Sitting of 4 December 1917

Preamble
Lord OXENFOORD (E. Stair)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I desire, with your Lordships' permission, to put a Question to the Leader of the House of which I have given him private notice. Your Lordships may remember that upon a recent occasion in this House we discussed the treatment of conscientious objectors who are imprisoned for acts of insubordination in connection with the Military Service Act; and my noble friend the Leader of the House, speaking at the end of the debate, indicated to your Lordships that he would confer with the Home Office, and would, at a later date, be in a position to make a statement as to the decision of the Government in respect of these prisoners. I desire to ask my noble friend whether he is now in a position to make that statement?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess for giving me the opportunity of redeeming my engagement on the occasion to which he refers. He has stated quite correctly what happened in the course of that debate. At the close of the proceedings I undertook to confer with the Home Secretary, and, of course, with the Secretary of State for War, upon the matter, and to see whether there were any mitigations of prison discipline in the case of these men which the Government might be able to introduce. No time was lost in pursuing the matter. I had the conference which I promised with my two right hon. colleagues, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs and the Secretary of State for War, and the conclusions at which we arrived were as follows.
The noble Lords who were present at the debate will recall that one of the points made on that occasion was the suggestion that there were a certain number of men at the present moment serving in the Army who claimed absolute exemption, and who would have been given it by the, Tribunals acting in their statutory capacity had the Tribunals been aware that they had power
54
to give absolute exemption. That was the point which was especially made by the noble Marquess on my right (Lord Lansdowne). On the other hand, I think I am correct in saving that when the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, spoke rather later in the debate be said that, although there might be such instances, he believed they were very few in number. I believe that to be the case; but the fact that they are very few does not, I think, dispense us from looking into such cases as there may be, however small the number. Accordingly, it was agreed between us that a letter should be written by the War Office to the Local Government Board on the following lines—
It having been represented that there are at the present moment serving in the Army a certain number of men who would have been given absolute exemption by the Tribunals had such Tribunals been aware that they had power to give absolute exemption, the Army Council would be grateful if the Local Government Hoard could see their way to circularising Tribunals asking whether such has been the case, and, if so, that the names of any men who would have received absolute exemption may be forwarded to the War Office for their consideration.
It is obvious that some little time must elapse before we can obtain the information which is here sought for, but that, I hope noble Lords will agree, is the best method by which to proceed.
The next, point that was raised, specifically referred to just now by the noble Marquess, was that of prison treatment. A decision was arrived at a little while ago—I think it was referred to by the Secretary of State for War in the discussion here—to grant the mitigation of treatment provided by Prison Rule 243A to men who had served a period of twelve months imprisonment with hard labour or had earned the marks for a twelve months sentence, which means ordinarily ten months actual imprisonment; and the Home Secretary made a direction that this Rule should apply whether the twelve months were a continuous sentence or an aggregate of shorter sentences.
When reference is made to a Regulation under a number, probably few of your Lordships' House are accurately aware of what it means. Therefore, I must

55
ask your permission to read to you what the application of this Prison Rule 243A to the men in question means. The treatment is as follows. They may as far as practicable be allowed to wear their own clothing. They may be relieved from cell cleaning if on payment of a small sum, fixed by the Commissioners, it is possible to procure for them the services of another prisoner to clean and to arrange their furniture and utensils. They may be employed on the lighter forms of labour, and thus be allowed facilities for earning by industry such remission as the Rules allow. They may be permitted to exercise in the forenoon and afternoon of each day, and to associate and converse during these periods of exercise, so long as they behave in an orderly manner. They may be permitted to have supplied to them at their own expense such books, not bearing on current events, as are not, in the opinion of the Commissioners, of an objectionable kind. Finally, by good conduct and industry they may earn the privilege of a letter and reply on private matters once a fortnight, and of being visited once a month by not more than three friends or relations at one time, for a period of a quarter of an hour, during such times as may be appointed.
The next question—this again, I believe was raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne—was as to the repeated trials. Perhaps I had better explain to your Lordships exactly what happens in respect of these trials, because it did not appear to me that the matter was fully understood by the House, and the changes that have taken place in the procedure in the last few months have, I think, not been apprehended by the public. I certainly was not fully cognisant of the case myself. What has happened is as follows. At one time the Army Council made a practice of mitigating long sentences passed by Courts-Martial on soldiers who committed offences against discipline on the grounds of conscience, by reducing the ordinary sentence of two years to 112 days. But the only result of this clemency proved to be that upon release, the soldier again refused to obey orders or committed other military offences, and was again tried by Court-Martial and sentenced again to imprisonment. That is the source of the feeling as to repeated trials upon which the noble Marquess relied. To avoid these repeated trials it was decided to leave the sentence awarded in the first instance to run its course, so that the offender might not
56
several times pass through the extra severity of the first months of successive sentences of imprisonment, as laid down by the Prison Rules. In either case the prisoners, after completing one year's sentence, whether continuous or not, will now be entitled to the special indulgences which I read out just now under Regulation 243A.
The last question which was raised in the debate here was as to the treatment of persons imprisoned when on medical grounds there was reason to think that they might fairly be released. Upon that matter we had a good deal of discussion, and the most suitable plan for dealing with the case appeared to us to be the following, which I will ask your Lordships' permission to narrate. The Home Office will submit from time to time to the War Office the names of soldiers who are serving sentences of imprisonment in civil prisons for offences against discipline on the grounds of conscience, and who are reported upon by prison medical officers as being in a poor state of health, and who are for this reason recommended for release from prison. On receipt of those names, the ordinary machinery of transferring soldiers to the Reserve can be set in motion by the branches concerned, and the men in question will then be transferred to one of the Reserve classes, where they will draw neither pay nor allowances—no one would, of course, contend that in those circumstances they should be in receipt of pay—and whence they could be recalled to the Colours by the military authorities as and when required. Details of this procedure are in course of being worked out. Those are the points to which special attention was drawn in the discussion to which I have referred, and I have stated the mitigations which His Majesty's Government propose to carry out.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it would be out of order to comment upon the interesting statement which has just been made by the Leader of the House, but I should like to ask him to clear up one point which he did not make quite plain to me. He told us, I think, that he had instituted inquiries as to the cases of certain men who were serving in the Army and who there was reason to believe might have obtained unconditional exemption if at the time the Tribunals had understood the precise meaning of the Military Service

57
Act. My question is this Does that inquiry apply also to men who are actually undergoing imprisonment and who would not have been undergoing imprisonment if the Tribunals had been aware of the true construction of the Military Service Act?
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I was not aware that this conversation was about to take place, and before the noble Earl answers the noble Marquess's question I should like to ask whether the letter about which the noble Earl spoke has been written, and, if so, what procedure will probably be taken upon its receipt by the Local Government Board. Have the Local Government Board the power of calling upon the different Local Tribunals to confer together again and to re-consider each case and to report upon it? Considering that originally the Local Tribunals apparently proceeded in the cases under discussion under a false apprehension, their then view of the cases would not be such as could now be recalled with precision and certainty in respect to individual points taken. I should like to know what the process is—whether the Tribunals will be called upon to reconsider the cases; how they will know who are the doubtful persons upon whom they would have passed different reports and as to whom they would have come to different conclusions had they understood how the law really stood; and further, what time would be expected to elapse before the result will be reached which is aimed at in the circular.
With respect to the relaxations promised under 243A, I may say at once that I consider some of these relaxations of the highest possible value. I refer especially to the opportunities given to those who would come under its mitigating influence of conversation and exercise together. I understand that in some cases, which have come peculiarly within my knowledge, the isolation of solitary confinement which in these cases has now endured for many months and is accentuated through the very sensitive conscientious view of their situation taken by the prisoners themselves—has become a matter of great anxiety, not merely with regard to their bodily health, but in regard to their health generally. Therefore the relaxation which would be possible by allowing human intercourse between the prisoners during
58
the very short periods of exercise would be of extreme value. I will not add anything more with respect, to the communication made by the noble Earl, except to say that I am sure we all feel very grateful to him for having taken up the matter in the way he has done.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, in reply to the two questions that have been put to me, the procedure as regards the communication to the Tribunals will, I Understand, go through four stages. In the first place, there is the letter to be issued by the War Office.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: Has it not yet been issued?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My noble friend the Secretary of State for War and myself have only just arrived at a conclusion upon the matter, with the aid of the Home Secretary. I do not know whether the letter has been already issued from the War Office, but my noble friend behind me (Lord Derby) gives an engagement that if it has not been so issued it shall proceed without delay. The letter, as I think I explained, is from the War Office to the Local Government Board asking them to circularise the Tribunals. That is stage number two. Then in this letter the Tribunals are asked to forward to us the names of any men in this position who would have received absolute exemption. That is stage number three. As I believe I remarked before, the number of these cases is not likely to be large; therefore I do not imagine that any delay will occur. The names will then come back from the Tribunals, through the Local Government Board, to the War Office, or to the War Office direct. It will then be for the War Office to consider the matter and to decide upon what action they ought to take. Those are the four stages through which the process will go. With regard to what my noble friend Lord Lansdowne said, I should not like to pledge myself absolutely definitely upon the point, but I think the letter will apply to all the cases that occurred between the two dates—I think they were January, 1916, and May, 1916—
THE EARL OF DERBY: Between the two Acts.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: About which the doubt arises.
THE MARQUESS OP SALISBURY: My Lords. I should like to put one more question to my noble friend. Am I correct in understanding that there will be no mitigation at all for the persons who are in prison, under twelve months—either in one sentence or in more than one sentence aggregating twelve months hard labour or if the prisoner has behaved well, under ten months hard labour? Is that so?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That is so
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, as this matter is a little complicated and not very easy to follow, it is intended to issue any Paper which will contain the statement, perhaps a little amplified, which the noble Earl has given us this afternoon, in order that those who are interested may have an opportunity of understanding it thoroughly in case it should be thought desirable to put any further question regarding it on a more appropriate occasion.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Does the noble Viscount not remember that under the new procedure which we inaugurated so happily this session, the Official Reports of our Proceedings now appear verbatim in the morning? Therefore a full statement of what has passed this afternoon will be in the hands of noble Lords and others to-morrow morning. In these circumstances I hardly think it necessary to issue special Papers.

NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, &c. (COMMITTEES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Representatives of disabled men to be included among the members of committees.
1.—(1) Every scheme regulating the constitution of a local or district committee under section two of the Naval and Military War Pensions, &c., Act, 1915, shall provide for the inclusion among the members of the local or district committee of at least two disabled men who have been discharged from the naval or military service of His Majesty during the present war and of a woman who is in receipt of a pension as the widow or other dependant of a man in the said naval or military service who has died from causes arising out of his service during the present war.
(2) Where such a scheme, framed before the passing of this Act, does not provide, as aforesaid, the council by which the scheme was framed shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act and subject to the approval of the Minister of Pensions, frame a supplemental scheme revising the existing scheme so as to give effect to the provisions of this section, and if within such
60
time, not being less than one month, as the Minister may allow the council does not frame such a supplemental scheme, or such a supplemental scheme as the Minister approves, the Minister may himself frame a supplemental scheme, which shall have the like effect as if it had been framed by the council and approved by the Minister.
(3) There shall be included among the members of every sub-committee appointed under the said section for any part of the area of a local committee for any county (including the county of London) or county borough, and among the members of every joint committee appointed by two or more local committees, whether in either case appointed before or after the commencement of this Act, at least two such disabled men as aforesaid.
Where any such sub-committee or any joint committee has been appointed before the commencement of this Act the local committee or committees, as the case may be, by which it was appointed shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, make the necessary appointment for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provision, and if the local committee or committees, fail within such time, not being less than one month, as the Minister of Pensions may allow so to do, the Minister may himself make the appointment.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD) moved to amend subsection (3), after the word "fail" ["and if the local committee or committees fail"], by inserting "to make the appointment"; and by omitting the words "so to do" ["as the Minister of Pensions may allow so to do"]. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have two purely drafting Amendments to move which do not change the policy or substance of the Bill in any way.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 17, after ("fail") insert ("to make the appointment")
Clause 1, page 2, line 18, leave out ("so to do").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE ADEN HINTERLAND.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any further information as to the recent fighting in the Aden hinterland.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since the publication of Sir Charles Munro's Despatch at the end of October dealing with the fighting that had taken place in various areas in the Near East, there appeared in the Press about ten days ago a reference

61
to further fighting in the Aden hinterland. In July last, I think it was, I addressed a Question about the fighting in the Aden hinterland to the noble Earl the Leader of the House and in the course of his reply he dealt with the question of the behaviour of those tribes who are under our suzerainty in that district. He then gave an assurance that those tribes had remained favourable to us, and I trust that in the course of his reply this afternoon he will be able to repeat that assurance.
There is one particular point, of which I have given private notice, on which I would ask a question namely, in connection with the position of the Turkish force in the Aden hinterland. About a fortnight ago there appeared in The Times a very interesting article as to the establishment of the new Kingdom of Hejaz. That article narrated how the King of the Hejaz had succeeded in securing order in his dominions and how the pilgrims could now go to Mecca in safety without fear of having money extorted from them, or of being robbed, or even of being murdered. That, if true, shows that the Hej Kingdom is now in a fairly well-settled state. That being the case, I do not quite understand how it is that the Turks in the Aden hinterland are able to obtain their supplies and reinforcements. The Turkish force is obviously hummed in by the King of the Hejaz on the north and by our position at Aden in the south, and as we have command of the Red Sea—at least I presume we have—I do not understand how it is that the. Turkish force is able to put up so very prolonged a fight in that country, which ought to be under our own governing.
Since I put the Question on the Paper another matter has been brought to my notice—namely, that the administration of Aden has been transferred from the Government; of Bombay to the Foreign Office. That is a proposal which has been made for some time past, but it is one which I have always regarded with some misgiving, I am not aware of anything in the record of the administration by the Foreign Office of any of our Possessions that is calculated to give one confidence that the Foreign Office can successfully administer a very important outpost like Aden. On the other hand, the noble Earl the Leader of the House, with his consummate knowledge of Indian administration, is not likely to have allowed a transfer of this character to take place without having every guarantee that the administration
62
would be successfully carried out in the future. I do not think it has been publicly made known that this change of administration has taken place, and I therefore invite the noble Earl, in reply, to say really what has occurred in this matter.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I will reply to my noble friend's Question to the best of my ability, although there is not really very much to say about what is going on in this minor, but, as he knows quite well, not altogether unimportant theatre of war. The line which has been held by our troops at some distance from Aden is the same line as that which they have held since July, 1915. The line consists of the defensive posts of Imad and Sheikh Othman, and includes Robat, and it describes an are of about eleven miles from Aden. Throughout this period since 1915 there have been constant patrol skirmishes and small outpost actions, and the Turkish posts and camps have been continually bombarded by our guns. Quite a short time ago—on November 22—the latest and most successful of these local actions occurred on a somewhat larger scale than any of its predecessors. This was at Jabir, a Turkish post which the British forces attacked and captured, and the defences of which they destroyed. The Turks are based at Lahej, which they took from a chief who was friendly to us, in the early stages of the war. Between their lines and ours is a strip of desolate and waterless country. Their troops are distributed over a wide area, and a portion of their force directly fronts ours outside our lines at a slight distance from Aden.
The noble Lord asked me three questions. The first is as to the attitude of the tribes with whom we were on friendly relations before the war began. I have no definite information, but I have no reason to doubt that what I said on the last occasion still holds good. The second point is one which has occurred to many of us—namely, how is it that the Turks, in their position in the south-west corner of Arabia, are able to maintain their communication with Turkey and secure their ammunition and supplies. So far as we know they have no direct communication with Turkey at all, and no reinforcements or supplies of ammunition and other war material have reached them. They have only the resources—perhaps I had better not give them to the House—in men and material which they had at that time.

63
The last question which the noble Lord asked was as to the administration of Aden. No absolute and final transference has been made, because this is a matter which should not, I think, be finally determined during the period of the war. It raises important considerations of administration and policy which His Majesty's Government have not yet had an opportunity of examining. I myself am, and always have been, in favour of some such transfer. But the reason why a modified transfer has taken place now has arisen out of the exigencies of the war. It became necessary some time ago to place the troops at Aden under the War Office, just as the troops in Mesopotamia were so placed; and there then ensued certain dislocation of action because, while military operations were under one Department, political action was under another. Therefore it was decided, with the concurrence of the Government of India, to transfer the political charge of Aden to the Home Government, and our adviser upon the matter now is Sir Reginald Wingate, the High Commissioner at Cairo. When the war comes to an end the, future of these areas—Arabia, Mesopotamia, and other neighbouring countries—will have to be reconsidered, and the form of administration that will then be set up is one which no action now taken need in the least degree prejudice.
As regards the whole situation at Aden, I may say, in conclusion, that of course the position is one which we should like to clear up. Undoubtedly it would strengthen our position in Arabia and against the Turks if we succeeded in clearing it, up, but nobody knows better than the noble Lord the great calls which have been made upon our forces in that part of the world. Therefore we have not been able to fake all the action desired, and for the time being the Aden situation has, I am afraid, had to wait.
As regards the next Question on the Paper in Lord Lamington's name relating to Persia, * I am sorry to say that I saw it
* Lord LAMINGTON'S Question on the Paper was in the following terms: To ask His Majesty's Government whether information can be given as regards Sir Percy Sykes's force, and as to where it is now operating in Persia; whether the Government have had brought to their notice the large losses that the Imperial Bank of Persia and the Anglo-Persia Oil Company have incurred owing to the action of Persian subjects instigated by German influences; and whether a statement can be made as to the condition of affairs generally in Persia.
on the Order Paper this morning for the first time, and I have not had an opportunity of obtaining the information which is desired. If, however, my noble friend will be kind enough to ask the Question on a future occasion I will undertake to answer it.
LORD LAMINGTON: I sent a communication to the noble Earl on Saturday. I think it was, stating that I was going to ask the Question.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes, but I did not see the Question.

THE LOSS OF THE "APAPA."
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is true that the Naval escort was withdrawn from the "Apapa." lately torpedoed, when in or near the critical zone of her port of arrival.
THE ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, the answer to the noble Viscount's Question is in the negative The circumstances in which the "Apapa" was lost are not those described in the Question. I cannot tell your Lordships what the circumstances were, because it is not desirable to make public the arrangements which are made by the Admiralty for the protection of ships; but, if the noble Viscount so desires. I shall be happy to furnish him confidentially with the facts of the, case.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I should like to say that I was faced with the same difficulty as the noble Earl, which prevented my putting the Question in a more definite form. I shall, however, be glad also to give him any information I have confidentially.

DISEMBARKATION OF FOOD CARGOES.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is true that a ship full of foodstuffs was lately sunk while proceeding from one home port to another home port because no arrangements existed at the first port for disembarking the cargo; and, if true, why ships are not ordered in the first instance to proceed to ports where they can discharge their cargoes.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I imagine that the case referred to in this Question is that of the steamer "La Blanca," and the circumstances are as stated—that is to say, the steamer put into an English port and being unable there to discharge her cargo proceeded to another port and was torpedoed on her way. But there was an explanation in this case. The steamer was not destined to the port which she first entered, but was obliged to call there on account of engine trouble. As soon as the defects to her engines were repaired she proceeded on her way, and was torpedoed before she could reach the port of her destination. I am sure the noble Viscount feels, as we all feel, that the loss of a ship carrying a valuable cargo of food is made all the more grievous by the knowledge that that cargo had once been in an English port. Your Lordships will remember that on a previous occasion, when I was discussing the case of the "Rotarua," I gave your Lordships an assurance that every possible effort would be made to enable cargoes of foodstuffs to be discharged whenever possible at the first port of call. The arrangements which I then had in contemplation have, in fact, been put in hand, and are very nearly completed. Accommodation for cold storage at the port in question is being erected and is nearly completed. If it had been completed the cargo of the "La Blanca" might have been saved. I hope that your Lordships will believe me when I say that every possible effort is being made to provide the necessary machinery for dealing with cargoes of Foodstuffs at all ports so as to prevent the recurrence of incidents of this kind.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, the sinking of ships which have arrived at one English port and have been sent out to another because there is no storage for the cargo at the first port has been a frequent occurrence since the war began, and I think it is unpardonable. It is all a question of escort. The noble Earl will tell us that we have not enough escorts. I suggest that the ships should wait at the ports until they obtain escorts. We are getting so short of food in many directions that it appears to me to show a great want of administrative skill to allow any ship to come into this port, for any reason whatsoever, and then send her to another port
66
without escort, when she is almost certain to be torpedoed. I would ask the noble Earl whether he can assure the House that this will not occur again. It is nothing but the lack of escort that is responsible, and ships should be detained in poll until an escort is ready.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am afraid I cannot give your Lordships any assurance that no such case will ever happen in future, but I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that the facts which he has mentioned are regarded just as seriously by the authorities as they are by him. All provision for the escort of ships is carried out by the Admiralty, and every effort is made to save ships from destruction. Your Lordships will understand, however, that the provision of arrangements for dealing with cargoes at particular ports must take time. They are being pushed on as quickly as possible, and when they are completed the cargoes can be unloaded whenever they are brought into port. The protection of ships passing from one port to another is provided for by the Admiralty, and so far as possible we do try to ensure the safety of such ships. We cannot be successful in every case, and I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance that no ship will ever be sunk in future when proceeding between two ports in this country. But I need hardly tell your Lordships that the loss of a ship is not due to any failure on the part of the Admiralty to provide escort for it.
LORD BERESFORD: Very unsatisfactory.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Having listened to the noble Earl's reply, I would join in the opinion expressed by the noble and gallant Lord that it is most unsatisfactory. We are being asked throughout the country to save food and net waste it; yet the authorities allow a vessel to go out of port, with a cargo of food—I do not say how many thousand tons—to be the prey of the first submarine or mine that comes along. This is a thing that is raising the ire of the country. Surely there is an alternative. It would be better to allow the people living in the neighbourhood of the harbour to have the food rather than permit the ship to put out again and go to the bottom.
House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock.