Sitting of 17 April 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOYMENT) ACTS, 1911 to 1918.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Minister of Labour, dated 10th April, 1918, entitled the Unemployment Insurance (Munition Workers) Fund Regulations, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order numbered D.I.P. 518, dated 10th April, 1918, entitled the Wart Disease of Potatoes Order of 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (IMPERIAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
Copy presented of Revised Rules for discussion of (1) Animal Financial Statement; (2) Matters of General Public Interest [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Statement showing (1) an Estimate of the sums receivable by the Education (Scotland) Fund for 1917–18, of the expenditure there from under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, and of the balance available for allocation under the Act; (2) the allocation of such Balance in accordance with the terms of the Department's Minute of 28th June, 1912 [by Command];to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Twenty-third Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland, 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    INDIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for India when he expects to give an account of his recent visit to India, and to state what changes are proposed in connection with the Government of India?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I would ask the hon. Member to be good enough to defer his question until the Secretary of State for India's return from India. He is expected back next month. I am sorry not to be able to be more precise as to the date.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the money that has hitherto been deducted from the deferred pay of unemployed officers of the Indian Army of thirty-two years' service and over who have undertaken work as censors at the Central Telegraph Office and other places has been credited to the revenues of India or to what?
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. and gallant Member presumably refers to the difference between the unemployed pay of Indian Army officers and the amount issued to them by the India Office when they are employed by the War Office as censors. The difference in question accrues in the first instance to Indian revenues, but is eventually credited to Imperial funds in connection with other financial adjustments.
    Colonel YATEasked undo what warrant, rule, or Regulation commissioned officers of the Indian Army, compulsorily retained in the Service after their full pensions have become due, can not draw that pension?
    Mr. FISHER: There is no warrant, rule, of Regulation under which an officer holding His Majesty's commission can claim retirement at any particular time, and the power of the Secretary of State to suspend or limit retirement temporarily whenever it may appear to him necessary to do so in the interests of the public service is indicated in paragraph 710 of Army Regulations, India, Vol. 1.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state the terms on which pensions and allowances will be granted to widows and dependants of officers and men in the mercantile marine serving in vessels in Admiralty employ; and when the new scale will be operative?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I had hoped to have been in a position to have given my hon. Friend a definite answer to-day. I am sorry that is not possible. The matter is still the subject of discussion between the Departments concerned. I think I may safely promise a final reply this day week.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Pensions Minister whether he has now considered the question of the awarding of a pension to the mother of Private E. H., No. 46,127, West Yorkshire Regiment, who was shot for desertion, and who, prior to her son's death, was receiving 8s. 9d. weekly (ring paper No. V 33,241); if such pension has been refused, is it because although the widow of a soldier who has been shot is entitled to a pension a mother under similar circumstances is not; and how he justifies such a distinction?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): The regimental paymaster reports that separation allowance will be paid in this case till the 16th September next. The question of pension will therefore be dealt with in August, and any pension admissible will be paid from the 17th September. No distinction is drawn in these cases between widows and other dependants.

    SHIPBUILDING.
    Colonel W. THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Government to work the
    378
    Chepstow shipbuilding yard under their own control or whether it is to be worked under private enterprise; and, if it is to be worked under Government control, will he state how it is to be managed, and whether the men to be employed are to be soldiers or civilians?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the intention of the Government to work the Chepstow Yard during the period of the War under their own control. Mr. Noel Peck, late managing director of Messrs. Barclay, Curie, and director of Messrs. Swan, Hunter and Wigham Richardson, Limited, and the North of Ireland Shipbuilding Company, has been sent down to Chepstow as Director of Shipbuilding to manage the yard, and will have associated with him other experienced shipbuilders. The question as to the status of the personnel has not yet been definitely settled.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it proposed after the War to hand these national ship yards over to private owners?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer I gave on 15th November, he will see that the last paragraph answers his question.
    Colonel THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong rumour about that the men who are going to be employed here will be soldiers; if that is so, are we to understand that they will get the full and proper rates of the men employed in the other shipyards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The yards, that is the slips, are being built by prisoners of war and soldiers. As to ship construction, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put a question down.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Admiralty has taken over a shipbuilding yard at Chepstow from a company of which Lord Inchcape was chairman; whether that company arranged to have two ships laid down last October and two more in March last; who are the officials responsible for preventing a private company from utilising this yard and placing its resources under the influence of Government control; and whether such officials are still managing the shipbuilding facilities at Chepstow?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Whatever the company's intention may have been with regard to laying down

    379
    ships in October last, when the Admiralty took over on the 31st August, 1917, all prospect of having two slips ready by October, 1917, had vanished, as only 620 piles out of the 1,350 required for them had been driven. The company's own engineer, on the 25th July, 1917, stated the dates for completion of the two most forward berths as three months and four months respectively, and the rest as six, eight, and twelve months, from the time when an additional 200 men should be obtained. That additional labour had not been obtained in July, 1917, and was not obtained until after the Admiralty had taken possession. The principal reason that influenced the Government in taking over the yard was that; the contractors could not get sufficient men on the work. Since the Admiralty has taken over, the difficulty of housing the labour has been taken vigorously in hand, hutting accommodation for 1,600 men has already been completed. Berths Nos. 1 and 2 are complete, and other work in the yard is progressing satisfactorily. As regards the third part of the question, I must take exception to the implication that by our action progress in new merchant output has been prejudiced. From the earlier part of my answer my hon. Friend will see that this is not so. As regards the final part of the question, I have just stated the facts in the answer I have given my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, South.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Inchcape sent a letter to the "Times," which was published on 25th March, stating distinctly that work had been delayed, and also that he would have had two ships laid down in these slips in October last?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, I saw the letter, and, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I recognize the question as, in substance, based on that letter. The letter is receiving attention, and I believe the First Lord will, if he has not already done so, reply on the facts to Lord Inchcape.

    SHIPPING LOSSES.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked whether the Admiralty proposals for the publication of shipping losses through marine risk and enemy action have been approved by the War Cabinet?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir.

    GREENWICH HOSPITAL FUND.
    Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the present value of the Greenwich Hospital Fund; whether this is used in any way for the advantage of seamen; and, if so, for what purpose?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The. estimated income of Greenwich Hospital for the year 1917–18 was £219,235, of which £194,068, or 88½per cent., was appropriated for the advantage of seamen and marines under the following heads:

    Age pensions

    £114,000

    Special pensions, and maintenance in naval hospitals, etc

    23,800

    Pensions to widows and gratuities to other dependents relatives

    6,100

    Education and maintenance of children in schools and homes

    50,168

    £194,068

    The remaining 11½ per cent. was utilised as follows:

    Pensions to officers and allowances to their children

    £9,320

    Greenwich Hospital Estate expenses, etc., and superannuation allowances

    15,043

    Surplus income

    804

    £25,167

    Mr. PETO: Am I right in understanding that substantially the whole of Greenwich Hospital Fund is allocated to officers and men of the Navy, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider, bearing in mind the sources from which the fund comes, that some share of it should be devoted to pensions or analogous benefits to men of the mercantile marine?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that the whole of this money was subscribed by the seamen themselves?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend raises a very interesting question. I will send him a copy of the original charter of the foundation in 1694. Before I can say that we shall apply any of this money to those most admirable objects mentioned perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the original charter and the purposes to which the money was to be applied; then he can put another question.
    Mr. PETO: It is not the question of the charter to which I was referring, but the sources from which the money originally came.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Obviously we can only spend the money under the authority given to us; we cannot possibly vary the benefaction.

    NAVAL OFFICERS (RATIONS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether naval officers employed at the Admiralty are on the same footing as regards rations and allowances as military officers employed at the War Office; if not, if he will state the reason; and if he will put a stop to all differentiation in this respect?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The allowances issuable to naval and military officers are governed by distinct and different Regulations, and based on definite considerations. As regards officers attached for duty, respectively, to the War Office and the Admiralty, some are on consolidated pay, some on full pay and allowances. It would be of assistance to me in going into the differentiation between the two Services, which my hon. and gallant Friend obviously desires to have dealt with, if he will state more explicitly the precise point to which he desired to call our attention.

    GENERAL TOWNSHEND'S FORCE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that officers of the British Service who belonged to General Townshend's force were placed on British rates of pay when they were captured, and that this means a serious reduction of money; whether it is intended to continue this reduced pay; and whether he will consider specially hard cases?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): British Service officers in receipt of Indian rates of pay retain them for sixty-one days after they become prisoners of war. After that they draw exactly the same emoluments as any other British officers who are prisoners of war, namely, pay, lodging, fuel, light, and field allowances.

    HEREDITARY TITLES (DOMINIONS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the feeling against the creation of hereditary titles in British self-governing Dominions; whether he has considered the announcements and speeches made in the Canadian House of Commons on 8th April; and what action he proposes to take?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for West Clare.
    Mr. KING: Have definite communications passed between the Canadian Government and the Colonial Office on this subject?
    Mr. HEWINS: If the hon. Member will refer to my answer, he will see that his supplementary question is already replied to.

    SOLDIERS' MARRIAGES.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that, as the result of the War, many thousands of marriages between overseas soldiers and British women have taken place, and that there is evidence that some hundreds of these are bigamous; that the War Office have declined, and so have the various Dominion troops' record offices, to furnish copies of Dominion soldiers' records, furnishing addresses, etc., of the soldiers, to enable inquiries to be prosecuted, even if application for such copy of the record is made by the soldier himself; that the expense of a suit for nullity of marriage is out of the power of most of the women affected; will he consult the Agents-General of the various Dominions and seek ways to make such bigamous marriages less easy, and arrange for official help from tine Dominions to reduce the expense of nullity proceedings; (2) whether he is aware that since the War commenced many thousands of marriages between overseas soldiers and women in the United Kingdom have taken place; that evidence exists which shows that in some hundreds of cases such marriages have been bigamous; that no means of annulling such marriages are open to the aggrieved women except applications to the High Court requiring legal evidence procured

    383
    in the Dominions; that the expense of such applications is outside the power of the majority of women so married; and that it is the opinion of the Registrar-General that a change in the law is required to make such bigamous marriages less easy; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): As I fully explained to my hon. Friend in reply to a question on this subject on 5th February last, bonâfide inquiries as to whether overseas soldiers are already married or not are always answered by the Record Offices concerned so far as the documents show. I have no information as to the number of marriages which have taken place between overseas soldiers and British women, but I hope that the number of such marriages which my hon. Friend alleges to have been bigamous is exaggerated. I understand that a bigamous marriage is void ab initio, and that no proceedings in the High Court for nullity are necessary. It is not practicable for the War Office to promote legislation on this matter or to facilitate the obtaining of legal evidence from the Dominions.
    Mr. RENDALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that requests have been made to the War Office and various Agents-General that a record of each soldier in those offices should be given, and those requests have been refused; and will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is not possible, if the soldier asks for it, to satisfy the relations of the woman he proposes to marry that a copy of the document should not be given?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am told that the Dominions authorities, as well as the War Office, will give any information, provided it is asked for bonâfide.
    Mr. RENDALL: Is there any objection to giving a copy of the whole record if the soldier himself asks for it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON:I cannot see why, if the soldier himself asks for it, a copy should be refused. There is no case for refusal, and we guard with extreme care the confidential documents of any soldier.
    Brigadier-General McCALMONT: Is it not possible for the soldier to obtain the information through his commanding officer?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think there is a good deal in the hon. and gallant Member's point. All we want to be assured of is that the application is bonâfide, because we are the custodians of the man's confidential documents and there might be something in them that he might not like to see revealed.
    Mr. RENDALL: Is the hon. Member not aware that although it is the fact that a bigamous marriage is no marriage, yet in regard to property and children of a bigamous marriage it is necessary that it should be annulled by an application to the High Court? Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that this is very costly and out of the power of the woman to do, and does he not think legislation should be passed to put these women into a better position?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is obvious that it is not for the War Office to promote such legislation, and all inquiries ought to be addressed to the Dominion authorities.

    DEATH PENALTY.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether any and what inquiries were made as to the past history of Private E. H., No. 46127, West Yorkshire Regiment, before he was sentenced and shot for desertion on 17th February last; whether it was known that this man was considered by his employers and townspeople, previous to his becoming a soldier, to be mentally weak, and that whilst a, soldier he gave considerable anxiety and trouble to the doctors and his officers; whether such doctors had made any report, and, if so, what report of his mental condition; whether, after he deserted, he wrote his mother several letters, the envelopes of which she sent on to his regiment to enable them to discover his whereabouts, and that it was by means of these envelopes that he was found, and, as a consequence, shot; and will he call for a full report on this man's health and conduct record previous to his death?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have made inquiry, and find that this man was specially examined by the medical authorities both before and after his trial by court-martial, with the result that he was found to be in a perfectly normal state of health. I have no information as to the other suggestions raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether Private E. H., No. 46127, West Yorkshire Regiment, was sentenced and shot for desertion on 17th February last, whether information to this effect and with no other information and no preliminary letter was sent on 16th March to his mother by the Infantry Record Office, York, No. 2; and whether he will explain why such method of proceeding was adopted in view of the pledge given by him?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is much regretted that an error was made at the Record Office, and steps have been taken by the officer in charge to prevent a recurrence.
    Mr. RENDALL: As this has caused very great pain and also injury to the health of the mother of this young man, will the War Office send some recognition of their error to this woman?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that is a very reasonable suggestion, and if the officer in charge of Records has not done so I will see that it is done.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    DRAFTS (YOUNG SOLDIERS).
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether H. Parsons, late 5/1st Bedford Regiment, has been transferred to the 7th Northants and sent abroad, although not yet eighteen and a half, and, if so, why; will he be at once returned to England; whether he volunteered for, and was claimed by his brother for, the Royal Garrison Artillery, and has not yet been transferred to the Royal Garrison Artillery; and, if so, will he say why?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries have been made, and it has been ascertained that this man was eighteen and a half years of age on the 13th March, 1918, so he was included in a draft in compliance with the instructions issued to meet the present emergency. There is no trace of an application for his transfer to the Royal Garrison Artillery, but if an application had been received it would not have been sanctioned, as all such transfers are in abeyance for the period of the War.
    Mr. RENDALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the information given as to the age of this young man is incorrect, and that he is not eighteen and a half years of age now?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no doubt that the age supplied was taken from his papers.
    Colonel THORNE: Is it not a fact that a good many young men have been sent over to France before they were eighteen and a half years of age?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes. I answered that question fully yesterday. The national emergency has been very great, indeed, but we have guaranteed that as far possible no man of eighteen and a half years of age shall be sent abroad, unless he is physically fit and well-trained.

    COMMISSIONED RANK.
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked what arrangements, if any, will be made so that men called up for service under the new Military Service Bill who, from their qualifications in civil life, would be eligible for officers can obtain commissioned rank?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The matter is at present under the consideration of the Army Council.
    Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say what are the qualifications in civil life necessary for commissioned rank? Must he have a banking account?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, not necessarily.
    Mr. WATT: Social status?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, not necessarily.

    TIME-EXPIRED MEN.
    Sir C. HENRYasked whether time expired men, who when they left the Army had obtained non- commissioned rank, if called up under the provisions of the new Military Service Bill, will take the rank they occupied when they obtained their discharge?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The point raised by my hon. Friend in his question is still under consideration.

    VOLUNTEERS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for Wax whether he can make any statement as to the position of officers now serving in the Volunteers when the new Military Service Bill passes into law; will a Volunteer officer who comes under the new age limit be given a commission in the Army, or will he be

    387
    required to pass through the ranks, or will he have the opportunity of joining an. officers' cadet corps?
    Mr. WATTasked whether it is intended to use the men in the Volunteers who are affected by the provisions of the Military Service Bill as units or draft them as individuals into the Army; and whether officers holding Volunteer commissions will be taken under the Bill as privates?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The position of Volunteer officers is being considered by the Army Council. Members of the Volunteer Force will be called up in the same way as other members of the general public affected by the Bill.

    MEN IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
    Sir C. HENRYasked the Minister of National Service if he will grant a Return setting forward the number of men in the different Government Departments who, on the 31st March, were between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the number of men between the ages of twenty-five and forty-one, the number in each class that would be eligible for either Grade 1 or Grade 2 and the number in each class who have been on active military service and have been discharged on account of physical disability?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): A full statement regarding the personnel of the Civil Ser vice is being prepared by the Ministry of National Service, and will shortly be issued as a White Paper.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
    Sir J. BETHELLasked the Minister of National Service (1) if he will give the number of men fit for active service under thirty years of age engaged in agriculture who have been exempted from military service; and (2) if he will give the number of men fit for active service under twenty-five years of age engaged in agriculture who have been exempted from military service?
    Mr. BECK: It is estimated that there are 120,000 men engaged in agriculture in Great Britain who are under thirty years of age. Of these, approximately, 63,000 are under twenty-five. They have not all been medically examined, but allowing for
    388
    the fact that the men recruited from agriculture during the earlier part of the War were mostly fit for general service, it is considered that at least 33 per cent. of these numbers would be in that category.
    Captain WRIGHT: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many men engaged in agriculture under the age of thirty have gone to the War either voluntarily or under compulsion?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must give notice of that question.

    HOUSE FACTORS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of National Service whether the term "house agent" in his recent order cancelling exemptions on occupational grounds is meant to apply to house factors in Scotland, part of whose duty it is to collect local rates and Imperial taxes along with rents of houses and business premises, or whether it applies only to house agents there who combine with other businesses that of letting furnished houses or apartments generally for short periods?
    Mr. BECK: Yes, Sir; the term "house agent" is meant to include house factors of the class referred to, provided that they fall within the prescribed conditions as to age and medical category.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is not the collection of local rates and Imperial taxes a work of national importance?
    Mr. BECK: I do not think my hon. Friend is right. Some of these men collect local rates as part of their work in connection with the arrangements made by local landlords; they do not collect on behalf of the Government.
    Mr. HOGGE: My question was whether the collection of Imperial taxes is a work of national importance?

    ATTESTED MEN.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the pledge that attested men should not be at a disadvantage with unattested men, he will amend Regulation 175 of the Instructions to Tribunals as to voluntary attested men, so that attested men may apply for exemption on the grounds of ill-health or infirmity equally with unattested men?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher):Attested men, alike with unattested men, are examined as to their fitness for military service by National Service Medical Boards, and I would remind the hon. Member that attested men have the same rights as unattested men, under the Rules which have been issued by my Department, of applying to the Appeal Tribunal for leave to be examined by the medical assessors, if they are dissatisfied with their grading by the National Service Medical Board.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Am I to put that construction upon the Order issued in February last, which says that attested men cannot appeal on the ground of ill-health, and does that agree with the general Order under the Act of 1915 which was issued to the tribunals?
    Mr. FISHER: Under the present practice everyone, whether attested or unattested, will be able to make an appeal to the medical board, and can apply to the Appeal Tribunal to be examined by medical assessors. That affords to unattested men every protection they can desire to have on medical grounds.
    Mr. PRINGLE: After the passing of the Bill which left this House yesterday is there to be any change in the Regulations regarding medical examination and appeals on medical grounds to tribunals?
    Mr. FISHER: No. As far as I am responsible for the issuing of Regulations, I do not contemplate taking away any of the rights as regards appeal on medical grounds which men have at present.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman modify the circular which says that attested men are not to apply on the ground of ill-health or infirmity?
    Mr. FISHER: There is no need to modify it at all. They can now, and I hope will always, be able to appeal on medical grounds to the Appeal Tribunal if they like for leave to be examined.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Why are these words in the circular?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister, in introducing the Military Service Bill, announced that rights of appeal were to be Limited, and can he give an undertaking that that intention has been departed from?
    Mr. FISHER: I am not aware that my right hon. Friend made any such statement. I have made my statement. So far as I am responsible, I have no intention of taking away the rights which at present exist of appealing on medical grounds to the Appeal Tribunal.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: May I take it that the tribunals, irrespective of this circular, will treat attested men on just the same lines as unattested men?
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member must not put an interpretation on my words different from what I myself put. They have definite rights now of appealing to Appeal Tribunals on medical grounds, and they have no further rights. The tribunals must not take it that they have any further rights, or that their position has been in any way altered.

  INTERNED ALIENS (RATIONS).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the UnderSecretary for War whether his attention has been called to an inquest held on an interned alien who died at Alexandra Palace, at which the Army medical officer stated that the dietary was so liberal that they had more meat than they could consume for dinner and made it into rissoles for supper; whether he will state if all interned aliens at Alexandra Palace are rationed for meat; and if he will state what those rations are?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making inquiries into this matter, and will let my hon. Friend know the result in due course.

  SOLDIERS' EFFECTS.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that the effects of the late Private William West, No. 2116, 4th Battalion, Rifle Brigade, who was lost at sea more than fourteen months ago when returning from Salonika, have never yet been delivered to his next-of-kin, namely, his mother, a widow of sixty-five years of age; and whether, having regard to the circumstances, he will undertake that this poor woman shall receive her son's effects without further delay, or compensation for their loss if not forthcoming?
  Mr. FORSTER: The officer in charge of Records, Winchester, reports that no personal effects have been received for this soldier, and, as the ship on which the soldier was travelling was lost, it is presumed that any effects he had were lost with him. The balance due to his estate from Army funds has already been paid to his mother, brothers, and sisters on the assumption that he died intestate.
  Mr. McNEILL: In a case of this sort is there any possibility of compensation for loss of effects in that way by the action of the enemy?
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not see how there can be. We do not know what the effects were.

  PAYMASTERS (ACTING).
  Mr. CROOKSasked whether, from the point of view of discipline and the present proportion of soldiers to female clerks in the Army pay offices, it is proposed to grant temporary commissions in the Army Pay Department to all acting paymasters, either with pay of rank or on the basis of present rates of pay?
  Mr. FORSTER: The answer is in the negative.

  FORAGE.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether he will state the number of officers and men, respectively, in the Army Forage Commission, and what is the annual cost of this Commission; (2) what is the number of officers in the Army Forage Commission engaged in the country in purchasing hay; (3) if he can state the total number of personnel, and separate numbers of officers and men employed in the Army Forage Commission?
  Mr. FORSTER: The number of officers in the Army Forage Department is 326 and of men 11,003, in addition to which there are 4,503 women. The cost of the Department can best be expressed as 6s. 11d. per ton on the total tonnage handled. There are 173 officers of the Forage Department engaged in the United Kingdom in purchasing hay and other farm produce.
  Mr. NEEDHAM: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many tons have been purchased—he says so much per ton?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot say, but if my hon. Friend will put down a question I shall be glad to give the information.
  Mr. LOUGH: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this large staff is required to handle the forage required by the Army or whether it is really engaged in the distribution of forage throughout the country?
  Mr. FORSTER: It is engaged partly on both.
  Mr. LOUGH: It does both?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked whether the Army authorities control all the hay produced in the country; and what percentage of the total crops of 1917 has been reserved for Army uses?
  Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Out of the total crop of about 11,000,000 tons, 9,000,000 are consumed by the growers; and the Army requires about one-half of the balance.
  Mr. NEEDHAM: Are we to understand that this very large staff referred to has been handling about 1,000,000 tons of hay per year?
  Mr. FORSTER: As I have already explained, they are largely concerned with the distribution of the second 1,000,000 tons required for civilian consumption. The activities of the Forage Department are not confined exclusively to hay.
  Mr. NEEDHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very great disaffection in regard to the civilian distribution of hay, and that the country is suffering very badly in consequence of the defective distribution of hay?
  Mr. FORSTER: I know that there is a great deal of interest taken in the Regulations and in the general system of control which is exercised by the Forage Department, and I think it would be a very good plan if hon. Members of the House, who I know are genuinely interested in this matter, were to meet General Morgan, who is in charge of the Department, and learn from him at first hand and discuss with him the arrangements for the control of this year's hay crop. If they would care to meet General Morgan, I shall be very glad to arrange it.
  Mr. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, having regard to the very small proportion of this produce required by the Army, if he does not think that it would be better for his officers to devote their efforts to military work rather than to this distribution?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir.
  Major WHELERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the hay crop of 1918 is to be taken over on 30th September by the Army authorities at £6 10s. per ton; whether, when the amounts needed for the Army and the growers have been allocated, it is proposed to sell the surplus to hay traders at the same price, namely, £6 10s. per ton; if so, what will be the price at which the dealers will be allowed to sell the hay; and whether he will consider the advisability of allowing growers to sell any surplus hay direct to consumers?
  Mr. FORSTER: The terms and conditions for acquiring and controlling the 1918 hay crop have not yet been settled beyond the published fact that the maxi mum price will not be less than £6 10s. per ton. At the present time growers are able to sell direct to consumers.

  ARMY STORES (BOOT POLISH AND HALF-SOLES).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why in the auction sale of Army stores held at the London Commercial Sale Rooms on 5th April the following goods were included, 250,000 tins of black boot polish and 50,000 pairs half-soles (new); and, as these goods are evidently new goods and undamaged, if he will state if they could be used for Army purposes, in view of the general shortage of all kinds of war material?
  Mr. FORSTER: As I explained to the hon. Member on 22nd October last, in answer to a question on a similar case, the half-soles had been rejected by the responsible officer of the Department as unsuitable for Army requirements and were included in the auction sale as being the most convenient method of disposing of them at the market price of the day. The boot polish became surplus to requirements, and was similarly disposed of, when it was decided to substitute dubbin.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    ALLOTMENT RENTS.
    Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if his Department will consider the advisability of fixing a fair rate per acre for all allotments, to discourage the profiteering instincts of some landowners and to stimulate and encourage the production of our national food supplies by the workers of this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The Board have no power to regulate the rents charged for allotments provided by private land owners. No sufficient evidence has been brought to the notice of the Board to lead them to suppose that legislation should besought for the purpose of regulating such rents. As regards allotments provided by local authorities under the Cultivation of Lands Order, the Order provides that the rent payable to the owner shall not exceed the rent previously received by him for the land.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are there any cases where the charge of land let lay private owners for allotments is three or four times more than that for similar land adjoining?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Not since the War, I think.

    MILK.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he or the Food Controller is responsible for maintaining the supplies of milk and for its production?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The Food Controller is responsible for fixing the prices of milk. The prices and distribution of the feeding stuffs not produced upon the farm also rest with the Food Controller. In other measures concerned with the production of milk the Board is responsible.

    FLOUR (BISCUIT MANUFACTURES).
    Mr. GULLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when the price of bread was reduced to 9d. per loaf, biscuit manufacturers were granted a licence on which they were entitled to buy flour on a payment to the Government of 18s. per sack, which was regarded as the equivalent of the subsidy on bread; whether he is aware that the Food Controller at the end of March imposed a

    395
    charge of an additional 18s. per sack on biscuit manufacturers; what is the reason for this new tax; and under what authority has it been levied?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The cost of flour to the State has continuously increased, and, as the Cabinet decision to subsidise the price of bread did not extend to biscuits, Lord Rhondda decided to raise the amount of the licence so as to cover the whole margin between the present cost and the fixed selling price of flour.
    Mr. GULLAND: Has the price increased to the extent of 18s. per sack, and will the hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is not intended to make any profit on this transaction so far as the Food Ministry is concerned.
    Mr. GULLAND: Will the hon. Gentleman say under what authority this is done? Does it not require the authority of this House to levy a tax?
    Mr. CLYNES: This is not strictly in the nature of a tax as we know taxes, and it was done on the authority of the Food Minister.
    Mr. RENDALL: On what ground does the Food Controller allow biscuits to be manufactured at all? Is it on the ground that they are a necessity or a luxury?
    Mr. CLYNES: They are still believed by many people in the country to be a necessity.

    AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Munitions why his Department are offering for sale by tender seven Canadian agricultural tractors; if these machines have been offered to the Board of Agriculture; and, if not, why this has not been done?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The tractors in question already belong to the Food Production Department of the Board of Agriculture, and having been found unsuitable for their purposes are being sold by them by tender. The Ministry of Munitions were first of all requested to dispose of them, hence my hon. Friend's misunderstanding of the position.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Are they having any more tractors made by the same firm?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I think not.

    FAT CATTLE (SHIPMENTS FROM IRELAND).
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what are the approximate weekly and total numbers during the last three months of cattle bought in Ireland for killing and export to England, Scotland, and Wales; what has been the average price of purchase of the above; and what has been the average weekly and total loss during the same period to the Treasury incurred by reselling them in England at the prices fixed by the Food Controller; and in what proportion this loss to the taxpayer was as an extra profit shared between the producers and middlemen concerned?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am sending the hon. Member such figures as are available on this subject, and these will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Walsall on Thursday, 11th April.
    The following are the figures referred to:

    Shipments of Fat Cattle from Ireland to England and Wales and to Scotland.

    1918.

    To England and Wales.

    To Scotland.

    5th January

    …

    7,167

    839

    12th January

    …

    6,198

    1,512

    19th January

    …

    5,909

    764

    26th January

    …

    4,942

    1,077

    2nd February

    …

    3,593

    698

    9th February

    …

    4,981

    569

    16th February

    …

    4,724

    295

    23rd February

    …

    4,322

    288

    2nd March

    …

    3,838

    226

    9th March

    …

    4,761

    370

    16th March

    …

    1,419

    295

    23rd March

    …

    4,570

    264

    30th March

    …

    5,345

    230

    6th April

    …

    3,994

    187

    Total

    …

    69,743

    7,614

    Weekly average

    …

    4,981

    543

    Average Live-weight Prices of 1st class Pat Cattle at Irish Fairs and Markets.

    1918—

    January

    …

    72s.

    9d.

    per cwt.

    February

    …

    77s.

    per cwt.

    March

    …

    83s.

    2d.

    per cwt.

    April

    …

    87s.

    6d.

    per cwt.

    Captain WRIGHT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that guarantee, admitted yesterday, is still in force and whether payments are still being made under it?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes; I think I can say that.

    NATIONAL KITCHENS.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why women have not been asked to assist the Ministry in deciding on and forwarding its policy of Betting up national kitchens; is he aware that the proportion of women cooks to men cooks in this country is estimated as 10,000 to one; that many competent women in the Large cities have done much pioneer work in starting public kitchens of various kinds; and will the Ministry seek the assistance of, and give responsible powers to, women in the matter of national kitchens?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Food Controller has constantly sought the assistance and advice of women in forwarding his policy of setting up national kitchens. The actual administration of these kitchens is in the hands of local authorities, who are already employing women in administrative work. The National Kitchens Branch of the Ministry are training both women inspectors, supervisors, and cooks, and, generally speaking, the whole of the staff of the kitchens will be women.

    BACON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the delays in delivering bacon stocks in the port of Bristol recently from vessels discharging in that port; and what steps his Department are taking in order to ensure that the stocks of bacon now in course of landing at United Kingdom ports will be delivered in fit condition for consumption?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am aware that there has been some congestion at Bristol and else where, due to transport difficulties arising from various causes. This matter is receiving the constant attention of my
    398
    Department, in consultation with the Ministry of Shipping, the Railway Executive Committee, and the importers, and measures have already been taken to secure the prompt clearing of the quays and the transport of the bacon to the ware houses and stores. No bacon has become unfit for consumption after landing through any delay in handling it.
    Mr. GILBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman arrange that his Department should have particulars of the cargoes of vessels before they arrive, so that they can give delivery orders for use immediately a cargo arrives at the port?
    Mr. CLYNES: We have such particulars, of course, but there are certain delays which cannot be foreseen—the available labour and machinery may not be ready at the actual time of arrival. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are giving the closest attention to the matter, and that I have been this morning in consultation with the parties concerned.

  HOME OFFICE VOTE
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the interest and indignation excited by Defence of the Realm Regulation 40 B, he will arrange for the Home Office Vote to be taken on an early allotted day of Supply?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): As the hon. Member is aware; on the first Supply Day, which is to-morrow, the Office of Works Vote will be taken. No arrangements have yet been made with regard to the allocation of the remaining days. I may point out, however, that the Regulation in question would be more properly discussed on the War Office Vote.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE PURCHASE).
  Mr. GULLANDasked the Prime Minister whether he will now publish the Reports of the Committees which considered the terms upon which the liquor traffic might be bought in England, Scotland, and Ireland?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Reports referred to will be laid on the Table in a few days.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Have the Government come to any decision upon this question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We have not, nor have we had time to consider it.

  HORSE-RACING.
  Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if he will state since when has the decision to continue horse-racing been entrusted to the War Office; and whether rations of corn for geldings and concourses of people, as at the Gatwich Racecourse on the 21st March last, the date of the German offensive on the Somme, will contribute to maintain the industry of horse-breeding in this country?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have been asked to reply. It is for the War Cabinet to decide within what limits horse-racing should continue: the War Office are merely concerned to maintain the horse-breeding industry. On the merits of the question I can add nothing to the answer given last Monday by the Under-Secretary of State for War.
  Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask the Leader of the House why it is that this question is dealt with first by the Board of Trade, then by the War Office, and then by the. Food Controller, and how you can maintain horse breeding by giving rations of corn to geldings?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I should distinctly require notice of that question.
  Mr. S. ROBINSON: May I ask if owners of motor cars who use them to attend race meetings are prosecuted in the same way as people who use them to go to church?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman's inability to answer the question not show that the maintenance of horse breeding is a mere sham and a mockery?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I do not think that it shows that, but that particular aspect of the question had never been brought to my notice before.
  Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this sport is most unseemly at the present time, when the nation is in a very serious state and the War is in a critical position?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that there is almost none of it, but it has not been considered at all recently by the War Cabinet. We have naturally considered it only when it has been brought to our notice by the Department. I do not myself see any reason to change the decision to which we came before.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: When the Government is considering it, will they make inquiries as to what was the attendance and how many motor cars were used at the recent race meetings?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall make inquiries, but I am perfectly certain that no facilities for motors ought to be or are given for such a purpose.
  Mr. KING: In view of the interest evidently taken on all sides of the House in this question, will the right hon. Gentle man see that the War Cabinet does consider it at an early date?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already given that promise.

  INCREASE OF RENT, ETC. (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the suggestion that persons who have a residence in London or elsewhere in this country should not be allowed during the War to purchase small houses or cottages in the country and turn out the local people, who are engaged in many cases in work in the neighbour hood; and will he consider the advisability of such purchases being for bidden by the War Office under the Defence of the Realm Act as being against the prosecution of the War and tending to hinder the production of food?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I hope there may be an opportunity to-day for discussing the Bill which has reached this House from another place and which proposes to restrict the practice complained of.
  Sir A. FELL: Will the Bill which is coming before us, or any Bill which is before the Government, deal with the acquisition of second houses in the country districts by persons in large towns during the present War?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: My hon. Friend had better wait until he sees the Bill and hears the discussion.

  BRITISH GENERALS (APPOINTMENT).
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the British Commander-in-Chief has the power of appointing or removing generals in command of the various British Armies on the Western Front; whether such appointments are submitted to or approved by the War Cabinet; whether General Gough was appointed to command the Fifth Army by Field-Marshal Haig; whether his appointment received the direct approval of the War Cabinet or of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff; whether General Foch, as General issimo on the Western Front, has now the power to appoint or remove generals commanding the British Armies; and, if so, whether that power has been exercised?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have been asked to answer this question. The Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in France has power to appoint and, subject to the confirmation of the Army Council, to remove general officers up to and including the appointment of divisional commanders. For appointments higher than that of divisional commander the sanction of the Army Council must be obtained in every case. General Gough's appointment was approved by the Army Council. As regards the last part of the question, General Foch has no power over the appointment or removal from office of any British officer.
  Mr. KING: If that be so, how can we really say that there is complete unity of command?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: We have never said that there is complete unity of command, but we have taken the precaution that the British soldier will be treated in accordance with the British Army Act and British discipline.

  WAR PENSIONS.

    INCREASED PAYMENTS TO WIDOWS AND DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
    Mr. PETOasked the Minister of Pensions if he can make any statement as to the revision of the scale of pensions to widows of men who lost their lives in the Boer War, and as to the date from which the new scale will operate?
    Mr. HODGE: The pensions of the widows of men who lost their lives informer wars are about to be increased by such an amount as will ensure to each widow a total sum of 13s. 9d. a week (including any pension or allowance she may receive from the funds of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation or other funds raised by public subscription). A further sum of 1s. 3d. a week is added when the widow attains the age of 45. Any allowances for children which are still in course of issue will be continued under former arrangements.
    At the same time, the pensions of soldiers or sailors who were discharged as unfit for further service on account of disabilities incurred in former wars, and who are now by reason of such disabilities totally incapacitated from earning a livelihood, will be raised to the level of the minimum pensions for the highest degree of disablement which are payable under the Warrants relating to the present War, according to the rank of the soldier or sailor at the time of his discharge.
    The increases of pension will be payable as from the 1st of next month.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the total cost of this increase?
    Mr. HODGE: No; I could not say, but I will be very glad, if the right hon. Gentleman puts down a question, to give the approximate cost.
    General McCALMONT: Are we to understand from the answer that officers are not to participate in these revised pensions?
    Mr. HODGE: This Warrant does not deal with officers. I really could not say what the practice has been so far as officers are concerned in respect of former wars; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts down a question, I will endeavour to obtain any information that he desires.
    Mr. ARNOLD: Can the right, hon. Gentleman say when the new Royal Warrant for the revised scale of pensions will be available?
    Mr. HODGE: From the first of next month.

  PALESTINE MAILS.
  Mr. WATTasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been

  403
  called to the fact that no mails from the soldiers in Palestine have been delivered in Glasgow, and probably in other parts of the country for more than three weeks, and that this circumstance has given rise to rumours of an unfortunate kind; and what is the reason of such delay?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): My attention has been drawn to this matter which I much regret. The transit of certain mails from Palestine through Italy and France has been delayed owing to events there. I hope those mails may arrive soon.
  General McCALMONT: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to arrange when delays of this kind occur in mails from any of the fronts, that some public announcement should be made, and thus allay considerable public anxiety?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will see if it is possible to do so, but, as a rule, we do not hear of them until it is too late. I will see what can be done in the matter.

  WAGES (YEARLY INCREASE).
  Sir W. PEARCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether £1,000,000,000 may be taken as the yearly increase in wages now paid over pre-war figures; and, if not, whether the Board of Trade will give information as to the probable amount?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): My right hon. Friend has been asked to reply to this. The upward movement of wages has been very rapid and extensive, and it is not possible, from the available data, to estimate the aggregate total effect. So far as reported, the changes in rates of wages are given each month in the "Labour Gazette." My right hon. Friend is sending the hon. Member marked copies of certain articles which have appeared in the "Gazette," in which an attempt is made to summarise the details given monthly.
  Sir W. PEARCE: Has the hon. Gentleman, seen one of the leading reviews, in which the figure of £1,000,000,000 is put forward, with much supporting evidence?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have not seen it, but I am not prepared to dispute it at this moment without further information.
  Mr. ARNOLD: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the increase in profits has been as compared with the pre-war standard?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That does not arise out of the question.

  MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (ARMY CLERKS).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that Army clerks who were employed in the Army on recruiting work, and who were transferred to the Ministry of National Service in January last and ordered to hand in their uniforms and appear in civilian clothes, for which they were allowed 30s., are still only receiving the Army rate of pay although they were put into Reserve Class Wand promised the civilian rate of pay of £2 12s. 6d. per week; and whether, in view of the impossibility of these men existing on their Army pay, he will have them paid the civilian rate forthwith from the date of their transfer to the National Service?
  Mr. BECK: It is not the fact that soldier clerks employed by the Ministry of National Service and transferred to Class W, Army Reserve, are still on Army pay, nor was any promise made that such clerks should receive the rate of pay referred to by the hon. Member. Such men are paid on a scale commensurate with the responsibilities discharged, and at rates approved by the Treasury for clerical work in Government Departments.

  "WAR AND REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA" (CENSORSHIP).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a book entitled "War and Revolution in Russia," by Mr. John Pollock, endorsed in a note to the preface by Sir Frederick Pollock, in which the author advocates the republican form of government; and whether the book has been duly passed by the Censor?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): My attention has not been called to this book, and I am informed that it has not been submitted to the Press Bureau.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Colonel BURNasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) when the prisoners of war at Changri, Asia Minor, will be moved in accordance with the promise given at the Berne Conference that this camp should be abandoned; and is he aware that no parcel has been received by an officer in that camp since early in August, 1917?
  Mr. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The promise given by the Turkish delegates at the Berne Conference that the prisoners of war at Changri should be moved to another camp has been only partly carried out, as about half of them have not yet been transferred. An urgent remonstrance on this head was recently addressed to the Turkish Government. So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, there were no British officers at Changri for a long time before the transfer thither of those from Kastamuni in October, 1917. It is possible that the transfer has occasioned considerable delay in the arrival of parcels.
  Colonel BURN: Can my hon. Friend give me any information as to the non-receipt of food parcels at these camps in Turkey?
  Mr. HOPE: I am afraid the only information I can give is that about 70 per cent. of the parcels do not get there, but the Department is very carefully considering if some means can be devised which will lead to a larger proportion reaching. Of course, a great part of the anxiety would be allayed if the Berne Agreement were ratified by the Turkish Government.
  Colonel BURN: Does my hon. Friend realise that some officers in that camp are absolutely suffering from starvation, that it is impossible to get anything locally, and the food supplied by the Turks is nothing approaching sufficient to keep body and soul together?
  Mr. HOPE: I realise a great deal which is extremely painful about the position of our prisoners. If my hon. and gallant Friend can suggest any new means of helping them which has not been thought of before, I shall be extremely grateful.
  Colonel BURN: Does not the hon. Gentleman think the only possible means of dealing with the Turks is to bribe them?
  Mr. HOPE: I think I must ask for notice.
  Major HUNTasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether, in view of the admitted starvation and treatment of British prisoners of war in Germany, he can say what steps are being taken to prevent this in the future?
  Mr. HOPE: It was arranged that this question was to be answered together with No. 50. That question was postponed, and I am afraid this must be postponed too.
  Major HUNT: Will the accounts of the cruelty and torture inflicted on our prisoners by the Germans be well circulated over the country?
  Mr. HOPE: I said yesterday it would be.

  GENERAL ELLIOT.
  Mr. TICKLERasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether, now that it has become necessary to secure more fighting men, he will redeem his promise to reinstate General Elliot, who has been reported as a good fighting officer by every general he has served under in this War, and was mentioned in home-service dispatches for work in organising the Second Wessex Division, which he commanded at the end of 1914?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret I have nothing to add to previous answers on this case.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does my hon. Friend wish the House to believe that the War Office can find no employment for General Elliot, who has been out of a post all this time because he got into trouble with the conscientious objectors? Does he want the House to understand that the War Office have no use for this officer?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: There is a great deal of need at present for the rank and file, but there is no particular need at present for brigadier-generals. We are already reappointing two out of the three officers who were condemned by the court-martial, and it is much more difficult to appoint a brigadier-general than a colonel or a major. One was a colonel and the other was a major. It is correspondingly difficult to give an appointment to a brigadier-general when so many men are now home who require rest.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Could you not appoint a brigadier-general to relieve some man who is coming home from the front?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Of course, an appointment of that nature is in the hands of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, and I have no doubt he has got experienced men who he thinks are suitable to occupy the posts vacated.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can General Elliot not be offered any other kind of work than substitution in the post of brigadier-general? Has any alternative appointment been offered him?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Not as far as I know. It has always been my wish to see him appointed to the post of brigadier-general, but so far no such appointment has been made.
  General McCALMONT: Is it not a fact that to appoint this officer to a brigade which was already proposed to be given to an officer in France would deprive the officer in France of his pay?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: That is so.

  Ministry of Health.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether he is ready to introduce a Bill establishing a Ministry of Health?
  The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison):The negotiations in which I have been engaged in this matter have now been concluded. Any decision must, of course, be materially affected by other demands upon the time of Parliament.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 (Short Title) 2 (Army Act to be in Force for Specified Times), 3 (Prices in Respect of Billeting), 4 (Billeting of Enrolled Women), and 5 (Amendment of s. 142 of the Army Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

    CLAUSE 6—(Amendment of s. 156 (9) of Army Act.)
    For Sub-section (9) of Section one hundred and fifty-six of the Army Act, the following Sub-section shall be substituted:
    (9) Every person who—

    (a) receives, detains or has in his possession any identity certificate, life certificate, or other certificate, or official document evidencing or issued in connection with the right of any person to a military pension pay or Reserve pay, or to any bounty, allowance, gratuity, relief, benefit or advantage granted in connection with military service, as a pledge or security for a debt, or with a view to obtain payment from the person entitled thereto of a debt due either to himself or to any other person; or

    (b) without lawful authority or excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on the accused) has in his possession any such certificate or document, or any certificate of discharge or any other official document issued in connection with the mobilisation or demobilisation of any of His Majesty's Forces or any member thereof,

    shall be liable on summary conviction to the like penalty as for an offence under Sub-section (1) of this Section, and any such certificate or other document shall be deemed to be property within the meaning of this Section."
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words,
    Sub-section (1) of Section one hundred and fifty-six of the Army Act (which imposes a penalty on persons purchasing from soldiers regimental necessaries. equipments, stores, etc.) shall be amended as follows:
    The words from "in the case of the first offence" down to "in the case of a second offence" (both inclusive), and the words "not less than five pounds, and" shall be omitted, and at the end of the Sub-section there shall be added the words "or to both such fine and imprisonment."
    Section 156 of the Army Act, Sub-section (1), makes it an offence for any person to purchase or receive from soldiers or on their behalf regimental necessaries, equipment,
    418
    stores, and so on, unless the said articles are ordered by the military authority. The penalty for an offence under this Section is, for the first offence, a fine not exceeding £20, together with treble the value of the property involved; and for a subsequent offence a fine of not less than £5 and not exceeding £20, together with treble the value of the property involved, or imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months. In a recent prosecution, which I have no doubt hon. Members noticed in the Press, regarding certain property of the value of considerably over £200, the magistrate expressed the opinion that the penalty provided by this particular Section was utterly inadequate, and that the person accused should be liable to imprisonment. The Director of Public Prosecutions entirely agreed with the view expressed by the learned magistrate, and it is now proposed to amend the Section to provide that all offenders shall be liable to a fine of £20, together with treble the value of the goods, or to six months' imprisonment with or without hard labour, or to both such fine and imprisonment. We feel, in view of the statement expressed by the magistrate—and the magistrates of London always take a very lenient view of the cases against soldiers, particularly soldiers who have served in France—that we ought to take such action; consequently, I ask the Committee to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. KING: I do not think this is necessary. It may lead to considerable injustice. If hon. Members will turn to the Army Act, Section 156—without which Act it is quite impossible to follow the question before the Committee or the proceedings on this Bill—they will see that the property which will come under this Clause includes such things as "regimental necessaries, or clothing, or any military decollations of an officer or soldier," and a number of other things. It is a regimental necessary for a man to have a badge. Badges are being sold every day. There are many shops where they are exposed for sale. I might pick up a badge in the street. Boys often pick up badges in the street and offer them to one another. You are launching in this connection on possibilities of conviction which would be very unjust, and you are adding to the penalty which may be inflicted. It is very often difficult in this connection to say what is part of a soldier's clothing, equipment,

    419
    regimental necessaries, and so forth. He may buy duplicates. They may be his private property. They may be the property of another person who lends them to the soldier. I cannot quite agree that there is any necessity for increasing the penalties under this Act simply because in one case a London magistrate said some thing about a case in which he felt unable to give an adequate punishment. I think we ought to have some justification before we accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of S. 133 of Army Act.)
    (1)At the end of Sub-section (1) of Section one hundred and thirty-three of the Army Act (which relates to military prisons and detention barracks) the following words shall be inserted "and every building or part of a building set apart under the Air Force Act as an air-force prison or detention barrack, shall unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs be deemed to be a military prison or detention barrack within the meaning of this Section."
    (2)This Section shall, notwithstanding anything in Section fourteen of the Army (Annual) Act, 1904, come into operation both within the British Islands and elsewhere on the passing of this Act.—[Mr. Macpherson.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The reason for my moving this new Clause is that the Air Council which has been recently instituted have asked that should be received into military detention barracks in order to undergo their sentence. Under Section 63 of the Air Force Act recently passed an airman sentenced to detention has to undergo the term of his detention either in Air Force custody or in a detention barracks. The Secretary of State for War can, under Section 133 of the Air Force Act, set apart the same buildings now used as a detention barracks or military prisons for the reception of Air Force prisoners and airmen under detention He can also, by rules, provide that the same rules which apply to military prisoners and soldiers undergoing detention shall apply to Air Force prisoners and airmen undergoing detention with such modifications as may at any time be necessary. Under such procedure there were certain difficulties and objections. Offences by airmen against detention barrack or prison discipline could be dealt
    420
    with under the rules precisely in the same way as in the case of soldiers. But in the case of serious offences of such a nature that they could not be dealt with adequately, the airmen under the existing rules would have to be handed over to the Air Force authorities to be dealt with, if necessary, by court-martial under the Air Force Act. There would be no difficulty in easy to make charges under Sections dealing with officers such as escaping, or offences relating to property, but it would not be 8 and 9 of the Air Force Act as the officers of the detention barrack or military barrack would not be the superior officers of the airman under sentence within the meaning of the Air Force Act. This Amendment will obviate these difficulties and simplify procedure. Air Force prisoners or airmen under detention in the military prison or detention barrack will be in exactly the same position in all respects as if they were in an Air Force prison or detention barracks. The Amendment of the Army Act provides that, in the case of a soldier in an Air Force prison or barrack, the converse case will be dealt with by this Amendment.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE—(Amendment of Section 179 (A) of the Army Act.)
    "At the beginning of Section 179 (a) of the Army Act the following Sub-section shall be inserted:
    (1)The Army Council may direct from time to time that any officers or soldiers of the Regular Forces shall, under such conditions as may be prescribed by Regulations made by the Army Council and the Air Council, be temporarily attached to the Air Force;
    (2)"—[Mr. Macpherson.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The question has been raised on more than one occasion as to the position as regards discipline of airmen in command depots and military hospitals, and there has been considerable doubt as to the statutory powers to attach members of the Air Force to the Army without their consent, though it is quite clear from Section 176 (1) A of the Army Act that airmen may in certain contingencies be so attached; but there is no provision as to the circumstance or manner in which such attachment may be made, or whether the consent of the airman so attached is absolutely necessary. The only expressed pro visions for attaching soldiers to the Air

    421
    Force are those contained in Section 3 of the Air Force Constitution Act passed last year, under which the attachment must be with the consent of the soldier, or subject to the right on his part to raise an objection. The attachment here referred to is for a lengthy period. The powers of attachment for temporary purposes without the consent of the soldier may perhaps be implied. Under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 184 of the Army Act it appears to be clearly implied without any express provision to that effect that soldiers may be attached to the Navy and sailors to the Army, and there would seem to be little doubt that similar power is implied of attaching soldiers to the Air Force. However, it is much safer on a matter of such general importance, affecting the whole status of the airman or soldier concerned, to rely not upon implied powers, but upon expressed powers. This proposed Amendment will, I hope, meet the difficulty so far as attaching soldiers to the Air Force is concerned, and if this passes a corresponding Amendment will automatically be made in the Air Force Act, with the necessary modifications, so as to enable airmen to be attached temporarily to the Regular Forces.
    Brigadier-General MacCALMONT: The Committee is entitled to some slight further explanation, or at any rate my hon. Friend should understand that there may be some slight objection to this. I have not had the advantage of legal training, which I believe he has had, but the word "temporary" in this Clause seems to me to open up a great many difficulties. He is no doubt aware that this will open up the question of promotion in the Regular Army—that is to say, if an officer goes away from his regiment and is attached to the Air Force, though he is not doing duty in his regiment or the Army, he is filling a vacancy, and he is entirely stopping the promotion of his juniors. There has always been a Regulation with regard to Egyptian Army officers who are entitled to be seconded there for a certain period. At the end of ten years an officer was either struck off the strength of the Regular Army or went back to his regiment. I think that in this case there should be a clear understanding that "temporary" does not mean for a great number of years, and that the prospects of promotion of Regular Army officers will not be thereby affected. A particular instance comes to my mind in which an
    422
    officer has been attached to the Royal Naval Air Service for a considerable number of years, certainly for some period before the War. He is still flying. So far as I am aware, he is in the meantime filling a vacancy as a major in his regiment, where a senior captain, who is a very deserving officer, cannot be promoted to his majority. I should like some assurance that the rights of the regular officers to promotion will not be interfered with by this Amendment of the Army Act, and that there will be some limit to the period which will be allowed under it.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that the whole of that question was discussed on the passing of the Air Force Constitution. Rill in this House, but I will certainly bring the points which my hon. Friend has raised to the notice of my military advisers. I am quite certain that they would not propose a measure of this sort, which is only making definite what so far has been implied, that would in any way be detrimental to the best interests of any officers.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I think that the Army will be satisfied with the reply which the hon. Member has given, because it is essential that officers who are transferred to the Air Force should be seconded in their units, and that units should not suffer from their absence. In other words, both the rank and the pay of the rank should be available for the officer who does the duty, and not for the officer in the Flying Force who is doing air work.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE. —(Amendment of Section 145(2) (b) of the Army Act.)
    Section 145 (2) (b) of the Army Act shall be amended by leaving out the words from the first "where" to the end of the Sub-section, and inserting instead thereof the words:
    "fifty per cent. of the total pay and allowances of any warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or other soldier in respect of a wife or children and not exceeding the sum of two shillings and sixpence in the case of any other soldier in respect of a bastard child." —[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    4.0 P.M.
    Colonel LESLIE WILSON: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This is the Section of the Army Act which deals with the powers of the Army

    423
    Council or officers deputed by the Army Council to put in force an Order or decree made with respect to a wife or children who have been deserted or left in destitute circumstances by a soldier serving in His Majesty's Forces. That Section in 2 (b) gives power to the Army Council, either on receipt of such Order from the Court or if it appears to their satisfaction or to the satisfaction of any officer deputed for the purpose, that a soldier has deserted or left distitute his wife and children, to make a compulsory daily deduction from the pay of the soldier in the case of a warrant officer Class 1 not exceeding 1s. 6d., and in the case of a warrant officer Class 2 not exceeding 1s. per day, and in the case of the soldier a sum not exceeding 6d. per day. I think it is obvious that this Regulation was framed at the time when the soldier was in receipt of the sum, approximately, of 1s. per day. This does not meet the present circumstances under which the Army is paid at the present time I do not wish in any way to make any reference whatever to the question of separation allowances in dealing with this matter. We are dealing now with an Act of Parliament which is in operation for all time. I believe that under the Statute the separation allowances which have come into force are only for the period of hostilities. I sincerely hope that this is not the case, because the policy and principle of separation allowances have been sanctioned by the House of Commons, and I hope they will be continued for all time; in the Army. That, however, does not affect the argument in regard to the particular case which I am bringing before the Committee. I think it will be acknowledged by everybody that it is obviously impossible that a wife, at this time or any other time, can exist on 3s. 6d. a week, which is the sum allowed to be deducted from the pay of the serving soldier. It is obviously unfair that an arbitrary maxim shall be deducted by law from the pay of the soldier without any reference at all to the pay which he is receiving. I think the Committee will agree that there is a necessary obligation on the part of every man not to leave his wife and family destitute. We have appeals to the Court, and the Court makes an order which is to been forced by the Court, and in the case of the soldier that order is made to the full amount, yet, it cannot be enforced in the case of the
    424
    serving soldier, owing to the fact of this limitation which is made on the amount to be deducted from the soldier, under Section 145, (2, b), though in the future it follows that reference must be made to the amount paid to the soldier, as it is wrong in any way to assist the soldier in evading his responsibilities.
    The question has also arisen, in the case of a private soldier, whether it is legal to deduct 6d. for the wife and 6d. for the child; at any rate, it is obviously impossible to say that the present amount which is allowed to be deducted is in any way adequate according to the amount paid to the man under the increased pay in the Army. I recognise that my Amendment must be limited by one or two facts. It is limited by the fact that there are other allowances incidental to a man's military service; it is also limited by the sum when the order made by a magistrate is to the maximum amount. My proposal, therefore, is that under the Section of the Act the Army Council, or the officers deputed by the Army Council, shall have power to make a compulsory deduction from the pay of the private soldier, in the case where an order has been made under any Act, or at common law in reference to a deserted wife, to the extent of a sum not exceeding 50 per cent. of the man's pay and allowances. I now come to the other question affected by this Section, that of illegitimate children. This Section gives the right to the Army Council, in the case of a bastardy order, to deduct from the pay of the warrant officer a sum not exceeding 1s. per day, or in the case of a non-commissioned officer a sum not exceeding 7d. per day, or in the case of a soldier a sum not exceeding 4d. per day. The Army Council may deduct a sum not exceeding 6d. per day in the case of the private soldier in respect of a bastard child, but under my Amendment, if it is accepted, it is limited by the amount of the bastardy order enforced by the Court, and that amount, as a matter of fact, is the maximum of 5s. per week. Several cases have arisen lately in which a man has had more than one bastardy order against him. The total sum which could be deducted from his pay under this Section would be 4d. per day, which of course would not be sufficient, for you could not possibly give two women 2d. per day each. So far you have broken the law by awarding 6d. or 3d. per day each. Of course, that is a totally inadequate sum to comply with the magis-

    425
    terial order of 4s. or 5s. a week. If my Amendment be accepted, it would be most unlikely that the total sum I suggest would ever be likely to be deducted from the man's pay, yet it does give power to the Army Council to deduct up to the full amount, according to the pay the man receives, on any order which is made against him.
    There have been in the past many difficulties in connection with this question, which I have raised in the House more than once myself, and have been ruled out of order. It is, therefore, that I have taken this opportunity of again bringing the subject forward, when the Financial Secretary to the War Office is present. There are many difficulties, I believe, in connection with this question, and it is within my own personal knowledge that there have occurred many cases of real and severe hardship to women who have been deserted by their husbands, as through being allowed the inadequate sum of only 3s. 6d. per week. These cases have occurred where the private soldiers have been in receipt of pay during the War to the amount of as much as 6s. per day, and others, some of them in the Labour Battalion, 3s. per day; and, while these men may leave their wives totally destitute, the Army Council have no power to deduct more than one day's pay from the man. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the War Office will see his way to accept this Amendment, and, if he does so, it will remove many difficulties, while power will be given to the Army Council, or the officers deputed by it, to pay more adequate amounts to the wives of these men, with the proviso, or limitation, that not more than half a man's pay shall be taken away from him for his wife or family. In my opinion, the Amendment is fair to the wife and just to the soldier himself, and, for these reasons, I submit it to the Committee.
    Mr. KING: I am extremely glad that the hon. and gallant Member has brought his experience and generous feeling to the solution of a very difficult question. I have for years had Amendments down to the Army (Annual) Bill on this matter, and I have managed to get some of them, in form or substance, accepted by the Government, but I have never been able to approach the subject with the same courage as the hon. and gallant Member, and certainly—but I have not his experi-
    426
    ence—I never proposed such sweeping changes or such large amounts as he does, and yet I heartily agree with the form in which he has brought this forward. I agree, too, that the amount can now, at this present time, be materially raised, first of all, because the cost of living is very much higher for the wife and children, and, secondly, because the man himself is receiving higher pay in the Army than ever before. There is this consideration which the hon. and gallant Member has not mentioned, it is that when the Court makes an order for payment against the soldier, and only an inadequate weekly amount can be legally deducted from his pay, arrears are accumulating week by week, and as soon as that man comes out of the Army he is liable to be proceeded against by process of law for the whole sum that is in arrear. I have myself known cases where soldiers who have had bastardy orders made against them, and who as soon as they came out of the Army, found themselves liable for over £5. They get a gratuity on leaving the Army, and that vanishes at once, because of their liability for large arrears accumulated against them. That may very likely be the case with a number of men leaving the Army after the War is over. They will find large arrears accumulated against them. There may be in many cases men who, we will say, have largely reformed in morals and social traits, and would be able to take their place in society and to start businesses with the money they will receive on coming out of the Army; but such men would be immediately crippled by having to pay large arrears which, if their allowances had been deducted to a larger extent, would be much less than otherwise they would be in fact. The point itself, of course, is a very material one, and that is a reason why, in the end, it is much more kind, much more to the interests of the soldier while he is in the Army, to deduct considerable sums for payments which are legally due from him, than to leave him with heavy burdens of arrears at the time he gets his discharge. I hope some concession will be made by the Government, and that something will be done which is in the interests of both soldiers and dependants.
    Mr. BOOTH: Those Members of the House who have acted as Poor Law guardians have had another side of this

    427
    picture presented to them. When the allowance has been so small it has very frequently happened that the wife has become a pauper, and then, under voluntary enlistment, the guardians could make an application to the Army. Many instances occurred where men, suitable as soldiers, were brought back into civil life really because there was no proper financial basis to support the position. It is quite clear that a very small allowance must mean in some cases, where private charity is not available, support from the rates. Then, when we are not under compulsory military service, the guardians can bring the man out of the Army. If the Army authorities can suggest some way whereby a substantial amount can be given to the wife and children, it may keep a suitable soldier in the Army, and the home may perhaps be kept intact.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have not intervened before because I have been anxious to find some form of words which will go, at any rate, some way in the direction of meeting my hon. and gallant Friend, and those other Members who have spoken on this question. I think there is no doubt that the recent increase of pay given to the; soldier offers very legitimate ground on which we can call upon him to make a larger contribution towards the maintenance of a deserted family than before the increase was given. While, I think, my hon. and gallant Friend carries the matter rather farther than I am prepared to go, I agree with him that some advance in the rate of deduction may properly be made. I will ask the House to remember that, while a very substantial increase of pay was given to the private soldier, that increase was not carried up to the non-commissioned and warrant ranks, and that the non-commissioned and warrant officers have obtained only a very small advance on the pay they formerly received. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will recognise that the Army Council is, in this matter, showing evidence of willingness to be accommodating if they meet these proposals by a suggestion which is somewhat less ambitious. Before I say what, I think, we may fairly do, I should like to clear away the word "'allowances'' from both the Amendment and the minds of my hon. and gallant Friend and other Members You cannot touch a soldier's
    428
    allowances in these matters, but my hon. and gallant Friend, I think, has not kept in his mind quite clearly the fact that proficiency pay is not an allowance. That would be included, no doubt, in the pay from which the deduction is made. I think we would be going too far if we were to lay down that all soldiers, whether non-commissioned officers or warrant officers, should suffer so heavy a deduction from their pay as 50 per cent. What, I think, would be fair would be to acknowledge in each case that the increase of pay should carry with it an increase of contribution. That would make the increase small in the case of warrant officers and non-commissioned officers, who have received no substantial increase of pay, but I would accept the principle of 50 per cent. in the case of the private soldier, because he has, in the main, received an addition of 50 per cent. to his pay.
    I think I can make it clearer and save time if I read from the Clause in the Army Act as it would be if my suggestion is accepted. Where a soldier is a warrant officer, Class 1, not holding an honorary commission, instead of 1s. 6d., 1s. 7d., and, in the case of a bastard child, instead of 1s. 1s. 1d. Where a soldier is a warrant officer, Class 2, not holding an honorary commission, or non-commissioned officer who is not below the rank of sergeant, in respect of wife and children, I should make it 1s. ld., and in respect of a bastard child 8d. instead of 7d. That would bring it practically to the customary 5s. limit. In the case of any other soldier, in respect of wife and children, 9d. instead of 6d., and in respect of a bastard child 6d. instead of 4d. That, I think, would fairly meet the case on the whole. I think it is a substantial acknowledgment that the increase of pay should find expression in increased contributions towards the maintenance of the wife and family. If my hon. and gallant Friend would agree, we may take my form of words instead of his.
    Colonel WILSON: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and the very generous manner in which he has met my Amendment, I am quite willing' to accept the form of words he has proposed.
    Mr. KING: Perhaps I may say a word. I am sure we all recognise the readiness of the Financial Secretary to

    429
    meet the case, and I gladly recognise how generous his concession is. But let me make quite clear to the Committee what he did not make quite clear, that these rates which are quoted are not the rates which will be fixed in individual cases. They are only the rates which the Army Council may order to be deducted, and not exceeding these amounts. They are the maximum. I do think that, in view of these figures being the maximum, which will be carried out by the Army Council, and therefore I suppose by Rules issued to the various officers, the right hon. Gentleman might go even further. They are a maximum, and let us see how the maximum which he allows works in the lowest case; I mean the case of a private soldier having payments deducted for a bastard child. He allows 6d. a day; that is 3s. 6d. a week. The order generally made by the magistrate is 5s. It is, therefore quite possible, in fact it will be probable, that each week the man will be in arrear to the extent of 1s. 6d. At the end of a whole year he will be £3 in arrears, which may be charged on him when he comes out of the Army. If he is in the Army three years, there may be £10 arrears against him when he comes out.
    Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps I may point out that it is no use appealing to me, but to the soldier who does not fulfil his obligations. A soldier is just as much bound to maintain his family as anybody else, and the recent increase of pay will give him power to make up the amount deducted from his pay by the Army Council to the full amount by making voluntary contributions. I do not think an appeal ad misericordiam will meet with much sympathy.
    Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I think all who have experience in this matter will appreciate the fact that you have to consider the efficiency of the soldier. That is a standing difficulty, and all officers who have had to do with these matters know that. It seems to me that if you deprive a soldier of a large proportion of his very small pay you are reducing his efficiency as a soldier. I know many cases where that has arisen. Therefore it is essential there should be a considerable limit, and it is not for us to consider whether, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Somersetshire asks us to do, when the man comes out of the Army there will be a debt against him.
    430
    We have to consider keeping him efficient as a soldier, and not taking more money from him than will leave him enough to carry on his ordinary expenses of living. We cannot consider what will happen when he goes back to civil life.
    Mr. TENNANT: I should like to acknowledge, as an old Army councillor, the generous spirit in which my right hon. Friend has met the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member. Some people always will look a gift horse in the mouth. My hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire is perhaps in that category; it is no doubt due to his zeal for the well being of the soldier that he is inclined to look a little askance at the concession which has been made by the Financial Secretary. But I would really recommend him not to do so. The main ground of his complaint was that inasmuch as these sums are maxima, they ought to be raised a good deal higher, because it is possible that the authority which fixes the amount, namely, the Army Council, may not fix the full maxima. I cannot lay claim to any great experience in this matter, but such experience as I have leads me, as far as my memory goes, to believe that it is quite a common thing for the maximum to be imposed. I think it is done in nearly all cases, and that being so, I would strongly recommend my hon. Friend not to press for any further concession, but to accept the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the best way would be to set this out in full in the present Bill rather than deal with it in detail. That is to say, put it in this form: "Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the Army Act which relates to the liability of the soldier to maintain his wife and children shall be amended as follows: The words from 'exceeding' to the end of the paragraph be omitted and the following words be inserted instead thereof 'where the soldier is a warrant officer, Class 1, in respect of the wife and children, one shilling and sevenpence, and in respect of the bastard one shilling and a penny. Where the soldier is a warrant officer, Class 2, not holding an honorary commission or a non-commissioned officer not below the rank of sergeant, in respect of the wife and children, one shilling and a penny, and in respect of the bastard child.

    431
    eightpence. In the case of any other soldier in respect of the wife and children, ninepence, and in the case of a bastard child, sixpence.'"
    Mr. PRINGLE: May I suggest that the reference to "paragraph (b)" be left out? Because if one looks at the original Section in the Act, it will be seen that (a) and (b) are two alternatives in respect of which these provisions, which you have now read, apply.
    The CHAIRMAN: If there is any doubt we had better do it in that way. I will put the Clause in that way—"Amendment of Sub-section (2) of Section 145."
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Clause also requires a little change in the form, namely, "After Section 42 of the Army Act the following Section 43 (a) be inserted—"

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Military Court of Appeal.)
    After Section 42 of the Army Act, the following Section 43 (a) be inserted:

    (a) Where any officer or soldier after his complaint has been inquired into under Section forty-two or Section forty-three of the Act and the decision thereon has been communicated to him, and where such officer or soldier still considers that he has not had the redress to which he may consider himself entitled, such officer or soldier may appeal to the Military Court of Appeal and such Court shall examine into such complaint and shall issue its finding accordingly and forward the same to the Army Council, who shall communicate such finding to the complainant and shall take such steps as are necessary for giving full redress to the complainant in respect of the wrong complained of in so far as the finding of the Military Court of Appeal directs.

    (b) A Military Court of Appeal, consisting of five, shall be appointed by His Majesty, of whom any three shall form a quorum. Two of such members shall be military officers, two shall be persons not holding any official position under the Crown, and one shall be one of His Majesty's judges of the High Court of Justice. —[General Sir Ivor Philipps.]

    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time"
    I wish to draw special attention to Sections 42 and 43 of the Army (Annual) Act. Those two Sections are what I have described as the Officers' and Soldiers' Charter. They are the sole concession in the Act to the officers' and soldiers' right
    432
    of justice. Section 42 deals with officers and Section 43 with soldiers. An officer, if he feels that he has been wronged, may appeal through his senior commanding officer—generals and so on—to the Army Council, and if the Army Council does not give him the redress he requires he may appeal to His Majesty. That, in fact, results in the Army Council being the sole judge, because, as we all know, it really does not go any further. As far as the soldier goes, he is only allowed to go to the Army Council. Now the soldier—when I use the word "soldier" in future I mean officer and soldier—has got no right of appeal because he can only appeal to his superior officer, and beyond that he is helpless and hopeless, and the Army Council have consistently refused any redress. Since the War there have been appeals from all sides of the House for justice for this man or for that, and on every single occasion, except two, which I am going to mention, we have been told from that bench that you cannot deal with these matters in war, but that you must trust the soldier. I wish to say straight away that if I believed these matters rested with my hon. Friend sitting on that bench I believe there would be no necessity for the new Clause I am now putting forward, but we know in these matters he is helpless equally with the soldier or the officer who is wronged. He is only the humble servant—he cannot be anything else—of a Secretary of State whom we do not trust [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh…"] Well, I will say he is a Secretary of State whom I do not trust. The present Secretary of State is simply nothing more than the spokesman of the Army Council. I do not believe he directs its policy at all. He simply is the spokesman for the military element of the Army Council. Fortunately, during this War for a short period, we had a democratic Secretary of State for War, and let us see what happened in that short time. It was only the case of a second-lieutenant of a Welsh Regiment who had been wronged—foully wronged—and we had a democratic Secretary of State for War, the present Prime Minister.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It was Sir Arthur Markham.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: Interruptions make it rather difficult for me to proceed. I am not so accustomed to a stream of con-

    433
    stant interruptions as the hon. Member is. It was only, as I was saying, a second-lieutenant of a Welsh Regiment who was foully wronged, and I can only reconstruct what took place in the Army Council. When the Secretary of State for War said that a Court of Inquiry must be held, the reply would be, "Oh, no; you cannot have a Court of Inquiry. You see, it is war-time." To that the rejoinder was, "I do not care whether it is or not. Besides, you have civilians implicated in this, and you cannot have a Court of Inquiry on civilians." Said the Secretary of State for War, "If that is the only difficulty, I will get the House of Commons to pass an Act," and a special Bill was brought in to try to save this young second-lieutenant whom the Army Council were foully wronging. What was the result of bringing in the Act? Under that Act, for the first time in the history of the Army, a Court of Inquiry was allowed to be set up on which there was a civilian appointed—a civilian judge. Because a civilian was implicated in this charge, and might suffer under any decision a Court of Inquiry came to, the Army Courts (Inquiry) Act, 1914, was set up and an inquiry took place under the Act.
    The decision of that Court of Inquiry made some of the saddest reading that has ever been put upon the records of the Army Council. These are some of the sentences that appeared in the decision: "Treated this young officer unjustly"; "an unusual and unfair proceeding without any investigation"; "severe reprobation"; want of consideration and humanity"; "acted hastily, harshly and improperly"; "denied justice"; "not merely indiscretion, but a departure from official propriety." And who were these people who were found fault with? A colonel, two Commanders-in-Chief, a member of the Army Council—the judges, in fact, who were trying this man previous to this special Court being set up. No wonder the Army Council told my hon. Friend to go down to the House and say, "No inquiries during the War." I should think not… If that is their experience in one inquiry, God help them if they have a dozen… How many times have we been told by the hon. Member, "No inquiry during the war"?—no justice during the War—and you have 7,250,000 soldiers working under you to whom you deny justice. Would they were represented in
    434
    this House by eighty Members, like the Irish are—misguided Irishmen, if you like—who come down here to represent some 4,000,000 or less, whereas these are 7,000,000 men for whom I am speaking to-day. There was one other occasion when that bench has promised an inquiry. To whom? Perhaps the hon. Member does not even know. He is a distinguished and gallant and an honourable man, who is a great general, who has been promised an inquiry, who has been promised justice, but he has failed, and the Prime Minister comes here and almost apologises to this House for removing him from his command, and says he will give him an inquiry.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is very unfair. We are dealing now with legislation, and we must not introduce administrative matters. He might do justice, as he desires to claim it.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: I bow to your ruling, and regret I should have been carried away in the way I have. Of course, I will not touch on that again, but will follow your advice absolutely. But it is because I feel that it is not possible for the present War Office to treat this matter administratively that I am urging legislation should be passed. I hope that in that part of my remarks which did not call down your censure, Mr. Whitley, I have made out a good case for the Clause which I ask the Committee to pass. All that it does is this: When all redress of a wrong has been denied by the Army Council, the individual wronged can appeal to this Court of Appeal which I propose that this Bill should set up. I suggest—of course, this is a mere matter of discussion—that the Court should consist of two military officers, two civilians, and one High Court judge. I think I have shown that in the one case where we have been allowed a Court of Inquiry great benefit accrued to the young officer concerned in having a civilian element in the Court of Inquiry, and that is really what I have wished to press, if I have been carried away further than I should have been.
    Major DAVIES: On several occasions I have ventured to raise this question, and I think it must be admitted that, having regard to the number of cases of the kind which have cropped up during the last few years, the War Office should do something to accede to the request made this

    435
    afternoon. I am not prepared to say whether this Clause is the right way to carry it out, but I do submit that some machinery of this kind is absolutely needed. Before the Army Council was set up, an officer had the right of appeal to the Commander-in-Chief. The Army Council is one of the greatest anachronisms of modern times. The matters are not considered by the Army Council, but relegated to some general at the War Office, and therefore it is essential, if confidence is to be maintained, when officers feel they have been wilfully wronged, that there should be some Court of Appeal of this kind.
    My hon. Friend opposite gave us a case which, I think, was a very flagrant one, and which shows the necessity of introducing some civilian element into a Court for dealing with these matters. During the last few months many other cases have arisen. We have often debated the merits or demerits of Colonel Monteagle Browne. This is not a good thing for the discipline or moral of the Army, and it would have been very much better if such a case could have gone before an Appeal Tribunal of the kind suggested, in the interests of the Army itself, and in the interests of its moral and discipline. Having regard to the extraordinarily rapid growth of the Army in the last four years, and the fact that we have so many men fighting on the various fronts, it is inevitable there should be cases of hardship, and it is desirable to have a Court of Appeal of this kind, which would hear what officers had to say in their own defence, and mete out justice to them. I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War will not turn this Amendment down, but will give us some assurance that some satisfactory arrangement will be made as soon as may be, so that it may no longer be said that an officer in the British Army is not heard in his own defence, and has no real chance of putting his case before the War Office authorities.
    Mr. HOGGE: When I raised this question on a previous occasion, Lord Derby, subsequently to the Debate, invited me to the War Office to discuss the point with him. It is only fair to say that the Secretary for War preserves an open mind with regard to this question. I discussed it with him for two or three hours one night, and I had the same complaints to make about the War Office as the hon.
    436
    and gallant Member opposite has made this afternoon. Lord Derby then showed me the various processes through which appeals went, and I was convinced to a large extent that there is a case for the War Office, although I am not satisfied any more than my hon. and gallant Friend opposite that all that can be done has been done, and that there is no necessity for this Court of Appeal. I should like to add, in fairness to the Secretary for War that, as the result of the conversation, he said to me that if a Court of Inquiry could be established which would meet the case, he personally would not stand in the way of its creation. The hon. and gallant Member who raised this point illustrated his arguments by one or two cases which are notorious, but I rather gathered that he, like the rest of us, is not so much concerned about the notorious cases as about the average case which frequently occurs.
    I suppose most Members of this House, in their relations with their constituents and in other ways, have had brought to their notice cases particularly affecting young officers, lieutenants, and second-lieutenants, I, myself, in the course of the last three years, have had cases brought to me by men holding the rank of lieutenant who have been sent home from the front from some alleged fault, and who have felt the injustice of being so treated so much that in most cases they have refused to resign and have been gazetted out of the Army. In such cases what happens is that that man, who thinks he is refused a fair trial, is consequently compelled as an honourable man to allow himself to be dismissed from the Army, immediately becomes eligible under the Military Service Act and liable to be conscripted as a private soldier. I know that that has happened in the case of the son of an ex-Member of this House who is also the Lord Mayor of one of the biggest cities in the country. The son, before the War, was partner in one of the biggest business firms in this country. He was dismissed from his post in the Army on account of an alleged fault which he considered he had never committed, and because he could not get his case before a Court of Inquiry he refused to do anything in the matter, and was ultimately dismissed from the Service. This was a man who had willingly volunteered for the Army, and this was the indignity which was heaped upon him. He is now

    437
    subject to the Military Service Act, and has been conscripted as a private soldier. That shows how ridiculous the present position is. I would say this, that the War Office, which primarily is concerned with pursuing the War, should not be deflected from that work in order to consider the case of every one who desires to bring a matter by way of appeal before it. But why should the right be denied to the average case which is conceded to the extraordinary case? An officer who is a Member of this House lost some dispatches in the Mediterranean. He has succeeded in getting a Court of Inquiry. I doubt if he would have done that if he had not been a Member of this House.
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: Oh, yes, he would…
    Mr. HOGGE: Many attempts have been made unsuccessfully by men who have desired to go before a Court of Inquiry, but because they have not occupied the position of the hon. and gallant Member opposite they have been refused permission to do so, and the hon. and gallant Member was only able to secure the Court of Inquiry because he was not unable to say something either on his feet or sitting in his seat. At any rate, he got the Court of Inquiry in. order to clear himself. Hundreds of other men cannot get such Courts of Inquiry. And I am using his case in order to support their claim. I ask the hon. and gallant Member opposite, Why not relieve the War Office of this particular work? Why not create a separate Department of the War Office and set up an Appeal Court on which there could sit men who are not concerned in the active prosecution of the War and whose duty it should be to deal out justice to aggrieved officers?
    Colonel LESLIE WILSON: To everybody?
    Mr. HOGGE: Yes; to all soldiers of whatever rank At present men feel that nothing which is written can do their case full justice. Their opinion is that if they could be heard personally before a Court, if they had an opportunity of being examined and cross-examined, if they could thus get to the root of the business, instead of their case being merely dependent on the written evidence of a superior officer or somebody else, then they would have a chance of getting justice. I think that chance ought to be granted to these men. I do not see why
    438
    it could not be done. If done, it would relieve Members of this House of a great deal of trouble. The Under-Secretary for War knows what the trouble is. I suppose the bulk of the Members of this House receive many letters on behalf of aggrieved men and have personal interviews in regard to cases of this nature, and if we were put in the position of telling these people that it is of no use our raising their cases in the House of Commons because a Court has been set up with the approval of the House of Commons which by reason of its composition will be able to look at matters not merely from the military but also from a civilian point of view, if we could tell people who apply to us that we will got them to that Court and there they must make good their own case, our responsibility would end there, and the House would be relieved of a great deal of trouble and inconvenience. After all, it is not fair for us to bring these cases to the Under-Secretary of War. The only reason why we do so is that he is the usual channel of communication between the authorities and the House. But we do not want to give him all this trouble. We want to give these aggrieved men access to a live body, instead of leaving their cases decided on documentary evidence only, and if the Under-Secretary for War can see his way to promise that that can be done he will not only be doing justice to these men, but he will also be relieving the War Office of a considerable amount of pressure, and the men themselves will feel that they have a chance of justice which has not previously been accorded to them.
    5.0 P.M.
    Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: While I do not commit myself to the actual wording of the proposed Clause, I do support it in principle. I wish to dissociate myself from what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite in reference to the Secretary for War. On these questions, as well as on all other questions, I have brought before him, the Secretary for War has shown as much consideration for officers and soldiers as any man in his position could possibly have shown. I urge the principle contained in this Clause because I am convinced it would do nothing to prejudice or interfere with that military discipline and good order which is the object of the Army Act. I would like myself to have every soldier

    439
    and officer loving the term of service he has the honour to enjoy while he is in the Service, and loving the Army and its traditions when he is ultimately demobilised. I am convinced that this Clause meets a grievance which, though not widespread in reference to numbers, is universally spread throughout the Service in reference to knowledge. I do not believe that the great majority of men who are dealt with harshly by their superiors, even to the point of being cashiered or discharged, are ordinarily cases with which we should have sympathy, but there are numbers—and in the large Army we have they are a considerable number—of cases where—not, I submit, with ill-intention of the superior who has to deal with them, but owing to bad judgment, want of knowledge, or the need of giving a decision at the moment—the career of an officer or man may be ruined, a grievance not centred in the officer or man but one which spreads throughout the Service with which he is connected, and is by him spread to the civilian population at home to the detriment of the Army. It is because of the interests of the Army, the good order, discipline, and affection which I believe is the great characteristic of the majority of those who serve in it, that I urge the acceptance of this, or some similar Clause, on the Government. I venture to say that the constant use in this House and the newspapers of the alleged right of appeal to His Majesty the King does His Majesty a great injustice. It is a mere form. There was a time in our history when the King did personally sign every commission to an officer, and even now an officer has the right of entry to a lévee to meet His Majesty the King. In these vast organisations which we have so splendidly built up in the British Empire, however, to bring in constantly the name of the King as the ultimate arbiter of every one of the thousands of officers who have through this War been dealt with, as they think, harshly is to do a great disservice to the head of the State. I think it might be made clear that the ultimate decision in this matter does not rest on the overburdened Monarch of this Realm.
    I hope we are able to convince the War Office that those who support this do it in the interests of the Army. Any decision that may be come to by this particular Committee set up ought to be a decision that would not mean the bringing
    440
    out of the fighting line of any officer or man involved. I do not believe in the Committee which corresponds to a civil Court. I believe in one that will sift the evidence, come to a decision, and if any officer or soldier has been wronged will do its best to right the wrong without interfering with the military machinery from which the wrong emerged by dealing without any harshness whatever with those officers or non-commissioned officers on whose primary reports somebody's career may have been ruined or harshly treated. As to the argument that we have not the-time during the War, the War has lasted into the fourth year, and there is no one who can say it will not last into another four years. We have now in the country a number of people who could undertake work of this kind, and a good strong committee could be set up. It would add to the moral of the Army and would make the humblest soldier and the most distinguished general feel that he had that right of appeal which is denied to him now, but which is still allowed to those who shirk their responsibilities as civilians.
    General HICKMAN: I think this alteration should be made only for so long as the Army is so much enlarged, and that it might even help the Adjutant-General and the Staff of the War Office if there were some kind of Appeal Tribunal. I do not know whether the mover of this Amendment is aware of the very large number of cases that are tried for different offences at the present time in the New Army. There are a very large number of disciplinary cases, and I think, perhaps, it would help the Adjutant-General if there were something of this sort, although I am perfectly convinced that under the old Army conditions it was not at all necessary, because officers did get justice with a full and even hand. I would, therefore, recommend to my hon. Friend in charge of this Bill that if he does feel inclined to give way and accept this Amendment he should qualify it with another Amendment that this provision should only last so long as the Military Service Acts are in operation.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no reason at all to complain of the tone and temper of this discussion. I realise that my hon. and gallant Friends who have spoken on this feel very strongly about it, and this is not the first occasion upon which I myself have had to stand at this box and reply to arguments put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Amendment

    441
    (General Ivor Phillihps) and by the various hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate. Before I deal with the arguments which have been adduced I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend who sits opposite to me (General Sir I. Philipps), and who is always so courteous, would expect me to leave one sentence of his speech without one remark. I refer to the attack made by my hon. and gallant Friend on the Secretary of State for War. I notified that he began by saying that we in this House distrusted him, but that my hon. and gallant Friend was afterwards cautious enough to say that it was he himself who distrusted him.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: I only have the right to express my own opinion.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think I am only expressing the opinion of this House which was voiced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last, an opinion enforced by the specific example brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) when I say that it is not the opinion of the House of Commons. I have now for a long time worked with my Noble Friend the Secretary of State, and I know of no person in any high office under the Crown who has performed his work with more conspicuous faithfulness, or who has been more loved by all those serving under him. I venture also to think that he is beloved by the whole of His Majesty's forces, and I am sorry to think that my hon. and gallant Friend should have made that remark about him. My hon. and gallant Friend began his speech in pressing the adoption of this Clause, by remarking, quite properly, I think, that there were two sections in the Army Act which might be regarded as the soldiers' charter. I am using the word "soldier" in the large sense. These two Sections were Section 42 and Section 43 of the Army Act. I venture to think that every Member who has spoken would say exactly as my hon. and gallant Friend said, that these two Sections are regarded as charters, both of the officer and of the man. Is there a single Member of this House who has had experience of the Army who would come forward at this time of day and ask that those two Sections of the Army Act should be repealed? I venture to think that my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the
    442
    adoption of this Clause would be the last person in this House to say that this Clause should be repealed.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS Sir I. PHILIPPS indicated assent.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: But I venture to say that if I were to adopt, on behalf of the Government, this Clause, I should be virtually repealing those two very Sections. It is quite obvious. I do not think I need analyse the case I am making further than this. My hon. and gallant Friend proposes to provide that
    "Where any officer or soldier after his complaint has been inquired into under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act and the decision thereon has been communicated to him."
    What does that mean? He knows, and I think the Committee will know by this time, that every officer has a right of appeal under Section 42 of the Army Act. That Section enjoins that this appeal should go through the various stages to the Army Council. The Army Council, as an hon. Member in the course of the Debate has pointed out, need not necessarily as a whole give a decision on that appeal.
    Colonel ASHLEY: It never does.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: By statute, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, three members are sufficient, but on occasion I have seen the Army Council as a whole reviewing a decision in certain cases. I have seen it recently, but by statute, as I just said, three members of the Army Council are a properly constituted Court of Appeal, and they can review the case of any soldier who under Section 42 has taken the proper course and appealed. That appeal goes to the King. That is the Supreme Court of Appeal.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: Only in the case of an officer.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly… I am only dealing with the case of an officer, and my hon. and gallant Friend only dealt with the case of an officer. After that appeal has been reviewed by the Army Council it will be reviewed by His Majesty, who will be pleased to give his decision on the subject. That is the Court of Appeal. The idea is prevalent in certain quarters of this House, but not in all quarters, that the Army Council, and particularly the three members chosen to deal with these cases, treat them in a slipshod fashion. I have been one of the three for a long time, and I can assure my

    443
    hon. Friends that I take as much pains and so do my colleagues in reviewing these cases as I would in the case of my dearest friend. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Major David Davies) said these cases were relegated to an overworked general-He knows as well as I do that there is not a word of truth in that statement. Three members of the Army Council invariably examine these cases, and, speaking for myself—and I know that in this I can speak for those who co-operate with me—I can say that in every case we treat them with every care, and go into them meticulously.
    Major DAVIES: Do the three members of the Army Council give an interview to the officer aggrieved?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Not at all; they never have so far as I know. That is not the fault of the Army Council. The Army Council, so far as its powers as a reviewing body are concerned, takes the place of the old Commander-in-Chief, and that was passed, if I mistake not, by a Liberal Government.
    Colonel L. WILSON: Did not the Commander-in-Chief give a personal interview?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am dealing with that very point. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would give me a little time. In the old days the Commander-in-Chief gave a personal interview to any officer who felt he had been wronged, and he personally presented his case. That was the old law, but it was changed on the institution of the Army Council. That old law was done away with, and the procedure which is adumbrated in Section 42 of the Army Act is the procedure adopted, as I said, by the House. As I say, I cannot for the world see why the Army Council should be blamed if it exercises, with such care as I have pointed out it does exercise, those powers, and why it should be blamed because it is the Army Council and not the Commander-in-Chief. These powers have been vested in the Army Council by this House of Commons. It exercises in the best way it can the powers which have been vested in it. I think it will interest the Committee to know that we have had many hundreds of these appeals, and I am quite certain that I am right in saying that the appeals are in the main for inefficiency. I should think 90 per cent. of the appeals are for inefficiency. The remaining per-
    444
    centage probably might include such appeals as appeals on questions of pay or breach of Army rules, or some other reason of that sort. What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose? He proposes that we should have a Court of Appeal. If he wishes this new Clause to remain in the Army Act, what will be the result? My hon. and gallant Friend seems to forget that there is no contract on the part of the officer with the Government, and that the officer receives his commission from the King, and from the King alone. All powers over that commission are vested in His Majesty's hands, and naturally enough in all such cases the papers must be signed by the King. This new Clause seeks to provide that after the matter involved has been inquired into under Section 42 of the Act and the decision has been communicated to the officer and—and be it remembered, that decision is only communicated to him after submission to the King—after, I say, the King has decided upon the advice of the Army Council that a certain man should lose his commission, another Court of Appeal should beset up in order to overthrow the decision come to.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: The hon. Gentleman will not think that I am interrupting him, but I may say that I never intended any such thing as he suggests. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman choosing a quibble of this sort, which is a legal quibble. I am not a lawyer; I am a soldier.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I—
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: Will you allow me to go on, please? You appealed to me. You have picked out one particular point which, of course, anybody drafting this, who was a lawyer, would have picked out. You have put the appeal between the Army-Council and the King. It is because I respect His Majesty so greatly that I oppose this scheme. The appeal ought to go to His Majesty, not on the recommendation of the Army Council—which I do not trust—but on the recommendation of an Appeal Tribunal—which I do trust. I trust the hon. Gentleman in thinking this matter over will see that he is not fair, that he is trying to make, as a lawyer, this technical, legal, feeble quibble which a soldier would not do.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I only asked my hon. and gallant Friend whether he did or not agree with what I was putting forward.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: I did not wish to go into Section 43. You picked out one point where this does apply.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The House will remember perfectly well the specific cases which were put.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: Read the Clause.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am simply stating the case, and I am trying to argue it as it appears best to me. It may be a lawyer's quibble, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman chooses to regard it so; but I regard it otherwise. I have, first of all, got his admission that he does not wish to get rid of Section 43. I, therefore, do not touch that Section, but I say that these two things are absolutely inconsistent. Let me deal with the cases he mentioned. I have pointed out that 90 per cent. of these cases were inefficiency cases. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has served in the Army, and he knows perfectly well what happens. I have stated to the House, time and again, that in a question of the soldier's efficiency the sole criterion must be opinion. It is not a question of fact at all, and the commanding officer is the man responsible for the efficiency of the regiment. He must judge, and his opinion must be the criterion. I can only assure my hon. and gallant Friends that in a matter of this sort I would as soon trust the judgment of the Army as of anyone else.
    Mr. ROCH: Invariably?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Almost invariably. Not on a point of law, but on a point of discipline, which is a somewhat difficult point. When we talk of efficiency, of what are we thinking? We are simply taking that view with regard to the man who is the best judge of a man's efficiency, and that is the commanding officer of the man. In this matter of opinion we go straight up through each state—brigadier, divisional commander, corps commander, army commander, and Field Marshal Commander-in-Chief. After that we come to the Army Council. Where it is a question of military opinion you could not possibly have a better Court than that. I am not dealing with question of facts, which are dealt with by court-martial. I have said to the House before, and I repeat, that in the case of a civil employer and an employé that the former can say to the latter, "I believe you to be inefficient, go…" It is not regarded as un-reasonable to accept the opinion of that
    446
    employer, and what is there against such being extended, so far as efficiency is concerned, in relation to the Army?
    Mr. ROCH: Surely the employé can go elsewhere?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It may be as my hon. Friend suggests, but I am not going to deal with that particular point. What I say is that my statement of the case suggests a correct analogy from my point of view. It is my conviction that the Army, as a whole, do regard the present criterion as the proper criterion. I do not know that there is any particular point further which was raised, but I quite agree, as my 'hon. and gallant Friend has said, that there is a feeling in the country that there may be something wrong. But then you are dealing at the present time with a colossal Army, in the midst of tremendously difficult circumstances. I, for one, should hesitate to interfere with any section dealing with the discipline of the Army. While I am quite willing to make a careful representation of all the statements that have been made in this House to-day to my military advisers, I cannot hold out any hope at the present time, and conditions being as they are, that we can in any way alter the present system. If I can gather military opinion aright—and I have a fair opportunity of gathering it—it is thought that the time may come, whenever peace arrives—and I hope that may be soon—when the consideration which has been advanced by hon. Members this afternoon must be considered. I trust that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press me to accept this Clause, because I do not wish to do so, and, indeed, cannot. I hope with that assurance he will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I put one question? Does my hon. Friend mean by saying that in future the War Office will review this matter mean to set up a Court of Appeal for the retrospective dealing with cases during the present War?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I do not.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I confess that I listened very carefully to the speech of the Under-Secretary for War. There may be very good reasons why some such Clause as this should not be accepted, but the hon. Gentleman certainly did not put them before the House of Commons. The only points he has made refer to in-

    447
    efficiency and discipline. I will deal with those in a moment, though I cannot see why, in the case of inefficiency or lack of discipline in the Army, some sort of Court, as proposed to be set up, need in any way interfere with these two very important things. The House of Commons must remember that at the present time we are dealing with a very different Army to the Army in existence when these Regulations 42 and 43 were passed by this House. When these Sections were passed the sum total of our armed forces of all sorts was between 400,000 and 500,000 men. Now we have an Army running into millions. In the old days you had boys from eighteen to twenty-five as the bulk of your small Army. Now we have got all the youth of the country; we are taking the middle-aged, and even some old men. You must remember that their ideas of liberty and justice are, obviously, very different from the ideas of a boy of eighteen or twenty in the previous time. They have been accustomed to open Courts; they have been accustomed to Courts of Appeal, and to the normal procedure of civil life; therefore, when they are taken into the Army and find that with the best intentions—I am not making any charge against any officers, or the War Office, or anyone else—their cases are judged by a nebulous body called the Army Council, which sits at the War Office, and about which they know nothing, about whose sittings and discussions they know nothing, before whom they are not able to put their case, there is a widespread feeling amongst them that they are not getting justice. I hope the Under-Secretary will not think that I am saying that they do not, in 95, or even more, per cent. of the cases get justice. But the feeling amongst these men is that they do not know what have been the grounds of the decision reached—whether their papers have been considered This is a bad thing for the moral of the Army—this feeling that a man does not know who is the judge in his case. Surely it is the inherent right of every Englishman, if he is accused of any offence, he should have personally an opportunity of putting his case before the body of people who are appointed to judge him. Even in the case of interned aliens, we have set up a body outside the House who take the utmost care to allow the alien to put his own story in his own way, and surely the justice which you
    448
    give to the interned alien ought to be given to officers and men in His Majesty's Forces who are fighting so gallantly.
    With regard to efficiency, I understood the argument was that no civilian could judge military efficiency, and therefore the idea of having civilian members on the Court of Appeal should be ruled out. Take the Admiralty Courts. There are civilian members on those Courts, and they have nautical assistants to advise them on technical points. Why could this not be done in the case of the Courts which are to be set up? In all military Courts the civilian members would be only too glad to have the judgment of distinguished generals on certain points. As regards discipline. I would ask what is there against discipline in allowing a man to put his case before a Court properly set up to judge whether he has been guilty of an offence or not. That is only common justice which ought to be given to every Englishman. Then the hon. Member argued that you cannot make a change of this kind in the middle of a War. If the War Cabinet can spare enough time to set up the framework of a Home Rule Bill, surely it can find time to set up a Court such as we have indicated.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: There seems to be three classes of cases which require consideration. The first is the case in which a soldier or officer has been convicted by his commanding officer for some offence entirely within the purview of that officer. That is discipline pure and simple, and I should be 10th to see any civilian interference in any form with the power of commanding officers over the officers in their regiment in regard to questions such as that. I am not sure that the present appeal to the King under Section 42 or 43 is very effective, for it merely means the decision of a section of the Army Council. I should have thought it would be much better to have a tribunal of officers to consider questions of that kind. With regard to courts-martial, it has been my fate since the War began to appear on several occasions before general courts-martial, and they are well conducted, and very fair and efficient tribunals. I am not quite sure that in time of war it would be desirable to institute any form of Court of Appeal from the decisions of courts-martial. At a court-martial a man has a right to be represented. The evidence is given on

    449
    oath, and the procedure is determined and is strictly followed, and in my experience the accused received a patient and fair trial. Therefore, I am not sure that I should encourage appeals in such cases, and I would not institute any Court of Appeal from the decisions of courts-martial.
    With regard to the constitution of Courts of Army Inquiry, I do think an alteration is required there, and it is required soon. Just think what is a Court of Army Inquiry. The accused has no right to be represented, and no notification is given to him before the Court of Inquiry is opened as to what the offence is with which he is to be charged. I know a case where an officer was charged with a very serious offence. He was told that he was to attend the Court of Inquiry without the least notice, and it was not until he got there that a very serious charge was made. The officers accused are very often persons with little experience of legal proceedings, and they have to do the best they can, and the utmost concession made to them is that they may have some legal friend to sit by them and prompt them. What happens? At the particular Court of Inquiry which I have in mind the case was adjourned. The Court intimated that the evidence was unsatisfactory as it stood, and that they must have the evidence of some officer from France. There was no further evidence taken at all in that case, and although they stated that they considered the evidence quite inconclusive and unsatisfactory, being unable to obtain the evidence from France, they reported on the evidence they had, and the officer was deprived of his commission.
    If you are going to have a case where, on the report of the Army Inquiry, the Army Council may act as they did in that case, in which they acted partly on the representations of the Army inquiries, and partly on the information they had gathered, I submit very strongly that you should do one of two things. You should either draft new Regulations, or the Courts of Army Inquiry should be consonant with the procedure of courts-martial, which would be more in accordance with the ideas of English justice, or else you could set up some Court of Appeal. I do not suggest that every case should come under appeal. You might provide a safeguard that leave should be given to appeal by
    450
    the Judge Advocate-General, or a judge in chambers, but there should be something of that kind before a man is allowed ipso facto to appeal. There should be some remedy open to a man, and, at present, there is none, against whom a report has been made by an Army inquiry, at which he has had no right of representation, and which is certainly not carried out under strict rules of procedure. Surely that could be done during the War? In all cases where a man has been dealt with by the commanding officer it should be in relation to questions of discipline, but when you elect to give a man a trial at all it should be in accordance with the procedure of courts-martial, or else you should reframe your rules for Army Court inquiries, and you must give a man some right of appeal to a properly constituted tribunal. When the Judge Advocate-General, or a judge in chambers, certifies that he considers the Army inquiry has not been satisfactorily held, then the man should have a right to appear before a court-martial, and at present he has no such right. If it is obvious that a man has not received a proper trial, he should have a right to be reheard before a properly constituted Court.
    This is a matter which should be carried out during the War. It is no good saying you will leave this matter over, because you are appointing Committees and Commissions every day. If you were to read some of these cases, one cannot help being shocked, not by the want of good intentions on behalf of the Court, but at their decisions. A Court of Army inquiry is set up by the colonel, and they have nothing but a very imperfectly drafted set of rules to guide them, and, consequently, it very often happens that the man does not get a fair trial. That is wrong, even during war, and you should set up this Court of Appeal, or else give the man a right of appeal to a court-martial. I beg the Under-Secretary to consider this procedure as regards Army Court inquiries, and surely the remedy is simple and could be applied now?
    Colonel ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I find myself in disagreement with most members of the Committee on this question, and my experience is that the men get fair play. Officers and men in the Army know what they are in for. There are certain elaborate rules of procedure, and

    451
    complaints are taken first by the commanding officer. I have had forty years' experience in these matters, and I know of no case of injustice. I think the Army as a whole would resent this Court of Appeal, and I do not think there is the slightest use for it. If this matter were put to the vote of the officers and men, I feel sure they would oppose it.
    Mr. W. ROCH: The Committee is indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend for introducing the subject contained in this Amendment. While I have not had the forty years' experience of the hon. and gallant Gentleman below me (Colonel Anstruther-Gray), I am sure that many Members of the House, who have had actual cases brought before them of not undistinguished officers, though they are quite unfitted to go into the merits whether these officers have or have not been fairly dealt with, have a Feeling that they have not been fairly heard. My hon. Friend, in objecting to this Clause, produced the most extraordinary analogy. He took the case of a civilian, and said that he was under the autocratic power of his employer to dismiss him, but by the very nature of their employment—a great many civilians have an actual contract—civilians can enforce their contract in a Court of Law.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I was dealing mainly with the question of efficiency, and I said that the only criterion was not evidence, but the opinion of the commanding officer.
    Mr. ROCH: In any case, the civilian employécan appeal to the Law Courts to say whether the employer was justified in breaking his contract. The hardship in this case is far greater than in that of the civilian employé, because a soldier, who has been the greater part of his life in the Army, by the very nature of his employment is hardly fitted for employment as a civil employé. A civil employé has the right to go into the market and seek other employment, but, unfortunately, that is not the case with the soldier. Take the case which my hon. Friend gave of his own profession. He said that in the matter of discipline it would be for his own profession to decide.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Bar Council.
    Mr. ROCH: Yes, but if he were not given an opportunity of putting his case
    452
    before the Bar Council my hon. Friend would be the first person to know that the action of the Law Courts could be invoked. The Bar Council is amenable to the law, and must act in consonance with the principle of national justice, and natural justice requires that a man shall be heard before being condemned. My hon. Friend criticised the body which my hon. and gallant Friend seeks to set up, and he said that no civilian can judge. But the very Court which judges now is partly a civilian Court. He himself is a member of the Army Council, and I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) who sits beside him is also a member. The Secretary of State for War is a member of the Army Council. That is the only body which gives a kind of appeal, and which stands between a man and absolute dismissal from the Service. I would appeal to my hon. Friend to give further consideration to this matter. I know that he is placed in a difficult position. He is placed in the War Office between generals who are wedded to an old system, and all of us who are parts of an old system believe that it has worked perfectly, and that no fault should be found with it. There is, however, a feeling by a substantial number of officers that they are not fairly treated. No one san say whether that is right or wrong. But how can my hon. Friend, a member of a great profession which stands for the tradition of justice and, above all, for the hearing of a person before he is condemned, face to face by the Court which tries him, withhold from a person who has a grievance some right of appeal to a body which will hear him?
    At present the Army Council do not see the person who complains. As a general rule a written statement is put before the Army Council, and the man has no opportunity of pleading his case in person. I cannot see what injustice or harm is done if a person is given this right of appeal. If he is unfairly treated, his future is almost gone, because his chance of employment in any other profession, particularly if he is of middle age, is very small. Why should that man be refused the chance of being fairly heard? My hon. Friend should be only too pleased to think that man had no legitimate right to hold any grievance against the Army authorities. He said that it is not in the interests of discipline. Why is it not in the interests of discipline? Is it against the interests of discipline that a man who has been dismissed or who has lost his

    453
    employment should feel that he has been fairly heard? I should have thought that in the long run discipline is dependent upon actual justice and upon the actual feeling that a man has been fully heard, and has not been deprived of his employment without the elementary right which is given to every other person. I should say that by giving a fair hearing to everyone who feels that he has a grievance and that he has not been fairly treated, my hon. Friend would not be interfering with discipline, but would be aiding discipline, because, discipline, after all, is based on the sanction of fair play and elementary justice.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member opposite. With the exception of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews Burghs (Colonel Anstruther-Gray), everybody who has taken part in the Debate has taken the view that a change is necessary for the purpose which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has in view. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in the course of his defence, rested his case on two points. The first was a point of form in relation to the Amendment. It is quite true that in the form that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has moved it there is a difficulty in accepting the Amendment, because it provides machinery, not in substitution of, but in addition to, that which exists under Section 42 of the Army Act. I think, on more mature consideration, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be well advised to make the new machinery rather substitutive than additional machinery. There is at present this right to make representations to the Army Council, and the real question is whether the Army Council offers a good method of redress to those, both officers and men, who have a grievance. The dissatisfaction which has been expressed is good evidence that there is a very widespread feeling that this is not the best method of dealing with these cases of grievance. The Army Council is in essence an administrative and not a judicial body, and as a general principle it is a mistake to impose judicial functions upon administrative authorities. Everybody will agree that under present conditions the Army Council is a greatly overburdened administrative authority, and that it would be well in the interests of the Army Council itself to have it relieved of the burden of dealing with the
    454
    numerous cases which arise under Section 42 of the Army Act. That point will appeal to my hon. Friend the Undersecretary. I am sure that he has himself felt that one of the most difficult tasks that falls upon him in connection with the duties of his present office is precisely that duty which is involved under Section 42 of the Army Act. I think, from his own point of view, that the arguments I am now addressing to the Committee will carry absolute conviction. Indeed, I believe that it will carry greater conviction to him than to almost any other member of the Committee.
    You have also to take this other consideration into account: When you have not independent judicial authority for the purpose, what is the real method of making representations? We all know that the aggrieved person, either before the Army Council has given its decision or subsequent to its decision, comes to Members of Parliament with a view of modifying that decision, or, indeed, goes to the Press. Very likely, in the first instance, he will come to Members of Parliament and suggest that they should make their representations to the Under-Secretary of State for War to have the question reopened or should bring some further facts to the notice of the authorities which may throw fresh light on the case. Is that a satisfactory method? Every member of the Committee will agree that it is not. It is not the way to have a judicial determination at all. It is highly objectionable that Members of this House should be called upon to make representations to the Executive for the purpose of upsetting these decisions. We know, if these private representations are unsuccessful, that the case is brought to the floor of this House. Everybody will agree that there is no body in this country more incompetent to deal with questions of this kind than the House of Commons. It is not the place to have these matters of competence or incompetence of officers and the grievances of soldiers against their officers thrashed out. We cannot deal with these things here. The utmost that hon. Members can do when such cases arise is to appeal to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to have something in the nature of a formal inquiry.
    6.0 P.M.
    My hon. and gallant Friend somewhat resented my interruption differing from him as to the course of events in the celebrated Barrett inquiry. That was not due to the then Secretary of State for War. It

    455
    was really due to the late Sir Arthur Markham, who made private representations in the first instance. The late Sir Arthur Markham, with that independence and chivalry and courage for which we all admired him and for which we all regret him, brought this case of an obscure boy of whom we had never heard before the notice of the authorities. He made private representations not only to the then Secretary of State for War, but also to the then Prime Minister. He could get no satisfaction out of either of them. He was up against the dead wall of professional influence in the Army Council, but he succeeded because he threatened to make a speech in this House in which he would read every one of the relevant letters. He brought the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War to their knees, and they had to give the inquiry. But because you have a case like that, which shows that literally the civilian Government can be squeezed, as it were, by a courageous and fearless man, is that any reason why we should be content with this system, and why there should not be the means of appeal which were available to this man as the result of Sir Arthur Markham's fearless action made available to every man who has not the means of enlisting on his behalf the influence of a powerful Member? I am reminded that the Government paid all the expenses. That was because powerful and rich men happened to be interested in this matter.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: The Act of Parliament created a Special Court. That Act is still in existence, and the Court could be called into existence if required.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I quite understand that. I know that it is still in the discretion of the War Office, in any given case, to grant an inquiry of this kind, but my hon. and learned Friend will agree that it would be only in circumstances where very powerful people brought influence to bear that such machinery would be brought into operation.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: A civilian has to be concerned in it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: That is also an essential condition in bringing that machinery into operation. I was using that analogy in a general way to fortify my argument. I am not suggesting that necessarily it
    456
    should be the machinery adopted in all cases. I am using it as an argument for a substituted machinery, which will be judicial in its character. The arguments which have been brought forward in favour of this new machinery are over-whelming. The only consideration which the Under-Secretary has put forward that might have some weight with members of the Committee is the circumstances in which the War at the present time is being conducted. I doubt very much whether that should be a consideration which should outweigh everything else in our minds to-day. The situation is indeed very serious, but as my hon. and gallant Friend has reminded the Committee, even under these serious conditions the War Cabinet can find time to devise a scheme of Home Rule for the people of Ireland who have not fought in this War. If they can do that, I suggest it is an appropriate time to provide a judicial means of redress for the aggrieved men who have fought in the War.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES:I would submit to the Committee, in support of the new Clause, a case brought to my own notice. It is that of a Welsh university student, who volunteered for the Army and who was sent back to this country, apparently suffering from shock. Six months after his return here a certain report against him was placed before the Army Council, and he was ultimately asked to resign. At his request, I took up his case with the War Office, and demanded that an inquiry should be made into it. The reply which I received apparently is the reply which is generally received: that it was the decision of the Army Council. In that case I happened to have all the papers laid before me, including a copy of the whole of the evidence. Speaking with some experience of legal matters and of evidence, I venture to say that that evidence would never have been accepted in any civil Court. I think the case went before the Army Council on two occasions and that on neither occasion was the officer concerned allowed to appear. All he was allowed to do was to put in a written statement. So far as I can make out, be was ultimately gazetted out of the Army on the statement or a general who himself has since been superseded. May I put the facts of that case shortly before the Committee? The man complained he was suffering from shell-shock. He was treated by a doctor, and he expressed the desire

    457
    to go back to his men. That was refused. He was sent over to this country. He was in a hospital at Ipswich for dealing with shell-shock cases for no less than six months. Notwithstanding the evidence of medical men, both in France and in this country, he was, I believe, charged with being temperamentally unfit for the position of an officer. He submitted himself, at my request, to a specialist in London, who assured him—I have seen the certificate myself—that he was suffering as a result of shell-shock, but that he was now fit to resume his position in the Army. He desired to do so. He was only twenty-three years of age and apparently in a fit condition. I pressed the War Office to reconsider his case, pointing out that his career was practically at an end. He was asked to resign his commission. He refused, and pointed out that that would be an acknowledgment of the serious charge made against him. He was ultimately gazetted out of the Army three months ago, and consequently came under the Military Service Act. I understand the position now is that the county tribunal of Anglesey refuses to hand that man over to the military authorities on the ground of the unfair way in which the military authorities treated him when he was an officer.
    I cannot understand on what principles of justice a man's livelihood, a man's honour, a man's everything in the world, are to be taken away without giving that man—he was an officer—an opportunity of defending himself against the charges made against him. Here was a case where the evidence was purely medical. The medical evidence, both of the doctor in France and of the doctor in Ipswich, was available. In 'addition to that, we offered to bring before the Army Council the evidence of the best expert in London. The whole of that evidence was in tine man's favour, but he has been gazetted out of the Army and called up for military service as a conscript. Things of that kind are really art the bottom of the deep and bitter feeling which exists in this country against the Army Council. I can assure the Under-Secretary that this creates the most serious distrust, not only of the efficiency of the Army Council and of those who act for it, but also of their sense of justice. We have had an experience in the case of Sir Owen Thomas in Wales. He was asked to resign his position, and it was only after the most careful inquiry by the tribunal to which the hon. and
    458
    learned Gentleman (Mr. Hume-Williams) referred, and after the most searching and stringent examination, which we should have been very glad, indeed, to have made public—I happen to have seen it—that Sir Owen Thomas was reinstated in public opinion, was granted a knighthood by the Government, and had the whole of his expenses paid. Apart from that, pressure which was brought to bear upon the Government for a second inquiry, Sir Owen Thomas would have gone down to history, because it is on the records of the House, as having been asked to resign for inefficiency. The charge of inefficiency was removed by that Commission, and, as we know, he was subsequently knighted. I do not see any reason why the opportunity so given to Barrett, and extended to Sir Owen Thomas, should not also be extended to every officer and man in the Army.
    Major DAVIES: I must apologise to the Committee for rising a second time in the course of this Debate, but the reply of the Under-Secretary was so unsatisfactory that I hope my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir I. Philipps) will press this new Clause to a Division. This is not the first time by any means that the attention of the War Office has been called to this matter. The opinions expressed to-day must have convinced them that there is need for some reform of this kind. The Under-secretary stated that the Army Council was supreme in this matter, and was a body which had been set up by a Liberal Administration to deal with all questions of this kind. It does not matter what Government set up the Army Council. They cannot complain if this House desires to remedy what it thinks to be a great defect in the present machinery for dealing with such matters. The Under-Secretary also said that no reforms could be carried out in time of war. That is one of the reasons why we find ourselves in the unfortunate position we are in to-day. It always has been one of the axioms of the War Office not to institute reforms but to wait for some drastic action before they begin to move. After our experiences in the past, the futility of that argument will become apparent to most people. Another point raised by the Under-Secretary was that an Appeal Tribunal of this kind was not competent to deal with the cases of officers who were dismissed on the ground of incompetency. God forbid that we should put any fresh obstacles in the way of getting rid of incompetent officers from the Army,

    459
    because we all know there are plenty of them. On the other hand, I do not believe that these difficulties would really arise in practice. Those cases which ought to come before a tribunal of this kind, which are necessarily cases of incompetency, would receive their proper treatment.
    The Under-Secretary also said that three members of the Army Council are now told off to deal with these cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch) very eloquently pointed out, these three members of the Army Council do not hear the personal appeals of these officers. Before the Army Council came into existence, officers had a right of personal appeal to the Commander-in-Chief. We all know the procedure which goes on in the War Office, and how it is quite impossible, by simply reading over a large number of documents which probably have been in existence for a considerable time, for those three members to appreciate some of the facts, and even some of the most important facts with which they have to deal. I, therefore, ask the Under-Secretary whether he is prepared on behalf of the Army Council to say that in future these three members of that body who go into these cases are prepared to give personal interviews and hear personal appeals from the officers who are desirous of stating their cases to them in person? A most pathetic case came before my notice some time ago, in which an officer had made repeated attempts, both by correspondence and by calling at the War Office, to obtain a hearing. Although on paper he had an excellent case and thought he had been dealt with most unjustly, he had no opportunity of placing his case before the authorities and obtaining a personal hearing. It is cases of that kind which have brought about the present feeling both in the House and in the Army. I feel sure the House of Commons will not tolerate the non-possumus attitude of the War Office in the future, and although my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) appears now as the champion of the Secretary for War and has given him a glowing testimonial, we ought to vote in support of the Amendment.
    Mr. SHERWELL: No one could have listened to the Debate without being impressed by the fact that the consensus of opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of the principle of some such departure as has been suggested. But I find myself
    460
    much more in sympathy with the object my hon. and gallant Friend has in view than with the precise form of machinery by which he desires to achieve it He proposes to provide the security which is now lacking by creating some machinery in the form of a Court of Appeal. I would much rather provide it by some machinery of the nature of a Court of first instance. The real tragedy of the situation as I see it, and as it is expressed in cases which have come to me in common with every other Member of the House, is that a man's life and career may be absolutely ruined by the exercise of some accidental or arbitrary expression of capricious opinion without any regard to the real and vital evidence or the facts of the case in question. Every Member of the House must have had cases brought to his notice of apparent great hardship which proved to be of real hardship where a man has been condemned on the opinion or recommendation of his immediately superior officer without any opportunity being presented to him of giving evidence or his statement of the facts, and he has been precluded from the remedy either of a Court of Inquiry or a court-martial. That is a condition of things which, on the most rudimentary principles of justice, cannot for a moment be tolerated, and I think it is the duty of the House, especially in view of the far-reaching character of the new proposals which the Government has recently presented, to ask for at least a rudimentary security for the interests and careers of men who may otherwise be ruined. It is perfectly true that by the accident of political circumstances and political promotion we are fortunate in having as Under-Secretary for War a Gentleman who is always responsive to personal appeals from us. But we, as Members of the House, ought not to be placed in the position of persons who must be the recipients of grievances and must be a sort of medium between aggrieved persons and the officials of the War Office. Moreover, supposing a private appeals to a Member of Parliament, we have again and again been told from the Front Bench that he is violating the King's Regulations, and that no Member of this House has a right to take up a case or a letter of complaint from a private soldier, so that in the case of a private soldier a Member of Parliament has no recognised right to intervene, however serious the case may be. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roch) dealt

    461
    very faithfully with the analogy which the Under-Secretary for War tried to draw with the case of a civilian in employment. My hon. and learned Friend's reply was conclusive so far as the Army was concerned, but what is the case in reference to the ordinary industrial worker? Does my hon. Friend pretend for a single moment that a workman may, under modern conditions, be arbitrarily dismissed on the mere opinion of his employer without any interference from his organised trade union?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I never said that. I said that a civil employer could not use his own opinion as the only calculation in getting rid of an employé. But supposing an employer came to the conclusion that a man was an inefficient workman, he would give him a month's notice in accordance with the conditions of employment, and at the end of the month the man would have no redress.
    Mr. SHERWELL: The argument is not so capricious as my hon. Friend thinks, because he is there dealing with a salaried employéwho receives a month's notice. Take the case of the workman I have been mentioning. Will he suggest for a moment that the employer's opinion is the final criterion as to whether that man shall be dismissed or no? Some of the most serious labour disputes in recent years have occurred in consequence of an employer, or foreman, exercising the criterion of his personal judgment without any reference to the existence of an organised trade union. In the case of the Army there is no trade union, and I am quite prepared to agree that under the exigencies of discipline a trade union of the ordinary kind is impossible. But because the exigencies of the Service and the necessity for the maintenance of discipline make the soldier's case exceptional there is the more need to give him security in some other form, and I am bound to say that the reply from the Treasury Bench was wholly inadequate, in view of the strength of opinion in the country on this subject, and it is no use our trying to democratise our Army and to make it a national Army in the sense in which it is to-day unless we are first of all to safeguard to the men who compose that Army the very rudiments of justice and fair play. There are men known, to my hon. Friend, officers with Distinguished Service Orders, whose military careers are on record in the War Office, who would have been dismissed on
    462
    the ground of cowardice without the least opportunity of presenting the facts of their case. Personal intervention is given so far as it goes, but it is quite inadequate, as a security either for the private or for the officer.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: I think as a result of this Debate the question of a Court of Appeal has gone a considerable step forward, and I believe the Under-Secretary will not be ready to come down on Report, and certainly not when the Bill comes in next year, with the feeble reply which he gave me. That reply does not do him justice, and certainly does not do me justice. He made one little quibble, and because I had not drafted my proposal cleverly and brought in the appeal to His Majesty before the Court of Appeal, therefore he said it was abolishing the soldier's charter. But he took no notice of Section 43, which is equally affected by my Amendment, and which refers to the soldier only, and the soldier has no appeal to His Majesty. The whole of his recent reply as put before the House by the Army Council was a pure quibble. That will not do. It cannot go on. This has to be settled. There is only one Member to-day—and you have large numbers here who are interested in the Army—who has been at all on the side of the Army Council, and he is a distinguished retired officer who, I believe, has not served in this War.
    HON. MEMBERS: He has…
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: I beg his pardon and withdraw. Anyhow, he has not fully appreciated, I am sure, the great difference there is in the modem Army and the Army of which he was an ornament in his time. I should like to withdraw my proposal. The Clause in its present form has undoubtedly to be amended. We have had the most valuable Debate, and possibly the greater number of Members who have supported the Clause really wish to see something of this sort done, but we cannot carry it to-day. It would simply be waste of time to go through the Lobby, and therefore I hope the House will allow me to withdraw my proposal—[HON. MEMBERS: "No…"]—in the firm conviction that sooner or later the Army Council will have to bring forward the proposal themselves. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No…
    Colonel GREIG: I should not have intervened had it not been that I have had some experience as a Member of Parliament in receiving complaints which I have been asked to bring before the War Office, and the persons aggrieved have felt that they have not had a full opportunity of putting their case properly. There is one via media which we might adopt. I quite realise the difficulty which the Under-Secretary feels in regard to introducing entirely new machinery in the midst of a great war, but even the Mover of the Amendment does not suggest that. There is, however, another way which has been hinted at in several speeches, and if it were adopted it would remove a very large amount of the sense of injustice which many of these people feel who have been subjected to the decisions of a tribunal which they had never seen and before which they had never come. Let it be the practice in future of the Army Council—they will not be creating any new machinery; they will simply be going back to what was the practice in the old days—to grant a personal interview to the person aggrieved before the final decision is made. The Under-Secretary rather pledged himself to do something after the War. It can be done now and can meet all the cases that come under it. The practice under the Section as it used to be was that the Commander-in-Chief was required to examine complaints. The Act was altered by the substitution of the Army Council for the Commander-in-Chief. The Commander-in-Chief had instituted the practice of hearing and seeing the person implicated. Why should not the Army Council adopt the same practice and so very largely remove the sense of injustice, which I am certain is mainly based upon the fact that the individual does not feel that he has had an opportunity of stating his own case before the tribunal?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As the Committee will realise, this is a very difficult problem and a dangerous one to embark upon at the present time so as to solve it, but I have been much impressed by what has been said by Members in all quarters of the House. I cannot pledge myself, but I will engage to consider whether it would not be possible to give a personal interview to any soldier who is dissatisfied with the sentence which has been passed upon him. I will not go beyond that. If it would in some sense restore the old right
    464
    that any officer had to apply to the Commander-in-Chief, that would go a long way—
    An HON. MEMBER: What about the men?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That will be considered, too, of course. It would go a long way to meet the general wish of the Committee. I was much struck by the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hume-Williams), and I think the Committee will realise the truth of the statement which he volunteered that so far as courts-martial are concerned there could be no improvement. He also took strong exception to any interference with disciplinary cases. The graveamen of his charge was so far as Courts of Inquiry were concerned. By that I understand Courts which may be set up and which report upon certain facts. From the report of a Court of that sort he thinks there should be some sort of appeal. That is a point which appeals to me, and I will bring the strong arguments adduced to the notice of my colleagues and the Army Council and see whether before the new Army (Annual) Act something cannot be done.
    Mr. HOGGE: I quite understand the position in which the Under-Secretary finds himself after the discussion which has taken place. Everybody in the House agrees as to the justice of these men having access to Courts of Inquiry, and that will be carried unanimously by the Members who have heard the discussion; but after two hours of that discussion, in which representations have come from all sides of the House, from Service Members and Members who are not in the Service, and Members of all political views, all that my hon. Friend can do is to say that between now and the next Army (Annual) Act, 1919, he will engage to bring this matter before the attention of the Army authorities and come down to this House three hundred and sixty-five days hence to meet a new discussion on this subject in the House of Commons.
    An HON. MEMBER: He may not be there.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I can do no more.
    Mr. HOGGE: I know you cannot. That is the trouble. But we can bring the pressure of the House of Commons to bear through you and force the authorities to do something. It would be absurd if we were to take a decision of that nature from

    465
    my hon. Friend after this discussion. He says that he will endeavour to see that any aggrieved person who applies for a personal interview can get it. In the first place, he has already agreed in the discussion which has taken place that the three members of the Army Council who give attention to these matters are overworked. [Mr. Macpherson indicated dissent.] If my hon. Friend does not agree to that, his chief agreed. I have had an opportunity of discussing this with his chief and he has told me that both he and the Under-Secretary would be glad if some other means could be got for doing this, so that they could devote themselves to other work. Therefore, I hope he will settle that with his Chief when he meets him next. He knows perfectly well that if he could get somebody else to do this work, he could do other work more efficiently. He says he will undertake that a man who applies for an interview shall get it. But, if he gets the personal interview, who must he see? He must either see Lord Derby or my hon. Friend, or the third man who forms this Committee of the Army Council. Could Lord Derby or my hon. Friend see any more people than they are seeing now? The people who will want to see them are people with a grievance. They are not like an ordinary Member of Parliament, who states that he has a case with a grievance, but he does not tell him the whole grievance. These people will start by telling him the whole grievance. In a personal interview of that kind the man will start his case from the day he enlisted until the day he was discharged.
    The House of Commons, for once in its life, is offering a reasonable, clean-cut scheme for dealing with these cases. We are offering to relieve my hon. Friend and his Chief of this work, and at the same time to give the people concerned a right which they ought to be entitled to enjoy. So far as I am concerned, I am disappointed with my hon. Friend's reply. What is the good of discussing things in the House of Commons? What is the good of arriving at a consensus of opinion like this? What is the use of agreeing about anything if at the end of the discussion all that is going to happen is that the Under-Secretary is going to convey to the War Office an account of what has taken place? If the hon. Member likes, I will take that information round to the War Office now, if somebody else will continue
    466
    the Debate, and I will bring back a decision as to what is to be done. It is not playing fair with the House of Commons or with the men concerned to give a reply of that kind, and I will go into the Lobby on a Clause of this kind. Cannot my hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, allow the Clause to be read a second time, and then amend it? The War Office is represented on the Front Bench and also under the Gallery, and, therefore, they could translate the Clause into some form which would meet the wishes of the Committee. If there is a non-possumus such as my hon. Friend suggests, and that he will oppose the Second Reading of the Clause, then it is obviously our duty to go into the Lobby against the Government and to demonstrate once again that when a common-sense proposal is brought forward the Department which is presumed to be prosecuting the War vigorously have nothing else to say about it except that they will consider it in a year's time.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I quite understand that it is very difficult for the Under-Secretary to accept a Clause such as this. Although I am in full sympathy with its principles, I can see that it is possibly not a perfect instrument for carrying out what is desired. I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary cannot very well accept it as it stands, and that he will have to go back to the War Office and consult the Secretary of State and the military authorities. May I make a suggestion? We are not many weeks off the Whitsuntide Recess. The Noble Lord the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Edmund Talbot), who decides the allocation of the time of the House, is here. Will the Government undertake to give the House two hours before eleven o'clock some time before Whitsuntide in which to discuss this Clause? We might then come to some decision, and that would give us time to think it over.
    Captain S. WILSON: Why not on the Report stage?
    Colonel ASHLEY: On the other hand, could not some arrangement be made whereby appropriate time might be given for the Report stage?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) did me rather an injustice. I thought that I had gathered the opinion of the House, and I said that I would do my level best to make representations at once to my colleagues and

    467
    advisers. I also conveyed an expression to the House that I would undertake, if possible, to give an interview to any soldier or officer who had a complaint, thereby practically reviving the condition of things which prevailed at the time of the Commander-in-Chief. I thought I was really accepting what was pressed upon me by the House. I shall keep my part of the bargain. I do not think I was foolish in saying that it might be probably next year before a reform of the kind advocated by hon. Members could be carried out. I believe it may be possible to do it by another procedure—by a rule which I can place upon the Table of the House. Hon. Members seem to think that a change of this sort is quite easy of performance. I can assure the House that such is not the case. A great many things have to be considered, and I would ask hon. Members to let me have this Bill in all its stages to-day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Ashley) suggested that the matter might be deferred for discussion before Whitsuntide. We must have this Army (Annual) Act before the end of this month. If we do not get the Act before the end of this month, the Army ceases to exist. I think, in view of these considerations, the House might very well accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Clause and allow it to be withdrawn, and we might see what can be done by way of procedure.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: It may be said that I am looking a gift-horse in the mouth, but I may say that I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said as to a Court of Appeal. If a Court of Appeal is to be set up it must take some time, and during the interval a number of these Courts will have been held. Would it not be possible under a rule of procedure such as he suggests to give any officer who has been reported against by a Court of Inquiry the right to be tried by court-martial?
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think the Under-secretary has endeavoured to meet the general feeling so far as he has power to do it, but it does not follow that we should not take every opportunity of endeavouring to get more. It is possible for the House to sit on Friday. We have a good deal to do to-day in order to get through the Committee stage, and we are to take another Bill, a very important Bill, in
    468
    addition. We must remember that the House of Lords will not finish the Military Service Bill until late to-morrow night, and there may be Amendments coming from the House of Lords. If there are Amendments coming from the House of Lords it is obviously necessary to have a Friday sitting to deal with the Lords Amendments. Under these circumstances it is worth the Government's while to consider the advisability of having a. Friday sitting in order to take the concluding stages of this Bill and the Rents Bill and the Lords Amendments to the Military Service Bill. That will give the Under-Secretary an opportunity of considering this matter with the Secretary for War and the other authorities of the War Office. I think it will be possible for him, then, to say something as to the possibility of the Army Council making rules of procedure which will enable further inquiries to be made. It will be a simple matter for the Army Council, where they think there is a primâ facie case, to delegate that case to a certain body to investigate the matters reported to them. That is not asking a great deal. It is not out of any ingratitude towards the hon. Member that I now address the House. It is because of the very tentative nature of the promise which he has made. We know the limitations under which my hon. Friend speaks. We are very anxious to get a binding statement from the Government which will let us know, even if we are to wait for the Army Act next year, that something concrete has been achieved in the intervening twelve months. It is with that in view that I suggest that we might have the Report stage on Friday, and have a definite statement from the Government on this point.
    Mr. HOGGE: We ought to have a reply to this. We have discussed the matter so far in a very friendly spirit and we are quite prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman, if we can see the proposal which he is prepared to make. We have been asked to take not only the Committee stage, but the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Bill to-night. That means that we can sit beyond eleven o'clock to complete this Bill. But you have the Second Reading of the Rents Increase Bill, which everybody wants to be read a second time to-night, and which cannot possibly be taken after eleven o'clock. There are some very important Amendments to the Army (Annual) Bill coming after this is dealt with in reference to death sentences which will

    469
    take a considerable time. My hon. Friend would put the whole thing right for us if he will take no more than the Committee stage to-day, and, whatever interval they take, if they put down the words, we will give them the Report stage quite quickly in an hour or so, if we see the words.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am quite willing to agree to that.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on Discharge of Soldiers Suffering from Venereal Disease.)
    Immediately after Section ninety (relating to soldiers discharged or transferred to the Reserve), the following Section shall be inserted, namely:
    90A. (1) Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing Section (relating to soldiers who are discharged or transferred to the Reserve), no soldier of the Regular Forces shall be entitled to be discharged if, at the completion of the term of his original enlistment, or of the period of his re-engagement, he is suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; and the period of his Army service may be compulsorily prolonged until he ceases to be so suffering as aforesaid.
    (2) In this Section the expression "venereal disease" means syphilis, gonorrhœa, or soft chancre.—[Mr. King.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    There is at present a very great effort being made in various Government Departments to combat venereal disease, and a recent Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act has been issued in order to protect from it men in the Army and Navy. That Regulation has caused a great deal of opposition in some quarters. My proposal is that the discharge of the soldier when the time arrives at which he can claim his discharge may at the discretion of the authorities be refused if he is suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form. I do not desire that every case of this kind shall be refused discharge from the Army. I desire to keep as few men as possible un-discharged, but I believe that the power to refuse a man's discharge on this ground is desirable on public grounds, and also in the interests of discipline in the Army. I am informed on very good authority that among certain classes of men there is a recklessness of running the risk of taking this horrible disease, and a light-hearted-ness in regarding the fact that a man has it, which is very deplorable. I could give
    470
    facts in my own knowledge which would bear this out. If that is so, it will be in the interests of discipline and the health of the Army to have this power, so that men may be warned. I do not ask for any assurance that any man would be kept from discharge; I only ask what objection have you to take these powers, which are purely permissive, and what can you say to our contention that they are in the interests both of public health and of the moral and physical well-being of the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend raised this question last year in practically the same form as that in which he has raised it this year. Then I had to resist it, and I must resist it on this occasion again. I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend must now realise that it would be highly improper to make the Army practically a segregation camp for patients who are afflicted with this disease. That would be one of the effects of this new Clause. There is another point. The soldier's contract is a definite contract. He is bound to get his discharge on a certain day. It has yet to be decided what the end of the War will be. The end of the War will be fixed in a definite manner, and it may be necessary to ask soldiers to remain after the definite day for two or three months during the period of demobilisation. The hon. Gentleman's proposal makes the period of discharge indefinite which is contrary to every legal principle. Then there is another point. Our hospitals by that time will be full. We are very limited for accommodation in the War Office from the hospital point of view. Our hospitals at the present time include many houses generously lent by citizens for the use of soldiers during the period of convalescence, but there will be no obligation on those patriotic citizens to continue to put those hospitals at the disposal of the War Office when the War is over, and we cannot guarantee that at that time we shall have accommodation to provide for the continued treatment of men who are soldiers and who are suffering from disease. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this.
    Mr. KING: I shall not press it, but the hon. Member has spoken of my Amendment as making segregation camps of the Army. There are segregation camps for venereal disease now, and men are in special hospitals with barbed wire around them.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend has missed my point. I meant that it would make a segregation camp in the Army where there is no such invidious practice in any other profession.
    Mr. KING: I shall not pursue the matter further except to say that men suffering from this disease are now marked men in the Army. They have their leave stopped from distant fields of war on this ground alone, and they are penalised. I shall certainly raise the matter again next year, but at present I beg to ask leave to withdraw the proposed Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 54 of the Army Act.)
    In Section fifty-four (relating to the confirmation, revision, and approval of sentences) of the Army Act there shall be inserted immediately after Sub-section (1) the following Subsection, namely:
    (1) (a) The authority having power to confirm the finding and sentence of a court-martial shall not confirm any such finding or sentence until the accused person has had the prescribed opportunity to make any representation to that authority with respect to the sentence and to any point of law or fact arising at the trial; and that authority shall take any such representation into consideration.
    The Army Council shall make Regulations for carrying this Sub-section into effect, and in this Sub-section the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by any such Regulation.—[Mr. King.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    7.0 P.M.
    I have a number of Amendments on the Paper. They are of two classes. I propose to move those to which this first Amendment belongs. The others, which deals with the penalties imposed under the Army Act, I do not intend to proceed with on this occasion. This first Amendment deals with the sentences of court-martial for men in the field. I raise, in this Amendment, the question of the opportunity which I think should be given to a man after court-martial, and before the confirmation and publication of the sentence, of making representations. A later Amendment raises the question whether the death penalty should be inflicted for desertion, and another proposes a lapse of time after the confirmation of the sentence and before the execution. Another raises the question of a Court of Criminal Appeal, and another suggests that it should be possible for title court-martial to
    472
    divulge to the condemned man his sentence before it is confirmed. All these points occur on one subject, and I propose to ask you to allow us to raise generally the whole subject, and I shall not take advantage of the later Amendments, and do more than just move them. The question of court-martialling men in the Army for desertion has caused a great deal of interest and even public unrest. There has been a great deal of public comment, and some sensational articles appeared in newspapers, and Members of Parliament have all received letters on the subject. We have got to remember that when a man is taken from civil life, sent out with a very short training to France, and put in circumstances of terror and horror and strain such as soldiers have never before undergone; it must have this effect, that in many cases a man of real courage, high moral standard, and physical endurance, breaks down. Either momentarily or for a considerable period, his nerve and courage have gone, for it happens that, though he is really no coward, he quails before going into action, he hangs back, and then he is charged with desertion—a charge which sometimes renders him liable to the death penalty. That is a very terrible fact he has to face. But of course it is most necessary to keep up the discipline of the Army, and to ensure that a man shall not, on any claim or ground which is not absolutely well founded, fail his comrades in the terrible hour of stress. There are two cases personally known to me in which men have stood their trial for desertion. One succeeded in getting off, and the other was condemned but recommended to mercy. I submit that in each of those cases, admitting that one was rejected, there was in the present procedure unnecessary hardship, possibilities of suspicion of injustice—I do not say more than suspicion—and certainly modifications might be introduced which would make the whole procedure more intelligible to the public and consequently give them more confidence. What happens? When, a court-martial is constituted each member of that court-martial must take the oath that he will not divulge the sentence of the Court until it is confirmed, and that he will not divulge the way in which any other member of the Court has expressed his opinion of the case. A case of desertion may involve the death penalty, even though one member of the Court is against

    473
    that sentence. The penalty does not need to be the unanimous opinion of the Court. One of the Amendments I have down is to make it necessary that the Court shall be unanimous before the death sentence is enforced. When the Court is open, and when, after the proceedings, it is cleared for the sentence to be considered by the Court, the accused man is taken out. When he is brought back, he is told there and then that he is set at liberty, and he goes free, or he is told that sentence will be promulgated in due course, but he does not know whether he is guilty of the main offence, and going to be sentenced to death, or convicted on the minor offence. I consider that an unnecessary hardship, and involves keeping a man in a state of terrible suspense.
    The second point is that he neither knows what the sentence is nor is he allowed to make representations. He knows that he is guilty of something, but whether he is to pay the full penalty or a much less one, he does not know, and he is not allowed to make any representation, and he does not know whether there is any recommendation to mercy or not. None of these things is told him, and none of these things can be told him until the sentence is confirmed. When it is confirmed by the superior authority, then the sentence may be put into force at once, and the man in a very few hours after he knows the sentence may be executed. Another Amendment which I have down on the Paper is to allow a certain limit of time, twelve days I think, between the promulgation of the sentence and the execution. I should like myself to press for the total abolition of the death penalty for desertion. I have had the privilege of discussing this question with various officers, and I have had correspondence with officers, and I know that there is a great deal of difficulty about the abolition of the death penalty in cases of desertion. In the first place, men who form up and go into the terror of battle know that it will take away 50 per cent. of them, and some are likely to hang back, but it cannot be tolerated that any of them should fail their comrades at the last moment. If a man deserts there can be nothing for him but very severe punishment. I admit at the present time that it is very difficult to abolish the death penalty. On the other hand, I would like to point out that we have now got a Citizen Army composed of men who have gone, not unwillingly, into the War—men who at the
    474
    call of patriotism and feeling that the country desired them to make the greatest sacrifice, have become, soldiers, but who had never wished to be soldiers, who had not the necessary or suitable moral, spiritual or physical qualifications for being soldiers, and these men, naturally, are inclined to fail at the great crisis.
    One more fact. No Australian soldier can be condemned to death at the present time for desertion. The death penalty for desertion does not exist in the Australian Army for practical purposes. It exists, I believe, if a sentence is passed and it receives confirmation of the authorities in Australia; but that being practically impossible, we may take it, therefore, that it is correct to say there is no death penalties for the Australian soldier in the field. Yet I have never heard it said that the Australians in any way lack bravery or discipline. I do not believe myself that if the death sentence were abolished we would have more desertion or less discipline in our Army. I have stated the case on each of my Amendments except in the last of them on the Paper, which is one I hope, at any rate, will be granted by the Under-Secretary for War. It is one which I think would bring great relief to everybody who has thought of this measure. It is one that I believe could be carried out without any difficulty whatever, while it would relieve public opinion, which is plain and urgent on this matter, and the granting of it would do a very great deal of good at the present time. It is a proposal by which, when the court-martial is over the accused man is brought in and told that the sentence of the Court will be confirmed and then promulgated in the usual way, it would be possible to inform him of what the sentence was before confirmation.
    The procedure, I conceive, would be this: The Court would be cleared of all except, of course, the accused person, who would be told that he had been found guilty by the Court and recommended to mercy, and so on, but that the sentence did not become effective until it had been confirmed. It would allow, by altering the oath taken by members of the Court, the President to divulge to the accused person what the sentence was. That would enable the accused to communicate with his friends, or his representative, or the officer who had undertaken his defence, and anything that could be done would be done

    475
    from that moment. There would be no unnecessary delay and none of the really painful suspense that he would otherwise undergo. I hope I have stated my case clearly and I hope I have stated it reasonably. I am quite convinced that it is a matter which is on the minds of thousands of parents at the present time. I am quite sure that if we have a sympathetic reply, and some concessions can be made now by the Under-Secretary for War, it will do a great deal to relieve the minds of anxious parents find others at this time.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I have an Amendment on the Paper which is cognate to that which we are now discussing. I understand it will be for the convenience of the Government if we have a general discussion on all these court-martial points at the present time, and I will, therefore, speak on the general question now. My hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment said that there has been recently a great deal of concern in the country regarding sentences of death passed by courts-martial. There was one case in particular to which publicity was given in the columns of "John Bull," and to which I myself have already made reference in a former Debate in this House, and which, I think, has done a great deal to disturb the public mind and to excite the public interest on this particular subject. I do not wish to enter into the details of that particular case, but I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary certain deductions, which, I think, may be made from the experience of that and of other cases. Some of the changes which are required can. I think, be made without alteration of the Army Act, and by Regulations and Rules of procedure. The first point which was made in regard to that particular case was as to the failure to provide the accused man with legal assistance at the very outset of the proceedings, namely, when what is called the minutes of evidence are taken—the preliminary investigation. At the time we discussed the case before, there was general agreement that, in the case of any charge which might result in a capital sentence, the prisoner should receive legal assistance at the outset of the investigation, and not simply when the actual trial by the court-martial commenced. I believe he is allowed forty-eight hours before the proceedings in court-martial are opened. I do not think
    476
    that requires an Amendment of the Army Act. My own impression is that it could be done by administrative order in some particular form. The second point arises after the trial. At the present time, the evidence given at the court-martial can only be obtained by the accused. For example, at present, if there is the slightest suspicion that there has been a miscarriage of justice at a court-martial, and if the capital sentence has been carried out, it is quite impossible for anybody interested to obtain a copy of the evidence. An effort was made in the case to which I have already referred by the father of the boy who was shot. He was informed by the representative of the Army Council that, under the Army Act, the evidence could only be made available to the accused, and, as the accused was now dead, nobody could obtain it from the War Office. One of the later Amendments on the Paper, in the name, I think, of the hon. Member for North Somerset, and of myself, provides for the sentence being divulged to the accused; so that, if he has any ground of complaint with regard to the conduct of the trial, the procedure, or the evidence given against him, he may have an opportunity of making representations to those who have the power and the duty of confirming the sentence. Members of the Committee will agree that that would be a very considerable reform in itself in the way of eliminating the possibility of a miscarriage of justice in these cases. I think the War Office are willing to accept that. I am not quite sure of the form in which they propose to accept it, but I understand that they have no objection to making a change in regard to divulging: the decisions of the Court.
    I myself, and, I think, a number of other hon. Members, are anxious that, in these capital cases, at least, there should be some more regular form of procedure. As I understand it at the present time, the-President of the Court communicates the finding of the Court to the officer who has convened the court-martial. It then goes for confirmation to the various commanding officers, in order of rank, until it goes to the Commander-in-Chief, whose decision in the matter is final. That, I think, is a very brief account of the proceedings. I do not think that is a satisfactory method of obtaining a review of what has been done, for the simple reason that when the documents of a trial go through all these

    477
    hands you are diffusing the responsibility to far too great an extent. There are all these officers, whose duty it is to confirm the sentence, but you have no security that any single individual among them does direct his mind to the issues raised in the trial. That is the inevitable result of the diffusion of responsibility. It would be well that you should concentrate responsibility for the final confirmation of all these sentences upon a single authority. You would then have an authority upon whom you could rely—an authority with experience. I do not think there is any difficulty in obtaining the men with the necessary experience for such a tribunal—men who would command public confidence, both from their legal attainments and from their experience of military administration. Both these things are required in a tribunal of this kind. I can understand, of course, that my hon. Friend (Mr. Macpherson) is not in a position to accept such a revolutionary change at the present time, but the Army Council might do a great deal administratively to see that there is a proper authority to revise all these sentences, and that the accused person, who is under sentence, has every facility for making any representations which he thinks fit and relevant, and on account of which he thinks that the sentence should not be carried out in his case. These are the main points. First of all, legal advice to the man, immediately a charge which may involve a capital sentence is brought against him; secondly, the divulging of the sentence by the Court to the accused man, immediately; thirdly, the right of the accused person, if he thinks fit, to make representations to the authorities; fourthly, the regularising of the confirming authority, so that there shall be some real and substantial appeal for the man who is under sentence.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I wish to deal with only one point raised by the two hon. Members who have just spoken, and that is that the sentence should be communicated to the prisoner. I quite agree that while we have a citizen Array we should try and make our procedure conform as nearly as possible to the civilian procedure of the country. To my mind, there is no sound military reason why the sentence should not be communicated to the prisoner. I would go further. I think the prisoner ought to be present in court when the sentence is pronounced. That is not only the civilian procedure, but it is the regular naval procedure. In all
    478
    court-martial procedure in the Navy the prisoner is present in court when the sentence is pronounced, and the regular practice of the Navy is that the sentence should be pronounced in open court.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I wish to add just a word in support of the contentions of the previous speakers. I think the Undersecretary will admit that the discussion has been conducted with real restraint. No one for a minute denies the difficulties that arise in regard to discipline, and matters of that kind; but you have entirely new conditions governing the Army to-day, and I am sure that you would do wrong if you were to attempt now to govern the new Army wholly by the old methods and by some of the old standards. In regard to this question of court-martial for various offences, I think it is most important that you should have Courts where men are able to weigh with judicial fairness all the evidence that is brought before them. If you get different sets of officers you will sometimes have men who have almost trained legal minds, but in other cases you will have officers, who are very competent for the ordinary run of their duty and for ordinary work, but whose minds are not given to the careful weighing of evidence one way or the other, such as would happen in a Court of law. This is very important indeed when a soldier's life is at stake. I think the circumstances should be such that a man should get every possible assistance to put his case, and to bring out every conceivable point. That is sometimes very difficult for a private soldier; not that he does not get the opportunity, but that, perhaps, he has not the ability to bring out and to put his case clearly. Some of these cases which have to be decided must raise matters of very grave difficulty indeed for the officers. Take the ease of a man who is charged with cowardice, as the result of refusing to go over the top. That man may have been, for two or three months, under the stress and strain of war conditions, with bursting shells above him and so on. Really to understand what happens, you would have to understand and to have a real insight into the man's mental condition, and into his physical condition at the moment when it occurred. It would require, above everything else, human insight, human knowledge and human sympathy, in order to weigh up the matter and to give a proper decision, and unless that is done almost anything might happen in that way.

    479
    I had a case brought to my knowledge some time back of a soldier in France. He is a young man of very high character. I know his people well, and they are very proud of their boy. This boy was sentenced to a very heavy sentence in France. I saw letters that came from him to his parents, and in every letter he declared that there was nothing in the world with which he could charge his conscience. He was driving a wagon at midnight, on a pitch-dark night, along a road behind the lines. He ran the wagon into some soldiers who were marching up the road, with the result that one or two were injured, and, I think, two were killed. On the strength of that the boy was taken before a court-martial, and was sentenced, I believe, to six months' hard labour. I myself brought the matter to the attention of the Undersecretary of State for War, who went into it with that attention he always gives and the sympathy he always gives when individual cases are brought before him. That sentence, in point of fact, has been allowed to lapse, but I think they have come to the conclusion that no real blame, although the circumstances are most unfortunate, attached to that individual soldier. In the stress of war conditions, with all the anxieties and work devolving upon the officers in other directions, are their minds really free to take each circumstance into account, and to give to an individual soldier that fair trial that he ought to have if something has gone wrong and his very life is at stake? Therefore, we are asking the War Office not to think we are making some attack upon the officers or upon the War Office, but we are anxious to be persuaded that every soldier is going to have a fair chance, and that every judicial means is going to be found for his defence. I believe the soldier ought to have full legal aid. I believe every means ought to be found of helping him to present his case. I think the Courts ought to be Courts that are used to weigh evidence, and that judicial minds ought to be brought to bear in regard to the matter. I do say once more that your Army now, being a citizen Army, it does not always do to pour new wine into old bottles. Sometimes you have got to have the new bottles for the new wine, and I am quite sure that it would have a most reassuring effect in the country if the Under-Secretary to-night would announce at least some concessions in the direction which we are asking. I believe this could
    480
    be done, not in any degree to undermine the discipline of the Army, but to develop the moral of the Army, which is good from every point of view.
    Mr. SMALLWOOD: I desire to add a word or two in support of some of the views that have been urged. It has been my lot during the last twenty or twenty-five years to come in contact with young men of the middle class, and I am in touch at the present time with something like 500 or 600 young men, most of whom have been at the Front during the last three and a half years. I have had from these young men letters of various kinds. I have been a father confessor or elder brother to many of thorn, and they have written me over and over again from the Front. Now in respect of one or two of these young men, as illustrating what my hon. Friend has said, I should like to quote one or two sentences from the letters I have received. But before I do that, I would like to point out that when this War broke out I was talking to an old officer, who had seen a good deal of warfare from time to time, and when we were talking, as most men did at that time, of the War lasting a few months, and with that in view, my old officer friend said:
    "Under modern conditions of warfare, if this War lasts for six months, one of the great things that we shall be up against will be this, that the nerve of the men will probably give way. That will be the greatest test of the man. That is one of the great things we will have to fear."
    We are afraid the War Office do not sufficiently realise that we have a citizen Army at the present time, that we have a citizen Army composed, net largely, but I should say to a very considerable extent, of young men—boys, many of them—who are highly strung, nervously strung. Take the experience during the last fortnight or three weeks. I have had at least a dozen letters from friends who have told me that their boys of eighteen and a half were-in their own land three weeks ago and have been sent up to the Front. Take the experience of a boy like that, never probably having hoard a shot fired, and being pitch forked into this terrible warfare without the time to get his nerves properly attuned to that which would be required. We do not know what would happen, nor does that boy or young man who is highly strung, know what would happen. He has never been under such conditions to enable him to see or to

    481
    trust himself how far he could go. One of the most striking letters I ever received was from a young fellow who had been at the Front and fighting for something like fourteen months before he wrote this letter. He had been over the top five times, and he wrote this on the eve of the sixth. He knew, did this young officer, that he was going over the top the next day, and he said:
    "As I write these words I am perfectly calm, but I know that within half an hour, or a few minutes, of the time we are expected to go over the top, my nerve will be anywhere, and I do not know quite what is going to happen. My greatest fear is that I shall run like a hare."
    That is a man who has been over the top five times. That young fellow, as a matter of fact, did not run like a hare, but he won the Military Cross on that occasion. But the thing I want to point out is the fear of the young officer as far as he himself is concerned. Supposing he had started to run under that nerve strain, he would not have stopped, and if he had not stopped in time that man would never have gone back, because he dare not go back. When the strain was over he would have realised what he had done. There are very many men of that description—men who have been tried and tested under fire, who have had to screw their fears down and to screw their nervous system up, and who, up to a certain point, have been able to stand. Then, after their nerve has been more worn, after a certain number of months of fighting, those men find themselves in front of another supreme trial, and their great fear is that they will not be able to stand up against it.
    That is the type of thing, it seems to me, that some such Amendments as are mentioned by my hon. Friend would meet. We have a civilian Army, and we have to realise that they are of a somewhat different type. The average man who went into the Army in the old days, fine type of man as he was, was a man who knew what sort of a nerve he had, and he knew, as a matter of fact, that he had been in all sorts of hair-breadth escapes before, and that he had done all sorts of foolhardy things. I come into touch at the present time with something like 200 boys, and during the last few years have come into touch with over 1,000, and those boys, as a matter of fact, are of this type of daredevil boys, and they make the finest men in the Army. We have a different type of man now from that which we had in the Old Army. They are men who have been
    482
    strung up to do certain things, and men whose nervous system is a great deal more highly strung. I conclude by quoting what a lady friend of mine, in writing about this matter the other day, said. She is a lady who has a very large estate, and takes a great interest in horses, and she used this phrase, which I think quite appropriate to the present occasion. She has both cart horses and thoroughbreds upon her estate, and she said:
    "I have never known a cart-horse ruined by racehorse methods of treatment, but I do know that a racehorse can be ruined, and would be ruined, by the application of cart-horse treatment."
    It seems to me we are not sufficiently realising the fact that we have a different type of young man coming into our citizen Army to-day, and we do not sufficiently realise that the hard methods of training the class of men that we used to get into our ranks is not always applicable to the highly strung, nervously strung, young man and boy that we get out of our family life into our Army to-day. I think some more consideration is due from the War Office, and I would add my voice to those already raised that something more should be done.
    Major DU PRE: I rise to support one or two of the points that have been raised. I have had some practical experience of these courts-martial, and I should like first to say that I think it is not right that the Committee should get the idea that the Army regards these courts-martial in any way as unfair or harsh tribunals. So far as I have been able to judge, I have not found them so. The officers who compose them are always actuated by a strong sense of the very responsible duties that they have to perform, and the very procedure of the Courts is such that they afford every possible protection to the accused. The officer who prosecutes is specially enjoined to bring out and to bring forward any points which may tell or which the may find out in favour of the accused. The president, also, is specially charged with the same duties, and that procedure is always, I may say, most conscientiously carried out by every court-martial with which I have ever had anything to do. With regard to one point raised by the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King), so far as my recollection goes on the question of the death sentence, the court-martial must be unanimous. There is no doubt that the special character of the

    483
    Army as it stands now has to be taken into consideration as regards its citizen character, but I think the president of the court-martial usually weighs those considerations in determining the sentence.
    It is by no means a pleasant task for any officer to pass a sentence, it is especially unpleasant if the sentence is a severe one. But it must be remembered that the punishment is not vindictive to the man; it is meant to be deterrent so far as other men are concerned. It is impossible in a large body of men to maintain discipline unless it is felt that offences are not only detected and punished, but punished with sufficient severity to prevent a repetition of them. There is one special point I desire to impress on the Under-Secretary, legal advice is not of course always obtainable, but wherever it can be obtained, it would be an advantage to have it, especially in cases where the death penalty is involved. Courts-martial deal as a rule with questions of fact and not of law, and most cases that come before them involve questions of fact which any reasonable body of men can decide. But, of course, there are cases in which legal assistance would be a good thing. The only other point I should like to refer to is as to the desirability of divulging the sentence. I am in favour of that. At present the accused is left to guess what is to happen to him; if he is found not guilty, of course he is acquitted in open Court, but if he is not acquitted then he knows he has been found guilty, but what is going to happen to him he does not-know. I cannot see there would be any military disadvantage in communicating to him the sentence after it has been decided on. Of course, it would not be possible for the accused to remain in Court while the sentence is being considered, but it could be communicated to him immediately afterwards. If the Under-Secretary can make a concession on these two points it will accord with the feelings of many officers.
    Major HAYWARD: I should like to say a word or two in support of the point which has just been raised. I entirely agree with what has fallen from the last speaker as to the general attitude of courts-martial. I believe that every officer who is a member of a Court does his very best to find out points in favour of the accused; in fact, I believe he is
    484
    straining his mind all the time to elicit what may be in the prisoner's favour. I also agree with what has been said about the general procedure of courts-martial. I think it has been most wisely devised, and is in favour of the accused. There are one or two points of administration, however, to which attention might be paid. It has been suggested to-night, and the suggestion is one well worthy the consideration of the Under-Secretary, that a prisoner charged with a serious offence, the punishment for which might be of a serious character, ought to be represented by somebody at the trial. If the representative can be someone with legal experience so much the better, but he ought certainly to have somebody with some knowledge of procedure to assist him at his trial. At a general court-martial where a prisoner is tried on a serious charge and has no one to represent him in any way, the president of the Court is careful in watching his interests, and probably in some cases he docs as well by leaving his case to the careful consideration of the Court itself as if he had more or less indifferent assistance.
    There is another point which I should like to emphasise, and it is in reference to the constitution of the Courts. There is all the difference in the world between the constitution of a general court-martial and a field general court-martial. On a general court-martial every officer must be an officer of experience. I believe it is laid down in the Army Act and in the Manual of Military Law that he should be an officer of a certain number of years standing. But with regard to field general courts-martial—and these are the Courts which generally sit in France—any officer, even if he has little or no experience, can sit upon them, and I have known cases whore soldiers have been charged with most serious offences, the punishment for which might be death, where the president of the Court has never sat on a Court and never attended a Court of any kind whatever previously. I know the War Office hrs done something in this respect. I believe efforts have been made to arrange for officers with legal experience to be members of the Court, but I do not know how far it has been carried out. Will the Under-Secretary tell us to what extent it has been carried? I hold that presidents of these Courts should be men of experience and knowledge, accustomed to weigh evidence and

    485
    bring out the facts, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that steps have been or will be taken to arrange that the presidents of these Courts in future shall be officers of legal experience and training.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to support the Second Reading of this new Clause. I think the Committee owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Mr. King) for having brought it forward, and I trust that the facts which have been brought out by the Debate will have convinced the Under-Secretary of the desirability of agreeing to the Second Reading, even although the Clause may be amended in Committee. Section 54 of the Army Act, which this Clause proposes to amend, sets up a great number of authorities for confirming sentences passed by courts-martial, and the idea of this new Clause is that these various authorities which have to confirm sentences shall not confirm them until an opportunity has been given to the prisoner, first of all, to know what the sentence is, and, secondly, to represent to the confirming authority anything which he wishes to represent either as to law or fact. That seems to me to be a simple demand which is justified on the very face of it, and confirmation of the justice of it is given in the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) that it has been for some time the practice in the Navy. I cannot see, therefore, why there should be any objection to its being adopted by the War Office. The hon. and gallant Member who last spoke (Major Hay ward) pointed out the necessity for legal assistance being given to prisoners under trial. With that I entirely agree. I know it is not always procurable, but I do suggest that efforts should be made in every instance at an early stage of the proceedings to give the prisoner an opportunity of securing legal advice. Further, I hold that the president of a court-martial should in every instance be a man who has had some opportunity of sifting evidence. He should have a legal training as far as possible. In the old days when the Army Regulations were set up a lawyer was practically an unknown being in the Army. But now conditions are entirely changed, and you have in the Army representatives of all trades and professions. It would be, therefore, quite easy to choose for the president of your court-martial an officer who, even if he be not a lawyer, has had some experience in sift-
    486
    ing evidence and administering justice. I hope the Under-Secretary will see his way to do something to meet these demands. That a prisoner under sentence should have his sentence divulged to him is surely the least that one can expect.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The discussion has ranged over a very wide field, bat I think the kernel of it has been very concisely put by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. The hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) has persistently brought this problem before the House of Commons. It is a problem which has, of course, created a great deal of interest, not only in the Service, but in every family in the Kingdom. What is it that I am asked to do? I am asked, if possible, to give the soldier who is tried by court-martial every possible opportunity of presenting a defence and of seeing that he gets fair play. I do not know whether the Members who are listening to me to-night were present when I spoke at considerable length in reply to a speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) before the Recess. At that time I pointed out how the men who were tried were carefully examined, medically, how the prosecutor had careful instructions to present every fact that could be presented on behalf of the accused person before the court-martial, and how, now that we had so many legal men employed as military men in France, there was scarcely a court-martial—I would go so far as to say there is no court-martial—where someone of very high legal training is not present. I believe that the proposition put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham (Major Hayward), namely, that on every court-martial there should be a member of some legal training and knowledge, is at present fulfilled. It has always appeared to me to be a strange thing that a sentence which was passed by the court-martial upon a prisoner who was tried for a crime which is likely to be followed by the death penalty should not be disclosed. As the hon. and gallant Member for Bucks (Colonel Du Pre) has pointed out, Section 54, Sub-section (2) of the Army Act provides that where there is a finding of acquittal on all the charges that finding is pronounced in open Court. I have not yet had an opportunity of consulting my legal and military advisers on this point, but I think I can promise the

    487
    Committee that some words such as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Mr. King) and also my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark suggest will be put in the Army Act in another place. I do not think I can go farther than that just now. That means that in future the soldier who has been convicted will be entitled to know what sentence has been passed upon him, and also what recommendations, if any, have been made to mercy so that he may utilise the, opportunity between the lime of the conviction and the time that the sentence is confirmed to take any measures which may seem reasonable or possible to him in order to bring further facts before the confirming officer.
    Mr. WATT: You will require to appoint a time.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is going to be divulged to him in the Court, at the trial; but that will necessitate our introducing an Amendment, probably in the nature of an oath, which can be administered to the President of the Court, because as the law stands every member of the Court must take an oath that he will no divulge the sentence to anyone. What I propose to do is to arrange for such an oath to be put into the Army Act, which in every case of this sort will be administered to the President, who then can address the accused and state to him exactly what the sentence is. I hope I have met fairly all the points that have been raised, and I shall be very glad now if my hon. Friends would give me the Committee stage of this Bill.
    Major DAVIES: There is one point my hon. Friend opposite has not dealt with, and that is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division (Mr. Watt), with regard to the question of legal assistance for prisoners who are being tried by court-martial. The hon. Member for Bucks (Colonel Du Pre) told us a few minutes ago that his experience in France is that legal assistance was not forthcoming on occasions, and on several occasions we have drawn the attention of the War Office, and of my hon. Friend, to this state of affairs, and have asked him to endeavour to persuade the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for War to appoint special officers, whose duty will be to be present
    488
    at these courts-martial, and be able to act as soldiers' friend. It is perfectly true that every soldier being tried by court-martial is entitled to have the assistance of a soldiers' friend, but it is not always possible to get properly qualified assistance, because the soldiers' friend may not have had any experience, or may have had very little experience, in the procedure of courts-martial. I cannot conceive why the War Office are so stubborn in regard to this matter. On other occasions, months ago, they have been pressed in this House to do something and to have these legal officers appointed, either attached to Corps Headquarters or Divisional headquarters, in order to secure that every man brought up before a court-martial shall have a duly qualified soldiers' friend to state his case, and to see that he is fairly dealt with. Every criminal in this country brought up before the Criminal Court has that right, and I submit that in the case of these men, who are fighting for us so bravely at the Front, the least the War Office can do is to see that they are treated properly in the matter. With regard to the power to enable officers to appoint officers to do this work, we know there is a large number of wounded officers constantly being discharged from the Army who have had legal training in civil life before they entered the Army, and who could undertake this work and do it most efficiently. I therefore submit that the hon. Gentleman has not given the Committee a satisfactory reply in regard to this particular point. We all remember when the Mesopotamian Report was published, when there was a question as to whether certain general officers were to be brought up before the Court of Inquiry, the War Office at once said they would be provided with expert legal assistance. If this legal assistance is forthcoming in those cases, why cannot the same rule be applied all round?
    I think that is all I have to say, except on one other matter, and that is with regard to Courts of Inquiry. I always understood that in these Courts of Inquiry the result, if of an adverse character, had to be communicated to the person concerned. A case was brought to me the other day in which, so far as I could gather from the evidence the findings of the inquiry into the conduct of an officer against whom certain charges had been brought by his subordinate

    489
    officers were adverse, and the adverse findings were not communicated to him. In spite of repeated attempts on his part to get information from the War Office as to what these findings were, these appeals were met with blank refusals, and there has been no statement as to what the findings of the Court have been. I submit that the attitude of the War Office in these matters is most unsatisfactory, and that they put Members of this House off time after time. As my hon. Friend himself admitted, the country and the House is now taking a great interest in these matters, and the only place where, apparently, they are thought not worth considering is in the War Office. I trust that after my hon. Friend's experiences here this afternoon we shall find some improvement in the way in which these things are considered.
    Colonel Sir H. JESSEL: I should like to point out to the Committee that, as regards courts-martial at home, a very great use is made of legal members. Nearly every command has an officer who has legal training to whom all proposed proceedings have to be submitted. Very often the legal adviser to the general officer says there is not 'a proper case, a written summary is sent, and if he does not think there is ground for a court-martial one is not held. So, before a man ever comes before a court-martial the whole thing is gone into, sifted—very often the charges are not held to be right, or they are altered in order to make them of a less serious character—and I can assure the Committee with regard to what goes on at home before anything comes before the Court everything is done to see that the case is a proper one, and that every safeguard exists. I think every Member here will agree that on the whole courts-martial are very fair. There is no vindictive feeling at all; everybody tries to do his best. It is not to secure a conviction that the prosecutor makes his statement, but to see fair play. I think what the Under-Secretary of State has done to-night, as regards the concession he has made to the hon. Member behind me (Mr. King), is probably a very good thing. I cannot see, from the military point of view, any objection to it at all. It satisfies public opinion in that way. I do not think there will be the slightest military disadvantage in it, and I think
    490
    it is a great concession and a great boon to everybody concerned. I wanted to ask the Under-Secretary, if he could, as he is going to make an Amendment in another place, to see whether something cannot be done with regard to the powers of the commanding officer? A commanding officer on active service can give up to twenty-eight days' detention, except for absence without leave. The effect of that is that any day over seven days cannot be given as punishment, and that results in a court-martial for what is very often a trivial offence. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he could make some change in that respect and allow the commanding officers to deal even with cases of absence without leave up to twenty-eight days. I am afraid I have been rather out of order, Mr. Whitley, but I have had no other opportunity of referring to the matter.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will look into that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War for the concession he has made to-day. I think the Committee was interested to hear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Sir H. Jessel) had to say with regard to courts-martial at home. I think those who have listened to the Debate this afternoon will realise that throughout the whole of the time there has not been the slightest suggestion against these courts-martial at home. No criticism of any kind has been offered. I believe that pains are taken to secure the best men to conduct the courts-martial, and that among all those who are engaged upon them there is the keenest desire to see justice done. While we have been criticising courts-martial on the other side it is not because we suggest that there is anything wrong at home, but I think there is a view that you cannot on every occasion get the same amount of legal ability available for a particular Court. In many cases courts-martial upon the other side have been constituted in a somewhat scratch way. Under these circumstances it is extremely important that this House should see that every safeguard is given a man against a miscarriage of justice. It is solely with that view that we have been conducting the discussion on this Amendment to-day. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not been able to make an announcement regarding legal assistance to men affected by the capital charge

    491
    immediately the preliminary investigation takes place. I have suggested that this is a matter which can be dealt with without an Amendment to the Army Act. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has gone into that, but I am sure, if it is possible to do this without Amendment, that he will endeavour to secure what we require—that he will certainly use all his influence to obtain it. I desire once more to thank him for what he has said.
    Mr. KING: After the satisfactory Debate, and the decision of the Undersecretary, for which, I am sure, we are all much obliged, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE. —(Amendment of Army Act, c. 58, s. 24.)
    (2) In Sub-section (5) of the above-cited Section the words "or other animal," shall be inserted after the word "horse." — [Mr. King.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This is the only other new Clause; I pro pose to move.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: That, I think, disposes of the new Clauses
    Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Thursday).

  INCREASE OF RENT, ETC. (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This Bill, to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading, is one of the many by-products of this great War. It is a Bill brought from another place and follows the Act of 1915. That Act very largely restricted the rights of landlords in respect of working-class dwellings, including the rent they could receive for such
  492
  houses in respect of houses of the value of £35 in the Metropolitan area, £26 in the provinces, and £30 in Scotland. The House will remember the circumstances under which that Act was passed. There was a very great shortage of houses, seeing that from the beginning of the War very little building was accomplished. The fact that building material has been very difficult to obtain, as well as many other things, labour being required for many other matters, made this so. Money, too, is very difficult to obtain, for it is not desirable to spend it upon anything not absolutely necessary. Owing to the non-building of houses shortage goes on increasing every year to an almost alarming extent. In consequence of that shortage of houses and of the rush of munition workers into munition areas, there was a great demand for houses. This enabled landlords, very gradually, to seek higher rents for houses which they owned, until there came a state of things in some munition areas and in some parts of London in which, as rents went up, people were evicted from their houses. They would not pay these increased rents. A state of very great unrest was caused. People were evicted from houses. They felt the injustice of being asked to pay very largely increased rents for houses which they had occupied for many years at a lower rent.
  That was a state of things in which it was absolutely impossible for the Government not to intervene. It would have been impossible for any Government not to intervene. The Government did intervene. They passed the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915. That Act, as everybody knows, stereotypes largely the rent which was paid on 3rd August, 1914. Tenants afterwards were placed in the position that, provided they obeyed all t he ordinary conditions of tenancy, were not a nuisance to their neighbours, paid the rent they had paid just prior to 3rd August, or on 3rd August, 1914, they were not subject to any ejectment orders. They could remain, and have remained, since in possession of their homes at the rents they paid in the prewar period. That Act was accompanied by a certain amount of inequality and very naturally with some amount of hardship. Obviously it would stereotype the rents paid, and you compelled landlords to accept the rents they received on a certain date. Some of those landlords had let their houses at a very low rate before that

  493
  date compared with others who owned houses in the same neighbourhood. Some landlords had screwed up their rents almost to a rack-rent a few months prior to the date fixed by the Act, while others had let them at a low rate. All this the Government have had to take into account, and, as in many other matters, this Government constantly has to decide which is the greater hardship, and which you are going to meet, and they have to decide equitably in regard to these points. The Government came to the conclusion that it had no other course but to fix a standard rent, and they fixed the rent payable just prior to the War in August, 1914. There are those who objected to that Act because they thought it interfered with the ordinary law of supply and demand, and because they believed it was contrary to all laws of political economy. I ask them to think what really would happen in our great munition centres and areas if there had been no such Act passed, and if landlords had been able to take advantage of the great rush into certain constituencies at a time when there was an increasing shortage of houses year by year.
  What would be the state of circumstances in which any Government would have found itself if it had not met the great complaint growing up crying out for some remedy against this increase of rents by landlords, because they saw an unusual opportunity had been offered by the War? I was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, and my right hon. Friend who was then President introduced the Bill which we are now seeking to amend. At that time I was busily engaged in receiving deputations on both sides and hearing arguments as to whether the Government, were justified in interfering with the rents which landlords could exact. I came to the conclusion then that it was absolutely necessary for any Government, if it wanted to avoid disorder and strikes and general complaints from the people, to prevent landlords taking the unusual opportunity afforded by the War to increase rents, which, if they were not paid, they might have ejected people from houses which very likely they had occupied for the whole of their lives. The Act was passed, and although in some respects it may have acted unequally as between landlord and landlord, yet, upon the whole, the evidence we have of the previous Act shows that the hardship on the landlords, after all,
  494
  was as nothing compared with the hardship which would have been forced upon the tenant if no such Act had been passed. I do not say that that Act was the most perfect one that could have been found, and if we were thinking the matter over now we might have made provision allowing the landlord to recover something to meet the increased cost of materials in cases where he had to undertake repairs. We might also have considered sub-letting at a price which enables the tenant to make a very large profit by letting rooms which they occupied themselves prior to 1914.
  On the whole, the Act has served the purposes for which it was designed. It has fixed the standard rent to be paid as the rent which was paid on 3rd August, 1014. There was one exception made to the Act. No landlord could go to the Court and obtain an ejectment order provided the tenant had obeyed all the conditions of the tenancy and paid the standard rent. The exception made was that the landlord who could prove to the Court that he required the house for his own occupation or for the occupation of an employé, that landlord was excepted from the Act, and he could obtain an order for ejecting the tenant. That exception was put into the Act on the initiation of the Minister for Agriculture, who was then a private Member, but whose opinion on agriculture always carried weight in this House. He suggested that, after all, if we were requiring landlords and farmers to produce much more in the way of crops from the area they controlled, it was absolutely necessary that they should have the cottages at their command and should be able to obtain them from ploughmen and shepherds and people of that sort, and therefore it was thought necessary to exempt them from the Act, although those cottages might be occupied by the wives of soldiers and sailors.
  Under those circumstances it was thought that a landlord should be able to obtain an order to eject a tenant and to recover possession of his house, whether it was for his own occupation or for the occupation of his employé. We little thought that that exemption would be exploited as it has been by people who never were intended to have the advantage of that Section. There are people even during the height of this War, in the grimmest crisis we have ever gone through, who in this respect are trying to

  495
  find out how to drive a coach-and-four through this Act of Parliament, and who have tried to devise means practically abrogating the Act and preventing a great many people from retaining possession of their houses who thought they were sufficiently protected under the Act. What is the process? Whereas the landlord cannot obtain an increased rent from a tenant who obeys all the conditions of his tenancy, yet he can sell the house to somebody else, who can say, "I am the landlord and I want this house for my own occupation, not in connection with agriculture, or the farm, or anything else." The man merely says, "I am going to buy this house. I want this house-for my own occupation." There upon, the whole of this Act that we have passed for the protection of the tenant goes. The tenant is no longer protected. The man who has bought the house steps in and says, "You have got to go out." That is going on to an increasing extent, and there is a widespread demand for something or other which will stop what is, after all, really a gross violation of the whole of the intentions of this House in passing that Act of Parliament. I do not mean to say that these cases of purchase are all on the same footing. There are some which do not interfere very much with the tenant, but there are cases going on, not by hundreds, but by thousands.
  I have gathered this from the evidence that has been adduced to me. I have had evidence from all quarters that this is going on, not in hundreds, but in thousands of cases. Men are going to landlords and saying, "I am perfectly willing to pay you extra rent for this house." The landlord says, "The Act excludes me from turning the tenant out, but you buy the house." It is bought by installments, so that practically the landlord gets an increased rent for the house. Under that process the tenant is ejected, although he may have been there for twenty years, and although the present occupier may be the wife of a soldier living at the front. He may be a munition worker, or somebody who is doing excellent work for the State in some direction or another. That tenant is ejected, and the person who buys the house comes in and takes advantage of this very clever strategy of defeating the whole of this Act. That hardship to the tenant is enormously increased in certain areas, notably in the neighbourhood of London,
  496
  by the panic-stricken hordes of aliens, who desire to avoid the ambit of the bomb-throwing aeroplanes, and who go outside of London, particularly into the western regions, hitherto un visited by the Goth as, and who are perfectly willing to give very large prices for these houses quite beyond the means of the sitting tenant. It is all very well to say that, after all, the sitting tenant often gets the first offer from the landlord to buy the house. It is all very well to say that the landlord says to him, "I will offer it to you at oven a cheaper price than I can get from somebody else." That is not a sufficient answer. Over and over again it is impossible for the sitting tenant to buy it. He either has not the money or cannot obtain it, and sometimes he is too insecure in his position of employment. I have had case after case brought to my notice where the man has said, "It is all very well to ask me to buy the house but I am a bank manager and I may have to remove somewhere else, and I cannot buy the house." That is not a sufficient answer to this case that is made out.
  Are the Courts at present powerless to prevent this evasion of the Act? I do not know that they are, but in practice they feel that they are, and they do not interfere. The result is not only a very largely increased area of real hardship and discontent on the part of those who have lived in these houses for a very long time, but a widespread dismay on the part of those who hitherto have not been subjected to this particular treatment lest they will be the next victims and lest in a few weeks' or months' time they may also receive notice from the landlord, "If you will not pay me an increased rent or buy the house, I am going to accept an offer and you will have to go." I hear of people not cultivating their small gardens because they say they are insecure and that this Act is no longer any protection to them. What is the remedy? It is not easy to close altogether the breach in the Act of Parliament. None of us would desire to prevent the existing landlord from recovering possession of cottages which are really needed for the purposes of agriculture. That is a right which ought to be preserved to him and it may be necessary to accept some Amendments to the Bill in order to preserve it. We think that this Bill will effectively put a stop to the evasion of the Act by the present practice of purchase which is familiar to the House.

  497
  We propose that from a certain date— the date given is 12th March, bat that is capable of alteration—the rights reserved to a landlord of obtaining an order for possession or for the ejectment of a tenant under Section 1, Sub-section (3), shall only be enjoyed by the existing landlord and by such landlord as shall become the landlord by devolution under settlement or under wills and intestacies. That will prevent the ordinary landlord of whom we complain from coming down to a district and buying a house and then going to the Court and ejecting the tenant for his own occupation and his own use. We do not stop purchase. I want to make that clear. Purchase will go on as before, provided that the purchaser is willing to wait until after the War or until the operation of this Act to obtain possession of the House. He can still purchase if he like to purchase, but if he purchases hereafter, unless he is a landlord by devolution or under a will or intestacy, he will not be able to obtain an ejectment order.
  Mr. E. DAVIES: Why make the exception with regard to wills and intestacies?
  Mr. FISHER: The House will realise that as we protect existing landlords there is no reason why we should not protect the man who succeeds him, perhaps his own son, in his property. He should also be given the right of turning out the tenant if he wants the land for the purposes of agriculture. At all events, that will be the basis when we come to deal with the Bill in Committee. I have said so much in order to make it clear to the House and to those who reads one's speeches that, hereafter anybody who since 12th March buys a house, as thousands of houses have been bought, in order to turn out the tenant because the purchaser wants that house, either to escape air raids or any other purpose, while he will be able to purchase the house he will not be able to obtain possession of the house provided the tenant pays the rent and fulfils the ordinary conditions of the tenancy.
  Mr. SHERWELL: It is not quite clear to my mind whether the right hon. Gentleman's proposal covers the case, which is now very frequent, where a landlord gives notice to quit subject to the option of purchase to the present tenant. That is a case of very real hardship, which is becoming widely prevalent in this country.
  Mr. FISHER: He can give notice to quit, I know, but the notice to quit is inoperative. The tenant can say, "I am sitting here under this Act, and here I mean to sit. I am going to pay the rent I was paying in 1914. I do not intend to purchase this house and I defy you to turn me out under the Act." Any increase of rent cannot be recovered.
  Mr. SHERWELL: It is being done.
  Mr. FISHER: I am afraid there will always be people in this country who are ignorant of the laws designed to protect them, who at any rate have no knowledge of the protection which exists in an Act of Parliament. So long as that is the case there will always be people who will take advantage of the ignorance of those who do not know what their rights are as against the landlord. There are two main questions in connection with this Bill which will be debated. The first is, How far the Bill should be retrospective. That point was discussed in another place. Opinions were expressed both ways. The opinion was expressed that you have no right to make the Bill retrospective, that after all it was not criminal, and not even illegal, inequitable or immoral for a man to adopt this process and buy a house which suited him, and that, after all, the law allows it and it is not illegal. Another opinion was expressed that if Parliament is going to pass a Bill of this sort for the protection of tenants whom it is undoubtedly designed to protect, it ought to be carried further back that 12th March. We shall hear both those opinions expressed here. It is a matter for consideration in Committee what date should be put in the Bill. There are those who would shift it from 12th March to 15th March, and who would argue that no adequate notice was given to distant parts of the country, like Scotland particularly, that the Bill was not introduced until the 12th March, that no adequate knowledge of it could have reached Scotland, at all events, that therefore those who purchased houses on the 15th March might have been quite unaware that this Bill was intended, and that they ought to be protected. On the other hand, there are those who would argue that the date ought to be considerably antedated, and who consider that 1st January is a fair date. On that an argument might be deduced by Scotsmen, who would say that they have a system in Scotland whereby these notices are given

  499
  some months beforehand, and which mature, say, on the 8th or 10th of May. I shall be instructed in Committee on that point. They will say that those notices ought not to be allowed to mature, and that if we are going to protect the tenants by this Amending Bill we ought to cast the protection wide enough to cover tenants to whom notice has been given but where the actual ejectment order has not yet reached them. It may be possible to find some solution of that problem by enacting that a date like 1st January should be taken, or by enacting that the Bill shall apply wherever possession has not yet been given.
  Probably most of us would agree that where the ejectment has actually taken place and possession has been given, it would not be wise to disturb that, because it would be very difficult indeed for the purchaser—who after all was within his legal rights in making the purchase, and who probably has given up his own house—to be asked to step out of the house and find the tenant who had been ejected, and who might not be desirous of coming back to the house from which he has been ejected. There may be some ground for stating that it shall not apply to tenants who have been ejected already where possession has been given, and that the House will not go so far as to order anything like reinstatement. That is a point which we can discuss more, deliberately and minutely when we get into Committee. There is another very large question that will arise—namely, is the rental limit under the original Act to be raised? There are those who write to me to say, "You have protected all those who live in the Metropolitan Police area, who live in houses which are rented at £35 a year. You protect in Scotland all those who live in houses up to £30 a year, and in the provinces all those who live in houses up to £26 a year." There is a hardship of which we heard nothing when we debated the Act in 1915—I cannot find a trace of it in the Debates—which is really growing and becoming very widespread. It is being felt extremely by the smaller professional people and the commercial and business classes who live in houses ranging from £50 up to £70 or £80 a year.
  Sir J. BOYTON: Your predecessor him self fixed the limit, with the advice of his Department and the advice he had before him at the time.
  Mr. FISHER: I have not suggested anything to the contrary. Those limits were fixed by my right hon. Friend in consultation with myself and others. They were very deliberately fixed, it is quite true, after great consultation with some of us. The figure in the Bill which was introduced was enlarged by the House of Commons itself from £21 to £26 for the provinces, from £30 to £35 for the Metropolitan Police area, and I think it enlarged the Scottish figure. Anyhow, it did certainly enlarge the figures. I can find no trace in the Debates that the House at that time was aware of any difficulty in regard to those who inhabited houses above the limit which is generally thought applicable to working-class houses. Since then there has been an accumulation of evidence that professional men —it is very difficult to find a term to describe them—people who cannot afford high rents, say, running into three figures—I mean the smaller business, professional, and commercial men, and others—are suffering a very great hardship and have a real grievance at the present time through landlords coming to them and saying, "You have hitherto paid £60. I must now demand £80. If you will not pay £80, I must ask you to buy your house; and if you will not pay £80 or buy your house, out you go…" Perhaps there is no house anywhere near the neighbourhood which such a man could possibly get. I have consulted the authorities, and I find that the title of the Bill is so narrow that it would not allow that question to be raised in Committee, and Amendments to raise the limits of the houses to which the original Act would apply, and to which the amending Act therefore will apply, would be outside the scope of the title because they would not be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. That was rather my own opinion before I consulted the authorities. But while that is so, I would ask the House not to wreck the Bill because they desire to enlarge it and are not able to do so, but rather to use the Debates on the Second Reading and Committee stages to consider this question very carefully, to bring forward evidence as to how far this grievance really will exist, and to give information to the Government which will form the basis for consideration by them as to whether or not a further Bill is necessary to meet this larger area of housing and operate over a larger area in which increased rentals higher than those included in the Bill are charged.

  501
  I am very anxious to get the Bill quickly. It has passed through all its stages in another place where the rights of property are as strictly scrutinised and preserved as they are here. It is to my mind really wanted to stop this constant malpractice, because it is really a malpractice, contrary to the whole intentions of the House, which every day is causing suffering and hardship to a great many people. Therefore, I hope the Leader of the House will be able to give me time, even in these difficult days, to pass the Bill, with the will of the House, quickly through all its stages and to obtain the sanction of both Houses of Parliament to it. At the same time, it is quite possible that information may, in the course of the Debate, be afforded to the Government which may compel it to bring forward another Bill to apply the principle of the Act of 1915 to houses which are outside the limit of value imposed by that Act. It is, however, very difficult to find such a limit. The limit of £35 or £36 has been approved by the House, and it probably covers the vast majority of what are known as working-class dwellings. When you come to deal with property which demands a rent of from £60 up to £100 or £125 you are dealing with a different kind of property altogether. While I would rather be throwing in all my weight on the side of the protection of the tenant there is another side to the question, particularly when you deal with houses of a higher rent. Here is a case that has been brought to my notice. A man had bought six houses at the seaside. He gave £2,000 each for them. It was an extravagant price to pay. They had not been let for several years before the War, but the War brought a good many officers and people of that kind to the place. He was able to let the houses at £60 a year, not on lease but on the usual short notice terms.
  HON. MEMBERS: £60 for a £2,000 house?
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. FISHER: That is all he was able to get at the time. It was a very low rent. For two of the houses he has a purchaser who would give him a very good price. The sitting tenants said, "No; we are not disposed to pay more than we are paying. We will not promise to stay after the War, we will not take a lease and we will not buy." Ought not the landlord in that case to be able to take advantage of the present market circumstances, although I admit they are caused by the War, and to
  502
  let one or two of the houses to willing purchasers, even although that involved ousting the sitting tenants, who are undoubtedly in this case doing work in connection with the War? Directly you get to the higher class of property you have a different set of arguments and circumstances with which to deal. If, after we have accumulated evidence from the House and outside, the Government is induced to bring in another Bill applying to houses of a different character from working-class dwellings, there is a good deal of matter which will have to be debated and the rights of the landlords will have to be very carefully considered as regards the possibility of their accepting offers of purchase, and we ought to be as legitimately careful of their interests as of those of the tenants. I should be only too glad to hear in this Debate evidence from many of those who have taken a very great interest in the discussion of this question, and when we come to Committee I will very carefully consider such Amendments as may be put down. Meanwhile, although I know there are hon. Members who desire to enlarge the scope of the Bill, and to increase the number of houses to which it will apply, I hope the House will agree with me that we ought not, while grasping at the shadow of another Bill, to drop this very substantial measure, which, to my mind, remedies something like 90 per cent. of the grievances of which tenants in this country have every right to complain.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I welcome the opportunity which the introduction of this Bill gives us for dealing with a matter of such great urgency as it seeks to combat. I also welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he is not tied to the date mentioned in the Bill, but would be quite prepared to consider a different date. I also welcome the fact that he stated that he was anxious that those taking part in this Debate should avail themselves of this opportunity of bringing before his notice any other difficulties that had arisen in consequence of war conditions, so that the Government might consider at an early date the bringing in of a Rill of a more comprehensive character than the one now introduced. I think that the present Bill is of far too restricted a character, and that we shall require one dealing with this problem on a far wider basis. I recognise that the point covered by this Bill is one of great urgency, and that may be the reason for

  503
  the Bill being of so limited a character as will prevent Amendments of a general kind being inserted. If I am correct in thinking that Amendments of a general character will be out of order, I hope that we shall get some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that at a very early date the Government will see their way to introduce a Bill of a much wider scope than the one we are now considering.
  There has always been a housing problem in this country. I do not intend to go into the general question of the housing problem at any great length. Indeed, I do not intend to go into the general question further than to say that prior to the conditions arising which the Bill of 1915 was introduced to remedy, we had a great shortage of houses in this country, and that if we had never had a war we should have had to deal in a broad general way with the question of the housing of the people. War conditions have accentuated that difficulty enormously, and unless we take an early opportunity of dealing with the question, the country will find itself up against a very grave position of affairs. The party with which I am associated some time ago sent a memorandum to the learned Solicitor-General, pointing out the necessity for an amending Bill of a much more comprehensive character than the one we are now considering. They took the opportunity, in the course of that memorandum, of pointing out a number of the difficulties that had arisen as the result of war conditions, also dealing with some of the difficulties that had arisen in connection with the administration of the Act of 1915, which this Bill seeks to amend. I propose briefly to enumerate some of the difficulties that were pointed out to the Solicitor-General in that Memorandum. The first difficulty arises inconsequence of the administration of the Act of 1915, and that is the lack of clearness in the wording of the Act, which has led to a large amount of litigation, a far larger amount of litigation than the House is aware of. The second point is that tenants have no means under the Act if 1915 of recovering legal costs in which they may be involved in protecting themselves against threatened evictions by the landlord because of their refusal to pay the increased rent that is demanded. The third point is that in connection with the administration of that Act there has been in many cases threats of retaliation as to what will occur when the Act expires. The
  504
  fourth point is that there has been a very general refusal to do the necessary repairs and cleaning to keep the property in good order. Then the difficulty has arisen in connection with key money being paid in very many instances, and in this way getting over the difficulty of increasing the rent.
  Sir J. BOYTON: The tenants take what is known as "key money."
  Mr. ADAMSON: It is largely a question of the landlord. We have had a large number of letters coming to us from all over the country pointing out the difficulties that are arising regarding the administration of the Act of 1915. In many cases the wives and families of soldiers are being evicted in agricultural districts. The head of the household, the lather, or the sons in some cases, have either voluntarily or by compulsion joined the Army, and they have gone under a general promise that so long as they were at the War their relatives would be kept on in the house, but, as time has gone on, evictions have taken place, and many more are being threatened with eviction. You have the same state of affairs in the industrial centers. There a very much larger number of these eases occur. I am sometimes very much concerned as to what will be the stats of matters regarding the housing difficulty when the War is over, because not only have you this temporary difficulty during the War, but in many cases, unfortunately, the heads of the household will not return, and consequently you will have the wives and dependants of those who have lost their lives having to face this difficulty now and also when the War is over. You have also the case of industrial companies. Our attention has been drawn to a number of these cases, of companies buying whole blocks of houses in industrial centres and threatening to turn out the tenants—in some cases they have been turned out, while in many others they have been threatened with eviction—to make room for their own workers, and turning them out in places where it is impossible for the present tenant, in the event of being turned out, to find housing accommodation. In a number of cases within my own personal knowledge they have had to store their furniture and go into lodgings or go and live with relatives. Unless we have this matter dealt with in a more comprehensive manner than this Bill gives us an opportunity of doing we are going to have

  505
  the danger of the employer being in a position to affect workmen both in cases of dismissal and of trade disputes in this matter of evicting tenants from houses. Then we had the question of owners selling their property for the purpose of evading the law. In many cases the sale is only a bogus sale for the purpose of getting over the difficulty that this Act has imposed upon the owners of house property.
  There is another phase of the same difficulty. I know of some cases in which the owner of the property has sold his own house and given notice to one of his tenants that he will require the house occupied by that tenant. I intend to put down an Amendment to deal with that difficulty, which I hope will be accepted, and with that Amendment I propose to make this Bill retrospective—to carry the date much further back than the date named in the Bill. If we are confined entirely to that point, then I think it is necessary that we should have the Bill made retrospective. There is a large number of cases in which sales have taken place and in which as yet the purchaser has not got possession, and the old tenant is still in possession of the property. The Bill should be made to cover these cases. I have not much to say against the idea to which expression was given by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill, that we could not very well ask that the case of the purchaser being in possession of the house should be covered. But I think that the Amendment should be of a character to cover every one of the cases where as yet the purchaser has not yet got possession of the house. I welcome the Bill. I hope that it will have a speedy passage through the House and that it will cover as many of these cases before we part with it in Committee as can possibly be arranged, and that the Government will at a very early date introduce a Bill of a more comprehensive character that will enable us to deal completely with every phase of the difficulties of the housing problem, which, unless we deal with it in a drastic and comprehensive manner, will leave us in a very great difficulty at the conclusion of the War.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: The interesting speech which has just been delivered only shows how many questions there are involved as soon as we begin to tackle any question connected with housing. For my part, while one is apt to regret the limitation in the title of the Bill, yet I
  506
  think that in the interests of the special objects for which the Bill has been introduced, it is perhaps as well that the title has been limited, if only to secure the prompt passage of the Bill which is the essence of the case, because if there is any delay, as there might be, by prolonged discussion, even for the purpose of improving the Bill in this House, tenants for whose protection the Bill is intended might lose their occupation, and new occupations might be created, and delay would operate against the first object of the Bill. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for having taken tills matter in hand. I am one of those who believe that there is a very clear grievance which has caused much suffering, and is causing now a great deal of un-settlement for the want of some simple setting straight, such as this Bill provides. Therefore I hope that the Bill will pass as rapidly as is consistent with the proper consideration of it within its scope. The unsettlement that has been caused is not only in reference to single houses. In parts of the Midlands it is not only a matter of single landlords, but notices are being scattered broadcast in many districts which I have in view by societies or owners of large blocks of houses and of whole streets that they are prepared to sell.
  There is another point. If there is any garden or allotment connected with the house this operates prejudicially against any tenant planting the garden. This is a very serious matter in present circumstances. Therefore, though there may not be many of them who run any real risk of being turned out, yet this creates such a sense of unsettlement and unrest that it is very desirable that the matter should be met as promptly as possible. Like most Members, I would like to see the date made earlier than that which is mentioned in the Bill. At the same time, we are grateful for having the Bill sent down from another place with a retrospective date in it, for if you are simply to leave in the date of the passing of the Act the effect would be an immediate hustle on the part of owners anxious to get sales carried through before the Act became law, and I am a little afraid that if the question of occupation was made the deciding point it might tend to hurry evictions, and we should need to guard against this. At the same time, I

  507
  would be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could see his way to accept some date like the 1st January this year, subject, possibly, to an occupation condition alongside of it. In any case, the experience gained with this measure, under possibly the limited value that has been mentioned, £26 to £35, will pave the way, if injustice is proved, to another measure being introduced with a still wider scope. I am quite satisfied that in the present emergency the House would do well to accept the Bill in its more limited form, for the sake of meeting the admitted evil, although at whatever amount the limited value is put, there will always be some district or other outside it. In some districts £26 meets the case; in my district around Birmingham £30 might meet it, but £26 does not. In these districts which are outside the Bill we must be content with what we find within the measure, and on behalf of my own Constituents, and others, I hope the House will give the Bill a favourable reception and prompt passage.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: This Bill, of course, is very restricted in its application. Its tops a leak in the Act of 1915 which has been taken advantage of in too many cases to over-ride its intentions. I have recently had many complaints from Scotland as to the manner in which this leak in the Act has been taken advantage of, and I have had many communications with the Secretary for Scotland on the subject. So far, however, I have had no satisfaction whatever out of the Scottish Office as to whether or not they would deal with the matter, and I would impress upon the House of Commons the absolute necessity of doing something or other to improve the position of matters both from the point of view of the landlord and of the tenant. In Ayrshire, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire possibly knows that in his part of the constituency, though possibly not so much in his Division as in that of the hon. and gallant Member for North Ayrshire, there has been any amount of this sort of leakage. There have been wholesale purchases of houses in industrial areas, the people who occupied those houses have received notice of eviction, and many of them do not know in the least where on earth to find a house. Some of them have been in possession of their houses for
  508
  about twenty years. In many cases these dwellings have been bought by concerns which are not carrying on business in the town itself where the property has been purchased, and altogether the state of matters calls for amendment on the part of those in authority. No doubt there are difficulties in the matter. No doubt some have bought their houses, many of them being workmen who have made bonâ-fide purchases of them from their savings out of the large wages they have been making since the passing of the Act of 1915. It would be rather difficult, perhaps, in such cases to apply special legislation. The difficulty, of course, is where possession has already been taken, but some means might be found to afford protection, at all events in those cases where there has been possession from the 28th May, which is term day. Of course, the whole situation is aggravated by the impossibility of getting houses at all, or of finding housing accommodation for those who are engaged in shipbuilding, which is so important at the present moment. It is desirable that it this Bill is to stop the particular trick, for it is really a trick, to get behind the Act of 1915, it should be passed promptly. It goes a very short way to amend the Art of 1914, which itself not show in its framing very much foresight.
  As many hon. Members know, we pressed upon the Secretary for Scotland the extension of the scope of the Act of 1915, but the Secretary for Scotland, who was in charge of the Bill, strangely stuck to the measure, and would not listen to any arguments advanced in favour of extending its scope. The Clauses with regard to landlords have, no doubt, had an adverse effect on the whole situation. There should have been sufficient foresight to realise that the cost of repairs and the increase of prices and of taxation, owing to the War, would force everything to become dearer, and that difficulties of that kind would have to be met by the landlord himself, and to that extent, at all events, the remedy would have been that he should increase his rent, provided always that there was careful provision that he did not go too far. If that had been done, the landlord would not have tried to act as he has, and many people would not have been so harshly treated. They would still be occupying their dwellings, being willing, no doubt, to pay a little extra rent in order to be left alone. So far as the purchase of property is con-

  509
  cerned, there are other things which also want redressing. In Salt coats there is a very common habit on the part of Glasgow people of acquiring small houses for the purpose of using them during the holiday season, or of letting them at rather exorbitant rents during the summer. Many in this place own not only their own houses, but other houses in places on the coast of Ayrshire, which they let during the holiday period. Many of the houses stand empty for the greater part of the year, and I suggest that some means might be found by which to render them available for industrial occupation, and nobody ought to own two houses in one place unless they are both being occupied. That, no doubt, is a difficult matter to deal with, but it is a very clamant grievance in face of the fact that so many people have been evicted altogether, and have no place whatever to go to. There have been many cases of that kind, and houses are standing empty, or are probably only occupied for a quarter of the year, or whatever is the period of the holiday. For the remainder of the year the houses remain empty, though they might be profitably occupied. All this I press upon the attention of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who, I am glad to see, is in his place listening to the Debate. I am sure my right hon. Friend and the President of the Local Government Board will be quite ready to consider all those points. This is not a matter which brooks any delay. It is no good blinking the fact that there is a vast amount of unrest and dissatisfaction with the present position of affairs, and the sooner it is put right the better. I hope the Government will make an earnest effort to deal with the matter at the earliest possible moment, and I am sure they will do their best to meet the grievance.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Those of us who have taken a deep interest in this question during the whole time it has occupied the attention of the House must welcome with keen satisfaction the measure which has been presented by the President of the Local Government Board to-night. Like the previous speaker, I regret that it is not of a more comprehensive character, but I am quite willing myself, and I believe the House will also be willing, to allow, with the greatest alacrity, the right hon. Gentleman to get his Bill, as he has promised us that, if necessary, the measure shall be considered again on a broader issue. But
  510
  while we have this Bill before us, we would like, if possible, within its scope, to broaden it on whatever lines we can. I think the whole opinion of all interested will be that the date in this Bill should be put back, as far as it possibly can be put with safety. The right hon. Gentleman, in his opening speech, gave us a very lucid account of the causes which had led to the Bill being required. I happen, like the other hon. Members who have spoken, to have had a very vast amount of experience as to what has taken place under the Act of 1915. We were all glad when that Act passed, and we all welcomed it with very great satisfaction. We had then a state of things arising, especially in the large munition areas, which some of us represent, where it would have been impossible for the rents to have been paid by the tenant if the increments which were being made by the landlords had continued at the rate at which they were going on. Therefore we welcomed the passing of the Act of 1915. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there was a proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman who is at present the President of the Board of Agriculture. He moved an Amendment for the purpose of enabling certain people, under certain conditions, to gain possession of their houses. I think it was that the words "reasonable possession" should be put in. That Amendment was moved in Committee, in 1915. Many of us criticised it, and while we accepted the position which the right hon. Gentleman put, that there might be cases in connection with agriculture where it would be wise and necessary that the farmer should be able to get possession of his cottage for his dairyman or his carter, we said that those words, once they got into the Bill, would be abused. The Act had not long been working before we found that this was the case. Actions of the most frivolous character were brought to get tenants out, because the landlord said he wanted reasonable possession. In many cases, I am glad to say, when they went before some of the best of our County Court judges, those judges turned down the cases and would not give possession under the Act. Then came the next departure, that of selling the house. To those of us who have had to follow the sales of these houses—and I could give you the local papers from my Constituency, with case after case, three and four cases at one sitting of the Court—we found the most extraordinary excuses put forward why

  511
  the landlord, or the new landlord as he was called, should regain possession of his property, and the tenant be turned out, though at the time he might be working at one of the great munition works, and perhaps his whole family was also employed at the same factory. We have had cases which have been laughable. We had one case of a man who wished to obtain possession of a house which he had bought as he wanted to take his mother-in-law out of Deptford because of its being in an air raid district, and who wished to move to Bexley Heath. To anyone who knows that part of Kent, which is getting nearer and nearer the danger zone all the time, the reason was really farcical. Yet, that reason was accepted, and the tenant had to give up possession. I am not going to weary the House with the innumerable number of cases one has had. I only want to enforce, what has already been accepted, that you have had a state of things brought about by these, in many cases, colourable sales of property to parties in order to get possession. I think there was one slight error in the speech of the hon. Baronet who preceded me. I am not saying some of his argument was not good in another direction, but he said he believed it would be wise if, in the case where the rates went up, that the landlord should have an opportunity of raising the rent to meet any legitimate increase.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I said taxes.
  HON. MEMBER: Repairs.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I will deal with repairs afterwards. I thought he said rates.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I was thinking of Income Tax, as a matter of fact.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon. I did not understand him to mean that. I thought he meant the case of what we call compound property where a landlord pays the rates and taxes, apart from the Income Tax on his property, I did not think that he meant that the tenant—and I shall have to have a very great amount of argument on that point—should ensure to the landlord that he had the same amount of interest as he got previously, whatever income Tax might be put on by the State, because that would be a good thing to go on by people in other directions who would like to be assured that someone else would
  512
  refund the extra money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to take out of their pockets. There is also a question with regard to repairs, but I think hon. Gentlemen will have a very weak case if they start on repairs. The amount of repairs that has been done to small property is disgraceful. It is not a question of having to pay out more money than they did previously, because of the higher cost of material and labour, but the scandal is that they have neglected the repairs altogether, and I am sorry to say that, owing to urgency of other matters, the local authorities have not been able to look after this as keenly as they otherwise would have done. In many cases landlords actually have thrown back part of this extra rent which they desire by not doing repairs to a house which they ought legitimately to have carried out. So that, I think, is not a very strong case to go upon.
  The right hon. Gentleman has asked us to help him to pass this measure, because he wishes it, as far as it goes, to stop the leakage under the Act of 1915. We all say that we are prepared to do it. But he also asks us now to give him any evidence that we have of cases outside the rent limit of the existing Act which might have to be dealt with. So far as my memory goes, he is quite correct in his statement that, at the time when we were all debating the Act of 1915, the issues which have now arisen so largely, and which loom so prominently in the public eye, were not in existence with regard to the higher rented property. At that time, fortunately for us, air raids had not become so frequent as they are to-day, and the scare of a certain section of the population had not developed as it has since done. Now we have all round the suburbs of London, and, so far as I can ascertain from the correspondence I have had, round other areas in other big places which are likewise affected, an attempt to get possession of the houses. A letter was sent to me to-day, which is of a most interesting character, from a gentleman living in Harrow, and I think I will trouble the House by reading it, because it summarises the cases which were admitted by my hon. Friends who represent these areas all round. I may say that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) wrote to me to-day, expressing regret that on account of his professional occupation as Recorder of York he could

  513
  not be here, and hoping that I would bring this case before the House. This gentleman wrote me a personal letter:
  "I have already discussed with you the very serious state of affairs as to the housing problem in this district (Harrow), and, indeed, in the districts all round London I am prompted to write you because I am now, much to my surprise, one of the many victims. I have occupied my house for eight years, and I need hardly say have regularly paid my rent, and yet a notice to break up my home is suddenly given to me. Why? Because of the great influx of people, including very many aliens, from the air-raid districts, who are offering large bonuses to get in. Everyone will rejoice that security should be provided for the low rental tenant, but why not security for all other tenants who faithfully fulfil their contracts? The middle classes are suffering as greatly for their loved ones, and are doing their part just as ungrudgingly in contributing in various forms for the upkeep of the War. Why should we not be protected also until this calamity is over? We pay heavier taxes, and a number of our houses go up to £60 and £70 per annum."
  He goes on to say that he has a son at home seriously wounded, and the only reason he is called upon to give up his house is because someone, who has never lived in Harrow, is prepared to pay a heavy bonus at the present time on purpose to get him out. I have also had sent to me an extract from the local paper in Harrow with a whole series of letters of correspondents complaining of the same thing. I have also in my hand another letter from a Constituent of mine who was got out of a lower-rated house. To my mind he was got out of it because, before I wrote to him and he had got legal assistance, he had committed a little fraud in his indignation against the landlord. Now he is living in a district outside this Act, and he is called upon to give up his house. He is manager of a large works which supplies the Government with some of the most important things required in connection with the War, and he cannot get another house in the district. He is therefore put to great inconvenience, and so will his employer be. In conclusion, I want again to thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing in this measure, or, rather, the Government for starting it in another place, and to say we will help him as much as we can to get it placed rapidly on the Statute Book. I would ask him to keep an open mind with regard to Amendments to broaden the Act, and would ask him also that something more may be done in the direction of a wirier application.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Considerable complaints have been made during this Debate that the right hon. Gentleman has not
  514
  introduced a more extended measure, but I am inclined to think that from the point of view of a rapid passage of his measure he has been very well advised not to attempt any very large measure at the present moment. I think there will be general agreement that some measure of: this kind is necessary to stop the leakage which has evidently arisen in the working of the Act of 1915, and I do not think there will be any disposition in any quarter of the House to refuse the necessary measure which will stop that leakage. But I am bound to say, throughout the Debate there has been very little tendency to consider the real causes, as they seem to me, of the complaints which are arising. It is not all due to the fact that aliens want to go out of London and other populous places in order to escape from the air raids. Nor is it true that landlords wish to evict ail tenants in order to sell their houses to aliens who want to get out of air raids. The causes are economic causes, which neither this Act nor the Act of 1915 is going to stop. Why does the landlord want to sell? I do not think the reason is far to seek. The right hon. Gentleman has instanced the case of a gentleman who bought a house rented at £60 a year for £2,000. If an opportunity comes to him to sell his house, are you not dealing a little hardly with him when you say he is not to sell because you say the tenant ought to get it at that low rent?
  I do not want to be particularly merciful to any form of property owner, but? do want to treat property owners alike, and when it is complained that landlords wish to raise their rents, although I have not been throughout my political career a friend of landlords, I do ask why are rents alone not to be raised? Wages are greatly raised, salaries are raised the rate of interest is raised. People who have capital to invest get 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. now, and yet a landlord is not to be allowed to get more than 3 per cent. The rent is worth to the landlord only about half what it was before the War. Is he therefore, a very criminal person if lie sells a £60 rental house for £2,000, because he wishes to get his £2,000 and buy War Loan, and so receive 5¼ per cent. Without having tenants' complaints and so forth to deal with? I really think the House had better face the economic facts of the situation, and not imagine you are going to remedy a grievance which is not created by landlords, by throwing all the burden of what is happening on a particular class

  515
  of the community. I make that defence, because it does seem to me that owners of property are being put into an unfair position by the attacks that are made upon them, and I say it the more readily because I have always belonged to a party which is supposed to assail the landlord. It is not fair to complain, when the country has sanctioned private ownership of land and real properly, if the owners of that form of property yielded to the economic tendencies of their time.
  10.0 P.M.
  The original Act did err in the fact that it did not allow rent to be raised when repairs were made. I think that was unfortunate. It is stopping repairs, and in order to get them done many tenants would be delighted to pay a little more rent, which would represent a fair interest on repairs. It must be remembered that the difficulties of executing repairs during the War are very great. Material is difficult to get, labour is scarce; and consequently it is not very easy for the best intentioned landlord to do for his tenant as he did in the old days. I want to urge the right hon. Gentleman that if the War goes on he will not have to be content with a measure for preventing the raising of rent or stopping the sale of houses. He will have to consider the question of providing houses for the people in neighbourhoods where houses are required. This country, in the past, has left the provision of houses to private enterprise, and the individuals who have undertaken it have recouped themselves by charging a rent sufficient to recover the income on their capital, the cost of repairs, and so on. But that is all gone. You are stepping in by legislation in a way which will prevent anyone investing money in building houses. Consequently, the situation is going to become steadily worse the longer the War goes on, and if populations change from one district to another the housing question will become more and more acute. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind, and if he tries to extend this Bill so as to deal with other points I hope he will be prepared, in the very near future, to bring in Bills which will secure that there shall be houses for people where they are required. Private individuals will be unable to afford to build houses in the future, and the private individual having been discouraged, it remains only for municipalities or the State to undertake the building of houses.
  516
  I belong to a party which has not been particularly friendly to the landlord, but I doubt very much whether the municipalities or State will in the future, should they undertake the provision of houses, be exempt from those complaints on the part of tenants which have hitherto been directed against private landlords.
  Mr. MACLEOD: I am in favour of the objects of this Bill. There is only one matter I wish to refer to, and that is the question of date. If the Bill is going to be retrospective, I have nothing more to say on the matter beyond that it seems to me that it will be very difficult to make it retrospective, because so many cases have occurred subsequent to the 1st of January which are perfectly bonâ fide that it will be difficult to winnow the good from the bad. But if it is not going to be retrospective, I would suggest that the date should be not the 12th of March, but this 15th. It is quite true the Bill was introduced in another place on the 12th of March, but it was not in any way mentioned or discussed until the 14th, and, therefore, its objects and intentions could not have been known in the country until the 15th. It would not, therefore, be fair to bring a Bill of this character into force at a dale prior to that at which its intentions were known throughout the country. I have several cases—and I have handed one to the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill— of perfectly bonâ fide transactions taking place on the 13th of March, where the buyer of the property had given up his house on the 9th March. I think it would be very unfair if cases like that were not considered, and, therefore, I make the suggestion that if the Bill is not going to be retrospective the date should be the 15th and not the 12th March.
  Sir J. BOYTON: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) for voicing the other side of the case, because up to the time he spoke we had only heard one side. I rather regret he spoke before me, because he has anticipated a good deal of what I intended to say; therefore, I shall content myself by endorsing largely what he did say. I am one of those who gave very cordial support to the Bill introduced in 1915, and I went about London advocating what was then somewhat unpopular in property circles. I thought it was a measure of considerable foresight on the part of the then President of the Local Government Board, and I do not agree

  517
  with the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs that that Bill lacked a considerable amount of foresight. In 1915 we imagined that the War was going to inflict very great hardships on the poorer people of the country, that their earning powers would decrease, and that, as they would be in difficulties, it was desirable to protect them against the encroachments of so-called avaricious landlords. But what has actually happened? Things have turned out quite the opposite, the working classes are earning large sums of money. Men, women, and children are finding remunerative employment, and those who occupy houses are letting rooms at a remarkable profit. They put a few miserable pieces of furniture into one room, they then term it a furnished room, and they charge considerably more rent for it than they themselves pay for the entire house. This thing is going on all over the place. I do not regret that this Bill has been introduced to stop a coach-and-four being driven through an Act of Parliament which was seriously passed by this House I rather welcome it, but I do object very strongly to the full extent of its scope.
  To say that a landlord shall not part with his property is to say a great deal, and I waited patiently while the right hon. Gentleman was introducing the measure to hear him introduce some qualifying words in that part, such, for instance, as the words "except with the consent of the Court." It is putting an extraordinary embargo upon house property throughout the country if you are going to say that a man shall not part with his property except under a settlement or will. Surely you are not going to put a stop to all building society transactions in this country? All people do not buy houses for occupation. Building societies carry on an enormous business. You cannot be surprised if in some districts certain so-called landlords—they are not landlords in reality, they only hold equities of redemption—you cannot be surprised if when some fur-coated, bejewelled denizen of the East End comes to them and says, "I will give you a good price for that house," they accept it. Although they are said to be protected against increases of mortgage interest under this Bill, they are not so protected in fact, they are being squeezed by the lawyer and are told that if they want to keep in the good books of the mortgage holder after the War they had better voluntarily increase the rate of interest. It is all very well to say that
  518
  repairs are conspicuous by their absence, but the sanitary inspector is not idle and neither is the waterworks inspector, and if to meet their requirements you have to execute certain works you have to pay extraordinary prices in order to get that work done. A ceiling which cost 10s. to whiten before the War will cost a sovereign now. Wallpaper is prohibitive in price. Plumbing is prohibitive and repairs are accumulating against the man. Can you wonder that he has been tempted to show his ability—although he may not sit up all night to do so, as was suggested by an hon. Gentleman opposite—to drive the proverbial coach-and-four through the Act? Do not let the warmth of your hearts and sympathies run away with your heads. Make some provision, but provide that no man shall dispose of his property of this kind without the consent of the Court. Do not stop all transactions. The Government are not helpful in this matter. They paid I do not know how much to the Northcliffe Press for this advertisement. It shows an Englishman's house to be let or sold, and this is the way they deal with it. You are invited not to put your money in house property. It is a great mistake:
  "You can only guess what a house will be worth in five, seven, or ten years. The neighbourhood may go down. New houses may be built with all the best and latest labour-saving devices to attract tenants. Your house may be left empty, and for every day that it stands empty you will lose money."
  Then it goes on to recount the great advantages of buying War Loan. None of us wants to discount that, but do not prevent a certain amount of free exchange and bargaining. If a man sells his house he will be very glad to put the money into War Loan. It will only be shifted out of one pocket into another, and I do not think the War Savings Committee will suffer at all. I do ask the House to get back to a fair amount of prospective in this matter, and to say that throughout the length and breadth of the land in all this class of property you shall not sell is going too far. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Bill does not say that…"] I have advocated the adoption of this measure to prevent the landlords using it for the ostentatious purpose of turning out a tenant. None of us want that, and we should all seek to avoid it; but I do press the right hon. Gentleman to accept, and I hope he will accept, a reasonable Amendment to the effect that no sale

  519
  shall take place except with the sanction of the Court. The Court, being seised of all the facts and of the discussions on the Bill in this House, will not be at all sympathetic to the vendor. Such cases will only come before the Court if the vendor, the purchaser and the tenant agree, and if they do agree why should you step in here to prevent free dealing in the market?
  I was sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman forecasts further legislation of this kind He told a story about houses at the seaside that cost £2,000, have been empty for years, and then let at £60 a year. We do not all live in Scotland. We cannot ail afford to shut our houses up during the winter and grumble because they are not occupied by the working classes. Go to Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Scarborough, Margate, or Ramsgate, and see what the state of the property market is there… This War has had a most curious effect on property. In the first year a certain neighbourhood goes up, and then, after a visitation, it goes down. There have been many, many ups-and-downs. The result of an air raid drops a neighbourhood down, and the result of a bombardment on the coast, or of too frequent visits from air raiders, is to depreciate the whole value of the property in the neighbourhood, and people have to come and ask for assistance. The right hon. Gentleman told us here to-night that houses of £60 a year have increased to £80 a year in rent. I should like to take him to many districts and show him where the contrary is the case. It is the people who have been paying £80 a year up to now who cannot pay £80 any longer. They are the people with limited and fixed incomes whom the property tax and other troubles of the times are hitting. They have to decrease their expenses, and it is the £80 and £60 a year houses that are depreciating, while the only class of property going up in value is this particular class. The right hon. Gentleman opposite just pointed out that you allow excess profits to be made, and remember that if some of these houses are sold at a hundred or two more than they were worth, the Government is a participator and is an excess profiteer, as it takes 20 per cent. of the increment value over the original valuation. Some of the troubles of the past are now coming home to roost. Some of the people who never dreamed of increment value
  520
  have now to pay on it, and perhaps the little sums they are receiving from this class of property will remind the Inland Revenue that the cost of carrying on the Land Values Department is a little improving, although the money is not being obtained from the class from which it was originally intended it should come. For those reasons I think that if the right hon. Gentleman gets his Bill he should permit an Amendment which will say that no property of the kind shall be sold without consent of the Court. If he does that I think he will have gone far enough. He will have protected the people whom we set out in 1915 to protect. I think he will have succeeded in passing a very useful piece of amending legislation, but if he applies this to the property market as a whole he will have a position such as I am sure he cannot possibly realize because I believe that his officials and officers do not know the state of the property market.
  Sir S. COATS: I wish to say a few words in support of the hon. Member for Dartford. I have many Constituents residing in the district of Coulsdon and Purley who rent houses there of £40, £45, and £50 a year. They moved there for the health of their children some years ago, and all of a sudden the proposal is made by the landlord for them to purchase their houses at an exceptionally advantageous figure to the landlord. Then, if they do not feel in a position to do so they are told that he is bound to sell, perhaps to an alien, who has moved there to escape air raids. I have had my attention called to this again and again, but I do not like to ask for any great modification of the Bill. I have no doubt there are difficulties in connection with raising the limit, but I think the limit of £35 a year is too low for the protection of tenants of houses of this character. I think that houses of £40, £45, and £50 should be entitled to the same protection. A day or two ago I met a constituent, who drew my attention to another method of dispossessing a tenant. He said that his landlord came and offered him his house at a certain price, which offer he thought too high, and refused. He was paying £35 or thereabouts; at any rate, he came within the Act. The landlord, on this refusal, said, "Oh, well, it makes no difference. I have a house at Purley that I will sell, and occupy your house myself." It seems to me that something should be done to protect persons in that position.

  521
  It is almost impossible for them to get other houses in the district once they are turned out. It is very hard to be told: "Unless you pay a high or, at all events, an exceedingly generous purchase price for your house you will be turned out." I feel it my duty to add a word to what has fallen from other hon. Members, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make some provision to treat such cases as these.
  Mr. ARNOLD WARD: My Constituency is one of those which is very greatly affected by the evil at which this Bill aims. It is greatly interested in the Bill. The principal local authority in the district, the Watford Local District Council, has carefully considered the Bill, and I cannot say that they have accorded it a very enthusiastic welcome. The feeling in the district in regard to the Bill is that, firstly, it should be made retrospective from an earlier date, and, secondly, that the scope of the Bill is too narrow. It is regretted that it should be so drawn as to be incapable of amendment in the direction of raising the rental limit laid down in the Act of 1915. My hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone, who addressed the House, was understood by me to say that there was no increase of rents going on in the case of houses valued at above £35 a year. But what he said does not apply to Hertfordshire or Middlesex. There are at present a considerable number of cases of notice to quit in consequence of the exodus from London, and this is the case with £50 and £60 per year houses—and even higher—inhabited by commercial and professional men and by Civil servants, whose case I particularly commend to the notice of the President of the Local Government Board.
  In my Constituency we feel very strongly that those tenants who are paying £50 and £60 a year should be considered in at least as favourable a light as those who are protected by the existing Statute. We also feel that this is an urgent question, and that delay in dealing with it is by no means desirable. There are many inconveniences and hardships at the present time which one can appeal to people to put up with, but this is not one of them. This is one which the persons affected—a very large class—desire to have remedied without delay. It is over a month since this Bill was introduced into the House of Lords, what I wish to impress upon the President of the Local Government Board
  522
  is that the Leader of the House has power to give him time to deal with the matter. Let me quote a typical case which came before the judge at the Watford County Court. It related to a Mr. Harvey. The owner, who was a new purchaser, was applying for an ejectment order. The County Court judge said that as the law stood he had no option but to grant the order, the owner having made out a reasonable case for occupying the house. It had been stated that there was great difficulty in obtaining another house in Watford, and that a hardship would be inflicted upon Mr. Harvey. He, the judge, could not help that; nor could he take any notice of what the urban district council or the Government were proposing to do. He could only act according to the law. Cases of that kind are going on every week, from day to day, in the County Courts and I urge upon the Government the necessity of providing a better remedy than is contained in the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This is one of the cases in which undoubtedly there are many hardships, but it should not be forgotten that hardships make bad law, and you have to consider whether this Bill is going to do good or evil all over the country. I do not agree that the effect of the Bill will be to stop all sales, but it will stop sales where the owner is going to evict the occupying tenant. I think the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones), who cannot be accused of consistently supporting the wicked landlord or the property owner, during the years he has been in the House, and the fact that he has come forward as an opponent of this Bill and a champion of the rights of landlords—
  Mr. L. JONES: I do not oppose this Bill.
  Sir F. BAN BURY: My right hon. Friend does not oppose this Bill, but he thinks that it is an extremely bad one, and I agree with him, although I am not so sure that I shall go a little further than he has done and oppose this Bill. I am the owner of two houses, one at Yarmouth and the other at Maidenhead, and on the rents of those two houses I live. Yarmouth has been bombarded, with the result that I cannot let my house there, and the tenant took advantage of the fact that he can leave at a month's notice, and I cannot re-let. At Maidenhead my house is in great demand on account of air raids in London, and I am able to let my house there at such a rent which will secure the

  523
  income which I had before when my house in Yarmouth was let. Now my hon. Friend says I must not do that. The result is that a tenant when he wants to go out can do so if it is to his advantage, but when it is to the advantage of the landlord that he should go out the tenant is to have the right to stay in. It is a case of "heads I win and tails you lose." It is all very well to talk about hardship. How about the man who has a mortgage on a house and is told that he will have to pay a higher rate of interest? That is equally a case of hardship. How about the man who used to buy mutton at 8d. a pound and is now charged Is. 2d.? If there is any elates which has benefited by the War it is the working-class. The working classes have had their wages increased enormously, and yet they come and say, "No, we are not going to pay an increased rent if it does not suit us to pay it." It seems to me that if the Bill is carried you will prevent people from investing their money in house property, which is the very last thing that you want to do. I have had a letter from the Eccles and District Property Owners' Association, which says:
  "For many years past it has been the practice of thrifty working people to purchase, either for cash or through a building or other utility society, a house for themselves to occupy. The proposed Bill will not only effectually prevent this highly desirable business from being conducted, but will also stop thrift amongst a largo section of the community."
  The letter goes on to protest strongly against any such sweeping measure being introduced, the Clause with regard to aliens being considered sufficient. They also consider that the Increase of Rents and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act should be amended so as to allow additions to the rent, sufficient to cover the ever-increasing cost of labour and material for repairs. If you allow aliens in this country, you ought not to make provisions with regard to them different from those applying to anybody else; but as this Bill is introduced to meet the hardship arising from aliens leaving London owing to the air raids it would be sufficient if the Bill were confined to the case of aliens, as is suggested in this letter. There is, of course, the question of the increased cost of repairs. It now costs £1 to have a ceiling whitewashed as against 10s. before the War, as has been stated by my hon. Friend opposite. Undoubtedly, a considerable number of repairs ought to be
  524
  done which are not being done. A certain amount of repairs must be done. If they are not done, the owner is subject to interference or to an order being made upon him by the sanitary inspector. He is compelled to do a certain amount of repairs. Personally, I should like to see the Bill rejected altogether, but as that is a happy state of affairs which I know will not take place, I should like my right hon. Friend to accept the Amendment suggested that this should be subject to the decision of a Court. The case could be gone into carefully, and the judge could decide whether there were reasonable grounds, for allowing a person to buy and obtain possession of a house. It is impossible under the title to introduce an Amendment with regard to repairs, and that being so I think my right hon. Friend ought to deal a little lightly with people who happen to own this sort of property and who, as far as I know, are the only people who are not allowed to reap any advantage that may accrue owing to a rise in value from a variety of causes, chiefly from the War. I differ from my hon. Friend opposite, who says that he did not oppose the Act of 1915. I opposed that Act to the best of my ability. I was very unhappy when my right hon. Friend's predecessor (Mr. Long) —I yield to no one in my respect for him, and I believed that he would do all he could to maintain the traditions of the Conservative party—introduced a Bill which I should have thought would have been fathered by someone far in advance of my right hon. Friend on my left (Mr. Leif Jones). It was pain and grief to me to object to that Bill, but I did it. I am glad my hon. Friend opposite (Sir J. Boyton) sees that, not for the first time, when I have been in a minority it has turned out that I have been right. I trust that my right hon. Friend, who I know does not want to injure property, will remember that if you touch one class of property you do a far worse evil to the whole community than you do good by remedying the sort of grievances that have been brought forward. Why should a man not pay a little more for his house? Where are you going to stop? I am rather surprised at my hon. Friend behind me (Sir S. Coats), whom I have always regarded as a champion of the rights of property. He says that somebody was offered a house at the market value that he thought the price was too high, and that he did not buy it. But somebody else did, and why not? If

  525
  I want to buy a little cottage, I cannot get it at the pre-war price and have to pay more for it. Why on earth should not a person who wants to buy a house be able to pay a little more for it if he wants to? I do not intend to divide the House, because I do not think I should get anybody to support me, but I hope that when we come to the Committee stage some Amendments of the sort outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone will be accepted.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I had intended to move a reasoned Amendment to the Second Reading of this Bill, but in the circumstances and having regard to the course the Debate has followed, I do not propose to do so. Nevertheless, it will probably economise time if I put in the forefront of what I have to say the terms of the Amendment I should, in other circumstances, have moved. It would run, "That the House declines to proceed with the Bill until legislation has been introduced to allow the increased cost of repairs to be recovered from the tenant." I do not for a moment deny that grievances of a very serious character have arisen in connection with the working of the Increase of Rent Act, grievances such as those pointed out, in a speech of characteristic persuasiveness, by the President of the Local Government Board. I should, however, like to associate myself with what has just been said by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), and, in passing, to point out that those grievances, as be pointed out in 1915, were almost certain to arise when the legislature was guilty of interference—as it was guilty—with such freedom of contract as at that time did exist. What is the position in which we find ourselves to-day? You have not so far deemed it prudent to deal in these Rent Restrictions Acts with large landowners or the large propertied classes who may or may not be able to afford the depredations of the State. You are dealing—this is the point I desire to urge upon the attention of the House—in this class of property with a very large number of small owners, not plutocratic owners, but owners of very small property, who have invested in many cases, as I happen to know, practically the whole of the savings of a lifetime in purchasing what they regarded as a reasonably safe form of investment, namely, this small property in towns. I am informed, on authority which I cannot possibly dis-
  526
  pute, that there are a number of towns in the North of England where no less than 97 per cent. of the houses of this character are owned by men who are or have been working men themselves. I quote the figure to illustrate my point that it is not a question of the plutocratic owner, but of the small owner of small property.
  You are dealing in many cases with owners who rely upon the rents of their houses as their sole form of support and you are also dealing with another class of investors. An enormous amount of improvement in housing conditions in many of the large towns has been brought about by philanthropic associations such as those which are associated with the revered name of Miss Octavia Hill. A very large amount of property has been purchased by these philanthropic associations, which are to-day finding themselves in very grave difficulties in consequence of the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act of 1915, and still more the amending Act of 1917. That on the one side. On the other side you are dealing with tenants whose wages have in the majority of cases been enormously increased. What are you saying to these small investors? You have said you shall not increase your pre-war rents. You have not yet said that to the owners of the superior class. You are further saying to the small owners, "if you have increased these rents in order to cover the cost of legitimate repairs—not structural, but other repairs, no more than sufficient to cover the reasonable and legitimate cost of repairs—thatincrease of rent shall, under the Act of 1917, be actually refunded to the tenant. The result is that repairs are on every hand being held up because the cost has become practically prohibitive. I could give details in regard to the increased cost of repairs, especially in some of the Northern towns, with which I am more particularly acquainted. In consequence of that increase owners have been compelled under these Bills to postpone repairs which were urgently needed in the interest of the tenants, and if these Bills remain on the Statute Book, as there is only too much likelihood they will, beyond the duration of the War, a very large number of small property owners will be reduced literally to ruin. We have been told over and over again that this is one of the many war emergency measures, but there is this difference between it and other emergency measures, that in the other cases you have allowed a reason-

  527
  able return for actual out-of-pocket expenses which have been occasioned. In many cases the local authorities have compelled the landlords to carry out repairs. For these repairs they are not able, in a very large number of cases, to obtain any return whatever from the sitting tenant. I should therefore have been disposed to oppose this Bill, first, on the ground of the injustice which you are inflicting upon a very large number of deserving individuals who have invested their small savings in small property; also on the much wider ground of public policy. Those who are responsible for the guidance of public opinion in this country have been making appeals to the working classes und other classes to indulge in the virtue of thrift. Is this the way to encourage their thriftiness, to confiscate the savings which they have invested in a perfectly legitimate form of property? Is that the way you are going to encourage the thriftiness of the working classes? You desire, on the other hand—we all desire—to provide better housing facilities in the towns. Is this the way to encourage investments of money in house property? Is this the way to provide better housing facilities? Is this the way to induce the private investor to provide it? If I thought there was any possibility of support I should be very strongly disposed, as a mere protest, to divide the House on the Second Reading, but I shall not do so, for reasons which have been much better stated by my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury). I feel very strongly in sympathy with him and the hon. Member for Marylebone, and if they move the Amendments which they have adumbrated they can count upon my hearty support.
  Colonel GREIG: I would not have intervened at this stage were it not for an expression which fell from the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) and the speech which we have just hoard. No doubt in pre-war times much that was contained in that speech would have met with acquiescence from all of us, but let me tell the hon. Member (Mr. Marriott) of a case which came to my knowledge the other day. A man in the trenches wrote to me from the front saying that his mother, who was ill, and his sister, who had to go out to work to keep her going, were to be evicted this month because a sale of their house had taken place. That is the sort of thing we are trying to prevent
  528
  by this Bill. Economical theories and all those sort of things and free trade in houses and everything else, however much we like them in normal times, must go by the board now, when we Have got to keep our men at the front lighting for us. I am glad this Bill applies to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Ban-bury) said it was an air-raid Bill. It has nothing to do with air raids. The crisis is just as acute in Scotland on the West Coast, which is about as far and as safe from any air raid as anything can be in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "So it is in Belfast…"] It applies everywhere. In many of these places there are large munition factories and there has been an increase of population. It is because building has ceased that there are fewer houses for the people.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say that there was no demand for it. I believe that there is. All I said was that this Bill was brought in consequence of the agitation got up by newspapers in regard to air raids.
  Colonel GREIG: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not so. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs suggested that the Scottish Office had been indifferent to this question. On the contrary, the question was becoming very acute in Scotland, and questions were addressed to the Secretary for Scotland some months ago, and the right hon. Gentleman in reply said that the Scottish Office were watching carefully the operation of the Act, and, if it were necessary, they would take steps to bring forward a remedy. That was long before the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs ever moved in the matter. The same sort of thing was happening in England. The Scottish Office were in contact with the English Office and watching the question extremely carefully. Naturally legislation of this sort would have to be a Cabinet, question. The speeches to-night of the hon. Member behind me and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe show that it is a most difficult and delicate question. We in Scotland were favoured with a communication from the Incorporated Society of Law Agents in Scotland, protesting against the original Bill. We also had communications from the same society protesting against this Bill. That shows that the whole thing was surrounded with very great difficulty, and the earliest opportunity of action was taken both by

  529
  the Scottish and the English offices, because the crisis had become so acute in both countries that something had to be done. We are all delighted that this solution, limited though it is, has been found for this grievance, and look forward with some confidence to the grievance being considerably diminished.
  Mr. PETO: I am very glad that we have had a little break in the three speeches which so pathetically set forth the woes of landlords under the existing system. The hon. Member for Marylebone advised hon. Members to go to Yarmouth and Ramsgate and other places where property has depreciated in value. If we were to go and visit Bailleul at the present moment we should not find property there at its normal value. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London used less than his usual weight of argument when he solemnly suggested that leaving out of account altogether what tenancies in normal conditions might be in Maidenhead and Yarmouth, the landlord would be perfectly entitled in the case of maidenhead to charge as much rent for one year, if he could get it, as he would charge for two in normal years.
  That brings me to the point I want to press on the President of the Local Government Board. He said this Bill as it stands is an amendment of the original Bill, with these limitations of rent of very small values indeed, covering the vast majority of working-class tenants. He said, further, that if the higher rents were dealt with it was a very complicated question, and it would be very difficult to settle the value or legislate about it. I think, not that we have covered the cases that we ought not to have covered, for we have dealt undoubtedly with the property occupied by the majority of the wage-earning classes of this country, the classes whose wages have undoubtedly been increased enormously in amount, but we have left out the tenants who are small business people very often, who have suffered severely by the War, clerks and the like, whose salaries have not been increased, and, above all, with the wives and dependants of officers in the Army and Navy and mercantile marine whose husbands are away, and will, when they hear what is going on in this country, have an additional trouble and anxiety cast upon them. I am very sorry that the title of this Bill
  530
  is so narrow, and that the Lord Chancellor decided to bring in, in another place, a Bill so limited that we could not even deal with the very Sub-section of the Clause of the Act which it is proposed to amend, as we could have done with it if the title had been merely to amend Subsection (3) of Clause 2 of the Act of 1915. Surely that would have been a narrow enough title, if we really wanted to deal with the question, and to stop the leak in the Act which we are amending. But the right hon. Gentleman has said that he would welcome the opportunity to hear the experiences of Members as to the case for making the Bill retrospective. So far as it goes that could be done, and that if a case was made out for extending the rent limit to meet cases, in many instances of far greater hardship than is covered by the small limited rental in the original Act, he would consider it, and he almost promised to deal promptly with it in another Bill. I am never very ready to hope very much from a promise of that kind in such congested times as these, but at the same time there is such a case, and such a consensus of opinion, with the exception of the speeches of the three hon. Members—even the hon. Member for Oxford wants another Bill—he would be glad to deal with the question, and open up the argument on the question of repairs. I have already sent to the President of the Local Government Board a letter I received from the captain of a merchant ship which, is working from Southampton, in dangerous war work. In his letter he complains:
  "Surely we seafarers and our wives have sufficient worries in these times without the additional worry of keeping the roof over our heads."
  He says in his own case and in many cases in Southampton this process was going on, for his landlord offered him the house, and he adds:
  "This in itself has a sinister aspect, for it is tantamount to saying, 'buy the house at my price, or be turned out.'"
  If this was the case of a £26 house it could be dealt with under this, but the captain of a merchant vessel in the port of Southampton, with his wife and family, occupies a house of somewhat higher value than £26. Ten shillings a week is not a very high rent, and most of these cases are not covered unless we get a higher rent. Then, a few days after, the next time he came into port and had

  531
  an opportunity of meditating the question among his fellow captains and officers of merchant ships, he sent me a memorandum, signed by fifty-three chief officers and masters, and the like, of vessels going out of Southampton, all saying that they agreed with the previous letter he had written. That is only one aspect of the case. I do not suppose there is one of us who has not heard of cases of the wives of men who are actually at the front or at sea, in the Army or the Navy, and I think it is really very urgent, considering the state of their income and of the incomes which their husbands in many cases have given up, to see that they are not turned out by the incursion of persons who very likely—I am not speaking of aliens—are doing very well out of the War, and who, in many cases, have reasons—some of them other than air raids, although the air-raid reason is quite a common one—for wanting to move to Maidenhead or Brighton, or some more salubrious spot than the immediate neighbourhood of London.
  Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the whole tenor of the three and a half hours' debate —three hours since the right hon. Gentleman finished his introductory speech—which has been sufficient to show him that it is necessary to introduce a further amending Bill at the earliest possible date. It can be a very short Bill, and there is no reason why it should not deal with the question of rates which has been raised by my hon. Friend. It must deal with the extension of rent value. There is another question it will have to deal with. The Wages Board have appointed a special Committee to consider the question of the economic rent of cottages under the Corn Production Act. The Committee has reported in favour of economic rents in every case. The Board has accepted the Report and sent it to all the district committees, and it cannot possibly be dealt with unless the right hon. Gentleman puts into his Amending Bill a provision which will not make it
  532
  illegal to place cottages of less than £26 annual value on an economic rent, although they may hitherto have been let at 1s. a week. That is another question you will have to deal with, and there is no reason why the Amendment which has caused so much trouble, which was introduced into the Act of 1915 by the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Agriculture, should not be limited to agricultural cases. That would also do a great deal more to stop another leakage. This Bill stops one leakage, but there are three or four more which are left to be dealt with.
  Mr. FISHER: May I ask the House to give me the Second Heading of this Bill to-night. It is important that we should get this stage, if possible, this evening. I cannot help feeling that those desirous of speaking will be able to make most of the remarks they desire to make on the Committee stage. The Bill has met with a very favourable reception to-night, and there was only one downright opponent, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who was in his very best pre-war and almost pre-historic mood. Otherwise, the Bill has been most favourably received, and, I think, the further points can well be met in discussion in Committee. Therefore, I earnestly hope the House will let us have the Second Reading to-night.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Hope.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    PRESENT CONDITIONS AS TO INCOME.
    PRESENT CONDITIONS AS TO INCOME.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
    MAIZE.
    MAIZE.
    HOME FORCES (RATIONS).
    HOME FORCES (RATIONS).
    ALLOTMENTS (TENURE).
    ALLOTMENTS (TENURE).
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    NATIONAL EDUCATION OFFICE, DUBLIN.
    NATIONAL EDUCATION OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  IRISHMEN TEMPORARILY RESIDENT IN GREAT BRITAIN.
  IRISHMEN TEMPORARILY RESIDENT IN GREAT BRITAIN.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  MEN RELEASED FOR AGRICULTURAL WORK.
  MEN RELEASED FOR AGRICULTURAL WORK.
  FISHING REGULATIONS, HOWTH.
  FISHING REGULATIONS, HOWTH.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SOLDIERS LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS LEAVE.
  SS. "ARAGON" (LOSS).
  SS. "ARAGON" (LOSS).
  MILITARY LABOUR, NORTH WALL, DUBLIN.
  MILITARY LABOUR, NORTH WALL, DUBLIN.
  PRISONERS OF WAR, HITCHIN.
  PRISONERS OF WAR, HITCHIN.
  DISCHARGED AND DISABLED SOLDIERS (MEDICAL TREATMENT),
  DISCHARGED AND DISABLED SOLDIERS (MEDICAL TREATMENT),
  REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT, BENGAL.
  REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT, BENGAL.
  INSURANCE AGENTS (WAGES).
  INSURANCE AGENTS (WAGES).
  TIPPERARY POST OFFICE.
  TIPPERARY POST OFFICE.
  Agrarian Disturbances, Bombay.
  Agrarian Disturbances, Bombay.
MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House. I desire also to give notice that a Motion in similar terms will be made to-morrow, in order that the subsequent stages of the Military Service Bill may then be concluded.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for this day's sitting in order to take the First and Second Readings of the Military Service Bi11.—(The Earl of Cranford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Military Service Bill. In doing so I am sure it will be unnecessary for me—and I am convinced that your Lordships would not thank me if I were to do so—to go into any detail as to the reasons which have made the Bill necessary. Many Ministerial statements of importance have been made already, and it is, unfortunately, a matter of common knowledge that we need all the men who can be obtained to fill up our reserves which have been depleted by supplying our fighting troops and also to meet the new half-million which the Germans are already calling to the Colours.
This Bill, with the action which the Government may take under it if it becomes an Act, does not represent in any degree the full efforts which the Government are making to meet the new emergency. Administrative measures under existing powers are being taken at the same time. Under the Military Service Act of this year a large Schedule has been laid upon the Table of this House taking away a large number of exemptions on occupational grounds. That Schedule is already being
706
acted upon, and large numbers of men are being drawn from these occupations for service in the Army. Not only has action been taken under this Schedule, but the process of what is commonly known as the "comb-out" going on in the protected industries. Two sets of 50,000 men are being drawn, for instance, from the coal-mining industry; and no less a call than for 100,000 is being made upon the great industry of munitions. Therefore, in dealing with the provisions of this Bill I would ask your lordships to have constantly in mind the fact that this Bill represents only a portion of the national activity in supplying the requirements of our Army and the fighting forces.
During the passage of this measure in another place comparatively few changes were made from the original draft of the Bill. I should like to summarise them quite briefly, and, if necessary, I can deal with them more in detail when I reach the particular clauses involved. These changes were largely in the nature of retaining the power of Parliament—of both Houses of Parliament—over the operations of the Government in the exercise of the new powers which they are claiming under the Bill. There is one provision which was introduced but which your Lordships may now observe has fallen out of the Bill—the provision removing the exemption of the clergy. The third change that has been made is that the grounds on which men can apply to Tribunals for exemption have been re-inserted in the Bill. In the original draft certain changes and limitations were proposed in regard to these grounds. The fourth point is that there have been introduced into the Exceptions Clause certain classes of disabled men and discharged men who are now definitely placed entirely outside the purview of the Bill, if the Bill passes in its present shape.
Now let me deal with the actual contents of the Bill itself. I think it will be quite convenient to follow the clauses as they appear in the Bill. The main clause, so far as Great Britain is concerned, is the first. Under this clause, as your Lordships are probably already aware, there is a very important extension of age. The previous military age was forty-one, but as that age dated from nearly two years ago the actual military age at present is forty-three. The Bill proposes to raise the military age so as to include persons who have not yet

707
attained the age of fifty-one, that adding some eight years to the existing military age. Another detailed change has been introduced into the Bill. Previously the Military Service Bill applied to persons "ordinarily resident" in these islands, but the phrase "ordinarily resident" has, I understand, given rise to a great deal of very difficult legal interpretation, and it has been thought desirable that there should be substituted the words "is resident." Possibly this may give rise to some hardships in the cases of persons who are temporarily in these islands for the purposes of business, but it has been thought better that these cases should be dealt with administratively. In that event any question of hardship can easily be dealt with.
The next point is one of rather greater importance. Your Lordships will notice that in Clause 1 there is no "appointed day"; that is to say, there is no "appointed day" on which persons either become soldiers or fall into the reserve. It has been thought better, owing to the administrative difficulty which has been caused by the "appointed day," that immediately on the passing of the Act all those persons to whom the Act applies—that is to say, those who have not yet attained the age of fifty-one—shall become soldiers and shall pass automatically into the reserve. It must not be inferred from that that these men will be at once called up. On the contrary, I think I ought to detail the procedure for calling them up. First of all, before it is necessary for them to take any steps, a general notice will be given that men of certain ages will be called up—let me say men of the ages of forty-four and forty-five. After that, specific notice will be given to individuals that they are required to present themselvesformedical examination. After they have passed the medical examination, within seven days they are expected, if they wish, to apply to the Tribunal. If they do not apply to the Tribunal, and do not get exemption, then they are liable to be called up. The regulations under which they will apply to the Tribunals will, of course, be made by the Local Government Board.
Let me now say a word as to the nature of the services which they will be expected to undertake. No undertaking has been given, or can be given, that these older men will be employed merely in home defence. On the contrary. It is believed
708
that many of these men, although they are older, will be of a high medical category, and that some of them will be able to take their place in the fighting line. Others, of course, will no doubt not be fit for other duties than to take up work at home, or in France or elsewhere. which will enable younger men to be released for the more active and agile duties of the fighting line. They will be used wherever their services can best be utilised.
The next point with which I should like to deal is the possible disturbance of business. It is obvious—and great apprehensions have been raised in the minds of many persons—that the withdrawing for Army purposes of men of these comparatively advanced ages from different occupations and businesses must cause a great disturbance, because many of them hold leading and important positions in business. It is suggested that the dislocation of business may be greater than the advantage to the Army in obtaining this number of men. The best answer I think I can give, on behalf of the National Service Department, to the fears of that kind is that they have been engaged for a long time in mitigating these particular difficulties already. There is one section of the National Service Department, presided over by a distinguished Civil Servant, whose whole business it is to examine, in consultation with the different heads of trades and businesses, both employers and employed, the effect which the different callings up of the men in different occupations may and must have on those particular businesses;and I need hardly say that infinitely greater trouble and care must be taken when you are dealing with the calling up of these older men because of the necessarily more important places they occupy in their businesses and in the general business of the country.
The question has been raised as to what will be the actual yield of men between the ages of forty-three and fifty-one years, and a percentage has been given in another place on which I should like to say a word, because I think it is important that the figure of 7 per cent. which it was suggested might be called up of these older men should not be taken as a rigid figure or implying any definite percentage of the men who are liable to be called up. The number of 7 per cent. is, of course, an estimate. It is an estimate based on the experience of men who have been called up between the

709
ages of thirty-nine and forty-three, next in lateness, and it was found that in the first year not more than 10 per cent, of these men were called up, and another 10 per cent, in the subsequent year. Based on that experience—there can be no other to go upon, and it is corrected by the know-lodge of the position in business of these older men—it is considered that 7 per cent, would be the proportion that would be called up during the first year. It is only an estimate, and is in no sense a pledge or undertaking that more may not be called up.
Then I should like to say a word about a clause which your Lordships will see no longer in the Bill—the clause regarding ministers of religion. The reason why that clause has been dropped out of the Bill is merely this, that after careful examination of the numbers that would be obtained, after considering those who would not be in the higher medical category and the necessity of ministering to the spiritual needs of this country, it was found that the number who would be liable to military service was so small as not to make it worth while for the Government to go through all the administrative labour necessary in order to obtain that particular number of men.
I have stated briefly those men who would be liable to be called up, and I think, before I go further, I ought to call your Lordships' attention to the First Schedule, which contains a description of those men who are entirely outside the purview of the Bill, who are exceptions to the Bill, and whom the Bill does not affect in any way. Your Lordships will see that the first three clauses refer to mot usually resident in the Dominions and abroad, then to persons serving in His Majesty's Forces—the Army, the Territorial Force (if they are liable to foreign service), the Navy, the Royal Marines, and the Air Force. Then there are certain paragraphs excepting various classes of disabled men who have served, also certain men who have not served but who have been found to be useless for military purposes through ill-health, and so on. The general effect of Clause 4 of the First Schedule is to provide a statutory exception from liability to discharged soldiers and certain rejected men, who at the present time are free from liability either under the provisions of previous Statutes or because of exemption previously given to them by the Government. In that Schedule you will find a full list of those exceptions.
710
I must now ask your Lordships to follow me further through the details of the Bill. Under proviso (a) of Clause 1 the Government take power, if necessary, to raise the liability to service up to the age of fifty-six, and you will see that there is a provision by which both Houses of Parliament retain special power over the operation of that proviso. A draft Order in Council is to be made, and that draft Order is not to be submitted to His Majesty in Council unless each House presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the Order may be made. Thus you will see that the fullest power is retained by both Houses of Parliament on the question as to whether the military age is to be raised to fifty-six. Then, in proviso (b), there follows a, provision that in the case of doctors the age shall be fifty-six and not fifty-one years. It would be perfectly possible to raise the age for the doctors under proviso (a), but it is thought better at once to insert this provision. For this reason—and it is, I think, a very honourable reason indeed for including the medical profession—that for very many causes, partly through losses and partly through greater necessity, the shortage of medical men has become so great that it is absolutely necessary to apportion medical men very carefully between soldiers and civilians, and to take care that there is net only not a shortage, of doctors for the Army but that there is not a shortage of doctors for the multiform requirements of ordinary civilian life.
I can deal, I think, rather more briefly with subsection (2) of the first clause. The effect of it is to remove the exemptions of men who have arrived at a time when they could be discharged, having served for twelve years and being forty-one years of age. It is quite obvious that this exemption must be removed as the general age has been raised to fifty-one. The second part of this sub-section retains the existing exemption in the case of prisoners of war when; they have been released under undertakings made with foreign Powers. The subsection therefore does away with any private undertakings, if I may so call them, which have not been recognised by His Majesty's Government.
I now come to one of the most important clauses of the Bill, the part relating to Ireland. As your Lordships know, the Government, after very grave consideration of all the various risks involved, have decided to apply compulsory service to

711
Ireland. They are satisfied that by doing this they will be able to obtain a considerable number of young and valuable soldiers for His Majesty's Forces. Parliament, of course, is the only authority that can apply compulsory service to Ireland, and therefore it falls upon Parliament so to apply it. I think I may add, as the matter has been so much discussed in other places, that under any form of Home Rule or Devolution that might be granted to Ireland it must lie with the Central Authority to deal with all matters of organisation for defence or with the raising of forces for the Army and the Navy. As to the connection, if there be a connection, between the proposals in this Bill and a possible Home Rule Bill, I do not propose to say anything on that subject at present, because whatever the relation may be, direct or indirect, or whether there be any relation between the two measures, the matter does not appear to me to arise, directly at any rate, out of this Bill or out of its details. Therefore I intend to leave that subject, if necessary, for a later stage.
I want to call your Lordships' attention to the way in which compulsory service is to be applied to Ireland. It is not to be applied immediately by this Bill, but the Government take power by Order in Council to apply compulsory service to Ireland. Why is that done? It is done for the reason that none of the machinery for working compulsory service in Ireland exists at the present time. Proper registration arrangements have to be made, and, above all, the Tribunals have to be set up to deal with cases of exemption as they do in this country; in short, all this machinery has to be constituted in Ireland before compulsory service can be put into operation. There is this further very important result—and perhaps it is a came—of that way of dealing with the matter. Before compulsory service was introduced into this country everybody not only had warning, but the matter was discussed for some time beforehand, and those who did not like to be fetched had ample opportunity of voluntarily offering themselves if they chose. It is quite clear, therefore, that a time must intervene between the passing of this Bill and its being put into operation in Ireland which will afford a magnificent opportunity for those young men in Ireland who are anxious to join the Army and take part in this tremendous struggle, and who yet object to conscription being applied to Ireland, to come forward and join the Army
712
and thereby defeat the objects or the necessities of conscription. The only other point on the Irish clause that I need mention is that the Order may also provide for special Courts where offences under the Military Service and Army Acts can be tried. These may either be existing Courts or Courts specially set up for the purpose.
Clause 3 covers a totally different matter. It deals with cases of grave national emergency. Any action taken Under Clause 3 must be taken directly by and at the instance of the Cabinet itself. The Cabinet are and must be the sole judges of what that national emergency is and of when it has arisen. The operations under this clause are to be carried out not by Order in Council but by the solemn and public procedure of Proclamation. Your Lordships, I think, are well aware that under the Acts already passed this year the Government have power to and can through the Minister of National Service remove exemptions granted on occupational grounds, and only a few days age a comprehensive Order and Schedule of that kind were laid upon the Table of the House. But under that power these exemptions can only be removed on occupational grounds, and those from whom these exemptions are removed still have power on other grounds to apply to the Tribunals. Under this power the Government can now by Proclamation wipe away not only all these exemptions on occupational grounds, but all exemptions given on personal grounds, making what is really a clean cut through the industries and occupations of the country.
There are two exceptions to this. First of all, the cases of people who have had exemptions from Tribunals on the ground of ill-health, and, secondly, for conscientious objectors. I should like to add that this power of dealing with exemptions under Proclamation must not be confused with the power already possessed of dealing with protection certificates for protected industries. But, of course, at the same time th t the Government applied this clean cut to all these exemptions, they might also, with certain necessary exemptions for shipbuilding and industries of that kind, apply the clean cut up to a certain age through the protected industries as well. These powers are very great and very exceptional, intended only to be used on occasions of great emergency, and

713
powers which after the emergency had passed away might also be revoked and removed. The second subsection deals with the suspension of the granting of certificates of exemption during the operation of that Proclamation; otherwise the objects of the Proclamation might easily be defeated.
Clause 4 deals mainly with the question of Tribunals. The regulations as regards the Tribunals are not made by Order in Council but are made by the Local Government Board. Testimony has been publicly given by the President of the Local Government Board to the work of the Tribunals, and I need add nothing to what he has said. But it has been found in the working of these institutions that there has been first of all a very unequal distribution of the work among the different Tribunals, owing to the varying circumstances in different parts of the country. Not only that, but the areas in winch the different Tribunals operate have been found in many cases to be very inconvenient. I understand that the Local Government Board propose to alter those areas and to alter in many eases the composition Of the Tribunals. It was indicated in another place that probably these Tribunals would in the future be nominated, and that certain changes would be made in the procedure; for instance, that applications for exemption should not be made at different times by a man and by his employer, but that all the applications should be made at the same time. In that way and in various other ways which have not yet been settled, but winch will be embodied in regulations by the Local Government Hoard, it is hoped to standardise and speed up the work of the Tribunals, and therefore to make more rapid and easier the method of passing men into the Army.
Before I pass from the. Tribunals I should like to say—I think I did just indicate this point—that there was to have been made a change in the grounds on which men could apply to the Tribunals, but these grounds have been re-inserted in the Bill and remain as they were before. Penalties are dealt with in subsection (2); and under subsection (3) and subsection (4) certain changes are made in procedure by which the onus of proof in showing that a man has a certificate is thrown upon the man himself, and men whose certificates have ceased to operate are expected to transmit those certificates to the nearest
714
National Service office when they cease to operate. It is obvious, when there is this larger amount of dc-certifying, that it becomes very important for the purpose of dealing with the own that it should be known as soon as possible who are the men who have been de-certified. Subsection (5) is really a technical subsection, which is necessary because those persons who have hitherto been exceptions and outside the purview of the Bill are now cases of exemption. Therefore it is necessary to state that they will not be called up to the Colours while they hold these exemptions; I although they can be called up for medical examination, they need not be and cannot be called up to the Colours.
Clause 5 proposes to make certain changes in Conventions entered into with Allied States. These Conventions, of course, are made on the basis of the military age being forty-one. Now that it is proposed to raise the military age to fifty-one it becomes necessary for the Government to obtain power to modify and alter those Conventions with Allied States, so that the new age-limit of military service can be recognised in those Conventions. Clause 6 deals with the powers of altering or revoking Orders in Council.
Clause 7 is a very important clause, because it affirms and retains the powers of both Houses of the Legislature over operations carried on by Orders in Council under this Bill. If, within fourteen days after the Order is laid on the Table, an Address is presented praying that an Order should be annulled, then His Majesty in Council may annul the Order. It will be seen, therefore, that these Orders in Council will come into operation at once, but may be annulled on the presentation of these Addresses. Thus, both Houses retain full power over the operations of the Executive.
I should add that under Clause 8 certain definitions are given. One of those definitions has the effect of bringing on to the same basis procedure as regards the certificates of exemption given to attested and unattested men. It is necessary at this time that this distinction should for administrative purposes no longer exist.
Now I think I have dealt fully with the details of the Bill. Let me summarise very briefly these provisions. Mainly the Government ask you to raise the military age, to extend compulsory service to Ireland, to remodel the Tribunals, and to give them

715
power in cases of emergency to make a clean cut up to a certain age of those exemptions that have been granted. These powers are very wide and very drastic, and it would be quite impossible for the Government to ask for them unless the situation itself were grave and menacing. But the Government ask you to confer on them these powers because they believe that by the granting of them their hands will be strengthened for one purpose, and for one purpose only, the winning of the war.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition for allowing me to follow for a very few minutes the speech of the noble Viscount opposite. I do not intend to enter into the details of this Bill, for many reasons;but most of all because I look upon it, as the noble Viscount does, as an emergency Bill proposed to Parliament in a moment of grave national peril—not a Bill to be closely canvassed in Committee, not a Bill to be amended as we should amend under ordinary circumstances a measure of this importance, but a Bill of a very drastic character, as the noble Viscount has said, to be passed to help the Government and the country in one of the gravest moments of the national history.
I do not believe that there is any limit to which the country would not go in supporting the Government. If the Government approach the country in the right spirit and with a right confidence in their countrymen, they might ask for almost anything. I noticed that the noble Viscount spoke of the percentage figure which had been indicated in the other House as representing probably the number of these older men who would be called up, but I was very glad that Lord Peel would not bind himself to that figure. He is perfectly right. It may be necessary to call more than 7 per cent. to the Colours. But whether that figure is exceeded or not, the power which His Majesty's Government take under this Bill of applying compulsory service to these older men will be valuable inasmuch as it places in their power the reorganisation of occupation which will enable younger men to be released for military service.
Whilst I had the honour of a connection with the Central Tribunal I was deeply
716
impressed with the necessity of promoting the policy of substitution, which at that time was talked about a great deal. I am bound to say that we found the greatest difficulty in persuading the Government Departments who had to do with that subject of the necessity of helping us. A great deal more might have been done, and, I believe, might now be done, by the method of substitution in order to get recruits without disorganising industry; and I earnestly hope that the Government will apply their attention to that particular point.
For the rest, I desire to give a wholehearted support to this Bill; and I believe I am speaking not for myself alone but in the name of the whole of your Lordships when I say that we desire to support this Bill. I do not mean to say that I think that, in this matter of providing for the Army, the conduct of the Government has been above criticism. I am afraid I am far from thinking that. But this is not the time for recrimination. Perhaps on a future occasion this might be more in place; and, indeed, I really think that, but for one subject, I should have nothing more to say to your Lordships on the present occasion.
But I must say a word about Ireland. I am of opinion that the Government are perfectly right to include Ireland in the Bill. As a matter of fact, I had the honour of urging that course upon the Government many months ago. I do not think it would have been possible to have come before the people of this country—of England and of Scotland—and proposed a Bill of this drastic character unless it had been accompanied by clauses applying compulsory military service to Ireland. The people of this country would have said, and rightly said, that it was intolerable that they should be called upon to send their sons, their brothers, their husbands, and go themselves to fight, and that all these lusty young Irishmen should escape.
I have a word more to say upon Ireland. The noble Viscount in his speech referred to a mysterious connection which exists between the subject of this Bill and the subject of self-government in Ireland. There is a mysterious connection; but evidently the noble Viscount had not fathomed what it is. There is an atmosphere of mystery about this connection which I do not think is very edifying. It may be vacillation; I will not believe

717
that it is humbug. But let us understand clearly what it is. I am not going to trouble your Lordships by repeating observations of my own which I have ventured to inflict upon the public by means of a public letter, but since that letter was written there have been declarations in the other House which make it necessary for me to say something. The Government seem to have been labouring in the House of Commons under some kind of apprehension—I do not mean concern for our position at the Front; in that, no doubt, all of us would warmly sympathise with them—but apprehensions of what effect compulsory service without Home Rule might have in other quarters. There were vague hints at the opinion of Labour if conscription were passed without Home Rule; and there were vague hints also of the opinion of America. Now, what are these apprehensions? To what do they amount? I do not pretend to be as well informed on this matter as His Majesty's Government, but my belief is that in many parts of England Labour is profoundly estranged from Ireland and from the views of Nationalist Ireland.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I doubt whether Labour is much concerned to defend Irish aspirations for self-government, having regard to the attitude of Ireland towards the war. And as to America— as I say, I do not pretend to know the secrets of the Foreign Office, but I know something—I am hound to say that what I know does not bear out the views suggested by the Prime Minister in the other House. At some time or other, if and when a Home Rule Bill reaches your Lordships' House, we shall expect to be informed more fully as to these matters, either publicly or in a Secret Session. At any rate, let us not profoundly alter the Constitution of this country under some misapprehension as to what other people think, either in America or here.
I will add one other word as regards Ulster. Let us have the most careful regard to the opinion of Ulster; we are bound to do so on grounds of honour. I would say to my noble friends. Unionists, who sit upon the Treasury Bench, Do not forget your honourable obligations in that matter; and I would say to the whole of your Lordships that, on every ground, it is more important that we should keep Ulster
718
with us than the whole of the rest of Ireland. For these reasons, though I welcome this Bill, and as far as I am concerned earnestly hope it may pass rapidly into law, I would respectfully retain complete liberty of action as to what I should wish to do and when the Home Rule Bill reaches us from another place.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am quite certain that the whole House will have appreciated the manner in which the noble Viscount opposite has asked your Lordships to read this Bill a second time. He displayed the same excellent clearness and economy of statement and the same persuasiveness of argument to which we have already become well used when he has been placed in charge of an important measure. The noble Viscount and His Majesty's Government are at this moment, as regards all the details as well as the principle of this Bill, in possession of an advantage which is a depressing one in itself and one which I am sure nobody is likely to envy them. Like all the rest of your Lordships, they, of course, must be profoundly impressed by the necessities of the existing situation, and in view of it we should all of us, I am certain, be unwilling to say or do anything which can hamper them in the work they carry on, because indeed one hardly likes to think of the burden of anxiety which rests upon the shoulders of the members of the Cabinet who are now specially responsible for the conduct of affairs. We all greatly regret the absence of the noble Earl who leads the House, and its cause, and I sincerely hope that before this Bill is through the House it may be possible for its Leader to be in his place here.
I do not think it is possible to question the general necessity for a measure of this kind in the face of what is known of the needs of the Army and the demands made upon man-power. I merely desire to make one or two general observations, and to follow them by observations on one particular clause in the Bi 1. Speaking generally, the raising of the age to fifty-one, which appears to be in itself a strong measure, as against the military age in France, of forty-eight and. in Italy of forty-five, is not I am sure likely to meet opposition in your Lordships' House. In the abstract there would be much to say for not naming any age-limit at all, but for obliging every man who is physically fit to serve in some capacity. There are

719
exceptional men—like my old friend the late Captain Selous, for instance—who carry past middle life an activity of body as well as of mind which is not the privilege of the many. There are men engaged in out-door occupations in England. past fifty and verging on sixty years of age who to all appearance are capable of the most strenuous and continued physical exertion; therefore there would be much to say for not naming an age-limit at all, but for the dominating fact that the condition of uncertainty which would thereby be created, applicable to men engaged in farming and other businesses, might be regarded as almost intolerable. Therefore it is no doubt wiser to fix an age representing an average maximum, as has been done in the Bill. I am glad also that, in order to increase that feeling of certainty, it is only possible to raise the age up to fifty-six with the consent of Parliament, and not, as was at first proposed, by the mere issue of a Government Order.
There is, however, one matter in which I hope that the noble Viscount and His Majesty's Government will take this age question into consideration. It is a point which is likely to be mentioned by other noble Lords, though I should like to say a few words upon it. It is with regard to the Volunteer Force. The Volunteer Force in many of its most valuable elements is composed of men who will fall within the new rule. If the officers and. non-commissioned officers of that Force are in any numbers taken for general military service you might as well abolish the Volunteers altogether. I trust, therefore, that it is a point which will be carefully borne in mind to see how far it is possible to take capable men from the Volunteers— efficient and instructed men— for military purposes without irretrievably damaging that force, the value of which is generally admitted by high military authorities.
In particular, I might call attention to one sentence which fell from the noble Viscount. When he spoke of the 7 per cent. as likely to be available for actual military service—that is to say, in the fighting line—he mentioned that there might be many others who would be available for Army purposes both at home and abroad. So far as the question of service abroad is concerned by such men who cannot be actually placed in the front line, I hope that the necessity of keeping at home enough fit men for the Volunteers will especially be borne in mind. I think that the con-
720
cessions which were made in another place—the statement, for instance, that it would be the youngest men falling within the new rule who would be medically examined first, also that the special needs of small businesses would be carefully borne in mind;and I feel certain also, though I am not sure whether the noble Viscount mentioned it, that the interest of agricultural production will not be forgotten—all those concessions are to the good. To the good also are the various safeguards of Parliamentary sanction which, in the course of the progress of the Bill, have been inserted, as the noble Viscount told us when speaking of Clause 7 of the Bill.
It may be asked how it is, in this time of crisis when the need is admitted, that there should be so many questions and. so many expressions of doubt as we have seen both in Parliament and in the Press since this Bill was first printed. We are told that in this matter we have to trust the Government and rely on the sensible administration of the Bill and the wise use of these powers. It cannot be denied that there have been some rather bitter experiences in the past in this connection. With the experiences of the past in their mind the people ask, "Can we be confident that the selection that is made from this large block of men of a greater age will be the most reasonable selection? Can we rely upon the particular exemptions that are granted being the most reasonable exemptions from the national point of view? Is there a danger that, in order to swell the numbers of those who can be described as forming part of the Army, unfit men will be passed, and, at any rate for a time, nominally become soldiers?" These are questions which the public asks, and in view of what happened in the earlier stages of the war, I do not think His Majesty's Government can altogether be surprised at or resent these questions. In the second place it is asked, "Will there be a guarantee that the right use will be made of the special skill or the particular experience of an individual when he is called up and actually joins the Army? "As I say, there has been some melancholy experience in the past on all these points, and it is really useless to say that only individual instances can be named of failures of this kind. We know very well that all failures and scandals are composed and made up of individual instances. The German atrocities, which make our blood run cold, represent a series of individual instances of brutality. The

721
whole question is, What is the total number and what is the proportion of unfortunate or mismanaged cases to the total figure of those who are called up? Therefore, I am certain that His Majesty's Government were wise, in the course of the progress of the Bill in another place, to secure a regular system of appeals rather than follow the course which evidently was first in their minds— that of the practical abolition of appeals altogether, except to a central Tribunal.
On this question of certainty, I cannot help feeling that Clause 3 of the Bill, which gives the Government power to abolish practically all exemptions in view of a national emergency, may cause rather more uneasiness and sense of instability than the power itself is worth. It is quite clear that if Parliament is sitting and such an emergency arises the power will not be necessary. In any case, I do not follow the argument of the noble Viscount when he spoke of a Proclamation as being of a more solemn character than an Order in Council. As a former President of the Council I must be allowed to say that the act of the King in Council appears to me as formal and as solemn as any public act can possibly be. We sitting here may have no fear that this particular power is likely to be abused, but I think it is unfortunate if it does create any feeling of uncertainty or instability such as that which I have indicated may possibly occur.
The only other matter on which I wish to speak is that of Clause 2 and the application of the Bill to Ireland, on which the noble Marquess who spoke last and who has had to leave the House, dwelt during the greater part of his remarks. I may say at once, my Lords, that I have no sympathy whatever with those Irishmen who take the view that it is possible for Ireland, or a large part of the population of Ireland, to refrain from taking its proper place in the Empire in the prosecution of this eminently just war. All the best Irish opinion, as we know, has rallied to the cause on the right side. Ireland is no doubt properly described as a nation. I have for the greater part of my life been in full sympathy with the Nationalist aspirations, but I cannot dispute what I think was said by the Prime Minister in another place yesterday, that Ireland is a nation precisely in the same sense that Scotland and Wales are nations, and neither more nor less. I should expect any noble
722
Lord from Scotland or from Wales in this House to hold that view.
Further, I do not altogether differ from the noble Marquess who spoke last in saying that if a large proportion of the young men of Ireland stand aloof from service during the war I greatly dread a permanent embitterment of the relations, not between the Government and Ireland, but between the peoples—or the democracies, if you prefer the phrase—of Great Britain and of Ireland itself. That I believe to be a genuine danger. At the same time I cannot forget that at the earlier stages of the war the relations between Ireland and the Army were grossly and woefully mismanaged. That, I think, is beyond all dispute. Neither can I forget that the aspirations of Ireland for self-government, which sire noble Marquess regarded as altogether disconnected from this question, although I confess I do not see how it is possible to separate them, have been deferred, not entirely through the fault of Parliament or through the fault of England and Scotland, but as a matter of fact they have been deferred for many years after it was believed they were going to fructify.
The noble Marquess said just now that under any system of Home Rule questions of war and national defence must be left to the Imperial Parliament, and could not, therefore, form part not merely of the duties but of the interests of an Irish Legislature. Technically that may be quite true. Yet it is the fact that when we were considering the reservation of defence questions to the Imperial Parliament, such a question as the conscription of men from eighteen up to fifty-one years never crossed the minds of those who were engaged in framing, or even of those who were engaged in criticising, the Bill. I do not believe if the Home Rule Act had been m operation it would have been practically possible to pass a conscription law for Ireland without the general concurrence of an Irish Legislature sitting in Dublin.
That brings me to the main point of objection which I have to enforce from such knowledge of Ireland as I possess, although it is now, I am sorry to say, getting to be of rather old standing. The Bill says nothing whatever about the manner in which its application is to be extended to Ireland. Not a hint is given as to the Courts or Tribunals by which exemptions are to be considered. If you attempt to set up in Ireland Tribunals of at, all the

723
same character as those which exist in England, it is obvious that exemptions will be granted with a freedom which would be likely in many parts of Ireland to render your Act absolutely nugatory. On the other hand, if you proceed to what would, in fact, be the principle of the Press gang—a Tribunal nominated without popular element, sitting and examining no doubt with an intention to do justice, but examining particular cases with no special sympathy and perhaps without a close regard to local conditions—the process would have to be in fact a forcible one. The Tribunals would have to assume a military character, and it might even be necessary that a machine-gun should form part of their equipment. I confess that I am entirely at a loss to understand by what means His Majesty's Government hope now, if they intend to proceed at all quickly, to carry out the actual, practical work of deciding what exemptions are to be granted, and who is to be forced to serve.
In my judgment the wiser course would have been for the Government at this stage to have left Ireland out of the Bill altogether. They should first have taken the course which as I understand from the debate yesterday in another place they now propose to take—of bringing in a Home Rule measure, agreed as nearly as possible on the general lines of the Convention's recommendations, and passing it into law as fast as they could. They might, I think, have combined that introduction with a strong appeal to the Irish Members of Parliament and to any public opinion they are able to influence in Ireland to proceed as quickly as possible to collect as many men as could be got to the Colours by voluntary means. It may be said that the greater part of these young men are Sinn Feiners, Republicans, and opposed to the British connection, and therefore to the British Army. As I say, my experience is old, but I think I have told the House before that when I was Viceroy of Ireland it was estimated by the Police that there were 60,000 men at that time in Ireland—twenty-five years ago—who had taken the Fenian oath. That was a time when Ireland was comparatively quiet. There was some agrarian crime but not a great deal, and there were no extended riots. It was the Police computation that of those 60,000 people who had taken the oath there were not more than about 2,000 who could be regarded as Fenians at all, or
724
Wren who would be described in any way as dangerous;and I venture to think that among those who are declared Sinn Feiners it would he found there are many grades and degrees of opinion, some of it not dangerous, perhaps in certain cases more fanciful and romantic than violent—a kind of opinion which could be roused in the right direction by being approached in the proper spirit and in a reasonable way. At any rate, I would have made that trial. His Majesty's Government, I think. would have done better if, instead of including in the first instance this provision in their Bill and coming to Parliament to announce that they desire to carry a Home Rule Bill pari passu, not with this Bill but with its operation, they had somewhat reversed the process, and had first spoken of their Home Rule measure, and in the last resort, if necessary, had had reference to compulsion. We all know that Ireland is apt to baffle the prophesies even of those who know her much better than I claim to do, but I cannot regard this prospect without grave misgivings, although I admit that from my point of view those misgivings were greatly mitigated by the later course of the debate in another place. It is very difficult to believe that the action of His Majesty's Government has been the fruit of clear and united counsels on this matter. It wears the appearance of an attempt to combine incompatible policies, and for that reason it cannot be supposed to be altogether coherent.
I have in this particular matter, I fear, adopted a somewhat critical tone, but I desire to say that not for a moment should I dream of offering any opposition to what His Majesty's Government believe, on information infinitely wider and deeper than any of us can possess, to be required for the needs of the Army at present. We know that our troops are greatly outnumbered on the Western Front, certainly on those parts of it at which the hardest fighting is taking place. They are contesting as heroes every inch of ground against those overwhelming odds. Let it not be said that any man here—and I certainly would not be that man—has attempted to keep back a single man from standing at the side of those who are maintaining the honour of England in such terrible circumstances as these. But I would venture to plead with His Majesty's Government for the exercise of a very sober judgment in regard to the application of the Act, when it is an Act, to Ireland, and also to

725
plead fur an exceedingly close supervision of the operations of the earlier clauses of the Bill at home, lest it should happen that by the excessive zeal of some subordinates an industry vital to us in the present crisis is hampered, and that the present satisfaction of adding a large number of men to the ranks of the Army may only be enjoyed at the cost of something like a disaster in the future.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I rise to say a few words upon a subject different from that which has been handled by the two noble Marquesses who have just spoken from the Opposition Bench, but a subject which was alluded to first by the noble Viscount in the points which he raised as to the changes made by the Bill, and one upon which something, I think, ought to be said at the earliest possible moment. I allude to the position of the clergy under the Bill as it now stands. It is a point upon which misunderstanding may quite possibly arise—I think I should say has already arisen—and real injustice may be done. Words were spoken yesterday in the House of Commons which showed that there is a widely felt, or at all events a keen, misapprehension upon the position, which I desire to make as clear as I can in a few words.
May I quite briefly remind your Lordships of what has happened in regard to the matter. In the original Military Service Act of 1916 it was provided— and the clause reappears in the Schedule to the present Bill— that men in Holy Orders or ministers of any religious denomination were to be specifically excepted from the provisions of the Bill. I want to make it clear again—I have done it before— that such exemption was not inserted in the Bill at our request. The Bishops and clergy of the Church of England asked for no such exemption or exception; it was placed in the Bill without our even knowing that it was to be there, but, as I pointed out at the time, the provision betokened, as it seemed to me, what was then at any rate a wise opinion upon the nation's part.
Before speaking on the subject in this House at that time I took care to consult those who could advise best in a matter of that kind in the highest military quarters, including especially Lord Kitchener, and I was emphatically assured by him of agreement in the view that I entertained and
726
expressed that the provision in the Bill, though we had not asked for it, was on the nation's part a wise one as things then stood. I tried to point out at that time why it seemed to me to be wise. It was important in the first place for provision to be made in every way, direct and indirect, for maintaining the true spirit of the nation beyond and quite apart from actual fighting and work of a definite military sort. Then there was the anxiety of the men who went out to fight as to the care, the guardianship, and the guidance of those whom they were leaving in England without the help which they personally had been able to give them, and beyond that the intense and continuous need and stress of work which must arise in England in time of war— a time of fear of famine, a time of distress and bereavement, a time when things always great are ten times greater, and when the clergy have their work redoubled. And then it had to be remembered that it was not merely that some men were left at home who could do that work, but that the clergy and ministers of religion were the men, and perhaps the only men, to whom such work could be rightly entrusted, and who were qualified to do it in the best way. Therefore I believed it to be right at that time that the great mass of our clergy should continue to work in their proper calling, either with the troops or in civilian work in their parishes. That has gone on during these three years of war.
But a great number of clergy—people often forget how great—has been required for the direct work with the troops them selves. Of our fit men a great proportion have gone as chaplains. I think I am right in saying that in the Army, leaving the Navy alone, 2,552 men have served as chaplains to the Forces abroad. They have served in all conditions of difficulty and danger. Some sixty have fallen in battle or died of wounds immediately; more than 100 have been seriously wounded, and while the testimony to their value and their devotion is continuous and comes to me in a constant stream, both from authorities at the Front and authorities at home, public recognition hats been given to the valour of not a few— more, I think, than 200— who have received decoration or recognition of some specific kind.
But that is by no means all, as regards the Army itself. A huge number— it is impossible to say how many, because there

727
are no statistics to show—but a huge number of the remainder have been ceaselessly at work, to an extent very inadequately realised, in the huts and camps at home, a very wide field calling for hard work and energy; in the hospitals, great and small, up and down the country which are not ministered to in many cases, of course, by those who hold commissions as chaplains; in the homes of the people in hours of stress and mourning and bereavement and trial; and, not least, in London itself, and, as I know well, in the towns on our South-Eastern coasts in the hours of danger and difficulty from raids and the rest. What would have happened had the clergy not been there in some of the parishes in hours like these I do not like to contemplate. New requirements of that kind are constantly arising, and the whole indirect administrative work in connection with the war is constantly bringing up new kinds of openings, new kinds of needs, which the clergy and ministers of religion perhaps alone can adequately fill; and they are rising to the occasion and doing their best.
And it is not unimportant that the arrangement thus made—namely, that the work, however dangerous, at the Front and elsewhere, should be mainly non-combatant work—does correspond with the practically continuous traditions, rules, and standards which have from the very earliest ages drawn a distinction between the work of clergy and of laymen as regards fighting. I think this is one of those matters upon which there will always be differences of opinion as to the extent to which such rules should be operative to-day, but the fact that that has been a continuous tradition is one which I should be the last to overlook. And when National Service was inaugurated a couple of years ago under Mr. Chamberlain, with an endeavour which has not, perhaps, met with all the results that were anticipated, practically all the clergy asked to be enrolled for what they might do. This is the history of the matter up to a very recent time. I regard it, and I am sure all your Lordships agree with me, as simply impossible to exaggerate the strength of our feeling that the splendid devotion of our soldiers not merely evokes our admiration but lays a direct responsibility upon us at home. Great as its effect is upon the enemy, its effect upon ourselves is, in my judgment, resistless. We, too, must be at our best. These men
728
are doing everything for us. We mean to do everything for them.
Now came the change. A few weeks ago a new emergency arose. The Prime Minister announced briefly that he was shortly going to make a new call upon the nation for its man-power in view of I the terribly grave exigencies which had arisen and the intense importance of our sparing no ounce of strength, keeping back no single bit of manhood, which could be of service at so great and emergent an hour. Circumstances changed from what they had been. The call took a new and more vibrant sound, and we all felt that it concerned not those who were fighting only but ourselves who were at home. In those circumstances, before the Prime Minister made his speech in the House of Commons I took upon myself to write a letter to him with regard to the particular point that I am dwelling upon. I was obliged to write on my own responsibility; the matter was sudden, and it was impossible to take counsel with my brother Bishops or others. The letter is short, and perhaps I may be allowed to read it. I wrote to him—
"My dear Prime Minister,
"In confronting your task of summoning the manhood of England even more urgently than before to rally to the conflict on behalf of righteousness and freedom, you may possibly be uncertain as to how your appeal will be met.
"I should like, so far as I am entitled to do so without formal consultation, to reassure you with regard at least to one section of the people. We clergy, in face of an emergency so great, are ready, I firmly believe, to answer with wholehearted loyalty to any new call that the nation through its responsible spokesmen makes upon us. The hour is too grave for any reply but one, and the very sacredness of our distinctive trust deepens our sense of responsibility for seeing that no detriment or lack accrue by any default on our part or on the part of those whom we can influence."
I wrote that letter to the Prime Minister a few days before he spoke in the House of Commons. It was not an official or a formal letter, but my personal view as, so to speak, an informal mouthpiece of what I believed, and believe, to be the view of the great mass of clergy at a very grave hour in our history.
Then came the Prime Minister's speech on the matter, and the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, whose absence we regret to-day, and the Bill was produced. In the Bill there was no exemption for the clergy as such, as there had been in former Bills, and this subsection had taken the place of that exemption—

729
"Where any person who under this section is deemed to have been enlisted and transferred to the Reserve is a man in Holy Orders or a regular minister of any religious denomination he shall not on being called up for service with the Colours be required, except with his consent, to perform combatant service."
That seemed to me to be exactly right. As matters have gone that clause is now withdrawn, and once more the exemption of the clergy reappears in the Schedule of the Bill. I am not asking that the matter should be changed. The responsibility rests with His Majesty's Government for what they deem to be right.
It is not for me to say why the change was made. The noble Viscount (Lord Peel), in his exceedingly lucid exposition of the Bill, stated that it was due merely to the fact that the numbers who would be available in any circumstances from the ranks of the clergy and ministers would at best be small. I agree that it would be far smaller than people suppose, because most of them are serving now in some way or other with the troops, or are older men, or men in weak health, or men who have such enormously important work to do that it would be, by the consent of everybody, practically impossible to take them away. But there would have been a considerable number still remaining. However, it has been said that this number would have been an inadequate one. It is not for me to say what reasons may have induced the Government to come to the conclusion at which they have arrived. But I wish to make one thing clear—namely, that it was in no sense at our request.
It has been said more than once in the House of Commons and elsewhere that there was some kind of private conspiracy or something to that effect—I have forgotten the exact word— behind the scenes on the part of the clergy. Exactly the opposite is the case. Nothing could be less true; and I desire to say so in the most emphatic way possible to-day. The great body of the clergy, so far as I can judge, welcomed the change in legislation which was to enlist them along with others at such a grave hour, and the eager desire on the part of the younger men which they had felt all through and which has been loyally suppressed and kept in hand while they were devoting themselves to less romantic but to hardly less essential work, perhaps, at home, found new expression in the gladness with which they welcomed the idea that they were to serve. The change has been made, however; and the letters which came to me yesterday
730
and to-day convey with almost one voice dismay and disappointment at finding that what they had looked for is not now standing in the Bill. I do not mean that official communications have been made to me to that effect; that is not the way the thing has happened, or what has now taken place; but widespread and weighty expressions of opinion have reached me from Wren in touch with great bodies of the clergy to say that this is their feeling in the matter. Therefore whatever happens, let no man say hereafter that the clergy of the Church of England have asked for exemption at this hour. It is not so; and I wish to make that perfectly clear. In my judgment, the very contrary is the case. One thing has not been adequately reeognised— namely, the extreme difficulty which must have arisen in regulating the management of the new rules which have had to be put in force. Many more questions would have arisen, indeed have arisen, than are commonly realised; but we were ready to grapple with these difficulties in the hope of overcoming them.
Now that exemption has again been inserted, our duty becomes a different one. In my judgment it is now our duty to see what we can do voluntarily under conditions so different— and this is the real point— from those of 1915– 1916 as to justify a different attitude on our part from that which we took up that time. I am prepared, and those who work with me are prepared, to consider forthwith how we can best deal with the matter from a voluntary point of view under the conditions in which this Bill leaves us. I am arranging that the Bishops shall meet me in order to consider the steps that can be taken immediately in order to secure that there shall be adequate and prompt opportunity for the clergy to make the response which they are eager to make. We are bound as our primary duty to safeguard the supply of the really indispensable religious ministrations in town and country, not only in church but in other ways as well. But, subject to that most important consideration, the clergy are ready to place themselves whole-heartedly at the service of the nation and of the great and sacred cause which the nation at this tremendous moment— so different from the position which was ours a little while ago— has taken in hand to deal with. I was anxious to make those points clear to your Lordships as matters of vital importance to the clergy and to the country at large.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I find it very difficult to abstain from saving a few words with regard to this extremely important Bill. At the same time I agree with my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who told us not very long ago that in his view this was no time for the kind of criticism which this House is apt to bestow upon measures of a highly controversial character. At this moment surely our duty as patriotic citizens is to do all that we can to help in the prosecution of this war, to do all that we can to give encouragement to the gallant Armies that are fighting for us, and to assist His Majesty's Government so far as we can in maintaining those Armies in a proper state of strength and efficiency.
I feel this so strongly that I am prepared to throw on one side many old preconceived notions and prejudices. I am ready to admit that to-day these questions may be dealt with without any great regard for consistency, or even for the terms of pledges and promises which have been given in very different and less serious circumstances. I am even ready to look leniently upon the great invasion of our Parliamentary privileges which will be involved if this Bill is to be forced through in two sittings. It is a serious invasion; and one cannot help contrasting the drastic proposals and the precipitate methods which are now being adopted with the Hutch more cautious and deliberate steps which we took when the question of military service was dealt with in 1916 and 1917.
I shall say very little as to the proposal which stands out conspicuously on the face of this Bill to raise the limit of age. We have to get these then, and we must take whatever steps are necessary in order to get them. But I am bound to say for myself that I should have been glad if His Majesty's Government had been able to content themselves with a limit rather lower than that which they have inserted in the Bill. We should have no illusion upon this point, that this increased liability which you are putting upon the older men does mean a tremendous strain upon the patience of the civil population of the country. I am not thinking, when I say this, of the personal hardship which will be occasioned to individuals by this new liability. I am thinking much more of the injury which will be done to the industries concerned. I notice that the Minister of National Service, speaking a few nights
732
ago, not in Parliament but outside, said that he knew quite well that this Bill spelt death or disaster to some industries, and I think the Minister is right, for there are many industries and many businesses which will not stand much more plundering than they have already been subjected to. I do not think one can rate too highly the importance in many cases of retaining these veterans of industry in their present employment. One constantly comes across business enterprises, big and little, which are being run by what you might call a scratch team, and it is the small nucleus of older, competent men to whom it is due that the scratch team works as well as it does. I am afraid that in many cases this Bill may prove to be the last straw, particularly in those smaller businesses of which people speak as one-man businesses; and, of course the feeling will be stronger when it is seen, as I am afraid it may sometimes be seen, that these older men are taken away, not to serve in the fighting ranks, but to be transferred to other occupations of a quite different kind, which may in the eyes of some of the spectators seem to be of comparatively trivial importance.
There is another reason that makes me entertain this feeling, and it is this. I do not think there can be any doubt that these older men are as a rule rather a bad bargain for the Army. The evidence given by Sir Donald Maclean the other day in another place was emphatic upon this point. He stated that men between the ages of thirty-nine and forty-one, if brought back to the Army, almost invariably found their place in Class 3, a class of which we all know there are already quite enough available and for which more men are not wanted.
I will only say one other word as to this. I do most earnestly hope that in dealing with these older men the medical examinations will be conducted with the closest and utmost care. We have suffered immensely in the past from the careless, perfunctory examination of recruits, and I should be sorry to hazard a guess at the utterly useless expenditure to which the country has been put by the admission of men who ought never to have been admitted, who have broken down in the course of a few months or a few weeks, and who remain a charge upon the public. It was stated the other day—I can scarcely believe that the report was a correct one— but language is attributed to the Minister

733
of National Service which goes to show that in his view these medical examinations ought to be put through at express speed, and, as I read the passage, he looks forward to something like 35,000 medical examinations in the course of a day being possible. The figure is so extraordinary that I cannot help hoping it may prove to be an erroneous one. What is to be remembered is that in proportion as these men can ill be spared from civil life, and in proportion as they are more likely to be unsound than the younger men, in that proportion they will require more and not less careful medical examination.
Another outstanding feature of the Bill is the clause in which the Tribunals are dealt with. I am quite prepared to admit that some change in this direction is called for. At the same time I do not think we can be sufficiently grateful to the old Tribunals for the way in which they carried out a very arduous and thankless task. They may have blundered—I dare say they did— but I have always believed that the existence of these Tribunals, recruited as they were from all sorts of different classes, did more than anything else to reconcile the people of this country to the new liability which was being imposed upon them.
Now, my Lords, I want to say half a dozen words about a question which has been touched upon by one or two of the previous speakers—I mean Clause 2 of this Bill, under which it is proposed to extend compulsion to Ireland. My own feeling, which I must frankly admit, is that it appears to me of doubtful wisdom to extend compulsory service to that country, and that it seems to me of still more doubtful wisdom to do what has been done in connecting the question of compulsion in Ireland with the question of the production or the passage into law of a Bill giving Home Rule to that country. The proposal to apply compulsion to Ireland came before former Governments on several occasions. It was always rejected. I always opposed it, and I opposed it not because I had any sympathy with those people in Ireland who were refusing to accept a liability which had been accepted by their fellow-citizens in other parts of the United Kingdom, but because I came to the conclusion that, on the balance, the experiment was not worth making. I mean that the results seemed so uncertain and the difficulty of applying compulsion so great as to render it an unpromising experiment and one
734
which it did not seem to me desirable to undertake.
I admit that the need for men is much greater now than it was two years ago. On the other hand, I do not think the difficulties of applying compulsion in Ireland have diminished. I am inclined to think they are greater than they ever were. His Majesty's Government must be under no illusions as to this. They are going to ride at a very stiff fence indeed. In Ireland you have no Register. You have no Tribunals. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that you have no materials out of which to constitute Tribunals, and there is not the same possibility that then was in this country of free and confidential consultation between the Government and organised labour and other people who were worth consulting in regard to such a question. In Ireland, I am afraid, you will find that every one's hand is against you. In this country I do not think it would be wrong to say that every one's hand was for you, and that every one wished the experiment to succeed. I see that the leader of the Nationalist Party has announced that by taking this action His Majesty's Government have opened a new war front in Ireland. That is a pretty strong thing for a political leader to announce, and the Prime Minister himself admits with the utmost frankness that he knows that his Government are in for trouble in Ireland.
Well, my Lords, I would face the trouble gladly, I would run the, risk, if I felt quite sure that we were going to get the men. It is upon that point that I have always had grave doubts, and I will tell the House why. As to the figure which His Majesty's Ministers apparently have in their minds, they talk of the possibility of getting something like 400,000 recruits from Ireland. I see that the Secretary of State for War (the Earl of Derby) shakes his head. If he will look at the speech made by his colleague the Leader of the House of Commons, I think he will find that that figure was mentioned, but I am sure that is a very generous estimate. The reasons that make me anticipate that the results will be disappointing are these. I think it will be found when you get to close quarters with recruiting in Ireland that a very large number of young men will plead, and will be able to plead successfully, for exemption on the ground that it is impossible to take them away from the land. A great part of Ireland, as the House knows, is a country

735
of small occupying owners. As a rule you will find the father, who is perhaps an old man, with an able-bodied son who is essential for the work of the farm, and I think you will find that a great many of these younger men will be successful in making out a plea for exemption. But, my Lords, I am afraid I must add that in the remoter parts of Ireland it is extremely doubtful whether, when you summon men, they will obey your summons. I think that you will have to go and fetch them, and I believe that in a great many cases you will not find them when you come to look for them. Therefore, I think the credit side of the account is not nearly as favourable as I believe His Majesty's Government suppose it to be.
What I regret very much in connection with this part of the Bill is the manner in which the question of compulsory service in Ireland has been connected with that of the grant of Home Rule. The noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading told us that the question of Home Rule does not arise out of the Bill, and he is quite right in a sense. There is no strict connection, and it is true to say that in any case the question of military service would be one which would have to be dealt with not by any Parliament which might be set up in Ireland but by the Imperial Parliament. None the less it is perfectly true that both in the minds of the people of Ireland, and, I think, in the minds of His Majesty's Government, there is a very close and intimate connection between the two matters.
Lord Salisbury said there was what he called a "mysterious connection" between the two. I do not think there is any mystery at all about it. I think the explanation of the matter is this. His Majesty's Government found that it was impossible for them to go into the country here and ask the older men to submit to military service while Ireland was full of younger men who had up to the present successfully eluded the liability. I quite share the feeling of Ministers on that point. The Government found that they could not get the older men in England without conscription in Ireland; therefore they settled that they would have conscription in Ireland. Then it was put to them that they could not get conscription there unless they gave Home Rule to Ireland, and accordingly we find them pledged to produce at short notice a Home Rule Bill and to pass it into law at
736
once. This position was doubtful for a time, but the discussions which have recently taken place elsewhere make it, think, perfectly plain that His Majesty's Government are now committed to bring forward and force through Parliament a measure of Home Rule. The Chief Secretary for Ireland announced that such a Bill would be brought forward without delay. He was good enough to intimate that it might not improbably be brought forward in your Lordships' House. Last night the Prime Minister confirmed this, and intimated that His Majesty's Government would resign unless the Home Rule measure thus produced was passed by your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I think that this discloses a very serious situation. According to the Prime Minister, Ministers desire that their consciences with regard to Ireland should be clear. My conscience is perfectly clear with regard to Ireland. We have offered them Home Rule. We consented to the appointment of a Convention, and we promised that if they could agree to something which suited them that something would be placed at their disposal. They have failed to agree. The fault is certainly not ours, and I cannot see why there should be any conscientious misgivings. In the same way— and I think this was touched upon by Lord Salisbury— we are told that in order to satisfy public opinion in America we ought to grant a measure of Home Rule to Ireland. I have a much more favourable opinion of the views that are held by instructed and reasonable Americans upon this subject. I believe that they are perfectly aware that we have done all in our power to render it possible for the people of Ireland to obtain the measure of Home Rule which they desire, and I do not think they will for a moment judge us hardly because, in the middle of a war and after what has taken place in the Irish Convention, we see some objection to being asked to rush a Home Rule Bill through both Houses of Parliament without proper examination. I venture to think that the endeavour to connect these two questions is really one which ought not to have been made.
I quite agree as to the immense importance of obtaining a settlement of the Irish question, and the importance of doing what we can to content public opinion in Ireland. But I ask myself whether, out of the materials which Sir Horace Plunkett's

737
Convention has supplied, any one believes that you can in the course of a few weeks build up a measure which will stand criticism and give the kind of permanence and contentment which we should all of us like to obtain. I shall not say a word in derogation of the admirable work done by that Convention, but I think most of us who have had the Blue Book in our hands will realise that it is a kind of document which will require close study and careful examination before any one can venture to found upon it a proposal for dealing in a summary and precipitate way with this great Irish question.
If I may sum up what I have tried to say, I should like to do it by explaining that in my view it would probably have been better not to apply the compulsory powers of this Bill to Ireland at this moment at all. I should like to add that I should be entirely in favour of exploring the great mass of material collected by the Plunkett Convention and endeavouring to find in it materials for an acceptable measure of Home Rule. I think that if we had agreed to leave Ireland out of this Bill we should probably not have lost much so far as the number of men we are likely to get by resort to compulsion in Ireland is concerned, and I think it would have been immensely valuable to the country if we had been given ample time to consider— and I certainly should have considered them in the most friendly spirit and with every desire to find a solution— the recommendations made by the Plunkett Convention. As it is, I am afraid you are going to get on the credit side of the account a very doubtful asset so far as Irish recruiting is concerned, and that His Majesty's Government are going to commit themselves, and they try to commit us, to a hurried and ill-considered treatment of the Irish question. I am much afraid that they may find they have done what is probably the most dangerous thing of all, and that is to involve themselves in a kind of dubious understanding as to this matter— an understanding differently interpreted by those who are concerned, and out of which an immense amount of trouble and disappointment may hereafter arise.
Altogether, my Lords, it seems to the are asked to embark on a very perilous task indeed. These are my views, but nobody will be better pleased than I shall be if they prove to be wholly mistaken. Having expressed them I certainly am not
738
going to oppose this Bill, to attempt to delay it, or even to amend it. On the contrary I wish it success, and I shall be glad to see it pass into law. As for Ireland, I shall await with the utmost interest the proposals which the Government may be good enough to make; and although I have been a life-long opponent of Home Rule, I shall welcome any well-considered measure which the people of that country and the people of this country, who are also concerned in the matter, are prepared to accept.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, no one can fail to be impressed by the speech which fell from the noble Viscount in introducing this measure. Speaking for myself, I feel some regret that the machinery contained in this Bill was not introduced some months ago. I have a feeling that it was necessary that we should have a crisis before it was possible to induce the Government to act. While I should be the last to criticise the Government, or rather to criticise them unfairly, I feel that in a great many instances—I speak now of the Irish question— there is always a danger of the Government being susceptible to the clamour of the loudest section. We have in this country a War Cabinet, an institution which is without precedent. It has virtually autocratic power; not by arrogating those powers to itself told not by Statutory Commission. But these powers belong to the War Cabinet, and there is no sacrifice which they need ask of the people of this country to which they are not certain to obtain a willing and quick response.
The Government, in regard to this measure, have delayed to the very last possible minute. We know perfectly well that there has been a shortage of men. We have heard in the last few days of the reduction of battalions in a brigade, and the whole question which we are up against at this moment is the question of men. To any of us who have been in France this is a vital question. We know that one day's rest to a battalion which has been in the line means an increase in the efficiency of that battalion by anything up to 50 or 75 per cent. It cannot be said that the Government have not had warnings in this direction. They came into office because they were going to repair the deficiencies of their predecessors and furnish those requisities necessary to winning the war which seemed obvious and apparent

739
Yet when Germany is making her supreme and, we believe, final effort with all her resources developed to the fullest possible extent, we are here debating a measure which should have been. I do not say in operation, but the machinery of which should have been in existence some months ago.
It cannot be too often repeated that every citizen in this country has his or her part to play. This is an immense struggle between two schools of thought, and victory will mean that one school of thought will be established and the other school of thought submerged, perhaps for centuries to come. What do we see? We see Germany a great military organisation with all its resources fully developed, and against it a combination of democratic powers. The Government has not put before this country the real situation and the real demands which are to be made upon it. It is quite obvious that unless we are prepared to put forward every effort in our power we cannot hope to win the victory which at the moment we feel, if we go on as we should go on, is assured. The great warning came when the Russian collapse occurred, and it was at that moment that the sternest measures should have been taken. The present situation must have been clearly foreseen then. This great transfer of troops from East to West which we are combatting at the present moment must then have been a foregone conclusion.
It is because I cannot put absolute faith in the Government that they will carry out what they say they will do with regard to compulsory military service in Ireland that I venture to address your Lordships to-day. I regret the words which have just fallen from the noble Marquess. Nobody knows more than I do the great weight and authority with which he speaks. I regret the reasons which have been given by the Government for bringing forward compulsory military service for Ireland. It is a right which we in Ireland claim as equal citizens with you— a right that we should share your burdens in this great war. When the Government are urging the Dominions to do what they can to furnish more men, it is surely almost an absurd situation that Ireland, an integral portion of the United Kingdom, should be exempt from compulsory service. The opportunity has been missed on more than one occasion of putting compulsory service into opera-
740
tion in Ireland, and I trust that there will be no vacillating, and no going back from the policy now put forward.
I urge this on two grounds. First I speak as an Irishman with Irish traditions and with all my sympathies bound up in Ireland. I am jealous indeed of the good name and of the honour of Ireland. I feel that by the original omission of Ireland from the Compulsory Service Act a great injury was done to Ireland. The heart of Ireland is perfectly sound, and the reproach that it has not taken part in this great international struggle is a reproach which must be removed. It is your duty to remove it if you possibly can. Ireland has given much to the war in men and money, but she has not as yet taken her full share in it. I think that if we followed the noble Marquess's advice, and if for purposes of expediency-we were to leave Ireland out of this measure, we would put a stain upon Ireland which nothing would obliterate and we should merit the curses not only of this country but also of our Colonies.
There is another point which I venture to put before your Lordships. I submit that this is a trial of strength between His Majesty's Government and Sinn Fein. This is certainly not the occasion for arraigning the British policy towards Ireland during the last few years, but that policy has established Sinn Fein in Ireland. The recollections of Mr. Birrell's administration and the attitude of the present administration have established Sinn Fein. When the noble Marquess who spoke from the Front Bench referred to the Irish people as men who are easily led and who are impressionable, I recalled that the very fact that Sinn Fein has on more than one occasion flouted the British Government has caused individuals in Ireland to pass from their orderly and peaceful vocations to supporting a rebel policy with which most of them have really no sympathy, and which a great many of them do not understand. It is by the policy pursued in Ireland of allowing the law to be at a discount and of not supporting the authority of the law that you have induced the Irish people to follow the lead of Sinn Fein. I say to the Government that if on this occasion they are going to allow Sinn Fein to flout their proposals they will entrench Sinn Fein in Ireland for a generation to come.
I sincerely hope that this measure of compulsory service for Ireland will be put

741
into force on its merits. I have listened with great apprehension to the suggestion that this Bill is indissolubly bound up with the passing of a measure of Home Rule for Ireland. The suggestion was triode yesterday in the House of Commons that the Military Service Bill was contingent on the enactment of a Home Rule Bill in Ireland. The enactment of a Military Service Bill is one of justice and equity, and I hope that the Government will pursue it on those grounds. The enactment of a Home Rule Bill is a question of domestic politics, and we were led to believe at the beginning of the war that all these questions of domestic politics were to be left in abeyance, and that our whole attention and energies were to he concentrated on winning the war.
I think that there is a far greater body of loyal opinion in Ireland than your Lordships believe. While I sat for eight months upon the Convention endeavouring to co-operate with those who sat upon it, I recognised that they were all imbued with a great sense of loyalty to this country. I believe that this sense of loyalty is really in the hearts of the great majority in Ireland. I regret very much the speech which Mr. Dillon made yesterday. It amounted to the naked assertion that he was determined to do what he could to hamper the Empire in the prosecution of the war. If the Nationalist Party are so misguided as to take up this attitude in opposition to the Government in carrying out compulsory service in Ireland they will forfeit the respect of America and of the Colonies. In that connection I am bound to bring up the question of the Home Rule Bill. I need hardly say that my sympathies are in the whole of Ireland. I have always hoped that some solution would be forthcoming of that great and vexed problem which has baffled the energies of statesmen for the last seven hundred years.
But I am speaking now in a representative capacity for a great homogeneous community who are known as the Unionists of Ulster, and I would venture very briefly to put their case before you at this moment. Your Lordships will realise that they have never faltered in their duty to this country. The Ulster division, certainly in conjunction with other divisions from Ireland— and I am proud to be able to say so— has earned immortal glory on many battlefields in France; contributions in money have always been forthcoming front Ulster; and the work in the shipyards and other
742
commercial undertakings has been a real and valuable asset to the people of this country and to the Government. And remember that all this has been cheerfully given, all this work has been undertaken, because the men of Ulster believed that this question, which is creed, a belief, to them, was in abeyance while their energies were concentrated on winning the war. I regret very much that I have heard taunts levelled at Ulster on inure than one occasion that their enthusiasm in the Union is waning because their voices have not been heard in the last three and a half years. Is it not a just retort to say that they have not been thinking of politics, that they have removed from their minds this question of domestic interest, and have believed in the pledges of the statesmen of this country that this question was in abeyance until such time as the war should be over?
What is the object of the Government at the present moment? Is this home Rule Bill in the nature of a bargain for removing the opposition and the obstacles in the way of compulsory service in Ireland? Because, if so, it seems to me that von are willing to give to the Ireland which as a whole has not helped you something Which means a great sacrifice from that part of Ireland which has been a real asset. I would venture, as a word of warning, to urge upon the Government to consider this proposal in the fullest possible way. The noble Marines, Lord Lansdowne, has spoken of what it is expedient to do at this great crisis of our history. Is it expedient to bring in a measure which, as far as I can judge of its nature, will not satisfy the South and West of Ireland, and will alienate from von the sympathies of the North of Ireland? Is it wise at this juncture to create all over Ireland a feeling of 11 it rest and of difficulty which must hamper all those who are assisting you in the prosecution of the war? I recognise that there is a Home Rule Act on the Statute Book, and side by side with that there is the pledge which has been given to Ulster that they will not be coerced. You have before you the deliberations of 100 Irishmen for the last eight months, and while it van be said that something was evolved, that matters were spoken of and points were debated on Width some majorities were obtained, you cannot say that there seas that substantial agreement among all Irishmen that this great change which you are contemplating should be brought into effect.

743
The whole situation seems to me to point to the course which you should pursue, and that is to recognise that Ulster for the moment is separate, and go back and consider that policy of partition which was practically agreed to but which at the last moment was thrown over by some evil counsels which then prevailed. A policy of expediency is one which gives me no sort of pleasure, because one would far rather act on principle than on the expediency of the moment. It seems to me important that you should take no steps which can alienate from you those vast sympathies which are put forward wholly in the interests of the British Empire in the North of Ireland, and I would urge upon the British Government to consider these proposals in that light.
We are told that American opinion is deeply interested in this great Irish question. I venture to controvert that suggestion to a certain extent. I know the Irish question is one which does interest America to a great extent as an academic question, but whatever is decided in respect to Ireland— whether its utmost aspirations are granted, or whether those aspirations are granted only in a limited degree—I am perfectly prepared to say that nothing will have any effect on the great part which united America is determined on playing in this great war. I put these views before you with the greatest earnestness, and I sincerely hope that the Government will consider what I have said in the light of their proposals affecting Home Rule for Ireland.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I should be sorry if anything that I should say were to strike a discordant note in this debate, more especially as I approve strongly of the two main objects of this Bill—the utilisation of man-power to the greatest extent in this country, and the application of equality of sacrifice to Ireland. I gather that, so far as the utilisation of man-power is concerned, it is not proposed to take for the ranks many men who have reached the higher age; but, as I think was pointed out by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, it is quite possible that the fact that all those men are liable for service will induce some of them who have not so far taken a very active part in war work to engage in some useful service in the public welfare, and this free younger men for active work at the Front. The
744
organisation of man-power has been one of the greatest triumphs that Germany has achieved in the present war. I have heard an instance of it. I do not know whether it is true, but it is stated that a member of the German Embassy who was in London before the war, a man who evidently was not of the physique which fitted him to be a soldier, is now doing work as stationmaster at a small village station in Prussia.
With regard to the other portion of the Bill in which I am more immediately interested, the application of equal sacrifice to Ireland, it is a measure of which I have always been strongly in favour. In fact, on one occasion I ventured to raise the question in the House, and I think that the answer which I obtained from the Secretary of State for War was not very encouraging. He seemed to think at that time that it was impossible or at any rate inexpedient to apply conscription to Ireland. I do not state this by way of pointing out that I was right and the Government wrong, but rather, as I intend to criticise the action which they propose to take at the present time, by way of pointing out that I have been, if possible, More Royalist than the King himself, and have been more in favour of conscription than His Majesty's Government.
The Prime Minister stated last week in the House of Commons that this was no time for recrimination, and I agree with him; but I do not think that it precludes me from criticising what I believe are the mistakes which the Government have made with regard to Ireland, and what I conceive to be the mistake which they are making at the present time. The Prime Minister called upon us all to help him in what he described as "a supreme national crisis," and I am sure there is not one of your Lordships who would hesitate for a moment to agree to any number of men or any amount of money which play he required being given for the defence Of the country. But the fact that one is ready to agree to whatever may be proposed in this Bill does not prevent one from thinking that the Government, so far as Ireland is concerned, is now doing the right thing in the wrong way awl at the wrong time.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Hear, hear.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Every crisis as it arises seems to be the greatest one which we have to face;but

745
it will be in the recollect ion of your Lordships that only last year the Prime Minister made an appeal to the Unionists of Ireland to sacrifice their most cherished convictions in order to help on the war. He called upon them in the interests of the Empire to join in an Irish Convention to try and settle the Irish question, stating that it would be of the greatest use for the furtherance of the war, that it would satisfy many of our fellow-countrymen in the self-governing Colonies, and that it would he of the greatest assistance to what was then our newest ally, America, owing to the difficulties she had with some of her own citizens of Irish descent who were not so whole-heartedly in favour of the war as they might be, owing to the Irish troubles. It was a very hard sacrifice that we were called upon to make, for we were asked to give up the conviction which we had held from our childhood, whick had been confirmed and strengthened as we grew into manhood, and which we fought not unsuccessfully for over thirty-three years. We were asked to substitute for a patriotism which thought of Ireland and of England, a higher patriotism which thought only of the safety and the welfare of the Empire in this time of need. We agreed to make the necessary sacrifice, and we had to face the displeasure of many friends who looked upon us as having given up a cause which they held sacred. We had to keen our lips sealed while disorder and misgovernment in Ireland grew worse and worse, whilst sedition stalked rampant throughout the land, in order to create an atmosphere for the Irish Convention. We had some recompenses, because we were able to create friendships with Irishmen with whom we had had hardly any social intercourse before, and we found wishes for the welfare of the Empire on the part of many Nationalists which we had scarcely suspected, and a desire to make large concessions to our view as a means of inducing us to agree to a scheme of Home Rule. I do not blame the attitude which was taken up by Ulster, hut I think that if she had not been so unyielding, so unbending, it is possible that a unanimous Report of the Convention might have been arrived at.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Hear, hear.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Whilst that Convention sat the question of conscription, of course, arose. It was not within the terms of our Reference, but
746
it was its impossible to keep it nut as it was to keep the heal of King Charles out of the Memorial of Mr. Dick in "David Copperfield." My noble friend Lord Londonderry was very anxious—I do not think that I am obetraying any secrets of the Convention in saying this— that the question of the utilisation of all military power should be left to the Imperial Government. On the other hand, the Bishop of Raphoe wished it to be enacted by the Convention that conscription should not be put capon the Statute Book without the consent of the Irish Parliament. In the end neither of these propositions was put to a division, but the matter was referred to a sub-committee to report upon. That sub-committee consisted of three stalwart Unionists— my noble friend Lord Desart (who is not here), my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn, and a very distinguished King's Counsel, Mr. Powell; whilst the two Nationalist members were two gallant members of His Majesty's Forces— Captain Gwynne, the Member for Galway, and Captain Doran.
The Report of that sub-committee has been already referred to in the House of Commons, but it is so important with reference to this matter that I should like, with the permission of the House, to read the portion which refers to conscription. Your Lordships will bear in mind that this was a unanimous Report. It is as follows:
"Assuming that a scheme of self-government for Ireland be adopted, including the establishment of an Irish Parliament and an Irish Executive Government responsible thereto, we think that it would in practice be impossible to impose a system of compulsory service in Ireland without the assent and co-operation of the Irish Parliament.
"As to whether, as an abstract proposition, it would be desirable, by vesting these powers in the Imperial Parliament, to secure united and simultaneous action in this direction in both islands,, it is, we think, unnecessary for us to express an opinion, as we think it would be impracticable effectively to enforce such a demand, except with the approval of the Irish Parliament, without which the action and efficient co-operation of the Executive could not be secured.
"Indeed, it seems to us a direct consequence of the creation of an Irish Parliament that any measure of this character must be submitted to the Irish Parliament before it could be enforced on Ireland.
"We desire to emphasis the fact that the above report deals only with one aspect of this very difficult and important question, and that we were not, able in the time then at our disposal to go into the possibilities of joint action by a common War Council of the two Governments, or as to the effect of there being hereafter a Federal Constitution foe the British Isles."

747
I ought to point out that this special portion of the Report was adopted only by a majority of the Convention, as is shown in the division list. Personally, I voted against it, so I am not bound by it; but it was one on which several Unionists voted.
The point I wish to bring before the House is this, that it is proposed now to introduce, as I understand it, subsequent to the passing of the Bill which is before us to-day, a Home Rule Bill based upon the recommendations of the Irish Convention. This seems to me to be exactly opposed to it. In fact, it is intended first of all to pass a Bill imposing compulsory military service in Ireland, so far as I can make out, because it is impossible to trust the Parliament which would be created to enforce conscription there after it has been set up. If I had wanted an argument against Home Rule a year ago I could not have been given a stronger one than is furnished by the action of His Majesty's Government.
What I should like to ask His Majesty's Government is this. Supposing that this Bill is put upon the Statute Book— as it will be, I suppose, within two days— and that it is followed by a Home Rule Bill which is also placed upon the Statute Book; and supposing the first act of the Irish Parliament when it is set up is to pass a Resolution against conscription; and supposing that the Irish Government refuses to co-operate in carrying out the provisions of the Military Service Act, how does His Majesty's Government propose to set about it? It is only fair to say that, when this special resolution was passed in the Convention, the resolution of the Bishop of Raphoe, which was that the matter should he left to the decision of an Irish Parliament, was not pressed to a division by the Nationalists, because it was pointed out that the power of enlisting the services of all His Majesty's subjects for military purposes all over the Empire was one which was invariably retained by the Imperial Government, that it had been so in the case of the Constitutions granted to America and Australia, but that in practice it had been found that once a Parliament had been set up it was impossible to try to enforce conscription without the consent of the Parliament so set up.
The excuse for pressing un this Bill at the present time is, of course, the extreme need of men, but to me that does not appear to be a sufficient excuse, unless we are to understand that His Majesty's Government
748
put all upon a gambler's throw that they wire so certain that the onslaught by Germany on the Western Front would be repulsed that it would he unnecessary to call upon Ireland to supply soldiers. Other-wise is the matter to be explained? We all know a year ago of the Russian collapse. We all knew that the Germans would make every effort to overcome us on the Western Front in the spring. We were told by the Prime Minister that Sir Henry Wilson had made spelt an accurate forecast of what would happen that he was able to say where the attack would he made and as to the probability of its succeeding. In those circumstances the War Office must have considered in advance the number of men required; and it seems to me that if it had been likely that these men would be required, this vary measure might to have been brought forward months ago.
There were two occasions when conscription could easily have been enforced in Ireland. The first one was when compulsory military service was instituted in this country and when it was universally expected in Ireland that the law would be applied to that country as well. The opposition to it at that time, I believe, would have been extremely small, as opinion in Ireland with regard to the war was then very different from what it is at present. Instead of that, emigration was stopped and young men were forced to remain in the country without being conscripted. The universal unrest which prevails all over the world got hold of them, and as they were not going to fight for England they naturally were ready to fight against what they had been taught to believe was their natural enemy— namely, this country— with the disastrous result of the insurrection of 1916. Again there was an opportunity to enforce conscription. The people of Ireland at that time were so cowed that they-would have been perfectly ready to accept it, but now I am sorry to say a very different state of things exists. I only arrived from Ireland this morning, and I have been shocked at the change which had come over the spirit of the younger men over there whom I saw. I talked to several of them to the effect that if it were not for the protection of the English Fleet the Germans would be in Ireland within a week, and the only response which I got was that "If they come they will come as friends." Only yesterday somebody said to me "If the English want soldiers in Ireland, why dont they take the German prisoners?

749
They are already trained men, and their feelings are not very different from the feelings of the men they will obtain if they conscript Irishmen." Another very curious hut peculiarly Irish reason which is given is that if Irishmen are to be killed they may as well be killed in Ireland as in Flanders, for in Ireland they are sure to have a decent funeral.
The Government have put their hands to the plough and there is no drawing back, and it is the duty of every loyal Irishman in these circumstances, whether he thinks their action is right or wrong, to do everything he can to help them. Much depends upon the action of the Nationalist leaders. As I read the speeches of Mr. Devlin I thought there was an undercurrent in them which showed that he felt it was the duty of Ireland to participate in this war. Let us hope that moderate counsels will prevail; but if they do not, and if Sinn Fein and what are called Constitutional Nationalists join together, there is no doubt that compulsory service can still be enforced in Ireland, but it will be at a very serious cost, and it will put an end for many years to any hope of an Irish settlement.
LORd BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill stated that it was due to the extreme urgency and gravity of the state of public affairs. I think that is a very regrettable circumstance. It appears to me most unfortunate that a Bill of this description should be introduced at a moment of such a nature. There never was a time in the whole history of this war when words seemed more idle and vain than to-day. There never was a time when every one was less anxious to find fault and more anxious to render help. There never was a time when domestic broils ought to be avoided and when every one should do his best to combine against the common enemy. Yet it is at such a moment that a Bill is introduced which, however favourably your Lordships may regard it, undoubtedly provokes one of the most bitter controversies occasioned since the war began. I propose to say only a very few words upon it. Were the Bill introduced under normal circumstances I should have felt it my duty to have said a great deal more, and indeed to have taken more definite and determined action in expressing my views; but at this moment I merely wish to make a few observations upon the two different principles which are involved in this measure.
750
The first relates to the extension of the age to fifty, or it may be even fifty-six. Let me say at once that there is no magic in an age limit. There is no question of principle which enables you to say that forty is the right age and fifty is the wrong age. The whole question of compulsory military service has always been to my mind a pure question of expediency. I so regarded the first Military Service Act, and I so regard this measure; but have the Government fully considered what the passage of this Bill will mean to the industries of this country? It is, I think, a short-sighted view that people sometimes take in believing that the true victory in this war will necessarily be determined at the moment when the terms of peace are signed. It appears to me far more likely that the true victory will be found ten years afterwards. It will be found by determining which is the nation that will be best able to guide and control the forces of discontent and resentment that will be liberated everywhere; the nation that will be best able to face what may, be impending famine; the nation that will, if there be such a nation, be able to save its people from the abyss of bankruptcy towards which the whole of Europe is speeding with increasing pace. It is in that, relation that I think the age limit in this Bill needs to be considered, because there is no doubt that if it is to be put impartially and effectively into operation you will cause the gravest possible mischief to the businesses of this country which have already suffered greatly front the necessary interference of State control. Business connections which have taken years to establish are alrea y interfered with, if they are not destroyed, and if you take away flout business the active men between the ages of forty and fifty, having already taken those that are below, you may paralyse the remaining industrial activities of this country, and you would require a very large number of effective able-bodied men to compensate you for the national loss that, would thereby be involved.
It may be said that this Bill provides for liberal exemptions. I have no doubt it does, but to my mind that is rather an objection to it than an argument in its favour. One of the greatest objections to compulsory service is precisely this, that under a system of exemptions, by some means or other, a certain number of men get relief from the obligation of service while others who are exactly similarly

751
situated are brought within the obligatimi to serve. Then, of course, it is always suggested that those who have escaped have done so by the exercise of some undesirable influence which their less fortunate friends did not possess. I do not believe that this is true, but this is the thing which is said. I have no doubt it will be said that it is easy to criticise this Bill, and one may be asked whether any other means can be suggested by which we can get the men. That is a perfectly fair question. The Minister for the Air Service, in The Times two days ago, stated that there were at the present moment engaged here at home on the staff of the Air Service a number of men equal to—I am not sure that he did not say greater than— but equal to the number of men who were engaged in active flying on all the Fronts, and he added that many of these people were engaged in clerical work and in the discharge of what he called circumlocutory duties. If that is true, and if that is a fair sample of Government Departments in this country, the answer is that you could have got your men much better by a strict and severe "comb out" of your Departments at home than by introducing a measure such as this. The noble Lord's conclusion to his letter appeared to me to be the most depressing I had ever read. He concluded by saying, "War is not the time to make changes." That is all I desire to say about the Bill as far as it effects the existing age limit.
But I desire to say a few further words about the position in Ireland. If the argument for bringing Ireland into this Bill be the one which I understood the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, to use, it is this— that Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom; that she enjoys the benefits of the Government of the United Kingdom; that she must share its burdens; and that there is no reason, while she remains an integral part of the British Empire, that she should be exempt from the obligations which other parts of the Empire have to bear. That is enforced by suggesting that even if she be a different nation, so also is Scotland or Wales. The fallacy of the argument lies in the assumption that you can establish a United Kingdom by Act of Parliament. You can make a legal unity by an Act of Parliament. You but you cannot create real unity by which all members of the body stand on an equal footing. Scotland and Wales have never asked for an independent Government
752
excepting as a mere matter of domestic expediency; but we know, whether we agree with their view or not, that the majority of tire people in Ireland have demanded an independent Government, not on the ground of domestic expediency at all, but as a satisfaction of a firmly-held, deeply-rooted, and passionate national sentiment which you cannot appease by any argument and you cannot put to rest by telling them that they derive great advantage by remaining a member of the partnership. It is to such a country that you are going to apply this system of military service. The unity which to Scotland and to Wales may be a matter of pride, has, we know, been to many Irishmen for a century nothing but the symbol of a dishonouring association. I am not saying that this is my view. I am saying that it is undoubtedly the view of a large number of people in Ireland. They regard it as a union effected by a fetter, which by every means—lawful, and, I regret to say, unlawful—they have from time to time striven to break and to throw away. Is it surprising in these circumstances that when a picked representative body of Irishmen, chosen as a sub-committee of the National Convention, were asked to examine the question of whether or not it was desirable to impose conscription on Ireland, they reported that it was "impracticable."
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Impracticable?
LORD BUCKMASTER: Impracticable. I think I am right.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I think the noble and learned Lord is putting rather a gloss on it.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Indeed, I have not put a gloss on it. My memory may have misled me, but I think the word was "impracticable." The noble Viscount may be able to correct me, and I would accept correction at his hands. At any rate, the report was that it could not, and should not, be done. Supposing I am right in my recollection that it was an "impracticable" proposal, does this mean that we are going to undertake another impracticable scheme in Ireland from which, when once we are embarked upon it, there can be no drawing back? It would be quite impossible to attempt to enforce conscription in Ireland, and then, when you are half way through,

753
to say it is impossible to carry it on. Whatever force is required behind the law in order to make it operative must be used. However many men it will take from your Army, whatever disturbance, whatever violence may he caused, when once you have begun with this matter there is no turning back, and I must say that the gravity of the outlook leads me to regard the inclusion of Ireland in this Bill as a matter that may prove one of grave disaster. I do not propose to enter into the controversy which was raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, as to the merits of Home Rule, or the rival merits of Ulster and the South of Ireland. I am quite certain he did not mean what his words might be misunderstood as meaning, that as between the soldiers who had served from the South and North of Ireland there is any distinction whatever to be drawn. They have shown the same gallantry on the field of battle, and they have shown the same cheerful endurance of hardship which it is impossible for us to understand. I was a little uneasy when I heard him extolling the action of Ulster at the expense of other portions of Ireland, but I am certain—
A NOBLE LORD: He made no contrast.
LORD RUCKMASTER: I thought he did. I do not intend, however, to keep your Lordships any longer on this matter. Were times different I should not have hesitated to support any one who moved that this Bill be rejected, but I feel convinced that it is not the duty of any one at this moment to use a remedy which in normal times is always regarded as legitimate.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to say a few words with regard to certain points that have been raised during this debate. Members of your Lordships' House have expressed their regret at the absence of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. Nobody feels that more than I do, because I am not in the position that he is in to speak as to the policy of the War Cabinet, although I am the person who is, perhaps, in the end the greatest gainer by this Bill. As a matter of fact, in the supply of these men I am entirely outside the organisation that is set up. But there
754
is one thing which think it is my duty to do, and that is to impress upon your Lordships, and through your Lordships House the country, the great gravity of the present situation. Any minimising of it would, to my mind, be disastrous. At the same time I wish to impress upon the country that, although one must have the gravest anxiety, I am still quite confident as to the result. But that result can be gained only by men fighting day after day, night after night, without rest, sometimes without food, and the only way this country can help these men is by filling up the ranks and closing the gaps of those who have fallen.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: At once.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Viscount interjects "At once." I quite agree with him. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, who has had personal experience of the Front, says that if you can give a battalion which has lost half its men a night's rest, or two nights' rest, you double its efficiency. I will add something with which I think he will agree, and it is that if a battalion that has suffered heavily can be made up to strength as soon as possible, you put heart into the men who have survived which it is inconceivable to believe.
I do not think I can add anything to what I have said as to the gravity of the situation and the absolute necessity for this Bill. The noble Lord who spoke last took a view which could perfectly rightly be taken by many members in this House—namely, that this is a Bill which we give to the Government because we recognise the danger of the situation, but it is a Bill which, if it were not for that gravity, we should ask leave to discuss and perhaps to reject. That is a perfectly fair attitude to take up, and it only makes one recognise more the patriotism of those who support the Government in such a Bill, although in their heart of hearts they may think it is one which ought to be to a great extent amended.
Various points have been raised, and, if I may, I will try to deal with a few of them. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, asked that the skill of the men called up should be taken into account in posting them, and I can assure him that this will be done. I know there have been grave errors in the past, but I think we have learnt now how

755
to make the best use of the skill of the men who come to the Colours. I would like to point out to the House that although we will do our best to make use of their skill there is one thing which must be remembered, and it is that it is not in the skilled ranks that we have had our great losses. Our great losses are in the Infantry, and in the Infantry are the gaps that are to be filled. I can give no pledge that skilled men will not be put, if the necessity arises, into the Infantry, but at the same time I can guarantee that as far as possible skilled men shall be used in skilled operations.
The most rev. Primate spoke of the omission of the clause from the Bill which placed the clergy under the same obligations as the rest of their fellow-subjects. I will be perfectly frank with him and say that I regret the omission of that clause, not because of the number of men of which it deprives us, but because I think it would have placed the Churches generally in a much better position in this country after the war. The most rev. Primate made out a splendid ease for his flock. He has spoken of their services in France. May I add—and I know he will agree with me—that we owe a debt of gratitude to the padre, as he is invariably called, of all denominations. They have played their part in France, and I think it is now up to each Church to see that, although the obligation is not placed upon them compulsorily, they are of their own initiative ready to take the same pledge voluntarily.
Another question is that of the raising of the age to fifty. I am not convinced that this is going to be so detrimental to business as some people think. I believe that the opening up of a fresh field from which you may draw men will enable you in many cases to leave men who are really indispensable to their trade. Whether that is so or not must depend a great deal on the working of the Bill, but I believe it myself. I would point out that there has been a contradiction in some of the speeches that have been made. We have been told on the one hand that men of this age are of no use to us for fighting purposes, and on the other it has been said that we must do nothing against the Volunteers, who are entirely composed of men of the age in question, because of their value. You cannot speak of men of this age as a whole. Many men of fifty are far better fitted to go into the trenches than some men even
756
of twenty-five. I agree that the medical examination will have to be most careful so as to put on a man's shoulders the burden that he is best able to bear. I believe that this will he done.
I have been referring to matters connected with the administration of the Act, which are not now my business, and I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the change which was made with respect to recruiting about July or August of last year. Recruiting was then—I will not say taken out of the hands of the War Office—given up by the War Office to the National Service Department. That was done with one object and one only, that there should be an independent body taking men from the civilians of this country for service in the Army who should be able to judge as to the rival claims of civilian and military work. That body, which is now known as the National Service Department, you will find will pay due regard to men who are essential for the upkeep of our industries, and will see that those men are retained at home. I would ask, however, when we talk of destroying industries, what is going to destroy our industries more than if we suffer defeat at the hands of the Germans? It is therefore no use talking of maintaining business if you do not at the same time maintain your supremacy in the plains of France and Flanders.
The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, made a speech which, as one who followed him for many years, I regretted to hear. Lord Lansdowne began by stating that he recognised the danger of the moment and he expressed his desire to help the country, but in the rest of his speech he took up a line of objection to almost every proposal in this Bill. That attitude was hardly reconcilable with his opening sentences. I am sure that there is no one more loyal and more patriotic than the noble Marquess, but if he would look at the effect of his objections to the Bill he would see that if they were carried the man-power obtained would be infinitesimal.
There is another subject which has been touched upon by many speakers during this debate. It is a subject on which, as a policy, I cannot speak with the authority or with the knowledge which the Leader of the House as a member of the War Cabinet would have spoken, and I hope that he will be in his place to-morrow and be able to give an answer to the various

757
questions of your Lordships. What I am saying now is the view simply of an individual. Like every one who has spoken I recognise the difficulty, and maybe the dangers, of conscription in Ireland, but I agree with the noble Lord who spoke last. We have said that we are going to do it, and there can be no going back from that. I was not in the Government at the time that the first two Military Service Bills were introduced, but I was intimately connected with recruiting, and I was then strongly in favour of introducing Conscription in Ireland. I believe if we had included it we should have had less trouble than we may have later.
But I desire to disassociate myself from the idea that conscription in Ireland and Home Rule are in any way linked together. I am speaking, as I say, only for myself. If there had been no question of Home Rule, and if there had been no Convention, I should unhesitatingly have voted for conscription in Ireland. The question of Home Rule for Ireland is a thorny one,and it is one which will have to be considered, not as it is being done to-day, piecemeal on another Bill, but on a Bill which may come before your Lordships' house in the first instance. I am one of those who have invariably been opposed to Home Rule—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Did the noble Earl say," introduced in the first instance in this House"?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I know nothing about where it is to be introduced, but some noble Lord mentioned here to-day that he had heard that it was to be introduced first here. I have been a Unionist; remain a Unionist but I am not a Unionist with the bitter feeling that one had in the old days. There are men of the Nationalist Party who have made one see, what perhaps one did not see clearly before, that being Nationalists does not mean that they have no love for our nation as a whole and no love of the liberty and freedom for which we are fighting. And though it may be and probably is a sentimental idea, I have always looked upon the death of Major Redmond as being something which one must always bear in mind when one is thinking of Home Rule.
This is a subject, as I say, which will he brought before this House and discussed. It will perhaps be embittered to a certain extent by conscription. At the same time I think that there will be others
758
besides myself who will approach it from a different point of view than we should have done six or seven years ago. Conscription for Ireland is bringing Irish youth into the common Army that is fighting for freedom and liberty. Lord Lansdowne rather scoffed at the idea of the number of men we should get. All I can say is this, that of the estimated number of Wren of the A1 category who are fit to go straight into the ranks, I believe that we shall get front Ireland alone a number that will far more than fill the casualties of this last battle since March 21. That is why I support conseription in Ireland. I support it quite independently of an" views or any action I may take with regard to the Home Rule Bill which may come before your Lordships. I support it because I believe that that will give us good men and good fighting men, many whom will come much more willingly than some, suppose. By that means, together with the men we shall get under the other provisions of the Bill, I hope that we shall be able to fill up the ranks of our Army, and thus bring the war, as it can only be brought, to a successful conclusion by remaining one of the Allied nations which continually keeps it's ames up to strength while the strength of the enemy is gradually diminishing.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think the blouse will agree that the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of this Bill has such a simple mid businesslike way of stating his case that all the difficulties seemed to disappear and one hardly knew that there wore any. But before I make any general observation I should like to put to the noble Viscount two specific questions on the Bill itself. The first arises in Clause 1, subsection (2) relating to the provision there mentioned being without prejudice to any undertaking recognised by His Majesty's Government, The noble Viscount said, in connection with this, that this only meant public undertakings between nations. He certainly said it would not be private undertakings. I do not quite know what sort of undertaking a parole given not to tight again is, but that might come under the head of a private undertaking, and I am quite sure the Government do not propose to make it necessary to put any man in the position of breaking his parole. However private an under, taking was, if it was a parole I feel sure it will be respected. I think I understood the noble Viscount rightly to mean that.

759
In Clause 5 the noble Viscount, dealing again with these Conventions with Allied States, said that they should have effect as if references to this Act were substituted for references to the Acts of 1916 and 1917. Do I understand that it is possible to change a Convention without the assent of the other party to the Convention? These Conventions are agreements between two nations, and I take it that all that the clause means is that this Government will have power to make new arrangements with the other Party. In that case there arises a difficulty which I have no doubt has been present to the mind of the Government. It will not be possible. I take it, to deal with the Russian Convention in that way, and this will have to remain in the position in which it is.
The noble Viscount said with modesty, and not, I think, without wisdom, that he would not go into the reasons which led to the Bill being introduced at this moment because we all understood them. But do we all under stand them? We are aware that we are in the presence of quite the gravest military crisis that we have had since the war began. But I entirely fail to understand, and I think the country very largely fails to understand, and is hopelessly puzzled as to, the connection between that crisis and the introduction of this Bill. Now, this is a Bill to provide more men. We have been told since these discussions arose that we had on the Western Front a numerical equality with our enemy. We have been told of the great losses which the enemy have suffered, and I have not seen or heard it suggested that their losses have exceeded ours, or that ours have exceeded theirs; and, if that is so, the numerical relations would remain the same. But, in any case, the whole situation was known and foreseen—as the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, has already remarked, for months now. Surely it is not necessary for the crisis to arise and to become acute before; His Majesty's Government think it necessary to introduce a Bill to deal with it. If these additional numbers are necessary, were they not necessary, and was this legislation not necessary, long before this last offensive began, and could not this legislation have been introduced in a time of ordinary quietness, when it could have passed through both Houses at the ordinary speed, and with the ordinary discussion?
I have also asked myself why His Majesty's Government, if they thought it
760
necessary to produce this legislation and to put it forward, should have introduced it with what, I think, one may fairly call almost every possible provocative ancillary. You had the inclusion of ministers of religion. We have heard what the most rev. Primate said about his flock, but I understand that very different views were taken by other flocks, and, at any rate, it appears to have provoked opposition—so much opposition that it has been abandoned. Mr. Bonar Law said at an earlier stage of the Bill that the Government would neither withdraw nor modify anything that they considered necessary. Well, they have modified that; therefore I presume they do not consider it necessary. Again, among your exemptions you were proposing to do away with the exemption of the conscientious objector. That was obviously a thing that would provoke opposition. You have given way upon that; therefore it was not necessary. Why introduce these provocative questions? And the Tribunals. I think your Lordships realise—I am perfectly certain that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, who has had to study this matter, realises—the very grave apprehensions that were produced by the proposed Prussianising of the Tribunals, by the sweeping away of all the representative elements and all the protection they were thought to afford. That has been modified. Why should these things have been introduced, to add to the difficulty of passing a drastic measure of this character?
I am still unable to see the connection between the introduction of this Bill and the military crisis. Either this Bill was necessary long before the military crisis, and the country should have been taken into the confidence of the Government and the Bill introduced in the ordinary way, or the Bill should be introduced in the ordinary way now. It is quite clear that none of the new man-power is going to help you in this offensive. This crisis must have stopped long before this manpower materialises.
I am very reluctant to say anything about Ireland. I know nothing about Ireland—though that, perhaps, is not a disadvantage, because I notice that when any noble Lord says that he is an expert on the subject of Ireland and makes some statement about it, he is immediately contradicted by another noble Lord who says he is also an expert. So that perhaps it is not a disadvantage to have an open mind upon it. But one

761
thing is perfectly clear and has always been clear, and has been admitted by all Governments, that you will inevitably provoke a most frightful conflict by the application there of conscription. The Secretary of State for War recognises this, and he is prepared for it; he thinks that the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. That is a matter upon which the Government must take, and do, I suppose, take the full responsibility—and a very grave responsibility it is. This I louse is not without responsibility in the matter, for, if both political Parties had not been to blame, Home Rule would have been in operation in Ireland before the war, and there would have been a Home Rule Parliament which you could have consulted upon this.
There is the other point which has been referred to by the noble Marquess below the gangway, Lord Lansdowne, and which was rather pooh-poohed by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for War—I refer to the point as to the effect of this Bill upon business. It is perfectly true, and it is within my knowledge, as it is, no doubt, also within the knowledge of the noble Earl, that there are many cases in which the man of forty-five, forty-six, and forty-seven is the one nucleus that is keeping together a sort of temporary staff which is enabling you to keep on. If this were the last throw, I agree with the noble Earl the Secretary of State for War that business does not matter; that keeping it together does not matter; that nothing matters. But we do not want to imitate the gambler's throw of our enemies. We want to be prepared to go on and to hold out for a long time; therefore we must keep the machinery of this country running. It seemed to me, from what the noble Earl said, that he was inclined to treat this a little too lightly. We have to be prepared, according to my view, to keep the machinery of business, of organisation, and of industry running in this country for a considerable time, and we must not sacrifice all this in any immediate throw. I am convinced—and I am sure that the Government in their hearts must he convinced—that we must ultimately look for the reserve of our manpower to the United states, whirl is the only place whence it should be obtained.
I think that this Bill is a piece of panic leigslation, and that it will not have the results which are held out for it. As was said by one noble Lord, nobody can oppose it because the Government have
762
the full responsibility for introducing it; but I think that we are entitled to say—almost bound to say that we view with apprehension ill-considered measures which are produced in the middle of a crisis.
LORD LAMBOURNE:: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill a question. Up to the present moment no pronouncement has been made with regard to the position of agricultural labourers, who are at the present time unprotected. I will not pursue the matter further if I can hear from the noble Viscount that there is an intention to make some pronouncement at some future time on the matter of the protection of agricultural labourers with regard to obviating any further depletion of their numbers.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I can speak again only by the leave of the House. If my noble friend wishes to raise this matter in mote detail, I will go into it; but this Bill in most of its provisions—I am not talking of the emergency provisions—does not deal with particular industries, like agriculture and, shipbuilding, which are carried on under special arrangements and agreements. My noble friend knows, I think, that these arrangements under which a certain number of persons are retained on the land or in shipbuilding are already in force, and this Bill does not apply to them.
LORD LAMBOURNE: The men engaged in agriculture betewen the ages of forty-one and fifty-ono are not protected.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If a man has been engaged in agriculture since June last, he is, under the arrangements entered into, a protected man.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of April 16.]
NORTH CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Wednesday the 1st of May next.
WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES) BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn;The Orders made on the 27th of February and the 19th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.

COUNTY OF LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the
764
6th and 19th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.

YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 6th and 14th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past eight o'clock.