is quite clear that cases like this, which have been dealt with in the way described by the tribunals, can only be remedied by measures which must be taken when those concerned pass into the hands of the Army. We do not want to embarrass the Army with so-called soldiers who can never be soldiers. You may punish them and shoot them. You may put them in prison. You may break down their physical strength. You may, in some rare cases, break down their wills even, but you can never make into good soldiers men of this character.
  It is pitiable and miserable to think that the great machinery of the State should be employed upon breaking the will and crushing the endeavour and ideals of men who, if they were only given the opportunity of service in other channels, might be able to contribute something of real value to the life of the nation. They are eager to do it. These men have already, in many cases, shown by their previous life their sincerity and their desire to make sacrifices on behalf of others. It is a great injustice and a great wrong that the State should be doing what it is. These men will not be any good in the Army. They will embarrass the courts-martial, who will constantly be having to try cases of the sort—of lack of discipline, of gross breaches of discipline, as these must technically be on the part of men who have never been soldiers, and who have declared they never can be soldiers. We ought not to put the courts-martial or the Army in this most invidious position. It
  1198
  is not fair to them any more than it is to the community at large. The Amendment which we have drafted would not give an easy position to these men, but it would give an alternative, in the case of these men, who have been continually protesting that they are not and cannot be soldiers, to go before the military authorities, as this Clause provides If the court-martial is satisfied that they are conscientious objectors it shall hand them over to a Civil Court to be dealt with. That Civil Court may then order these men to be engaged on work of national importance under civil control. This may be under very strenuous conditions. I do not object to that for a moment. If they fail to observe the conditions laid down, or refuse to accept the work, the Court shall be given power to sentence them to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years. That is not making an easy position for these men. It is providing an avenue for useful service, and an opportunity by which the Army shall be relieved of this most unwelcome class, and the State will relieve itself of the great stain of injustice that will undoubtedly remain if we allow the kind of thing that is happening to continue.
  Mr. MORRELL: I beg to second the Motion. I do so in the hope that it may provide some way of dealing with the most serious part of a problem which everyone agrees is a most serious and difficult problem. All of us who have for weeks past — in my case for some months past—taken an interest in this question must be pleased at seeing the difference in tone in the Debate in all parts of the House to that lately evident. I believe the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was well-advised when he said that we all had a desire to dispose of this very serious difficulty. This Clause, or a similar one, may help to dispose of this most serious and difficult part of a serious and difficult question. I am certain, at any rate, that no solution will ever be satisfactory that does not provide for the men who are contemplated in this new Clause. Many of these men are where they are through no fault of the tribunal. Whatever the cause, they failed to obtain exemption in the only way that meets their case. They got either no relief at all, or they got relief only from combatant duties, and were put to what is called non-combatant service, which their conscience

  1199
  does not allow them to accept. These men, therefore, have been drafted into the Army either as combatants or non-combatants. In the Army they are in the position that they have to decline orders given to them. They decline to take any part whatever in military service, to put on khaki, to sign any papers, and ultimately, of course, they find themselves in the guard-room, and later in prison. It is idle to blame the tribunals for this state of things. The tribunals have had a most difficult task set before them. Even if the tribunals had been much better than they have, been, I think it is true there would still have been a certain number of cases for whom it would have been necessary to provide. At any rate, it is too late to blame the tribunals now as regards these cases. It is for the Government to decide how they are going to deal with these men who are now carrying on a sort of passive resistance after they have got into the Army. They are there. They are being subjected in many cases to harsh and even cruel treatment. It is a very ugly word to cruel treatment. It is a very ugly word to use, but I think there is no doubt whatever—not through the fault of the officers certainly, but owing to the facts of the ease—that the treatment these men receive after they get there does not differ in any material respect from ordinary persecution. I have here a letter which appears in to-day's paper by Dr. Clifford, the Nonconformist minister, who is well known as a strong supporter of the War and cannot be accused of having any favourable leaning to these men, and who has taken a most strong part in recruiting. He says:
  "Day by day for weeks past I have been receiving letters concerning men who have been handed over to military authorities, shut up in cells, some damp and dark; put in irons, badly fed, bullied, roughly handled, threatened with death, bayonet placed against the heart, sentenced to solitary confinement for seventy, or one hundred, or one hundred and sixty two days, or to two years' hard labour, or sent to France with the information that there are two ways of disposing of them there."
  HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
  Mr. MORRELL: There are two ways of disposing of them, either imprisonment or death. I have seen some letters from friends of these people. I could read them out to the House, and they show that these men are being subjected to extremely harsh and extremely cruel treatment. I submit that when men are prepared to suffer for conscience sake what these men
  1200
  are suffering, it is idle to say they have not a genuine conscientious objection to military service. There is one other point which I should like to make with regard to that. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that seventeen of these men last Monday were sent over as part of their punishment to France, and if so whether it is not also a fact—I believe it is a fact—that they were sent over to France to take the place of seventeen other men who were withdrawn from a draft going to France, and these seventeen recalcitrants were taken out of their cells and put in their places and sent over to France as a punitive measure? I can prove that these men were sent to France, and I believe it is admitted by the Under-Secretary for War. But the point I want to submit is that, when these men get to France, if they disobey orders, they are liable to be shot for disobedience in the face of the enemy. The Army Act says that any man on active service who—
  "disobeys in such manner as to show a wilful defiance of authority any lawful command given personally by his superior officer in the execution of his office, whether the same is given orally, or in writing, or by signal, or otherwise,"
  is liable to suffer death. And Part 5 of the Act says that—
  "whenever he is attached to or forms part of a force which is engaged in operations against the enemy, or is engaged in military operations in a country or place wholly or partly occupied by an enemy,"
  he is held to be "on active service." Therefore these men, when they get to France, which is a country partly in the occupation of the enemy, will be on active service, and as such, if they decline, however conscientious may be their refusal, to obey any order given by a superior officer, they are immediately liable to be shot. I shall be glad to know whether that is so. At any rate, I think we may fairly say that with regard to all these men, who to-day number over 300, who are refusing to submit to the military authorities for conscience sake, and whose numbers will be increased as time goes on, we see a state of things that is bad for the Army in the first place, and bad for the country, which finds itself engaged in persecuting men it does not want to persecute, and which is entirely contrary to the intentions of this House, and of Parliament, in passing the Military Service Act. There can be no doubt that the intention of Parliament was that men who had genuine conscientious objection to military service should be relieved from the necessity of taking part in the War.

  1201
  [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] That I believe to be the intention of Parliament. I do not see how you can read the Military Service Act in any other way. The mere fact that it is open to tribunals to give total exemption or conditional exemption shows that it was the intention of Parliament when they passed the principal Act, and I say it is discreditable to the House, and to the country, that genuine conscientious objectors should be persecuted, as these men are being persecuted, and should suffer as these men are suffering to-day for their conscience sake.
  As to the question of what is to be done, the proposal made by this Clause would still leave it to the court-martial, before whom these men would be brought, to decide whether there was reasonable ground for believing that the refusal to obey orders on the part of any of these men was due to conscientious scruples, and, if they found there was, then the matter would have to be referred to a Civil Court, and it would be open to the Civil Court, under this Clause, to impose upon such men the performance of work of national importance, subject to a term of imprisonment in the event of it being declined, so that a man would have to come before two Courts, first, the court-martial, and, secondly, the Civil Court, and. having passed both Courts, he would still be liable to what is called work of national importance. That seems to me an extremely moderate proposal, and I have confidence—and I think my hon. Friend has confidence—in the great majority of cases the court-martial will be glad to get rid of these men, and will recognise conscience, which or some reason or other the tribunal has failed to recognise—that this may afford a way out of what is indeed a serious problem. There are already 300 men engaged in this passive resistance, and it is going to become much more serious when the present Bill is passed and as time goes on. If the President of the Local Government Board says, as no doubt he will, because he has done so to every practical proposal made to him, that there are insuperable objections to this, will he tell us—he has never told us—what is his way out of the difficulty with which he admits we are faced? If he thinks this is not a good way, will he tell us whether the Government are proposing to take steps to meet what everybody must know to be a very serious problem? I tell the House that the one way in which you will never solve this problem is by attempting to coerce these men. As I said on another occasion,
  1202
  you may break their bodies, but you will never destroy the spirit of these men. I do not altogether myself agree with the point of view they take up. In many ways entirely disagree, but it happens that amongst my closest personal friends are men who have taken up this attitude with regard to war. I know these men; I know many of them personally. I know their relatives and friends, and I say it is utterly idle for anyone to come here and say those men are not genuine in the position they take up against war, or still more to say they are influenced by any motives of fear or cowardice. I wish every Member of this House had the courage of some of those men. I say they have shown a courage which may at least command respect if you do not agree with them. If the Government is going to get rid of a difficulty which is really at the moment discrediting us very seriously, I hope they will set about it in a sympathetic spirit, so that those men who have shown by their sufferings their genuine conscientious objection to war, may at least get some relief.
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir George Cave): The hon. Gentleman who moved this new Clause put forward his view as to the decisions of certain tribunals. I will not go into that, because, with great respect to him, it is not quite relevant to this Clause. This. Clause assumes the decision of the tribunal, and then lays down a new rule after the decision has been given. The proposal is that when a man who has claimed exemption on the ground of conscience has been heard by a tribunal, who had decided that they cannot give effect to the application, possibly because they do not believe in its reality, and when the right of appeal has not been exercised or the appeal has not been allowed—
  Mr. HARVEY: In the cases I have in mind the reality has never been questioned.
  Sir G. CAVE: In some cases the reality may be questioned, and has been questioned, but I agree not in all. At all events, the cases have been heard, and exemption disallowed, or only allowed in a conditional form, and the man is passed into the Army and possibly has been sent abroad, not as a punishment—I do not believe in anything of that kind—but to perform his duty to the State which he is bound to perform. That having happened, a man who then disobeys orders may put the lives of all his comrades in peril. If another man does that who has made no

  1203
  objection to doing his duty to his country, he is subject to the full rigour of the law, but this man, because he has made his objection before going into the Army, is to be put into a privileged position, and he alone, for disobeying orders, is not to be subject to full military law, but sent home and tried for the offence, with the possibility of a term of imprisonment. That is the proposal. To begin with, is it fair to ask a commander in the field, who has to deal with disobedience of orders, to inquire into the motive why a soldier disobeys? I do not think it is right or fair to ask him, and I do not believe any soldier would willingly undertake the duty of satisfying himself whether a man is disobeying on conscientious grounds, or some other grounds. He knows the order is disobeyed, and that danger is caused to his corps, that discipline is at stake, and he ought to deal with it in the ordinary practical way in which a soldier deals with it. It is not fair or right to ask him to take this into consideration. But if it were, surely the House will not agree that these men, and only these men, who have made this objection to service, shall have a special privilege. I think it is an astonishing suggestion and exceedingly dangerous, and I do not believe the hon. Gentleman can really press it. There is another point. Nothing could more destroy discipline than a proposal of that kind. All soldiers ought to be on the same footing and liable to the same penalty for the same offences.
  The hon. Member who seconded the Clause took another line, and he alone made an attack upon the commanding officers and men, and attributed to them—I know not on what evidence—cruel and harsh treatment of conscientious objectors, and quoted from a gentleman, Dr. Clifford, some statement which is wholly unverified, and which I could not believe without strong evidence to support it and which for the moment I venture wholly to doubt. Where is the evidence of any such treatment as that of which the hon. Member complains? It is true that a certain number of soldiers who have been conscientious objectors have been drafted into the Army and sent abroad to do their duty—
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. MORRELL: The Solicitor-General says they have not been sent abroad as a punishment, but is it not a fact that seventeen of them were sent abroad under escort and taken out of the cells?
  Sir G. CAVE: If they were in the cells and had to go and do their duty, of course they must be taken out. They have gone with the other soldiers, and I am told that no difficulty whatever has arisen of any kind, and no cause of complaint has arisen. The whole attack made upon the officers rests upon the imagination or upon misconception, for they are just as humane men as anybody else, and are anxious to have the confidence of their soldiers; they are anxious to win their confidence and keep it, and they are quite incapable of many of the acts which the hon. Member for Burnley has attributed to them.
  Mr. MORRELL: I did not say that. I particularly stated that I attributed no blame to the officers, and that these men have been punished for disobedience to orders. On the contrary, I wish to say that these men speak of the considerate treatment they have received from the commanding officers, although they have had to submit to a certain amount of jeering from others.
  Sir G. CAVE: I think it will be found that the statement which the hon. Member has just made is very different from what he formerly said. It now comes to this, that these men have been punished and properly punished for disobedience to orders, that there is no complaint against the officers, and that some of the men jeered. I think when the hon. Member reads his speech he will find that it is more violent than his present charges warrant. This proposal is really not a practical one. When men are drafted into the Army they must be subjected to military rule in the ordinary way.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The speech of the Solicitor-General shows how unwise we were in accepting the assurance of the Government when the first Act was being considered by this House. Then we were repeatedly assured, not by one Minister but by several Ministers, that the death penalty would not be inflicted upon any of these men, and now, according to the statement of the Solicitor-General, these men, if they persist in disobeying military orders, will be subjected to the death penalty like any other men.
  Sir G. CAVE: I said nothing of the kind. I did not say that they will be subject to the death penalty. These men will not become subject to that penalty.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Then I have entirely misunderstood the nature of the speech made by the Solicitor-General, which was devoted to showing how unfair it would be to treat these men in France differently to ordinary soldiers. If the right hon. Gentleman's speech means anything it means that if these men persist in their refusal, if they disobey a military order, or if they commit any act which is likely to spread cowardice amongst they comrades, then they will be treated under the Army Rules and Regulations. Of course, we all know that for an offence of that sort committed in the face of the enemy the death penalty may be inflicted. Really it is time that this matter was cleared up. It was only last week, after having put many questions on this point, that I got from the Undersecretary for War an answer which was an admission that these men were not protected by the provision in the existing Act which exempts them from the death penalty for refusing to obey an order calling them up to the Colours. I was responsible for the Amendment in the original Bill, the result of which was the incorporation of the words which now appear, and I remember distinctly, when the Attorney-General read the words that the Government proposed to put into that Bill, I raised this point as to whether it would apply only to the offence of refusing to obey a call to the Colours, or whether it would apply also if they persisted in their opposition to military rule. We got what I quite see now was an evasive reply, and we must have this question cleared up.
  These men who have been taken to France resisted. As the Under-Secretary pointed out, they have been taken in many cases to be military prisoners. They have not gone to France willingly, and the fact that they are persisting in their opposition proves the genuineness of their conscientious objection. The Solicitor-General has told us that the commanding officer in the field cannot be expected to distinguish between the motive actuating an offender, and if the offence be the same then the punishment must be the same. I would like to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Burnley said just now in regard to the way in which these conscientious objectors have been treated by the higher officers in the Army. It is, however, undoubtedly true that from the subordinates they have received the most brutal treatment. I have upon the Notice Paper to-day a question, and I make myself responsible for the facts as
  1206
  stated in that question, and it relates not to isolated cases, but it is typical of the way in which they have been treated in all parts of the country. My question refers to the treatment of a number of conscientious objectors from Darwen, which is a town bordering upon the Constituency that I represent. These men were taken to the military barracks at. Preston and subjected to the grossest ill-treatment. They were treated in the most indecent manner, forcibly stripped, and. marched from the barracks square practically undressed, and after being put in> uniform, one of them was taken into a. room and kicked around the room until, his groans could be heard outside.
  This morning I received two letters from young fellows who had been sentenced within the last two days to terms: of two years' imprisonment. I have asked in how many cases similar punishment to this has been inflicted, and it must be a very considerable number-These seventeen men who have already gone to France had been taken out of the military prison, and the sentence which had been inflicted upon them has not yet been served. What we ask is this: The Government, judging from what certain Ministers have said, are beginning to appreciate the seriousness of this question. Surely, whatever the decision of a tribunal may have been, a man who is willing to submit to such treatment as these lads from Darwen have submitted. to, has given the fullest evidence of his conscientious objection to military service. Many of these men have been granted non-combatant exemption, and what does that prove? That the tribunal has admitted the existence of a conscientious objection. What is the Government going to do? Are they going to have these lads shot in France? If they are, all I can say is that throughout the length and breadth of this land a wave of public indignation will be aroused against the treatment of these men. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Let me read a letter in. the "Manchester Guardian" this morning from an eminent Nonconformist who was present at the meeting of the Congregational Union last week. He tells us how that gathering of Nonconformist ministers by unanimous volumes of cheers expressed their indignation at such treatment. That was a letter written by Dr. Munro Gibson. In several daily newspapers this morning there is a letter from

  1207
  that most revered and influential Non-conformist leader Dr. Clifford, and if Dr. Clifford, comes out and by his power and eloquence and influence supports the outraged Nonconformist conscience of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—then I tell those who are supporting this War that they have done the very worst day's service they possibly could for a successful prosecution of this War. More than any other man, Dr. Clifford, by his support of this War, has gained the support of an overwhelming number of Non-conformists in this country. The Government may believe it or not, but the volume of national indignation against this persecution and this torture of men who are standing by their consciences is growing, and if one of these men be shot then the ring of that rifle will rouse such indignation in the country that I will not say that we shall not have in this country a repetition of the lamentable state of things which recently existed in Ireland.
  Mr. LONG: I will at once without a moment's delay reply to the speech made for the hon. Member for Blackburn. I do not propose to deal with the threats of the hon. Member. With his remarkable abilities it is curious that when he threatens us with the consequences of the action which he imputes to us, he forgets that between two and three million men who are now doing their best to defend the country are liable to be shot if they are guilty of two crimes, desertion or cowardice in the face of the enemy, after they have been tried by court-martial. The hon. Gentleman has not chosen to take the trouble to ascertain what is meant by the phrase "in the face of the enemy." It means in your front trenches, where these men do not go, and why? Because you have sent to France a certain number of people who are conscientious objectors and who refuse to do military service. What are they doing? [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh. But you have imputed to us time after time and to Members of the Government false statements. The hon. Member for Blackburn declares that we made statements when the Act was passing by which we do not abide now, for which there is not a shadow of foundation. We adhere to every word we said in previous Debates, and it is only by torturing the action of the War Office on any occasion that the hon. Gen-
  1208
  tleman is able to sustain the charge that he makes against us now. What did the hon. Member who succeeded him (Mr. Morrell) say? I was amazed. He said that these men were sent to France as a punishment. Is it a punishment when it is the honour and glory of men to go? Is that to be regarded as a punishment? These men believe that they have a grievance. They go, as he says, under escort. Why have they got an escort? They have got an escort because they are refusing to go, because they are refusing to give their services. They go there and, as a matter of fact, many of them, I am happy to say from what I have been told, become excellent and loyal and devoted soldiers. Some of them do not. How are they employed? They are employed on certain definite work. I believe work on the roads is one kind, I believe stone quarrying is another, and railway work a third. They are not put in front of the enemy, and it is only in face of the enemy that a soldier can be guilty of the two crimes to which I have referred, and for which, after he has been tried by court-martial, he can be shot, or has ever been shot, during the War. We have kept every letter of the promise which we have made to the House on previous occasions, and we are not in the least likely either to depart from any promises we make or to be frightened by threats.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask the House now to revert to the matter which we were considering, namely, the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. E. Harvey).
  Mr. JONES: I will abide by your ruling, and I hope and believe the interlude—
  Mr. SPEAKERIf the hon. Gentleman raises the question again somebody else will reply to him, and so we shall go on.
  Mr. JONES: I will make no reference to it at all. We have been discussing the case of the conscientious objector for the whole of this afternoon, lasting now some four hours. We have now reached the last Clause, which deals with him, and I believe it is the last occasion on which we shall be able to refer to him before the Bill becomes law. I want to appeal to the Government to tell us how they propose to deal with the problem, the existence of which they recognised fully when the Bill was being read a second time. I have with me a statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the President

  1209
  of the Board of Education (Mr. A. Henderson) in his speech on the Second Heading, and I would ask my right hon. Friend just to listen to a short extract. The President of the Board of Education said:
  "The hon. Member for Leeds made what I think was a very appealing speech to the House. I think that most of the W embers present agreed with him that he was pleading for the genuine conscientious objector—"
  And I for one am pleading for no other. There is no one who has a word to say on behalf of the man who is a sham conscientious objector.
  "I think I cannot do less than undertake to ask my colleagues in the Cabinet to consider very carefully the suggestions he was good enough to make, that those genuine cases ought to have the chance of appeal rather than that they should be crowded into our prisons by hundreds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th May. 1916, col. 263.]
  We have waited until we have come to the last Clause dealing with the conscientious objector, and the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill has not yet told us how the Government propose to deal with the cases which admittedly exist, which have passed the tribunal, and which are cases of men who, by their action since they have been forcibly made soldiers, have shown that they have a strong and it seems to me, in many cases, a conscientious objection to being made soldiers. I can well understand the impatience which many hon. Members feel, and "which was expressed by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) and others, at our being called upon to deal with this question while our fellows are fighting in the trenches in thousands and hundreds of thousands in France. I sympathise with that impatience. One of my main objections to the bringing in of a compulsion Bill was that it raised all these questions in the middle of the War. One of the strongest objections there is to the change of system from a voluntary to a compulsory system is that you are doing it in the hurry and haste of a great war and at a time when we should concentrate on the problems of the War. I noticed that one of my hon. Friends was challenged and asked whether there were any conscientious objectors in Germany? We do not know, but we do know that when compulsory service was first set up in Germany there were many conscientious objectors. Every country which has resorted to Conscription has had to deal with the conscientious objector. Nobody likes the conscientious objector.
  Mr. MACMASTER: Was there any provision for the conscientious objector in the Proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War?
  Mr. JONES: I am quite sure that Abraham Lincoln was the last man in the world to force conscientious objectors to become soldiers against their consciences. If ever there was a man to whom conscience was precious, it was Abraham Lincoln. The hon. Member for Brentford asked what right a man had to set up his conscience against the conscience of the State? That is an idle question. How can I say what right he has? What right had Martin Luther to raise any question of conscience? What right had anyone who has ever stood for the right of individual conscience against society, State, or Church? What right has the individual objector ever had He has had the right inherent in human nature, the right of human nature in the last resort to decide matters of his own will and conscience. I do not ask the question "What right has he?" but, "How is the State going to deal with the case of conscience when it arises?" The real problem is, What are we going to do to get round the difficulty of the conscientious objector? I want to put a point to- the House which, I think, has not been put at all. You are doing in this Military Service Bill a thing which you have done in no other department of our national life. I know of no other case in which you violate the individual conscience and do not provide some alternative. The Minister of Munitions (Mr. Lloyd George), who has recently discovered that compulsory service is a Liberal principle—
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Hear, hear!
  Mr. JONES: The hon. Member for Mansfield may cheer it, but he cannot deny that it is a recent discovery. The Minister of Munitions compared it to vaccination, to compulsory education, to insurance, and to taxation. Take vaccination—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that he is now dealing with a number of points which are not relevant to the special enactments of this Clause. The Clause sets up a particular procedure to be followed in certain limited and special cases, and I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to that.
  Mr. JONES: It was only an illustration, and I would venture to say that we are on the Second Reading of the Clause, I was endeavouring to show that there was a principle underlying this Clause which would make it analogous to our procedure under the Vaccination and Education Acts. I will not pursue it at any length,

  1211
  but I must be allowed to say that under the Vaccination Act you do not compel the parent to have his child vaccinated, but you punish the parent for not having his child vaccinated, and under the Education Act you do not compel the parent to send his child to school, but you punish him for not sending his child to school. I am appealing to the Government to provide some alternative for these men who have shown by their action that you cannot make soldiers of them. You might punish them by fining them, you might punish them by imprisonment, and, as the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) logically and properly pointed out, you might say, "We are at a phase in our country's history where every man ought to serve his own country." That is the view which I take myself, but your remedy is not to put the man in prison, and not to force him to become a soldier, but to banish him from the country. At the present time you do not allow him to go; you forbid him to leave the country; you keep him here and say he shall become a soldier. You will not succeed in your endeavour. You will never make soldiers of these men. They prove by their action that you cannot make soldiers of them. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Captain Cassel) said that you could not possibly raise this question once the men were in the Army. We are face to face with a practical difficulty, that has arisen from our embarking on new legislation in the middle of the War. You have got the men in the Army, you have called them soldiers, but you cannot make them soldiers, and I do ask my hon. Friend to fulfil, I will not say the pledges, but the expectations, he awakened on the Second Reading and in the Committee stage of this Bill, and to tell us now how the Government propose to deal with these cases, not very numerous, but real and growing, and which will increase very largely. The difficulty is a very real and practical one, and up to this late hour the Government still do not tell us how they are going to deal with it. I do not think it is treating the House fairly. They held out expectatons to us, and said that they would consider this question in the Cabinet. I have read the right hon. Gentleman an extract from the speech of the President of the Board of Education. I will put a straight question to him: Was the matter brought before the Cabinet?
  Mr. LONG: Certainly.
  Mr. JONES: And have any proposals emanated as the result?
  Mr. LONG: Really, this is not quite fair. I said distinctly and as plainly as I could, speaking in the House of Commons when we were in Committee, that we had given our fullest consideration to these problems. I frankly stated the difficulty, and I invited co-operation and received the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. E. Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Rowntree). We have discussed this thing, not once but dozens of times, and my hon. Friend has no right to suggest in this light-hearted way that we are breaking our pledges or promises.
  Mr. JONES: I expressly said that the right hon. Gentleman was not breaking any Parliamentary pledge or promise, but I repeat that expectations were held out that this question of the conscientious objector, which is daily growing in importance and magnitude throughout the country, would be dealt with in some proposals which the Government would put forward. We are now within a few hours of the Bill becoming law, and there will be more conscientious objectors to be dealt with, and I do not think the House is being fairly treated in being asked to pass the Bill while left in absolute ignorance as to what the Government intends to do.
  Captain CASSEL: I should like to press my objection to this Clause on the grounds of the new duty which it proposes to impose on courts-martial. It so happens that since my return I have had to go through the proceedings of many of these Courts, and I say it is altogether impossible to make a court-martial a kind of Appeal Court from the decisions of the tribunals upon whom the duty of dealing with the conscientious objector was cast by the original Act. Yet that is what this Clause proposes to do. What happens at the present moment is that when these objections are raised before the court-martial it replies that it has nothing whatever to do with them. There are two kinds of objectors. There is the religious objector—the objector who hands in ten pages of Scripture with references to chapter and verse—and then there is the objector who says that he objects to the tribunal because he is an atheist, and then he preceeds to say he is a Socialist, he regards all men as brothers, and he objects to making war upon his brother. As I have

  1213
  suggested, at present the court-martial simply replies that it has nothing to do with that. I submit the one principle which must be recognised is that from the time a man becomes a soldier he must obey orders. No officer can be called upon to decide the question whether there is any ground on which a soldier is entitled to refuse to obey. It is on that ground that I oppose this Clause. I say that it imposes upon a court-martial a duty which it ought not to be called upon to perform.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I want to make an earnest appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to reconsider the attitude he has taken up. I do not know whether it is worth while making the appeal. I hope it is possible now, at this stage, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some further indication of the attitude which he is going to take up in dealing with this rapidly growing difficulty. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman that only two or three days ago he—I am sure with perfect sincerity and frankness—invited those actually concerned with this question to frame proposals for the solution of the problem, the gravity of which he asknowledged, and the Order Paper to-day is the reply to the right hon. Gentleman's own invitation.
  Mr. LONG: I did not say that. I did not invite overtures of that kind. I was asked in the course of the Debate whether I would consider representations made to me. I said, of course, I should be delighted to consider them. They were made, and I have considered them.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. He was asked if he would consider proposals that might be made. But we do not want the matter to end there. That does not satisfy those who are trying to get a solution of this problem. It is not sufficient to say that the matter has been considered. That is not a reply to the suggestions we have made. I want to put a practical point to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will not and does not think that this difficulty is going to be got over by men who are conscientious objectors in the Army being tried and imprisoned or sent to France and kept in the hands of the military authorities. Surely all history shows that the more persecution people who are conscientious objectors undergo, the greater their number becomes and the more their
  1214
  power of resistance grows. I am not speaking to-night in any provocative sense. I deplore more than I can utter the great difficulty that has arisen. I feel a special personal responsibility, because I share entirely the views and feelings which have been exprssed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Harvey). I am not one of those who can say that I do not believe in the conscientious objector. I do believe in him. I would remind the House we have always to the great benefit of mankind recognised the conscientious objector. My right hon. Friend will not be annoyed with me if I say I well remember an occasion when he addressed this House from the benches opposite under circumstances in which he was a conscientious objector. He knows well enough that this difficulty has been with us in all great questions dividing the nation. It is peculiarly with us now, because we are up against men who found their action upon their religious belief. They are willing to undergo anything as a result. We do not want to create martyrs and we do not want to see this trouble extend. I am sure to the sorrow of this War we do not want to add the sorrow of a great domestic conflict. Therefore I suggest the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to give us a partial solution of this difficulty by accepting this very moderate proposal, which, at least, will reduce the passion caused by this controversy by leaving it to the civil Court to find an appropriate method of dealing with the conscientious objector.
  Major NEWMAN: I beg the House, the President of the Local Government Board, and the Government to stand firm, and not to give way on this Amendment. I really believe the reason why the House has not dealt practically with the conscientious objector long before has been avowed in public in a characteristic sneer by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), who, in speaking to a No-Conscription Fellowship at Burnley, attended by French delegates—it was a characteristic bitter sneer—said:
  "The contemptible spectacle of a House of Commons of aged men forcing conscription upon younger men than themselves."
  That is cheered from "Amen Corner." May I remind "Amen Corner" of this: We over here are a comparative handful. But 60 or 70 per cent. of our Members are on active service, and do you think that men who, like myself, have been out at the front and are expecting to go back again,

  1215
  would deal very unkindly with the conscientious objector? We certainly would not. I appeal to the Government to remember that, because a majority of the Members are past military age, except perhaps a few sitting below the Gangway, that is no reason why we should fail in doing our duty. I say, speaking as a regimental officer, that you cannot put on officers or on courts-martial such a duty as this. If there is one person who cannot deal with the conscientious objector it is a court-martial or an officer in charge of troops. Hon. Members opposite have sought to fortify their opinions by quotations from Dr. Clifford. But they have failed to quote one bit of common sense which appeared in Dr. Clifford's letter. It was this:
  "Conscience ought not to be handed over to the military. There is one, law in the Army and only one—obey or be shot. Military rule makes no provision for conscience."
  These are the reasons which make it impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment and perfectly impossible for us in the Army, whatever our rank, to deal with the question of conscience. You may get another solution. I hope you will, but the solution imposing the duty of the tribunals upon the court-martial will certainly not work.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I want once more to appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to remember what was said earlier in the afternoon by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). We have suggested this new Clause as the best way of getting the Government out of a very real difficulty. If there is another and a better way, I hope the President of the Local Government Board will tell us what it is. There is abundant proof that there are at the present time large numbers of men who are undergoing imprisonment for conscience sake. They have not got the exemption they feel should have been given them, and now, rightly or wrongy, they hold that they cannot undertake military serviec. The difficulty has arisen because of that fact. We are anxious that there should be some way in which these men who are now undergoing penalties in prison should have a chance of getting back either into civil prisons or into civilian work. The main point surely is that these men who are resisting never should have been sent to France, and then the danger the hon. Member for Blackburn has alluded to would never have
  1216
  occurred. Men who are resisting in this way cannot be of any service to the Army. Again and again military men have told me it is absurd that these men should ever be sent to France, and it is because of that fact that people are very anxious indeed at the present time.
  There is no doubt about it that these men are a very difficult class to deal with. No one knows better than myself the difficulties connected with this matter. There is an attempt being made to frighten these men into submission. I had a letter to-day with regard to a young fellow who bears a name well known amongst Congregationalists in this country. He told me that if he had got exemption he was willing to do work of national service. But he did not get exemption and consequently he felt bound to resist. He says in this letter, and I have no reason to doubt his statement, that the president of the court told him that unless he accepted the conditions laid down the death sentence would eventually have to be passed. I had another letter this morning with regard to a Salvation Army man in the West of England, and this is what the witness, tells me occurred:
  "I was called before the Court, when the presiding officer said, 'I wish to put the position seriously before you. There will be comparatively only a light sentence for the present offence, but if. … continues in his present course there can be only one result, which is the death sentence.'"
  I feel again and again a difficulty in speaking of this matter, because no one recognises more than I do the sacrifices that men are making day after day for us in the trenches in France, and I recognise how specially difficult it is in a House like this, where there is hardly a Member who has not lost one of his dearest friends in that sacrifice. What I find is that these men, while they cannot understand this conscientious objection, have no desire that the conscientious objectors should be persecuted. They have no desire that the will of these men shall be broken, and they are anxious that some way shall he found out of this difficulty. I was stopped three weeks ago by a man at a station near York, who told me that he expected to be called up. He was a Wesleyan who had a conscientious objection. Neither the local tribunal nor the Appeal Tribunal had given him exemption. He is now suffering penalties in gaol for refusing to take any part in military service. I said to that man, "Are you willing to do national service?" He said, "I am willing to do any national service or any work of national importance." I said, "Are you

  1217
  willing to show that by your sacrifice, are you willing to give up your income?" He said, "I am willing to give up everything but my maintenance." That man's business is having to be closed, and he is now suffering penalties in a military prison. There is no doubt about his conscientious objection.
  It cannot be right—I do not believe there is a man in this House who will not so regard these things in days to come—that we who passed an Act, the intention of which was to respect the consciences of these citizens, should now say that we are powerless to overcome these difficulties that have arisen. My hon. Friend (Mr. T. E. Harvey) may be doing the thing in the wrong way, but the President of the Local Government Board, after the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) had spoken, admitted that he thought it might be possible to find some way by which these men should be got out of the Army and got back to civilian jurisdiction once more. If this Amendment is wrong, I appeal to my right hon. Friend to find some other way, because I am perfectly certain that we cannot allow this to go on, though it is nothing to the men themselves—man after man has told me that if they were doing wrong to the State, then the law of the State was that they should be shot—it is not they who are troubling us, it is their parents and friends who are troubling us, it is the leaders of Nonconformity in this country, aye, and some of the leaders of the Church—bishops and others—who are troubling us, and saying that some way must be found to prevent this stain coming upon England during a war when almost every man is fighting for his most cherished liberties and possessions.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: It seems unfortunate that the champions of the cause of the conscientious objector are in the main found among those who from the earliest stages of this War have been against their own country. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."] They have been against their own country. One hon. Member has taken every opportunity at every stage of the War to put his own country in the wrong—that is the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), and there are many associated with him. At all events, he has taken not a single step to help towards winning the War. Yet he comes down to the House of Commons to oppose the country getting men, when he has never taken any steps himself to get men to fight the
  1218
  War. [Interruption.] That is an incontrovertible fact. I said there were many associated with him. I am not going to be led away by that side issue. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the majority of those associated with him have taken the view I have stated. When the hon. Member for Blackburn comes down to the House and makes these vitriolic speeches it is the duty of a private Member to reply to them, because there has not been a single speech made from this side of the House that I have heard except in support of the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. E. Harvey) and his Friends. So far as the question of the tribunals goes, it is very unfortunate the President of the Local Government Board has not done more than he has to obtain more uniformity in the decisions of the tribunals. Some tribunals have done admirably, but others have formed their own judgments, irrespective of the intentions of Parliament. I agree there is a genuine cause for grievance owing to the way in which the Regulations have been administered.
  That, however, is not the point. The point I make is this: The tribunals were, after all, appointed by the local authorities. Hon. Members must remember that. They have always preached in favour of democracy, and now that they are getting a touch of democracy they do not like it. The tribunals having given their decisions and these men having taken it upon themselves to be passive resisters, what are we to do? I believe that nearly all the passive resisters are made by the kind of speeches we have had in this House and the speeches of the hon. Member for Blackburn, who has been going about the country talking at all these meetings in support of the conscientious objector, and with what result? A number of men, I have no doubt, think it is the easier way to become martyrs than by doing their share in the trenches. I have no doubt there is a certain number of conscientious objectors of that type. I am equally aware that there is a number of men who have a conscientious objection. I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University that we have to reckon with a class of men in this country, known to all of us, who do exist in considerable numbers, but even among the Society of Friends hon. Members must not forget that there are those who have nobly done their duty, and although their chief tenet is against all sorts of warfare, members of that society in my

  1219
  own Consituency have joined the Ambulance Corps, and, as a matter of fact, a certain number of them are actually fighting in the trenches. A number of them are doing real service to the State. What are we to do in the case of a man who goes out to France in a Non-Combatant Corps? I take it that the Government gave us—I heard it—this pledge. I heard the pledge given in the House of Commons at Question time once or twice, and I take it that there is no question whatever that we have here a pledge given which will be loyally carried out, that in no circumstances will a man in a Non-Combatant Corps be shot because of his conscientious objection.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: There was never any pledge.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: That pledge was given; I heard it stated by the Undersecretary of State for War.
  Mr. LONG: There has never been any doubt about it.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Yet the hon. Member comes down here with all his street-corner talk and the kind of stuff that he preaches at street-corner meetings. Is this the man who wants to bring the War to a successful conclusion? The President of the Local Government Board and the Under-Secretary of State for War have given, as I understand it, a definite pledge in this House.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: No.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has just said so in the presence of all of us.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The Under-Secretary of State has not.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: So has the Under-Secretary of State himself. The matter is not worth debating. The right hon. Gentleman is an honest English gentleman, and he has given the pledge here in the House, repeated twice this afternoon in specific terms, that a man will not be shot because he holds religious convictions. Then we have all this clap-trap and humbug and talk about men being sent out to be sacrificed for the military domination of Prussianism, of which the hon. Member on the Labour benches keeps talking. He knows it is untrue. I have risen with the object of making it perfectly clear that any man who is sent out by the tribunals to work in a Non-combatant Corps will not be rendered liable
  1220
  to the death penalty if he unfortunately persists in following the advice of the hon. Member for Blackburn and those associated with him.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would again point out that the matter which the hon. Member has been discussing does not really arise on this Clause. It is only very remotely connected with it. I would again invite the House to give its attention to the Clause now before it.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I must apologise for not following your ruling, Sir, but I could not listen to the hon. Member for Blackburn without doing what I did.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If others followed the hon. Member's example, everybody would be getting up to reply to him.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it not the intention of this Clause to take men out of the control of the military tribunal and place them under the civil tribunal? Therefore, does not the question arise, that under the military tribunal he would be subject to certain penalties and that this is the method of giving relief?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I said that the matter only arises quite incidentally, and that it is not really connected with the Clause. The other matter has been disposed of. It has been raised twice to-day in my hearing, and completely disposed of. It does not seem to me that the House is occupying its time to the best advantage by taking up old issues.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. RADFORD: I hope that I shall adhere to your ruling, Sir, and speak to the Clause very briefly. I desire to express the hope that the President of the Local Government Board, nothwithstanding the somewhat angry and pugnacious speech he made a short time ago, will deal with the subject of this Amendment and, if he cannot accept it, will suggest something else which will serve the purpose of utilising the conscientious objector and turning him into a force of importance to the nation. There is good reason why the hon. Gentleman should do this, which I do not think has hitherto been mentioned. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Military Service Act which we passed earlier in the year was his Act and that the present Bill is his Bill, and that neither the Act passed earlier in the year nor the present Bill is a measure which enforces Conscription pure and simple. On the contrary, both measures

  1221
  introduce Conscription mitigated by exemption on the ground of conscientious objection. That being the case, the difficulty which we all deplore, and with which we are now grappling, is inherent in the Bill before us. I submit, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that it is his duty to this House to find a way of getting rid of the difficulty which greatly impairs the usefulness of the measure before us. I am not speaking in the interests of the conscientious objector, although I confess I have some sympathy with him. I am speaking in the interests of the nation, which is losing a useful force which might be brought into the service of the nation to the national advantage. A number of men might be released who are now engaged punishing, guarding, looking after, and nursing these conscientious objectors who, under present conditions, are of no use to us and of no use to our Allies. It is very desirable that they should be converted into useful men. I cannot accept the description of the conscientious objector which was given by the hon. and learned Gentleman in mufti on the other side of the House. I know the type well. It has been described by Milton—
  "Men whose life, learning, faith and pure intent
  Would have been held in high esteem with Paul."
  These are the men whom we are proposing to send to prison, perhaps to shoot, though there seems some doubt about that and I do not lay stress upon it, and we are rendering these men, who are of high character and full of possibilities for usefulness, entirely futile and useless when they might give good service to their country. Under these circumstances I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to find a way out. This is not for the sake of the conscientious objectors. They will suffer, and they will bear their sufferings like heroes, I have not the least doubt. But why should we waste this material? Why should the nation lose these potential forces, which might be yoked into the national service and be of great use to us. I therefore earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us some help, either by accepting the Clause or by introducing something which he thinks would better serve a useful purpose. Then we may all be joined together in supporting him. But, on the other hand, if he persists in his attitude of resistance I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will
  1222
  go into the Lobby, and I will follow him as cheerfully as I ever followed any hon. Member in this House.
  Mr. BOOTH Mr. BOOTH rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I think there can be nothing worse than to address oneself to this question in a controversial spirit, and I very much regret the controversial tone of some of the speeches which we have heard. I can assure the House I am not going to approach it from that point of view, and I can assure the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) that I am not going to approach from the point of view of one who, as he says, wishes to decry one's own country and be an impediment in the way of the Army. I look at it from an entirely different point of view. I desire most earnestly that it were possible for every Englishman at present to take his part in the fighting forces of the country, but, after all, it is not possible, and I therefore want the House to look upon it from that point of view, that it is quite impossible to secure absolute unanimity on this matter. After all, it is not very surprising that a number of those who profess the Christian religion should take the precepts of that religion literally. They may be mistaken, but surely we should at any rate respect them, and if we can find work which will enable them to serve their country at the present crisis, why should we try to force them into work which they cannot do, and in which they will not be serving their country, but simply taking up the energies of the people who are guarding them in prison, and inflicting punishment upon them? The Act that we passed in January was distinctly intended to keep these conscientious objectors out of the Army, that is to say, to keep the genuine conscientious objector out of the Army. No one has the slightest sympathy with the shirker, or the sham, but to keep the genuine conscientious objector out of the Army is not only right in his interest, but it is equally right in the interest of the country. We have been assured that those who are put into the Non-combatant Corps will not be shot if their conscience does not permit them to perform the duty assigned to them. That carries us a very long way on the road that we desire to go. But there is a certain number of conscientious objectors who by some miscarriage of

  1223
  justice—for I cannot call it less, considering the Clause in the Act—have been put into Combatant Corps. We ought to have an assurance that where these men have by this miscarriage of justice been put into Combatant Corps the Government will find a way of getting them out of them. Certainly it is no advantage to the country to keep them there. As far as Non-Combatant Corps are concerned, the pledge that has been given tonight gets rid of the greatest part of the difficulty that I have felt. If a similar pledge could be given with regard to the men who have got into Combatant Corps, we should have gone a very long way indeed to arrive at a settlement of this question, which might not be perfect, but which would, at any rate, relieve us from the chief evil which we fear.
  Colonel YATE: I cannot say how much I regret that the hon. member (Mr. Morrell) has not had the good feeling formally to withdraw those unfounded charges he made against the Army. The whole thing came down, as we eventually found out, to the fact that some men in the ranks had jeered at conscientious objectors, and can you wonder what they should jeer at them? Who are these conscientious objectors?
  Mr. SPEAKER: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to please address himself to the Clause which we are now considering. If he opens up this controversy on every speech which is made with which he does not agree we should never get through the Report stage.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: In the Debate which we have listened to this afternoon the critics may be divided into two parties. One party takes the view taken by the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), who denied the possession of a conscience to any man, and therefore says the whole thing is humbug. But the former Bill recognised the existence of genuine conscientious objectors. We have arrived at this position, that undoubtedly large numbers of men who are entitled to what protection the Act gives them have not received that protection by virtue of the decisions of the tribunals, and large numbers of them are now resisting military law in military prisons. I believe we are by your ruling not allowed to refer to what is happening as regards them, but it must not be thought that
  1224
  certain hardships are not being inflicted upon them, because we have undoubted evidence that such is the case. That condition of affairs, I am sure, cannot be regarded favourably by the military authorities themselves. I think at first they rather disregarded the protests and objections of these men, because they thought they would be able to break them by the rigour of military discipline, and to force them into subjection. As to myself, I am afraid constitutionally I have very little sympathy with the conscientious objector, if in any way his objection is due to cowardice. I have always rather liked being amongst fighting men in politics and elsewhere, and I have had nothing whatever to do with the pacifist movement before the War.
  Major NEWMAN: Is the hon. Member discussing the Clause?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think he is going to do so.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I was trying to point out that the military authorities—and the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have realised that I was in order if he had been in the House and heard my argument—would probably be glad to get rid of these men because they find they will not be able to break them by the rigour of military discipline. That I take to be the object of the Clause, to remove these men if possible from the jurisdiction and control of the military authorities, and I think I remember the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, in a very sympathetic speech a night or two ago, taking that line. It was rather noticeable that on the last occasion on which we debated this subject the most sympathetic remarks which were made came from two hon. and gallant Gentlemen, which gratified many of those who have taken up this case. It is already clear that you will not be able to break these men by the rigour of military discipline. They have taken up this stand on conscientious grounds. There is good evidence of their sincerity in coming before the tribunals as conscientious objectors, and they would regard themselves as the sham, fraud, and humbug we are told some of them are if they in any respect gave way. I do not think you will cause them to give way. I am confident of it. Therefore I think it will be very regrettable if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) does not find some way

  1225
  out of what is recognised on all sides as a very great difficulty. The object must be to withdraw these men from the control of the military authorities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who just interrupted me told us there are no two laws in the military system, and that there is only one law.
  Major NEWMAN: That was Dr. Clifford.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Dr. Clifford said so, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that was the only sensible thing Dr. Clifford said in his letter. I agree with him. I think it is foolish of us not to recognise that fact. There can be no two methods of administration of military law. There cannot be one method for a soldier and another for the soldier who is a conscientious objector and is resisting the law, and I do not think it is any use for us to try to conceal that fact from ourselves. It seems to me that the Solicitor-General pointed out that rule to us. Therefore, if these men continue their resistance and disobedience to military authority, there can and there will be only one result: They must be subjected to the full rigour of military law, and that is death. [Interruption.] An hon. Member talks about bloody revolution. You have one in Dublin. Is that not enough for you?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member kindly address himself to the Clause which we are now discussing, and avoid all these many irrelevant topics? I have warned him twice.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I was led astray by an interjection. I submit that what I am saying is relevant to the Clause, because I am trying to point out a very grave reason why these men should be withdrawn from the control of the military authority and of military law, because military law can take no recognition whatsoever of the conscientious objector, and we are trying to bring them by this Clause before a Civil Court which can inflict punishment or can send these men to national service. That seems to me to be the object of the Clause, and I am trying to point out the public good which will result from it. Undoubtedly throughout the country there is grave disquiet as regards the treatment of these men under military law. I am surprised that those who desire to keep the people
  1226
  enthusiastic in support of the continuation of the War do not realise that if they leave these men under the control of the military authorities, and the military authorities have to enforce military law, and if in the end the death sentence has to be passed upon any men who have been sent to the front, that will create undoubtedly a condition of affairs in this country which will not make—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now raising topics which are irrelevant. I have already warned him twice or three times, and I must ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. JOWETT: I should like to press for a reply on the point of difficulty raised by the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Aneurin Williams), who stated that those who have been refused exemption entirely may be sent at any time to France, and when sent to France will come under all the penalties of ordinary military law, which, as has been repeatedly pointed out from the Government Bench and by various hon. and gallant Members who are familiar with Army matters, includes all that military law means. Therefore, it naturally follows, in spite of all that has been said by Ministers, that the death sentence is possible, and that those conscientious objectors who are refused exemption of any sort or kind, and who represent a very large number, may come under all the penalties of military law. This matter was raised when the first Bill was under discussion, and the President of the Local Government Board met the point by saying that the conscientious objectors would not get to France because the very first thing that would happen to the conscientious objector would be that he would be asked to don his military uniform and he would refuse to don his uniform, and when he refused to put on his uniform that would make it impossible to take him to France, because, as the right hon. Gentleman went on to point out, the British Army could not be accompanied to France by a number of men who were not in uniform, either in undress uniform or in Army flannels, and they would not be forcibly dressed. As a matter of fact they have been forcibly dressed. Therefore, the point does arise that they can get to France and, as they can get to France, they can and will in the natural order of things come under

  1227
  military discipline, where a refusal to obey orders carries all the penalties that have been referred to here to-day. On these grounds alone, I think, everything that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) said is justified, because the death penalty can be inflicted and there is great fear that it may be introduced unless there is a very straight and clear understanding beforehand.
  Sir A. SPICER: On Thursday evening a suggestion was thrown out whether it would be possible to hand over the conscientious objectors who were not prepared to come under military discipline, and to put them under some civil authority. The President of the Local Government Board, in reply to that suggestion, pointed out very forcibly that if the matter was to be compulsory there must be some force behind to carry out the compulsion. I did hope that to-day he would, at any rate, have told the House whether that question had been considered and whether it would be possible to refer to some civil committee those who have been refused exemption, with power to that committee to put them into work, not in their own districts—work that should be of national importance and which they could be compelled to carry out. Then you come to the question whether they would like going under the police authorities, because the police force seems to be the only other force that we have that could exercise compulsion. I would like to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the matter has been considered in a way which, I think, he hinted he was prepared to look at, and if a practical scheme can be suggested by which not only work can be given, but for the carrying out of that work compulsory powers can be exerted.
  Mr. KING: I have listened to the whole of this Debate, and have been struck by the words of the last speaker. The right hon. Member for Hackney (Sir A. Spicer) made a speech on Thursday evening which struck me as showing very little sympathy with the conscientious objector. Now he comes forward and asks, as a result of this Debate, that there should be some method devised by which you can get these men away, when they have absolutely proved their conscientious objection, or when they persist in being an uncommon nuisance to the military authorities. The hon. Member says, and I think very sen-
  1228
  sibly, get them out of the Army in some way or other, and put them to useful work. That is what has been pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman from all sides, but he has not responded. That is very unsatisfactory. From questions that I have put to the Under-Secretary of State for War it is quite obvious that the War Office are trying to devise various methods of getting these men out of the Army by one subterfuge or another. I drew attention the other day to a case in which men who had been a great nuisance as conscientious objectors, who had caused great difficulties, who had been taken from one place to another under escort in order that possibly different treatment under different methods by different commanding officers might have some effect, had been suddenly found to be totally unfit medically for any further service. What was that? Of course it was a subterfuge, and a very convenient one. After having passed these men for general service a fortnight ago, and taken them up and down the country with escorts of five men each for several hundred miles you suddenly discharge them from the Army as totally medically unfit for any service whatever. That is only one case that I can cite, but it shows clearly that the War Office authorities are wanting to get these men out of the Army by hook or by crook. Why cannot they face the issue fairly, and why cannot the President of the Local Government Board, either now, or, if it is too late, in another place, take some powers by which cases of undoubted hardship and difficulty, and therefore of uncommon nuisance to the War Office and the regimental authorities, may be taken out, put under strict control, strict discipline if you like, strict compulsion to work in the national cause, but not under military law? If some measure like that could be adopted—
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the hon. Member in order when discussing this Clause in suggesting legislation of a totally different kind in another place?
  Mr. KING: May I address you on that point of Order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's remarks appear to me to be irrelevant.
  Mr. KING: I will not pursue the matter further. I hope that some time at an early date my observations may be in order.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 154.

  Division No. 16.]

  AYES.

  [8.28 p.m.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Anderson, W. C.

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Arnold, Sydney

  John, Edward Thomas

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Baker, J. A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Snowden, Philip

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Jones, Lief (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Sutton, John E.

  Black, Sir Arthur W.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Thomas, James Henry

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  King, Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Clynes, John R.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Glanville, Harold James

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Hancock, John George

  Radford, George Heynes

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson.

  Mr. Edmund Harvey and Mr. Morrell.

  Hinds, John

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Hogge, James Myles

  Richards, Thomas

  NOES.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pollock, Ernest, Murray

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. W. Houghton

  Pratt, J. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Prothero, Rowland Edmund

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gretton, John

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Gulland, John William

  Robinson, Sidney

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Lawrence

  Rowlands, James

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Haslam, Lewis

  Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hewart, Gordon

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Blair, Reginald

  Hibbert, Sir Henry

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hodge, John

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Bowden, Major G R. Harland

  Horne, Edgar

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Boyton, James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Shortt, Edward

  Brace, William

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, W. R.)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Illingworth, Albert H.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Cassel, Felix

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Cator, John

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Swift, Rigby

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sykes, Col. Alan John (Knutsford)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Chambers, James

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Tickler, T. G.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crew)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Currie, George W.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Weston, John W.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Millar, James Duncan

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Mills, Lieut. Arthur R.

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

  Edge, Captain William

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Williams, Thomas J.

  Fell, Arthur

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Yate, Colonel C. B.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Nield, Herbert

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Forster, Henry William

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Mr. James Hope.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Peto, Basil Edward

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Limitation of the Number of Married Men who may at any Time be Called to Service with the Colours.)
  Whenever two hundred thousand married men have been called to general service with the Colours under the provisions of this Act it shall cease to be lawful under any powers contained in this Act to call any married man to the Colours except in so far as Parliament may by Resolution otherwise determine.—[Mr. Holt.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  It raises a totally different subject from that which was under discussion this afternoon, and I want now to direct the attention of the House to some of the financial aspects of the proposal, and to suggest a safeguard which might properly be added to the Bill, as well as to make sure that the Act, when it is passed, shall not be liable to have an effect very different from that indicated by the Prime Minister when he first introduced this subject to the attention of the House. In the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, when I had the honour to move its rejection, I stated that my objection to the measure rested not only on the grounds which we have been discussing up to the present moment, but also from the fear I had that it would have an adverse effect upon the financial and industrial stability of the country, to which it is admitted that we have to look as much as to our military power. I shall not go into the details of the general shortage of labour, so well known I think by hon. Gentlemen throughout the country, and which threatens to impair the efficiency of our industrial work, which threatens to impair both the maintenance of our sea power, whether it be through the Navy or the mercantile marine, and which threatens to impair our power of assisting our Allies financially. Suffice it to say that I think it will harldy be disputed by anyone that there is almost a universal shortage of labour in this country, and we must be very careful that the shortage is not made more than is necessary.
  I pointed out in the course of the previous Debate the importance of maintaining our staying-power, and I was then told by the Minister of Munitions, who I think has made no attempt to meet
  1232
  my position by argument, that I was saying things which were unpatriotic. I know that the right hon. Gentleman had the same argument addressed to himself fifteen or sixteen years ago, and I pay the same attention to his observations now as he did to the observations which were made about him then. But apparently since then he has become a convert to my view. Speaking at Conway on the 6th May the Minister of Munitions said:
  "Time is not an Ally. It is a doubtful neutral at the present moment, and has not yet settled on our side."
  I think that is one of the most alarming statements about the prospects of the War that has yet been made by any person in a responsible position. I do not believe there has been a person in this House or in the country who did not believe that time is on our side if we only turned one or two awkward corners in the early stages of the War. On that we are all agreed. But now the Minister of Munitions tells us that time is a doubtful neutral, and that it is not certain it is going to settle on our side. It is very necessary that we should make certain that time is on our side, because of all the Allies in war or anything time, without exception, is the most satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman also laid down in that speech the very proper view as to the right of every person to criticise the Government proposal. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "After all, in the Council Chamber you want free expression of opinion. You want a variety of opinions expressed, and the height of wisdom is in knowing, not what counsel to give, but which counsel to take. Many men many minds, and if there are not many minds you may depend upon it there are not very many men. They are not men but automatons, and what I want to know is this, whether the nation in a great war wants counsellors or mere penny-in-the-slot machines. If the latter, then all I can say is that I desire to be no part of the equipment."
  I am entirely in agreement with the position that if anyone thinks that he has a real point to raise, and holds it sincerely, then he has a real right to do so. In regard to the Bill, the only limitation of numbers at present is that we have voted in the Estimate 4,000,000 men. Within that limitation the Government can take as many men as they can get. They can take all the married men and reject the single men, if they think fit to do so, and they can go on, when they have got the 4,000,000 men, and have lost 50,000 by casualties, to take another 50,000 men; so that, if this measure is passed, there is practically no limit to the number of men who may be taken for the purpose of the War. That is a very different proposition

  1233
  from the proposition which the Prime Minister proposed to us. I am going to read to the House what it was the Prime Minister said in the Secret Session, as published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I want to put before the House what was the original proposal which the Government recommended:
  "(1) That the Government, recognising that the necessary numbers required for the discharge of our military obligations will not be available for service at the time required under the present arrangement, agree that an immediate effort be made to obtain the men required by voluntary enlistment from amongst the unattested married men.
  (2) That if at the end of four weeks, ending 27th May, 50,000 of these men have not been secured by direct enlistment, the Government will forthwith ask Parliament for compulsory powers.
  (3) That if any week after 27th May, 15,000 men have not been secured by direct enlistment, the same course will be taken, any surplus over 15,000 in one week being carried over to the next.
  (4) That the arrangement in paragraphs (2) and (3) are to hold good until 200,000 unattested men have been obtained. In the meantime the position will be under constant review by the Government.
  It was pointed out that as under this scheme all available unattested married men would be enlisted either voluntarily or by compulsion, the main ground alleged for the release of attested married men would disappear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, col. 2464, Vol. LXXXI.]
  I ask the House to observe what it was the Prime Minister said. He pointed out that 200,000 unattested married men was the whole number which would probably be available for military service. In his speech on the 2nd May he again speaks of the number which is available—
  "that is to say, that can be spared from industry without incapacitating us in the discharge of our other responsibilities, which, in our judgment, are quite as essential to the successful prosecution of the War as the maintenance of a fixed number of men at the front."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1916, col. 2613, Vol. LXXXI.]
  The original plan in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Secret Session was that which was contained in his speech on the 2nd of May. I submit we ought to be certain that this Bill does not go beyond the Prime Minister's pledge, and does not authorise a greater withdrawal of men from industry than was originally proposed by the Prime Minister. I desire to draw attention to one effect of this taking of the married men. It has been admitted publicly that it cannot be done without very largely increasing the allowance to their dependants, and that payment in money must be made in order to save them from particular hardships. If that is so, then the cost will be very much increased, and you will add to the Army large numbers of very expensive soldiers, and you will also be increasing the number of the Army very considerably above the number
  1234
  which we possessed at the time our last financial statement was made. In other words, the whole cost of maintaining the Army must be very much greater than was contemplated by the Vote of Credit, and must bring the cost of the War to a figure very much more than the £5,000,000 sterling per day which was then given to us.
  Therefore we have to look at this question very carefully, and the House ought to keep a very jealous eye on what is being done in the way of taking soldiers for the Army. We ought to be very certain that we give to the Executive no more power than that for which they have proved up to the hilt the most urgent case. Nothing under this Clause would prevent the enlistment of men who come forward voluntarily. When 200,000 men have been taken, not into the Reserve, but to the service of the Colours, the power to take more of these married men by compulsion will be suspended till the Government come to Pariament and obtain a Resolution by which that power may be reopened to a limited extent. I submit that this is a sound and proper proposal to make, and one which will safeguard the resources of this country from being frittered away by the War Office. We must remember that the War Office are not the sole judges of these things. The War Office very naturally look at the matter from their own point of view, which is to provide as many soldiers as they possibly can for the fighting line. I find it no fault with the War Office for holding that point of view. It is a point of view they are perfectly entitled to hold and to look at the matter from that point of view only. The Government and Parliament are entitled to look at it from a different point of view. They are entitled to see that the military effort does not grow out of proportion to the other sides of our effort, naval and financial, and it is for us to see that those two other aspects of our effort, which, admittedly by everybody, are more important than the military aspect, should not be choked and stifled and ruined by excessive development of military strength. I submit that this proposed new Clause has that effect. It limits the number of men to 200,000, which the Prime Minister assured us was the full number which could be taken without injury to vital interests. It leaves the Government free, if at a later date they come to the conclusion that 200,000 can be exceeded, to come to the House and ask for another

  1235
  100,000 with no new Bill and no new discussion, but merely a Resolution passed by the two Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. SYDNEY ARNOLD: I beg to second the Motion.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): It is of great importance, as my hon. Friend has stated, that labour forces should not be unduly depleted. He also said that unless some limitation such as this was inserted in the Bill, that there is no extent to which the military authorities could not go in withdrawing men from industrial employment if the House of Commons was willing to vote a sufficiently large total for the establishment of the Army. But surely that is not so. Each case now is judged individually on its merits, and each trade is also reviewed by the Board of Trade and by the Committee which considers this matter. If in any particular trade it is essential that no more men should be withdrawn, then the recruiting officers are instructed accordingly, or exemptions are given to the men in that trade. For example, with regard to the miners, no more miners may be withdrawn from work underground, that has been so for several months past, unless by special permission from the Home Office. Many other trades are starred or badged as exempted trades. Apart from those trades where those considerations apply generally, if in any industry or business it can be shown before the tribunals that a man is really indispensable, and that he is, in fact, better employed in the national interest in his trade than by being drafted into the Army, he is thereupon exempted from service.
  Mr. L. JONES: He may be.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Of course, the matter has to be considered.
  Mr. JONES: The military authorities are now pressing that the men should be taken.
  Mr. SAMUEL: It depends on the circumstances of the case.
  Mr. JONES: Not quite.
  Mr. SAMUEL: He may be exempted. I think the tribunals are quite alive to the fact that many persons are really necessary for the maintenance of national industries. The point of view here is which is the best method to choose. My hon. Friend would fix a quite arbitrary limit of
  1236
  200,000 men to go and no more. It is possible that you might get the right 200,000 or the wrong 200,000. Our method is to say that those who are essential to industry must be maintained, must be retained no matter what their number is, and that the others should be allowed to go. The Prime Minister said in our proposal that was made before this Bill was produced that the plan was to recruit up to 200,000, but that meantime the whole situation was to be kept in the constant review of the Government, and there was no intention in our minds that the 200,000 was to be regarded as a definite and final limit. Two hundred thousand were taken as the number probably available from among this class in the first instance, and after those had been obtained, and while they were being obtained the matter was to be under constant review. Let the House imagine what would be the position if this proposal were accepted, and it should be legal to take men up to 200,000 and no more. It would be almost a lottery whether any individual man had to go or not. It would depend partly upon chance whether he was taken amongst the first batches of men or whether he was placed in the later batches. Or more likely it would depend upon the degree with which he succeeded in procrastinating, appealing, and getting his case postponed by one means or another, so that when the hour struck and the two-hundredth man had been obtained he should still not be included within the Army. What would occur when the hour did strike? Any man taken after that moment would have been taken illegally, and if the Army tried to retain him I suppose they would be liable to legal proceedings.
  Mr. JONES: It has happened continually that men have been called up before they were due. There were a number of cases under the Derby scheme. Owing to an Amendment carried, certain men who had been called up were released or treated as married men, and transferred to later groups.
  Mr. SAMUEL: They were men who had enlisted voluntarily—a very different thing from when you are calling up a man compulsorily against his will. If you have an arbitrary limit in number any individual man beyond that limit will have been illegally obtained. You might have the most ludicrous situation in respect of these men. My last objection to the proposal is that my hon. Friend suggests that when

  1237
  200,000 men have been obtained no more should be called up to the Colours except in so far as Parliament may by Resolution otherwise determine. That means that once again the House of Commons and, I presume, the House of Lords, should have to reopen this question and rediscuss it. If there is one desire more widespread than another amongst Members of the House of Commons it is, I believe, "Let us at last get done with this question; let us put it upon a permanent and definite basis, and not be called upon within a few weeks or months to rediscuss ab initio the whole question of compulsory military service." For these reasons I trust the House will not accept my hon. Friend's proposal.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. GORDON HARVEY: I had no intention of speaking in support of this Clause, but after hearing the Home Secretary's statement I feel bound to say a word or two. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham is amply justified in bringing this proposal before the House. We have a right to ask the Government, even if they are not prepared to accept this Clause, to give us some assurance that the argument under which this last Compulsion Bill has been introduced was really honestly intended to contain the truth. No one can deny that the Prime Minister, both in the Secret Session, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, to which he himself must have been a party, and in his subsequent speech to this House, gave the House to understand that the real reason and objective of the scheme which he was about to propose was to raise a number of unattested married men to the extent of 200,000, and no more. If words mean anything, the Prime Minister meant that. I take it that the Prime Minister is to-day the head of the Government, and that if he is to retain his position as the head, it is for the other members of the Government to carry out his intention even in his absence. The Home Secretary told us that, from the point of view of preserving, as it is so necessary they should be preserved, our great national industries, as far as it may be, unimpaired, it was unnecessary to lay down such a limit as this. Why? Because, he said, the instructions of the Government were so precise, the careful and meticulous examination by the tribunals so admirable and judicial, that only those men would be taken, even if there is no limit, who can be properly spared from the industries of the country.
  1238
  In holding this view the Home Secretary appears to me to have the merest surface knowledge of what is going on. If he imagines for a moment that all the tribunals are so reviewing the case of each applicant for exemption that they take a wide survey of British industry, that they consider in all its detail the financial position of the country, and that, after weighing these things with the utmost care and circumspection, they decide that Tom Jones may stop but that Bill Smith may go, I can only tell him that that is not the sort of thing that is going on all over the country. What is going on is this: Every tribunal has been stimulated and urged that it is its duty to get as many men as ever it can rake in.
  I put this point to the Home Secretary; he can investigate it if he thinks it worthy of attention. It is a fact that in the great industrial hard-working business districts of the country a far greater number of men in proportion to population has already been taken than in the more easy-going districts. In the great northern industrial parts of the country, say north of the Dee, at least 50 per cent. of the New Armies have been obtained. In many parts of the country where men are not so keen and are not so imbued with the businesslike desire to throw all their energy into the task that we have in hand, in those more sleepy and more easy-going parts there has not been anything like the effort to obtain men that there has been in those districts where men can less easily be spared. I remember being asked some time ago in a Government Department to what extent in my opinion a certain great trade in this country was embarrassed. I said then—it is months ago now—that this great export trade was already unable to export within 75 per cent. of its customary amount. It is on these great export trades, as the Prime Minister has told us over and over again, that to a great extent the financial stability and position of this country, and the financing of our Allies, depends, and must depend. If I were asked that question again to-day, I should have to say that that 25 per cent. of ability had gone to 30 or 40 per cent. I should have to say another thing, that even if we have at present 60 per cent. of our ability and capacity to manufacture and produce, the depletion in our transport service and the extraordinary difficulty of shipping and carrying our goods to foreign markets makes it impossible even to apply that 60 per cent. Unless the Government

  1239
  waken up, unless they do seriously take this great question in hand, nothing but disaster is in front of us.
  My hon. Friend was reproved the other day from the Treasury Bench by the Minister of Munitions, who dared him to suggest that we could not stand out the course at the furious speed we were now urging ourselves upon it. It may be a pleasant thing to say, and we want to say it in face of the whole world, that our capacities are inexhaustible and our energies are unimpaired, but, Sir, there is the hard truth that must be faced. The ability of this country in this War is greater than any other country on the earth, and it is the sorrow, despair, and confusion of our enemies. That, however, does not say that we ought not to be cautious. Of course we must win the War. But there is no reason why we should not strive to come out of the War with as much of our resources, energy, and power as is possible. We have been told that more than 200,000 men of this type cannot be spared from industry. We have been told it by the head of the Government himself. If the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Government really intend to carry out his declaration, and if they cannot put this Clause in the Bill, let one of them get up and say that they will watch this question most carefully, and most assiduously, and will limit the taking to the 200,000 men, who are really the basis of this proposal.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I regard the attitude of the Government on this particular Amendment as a test of their sincerity on this Bill. The Prime Minister told us in the Secret Session—and we had it afterwards deliberately repeated to us in the subsequent Session—that calculations had been made whereby the Army Council had decided that a certain course was necessary. To maintain eighty-three divisions in the field provision had been made to raise men by means of the compulsory Act which we passed last January, and from other sources, which, with the added 200,000 men, and only 200,000 men, would enable that force to be maintained in the field.
  Mr. SAMUEL: For how long?
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Allow me to continue what I was going to say. That plan was to allow three months in which these 200,000 men should be raised. The
  1240
  Bill was afterwards introduced in its present form, and under this Bill the Government are demanding power, in one month, not to raise 200,000 men of military age out of 1,100,000 unattested married men, but every man of military age who can be secured out of that number! The right hon. Gentleman tells us that our safeguard is in the action of the tribunals. Has he watched the conduct of the tribunals? Has he seen the pressure brought to bear by the military representatives on the tribunals? Not only have they been parties to the discussion, but they have acted practically as members of the tribunal, and the tribunals have been pressed to refuse as many exemptions as possible. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the fact that each case, I think he said, had to be considered individually, as to whether men could or could not be spared? How is it possible for the tribunals to deal with individual cases in detail, and to take a broad view of the necessities and requirements of the situation? Already trade is hampered and hindered to an extent we did not dream of a few months ago. Already orders are weeks and in some cases months behind. Materials cannot be obtained for manufacture. Transport is all upside down. Our industries are being hampered and hindered at a time when demands upon them are more than ever they were. We have raised 5,000,000 of men before this Bill was introduced into the House. We have only authorised the raising of 4,000,000. I do not quite understand how the two figures can be reconciled, but from first to last we have actually contributed 5,000,000 of men to the Army and Navy by voluntary effort, and we are, by means of our exports and by our loans to our Allies, practically maintaining 3,000,000 of their forces in the field, in addition to the millions we are ourselves contributing.
  Is it necessary to go still further, making more difficult our effective contribution to the winning of this War? Every man unnecessarily taken from industry and turned into a soldier will be a source, not of strength, bat of weakness. It will make less effective than it otherwise would be our contribution to the success of the Allies. I sincerely hope that in view of the statement of the Prime Minister that only 200,000 men were required, at any rate for the next three months, over and above those provided for otherwise, that the right hon.

  1241
  Gentleman will consent to limit the number to be taken, so that we may know where we can stop before we have gone so far as to cripple, hinder, and weaken our forces in the field instead of strengthening them.
  Mr. ASHLEY: As a Lancashire Member one whose Constituents are largely interested in the cotton industry, I should like to know whether the Government are going to give any indication of the number they propose to take. I am fully in favour of this Bill. I have always voted for it, and I am going to vote for it again; but I do not see, while we support the Bill in principle and practice, that that should prevent us asking the Government for some general declaration of the numbers they mean to take, or aim to take, under this Bill. It is a very serious thing indeed for Lancashire. If some indication of the numbers can be given it would enable masters and men to make their arrangements, to look forward and to cope with the difficult times which are coming, and it would, I think, give satisfaction in the county.
  Mr. L. JONES: I must say that I think my right hon. Friend must feel that he made a rather perfunctory and thin reply to this important Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hexham, and which raises a most vital issue. I must confess considerable disappointment that we have not had from the Government a more serious justification of the extraordinary change of front from the time the Prime Minister announced that what he required was 200,000 men out of the un-attested married men to this Bill, which enables the Government to take the whole of the unattested married men if they see fit to do so. My right hon. Friend had his opportunity of justifying the action of the Government. What was the position? The Prime Minister told us that if we got 200,000 of these unattested married men by the second week in August, then we should have got as many men as the Government thought it safe to take. We had, until the second week of August, to get these men at a certain rate of speed, but without any explanation from the Government at all, after an extraordinarily unfortunate attempt to introduce a partial Compulsion Bill, the Government have brought in a Bill which takes the whole of those unattested married men, if the Government think fit to do so. They have done that without any
  1242
  explanation at all of the reason for the change. I am perfectly well aware that the Prime Minister is away on important business, but I think the House of Commons is entitled to ask from the Government why this change has been made.
  The Prime Minister has never concealed his views of the important issues raised in this new Clause. He has always, as it seems to me, most carefully studied the problem, and he has always said that the reservoir of men from which the Army could be drawn was conditioned by our supplying first of all the Navy, then the munitions for the Navy and Army, then keeping up our great staple exports, and only when you have supplied all those things do you get the reservoir of men from which you can draw for your Army. The Prime Minister told us as definitely as could be that 200,000 of the married unattested men was the maximum number which the Government thought it desirable to take by August. Provided they got that number, they were not going to resort to compusion at all. How is it the Government has changed their policy and offer no explanation at all to the House and the country? I can assure the Government it is not because I am opposed to the principle of compulsion that I am now speaking of the limit of the number for the Army, but I can assure the Government the whole country is disturbed and distressed at the apparent failure of the Government to dwell upon those other factors in our national problem. The Government realise that the burden we are carrying is not purely a military burden. They know that every great industry is depleted of labour at the present time. Employers and workmen in those industries are perfectly aware of the state in which our industries are falling, and it is singular that the Government, if the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister have stated the conditions of the problem fairly, when they come to deal with this Compulsory Service Bill, refuse to impose a condition upon themselves which would limit them to the number which the Prime Minister declared can be safely taken. What is the reason given by my right hon. Friend for refusing to put in this limit? He does not say the Prime Minister was wrong in his estimate of the number of men. The time has not come to judge whether it was right or wrong. They said they had reviewed the circumstances, and the Prime Minister

  1243
  announced that if they got 200,000 men by August that was enough. August is not here, but only May. Why then will they not accept the limit? If they found by August that the limit was inconvenient, it would be very easy for them to come to the House and tell the House so frankly. What is the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to come to the House?
  I think if there is one thing on which this House, which represents all classes of the country, should be consulted it is on a matter of this kind, when you are going further to deplete our great national industries, and one of my great objections to granting to the control of the Government the whole body of adult men between the ages of eighteen and forty-one is that it releases the Government from the control of Parliament. If it is necessary under new circumstances to enlarge the Army they should come to the House and tell it so. I do not think it is at all a good thing that the Government should have this uncontrolled power to settle the size of the Army and take as many men as they like. I would give a reason why they themselves should welcome this protection by Parliament. It is protection to them. So long as there is no limit imposed, so long as they have power to call the whole of the men of this country between the ages of eighteen and forty-one, they have no bulwark to resist the demands of the War Office. As the mover of the Clause has said, the War Office, looking at the military problem only, naturally asks for men, and more men, and still more men, and if the Government have not the power to say to them that they cannot do it without going to Parliament and arguing the case there, they are almost powerless to resist, and the inevitable result will be that, under the pressure of the War Office, the Government, unprotected by Parliament, will yield, and our great trades will be depleted more than they ought to be depleted, and more than the Government have hitherto demanded, and Parliament and the people will have no adequate protection against that. It is an aspect of the question on which I have felt greatly for a long time. I feel sure we have not dwelt sufficiently upon it in this House. I know it is exercising the minds of men in the different industries throughout the country, and I do implore the Government to realise what they are doing and, at any rate, to give us some assurance of what is going to happen to all the great trades of the country.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I rise to do what I can to correct what, I think; is a misapprehension of what the Prime Minister said, and what the position in regard to unattested married men really is. I have listened to several speeches from hon. Friends on this side of the House during the last few minutes, and they seem to have formed the opinion, or, at any rate, persuaded themselves, that the Prime Minister, in referring to this question, made some definite statement that 200,000 men were all the men we wanted. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, he did."] I think not. I think what my right hon. Friend said was that, under the terms in which this Bill was framed, and in which the unattested married men were to be brought in, the estimate was that the number provided would be 200,000.
  Mr. JONES: The Prime Minister definitely said that, provided we got 50,000 men by the end of May, and 15,000 a week afterwards till we got 200,000—that would be 200,000 by the second week in August—then there would be no necessity for compulsion at all.
  Mr. FORSTER: If my hon. Friend will cast his mind back, he will see that the Prime Minister was dealing with a totally different problem. The Prime Minister then was trying to avoid compulsion. Does my hon. Friend really think that this War is likely to come to an end by next September? It is because we have got to look forward, because we cannot and dare not confine our attention to the present and shut our eyes to the future, that the Prime Minister found it necessary to introduce this Bill. My hon. Friend has admitted the whole of our contention that the Prime Minister realises that he must have a great deal more than 200,000, and if we must have more, is this House going to deny the provision of those who are necessary to bring the War to a successful conclusion? I do not believe it for a single moment. My hon. Friend said this Bill deprived Parliament of control over the numbers required, but it does nothing of the kind.
  Mr. JONES: I think that was an overstatement.
  Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend is an old and learned Member of the House of Commons, and he knows that Parliamentary control as regards numbers is exercised through the numbers voted, and the Government can no more exceed the

  1245
  numbers voted than they can do other things that they would like to do. What I want to show is that the Prime Minister in introducing this Bill gave the House clearly to understand that the men he expected to realise under the provisions of the Bill amounted to something like 200,000 under existing conditions, making due provision for those married men required for industry, and other reasons. Supposing, for the sake of argument, you were bringing in under this Bill a very much larger number than 200,000, and supposing it were found that you were unduly denuding the number which industry really requires. We have in this Bill the very means of returning those men to industry, and at the same time retaining a hold upon them, and calling them up for military service when they are required. What I want the House to do is to look at the question as a whole. I think we are a little inclined in these Debates to forget the paramount necessity of winning the War. That is a thing that must come first, and I do not think this House ought to grudge the men if the Government find it Necessary in the last resort. If the Government finds it necessary to put the last available man into the fighting line, the Government would fail in its duty if it did not do so. But that moment has not arrived yet, and I find nothing in what has been said which is at real variance with anything the Prime Minister has stated. With regard to what fell from my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Mr. Ashley), he stated that he was very desirable that industry should know how many men are going to be taken from industry, and he instanced the cotton trade of Lancashire. I quite sympathise with his view, and the point of view of industries generally, that it is most desirable to know how many men are going to be taken, but it is quite impossible for any particular industry to know exactly the number that is going to be taken from that industry. While I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point of view, I see nothing in what is taking place under existing conditions to lead the House to suppose that anything the Prime Minister has said has been departed from.
  Sir HENRY HIBBERT: As another Lancashire Member I should like to identify myself with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Eochdale and the hon. Member for Blackpool. I do think that there ought to be some declaration on the
  1246
  part of the Government as to the conservation of a definite proportion of the men necessary to work our different industries. I am a Member for a large industrial constituency where the cotton trade is predominant, and I know quite as well as anybody in Lancashire, from my close connection with almost every town in that part of the country, that the cotton trade is suffering considerably from want of labour. You cannot say that recruiting in Lancashire has been anything but magnificent. I am a firm believer in compulsion, and I have always advocated national service, but without compulsion I find in the monthly report of recruiting for the East Lancashire Division that in officers we have got 141 per cent. for the second and third lines, whilst of men we have no smaller proportion than 97.63. Out of a possible establishment of 27,726 for these two divisions we have recruited no fewer than 27,127. That, of course, has meant that a very large number of men, principally employed in the cotton industry, have joined the Colours voluntarily, but I am afraid, unless the Government are careful in watching over the number of men taken from this industry we shall very soon reach a point when it will be impossible to carry on the cotton industry at all. I know it is important that we should win the War, and I do everything in my power to win it, but only second in importance to winning the War is being able to export goods in order to pay for the War. There is an old saying—I do not know whether it belongs to my county or not—that you cannot both eat your cake and have it, and I hope the Government in their honest endeavour to win the War will not attempt to eat their cake and have it, but do all they can to conserve the number of men which the cotton industry requires to run this great trade.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: One cannot help feeling profound sympathy with hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate on behalf of such trades as the cotton trade of Lancashire. At the same time one cannot help remembering that the cotton trade, in fact no other trade, will be of any particular account, or of any use either to them or to us unless we can see our way through this War. The War is the first thing, and even the cotton trade must follow. I have been listening here to-night to the whole of this Debate on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), and I could not

  1247
  help feeling that in these appeals to the Prime Minister or to the Government to once more make something like a definite statement and take a definite line, they were making a mistake, because every time the Government has taken a definite line, and made a statement it has been wrong, and within a very few weeks, at all events within a few months, it has had to take it back. There is not a single sign either in the West or in the East that we have got the initiative, or taken the offensive, or that the Allies are in a position to do so. All estimates as to what we are going to do, and what will be wanted have been very rapidly falsified, and the Prime Minister has time after time been obliged to come to this House, and tell us that something more was required than even he had said a few weeks ago he would not be occupying that office if he had brought them forward.
  I put it to the House: What would be the good of extracting figures out of the Prime Minister, even if he were to agree to give them? I am one of those who take the view that this Bill, at all events, is a great step towards providing the necessary military forces to enable this country to do some good in this War. I join in the congratulations to the Government upon this Bill. I hope the numbers will not be limited and that the Government will not yield on this Clause or on any Clause of this kind. I earnestly appeal to all my hon. Friends who, of course, are bound to say something in the House in support of particular industries in their constituencies—at all events in their actions if not in the words they address to the House—to forget those industries for the moment and to concentrate on the one thing which is necessary, and that is to try and get sufficient military forces. I wish to Heaven I could add to try and get the necessary brains to lead them which would result in our seeing in some portion of our operations a little daylight, a little initiative, and a little offensive. Let us therefore address ourselves single-minded to making this Bill as effective as possible so as to secure the only object which we really have now got before us.
  Mr ANDERSON: The hon. Member who has just sat down said that the Government ought to resist this Clause, because every time it has attempted to take any definite line that line has been discovered to be quite wrong. If that is true—and it is very largely true—it is all
  1248
  the more reason why we should discover now if the Government in this matter is exercising any kind of foresight at all, because foresight surely is important in a matter of this kind. I do not know what impression was conveyed to the minds of hon. Members, but the impression conveyed to my mind by the statements of the Prime Minister was that some kind of general survey had been taken by the various Departments—probably including the Board of Trade—of the financial and industrial needs of the country, and that the opinion had been arrived at that something like 200,000 and not many more need be spared from industry. I do wish the Home Secretary had tackled the argument, which is quite a serious argument, instead of replying with some mere verbal debating which was really unworthy of his ability. He ought to have tackled the much wider issue that has been raised by many Members, including representatives of the textile industry, as to whether the Government are really facing the all-round problem and whether they are exercising any kind of foresight in this matter, or are living from day to day and from hand to mouth as they have done in so many directions since the War began. Many of our military expeditions have gone to various places without the necessary foresight and planning, and we are asking whether the Government in regard to the military needs has taken an all-round survey of the country or whether they really believe that this country at one and the same moment can be a great naval power, a great military power, a great industrial power, and a great financial power, with a constantly expanding Army. It is really a matter which the Government ought to take into account.
  The argument of the Home Secretary seemed to be that the tribunals will settle all these questions. Even if they were much more wise than they are—and some of them are not very wise—the tribunals have not got the material or the data to settle a question of this kind. It is only the Government, through its Departments, like the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Munitions, the Admiralty, and so on, that can settle this problem and can take a wide range of all the matters involved. It is, therefore, for the Government to say more clearly than they have yet said how many men can be spared. It is absolutely certain that large numbers of the men who will come under this measure are going to be far more expensive soldiers than has

  1249
  been the case up to the present. We have had the various lobbies and corridors today crowded with small shopkeepers and business people who are afraid that under this Act their businesses are going to be ruined. The Government have admitted the force of the appeal by making special provisions which ought to have been made ac the beginning of the War, because the hardship in regard to many of these people is no greater than it was in regard to many who went earlier. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is never too late to mend!"] Sometimes it is too late even to mend. In view of all the needs of the cotton industry, of shipping, of transport, and so on, it is important that we should have a far clearer declaration of the intentions of the Government than we have had up to the present.
  Mr. D. MASON: After the many admirable speeches which we have heard tonight we are really entitled to a better answer than the perfunctory speeches which we have already heard. We have been told, for instance, by the First Lord of the Admiralty that he is not satisfied that he has got sufficient men. Is the Minister of Munitions satisfied that he has sufficient men? Where is the President of the Board of Trade now that the very essence of this Bill is before the House? Some reference has been made to the lack of shipping facilities. I have in my hand the figures which were given by Lord Charles Beresford in another place, and I think they are most significant. He stated that when the War started we had 11,353 working vessels of over 100 tons. Taking the Admiralty requirements as between two and three thousand that left 8,553 vessels to carry on the trade of the country. By war losses 860 of these had gone, and to those losses they had to add the normal losses of ships by shipwreck, fire, and condemnation, amounting to something like 340. That gives a total loss since the War began of 1,200 vessels. Taking the 1,200 vessels from the total number of vessels at the beginning of the war, we get now only 7,653 vessels to carry on our existing trade. This is not a question of a Vote of Confidence in the Government. It is a matter on which we must exercise our own judgment, and when the Home Secretary asks us to place our confidence in himself and his colleagues—and I admit that I have great admiration for him—I submit that, in view of these facts, and in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentlemen are
  1250
  very busy men, and that they have enormous calls upon their attention, it is rather too much to ask this House to imagine that any body of gentlemen, however capable, are able to supervise the great industries of this country, and to know the exact moment when they are to bring men back from the front and put them into industry again. It is equally impossible to imagine that one can conduct the great industries of the country at short notice and move men about as on a chess board. That is, to my mind, a super-human task.
  In the Committee stage, when the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Hume-Williams) suggested an extension of the powers of this Bill, the President of the Local Government Board made an admirable speech in reply, in which he showed that even if the age for service was increased to forty-five it would not have a satisfactory result, because there was not a large additional number of men who could be obtained thereby. There is a shortage of labour and a shortage of ships, and we have now 1,200 vessels fewer than at the commencment of the War to carry on an extending trade. It is more necessary now to keep up the export trade of the country, remembering further that the measures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted for mobilising American securities, and thereby affecting the exchange, must come to an end, and you will have to rely more and more on your export trade in order to meet an increasing burden. I say in these circumstances it is too much to ask us to give a blank cheque to the Government—to give it powers to an unlimited extent in dealing with this question. It has been suggested that hon. Members are not alive to the importance of bringing this War to a satisactory conclusion. I absolutely deny that. I listened to the speeches of hon. Gentleman opposite, representing the cotton and other great industries, and I say that those hon. Members are just as patriotic and just as anxious to bring the War to a satisfactory conclusion as the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who made that suggestion. It is not because we are less anxious than he to secure that end that we urge these views. It is because of the light which the Creator has given us, and because of the judgment we possess, that we think this measure for drawing additional men from the industries of the country is inexpedient. We believe it may place in jeopardy our financial and other powers

  1251
  for successfully carrying out this War, and it is because that is our belief that we ask the Government for some assurance that they are bearing these matters in mind. The President of the
  Local Government Board has already admitted the necessity of safeguarding the withdrawal of men from industries.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 37; Noes, 193.

  Division No. 17.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Anderson, W. C.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Baker, J. A. (Finsbury, E.)

  King, Joseph

  Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Buxton, Noel

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Snowden, Philip

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Thomas James Henry

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Hinds, John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pringle, William M. R.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Radford, George Heynes

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Richards, Thomas

  Mr. Holt and Mr. Arnold.

  NOES.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Gretton, John

  Middlebrook, William

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Gulland, John William

  Millar, James Duncan

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Hancock, John George

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Morgan, George Hay

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Nield, Herbert

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Blair, Reginald

  Hewart, Gordon

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hodge, John

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Boyton, James

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Brace, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Horne, Edgar

  Pratt, J. W.

  Carew, Charles R. S.

  Houston Robert Paterson

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Prothero, Rowland Edmund

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Illingworth, Albert H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Clynes, John R.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S.

  Rees, G. C.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Currie, George W.

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Robinson, Sidney

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Rowlands, James

  Dixon, C. H.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

  Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Edge, Captain William

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Fell, Arthur

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Shortt, Edward

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Stewart Gershom

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Swift, Rigby

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sykes, Col. Alan John (Knutsford)

  Gastrell, Lt.-Col W. Houghton

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Wardle, George J.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Weston, John W.

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hen. Sir Thomas P.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Wiles, Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Mr. Bridgeman and Mr. Beck.

  Mr. SPEAKER: The next Clauses standing in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) [Appeal Tribunal Decisions to Conform with Central Tribunal Decisions; Certificates to Extend to Objection to All Military Service; Imprisonment in a Public Prison and Recognition that the Man has not Enlisted on Failure to Observe Terms of Certificate of Exemption; Conscientious Objection to Extend to All Military Service; Procedure in Cases of Conscientious Objection] have already been disposed of. The first Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) [Extension of Compulsory Military Service] is practically a redrafting of Clause 1. Clause 1 is entitled to remain until it is disposed of. The next three Clauses [Enlistment of Irish Rebels; Amendment of Section 48 of Army Act; Amendment of Section 12 of Army Act] are beyond the scope of the Bill. The last Clause at the bottom of page 111 [Amendment of Subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Principal Act] has practically been discussed. The next Clause [Restriction on Discharge from the Army of Persons Suffering from Venereal Disease] is beyond the scope of the Bill, and the same observation applies to the next two Clauses [Execution of Persons Subject to Military Law upon Conviction by Court-Martial; Restriction on Sentences by District Courts-Martial]. The new Clause with regard to the Amendment of Section 2 (1) (b) of principal Act raises the same question as the new Clause of which notice has been given by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets Division (Mr. Yeo). I think it would be better raised there.
  Mr. KING: On that point, may I respectfully suggest that my new Clause is very much wider than that on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets Division? It clearly embraces a great number of cases which would never come under his Clause at all, and I respectfully submit that I should be allowed to move it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member insists upon his right, of course he is entitled to move it, but it may destroy the chances of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets Division.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 2 (1) (b) of Principal Act.)
  For paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the principal Act the following paragraph shall be substituted:
  (b) On the ground that serious hardship to some person or persons would ensue if the man were called up for Army service owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or to his domestic position.—[Mr. King.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  10.0 P.M.
  I really must move this Clause. It deals with the Amendment of Section 2 (1) (b) of the principal Act, and with the question of "serious hardship" as a ground for exemption from compulsory military service. This ground of exemption was put into the principal Act during the course of the discussion, because it was felt on all hands that there were so many cases of serious hardship that had to be met. My Amendment consists of simply adding seven words to the original drafting. I propose to add after the word "hardship" the words "to some person or persons." The drafting in the principal Act simply gives "serious hardship" as a ground for exemption, and the question arises and has been variously interpreted by different tribunals as serious hardship to whom—to the applicant, to his family, or to other people? I propose to make it quite clear that the serious hardship which might be adduced as a ground for exemption is serious hardship to anyone. That is the first Amendment I propose in this new Clause. The second one is more important and consists in the addition of the words "to his" two lines below. The serious hardship which may be adduced as a ground for exemption was of three kinds, financial, business, or domestic. But the word "exceptional" stands in the principal Act as applicable to each of these three

  1255
  classes of serious hardship. It must be exceptional financial obligations, exceptional business obligations, or exceptional domestic positon. It is perfectly obvious that the most widespread and usual ground of exemption is domestic position—a serious hardship which is not exceptional. The whole large case of widows' sons, the last son of a widow who is dependent upon him, is a case of serious domestic hardship but by no means an exceptional case. It is a very common case, and in the same way a great number of domestic difficulties and hardships arise which are very serious and yet in no way exceptional. It is with the object of getting all these cases included in the form which I believe the House when it passed this Clause of the principal Act meant it to be that I move this new Clause.
  Mr. L. JONES: Do I understand that you have ruled that if my hon. Friend moves this Clause, it will be out of order for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Yeo) to move the Clause of which he has given notice, and in which so much interest is taken?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think so. I think that would dispose of that topic. I pointed out to the hon. Member (Mr. King) that in my judgment the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Yeo) raised that particular topic in a better and more suitable form, but he was not disposed to accept that view. Of course he had a right to move it, but it is not yet seconded.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. KING: In view of your ruling, I beg to withdraw the Clause.
  Leave withheld.
  Mr. YEO: I understand that if the Motion now before the House is carried to a Division, I lose my right to move the new Clause lower down on the Paper. I do not in the least desire to keep Members between this and their getting home, but this is a matter of very serious importance to thousands of professional and other men in the country, and I would not under any circumstances have taken up the time of the House in this Debate had I not felt that the matter was very serious indeed. We are face to face with the problem of business men coming before the tribunals who are not able to get exemption after they have proved their case to the hilt—a case of serious hardship, loss, and financial ruin which will come to them. No
  1256
  sooner does a company buy the business from these men, after they have been able to sell it, than the same company goes down to another tribunal and gets total exemption for the same man. I am not blaming the Government. I am blaming the arrangements made at the tribunal, which are the cause of all this trouble, worry, and anxiety. From interviews and conversations I have had during the past few days, the matter is of serious importance. These men—tradesmen and shopkeepers—are not shirkers, and are not afraid to take their part and "do their bit." If I thought they were, I would not under any circumstances champion their cause in the House of Commons, in the public hall, or in the street. After twenty months taking my part in urging men to come to the Colours, I should be the biggest coward in my country to-day if I took up the part of those who were trying to shirk their duty and their responsibility. These men have a stake and an interest in the country. They have their liabilities and responsibilities that we cannot fulfil under any circumstances. I put down this Clause with the view that the Government should consider it in the light of justice, equity, and equality to these men, and, if the Government cannot see their way clear to issue Regulations so that the tribunals shall deal justly, fairly, and squarely with these men, in all conscience, how can these men think they have been treated fairly and justly when they go before the tribunals? Hon. Members accuse me of "snowing" them under a, daily correspondence. Well, they deserve all they get. They tell the electors, when they are out canvassing for their votes, that they will do anything for them if they will only elect them. Now is their opportunity. I am not at all satisfied with the way in which circulars are issued to the tribunals. I think the Government might incorporate in some Regulation the heading of this new Clause, which would give them a good lead and show the tribunals that they were expected to deal fairly and squarely with these men. If later on it appears that I have lost my right, I am simply going to say we must take steps, in other directions.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is a matter of great regret that, owing to a pure technicality, the Amendment of the hon. Member(Mr. King) has been taken in place of that of the hon. Member (Mr. Yeo). We are placed in an exceedingly difficult position.

  1257
  Whereas many of us attach great importance to the Clause of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, I am unable to see any great advantage that will accrue by passing the Clause of the hon. Member for North Somerset. This is a matter in which an enormous amount of interest is taken outside this House. It is a question which affects tens of thousands of small business men, not necessarily tradesmen, up and down the country, and I think—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the same view—that this is a case which ought to receive the respectful attention of the Government. I have been a staunch supporter of these military measures in almost every one of their details, but I think that it will place a Tory great strain on the loyalty of Members of this House unless some further provision can be made for the small traders whose case is sought to be met by this Clause. I have had more correspondence in regard to this matter than in regard to all the other details of the recruiting measures of the Government since the War began. I think we might give attention to these particular considerations. In the case of many industries it is possible to find substitutes for the men who are taken to the Colours, and that is particularly true of large organised businesses, but we are now dealing with a class of employer for whom in the majority of cases, or at all events in a very great number of cases, no substitute whatever can be found. I address the House with some confidence in regard to this matter, because during the last twelve months I have been very largely engaged in considering this very question of the substitution of men for women in various employments. I speak somewhat feelingly for these small employers for whom if they are taken to the Colours no substitute can be found. I have no knowledge as to how the Government will treat this Clause, but it has been put to me today by some of these people that if some Clause of this kind cannot be adopted by the Government, that these small employers should be placed for the time being in some kind of Reserve, and should be kept at first for Home defence, so that they might be able to give, even though it is very casually, some attention to the affairs of their business. I do not press that myself, for I do not know how far it is practicable or in accordance with the military idea, but I do strongly urge my right hon. Friend to give this matter very
  1258
  earnest and sympathetic consideration, and see what provision they can make for meeting a case which applies to tens of thousands of small people all over the country.
  Mr. L. JONES: On a point of Order. Would it not be in order if the Clause of the hon. Member for North Somerset were read a second time, for the hon. Member for Tower Hamlets to move as an Amendment to leave out the words after the word "that" ["on the ground that"] in order to insert his words "it is proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal that he is the sole head of the business."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I should think that would be perfectly in order. If the general principle be accepted by the House, and the Clause read a second time, then it would be open to accept an Amendment, consistent with it, which would vary the terms of the original Clause.
  Mr. LONG: Perhaps it would be convenient if I stated the view of the Government on the general situation which is raised by the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), and which is more directly effected by the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo). Judging by the number of telegrams showered on Members of Parliament within the last forty-eight hours I should say that this Amendment has aroused a great amount of interest. But I rather regret that form of agitation. In my humble opinion the sacrifice that individuals make in order that their Empire, and their country may be saved from destruction is a very great one, wherever it falls and on whom it falls, and I do not think it possible to go into the degree of suffering in the case of each individual. Everybody has to bear a very heavy burden at a time like this, and thousands of men all over the country have borne this burden, and borne it without any complaint. All of us who have interested ourselves in recruiting and in the lives of our neighbours and friends know that from the very first, when the call for recruits was made in this country, a very heavy sacrifice was made by thousands of people. What was the precise proportion of sacrifice in each case I do not think it worth our while to inquire into. This case is a very hard one, but not harder than thousands of other cases. I am rather sorry that a special effort

  1259
  should have been made to influence the opinion of Parliament in a particular direction. Members of the Government have on more than one occasion expressed the view as to the number of men who would probably be dealt with for military service out of the residuum of unattested married men. We have put the number somewhere round 200,000. That seems, in the opinion of many people, among others my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions, too small an estimate, but I believe that those who have formed a higher estimate have not appreciated sufficiently the fact borne in upon us by those who have had to deal with this problem within the last few months, and have watched these figures and examined them—that as you get nearer and nearer to the bottom of the well so you get nearer and nearer to the material which is least available for military service, not because it is less willing, less patriotic, or has any smaller sense of public duty, but because their obligations are such as to make it extremely difficult for men situated as they are to face the call.
  The Government has not been idle. We have passed an Amendment Bill, the Courts Emergency Act, which has dealt effectively with cases of what I may call rough treatment. We have to provide a tribunal which will deal with the question of compensation. But that is not enough. I entirely recognise that the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo) has produced an Amendment for which there is a great deal to be said. It expresses, I believe, the case to a very large extent of those whom he represents. It is entirely consistent with the part that he and other supporters of his Amendment have played during the War, namely, that they recognise the need for men; it does not open the door very wide, and for many reasons it would seem as if it was an Amendment that might with perfect safety as well as propriety be accepted. But the first objection I offer to it is that we are asked now to do what has not been done hitherto, and that is to define in the Act of Parliament a particular case. Everybody knows who has ever had anything to do with Parliament that one of the most difficult things in an Act of Parliament is to frame a definition to describe exactly what it is you aim to do. I should be prepared to argue, and I think with some success, if I held a brief for the men concerned in this Amendment—I am
  1260
  quite sure any lawyer would argue it with great success—that they are better off under the terms of the Act of Parliament as it stands than they would be under the very strict conditions of this Amendment. Therefore I object to the Amendment, first of all, because it is a dangerous thing to attempt to define a case in an Act of Parliament, and, secondly, because a great many of these men are bound to be exempt, and this Amendment would rather expose them to greater risk than give them greater protection. For these reasons I am prepared to advise the House not to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar.
  I come to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), which is a totally different question, and does very little more than is in the Act of Parliament, and does it in an extremely crude way. Under the forms of the House it has made it impossible for the hon. Member for Poplar to move his Amendment, and perhaps I may be allowed to deal with the whole question, as I have tried to do in the few remarks I have made. I may be allowed to tell the House what the Government is prepared to do, if the actual Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar were before the House. If the Clause of the hon. Member (Mr. King) is negatived, the other Amendment cannot be moved. I think I may say, with all respect, that hon. Gentlemen will realise that they cannot play fast and loose with the House of Commons by putting down an Amendment, and then, after it has been discussed, raise the same question in another form, and the hon. Member for Somerset, who is an old hand, in this instance has involved the Amendment of another hon. Member. I believe there are cases which ought to be covered by the Statute. But I know what criticism is offered to that. I notice that in many somewhat similar cases the tribunals in all cases have not given relief, and that in many instances the tribunals have interpreted the Act of Parliament in a different way, and not given relief, and that there is to-day grave anxiety. The first duty of the Government is quite plain, and that is to get men to fight for the country at the front, and if it comes, as I hope and pray it will not come, to a choice between the maintenance of our Army in the field and the maintenance of a particular trade or industry here, I do not hesitate to say that the Government

  1261
  will throw all their weight and influence on the side of finding the men to maintain our Army. But that stage has not been reached yet. It is our duty to find every man we can to fight and to have due regard to trade and industries and to avoid the disaster which would be the result of individual disaster if it occurred in a vast number of cases. We have asumed that the number of men would be 200,000, and we believe that the majority of the cases referred to would be covered by the Act of Parliament. What is the real difficulty which it is sought to meet by the Amendment of my hon. Friend? It is that there shall be some step taken, as I understand, of a definite and fair character, to bring home to the tribunals that these really are cases which ought to have very careful consideration. I venture to say that that result can be better secured by the issue by myself, as the head of the Department concerned, of a circular calling attention to this particular Amendment, and indicating that these are cases which call for the attention and consideration of the tribunal.
  Mr. GLANVILLE: What notice will they take of that?
  Mr. LONG: I answer that at once by saying that I think they will take more notice of that than they will of the Amendment. The interruption of my hon. Friend would be an effective one if the Amendment were mandatory, but it is nothing of the kind. Under these four heads it will be within the discretion of the tribunal to decide whether the facts are so, whether the business can be reasonably maintained, whether there is a reasonable prospect of its being destroyed. All those are within the discretion of the tribunal, so that that is no answer at all. The question is which is the most effective procedure. I gather that my hon. Friend who interrupted me means to imply that this is a way of getting off, and that it is not intended as a genuine act on the part of the Government. I do not know whether he meant that or not—[An HON. MEMBER: "NO, no!"]—but if so it is a sort of suggestion which is not worthy of an answer. I am convinced it is going to have a proper effect. Let me say this, that as time has gone on and as our discussion and circulars have covered the ground, the action of the tribunals have materially altered, and there is far less ground of complaint now, of irregularity
  1262
  or inequality. Be that as it may, I could not on the part of the Government assent to put these words into the Act for the reasons which I have given. I am prepared to issue this circular. To call attention to the Amendment, to give the reasons why the Government advised the House to reject it, and to call the attention of the tribunals to these cases, and to say that it is their duty to give their consideration to them. That course I am prepared to take on behalf of the Government. I should not be prepared to accept the Amendment for the reasons which I have mentioned.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not know whether hon. Members interested in these proposed new Clauses are satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but if they are acquainted with the same class of case as I am they they will regard the promise of the President of the Local Government Board, so far as it will affect the competent tribunals, as being absolutely valueless. I have stated on many occasions in this House that we have no ground of complaint whatever about the terms of the instructions issued to the tribunals by the Local Government Board. If the tribunals had read those instructions—and I am certain that in many cases they have never read them—and if they had acted upon them, there would have been no ground of complaint against their decisions. In addition to issuing the original instructions, the right hon. Gentleman has done more than once what he now proposes to do with regard to this particular point: where his attention has been called either to the neglect to comply with or to a definite violation of the instructions and regulations, he has issued additional circulars, and those additional circulars have been treated by the tribunals as being mere "scraps of paper." I called attention last week in a very small House to the way in which the rural district tribunal in my native place had treated both the instructions and a special letter addressed by the right hon. Gentleman to the tribunal. Their reply to him was, "We are going to do as we like. If he does not like it he must get somebody else to do this work." Of the two Clauses I would prefer the one now before the House, because it is the more comprehensive. The cases of hardship are not confined to those where men are deprived of their businesses. The Clause of the hon. Member for North Somerset deals with

  1263
  financial and domestic hardship as well. The President of the Local Government Board said that the first thing, the Government have to do is to get men for the Army. I submit that they have one prior duty, and that is to do justice. It may be impossible in every case to avoid serious hardship, but it is not the duty of the Government deliberately to impose hardship, and that is what is being done by many of the provisions of this Act. I had a letter from my Constitutency two days ago giving a typical case. It is the case of a man who is now turned thirty years of age. He is one of two brothers. He tells me that his father was a drunkard and treated his mother very badly. Things got so bad at home that his elder brother enlisted in the Army at seventeen, and is still there. The second man was apprenticed to a firm of painters at the age of fourteen. During the first year of his apprenticeship he save £1 in order that he might pay the fees of the evening school, and during the whole of his apprenticeship he spent five nights a week learning the technicalities of his trade. He took many prizes. When he reached the age of twenty-two his master, who was growing old, said that he would sell the business to him. This young fellow had saved £7, and had been keeping his mother. Since then, in addition to supporting his mother, he has by hard work and self-sacrificing effort paid off the money he had borrowed. He has put before the local tribunal his exceptional business obligation, and the tribunal have told him to sell his business. I mention that as a typical case, and by no means an exceptional case. I would like to point out, in reply to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, as to the importance of the needs of the Army, that when we are doing what I have described we are not only conscripting this man's life, but we are conscripting all his wealth too. That man will be one of thousands, one of tens of thousands, who will return—if he does return—to begin life again, and he will find, while he has been away, that his trade and business connection has been taken by somebody else. Unless it be absolutely necessary to take these men they ought not to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government do not expect to take more than 200,000 of the unattested married men. There are more than a 1,000,000 of them—1,100,000 at least. There you have a
  1264
  margin of 900,000. The remaining outstanding cases of hardship cannot number 900,000. Without, therefore, sacrificing the needs of the Army in the slightest degree, the Government might take steps to exempt every case of business, domestic, or financial hardship which will have to be dealt with. I will conclude by saying that I regard the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman for dealing with this question as being altogether inadequate. The circular that he sends out will be ignored by the tribunals, and will not be worth the paper upon which it is printed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London seconded this Amendment, so when we carry this to a Division I am quite certain we shall be able to count upon his support. The right hon. Gentleman has a highly developed conscience. It has been developed by associating with religious bodies which have for one of their tenets common honesty. Therefore, in common honesty, I expect the right hon. Gentleman to support us in the Division Lobby.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Blackburn in his extraordinary logic. He has suggested that the Government have a higher duty to perform than by obtaining men for the Army, and that is to do justice. To my mind the highest justice that the Government or this House can do is to win the War. They cannot win the War or do justice to the country unless they have the proper supply of men. It seems to me that the Clause which was to have been moved by the hon. Member for Poplar is one the importance and strength of which has been somewhat exaggerated. I entirely agree with the President of the Local Government Board in believing that the number of men who would have succeeded in proving exemption under this Clause, had it been reached and passed by the House, would have been very much fewer than the Mover of it perhaps supposed. I want the House to observe that every one of the four conditions would have to be fulfilled, and proved to be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the tribunal, before that body would be entitled even, at their own discretion, to exempt the applicant. It would, therefore, only be the men who had the very strongest claims, the men who had businesses that were absolutely dependent upon them, and which would be

  1265
  destroyed if they were not allowed to continue for the time, and the men who also had wives and children—not one child, but children—dependent upon them, that would come within the category. But we cannot deal with that under the Clause, having regard to the way in which the Debate has shaped itself. My right hon. Friend has made a suggestion, namely, that a circular would be issued which would have the effect upon the tribunals, as the Government believe, of calling their attention to every one of the qualifications for exemption which are included in the proposed Clause of the hon. Member for Poplar, and it does seem that, whilst undoubtedly some tribunals would be affected and influenced by such a circular, there are some that might not be, and I would desire—and this is the object I have in rising—to point out to my right hon. Friend that there is another alternative which is possible to him, and that is that he should make a Regulation that he himself has indicated in his speech would be approved by him which would have the effect in some degree in support of the Motion that would have been made by the hon. Member for Poplar; that is to say, if a Regulation were made by the Local Government Board that any applicant who could prove to the satisfaction of the tribunal that he fulfilled all the four conditions—very definite and distinct conditions—that are suggested by the hon. Member for Poplar, then such a man would be entitled, according to a Regulation which I am suggesting to my right hon. Friend, to have his case postponed for a period of three months. If that were done, what would the effect be? The man who, in the opinion, I believe, of the very large number of hon. Members in this House, fulfilled all the four qualifications suggested by the hon. Member for Poplar, would not be necessarily exempted by the tribunal before whom he appeared, but that man would be, according to Regulation, allowed three months in which he might go back and try to arrange for his business and for the support of his wife and children, and make other necessary arrangements that would do justice to him. My suggestion to my right hon. Friend is that he should amend any offer he has made to the House, that he should enlarge that so that, instead of a circular simply, he would make a Regulation which would cause postponement—I do not ask for exemption. I do not suggest it is an absolute rule—but postponement
  1266
  for a period of three months, which would give the man time to look about him, and which would give all that is really necessary in the way of justice for the tribunal to have ample time to consider and reconsider the case, and the man himself would have the opportunity which would enable him to make the necessary arrangements. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider that suggestion.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I doubt whether the proposals made by the hon. Member who has just sat down are feasible, for the reason, I believe, that the power of the President of the Local Government Board is solely confined to procedure, and therefore the suggestion of the hon. Member falls to the ground. On this occasion I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Blackburn, for it does seem to me, having regard to the procedure followed by these tribunals, there is no use issuing this circular, and that the House should really take some step to do justice—and that is all that it is asked to do—to these men. In the county of Nottingham shire a number of tribunals have carried out their work admirably, and in other cases they have set the Act completely at defiance, and said every man must go, and entirely ignored the recommendations of the Local Government Board. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do in this case? Wherever the tribunal is composed of working men it is always more hard and more harsh. The working man is always the greatest—
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Tyrant?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I agree on the whole his class is the greatest tyrant to working men, but, be that as it may, the fact remains that there has been great injustice done in some areas, and it is not fair or reasonable that, because a man happens to reside in one locality, he should get exemption, and that in an adjoining locality, because his case happens to be adjudicated upon by a number of cranks, he should be taken for service. We all want to get men for the Army, but surely we ought to take them on a basis fair to all concerned, and I do not think the President himself would deny that these tribunals have not in many cases carried out his instructions. I believe that this Amendment is quite unnecessary. I could give one case where a man had four sons who had gone to the Army, and he had one son remaining to help to carry on his business. He was an industrious

  1267
  man, who had given his whole life to building up this small industry. When his boys Come back from the War the business will be destroyed, and when the father applied for the exemption of one son the tribunal refused his application, and all of them had to go. Many other men have created a small business by industry and toil, and it seems to me outrageous that some tribunals should carry out strictly what Parliament has decreed, while other tribunals set Parliament at defiance. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that what Parliament intends should be carried out, and the citizens of this country should not be placed at the arbitrary will of a number of these tribunals who have taken an extreme view without any regard to the economic position.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: The Amendment before the House appears to me to add nothing at all to the effect of the Section. I have risen to say a word or two about the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar which raises a matter which is eminently well worthy of consideration. On the whole, I agree with what the President of the Local Government Board has said, that in practice if this Amendment were carried it would prove to be restrictive rather than enlarging in its effect. It lays down these four things, and the tribunals will be able to say to a man, unless he proves all those things, cannot get exemption, instead of having the power in a suitable case to release or exempt the person in question. I do not quite agree with the suggestion to issue a Regulation, because there is a difficulty as to the power to issue it, and its terms. I prefer the suggestion of the President of the Local Government Board, that a circular should be issued calling attention to the desirability of giving due weight to any such considerations as are provided in the four points mentioned in the Amendment. I think that would have a great effect, and the result would be much better achieved, and it would be a more elastic way than attempting to lay down a rigid rule. The Amendment, important as it is, provides a very good illustration of the danger that sometimes attends an effort to be too precise and rigid. I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel satisfied with what he has elicited from the President of the Local Government Board, which appears to me to meet the object which we all have at heart.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I agree very largely with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said as to the construction of the Clause standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo), but the right hon. and learned Member has shown a childlike faith in the value of circulars, which is not justified by the experience of those who have watched the working of these tribunals. We remember, of course, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not represent a constituency of small business men, and consequently he cannot be expected to be familiar with the procedure of these tribuals. We, who have been watching the experience and the working of the Act, know, however, that on other matters upon which the Local Government Board have issued circulars a large number of the tribunals in every part of the country have deliberately ignored them. In many cases the attention of the tribunals have been called to a circular, and it has been reported in the Press that members of the tribunals have said, "These circulars only represent the opinion of Mr. Long; we are here to administer the Act of Parliament according to our own view of the Act." That has been the attitude of many of these tribunals, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and many other hon. Members, had been at all familiar with what has been passing, they would not have pinned their faith so readily as they seem disposed to do upon the value of these circulars which have already been showered so profusely from the Local Government Board. The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Essex (Sir F. Flannery) seemed to think that while a circular may be valueless, there is some virtue in a Regulation. Had the hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to read it, he would have seen that there is no power in the original Act to issue Regulations dealing with exemptions and the grounds for exemption. The only power for the issue of Regulations under the original Act is in relation to the constitution and procedure of the tribunals. In these circumstances it is impossible for the President of the Local Government Board to do anything by way of Regulation. The only way, indeed, to obtain security is by the insertion of definite instructions to the tribunals in the Act of Parliament itself. We have had experience of the way in which the original Act has been interpreted. During the Debates on the

  1269
  last Military Service Act we were told time and time again from the Front Bench that certain people would be entitled to exemption. The only son of a widow who is the sole support of his mother and the last remaining son—these would be sure to receive absolute exemption when they came before the tribunals. The Prime Minister told us, and I know that many hon. Members were satisfied, that under this provision in the original Act all these hard cases were comprehended. What has been the experience? The only son of a widow has been sent by the tribunals to the front without any consideration as to the support which he was to his mother. The same applies to the last remaining son. We have also had numerous cases in which men having dependants upon them, and in similar positions to the men who come under the new Clause of the hon. Member for Poplar have been told by tribunals, "You may take a month to dispose of your business." These men cannot sell their businesses because there is nobody to buy. How different is the treatment of large businesses! A member of the tribunal may have shares in Harrods. But it does not affect him. Yet the business of the small shopkeeper is to be thrown away, and his whole capital is to be conscripted. He is allowed one month in which to sell the business. All the large stores have had arrangements made for them by the Government, and the co-operative societies all know the proportion of men they are to be allowed to retain. But the small man is to go in the name of equality of sacrifice. The hon. Member for Maldon (Sir F. Flannery) said it did not matter whether the Government did justice or not so long as it won the War.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: I did not say that. I said the highest justice which the Government could do to the country was to obtain sufficient men to win the War.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The statement of the hon. Gentleman really meant nothing as applied to the arguments of the hon. Member for Blackburn unless it meant what I said, namely, that all considerations of justice must be set aside in order to get the men we want. We have been told that the only way to get the men, firstly, is by passing this Bill. But why was the last Bill withdrawn? Because, according to the general sense of the House, it dealt with different classes of
  1270
  men in this country unjustly. There were many men to be got under that Bill, but it was felt that the Bill did not operate fairly. We must insist on pressing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar to a division. It is easy to disparage postcards and telegrams. But when the General Election comes there will be a different story told. The hon. Member for Maldon will tell his constituents that he advised the Government to issue a circular, although he knew they could not do so under the original Act, and that it would not worth the paper it was printed on—in these days of shortage of paper. Hon. Members will have to say why they did not give these men this protection in the Act of Parliament. There are many people who. are anxious about this Parliament coming to an end. They say there will be no further extension. I can only say that only the seats of those who are opposing this Bill will be safe at the election.
  Mr. LOUGH: I promised about a couple of dozen of people in my Constituency who are deeply interested in this matter that I would support the laudable effort of the hon. Member for Poplar. I know quite well the difficulties which surround this matter, and that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) has prevented a straight discussion of this matter. But I would ask the House to consider the question in the light of the proposal of the hon. Member for Poplar. We have been told that the suggestion of my hon. Friend cannot be carried out.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: Who says so?
  Mr. LOUGH: The Government.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: Oh, no!
  Mr. LOUGH: Then may we hope that something will come of it, but I certainly understood it to be stated there is no power to issue Regulations under the original Act. A much weightier objection to the Clause of the hon. Member for Poplar was put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Finlay), namely, that the words of the Bill are really better. Let the House remember that these people will not be deprived of the benefit of the words in the Bill if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar is adopted. That Amendment is to put a new Subsection into the principal Act, and not as the hon. Member for North Somerset proposes, to substitute other words for what is in the Act. That is an important

  1271
  matter. We have to arrive at that by incorporating the present new Clause, but if the Government announce their willingness, we carry through that arrangement. In fair play to the hon. Member for Poplar I would point out that his Amendment will not deprive anybody of any protection they have in the Act as it stands at present. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that what is in the Bill at present is better than what the hon. Member for Poplar offers, and the same thing was said by my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Finlay). I suggest that all that is in the Bill can be retained; that all the protection in its provisions shall remain and that another point shall be added in the shape of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill on this point. He is creating difficulties for himself. He has conceded nothing this afternoon. From the standpoint of the minority he has not improved the Bill at all. It is not well to ignore minorities, even a minority that is numerically insignificant. The right hon. Gentleman will facilitate the proceedings of the House and greatly improve the Bill if, even at this late hour, he does something in the direction of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar. Let me put my appeal finally in this shape: If the Amendment is not well drawn, if the suggestion of the hon. Member (Sir F. Flannery) cannot be adopted, if the suggestions made from other parts of the House have some faults in them—it is quite natural, because we are all private Members besides being human, and cannot do things as well as the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill—I would appeal to him to give some satisfaction to the strong body of opinion expressed from both sides of the House.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I will try to put a suggestion forward in accordance with the views expressed on all sides of the House, and especially by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham). It is obvious that this Amendment in itself will not alter the Bill at all, and that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar will restrict and not enlarge it. Although that is undoubtedly true, it is equally true and of far more consequence that there is wide dissatisfaction with the action of tribunals in some parts of the country, and that the justice which every Member of this House desires to see secured is a justice which, in
  1272
  the opinion of many hon. Members, is not secured in a number of cases by the tribunals. How can that be helped? You cannot alter the constitution of the tribunal of first instance now. To do that you would have to alter the original Act, and that cannot be done at a time like this, when the passing of this Act promptly is of military urgency, as we are told. But you can do more than merely issue a circular. The words in the Schedule are very strong indeed—
  "His Majesty may by Order in Council make regulations with respect to the constitution, functions and procedure of these tribunals and Regulations made under this provision shall contain instructions to local and appeal tribunals given with a view to securing uniformity of decision and practice among the several tribunals."
  Later on it says:
  "If any difficulty arises with respect to the constitution of local tribunals or otherwise in relation to the operation of this Act with respect to local tribunals, the Local Government Board may make any appointment or do anything which appears to them necessary or expedient for securing the whole operation of this Act with respect to these tribunals."
  This is one of those cases in which the general feeling of the House would strongly support the right hon. Gentleman in the largest interpretation which he and his advisers can take of these powers if he will use them in the direction of promoting equal-handed justice throughout the country.
  May I make a further and a smaller suggestion. It ought to be brought home to the knowledge of applicants, many of whom are poor people who cannot afford legal assistance, and know little indeed of the methods of tribunals, by some form of public intimation or advertisement that they have a right of appeal, because when you come to the Appeal Tribunals, whatever faults they may have, they do not consist of people in the locality predominantly of one class who are sometimes very hard on certain classes of their neighbours. I know one case where the Appeal Tribunal reversed no fewer than sixteen out of eighteen decisions of the local tribunal, and I believe in every case but one with the result of treating more generously the original applicants. The Appeal Tribunals, unlike the tribunals of first instance, are constituted by His

  1273
  Majesty in Council, which in practice means by the Government, and if these Appeal Tribunals do not do even-handed justice, for God's sake alter the constitution of them. I know in some parts of the country, and I hope in most parts of the country, the tribunals are working well. I believe in other parts they are not. One of the great difficulties in administering an Act of this delicacy is that in some parts of this country it works well, and in others badly, and it is most difficult by Act of Parliament to deal with a condition of things which is not uniform, for good or evil, throughout the country. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman, so far as is consistent with the authority of the legal advisers he consults, will use his great powers under the Schedule of the original Act in the direction I have mentioned, and, if necessary, by encouraging appeals and by strengthening the constitution of Appeal Tribunals, he will do what he can to remove a grievance which is germane, which in many cases rests on facts, and which impairs the support that we all want the country to give to this Act.
  Mr. DUKE: The President of the Local Government Board replied very sympathetically to the representations which were made to him upon the subject embodied in the Clause now before the House, and more directly expressed in the Amendment of which notice has been given by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo). I gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that he did not withhold sympathy from the proposal of the hon. Member for Poplar.
  Mr. LONG: Hear, hear!
  Mr. DUKE: On the contrary, if effect can be given to the object of the hon. Member for Poplar by a form of words which can be devised, he desires to give effect to them.
  Mr. LONG: Hear, hear!
  Mr. DUKE: My right hon. Friend assents to that proposition. The real question now is what is the best mode of giving effect to the object which is common between the hon. Member for Poplar and many hon. Members who take his view, and those who have charge of the Bill? I am satisfied that the Clause of the hon. Member for Somerset, though I know nothing about drafting, does not add anything to what is in the Bill. It would be purely illusory to the men in respect of
  1274
  whom these hardships exist. I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Essex was proposing a step which would be effective when he suggested a regulation, because the Regulations seem to be devised primarily for the purpose of controlling the procedure of the tribunals. What we are left with is a Circular. So far as my experience of the tribunals goes—and it is not anything like so wide as that of hon. Members on the other side of the House—the tribunals have tried to give effect to the objects which were commonly in view, objects such as are expressed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar, where what was desired to be avoided was not service but ruin,, which would be distributed quite unevenly up and down the country, and which nobody wants to so distribute. Hon. Members say they cannot be content with a circular. It is difficult to dogmatise about this Bill when so much is in the hands of local authorities whom we thought were the right people to see that effect was given to the proposals. If the Clause of the hon. Member for Somerset will not do, and if the only effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar would be to restrict, the real question is whether we want some indication in the Act itself to support the intentions which may be expressed in the circular of my right hon. Friend. Thinking this over with a desire to prevent the distribution of ruin among a number of small people whose military service would be countervailed by the mischief that would be done by destroying their position and position of their families, I have put something down in the nature of an alternative to the existing paragraph (b) in Clause 2, Sub-section (1), of the original Act. I suggest an addition or modification of that paragraph (b), which would direct the attention of the tribunal and empower my right hon. Friend to insist upon their giving attention to this matter about which the House is anxious.
  We want to avoid the trap into which I think the hon. Member for Poplar and those who have sent us telegrams are likely to fall. We want a ground of this kind: "On the ground that a man is carrying on business which is a means of livelihood to himself and not less than three other persons"—the hon. Member for Poplar says "wife and children." Wife and children would represent three people. It is not essential it should be a wife, it

  1275
  might be somebody who is carrying on the house, or it might be three children, because the man may be a widower, "depending on him"—not casual people to whom he is giving assistance—"and which cannot be continued without his services." When we bear in mind that there are small men here, many of them on the verge of forty years old, who have established businesses—my right hon. Friend says that many of them will be on the verge of twenty-five, but the power will be in the hands of local tribunals. The House only wants to give my right hon. Friend a sufficient foothold in the Bill to see that the proper thing is done with the local tribunals. I do not believe that any local tribunal in its senses will exempt a man for whom there is no real cause, and if you avoid the ruin of considerable numbers of people by some such provision as I suggest, which could be introduced either here or in any other place, to explain that this particular case is a case which Parliament has in view, then there would be a sanction behind the Circular of my right hon. Friend which would be much more likely to secure attention.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I feel sure that the House regrets the moving of an Amendment which would make no difference at all to the Bill, and which the Mover was told would prevent the House from coming to a practical decision on a practical amendment, such as that suggested on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Poplar. It is owing to this accident that the House is not able to defeat the Government on this particular Clause. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has indicated clearly that he sees the strength of the case which has been put forward. He and others have referred to the fact that a number of telegrams and letters have been received. Of course it is a matter of some importance that people are sufficiently interested in what we are doing to send us letters or telegrams. But I do not think that the fact that this has been abnormal in the present case is any ground for arguing undue consideration for this proposal. I ask the Government and the House to consider it entirely on its merits. The Bill seeks to bring within its scope a little over a million of the married men, but we have been told that the Government estimate that out of that million not more than 200,000 will ultimuately reach the Colours. But the Amendment which
  1276
  was to be moved by the hon. Member for Poplar covers people whom nobody would select out of the 200,000. It is very difficult, as between one man and another, to estimate the amount of hardship. The great hardship is that they are both staking their lives and everything else, and in view of that hardship it seems a little out of place to talk about degrees of hardship owing to certain financial considerations. But it is an important matter for the Government, for this reason. The Government is pledged to make some compensation to those who are called upon to serve. I do not know that we have ascertained the actual items of that compensation. I am told that they will include questions with regard to leases or the taking over of liability of leases, and other losses due to men being called up for service.
  In regard to married men who have leases affecting only their private houses, most of that class of leases generally would be on such terms that they could soon be given up; yet if people dealt with by this Amendment are to be called to the Colours, it means that their businesses are absolutely closed, that leases even of small business places in London, of £50, £60 or £70 a year, or business places of very much higher rent, are to be forfeited. You are either to excuse the men, or the Government will have to provide some method of compensation for the landlords of these shops, or the landlords are to go without their rents. A large number of these shops are carried on considerably by means of credit. You are not only going to ruin those shopkeepers, but also a large number of businesses which depend upon them. The President of the Local Government Board says that, if his were the deciding voice, at any rate for the time being, he would not call up the men covered by those conditions. If that is so, surely the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to take some steps to carry out what is his own wish, what is the wish of the Government, and what I am quite certain is the wish of this House. We will not be able to go to a Division. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] My point is that I was prepared to go into the Division Lobby in support of the Clause of the hon. Member for Poplar if it could have been moved, but I cannot support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset simply because the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar cannot be moved. That may seem bad Parliamentary tactics, but it is loyal.

  1277
  It is suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should rely upon circulars, but I can assure him that many tribunals take little or no notice of circulars and it is no answer to a man who goes before a tribunal who will not read the circulars to be told that if he had gone to some other tribunal who had taken notice of the circular a different result would have followed. I think the right hon. Gentleman might give the House the assurance that if he finds he has the power, he will make a Regulation which would do what the hon. Member has suggested, that in the case of a man who comes within that category, or within the category described by the hon. Member for Exeter, the tribunal shall adjourn consideration of the case for three months. The man concerned would then be dealt with in three months time in the light of the conditions which will then exist. It may be that in three months time every Member of this House will say that he ought not to be exempted in view of the circumstances of the case. Why should you now unhinge all these businesses, causing no end of anxiety to people, if you are not satisfied that they ought to be called up. The right hon. Gentleman might, I think, give us an assurance that he will by Regulation, if he has the power, direct the tribunals to adjourn the cases within this category for three months. Another way in which he can help us, is to permit an appeal to the Central Tribunal, which is not allowed now and would, I think, require an Amendment in the Bill. I frankly say I would be quite satisfied that these people would be amply safeguarded if the Central Tribunal were permitted to finally decide their cases. That Central Tribunal, of which the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir G. Younger) and the hon. Member for Black-friars (Mr. Barnes) are members would pay attention to the Regulations of the Local Government Board, and if the local and Appeal Tribunals did not do so an appeal to the Central Tribunal would be satisfactory. I think the suggestion to direct the tribunals to adjourn these cases for three months is most practical, and that everybody will be satisfied if that is done.
  Mr. BILLING: I am very sorry to be on my feet taking the side of anybody who objects to serve in any shape or form his country at the present moment, but I do think that an amount of injustice will be done to a very responsible and very respectable type of citizen if the small shopkeeper is not given some consideration.
  1278
  I represent not a number of small shopkeepers either in Poplar or other frequented part of the city, not men who have been in business where they are for a few months, but men in villages where small shopkeepers have been in business for many years and which they have gradually brought together. It is not only their existence but the very existence of their families who will not know where to turn for another form of support. It is quite common in a number of villages to find co-operative societies, the Home and Colonial Stores and other stores which have got a considerable amount of business. The result is going to be, if these small shopkeepers are shut up, and I am speaking very feelingly of my own Constituency—I make no bones about it—these co-operative societies will capture all the trade of the village, and when these people come back they will find that their business has gone and their living has gone. I think there are only three types of people called on for service in this way. There is the person who is serving or has served other masters. He has, I think, many organisations to look after his welfare. Then there is the person who has never served, nor had any occasion to serve—the person who has lived on interest on capital and so on. I think he can look after himself. Then there is the person who is not either an employer of labour or an employemployés, who has just his own little battle to fight. I think that some consideration should be given to these men, who through thrift and conscientiously following a job have built up a small business. My suggestion is that the amount of consideration or leniency shown to these small shopkeepers should be directly governed by the amount of time and labour that they have put into creating their businesses. I am pleading only for the sole surviving proprietor in a small business, the last man in the last ditch, without whom the business would be shut up. When you get down to that man, I think it is reasonable that he should be given one month's exemption for every year he has been a trader. In that way a certain amount of justice would be done. If a man had put in ten or eighteen years in trying to work up a business he would be given a corresponding number of months in which to make his arrangements. If a man had put in eighteen years he would have arrived at an age when he might reasonably claim such consideration. If he had started about

  1279
  twenty, he would then be about thirty-eight, and the eighteen months' exemption would bring him to about forty years of age. If in eighteen months' time the War is still on, I think we shall want every man who can be whipped up irrespective of his age. Under my suggestion every man would have a fair chance according to the amount of labour and of capital represented by years of labour that he had invested in his business.
  Mr. LONG: The House will probably wish to hear what our view is after listening to the Debate. We must all feel that there is no difference of opinion in any quarter of the House as to the actual cases to be met. The more fanciful suggestions, such as that made by the last speaker, has not found much acceptance in the House, but the general view has been accepted, that where the special circumstances are found in combination the demand ought to be met. I think that most hon. Members will also accept the view that the Act of Parliament already provides the power. The question at issue is how can you secure uniformity among the tribunals in using it. With so much agreement it would be a pity to discuss at greater length so narrow a difference. I have been reluctant to undertake to issue more Instructions. I do not care to interfere with the tribunals more than is really necessary. But I think this Debate has shown clearly that there is a grievance due more to want of uniformity than to any weak spot in the Act of Parliament or to anything that can be remedied by legislation. Therefore I am willing to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Essex, and by others on both sides of the House, that we should issue Instructions to the tribunals, which without doubt I can do under Section 5 instead of a circular. [HON. MEMBERS: "Regulations!"] I mentioned Instructions. This would really, I think, meet all the reasonable necessities of the case, and I hope if that view is generally taken we may be allowed to get on.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that a Regulation, or Instruction, in the sense of the new Clause of the hon. Member for Poplar, will be sent to the tribunals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!" and "No!"]
  Mr. LONG: Regulations—that is right!
  Mr. GRIFFITH: So many hon. Gentlemen are telling me what the hon. Gentleman meant, that I cannot quite gather what he himself meant. What he said I really understood to be this: That he proposes, either by way of Circular or Regulation—I think it was Regulation, but I may be wrong—by Circular or Regulation, that the tribunals shall be informed that when these four conditions are satisfied, the President of the Local Government Board intends them to exempt the men! May I make one suggestion?—I think the President will accept it—that the essential point to remember is this: the difference between essential businesses and non-essential businesses. That lies at the very root of the whole matter. I do not want to go back, but what we ought to have done at the very commencement of the War was to distinguish between essential and non-essential businesses. Let me give an example. Supposing the business of a bookmaker answers the four conditions named, is the President of the Local Government Board going to instruct the tribunals that that bookmaker, in a time of war, is to be exempt from the provisions of this Act? I devoutly hope he is not. There would be public indignation if the President were to give any such instructions. I am not quite satisfied as to how far the Regulations may be obeyed, but that is another matter that I need not go into. It will be a very odd thing, according to my recollection of history, and the traditions of the country, if any body of men, meriting the name of a tribunal, takes instructions from an executive officer as to what they will do. It is a very dangerous precedent. I hope the President of the Local Government Board will act very guardedly.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it intended to include this in Regulations affirmed by an Order in Council?
  Mr. LONG: No, not this Amendment as it stands.
  Captain AMERY: Just one word in support of what has fallen from my right hon. Friend, and that is that after this discussion, however whole-heartedly I was in sympathy with the views as to the hardships which these men might have to-undergo, I cannot help remembering that this very class, great as their hardship may be, from the point of view of the national interest, are largely a class that could be spared for the front. The class

  1281
  of small shopkeepers and distributors are not the class required for the maintenance of the essential national industries—the production of munitions, the raising of food, and the provisions of essential exports. Therefore, though we ought to consider their case from the point of view of justice, I do not believe the right way to meet it is to exempt those people from service. If you are to meet their case, you ought to meet it, I believe, along the lines by which special hardship has already been met. In regard to certain people provision has already been made that rent, education, and certain other standing burdens should be met out of the public fund. Now, the difference in the case of these people from other cases where relief is given is that they lose not only the interest but the goodwill of their little business which has taken them years of labour to put together. The suggestion I should like to put most earnestly to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government is this: Is it really impossible in the case of these people to give them after the War something in the nature of compensation for the loss of goodwill? In the case of these small businesses it is a small amount—£50 or £100 might cover it very easily. It would be enough to enable a man who has got the experience, the knowledge and the energy, but who wants a little money, to start again, and I believe, instead of trying to exempt those men at a time when the nation wants them—and if it does not take them, it will have to take somebody else—it would be better to extend somewhat further the generosity the nation is already showing to those who have already gone or are called upon for service, and give them something to enable them to start again.
  Sir STUART SAMUEL: I do not propose to direct the attention of the House to the hardship that this class of man suffers, because I submit respectfully that the House has already recognised it. The intention of Parliament has been that exceptional financial hardship should be a ground for exemption, and it is only because the tribunals have not given effect to the desires of Parliament, and have flouted the right hon. Gentleman in many directions, that there is the large amount of public dissatisfaction that is apparent to-day. Now the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, to my mind, quite does away with any grievance. As one of those who have urged upon the Government a modification of the present unsatisfactory
  1282
  position, I perhaps may be allowed to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion will be quite adequate to remove the grievance.
  Mr. HOGGE: I want to reply to my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, who said very truly from his point of view that the small distributor could be easily done without, and that reminds me of the very interesting case that has already been decided by the tribunals. There was an unmarried man who ran his own business and who applied for exemption and was refused by the tribunal. They gave him a month in which to sell his business. He sold it to a large store, and the store appointed him manager of the new branch. They then applied to the tribunal for exemption on behalf of this man because he was indispensable, and secured him.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Where is this place?
  Mr. HOGGE: The case can be given. It is an authentic case. A great many Members are forgetting in this Debate that, while it is perfectly true we have to find men for the Army and Navy, we have also got to keep men to find the money to provide for those who are in the Army and Navy, and if we do what is suggested by a great many Members of this House, what we shall be doing after the War is finished will not be trying to capture German trade, but trying to keep what little we have left ourselves. I hope hon. Members will bear that in mind. I am going to suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter that he should persist in the very excellent way that he showed a little earlier in this. Debate. I agree with him, and I thank him for making the suggestion that there is no reason why the House should not give this Amendment a Second Reading, because we can modify it entirely later on, and we can then insert the kind of words suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I want to say quite frankly that I have never criticised the President of the Local Government Board in anything, but I am quite sure that no instructions of any kind will be binding upon those tribunals.
  The Regulations go on to say:
  "Regulations made under this provision shall contain instructions to the local and Appeal Tribunals given with a view to securing uniformity of decision."
  Those are the instructions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The

  1283
  original word is "Regulations," but in the Regulations you can give instructions. Those instructions are given to the local and the Appeal Tribunals, and one complaint has been that the Appeal Tribunal has so frequently reversed the decision of the local tribunal, although the latter are supposed to know so much more about the cases. I hope we shall put into the Bill words that cannot be misinterpreted, and if the right hon. Gentleman accepts the words of so excellent an authority as the right hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), and we support him, that will be a combination about which there can be no dispute.
  Mr. PETO: The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has not rightly interpreted the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Member for Exeter, and he seems to have woven a very ingenious webb, designed to catch the unwary fly. The hon. Member suggests that we should first pass this Amendment and then proceed to amend it. My right hon. Friend made a suggestion to the President of the Local Government Board that he himself should propose an Amendment by way of a new Clause, altering Sub-section (e) of Clause 2 of the principal Act. That would be a proposal which would be a vast improvement upon this very vague proposal now before the House. As far as I am concerned I shall certainly not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) in order that possibly at some future stage the House might amend the words we are now asked to pass. If the Government adopt the words suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Exeter I think it would be a happy way out of the difficulty. I hope that before we come to a decision we shall have a word from the President of the Local Government Board to say whether he is going to proceed by Regulation or by an Amendment calling the special attention of the local and Appeal Tribunals to the particular exemption which the House seems to think it is desirable to make. Whether it is by Regulation or whether it is by
  Amendment, I hope that the Government will adopt the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Exeter, when he said, "Not less than three other persons dependent upon him," and "that the business cannot be continued without his services." That is the proper text. I think the Clause of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo), where he provides that in every case the man must have a wife and children dependent upon him is wrong, because, if the man has a wife to leave in charge of a small retail business, he has in most cases got a most excellent representative who will keep his business alive. The case of a man who has not got a wife but who has three small children dependent upon him is far harder than that of a man who has got a thoroughly capable and business-like wife to look after his interests while he is away. Therefore, I should like to hear definitely what the Government has to say to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I should like to warn the House against the very ingenious and I think somewhat disingenuous suggestion of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge).
  Mr. G. THORNE: I desire to associate myself with what has just fallen from the lips of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Peto). I was greatly impressed by the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), while desiring to avoid the difficulties which are perfectly manifest in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo), because that would have a restrictive effect, he wanted to have the benefit of something definite introduced into the Bill itself. If both these objects could be achieved in the way he suggests, I think the whole House would be glad. I therefore should be very glad indeed to hear from the President of the Local Government Board whether he cannot see his way even now in some way to meet the suggestion.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 185.

  Division No. 18.]

  AYES.

  [11.59 p.m.

  Anderson, W. C.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Arnold, Sydney

  Bliss, Joseph

  Byrne, Alfred

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Clynes, John R.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Brookes, Warwick

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Buxton, Noel

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines, Spalding)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Hancock, John George

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Snowden, Philip

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sutton, John E.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morrell, Philip

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hinds, John

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Rees, Griffith C. (Carnarvonshire)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Roch, Walter Francis

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Rowlands, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. King and Mr. Hogge.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

  NOES.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Grant, J. A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Amery, Capt. L. C. M. S.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London)

  Gulland, John William

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Phillips, Capt. Sir O. C.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pratt, J. W.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Harris, Rt. Hon. Leverton (Wor'ter, E.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Haslam, Lewis

  Prothero, Rowland Edmund

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Bird, Alfred

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Blair, Reginald

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hewart, Gordon

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  Boyton, James

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brace, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Horne, Edgar

  Robinson, Sidney

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rutherford, Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Butcher, John George

  Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Illingworth, Albert H.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cassel, Capt. Felix

  Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Cator, John

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Short, Edward

  Cautley, H. S.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Jones, William S. Glyn. (Stepney)

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kerry, Col. the Earl of

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

  Swift, Rigby P. W.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sykes, Col. A. J. (Ches., Knutsford)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Sykes, Sir Neark (Hull, Central)

  Coats, Sir Stewart A. (Wimbleden)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Colonel A. R.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Tickler, T. G.

  Currie, George W.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Dixon, C. H.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Dougherty, Sir J. B.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Edge, Captain William

  Meux, Sir Hedworth

  Weston, J. W.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Millar, James Duncan

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mills, Lieut. Arthur R.

  Williams, Thomas J.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fletcher, John S.

  Morrison-Bell, Major E. F. (Ashburton)

  Worthington Evans, Major L.

  Forster, Henry William

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Younger, Sir George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Gibbs, Colonel G. A.

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Bridgeman and Mr. Rea.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Question, "That the Clause, as Amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Revision of Exemption Certificates.)
  (1) A certificate granted by or on behalf of a Government Department under Sub section (5) of Section two of the principal Act shall cease to be a certificate of exemption for the purposes of the principal Act or of this Act notwithstanding that it has been directed by that department to be so treated unless within thirty days after the passing of this Act, as respects a certificate granted before the second day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, or within thirty days after the date on which the certificate is granted as respects a certificate granted after the passing of this Act, the holder of the certerficate of exemption makes an application to the local tribunal for the confirmation of the certificate.
  (2) Upon such application the local tribunal may either confirm or disallow the certificate, and where the certificate is disallowed it shall cease to be in force as a certificate of exemption for the purpose of the principal Act or of this Act.
  (3) The Government Department by or on behalf of which the certificate was granted may appear and shall have the same right of appeal in any application to a tribunal under this Section as if that Department was a party to the application.—[Mr. Griffith.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  In order to understand this Clause it is necessary to follow very closely the principal Act. By Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of this Bill the words "before the appointed date" are to be omitted for Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the principal Act. The real Substance of this Amendment is to take some other steps than those now enforced with regard to the granting of certificates of exemption. Under the principal Act a Government Department can not only exempt anyone in the employment of a particular Department, but can also grant exemption where it appears to the Department that certificates can be more conveniently granted by the Department than by the local tribunal to "men and classes and bodies of men who are employed or engaged or qualified for employment or engagement in any work which is certified by the Department to be work of national importance and whose
  1288
  exemption comes within the sphere of the Department." There can be no doubt that there has been dissatisfaction at the way in which these Government Departments have given these certificates of exemption. We have talked a great deal to-night about equality of sacrifice. At any rate we ought to get something like equality of treatment, and if the ordinary man goes before a tribunal for exemption there is no reason why a Government Department, without any publicity and with only its own investigation, should grant these certificates, not only for men within the Department, but for men whose exemption is based upon the fact that they are "employed or engaged or qualified to be engaged or employed upon work of national service." That is really carrying the doctrine of infallibility of the Departments too far. These certificates are granted, we do not know how many, to whom, what investigation has been made, and as far as the public is aware the Department simply makes, a list and there are the men exempt for ever, and I really do not think that is. a fair way of dealing with them. It might very well be argued that the chief of a Department is the best judge of men within. the Department, but I altogether dissent from the view that the chief of a Department is the best judge of whether a man is indispensable for work of national importance generally. My Amendment is at any rate to remove this inequality of treatment and to say that a certificate granted' under the circumstances I have just mentioned shall be treated as an exemption unless within thirty days, as the case may be—there are two separate cases—ho makes an application to the local tribunal for confirmation of the certificate. Then the local tribunal goes into the circumstances—the Department can be represented before the local tribunal—and the local tribunal makes up its mind. It may be said by hon. Members below the Gangway, who have spoken with very scant courtesy and respect of the tribunals, that it is not wise to leave these things to them. That is not open to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite because they have told us how these tribunals are doing their work satisfactorily and well. Therefore it is no loss for them to go from a Government Department which they know something of to one which is doing its work well. In these circumstances it would be far more-satisfactory for the country generally to know that every man, whether in private

  1289
  or Government service, was dealt with exactly in the same way. I know of instances which have come within my own observation in regard to a certain district which I need not indicate, where there is a good deal of fruit farming, and it appeared that a great many young men there were, somehow or other, not called up. They had not been before a tribunal, and upon inquiry, so far as could be found, it appeared that the local chamber of agriculture, somehow or other, in conjunction with the Board of Agriculture, had got these men (exempted. That is not the right way to do the thing. Let us know if a man is indispensable. Let it be done publicly before a tribunal and not privately in a Government Department. I move this Clause because I think it is just and because I think it will remove a great deal of the dissatisfaction that is felt. I hope the Government will accept it.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): This is a very serious and far-reaching new Clause. It affects Government Departments very seriously, particularly the Board of Admiralty, and on behalf of that Department I am bound to take strong exception to it. My right hon. Friend's purpose is simply this, that any certificate. granted by a Department of State shall not be a certificate of exemption unless and until the holder has received confirmation of his certificate by the local tribunal. That is a very serious departure from the scheme of the principal Act. Incidentally this new Clause does not carry out what my right hon. Friend desires. It tackles Clause 2, Sub-section (5), and deals with it, but it leaves Clause 2, Sub-section (2), unrepealed and entirely unamended. It will impose confirmation by the tribunal of one Departmental certificate of exemption, but will leave it entirely unimposed upon the other
  Mr. GRIFFITH: I understand that my new Clause would not make it necessary to go before a tribunal when the Department exempts a man within the Department; Taut when the Department exempts men on the ground that they are "employed, or engaged, or qualified for employment or engagement in any work which is certified lay the Department to be work of national importance," then they should go before a tribunal.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The fact remains that this new Clause deals with Clause 2, Sub-section (5), and leaves Clause 2, Sub-
  1290
  section (2), untouched; therefore, it does affect one Departmental opportunity for certification of exemption and leaves the other untouched. I do not press that, although it would put the whole badging system into the melting pot. I will deal with the proposal as the right hon. Gentleman intended it should be, that is to say, whatever the circumstances, where individuals or bodies of men are concerned, certificates of exemption granted by a Department shall not be certificates of exemption unless they receive confirmation by the tribunals. That is a proposition which very. seriously affects the Ministry of Munitions and the Admiralty. Take the case of the Admiralty. We were very well ahead with proposals and schemes for the issue of badges and certificates. We were ahead and had worked upon these long before the Ministry of Munitions was formed, and we issued our first notification to Admiralty contractors engaged upon shipbuilding and armaments so far back as 26th December, 1914. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the way these badges and certificates are issued, I am entitled to read the principal part of the document which was issued in 1914. It is headed:
  "Badges for workman whose serivces are indispensable for the rapid completion of Sis Majesty's ships and armaments.
  The Secretary of the Admiralty begs to forward herewith a sample of a badge which may be worn by workmen in your employment continually engaged upon His Majesty's ships and armaments, subject to the following conditions, the strict observance of which is of the utmost importance:—
  The issue of the badge is to be restricted to those employés who, from their experience and skill, are absolutely indispensable for the rapid and effective execution of work upon His Majesty's ships and armaments. A. great responsibility rests upon all concerned to see that this qualification for the awards of the badge is strictly observed. Employers are earnestly requested to exercise a prorer discretion in this matter and to co-operate in securing to the utmost extent practicable that the badge is not issued to any person who could be spared to join the Colours if he so desires. A register shall be carefully kept of the names of all persons to whom badges are issued. All persons to whom badges have been issued may. in the event of their discharge or of their ceasing to be employed on His Majesty's ships and armaments be called on to surrender their badges and tickets. In issuing badges care should be taken to warn the recipients that under no circumstances must they transfer them to any other person; and you are invited to assist in securing, as far as possible, that the badges shall be used strictly for the purpose for which they were issued, and that there shall be no improper transference to unauthorised persons."
  We began with that. That was in December, 1914. We issued under the same conditions badges to indispensable workers in the Royal dockyards and in the Admiralty offices. What we did when the original Military Service Act of 1916

  1291
  was passed was to apply Section 2, Subsection (5). My right hon. Friend says that all these indispensable certificates that have ben issued will have to go to the tribunal for confirmation. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has realised that it means that Admiralty officials—and the same is true of the Ministry of Munitions—will have to spend an enormous amount of time in appearing before the tribunals all over the country to support applications by shipbuilding and armament firms for their men and to support applications in regard to a very large number of men engaged in the Royal dockyards, naval establishments, and Admiralty offices. I most cordially agree that the war work badge exception should not be used except to cover absolute indispensability. I take common ground with my right hon. Friend in that matter. I think that the original circular called attention to that when we started the issue of these badges. But notwithstanding all that, the conditions under which the badges have been issued are at this moment, and have been for some time past, subject to very careful review by a badging committee, an influential committee, under independent chairmen. We do not want our badges to be a mere shelter for any man who, not being indispensable and being physically fit and of military age, ought to be with the Colours. So far as we are concerned, we certainly do not intend that that should be done. I would also like to clear up this point for my right hon. Friend. There is an idea that these badges have been circulated in such a way as to make them a shelter for persons who really are fit for military service.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Hear, hear!
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Now nobody imagines that we have enough labour to-day for shipbuilding and munitions of war. We have not. Let that be perfectly clear. I should say at this moment, over the whole field, for new construction and repair work for the Fleet proper and their auxiliaries, for work on munitions of war, as my right hon. Friend will admit, and for urgent work in the mercantile marine, there is a shortage to-day of many thousands of hands. There is no doubt about that; and they are urgently needed. Therefore, I do not imagine that we are holding up any vast number of men who ought to be with the Colours. No doubt there is some room for replacement.
  1292
  But there is urgent need for a large increase in the total number of hands now employed, and to meet that we must use dilution as seriously as we can. We will proceed with the recalling of skilled men from the Colours. As to skilled craftsmen, they must do the work which they alone can do, but, wherever possible, semi-skilled handymen must set him free, and every trade union demarcation rule must be set aside for the period of the War. Women must be called upon to a larger extent than at the present time to do work which is within their physical capacity, and which is being done by men now. All this, of course, is with the due assurance that we shall re-establish the status quo as soon as the War is over. If we prosecute all this seriously we shall continue the exemption of men who are really indispensable, and we can release those who are not always indispensable. But do not let anyone imagine that we have got enough labour for the munitions of this country.
  Sir C. WARNER: What is the constitution of the Committee?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There is an independent chairman, and the members represent the War Office, the Admiralty, the Home Office, the Ministry of Munitions, and the Reserved Occupations Committee. My right hon. Friend referred to the Departments themselves in respect of their servants. The whole of the Admiralty Staff, so far as it consists of men of military age, was carefully reviewed in December last. They were divided into three classes—Class (a), those whose services could be spared on being replaced by women or men not eligible for military service; Class (b), those whose services could only be dispensed with without serious inconvenience to the public service; and Class (c), those whose services were considered indispensable. The whole of those included in Class (a) who had not attested were replaced early this year by women, or by men ineligible for military service. Those who attested remained until they were called up. Those included in Class (b) are, as far as possible, being replaced in the same way, and the list is reviewed from time to time in consultation with the heads of the Departments concerned.
  Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the number in Class (b)?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I cannot give the number. It may interest the House to

  1293
  know that already we have taken into our employment close upon a thousand women. Let me give an instance and take one department only. It is true that it is not a department engaged on any secret work. I take the Accountant-General's Department, and I have no doubt that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) would look upon that as an extremely important department. At the beginning of the War the staff numbered under five hundred. Roughly, one-quarter of those have gone, but now the total staff numbers fifteen hundred, and over twelve hundred of those are new entrants. That is in a department dealing with finance, and of a staff of fifteen hundred only about twenty-five per cent. are old servants. I say that is eloquent testimony to the care with which we have gone through the servants of the Department. The facts speak for themselves. This is the method which we have applied to the whole department, and although we do not go to the tribunal for the reason I have stated, I think the House will be content with the assurance that we desire to shelter no one behind any certificate, but to give all those who can fairly be spared for the fighting line.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that he has exercised care in taking on the new people?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think I may say that we certainly give preference to women, or persons not of military age or who are not physically fit.
  Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the new entrants are of military age?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I can say that four hundred of them are women.
  Mr. J. MASON: The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, made out a very considerable case for the Admiralty, and so far as this Clause is concerned with direct war work, munitions, and so on. But that Department is by no means the only one which is guilty of this kind of thing. The other Departments seem to me, in some cases—I do not want to make too much of it—to have issued exemption certificates to men who are by no means indispensable or essential, and who, although not in very great numbers so far as I know, have been the cause of very considerable criticism, this action being regarded as unfair and also
  1294
  as setting a very bad example. The particular case that I have in mind is one affecting the class of man called an agricultural organiser. These men were created a very short time ago, and there is not a very large number of them, but at the beginning of the War the work of these men, which was purely research work, was in many cases abandoned like a good deal of other work of that kind. The Board of Agriculture arranged with the War Office to exempt this class of man without consulting the local authorities at all, and in the particular case I have in mind the chairman of the county council, the chairman of the local sub-committee, which was the immediate authority concerned, and the chairman of the War Committee all agreed that this man is not required. He is a single man of somewhere about thirty years of age, and yet he has been exempted without any consultation with the local authorities, and is simply sheltering himself behind his exemption. I say that to have that man, on that kind of non-essential although, no doubt, very useful work, exempted, while numbers of farmers' sons and others who are much more closely and intimately connected with the essential side of agriculture are being taken, is setting a very bad example.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has given us some very interesting details, and, so far as I can see, the result of all he said is this: that the tribunals are to be good enough for everybody else but they must not interfere with the Admiralty. In fact, he wants to set up another tribunal instead of the tribunal which everybody says has worked so well. He says that the tribunal which the Admiralty has approved is the Badging Committee. There has been very considerable dissatisfaction in regard to this matter in the Government offices, and therefore I think they should be submitted to the same tribunal as everybody else and should not have special tribunals set up for themselves. I hope the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) will see that this measure of justice is carried out. The right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) said that they do not want to shelter these men behind any badge. If they do not, let them all go before the tribunal in the ordinary way, and let justice be done equally all round.
  Captain EDGE: I desire to support the Clause moved by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith). I do that

  1295
  because the idea has secured a very firm hold in the minds of hundreds of thousands of the people of this country that there are thousands of eligible men, I will not say hiding, but missing service, behind the badges issued by the Government Departments. That is a view which is not only held outside but inside this House. I am attracted to this Clause in the first place because it is democratic. It does not affect for one moment the power of any Government Department to give a badge to protect any man whom they consider is indispensable to industry, but at the same time it certainly acts as a limit upon an unscrupulous firm or employer which may desire to use, or trick, a Government Department into giving a badge which may shelter a man who has no right to be sheltered behind these badges. It certainly will strengthen the position of every legitimate holder of a badge, and will correspondingly weaken the position of the other man. The procedure is perfectly fair and gives a Department the opportunity to appear before a tribunal to state the case for industry. The Army authorities would state the case for the Army, and the tribunal, having listened to both sides, would come to a decision, strengthened in their opinions by the unrivalled knowledge of the local circumstances of the particular firm and the particular man, and I think their judgment would at any rate be a substantial measure of justice. In urging the claims of this Clause upon the Committee, I would point out that it puts a Government Department on the same footing as a private employer, because if they claim men as indispensable they have to go before the local tribunal. It certainly will check a tendency which might arise on the part of a Government Department, in these conditions of labour scarcity, to be extravagant with labour. This Clause, if it is incorporated in the Bill, will undoubtedly smooth away many of the difficulties that may arise in the working of this measure. It will do something, which I am very anxious to see in a free country, to abolish the veto of the Government official, and it is certainly the most practical method of dealing with the problem of men missing service behind a badge, many times at the expense of married men.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I should like briefly to place two or three considerations before the House which do not appear to have been present to the minds of hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate. In
  1296
  the first place, let me refer to the very large class of men who are granted exemption, under the provisions of the Act now criticised, by the Home Office. I mean the miners. There you have a large body of some hundreds of thousands of men who, by universal consent, must be kept at their work. A long time ago, with the full approval of the War Office, it was arranged that no more miners working below ground were to be recruited for the Army, and that no more men working on the surface were to be recruited if they belonged to certain indispensable classes. Subsequently it was pointed out that a certain number of men had entered the mines since last August, in order to evade the Military Service Act, and it was agreed that exemption should be withdrawn from any of those men challenged by the military adviser, and not held to be indispensable by the tribunal dealing with the case.
  All this great body of men is dealt with, not by the local tribunals, but by special tribunals which deal with them, mine by mine, to see whether particular individuals really do belong to the exempted classes, and whether the man is really a hewer, and that man is really an engine-man, and so forth. These Colliery Courts, as they are called, represent the employers and employed; they are presided over by the Inspectors of Mines, who are officials of the Home Office. The military representatives attend them. They have worked quite satisfactorily, and no one has any complaint to make against them from any quarter. This Clause would sweep away the whole of that system, and would compel us to send up every miner before a local tribunal, which is really not very well suited for dealing with the claims of that industry.
  I will give another illustration, that of a Department with which I have been for a long time connected—and for a time during the course of the War—that is the General Post Office. The General Post Office had about 250,000 employés in this country. A very large number have been sent to the War. When I left the Post Office a few months ago, I think about 60,000 had gone to the War. The utmost efforts have been made by the Department to spare every possible man. What would be the position of a local tribunal if it had to decide whether a particular Post Office servant at headquarters in London or in other places in the country ought to

  1297
  be exempted or not? Ought they merely to accept the word of the Department, or ought they to make an independent inquiry? If they merely accept the word of the Department, you are no further on than now, and this Clause is unnecessary; if they make an independent inquiry, they really cannot form an instructed opinion as to whether particular persons can be spared from the Department without disorganising its work. I will give a third illustration—men in the mercantile marine—sailors on board British ships. Clearly, they ought to be exempted. We must carry on there. Everyone admits that the work of our mercantile marine is essential. These men are exempted now by a very simple and smooth-working system through the offices of the Board of Trade—the shipping offices, where they always have to report themselves whenever they come ashore. There they get their exemptions and the whole of them are dealt with quite satisfactorily, and no complaint has ever been made. This Clause would sweep away all that system as well, and all these men would have to go before a local tribunal.
  Let me say, lastly, that the Government have, within the last few months, taken a very firm grip of this question, and have established machinery which, I believe, has got rid, or is very rapidly getting rid of the complaints made during the earlier months of the War. There is a conference which meets now almost every week—occasionally it has met more than once in a week, I believe—which is presided over by the President of the Local Government Board, and which I have the honour of attending as the representative of the Home Office. It is attended also by the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for War. This con-sentatives of the Ministry of Munitions, and the Admiralty, and the Board of Agriculture. All these Departments, represented either by Ministers or by their highest officials, meet week by week. Many officials of the War Office are there, including the Adjutant-General, and Lord Derby and members of his staff, as well as the Secretary of State for War. This conference goes through all these cases and decides questions of principle and what class of men further can be released from these badged occupations. Under the auspices of that Committee no fewer than 200 Government inspectors have been for some weeks, and are now at work visiting all the factories where there are exempted
  1298
  men, one by one, and examining the case of each man. There are inspectors of the Ministry of Munitions in considerable numbers, of the War Office, of the Home Office, and of other Departments. The effect has been that we have found ourselves able to withdraw a very large number of exemptions from men employed in those factories already. Owing to the substitution of women and to the dilution of labour it is found that a considerable proportion of the certificated and badged men can be withdrawn. That process is now going on excellently. The Government is fully alive to the importance of this subject, and approaches it in precisely the same spirit as hon. Members who have spoken here to-night, and I beg the House not to accept this Clause, which would upset the whole of this organisation and throw the thing into the melting-pot, and leave all this to the uninformed discretion of the local and Appeal Tribunals.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman has made, as he always does, a clever speech, though I think the last sentence rather gave away the case. He told us that after they set Government inspectors at work, the Government found that their vaunted badge system was a failure, and they were able to weed out a large number of people from these trades, who, a few months before, they were able to badge with perfect satisfaction to themselves. Either the Government were wrong then or they are wrong now. They cannot have been right on both occasions. But the whole process shows the difficulty of legislating by a Government Department. Take the case of the miners. We all agree that most of them should be exempted, although I think it was not until the hon. Member for Ince made that statement to the House about a fortnight ago that 3,000 miners had gone down the mines to escape conscription that the Government started to take action.
  Mr. SAMUEL: No; action was taken by the Government three or four months ago. I think the hon. Member for Ince would have been far more correct if, instead of 3,000 men in Lancashire, he had said between 300 and 400.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think the hon. Member for Ince thought he knew what he was talking about, as he is no controversialist. I regret he is not here to-night. The point is that these cases ought to have been

  1299
  dealt with by Parliament and not by Government Departments. If the miners' class had been dealt with in the original Bill there would have been none of this difficulty. But I will assume, for the moment, that the miners ought to be exempted in this way or some other. But neither of the right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have dealt with what, to most people, is the crying evil of the number of young men in the Government Departments themselves. Not men in trades, who are badged by the Government, but the men who do the badging. The clerks in all the Government Departments—the Admiralty, the Home Office, the Local Government Board, and even in the War Office. There are a large number of men in the War Office who ought to be at the front in the trenches, whilst older men ought to do their work. One has only to walk through the War Office to see a large number of young men and young officers there who, from all appearances, ought to be at the front and should leave the older men to do their work. They may not be exempted, but they are allowed to remain here by the head of a particular Government Department. There is a very strong feeling throughout the country—as our correspondence shows that there are a large number of Government clerks shirking behind their badges, who may be exempted. If these men had to go before the tribunal, and the heads of the Government Departments had to prove that they were really essential to the conduct of those Government Departments, there would be a better feeling all round that everybody was being treated more fairly than is at present the case. Many of us have been pressing for weeks and months past for a return of men in the Government Departments who are exempted. We cannot get it. We have tried over and over again, and it has been promised over and over again. I asked a question only last week, and the Secretary to the Treasury came down with the usual excuses that it was not ready and that they were trying to get it ready as soon as possible. If the head of each Government Department would take it into his own hands we should very quickly get this return made, and we should know if these statements which are floating around the country as to the young men in Government Departments are true or not. If they are true, then it is time they went before a local tribunal, because it shows that the heads of the Departments have been too lenient in re-
  1300
  gard to these young men. We want them all to serve equally. We want to turn out any young men; and we have the right to ask the heads of the Government Departments to assist us and not to hinder us.
  Sir C. HENRY: I want to press on the President of the Local Government Board, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, opposite (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) with reference to asking the Government for a return, of the young men of military age in Government Departments. I asked for that return myself somewhat over two months, ago, and I got the same reply as was given last week by the Secretary to the Treasury, that it is in course of preparation and is-being compiled, but that it is not ready. The very fact that that answer was given proves that there is a large number of such men in these Departments. One of the first objects of the President of the Local Government Board ought to be to comb out these young men. It has become more and more patent to the general public that there are in these departments—the-Admiralty, the Home Office, and the-Local Government Board—a lot of men who are eligible for military service and who can be replaced by others.
  Mr. SAMUEL: In the Home Office there-are two exempted, and both have been medically rejected.
  Sir C. HENRY: I may say with regard to the Admiralty that I was told that of the number there of military age some had been medically rejected. When I pressed the question I found that they had not undergone any medical examination. It was a mere matter of conjecture whether they were medically fit or not. We all recognise that it is inconvenient for heads of Departments to chainge their employés during time of war, but we all have to suffer inconvenience, and until the large number of young men in these Departments have been weeded out there will be a feeling of injustice.
  Mr. BOOTH: I rise to support the Clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Anglesey, and I must say I have not been convinced by the speeches coming from the Front Bench. I suppose that when a Division is taken those in favour of a small Army will vote with the Government. Several Members of the House on these benches not far from where I am have intimated that they will support the Government on this occasion only on that ground. This is another instance of what we get frequently in this

  1301
  House—Government Departments bringing in laws but placing themselves above those laws. I undertake to say you will never get a Housing Bill brought in by a Government Department except on the condition that they will not observe these requirements themselves, and one of the first ingredients of their projects is that they will not abide by local by-laws which private people have to abide by. It is the same in all Government Departments. Many people are suffering the most extreme inconvenience because of this. It interferes with the attendance of many Members of this House; and some of us have to work sixteen and eighteen hours a day. Who ever heard of the employés in a Government office doing that? He would cry out long before it comes to that. But we must make these sacrifices during the War. There has not been a single word from the Government Bench in favour of the tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause paid the tribunals a compliment, but that has not been echoed from the Government Front Bench. Dead silence is observed with regard to the quality of the tribunals now. There is very great dissatisfaction indeed, both on the part of those conducting industry and on the part of the young men who have been compelled to go as soldiers. Anyone who stands in Whitehall and sees the people going to Government offices, 'and sees them leaving at night, must be stricken to the heart with a sense of the hypocrisy of the whole thing. I do not know what the explanation is. We have had two speeches from the Government Bench. The two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken are clever enough to give the best instances to repel the attack. But take the case of the Insurance Department. Who will get up on the Front Bench and say that the heads of the Insurance Department have dealt fairly with this question since the War started? They have kept people by dozens and scores who ought to be serving in the Army. It is all very well to talk about mines and certain controlled establishments. That is not so much what has caused this Clause to be moved. It is the desire on the part of the House that the Government Departments, whose salaries we vote, shall stand in line with the rest of the community. If the Government can satisfy us that they are toeing the same line as everybody else we should be perfectly content, but that is not the case. I venture to appeal to the Government to
  1302
  meet us in some way. If they cannot accept this Clause at any rate let us have some assurance that something more will be done in some way. In the absence of any satisfaction being given to the House,. I am afraid that those who want a strong, Army, and who want equality of treatment, have no option but to vote for this. Clause.
  1.0 A.M.
  Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I entirely endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Pontefract. We have had two speeches from the Front Bench, from two right hon. Gentlemen who are certainly not among the least capable of stating a case, and those speeches have been wholly unconvincing. It is unfortunate, I think, that the Secretary to the Admiralty should have been. the first to reply, because, from information that reaches me, that Department is one of the very worst offenders in the whole of the Government Departments. From information I have had I think the place to which the Secretary to the Admiralty should go to seek for these hidden heroes would be the offices of the Admiralty here and not in the shipyards and places where men are really doing national work. In his own offices he will find many young men who ought to be doing their duty in the field. The Home Secretary made a point of the arrangement that had been made with regard to mines, the Post Office, and the mercantile marine. Well, I will give him the mercantile marine, but with regard to the other two I will state my opinion that he has wholly overstated his case. With regard to the miners, it is a notorious fact in South Wales that the mines are full of men who come from other parts of the country, and who, until quite recently, had never been in a mine. Only a month or two ago I was speaking to a miner's agent in my own Constituency who told me that he would like to see every exemption taken off the miners altogether, and that it was doing more harm to the industry of mining than if we had free enlistment. I can assure my right hon. Friend, though he looks upon the special tribunals which have been set up under the Home Office with great satisfaction, that that is not the way they are looked' upon in the mining districts. On the contrary, if he will come down there, I can get him evidence very much to the contrary. A slight difference of opinion arose between him and one of my hon. Friends

  1303
  with regard to a statement made by an hon. Member who spoke a short time ago. My recollection of that statement was that the hon. Member said that none of the men—whether they were 300 or 3,000—that none of them had been combed out.
  Several HON. MEMBERS: Seven thousand!
  Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: He may possibly have exaggerated the number unintentionally, but the point of his remarks seemed to be that whatever the number was they had not been combed out at the time of which he spoke. That does not speak very well for these particular arrangements, and with regard to the Post Office the right hon. Gentleman showed us in the remarks he made that the independent inquiry and inspection that had been set up had resulted in the setting free of a very considerable number of men. That seems to me to be a very strong argument in favour of independent inspection.
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir; I said they had been set free by the Department itself.
  Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: After inspection?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, no!
  Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: If I was mistaken about that I withdraw, but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has happened to have heard tell of what has been happening in other countries. The same difficulty arises in other countries, and it has been found in France that the Government Department is not the best judge as to who should be retained in that Department or not. They have had several fights in France with regard to what is called embusquer in a Government Department, and it has only been by rigid and independent inspection that they have managed to cut their way through. If my right hon. Friend carries this Clause to a Division I shall certainly support him.
  Sir C. WARNER: I am thoroughly in sympathy with the Mover of this Clause and with the combing out system that ought to take place, and which I do not think has been proved to have taken place at all by the able speeches which have been made in defence of the Bill. It is quite clear that a mistake was made in the original Bill
  1304
  in not giving the tribunals control in this matter in some way, and I hope the Government may in some fashion or another get the tribunals to sanction men who have been given badges being kept at the work they are now engaged upon. But I would point out that there is one difficulty about this Clause. As I understand it, it does not deal with the men who are in the direct employment of the Government Departments, and that is the point which is perhaps the most important of all. There is more of what the hon. and gallant Member called "embusquer" in the Government Departments than there is in the munition works, and we want to get at the young gentlemen who have suddenly found a great desire for Civil Service work and have managed to get into a Government Department since the beginning of the War and are still hidden away there and have badges of exemption in very great numbers. We have been told that in certain Departments—I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Samuel) said there were only two in his—we have been told that many Departments have a great many exempted men, and what the country is dissatisfied at is that the Government, which says it wants every man, hides some of these men, or appears to hide them. If we had the statistics which have been promised to us of the number of men employed in Government Departments who are of military age and fit for military service, then we should probably be able to get rid of this idea that thousands of them are hidden in Government Departments. Something ought to be done to satisfy the public that the Government Departments are not keeping men back, though I do not think this Amendment would carry that out, because it deals more with munition workers, whom, after all, most of us have great sympathy with. We know, too, that colliers are absolutely necessary. South Wales may be rather worse than most places, but, as a general rule, very few colliers, I believe, have got work except to replace men who have gone. We have to keep the collieries at work and to keep our mercantile marine and our munition workers, but we are afraid, and the country is afraid, the Government Departments are not quite fair and square about those they employ in their own Departments. Those are the people we want to get at, but I am afraid this Amendment would not touch them.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman who has just

  1305
  spoken that he has, perhaps unwittingly, done a great deal of injustice to some in the Government service, of whom he has spoken as shirkers. To my knowledge a great many wanted to go, but were refused permission, as the Departments required their services and knew they could not replace them. They were not sheltering at their own wish.
  Sir C. WARNER: I thought I had made myself clear. What the country complains of is that the heads of Departments are hiding up men who ought to go for military service, not that the men themselves are shirking.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The point raised is that the Government is supposed to be no judge of the importance of any employés in the public service. Who is to represent the State in a matter at all if we come to a point at which the tribunals—which have come in for a good deal of criticism at the hands of many Members—are supposed to represent public opinion in the purest degree while the heads of Government Departments are not? The State is going to pieces if you cannot trust Government Departments. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has a standing prejudice against anything in the nature of an official, but that prejudice could not close his eyes to the fact that in this emergency your officials must, in the nature of things, be your judges of the importance of men to the Government service. May I point out, further, that if the idea which underlies a great many of the speeches to-night is realised, you will simply swamp your tribunals with an enormous number of cases? If the tribunals are to judge of all the cases of miners, that means that every individual case will have to be considered or else you will have, as the Home Secretary suggested, tribunals having to take the assurance of Departments who had previously managed the matter that they are really acting in the public interest. If you accept that assurance in the case of the miners, what becomes of the argument in all the other cases? And if you do not accept it and throw the whole of the miners' cases upon the tribunals you will have all their cases judged separately, and you will certainly not in that way promote the efficiency of the public service in general, but will make tribunals wholly incapable of getting through their business.
  Mr. LONG: I observe that practically everyone who has spoken, except my right
  1306
  hon. Friend opposite, and perhaps one or two other Members, have supported this Amendment. I am able to speak on this matter with greater freedom because I am not concerned with the badging of men or the reserving of occupations. It is because my Department is not concerned as are other Departments, like the Admiralty, the War Office, the Board of Trade, and the Board of Agriculture, that I have been able to act with absolute impartiality as Chairman of the Conference which deals with de-badging. From the beginning, when I was called upon to act in this matter, I have looked at my duty from the one point of view alone of getting men, because I think we who are the heads of Departments ought to be trusted—and we are the only people who can do the work—to see that a sufficient number of men is retained to give the country what it wants, whether it be coal or munitions, or in any other respect. Therefore if I thought that the work had' been badly done, as has been stated by more than one speaker, it would be my bounden duty, whatever my predilections, and of course it would be my desire, to, tell the House frankly that there must be a change. A great many of the speeches on this Amendment have dealt with young gentlemen who, it is said, are to be found in Government Departments. I wish hon. Members before they make these statements would in fairness come into Government Departments and see for themselves. I do not in the least complain about the charges made against ourselves, the heads of Departments of the Government—
  Sir C. HENRY: We have asked for a Return and we have not had it.
  Mr. LONG: Of course, I know that there are many Members of the House, and possibly there are many people outside, who think that the only reason for which the Government exists is to be abused when there is nobody else to be abused. I do not resent that, but I do resent what is said about these young men, because it is not true. Before you make these charges you should in common fairness come into the Department and see for yourselves that it is absolutely untrue that our officials are selected by a subordinate permanent official; they come before us heads of Departments; we have been through them time after time. Why does the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) bring these charges against us? We are individually just as patriotic as he is, just as anxious to serve

  1307
  the State, and just as unwilling to protect and cover up anybody. Why the suggestion that we are spending all our time in protecting young men in our offices who ought to be in the Army?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did not say you are spending all your time in that way.
  Mr. LONG: I say it is not true; and I say before these statements are made. hon. Members ought to come into our offices and see for themselves, and they will see that they are not true. But even if it were true, this Amendment does not deal with it. It is my duty to warn the House that if they proceed, as I gather they are going to do, to adopt this Amendment, they will take a very grave responsibility. It has been said that nobody who has spoken hitherto from the Treasury Bench has advocated the cause of the tribunals. We have certainly not suggested that the tribunals are unfit for work of this kind in any way. It is not a question of unfitness. Will anybody for a moment stop to think of our munitions? Everybody will agree, most people have agreed about coal; everybody will agree that munitions are just as important as men. We all remember the agony we endured when we knew more than a year ago that we had the men, but we had not enough munitions for them. Therefore, munitions are as important at least as men, and I think coal is as important. Let the House realise what is proposed. You have got these munition factories which, as the House knows, are spread all over the country. You have got in them thousands of men who are working at the highest possible pressure in the production of munitions. I am authorised by the Minister of Munitions to say that if you carry this Amendment you will expose all these thousands of workmen in the various branches of munition work to the need to go before the tribunals who, as he says, and I entirely agree with him from my experience as an impartial outsider, are not able to decide these things, not because of unfitness, but because they have not got the facts before them. It is only those who are responsible for the production of munitions who know where the works are, how they are divided and constituted and equipped, who can judge; there is no other way in which you can come to a decision as to the men who are wanted. It is not because the Government want to keep any of their employés from what is their duty. Surely nobody
  1308
  suggests that we are keeping these men hidden in these Departments for some ulterior reason of our own. We are responsible to this House and to the country for the munitions, without which men are useless, for the, coal without which our ships cannot protect our shores, for the shipping and shipbuilding, without which the work of the world and of this country cannot be done.
  I say with a full sense of the responsibility which my words carry, and I warn the House, that if they adopt this Amendment they will do so in ignorance of the true facts; they will adopt a course so serious, and in the face of definite statements made by three Members of the Government, that the Government will be compelled to take steps to alter the situation because we cannot accept the responsibility for keeping our country supplied with all that she needs if the War is to be successfully carried out, and at the same time be subjected to the particular form of supervision suggested. It would be impossible for us to do the work which it is our duty to do. I have spoken strongly. I have no personal feeling in the matter. I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Munitions, with the First Lord of the Admiralty, with the War Office, and with the Board of Trade, and I say that the situation has not been exaggerated in any degree by the language I have used. We are all doing this work through the Departments by means of the de-badging which we are carrying on. It has been said that the fact that we have de-badged men who were badged a short time ago proves that the work was badly done. Nothing of the kind. What it proves is that at the beginning as a precaution it was absolutely essential to badge a great many men in the early days who can be released now. And why is that? It is because their places can be taken by other people; because we are replacing them by women and by older men. It does not prove that the work was badly done before; it only proves that as time (roes on we learn by experience, and are able to fill the places of these men.
  Sir C. HENRY: Why have we not had the Return that was promised?
  Mr. LONG: As to the Return my hon. Friend asks for, I cannot understand why on earth that Return has not been presented.
  Sir C. HENRY: I should not have spoken if it had been presented.
  Mr. LONG: Well, the figures of my Department have been sent in long ago, and I think so also have the figures from most of the other Departments. I "will make inquiries in the morning. I am very sorry indeed to hear that the Return has not been presented, and I will take steps to see that it is presented with the least possible delay. I am satisfied that when it is presented hon. Members will find that I am quite correct in what I have said About the Departments themselves and about the men who are engaged in producing the munitions of war for the country. I beg the House not to take a step, the gravity of which cannot be exaggerated, and which would have, I believe, a very grave effect on the prosecution of the War, which is the first duty of every man of the country at this moment.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I think everybody must agree that in all the Government Departments there are men of military age who are indispensable, particularly in regard to the older departments, but in connection with the new departments I think that the head of the department ought to see to it that he employs as many men over military age as he possibly can. In connection with matters that have been sent to me to deal with, I have had occasion during the last few months to visit various sections of the Ministry of Munitions on different occasions, and I was rather ahead of one of the Members for Somerset with regard to making enquiries as to the employment in the Munitions Department of men of military age. Some few months ago I put a question on the Paper, and I was told in reply that they could not give any information, but would inquire into it and let me know later on. At a later date I received a letter from the Munitions Department—I am speaking now from memory because I have not the letter with me—and I was told that there were something over nine hundred men of military age employed in the Munitions Department; that over six hundred of these were medically fit; and that with the exception of some twenty-four or twenty-six they had all attested. What is the use of attesting unless the Department is prepared to release them? They might as well not attest at all, and I do think that, in connection with the Ministry of Munitions being a new Department and knowing that men of military age are required, they ought to go out of their way to get men over military age; and I hope the Presi-
  1310
  dent of the Local Government Board, when the Committee of which he is chairman meets again, will make careful inquiry into the matter.
  I should like to say, in connection with munition factories and Government Departments, that I have letters of my own every day on the subject stating that men are tumbling over each other; getting in each other's way, and cannot get on with the work. I think there ought to be a stricter combing out. in these factories than there has been up to the present moment. Why I say that is that of my own knowledge there are men in munitions establishments who know nothing whatever about the work they are supposed to do—greengrocers and gardeners—and I do say that the managements of these controlled establishments ought to be compelled to disclose the nature of the work these men are doing, and what they were doing, before they went into the Munitions Department. If that is done I am satisfied that you will get thousands of men of military age out of the Department. I do hope this question will be gone into thoroughly, because if not it makes people not employed in Government Departments discontented; and not only the men, but the employers, because many employers of labour in this country are being compelled to let men go whom they can scarcely do without. I know that in the cotton trade some of the mills will be closed and the staff transferred to another mill, and that will keep them going; but the cotton trade is one of the staple industries of the country, and if we are to maintain the credit of the country, and that of the Allies as well, the Government will have to be extremely careful in the number of men they take. I hope they will go thoroughly into the question of weeding out men in their own departments.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: In view of the appeal that has been made to me by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Long), and especially of the very grave words he used in that appeal, I should not think it my duty to press this Clause. I do hope, however, the right hon. Gentleman will think that the Debate has served a very useful purpose. There is really no reason for the delay in giving these figures. In these circumstances I would ask the leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
  Leave withheld.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I have been endeavouring to say a few words on this Amendment for the last half-hour, and I think I am entitled to offer what observations I have to make to the House. I regret deeply that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Griffith), who represents a "ginger" group, should have so misunderstood his functions as to withdraw his Motion, even after the speech of the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Long). It seems to me that we are in an extraordinary position; that the Government have threatened awful things against this House if we put the Government itself under the tribunals which they themselves have praised. Whenever an Amendment was raised which suggested that even a few tribunals were incompetent and discharged their functions in an inefficient way, we had constantly speeches from the Front Bench pointing out how absolutely competent these tribunals were. Now, however, when it is a question of the action of the Government itself, the Government declines to allow its servants to be submitted to the judgment of the tribunals. I say that there is a good case for the Government coming up for judgment before these tribunals. We have heard something of the men in Government offices. The hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) has referred to the Ministry of Munitions. I have good authority for saying that there are eleven hundred men of military age in munitions. I do not say that if these cases had to be decided before a tribunal, as the cases of private employers are, these men could not remain in their employment. The same applies to many controlled establishments. It is not so much the manual workers, but that there are many officials who could easily be dispensed with. Early in the month of February I raised the question with the Ministry of Munitions by a question in the House, of a particular controlled establishment in Dumbarton, where it was a matter of notoriety in the locality that certain people were being placed there, on account of the influence of their relatives, in order to escape the Military Service Act. I put a question, and the representative of the Ministry of Munitions said that they had no time to inquire into a case of that kind. It was obviously a case where local knowledge was of some value. The people in the locality knew what the men were doing before they went there. I knew of this: that in that estab-
  1312
  lishment were skilled men who had had their badges withdrawn from them, while unskilled men were put to the job, men of military age whose parents were keen advocates of Conscription, but who did not want their sons to go.
  That is where local knowledge will come in, and it is of extreme importance that in these establishments at least there should be some check on this kind of favouritism. A suspicion of this kind does not grow up all over the country for nothing. The hon. Member for Bolton (Captain Edge) has. told us how widespread all over the country is the suspicion that certain people are receiving special treatment from the Government Departments. That kind of thing does not arise unless there is some foundation for it, and no matter what combing Committees you set up you will not disabuse people's minds of these suspicions until there is a really valid check on the Government Departments or those who serve them directly or indirectly. It is for that reason that if the right hon. Gentleman goes to a Division I shall support him.
  Question put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Leave to Appeal.)
  The Central Tribunal may grant leave to appeal from a decision of an Appeal Tribunal.—[Mr. Whitehouse.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. LONG: Before the next Clause is moved, may I, for the convenience of the House, say this: It is now 1.30 a.m., and it is quite obvious that we cannot proceed with all the Amendments on the Paper this morning, for the reason that we shall deal with three or four very important questions which were dealt with last week in the early hours of the morning. The Government are extremely anxious that the case with regard to them should be met at a time when it can receive full publicity, because there is some—no doubt unintentional, but none the less very mischievous—misrepresentation as to our action in regard to certain parts of the Bill. In these circumstances, if the House is good enough to finish the new Clauses and to take the first Amendment on the Paper, we shall not ask them to proceed further.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

  1313
  I can put the case for this Clause in a word or two. It is an improvement in the machinery of the Act, designed to remove some of the injustices which occur at present. The Appeal Tribunal may grant leave to appeal. There is, however, a great difference in the practice observed by the different Appeal Tribunals, and the inequalities and injustices which follow can be remedied in some degree if the Central Tribunal has power to grant leave to appeal from a decision of an Appeal Tribunal. Therefore, I beg to move this Clause, in the hope that the Government will not take it controversially, but will see that some of the difficulties which we have been discussing during the past few days would be removed if the Central Tribunal could grant leave to appeal from a decision of an Appeal Tribunal.
  Mr. KING: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. LONG: I think it must be obvious that this Clause cannot be accepted. It really means this, that the Central Tribunal would have to hear every case where the applicant desired to appeal before them, and would have to decide whether there could be an appeal to themselves or not. It would mean, in practice, that every dissatisfied applicant would appeal to the Central Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal to them, and it would be impossible for them, to decide the case until they had heard the case themselves and had decided whether there was reasonable ground for appeal or not. Then they would have to hear the case over again. So it practically means two hearings by the Central Appeal Tribunal, and I am sure my hon. Friend opposite (Sir G. Younger), who is a member of that body, will confirm what I say when I tell the House that they already have enough to do, and we should have to create at least two or three more Central Tribunals, and this is not the way to do it.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Might I corroborate what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. The Central Tribunal has, at present, a very large number of appeals of this kind, which were allowed to come on now. We have always regarded this as a most serious part of our duty. Two members have to read through the whole of the papers before they are presented by one or other of them to the tribunal. It would be perfectly ludicrous and impossible for them to undertake these duties, and I do not think you would find that there would be many members of the Central Tribunal left by the end of a week.
  Mr. ANDERSON: It may be that in the form in which it appears on the Paper this new Clause is not entirely workable, but there is, at any rate, this difficulty with regard to the question of appeal. That is that the Appeal Tribunal which thus decides a man's case, also decides whether a man can appeal further, and they feel in many cases that that is more or less a reflection on them.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: No. They generally allow an appeal on some point of law in connection with the case, or some new point that arises. There is never any kind of reflection upon them.
  Mr. ANDERSON.: I am afraid that view is not always taken in the common-sense way the hon. Baronet has indicated, and it would be well, sometimes, if there were this right of appeal, even over the heads of the Appeal Tribunal if need be, if some very important point were involved. I agree that it would be very difficult indeed to throw the whole onus and burden of this on to the Central Tribunal, but some way ought to be found of dealing with the matter.
  Question put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 2 (3) of Principal Act.)
  The provision in Section two, Sub-section (3), of the principal Act that no certificate of exemption shall be conditional upon a person to whom it is granted continuing in or re-entering into employment under any specified employer or in any specified place or establishment shall not apply to a certificate of exemption granted on the ground of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service.—[Sir G. Younger.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I moved it in manuscript at the end of the Committee stage of the Bill, and having to some extent explained it in the early part of that sitting I do not think it necessary to say very much about it. Although the House seemed ready to accept the Clause and to include it in the Bill, the Solicitor General thought it would be wiser that it should be on the Paper, and I promised to bring it up on the Report stage. I do not know if my right hon. Friend has made up his mind to accept

  1315
  it or not. I ought to explain to the House that this is a Clause unanimously put forward by the Central Appeal Tribunal, in order, in their view, to enable them, m a proper and reasonable way, to carry out the provisions of the main Act. The Clause which was inserted, and very properly inserted, to prevent any kind of industrial compulsion, was inserted without any regard to the fact that we should have very soon to deal with the case of the conscientious objector, and it seems to us that it is impossible to carry out a particular kind of exemption which we were told to give, and where we think that a man should be relieved of both combatant and non-combatant service. We may, as hon. Members know, give exemption to a shepherd as long as he remains in that particular occupation, but we cannot tie him in any kind of way to the man whom he serves and to that particular position of shepherd which he occupies. That is quite right and proper, and as long as we say he must remain in that occupation, even if he leaves the particular employer, we or the military authorities have a catch over him. In the particular case with which I am now seeking to deal, I do press that the Government, which has granted the right to give total exemption, will also be willing to consider some kind of machinery by which this particular class of employment can be obtained for those who receive an exemption. At present we have to depend on the Friends' Ambulance Union, which naturally desires to restrict its operations to its own people, and the Pelham Committee, which is not a sufficiently large or representative body to undertake the work. They are, at present, rather snowed under by the work they have to do, and would require to be enlarged and strengthened very much to enable them to undertake the much wider operations which I can clearly see before us if this class of man is to be dealt with. Only this morning one of the members of the Central Tribunal said to me that he was reading over a large number of cases of small holders in one of the Scottish counties, where a great many of the tenants, and some of these small holders, who were men very much up in years, and some not in very good health, and so on, had one son on the croft or small holding who was carrying on the work of the holding. Now, it is almost essential to give exemption to these men, under the conditions in which we are working, and
  1316
  yet it is very absurd that we should have to do so. It is, at all events, very unfortunate that it should be so. If by any chance we had a system by which there could be, say, a Corps of Agriculturists^ or something of that sort, which could be turned on to that work under proper discipline—through the Pelham Committee or some such body—you could get rid of the difficulty we feel in dealing with these cases, and you would maintain the productivity of the soil. Therefore the Central Tribunal hoped that the House may allow this Clause to pass. Of course, they may be trusted not to use it in any kind of way which would be harsh, or which would override the original intention with regard to compulsion; but it is really a necessary power which they should have, in order to carry out effectively—as they think they should be carried out—the provisions of the Act.
  Mr. KING: I beg to second the Motion, and in doing so I should like to point out that admirable as this suggestion seems to me, and important as it must be considered when it is supported by the unanimous voice of the Central Tribunal, yet it is a power which affects not the Central Tribunal alone. This power which is sought to give conditional certificates will, apply to Appeal Tribunals and even to local tribunals also. Therefore, though the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs says-that power can be given safely, he cannot plead for the Appeal Tribunals and' the local tribunals, but only for the Central Tribunal. However, I think It is quite obvious that, put forward in this way, this proposal has a great deal to recommend it, and I hope it may be-accepted by the Government.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: Might I ask the right hon. Baronet whether Clause 3, Sub-section (2), of the original Act does not meet the point he desires to raise?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Is that the power of appeal?
  Mr. ROWNTREE: Yes.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Well, it is a little doubtful. Registration could only be done by some such body as I suggest.
  Me. E. HARVEY: I think the object of the right hon. Baronet is one that will command a great deal of sympathy, though whether the particular form suggested is the best way I am not quite sure, as it may give rise to other difficulties. The Pelham Committee has an

  1317
  established system of registration and is arranging for regular reports and, where necessary, for inspection, and I think some system of that kind should be adopted to safeguard the use of this form of exemption from any kind of danger. Some methods of that kind might be adopted with advantage, but whether the method proposed by the right hon. Baronet is the best I am not quite certain.
  Mr. LONG: I am advised that this additional power is required. The Subsection to which the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) referred is not sufficient. And my advisers also tell me that this Clause is in the best form for the particular purpose we have in view. Its object is not in any way contested by hon. Gentlemen who are so much interested in this particular branch of the case, and I think it is obviously desired that effect should be given to the wider policy they have advocated, that there must be a power of this kind residing in the tribunals. On the whole, I should be prepared to advise that the Clause should be read a second time. If we find, of course, on further examination that there is any weak point in it that requires amendment my hon. Friend will, I am sure, co-operate with us in seeing that it is not allowed to do anything not intended.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Extension and Continued Operation of Military Service, Act, 1916.)
  (1) Every male British subject who has at any time since the fourteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifteen, been, or for the time being is, ordinarily resident in Great Britain, and who has attained the age of eighteen years, and has not attained the age of forty-one years, shall, unless he either is for the time being within the exceptions set out in the First Schedule to the Military Service Act, 1916 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), as amended by this Act or any subsequent enactment, or has attained the age of forty-one years before the appointed date, be deemed as from the appointed date to have been duly enlisted in His Majesty's Regular Forces for general service with the Colours or in the Reserve for the period of the War, and to have been forthwith transferred to the Reserve.
  The appointed date shall, as respects men who come within the operation of this
  1318
  Section on the passing of this Act, be the thirtieth day after the date of the passing of this Act, and, as respects men who come within the operation of this Section after the passing of this Act, be the thirtieth day after the date on which they so come within the operation of this-Section.
  (2) The principal Act shall be construed as if the foregoing provisions of this Section were substituted for Sub-section (1) of Section one of that Act, without prejudice, however, to the operation of that Sub-section as respects men to whom it applied.
  (3) Sub-section (4) of Section one of the principal Act is hereby repealed.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "who" [who has attained the. age of eighteen years"], insert the words "for the time being."—[Sir G. Cave.]
  Mr. LONG: I beg to move "That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow (Tuesday).

SUMMER TIME BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

SUMMER TIME BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Local Time in Summer Months.)
  (1) During the prescribed period in each year in which this Act is in force, the local time in Great Britain shall be one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time.
  (2) This Act shall be in force in the year nineteen hundred and sixteen, and in that year the prescribed period shall be from two o'clock in the morning Greenwich mean time on Sunday the twenty-first day of May until two o'clock in the morning Greenwich mean time on Sunday the first day of October, and His Majesty may in any subsequent year, by Order in Council made during the continuance of the pre sent war, declare this Act to be in force during that year, and in such case the pre scribed period in that year shall be such period as may be fixed by the Order in Council.
  (3) Wherever any expression of time occurs in any Act of Parliament, Order in Council, order, regulation, rule, or by-law,

  1319
  or in any deed, time table, notice, advertisement, or other document, the time mentioned or referred to shall be held, during the prescribed period, to be the time as fixed by this Act:
  Provided that where in consequence of this Act. it is expedient that any time fixed by any by-law, regulation, or other instrument should be adjusted and such adjustment cannot be effected except after the lapse of a certain interval or on compliance with certain conditions, the appropriate Government Department may, on the application of the body or person by whom the by-law, regulation, or other instrument was made or is administered, make such adjustment in the time so fixed as in the circumstances may seem to the Department proper, and if any question arises as to what Government Department is the appropriate Government Department, the question shall be finally determined by the Treasury.
  (4) This Act shall apply to Ireland in like manner as it applies to Great Britain, with the substitution, however, of references to Dublin mean time for references to Greenwich mean time.
  (5) Nothing in this Act shall affect the use of Greenwich mean time for purposes of astronomy or navigation, or affect the construction of any document mentioning or referring to time in connection with such purposes as aforesaid.
  Amendments made:
  In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "local" ["the local time"].
  In Sub-section (1), after the word "time" ["the local time in Great Britain"], insert the words "for general purposes."—[Mr. Samuel.]
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (3) to insert the words, "Provided also that during the hay and corn harvests farmers be authorised to reckon the working day by Greenwich time."
  May I appeal to the Home Secretary to make some sort of change of this kind in the interest of the agricultural classes, who, it may be held, are bound—though I do not think it is the case myself—under this Bill to work on all occasions and on all days under this new time. Hon. Members who have experience of Scotland in the hay harvest, and particularly in the autumn harvest, and who know of the mists in the morning—very heavy wet mists coming in from the Forth
  1320
  and the North Sea—will realise that a farmer in these circumstances should be entitled to commence his day, not at 6 o'clock in the morning, but at 7 o'clock. There are doubts whether he can do that, though I think myself he can. Probably the right hon. Gentleman would tell me whether or not there is any right on the part of men to say, "We insist on commencing at 6 o'clock," and demanding overtime. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can say something which will modify the fears which agriculturists have in this matter, but I put down the Amendment entirely off my own bat. I received a large number of letters this morning from agriculturists, all in Scotland, saying that they think the Amendment is extremely practical in our country, and hoping that the Government will accept it.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Board of Agriculture in England and Wales, and also the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, have had this proposal under consideration, and both advise me they consider that it is not necessary to make any legislative provision for this purpose. It seems to me that the number of specific contracts in which hours are stated are exceedingly few, if any, and the Boards consider that the good sense of the farmers and their employés would get over any difficulties that might arise. Further, this point is made that at the present time, with the dearth of labour so great, the farmer would be only too glad to put his men on to other work during the first hour or so before the hay or corn could be carried.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: What other work?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Other work about the farms. There is plenty of other work to be done. The Boards say the farmers ought to keep the men on in the evenings as well. The farmers could find other work for an hour in the evenings for the men. The right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) himself said frankly that in his view it was not really necessary, because he thought it could be done by an arrangement between the parties. Of course, any opinion I may express obviously would not carry any legal validity, but I might express my own view, as the introducer of this Bill, that certainly the employés on the farms ought to endeavour to meet their employers in this matter, and not seek to get any undue advantage.
  Mr. GARDNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear that

  1321
  farmers can begin work when they like and, their men agreeing, can leave off when they like in the evening. If you put the men to work at this new Statutory time, it will mean four o'clock instead of five. You cannot expect the men to keep on an hour later to make good in the evening. We want to begin when we like and to leave off when we like—I mean so long as it is reasonable.
  Mr. DALRYMPLE: I represent an agricultural Constituency, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we suffer a good deal from morning mists. If this Amendment is not adopted, the farmers in the district I represent will be subjected to very great hardship.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Of course, agriculturists must work by the sun and not by the clock. That always has been done, and will continue to be done; consequently farmers will not really be affected.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that it is possible to do this by Agreement. I never for a moment supposed anything was not possible by agreement. I did not suggest this time was imposed absolutely upon any man. It is not; we all know that. The point was whether, without agreement, the farmer could say he would begin at seven or six. I think myself no difficulty should arise.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (5) after the word "navigation" [" for the purposes of astronomy or navigation"] insert the word "meteorology."—[Mr. Samuel.]
  Mr. POLLOCK: Before this Amendment is accepted, I would like to ask whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir Joseph Larmor) is not a better one. His Amendment would also include the words "or for other scientific purposes."
  Mr. SAMUEL: The objection to it is its vagueness. I do not know any other scientific purpose which really need be exempted. Astronomy, navigation, and meteorology seem to cover the ground. The hon. Member for Cambridge University was here not long ago, and if he had attached importance to his Amendment no doubt he would have moved it, but I think his Amendment was put down before he saw my Amendment. It was put down at the request of the Meteorological Office.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  2.0 A.M.
  Mr. PETO: By putting in the words "during the continuance of the present War," we may be in rather an invidious and awkward position, as no one, of course, can tell when the present War is going to end, or at what part of the year it will end. Nor is it very clear what would be the position if an Order in Council were issued continuing this Act for another particular year, say, in the month of February, if, before the period when the alteration of the clock would naturally take place—at the end of April—the War was concluded. In that case, of course, for that year, although it was not a year during the War period, this Act would be in force. That I could have no possible objection to, as I feel confident that once adopted the country will wish to continue this practice. But I would point out that if these words were omitted from the Clause, and the Act were passed now, it would be perfectly open to the country and the House, if it were found not to work satisfactorily, to repeal the Act, and, therefore, I think it very unfortunate that we should limit this Act to the continuance of the present War when obviously it could be and would be limited to any period if it were found that it did not work as everybody expects it to do. We shall be in the position of having to pass a new Act all over again and go through all the Debate probably, and enter into all kinds of considerations with regard to it, which would be wholly unnecessary; and that would take place at a time when there will be an enormous amount of legislative work for the House to consider. I should have thought it would have been very much better to have left it exactly the other way about, so that this question would not necessarily be reopened again at the conclusion of the War unless it were found not to work satisfactorily. As it is, whether it works satisfactorily or not a new Act will have to be passed, and it may have to be passed at a very inconvenient moment, as the present Bill comes at a very inconvenient moment. We have already lost a considerable portion of the advantage we ought to gain from the operation of the Act by the fact that it will not come into operation until the 21st May, and it may well be that we shall be in a position of suspended animation with regard to this daylight saving question

  1323
  until the House can find time to pass another Act, and in another year—perhaps in the year 1917 or 1918—we may find ourselves in the same position, and be deprived of the advantage of the alteration that is proposed until perhaps the month of June or July, when the House would have time to deal with the question. Although I quite recognise that it was understood to be emergency legislation, it would not have been any breach of faith, either in the House or with the country, to have left it to the country to decide whether the proposal met with general approval, or whether the arguments that have been used against it have such force in practice as we have been told to expect they would have. I do not for a moment believe they will have, and I do not think it will be found necessary or advisable to repeal the Act. I should like just to ask the Home Secretary to consider that, and tell us how he proposes to get over the very probable difficulty of having the time of the House very busily engaged at just such time in the year when the Act might with most advantage be brought into operation. You cannot deal with it effectively between the months of April and October. The fact that this Act is being passed so late in this year has caused much of its usefulness to disappear.
  Sir J. D. REES: The Bill will have no effect in lengthening the farmer's day.
  Mr. SAMUEL: There are other people in the world besides farmers. Farmers work by sunlight, other people work by the clock. This has been advocated as a War measure, and especially on the ground of War economy. It has received from the House of Commons a favourable reception
  1324
  on those grounds, and I do not think it would have been fair for me to take advantage of the special War conditions to endeavour to induce the House to pass a permanent Act, and not give it the opportunity of considering the matter when the War is over and normal conditions are restored. I have no doubt that if the experience of the country under this Act is favourable, if we find it as satisfactory as we hope we shall, and if we find the inconvenience as small as we anticipate, then the House and the country will be very ready to continue the Act in future years.
  Clause 2 (Short Title)ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Title—A Bill, to provide for the Local Time in Great Britain and Ireland being in advance of Greenwich and Dublin mean time respectively in the summer months.
  Question, "That the word 'Local' ['Local Time in Great Britain'] stand part of the Title,'' put, and negatived.—[Mr. Samuel.]
  Bill, reported, with an Amended Title; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock on Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Five minutes after Two o'clock a.m., Tuesday, 16th May.

WAR.
  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
    COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES.
    COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES.
    DISCHARGE OF PRISONER.
    DISCHARGE OF PRISONER.
    RIOT AT TULLAMORE.
    RIOT AT TULLAMORE.
  GERMAN PRISONERS HELD BY ALLIES.
  GERMAN PRISONERS HELD BY ALLIES.
  POSTING AND TRANSFER.
  POSTING AND TRANSFER.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  EXPIRATION OF PERIOD OF SERVICE.
  EXPIRATION OF PERIOD OF SERVICE.
  TIME-EXPIRED MEN.
  TIME-EXPIRED MEN.
  HASTINGS AND ST. LEONARDS FIRE BRIGADE.
  HASTINGS AND ST. LEONARDS FIRE BRIGADE.
  CHEMISTS (EXEMPTION).
  CHEMISTS (EXEMPTION).
  ATTESTED MARRIED MEN.
  ATTESTED MARRIED MEN.
  ROYAL IRISH RIFLES.
  ROYAL IRISH RIFLES.
  11TH MIDDLESEX REGIMENT (CORPORAL ROFFEY).
  11TH MIDDLESEX REGIMENT (CORPORAL ROFFEY).
  NON-COMMISSIONED ESTABLISHMENTS.
  NON-COMMISSIONED ESTABLISHMENTS.
  ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS.
  ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS.
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE CANTEENS.
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE CANTEENS.
  INFRACTIONS OF DISCIPLINE.
  INFRACTIONS OF DISCIPLINE.
  PRISON POPULATION.
  PRISON POPULATION.
  VENEREAL DISEASES.
  VENEREAL DISEASES.
  BRITISH OFFICER PRISONERS (BULGARIA).
  BRITISH OFFICER PRISONERS (BULGARIA).
  CUSTOMS WATCHERS (WAR BONUS).
  CUSTOMS WATCHERS (WAR BONUS).