§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the whole administration of the Acts and regulations concerning Aliens and suspected persons during the War should be concentrated in the hands of one Minister who should be responsible to this House."
I start with the fact that I do not think will be disputed by anyone, that there are some 70,000 alien enemies now in this country. I would call the attention of the Home Secretary to a speech that he made ii this House on 26th November, 1014, in which he said:—
You have got the peril to life in the presence of enemy aliens, many of whom may be spies or a danger to the State in the event of a raid, or may in other forms injure us, and you have got to consider what steps yon can take to deal with that peril." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1914 col. 1389, Vol. LXVIII.]This afternoon I want to consider with the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary for War what steps should be taken to deal with the peril which the Home 834 Secretary admits might overtake us in the event of a raid. This, I need hardly say, is not a party question, and, if I possibly can, I am not even going to make the Home Secretary angry because of my speech. I remember on the last occasion when we debated this I did, perhaps, introduce some little heat into the matter, but I do not propose to do so to-day, because I believe it is a matter in which all parties might come to terms and all parties might realise we are solely concerned with what is the interest of the State. The Home Secretary himself admitted that there are over 20,000 male aliens in London, of whom 16,000 are of military age—that is to say, we have in our City to-day in our midst 16,000 aliens of military age. I wonder how many Englishmen of military age there are un-interned in Berlin to-day!However minute the danger may be, we are entitled as a country to guard against it. I may be answered that there is no likelihood of a raid. The Home Secretary admitted in his speech in November that, in the event of a raid, there is quite a possibility of danger from these un-interned aliens. I cannot accept—and I do not think we can accept—the position of the impossibility of a raid. The military authorities, at all events, accept the possibility of a raid. They are guarding the East Coast. The East Coast is trenched; London is being trenched; armed camps are being formed all round our camps. I do not say there is a probability of a raid, but I say there is a possibility of a raid, and it cannot lie in the mouth of anyone on the Front Bench opposite to say there is no possibility of a raid because of the precautions—the very proper precautions—which the military authorities are taking to guard against any possibility of a raid being successfully carried out.
If the military authorities are taking these precautions against a raid being successfully carried out some other authority, whether it is the military or whether it is the Home Office, or whoever it may be I do not know, ought to take similar precautions to prevent the danger to which the Home Secretary referred in November last. Precautions should be taken to prevent any possibility of danger from a raid through the presence of these enemy aliens in our midst. I do not say they are all spies—not for one moment. I do not say everyone of them is a danger, but I say, nobody knows who are spies or who are dangerous in the event of a raid. It 835 is not necessary to recall to the House what took place in Belgium and in other parts of France. It was men who were not suspected who turned out to be spies. It was men who were living perfectly respectable, commercial lives in Belgium, and who were friendly with their Belgian neighbours. They were the first to help the German Army when they overran Belgium. I can tell of an incident I know myself with regard to espionage in Belgium and the fear the Belgium Government has of them even at this moment. I have been chairman of the Belgian Field Ambulance Service. The head of the Red Cross in Belgium, on behalf of the Belgian Army, declines to allow us to send even English drivers with the motors, declaring that they are so afraid of the possibilities of espionage. They have asked us that for the motor ambulances which we are giving as a free gift they should be allowed to have only Belgian military drivers who have already fought in the War.
That is an instance of the light in which one of our Allies who has suffered from spies views this question of espionage, and I venture to suggest we ought to be guided somewhat by the views they hold as to the danger of the spy system—I do not want to put it higher than that—and we ought to take some adequate precaution in order that, if there were the possibility of a raid, the 16,000 enemy male aliens in London alone should not be a source of danger to us. I do not want anything harsh done with these Germans, but they have come here for their own purposes, not for ours; they are admittedly born Germans, they have not even become, as they might have been, many of them, naturalised Englishmen. These 16,000 have said, "No, we will not become citizens of Great Britain; we prefer to live and trade in that country as alien enemies," and I say that when there is a war between ourselves and Germany these men who are here for their own purposes, and who have declined the advantages and responsibilities of naturalisation in this country, cannot complain if we treat them as alien enemies.
The two main causes of uneasiness with which I want to deal to-day are, of course, the large number of un-interned alien enemies and aliens in prohibited areas. But there are one or two smaller points I should like to mention. There is, of course, the question of interned alien enemies in those ships at Portsmouth. 836 I believe the Noble Lord who sits for that town (Lord Charles Beresford) will deal with that point. I do trust we shall have a better answer than we have had hitherto. Then I want to say one word with regard to a dispute I had with the Home Secretary regarding the entry of aliens into our country. In November last I asked a question containing statements regarding the entry of alien enemies, particularly from America—whether large numbers of aliens did not come over in Atlantic liners; and I suggested that there was no adequate precaution taken at Liverpool for bringing together aliens there. I was crushed by the right hon. Gentleman, and I want to suggest to the House how very easy it is for a Miniser to crush a private Member in this way. A Member questions a Minister and this is the answer he gets. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was:—
The facts are not as stated. No passengers of German nationality on the 'Lusitania.' The examination of passengers at Liverpool is extremely careful and strict.Naturally I thought I had been misinformed. Naturally I thought the right hon. Gentleman was speaking by the book, particularly when he said the examination of passengers was extremely careful and strict. What are the facts? Two passengers by that particular boat called upon me, a complete stranger, and made a statement to me, authorising me to give their names and addresses. They are Mr. Hall and Mr. Meredith, both working in the City of London. I will not read the whole statement. The right hon. Gentleman can have it if he likes. They say that there were a large number of Germans on the "Lusitania" on that very voyage. German was heard being spoken all over the ship, and one of them saw on a writing pad distinct German words which had been blotted. As regards the gravamen of my very slight quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman, these gentlemen say:—On arriving at Liverpool no passports were demanded, the only questions asked being 'Is your name so and so?' 'Where were you born, and your address'? It was the simplest thing to give any name and address, and immediately you were passed through.These gentlemen gave their names and addresses, and they add:—No application has been received at the addresses we gave to verify our statements.4.0 P.M.Does that look like strict and careful inquiry as to the persons who land on American boats at Liverpool? There was another gentleman who came to me with an introduction, and he came to this country by 837 another boat, which landed in the Mersey a week ago. He is an Englishman trading in South America. He went out to New York, and he came back on the "Baltic." He states that on reaching the Mersey two or three Custom officers came on board, and he says:—
They spoke to the stewards who came along the deck and shouted, "Aliens this side, Britishers the other!' Those of us who were Britishers, or who came along with the Britishers, passed off the boat without any further formalities or examination of any kind. I can personally testify to one alien who came through with the Britishers without any inquiry at all, and travelled in my compartment from Liverpool to London.Does that look like careful and strict inquiry? It may be that there were dozens of others, and men do not come to Members of Parliament in this way without careful inquiry. I could give other cases showing that there was no strict and careful examination at Liverpool, but I think it is enough for my purpose to ask the Home Secretary to make further inquiry, and see that there is a more strict observation kept upon the landing of aliens in our ports. Then, again, there is a considerable difference as to the way in which some men are interned and some are not. There is the case of one of the big Italian banks, the Banca Commerciale Italiana. It is a German controlled bank, with German directors, and it is one of the leading Gorman financial houses connected with the Italian Bank at Milan, and it has a branch here. The London Office is in Old Broad Street, and it is really a German agency, with a German manager, a German deputy-manager, and three enemy sub-managers, all of military age. Will it be believed that for the first five months of the War not one single member of that staff was interned? After the War had been been going on for five months—I do not know that they had become more dangerous—three or four of these gentlemen wore interned, and two of them are still interned, but the rest have been let out. There is a German named Weil, who was either the manager or the deputy-manager, who has been there during the whole period of the War, managing or controlling that Italian bank, and is it possible to believe he was not managing and controlling that bank more in the interests of German directors than of this country? Another case was put before me of some suspected people in Suffolk. This is rather curious, because I understand that the Homo Office handed over these questions to the War Office on the 11th of November.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSWell, that is what I am trying to find out. I want to know whether they have been handed over or not, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is still responsible for dealing with these questions. One of my hon. Friends, the Member for Newbury (Mr. Mount), asked a question last week about the alleged drilling of aliens in the Isle of Man camp, and in spite of the fact that we were led to believe that the War Office was dealing with this question, it was the Home Secretary who answered the question, although it was addressed to the Secretary for War. It is difficult for Members of this House and the public outside to know who is responsible for dealing with these questions. On the 28th of November the Home Secretary was corresponding with the chief constable of Suffolk in reference to aliens born here of German parents, and, the chief constable writes:—
A man and his sister are British-born Germans. They are on my confidential register.…I can give the name, if necessary, but I do not think it is desirable.They go about expressing themselves in favour of Germany. For years I have had great, difficulty in dealing with these people.They were in a prohibited area and they have apparently not yet been removed from the coast. Then there is the case of Baron von Bissing, and there is also the case of another well-known German, Count von Büllow, the brother of the German ex-Chancellor, who throughout the whole of the War, has been living comfortably at Putney. This man is the brother of the ex-Chancellor, and he is himself connected with Krupp's, and all that happened to him was that his telephone was cut off, although it was put on three days afterwards. I wish to call attention to the kind of snubs which are administered to people who try to help the Government in dealing with this question of aliens. One of the special constables wrote to Scotland Yard, as all of us are entitled to do, because those at Scotland Yard are our servants and not our masters. He wrote to Scotland Yard in regard to this, gentleman's telephone, and this is the answer that he received:—Scotland House, 25th September, 1914.Dear Sir,—I am informed that yon have sent a report concerning a certain gentleman's telephone to the War Office. I am instructed to inform you that 839 the matter is one with which the authorities were already acquainted, and which may safely be left to them to deal with.Now I do not think that is the type of letter that a man should receive who is a special constable, giving his time to the country, and who goes out of his way to assist the administration of justice. I do not think he should get a snub of that kind instead of a polite letter saying that his complaint will be attended to. I wish to say a word in regard to what happened after the bombardment of Hartlepool. A friend of mine in Sunderland wrote:—Two days after the bombardment of Hartlepool thirty-four Germans were arrested and taken to the police station. The next day they were released, on whose authority I cannot say. The following Monday all aliens received notice that they would have to go back from the coast within seven days. A notice appeared in the Sunderland paper on the Saturday following, stating that instructions had been received from the Home Office cancelling the order given on the previous Monday. To my mind, this is a shocking state of affairs, and I am afraid, will lead to some great calamity.That was done after the bombardment of Hartlepool. Whether it was done by the Home Office or the War Office I do not know, but contradictory orders were issued.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe Home Office had nothing to do with it, and the hon. Member knows that the Home Office had nothing to do with the matter. He also knows that the question has been asked and answered in this House again and again, and yet in spite of that fact he still insinuates that it is the Home Office.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI said I did not know whether it was the Home Office or the War Office, but I do not want to get into a heated altercation with the right hon. Gentleman. The reason for my Motion and the points of my argument is that we are entitled to know who is responsible.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant)I have answered a great many questions on this subject put by the hon. and learned Member for York, and I have already said that it was through the War Office instructions that these orders were withdrawn.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSOn the 28th of November, through the Under-Secretary, the Home Office wrote a letter to the Chief Constable of Suffolk with regard to the removal of aliens in a prohibited area. Therefore the Home Secretary is taking some part in this matter. It is 840 perfectly well known that questions in this House have been answered dealing with aliens by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, since the transference of these duties from the Home Office to the War Office. It is very difficult to know who we are to recognise as the responsible persons. The right hon. Gentleman says these matters have been handed over to the War Office. Does he mean us to infer that the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for War is responsible for all this, and that the responsibility has been put on the shoulders of Lord Kitchener? If so I have two things to say: First, that it is a crying shame that Lord Kitchener should have the responsibility for this matter when he has the responsibility for the whole of the War on the other side of the Channel. It is not fair to put these matters on to his shoulders, and it is not fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman has handed them over to the Secretary of State for War.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat has never been said. The responsibility for the internment of aliens rested from the first on the War Office and has always remained with the War Office. There has never been any doubt or division of responsibility in the matter. The responsibility has not been handed over to Lord Kitchener. Lord Kitchener had the responsibility, and has had the sole responsibility with regard to the internment of aliens from the first.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThat does not coincide with the Prime Minister's statement.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Prime Minister's reply related to the release of interned aliens. For a short period, before 11th November, the release of aliens was handed over to me, but it was resumed by Lord Kitchener on 11th November.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI think if we debate this matter a little longer we shall find out where the responsibility really lies. The object of my Amendment is to have the whole matter concentrated under one Minister. If we are told that these matters are concentrated in Lord Kitchener, I say at once they ought not to be concentrated there. It is not quite fair to say that we wish to criticise him, because I do not wish to criticise Lord Kitchener. [An Hon. MEMBER: "You are 841 afraid to."] The Home Secretary is now showing how pleased he is to have got out of the responsibility for these matters.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Member has no right to say that. I have not got out of the responsibility, because I never had it.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIt is almost impossible to carry on a Debate on a question of this kind by question and answer. I do not want to say anything to provoke an angry discussion, but I want to arrive at some solution of this very difficult question. I say perfectly frankly that if Lord Kitchener is responsible for some of the things which I will mention in a moment, then I shall criticise Lord Kitchener. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Why not? I say quite frankly that by putting the responsibility on poor Lord Kitchener you are endeavouring to prevent criticism on the part of those who want to leave him to carry on the War, and it is not fair. We desire to leave Lord Kitchener to manage his own business, which is the War in foreign parts, and it is not fair to a man who has that responsibility to put the responsibility for these matters on his shoulders. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite will say he accepts full responsibility for the War Office we shall be able to deal with him.
§ Mr. TENNANTThe hon. Gentleman has made that appeal to me, and naturally I accept all responsibility for War Office matters. I am here for that purpose.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSNo, you cannot quite get out of it in that way.
§ Mr. TENNANTI do not want to get out of it.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThe right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary says that Lord Kitchener is responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "The War Office."] Well, the War Office, which means Lord Kitchener. If only we can get it established here that Lord Kitchener is not to be bothered in this matter, and that the Under-Secretary will personally accept full responsibility, taking his decision, and that in criticising him we shall not be considered as criticising Lord Kitchener, then I think we shall have arrived at some means of ascertaining who is responsible, and, if necessary, of apportioning the blame. What happened in this matter, particularly of the release of aliens which was handed over to the War Office? It was on 11th November 842 that there was an exchange of letters between Lieutenant-General Sir Herbert Belfield on behalf of the War Office and Sir Edward Troup on behalf of the Home Office. It was decided in the Cabinet, and the letters were, I think, dated a week later. Lieutenant-General Sir Herbert Belfield wrote and said:—
I have found considerable difficulty in carrying out the duties. Police information I can obtain only through the Home Office. It is suggested that the Home Office organisation should work under War Office authority and supervision.Sir Edward Troup, on behalf of the War Office, accepted that position, and this follows in his letter:—Mr. Waller (who is an officer of the Home Office) will make inquiries as at present, and deal with all questions of release in accordance with such general or specific directions as you may give.There is divided responsibility. A Home Office official, Mr. Waller—
§ Mr. McKENNAA Prison Commissioner.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI appreciate Mr. Waller's position. I have the honour of knowing him in another capacity. He is a very able man, and so also is General Sir Herbert Belfield. Mr. Waller is to make the inquiry and to satisfy himself as to "A" or "OB" being released. Then I assume he walks over to the War Office, sees Sir Herbert Belfield, and puts before him in docketed form the information he has obtained from the police with regard to the release of enemy aliens. I should imagine he says, "We think that these men might be let out. What do you think?" Do you mean to suggest that the War Office is responsible for saying "Yes"? Do you mean to suggest that Lord Kitchener is responsible? From 22nd November, when Sir Herbert Belfield started this work, to 12th February, 1,916 aliens were released. Roughly, they are released at the rate of one thousand per month. Sir Herbert Belfield is an officer in high office at the War Office, and he has a large number of other duties to perform. I cannot help knowing that, because he happens to be the gentleman who is in charge of the formation of battalions of which I had the honour to raise one. Therefore I have come into personal contact with him, and I know the work that he has to do and the very able way in which he does it. I venture to suggest that it has been impossible for Sir Herbert Belfield, in addition to his other duties, to personally consider the release of one thousand enemy aliens each month since he has been appointed to this work. It must be the 843 Home Office who makes the investigations and forms the opinion, and Sir Herbert Belfield who merely signs the order.
In addition to the Home Office and the War Office, I have come across various other bodies who have to do with aliens. There is the Chief Constable of every county, there is the Admiralty, there is the London Intelligence Department, there is the London Division of the War Office at the Horse Guards, there is the Secretary for Scotland who also has a department, and there is an Intelligence Department, more or less efficient, in every military command throughout the country. There are at least twelve or fifteen different organisations or bodies, or persons who have to deal with this question of the internment and the release of aliens, in one way or the other. Surely they should be co-ordinated and put under one responsible head. We ought to have confidence that one responsible head is in touch with all these different organisations, and I do not hesitate to say that the proper head is the Home Secretary, who is the head of the police in London and who is certainly in touch by correspondence with the police in other parts of the country and is undoubtedly able to give orders or recommendations to the police. I cannot find that there is any co-ordination between the Home Office and the different bodies.
I have another instance of a man who tried to help the administration of justice with regard to these aliens which I should like to mention. He is a man who lives in Hertfordshire and who was convinced, as many people there were convinced, that there was a certain German amongst them who ought to be interned. He telephoned to Scotland Yard on 21st November that there was this gentleman living in an important position close to Wellington Embankment, near telegraph wires and telephone poles, and so forth. He was a man who openly boasted of his anti-British feelings and who desired that the Germans should win in this War. He was just the kind of man who certainly ought to be interned. The Home Office sent a letter to the chief constable of Hertfordshire, and the chief constable of Hertfordshire wrote to my friend, a man of position in the county and a man whose name I can give the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not hesitate to say that instead of getting thanks he got bullying from the chief constable for dealing with the matter. Perhaps it is only fair to say that 844 my informant wrote a rather hasty reply [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I want to be perfectly frank. This is the letter which he wrote to the chief constable:—
The fact that you are unable to find out any action on the part of this German against the interests of this country is of minor importance—I do not suppose that the police liked to be told that.What others and myself resent"—It is not one letter which I have received, and I am sure everybody interested in this matter has had them by scores—is that this man is allowed to reside practically free in our midst and occupy a house in such a position. If you will not act in this case, the public will act for themselves in accordance with local feeling, which now runs very high, on account of the laxity shown by the police in regard to these matters.I admit that is a strong letter, but instead of the alien being interned the chief constable turned round and abused ray friend as if he had been the alien and had no rights in the matter at all. When Sir Alfred Palmer, one of the justices up in Northumberland, made the complaint that the Home Secretary makes laws one day and rescinds them the next, Sir Edward Troup was detailed by the Home Secretary to trounce the unfortunate Sir Alfred, and he did properly trounce him for saying anything of the kind. What were the facts? The Home Office on 7th September issued a circular, "All German Reservists under the age of forty-five to be held as prisoners of War." On 13th October the Home Office suspended that order, and on 30th October the Home Office removed that suspension. At that time Sir Alfred Palmer did not know that the Home Office was acting on the instructions of the War Office. I did not know it, and I have certain advantages in this House over outsiders. We in this House did not know that those orders were issued by the Home Secretary on the instructions of the Secretary of State for War.
§ Mr. McKENNAHas the hon. Gentleman got the orders with him?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSNo. I have not. I have the correspondence between Sir Edward Troup and Sir Alfred Palmer. It is only a small point, but how could any man know? The public could not be expected to know who is responsible with regard to the letting out of these enemy aliens. We have asked questions in this House with regard to alien waiters. Again, I am going to make an admission. I admit that the statements in regard to alien waiters were exaggerated, but there were 845 some alien waiters who were released after the police had been to their employers in order to ask whether they could be taken back. I venture to suggest that our police are not paid to be employed to find berths for enemy aliens of any kind.
§ Mr. McKENNAThey were not so employed. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI have spoken to men to whom the police have been, and to say that they were not so employed is ridiculous. A policeman goes, presumably by orders from someone, to the owners of a restaurant or the manager of a hotel, and says, "If we let out Herr Schmidt can you, or will you, take him back into your employ?" The right hon. Gentleman says that is not employing the police. Of course it is.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe police were never employed for this purpose. The police were instructed to inquire of certain persons whether a statement made by an interned prisoner was true. I have inquired of the police, and they never exceeded their instructions so far as I have teen able to discover. There was not any desire on the part of any policeman to find employment for any German. The simple question was put: Is the statement made by so and so that you wished to give them employment true?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThat is one way of putting it, and I go so far as to say that I object to the police being sent at the public expense to ask people whether they are prepared to take back enemy aliens. That is really what it comes to. There are to-day in London a considerable number of the hotels who have a certain number of Germans in their employ. Surely there is no need at this time of the day to employ aliens. There are many of our own men wanting work, particularly in those directions. I do not see why I should not mention it. There are two well-known railway terminus hotels in London which have aliens in them to-day. They are the terminus hotels of our principal railways, and, while special constables are guarding the railways and the stations outside, it is rather a shame that there should be enemy aliens employed in the hotels. The gravamen of my charge all comes to this. You have 18,000 enemy aliens in London to-day and 685 male enemy aliens in the prohibited areas on the East Coast. That is the last number we got from the Secretary of State for War.
846 I said that I might have to criticise the Secretary of State for War. If there is anybody here who says that Lord Kitchener is responsible for permitting 685 enemy alien males to reside on the East Coast of this country, having regard to the raid which has taken place, and having regard to the possibility of further raids taking place, I say that I should require very strong evidence that His Lordship has considered the matter, and that if he has that is his opinion. I should go further and say, "We, the people of the country, are entitled to express our feelings and say that it is not a right thing." What is the good of having a prohibited area if you allow 685 alien enemies to reside there? I have been informed, in answer to a question, that their cases have been under consideration. They began to consider them on the 1st January, but 412 cases still remain to be dealt with. There might have been a good many raids during the interval of nine weeks since the consideration commenced. Who is it is considering them? Is it Sir Herbert Belfield, of the War Office, or Mr. Waller, of the Home Office, or the chief constable of the county? Who is it has to decide whether these people shall continue to remain in the prohibited area?
The demands I make are threefold. First, that all alien enemies in London should be interned. That is a large order, but it is done in Germany, because Germany is thorough in regard to the way in which it is conducting this War. It is said there is a scarcity of huts or places in which to put these aliens. I will venture to suggest two places. Our workhouses, happily, are not so full as they were, and there are many inmates at the present time who might easily be allowed to go home and be granted a sum of from 10s. to 15s. for sustenance. You would then have a good deal of workhouse accommodation available for these aliens. In addition to that, there is the Crystal Palace, which would accommodate from 15,000 to 16,000. I know there are 5,000 of the Naval Brigade still left at the Palace, but they could be moved. I do not wish to say where, but everybody knows there is a vacant camp to which they could be sent. The Crystal Palace is a place admirably adapted for the accommodation of alien enemies. Is there any reason why they should not be sent there? It is not their benefit we are thinking of; it is the safety of our women, our wives, and our daughters that we are anxious about. There may be no danger now 847 unless there is a raid. But the same might have been said of Belgium at the outset, and we know what has occurred there. Consequently, I ask that all the aliens in London should be interned. Secondly, I ask that all the aliens in prohibited areas should be cleared out—men, women, and children. There is no need for them to live there at all. They can go to any part of the Midlands to live. The third demand I make is embodied in the words of the Motion. I want the administration of all the Acts and regulations in regard to alien enemies or suspected persons, which includes Englishmen, to be concentrated during the War in the hands of one Minister, that Minister to be responsible to this House.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONIn seconding the Motion, I think I may claim justification for the form in which it is placed in the fact that we have only been able to raise this question in a broad sense by the concession of the Government in giving us today for that purpose, because when, some weeks ago, I placed on the Paper a Resolution on the Civil Service Estimates, I was led to understand that I could not on that occasion raise that part of the alien question which dealt with matters that refer to the War Office, whereas if I had placed the same Resolution on the consideration of the Army Estimates I should, of course, not have been able to raise the question so far as it affected the action of the police. I think it is clear, from the Parliamentary point of view, it is very inconvenient that the responsibility should be apparently divided between these two Departments. But apart from the question of Parliamentary convenience, I would ask, Are we following the best system? Is the division of responsibility between the local police and the military authorities the best system that can be devised? You may have the case, for instance, of a chief constable who can arrest a man in a prohibited area and intern him there. The War Office can release that man, if they think it desirable to do so, and can return him to the prohibited area. But the chief constable is not bound to allow the man to go on residing there, and, therefore, may again remove him out of it. It seems to me that, unless some responsible head exists to decide that kind of question, there must be a certain amount of unnecessary overlapping and confusion. My hon. Friend dealt with the general question of 848 divided responsibility, and I will not therefore pursue that subject further. I prefer to deal with some of the general questions arising out of the alien danger. Surely it is not disputed in any quarter that the danger is a very real one! It is admitted we have some 70,000 aliens dwelling in this country, and I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, which has already been quoted, goes far to show how much he realises the extreme gravity of the position. In that speech, on the 26th November last, he said:—
You have got the peril to life in the presence of many aliens, many of whom may be spies, or a danger to the State in the event of a raid, or may in other forms injure us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1914, col. 1389, Vol. LXVIII.]There are a good many forms in which the enemies of the State may injure it. I wonder whether anyone will say it is impossibe that the enemies of this country have been taking advantage, or might take advantage, of the industrial position in certain parts of the country to foster a feeling which is not wholly consistent with the national interest. I cannot help thinking—I do not say it is the case—but it is certainly a possibility. Nothing will induce me to believe that a large body of my fellow-countrymen are spontaneously capable of any unpatriotic action. Rather I believe enemy agitators may easily have endeavoured to foster and increase any feeling of irritation which may exist to our detriment and our loss. If my words could reach so far, which I think is very improbable, I should not hesitate to warn the men who, by working on the manufacture of munitions of war, are doing every bit as much for their country as those who are fighting in the trenches or serving in the Navy—I should not hesitate to warn them that when they hear suggestions that they should put their own interests before the interests of their country, they should ask themselves whether that voice which they hear is really a British voice, or whether it is not more likely to be a gramophonic reproduction of a time which is being played in Berlin.As regards the general question, if it is true—and it is true undoubtedly—that all aliens are not enemies, it is equally true that all enemies are not aliens. We have a great variety of classes of people who may be dangerous to us in the present position, and I would go so far as to say that the unnaturalised German living in this country, the man who remains openly a German subject, is not by any means 849 the most dangerous. He is frequently in that position through sheer carelessness. I know a case, personally, of a man who has lived in this country for forty years. He married an English woman and has two sons seining in our Army. That man at the outbreak of the War was a German subject; he had never taken the trouble to become naturalised. The right hon. Gentleman has since, and I think very rightly—I intervened in this matter myself—given the man his naturalisation papers, is it is obviously due to carelessness that the man did not take the trouble to naturalise himself at an earlier date. I believe that by far the most dangerous are those Germans living in this country who have recently, in many cases, become naturalised British subjects. Obviously, if a man came to this country with mischievous intentions, he would take the precaution to become a naturalised Britisher in order to facilitate the objects he had in view, especially as he is able to do so without losing his German nationality. I think we can look upon the cases of these men with a good deal more suspicion than upon the cases of the unnaturalised Germans here.
Then I come to the question of women. Apparently there is no provision for the internment of women; yet no one will doubt that a woman is fully as capable as a man of being a dangerous spy. Most of the actions which are attributed to male spies could quite easily be carried out by women. Will anyone deny that a woman could signal through a window overlooking the sea quite as easily as a man? Yet in these prohibited areas to which my hon. Friend has referred, on the 1st January there were 695 alien enemy males and 2,302 alien enemy females. I cannot help thinking that something should be done to make provision against this danger. Even if you intern the whole of the Germans living in this country, you would not entirely settle the danger, and you would not put an end to the spy danger, because there are great numbers of subjects of neutral States, aye, and British subjects too, who may be acting as spies and doing great detriment to this country. It is well known that very large numbers of men of German blood and sympathies are subjects of neutral countries, especially of the United States, and they may be in this country doing a very considerable amount of harm. Of course, these subjects of neutral States, and British subjects, too, can only be dealt with by the means 850 already at our disposal. I admit that the whole question is an extremely difficult one, but I think that is a reason why we should endeavour to reduce the danger to the smallest possible proportions, in order that dangers which we cannot avoid may be more effectually dealt with. As regards the question of what can be done, beyond what has already been done, my first suggestion is that powers should be taken to revoke the certificates of naturalisation which have already been granted, especially in the case of those who retain their enemy nationality. It seems to me that that power of revocation is a very necessary one to have, and it might be used on certain occasions. I know this question was raised in another place some two months ago, and on that occasion the Government objected to adopting the course proposed. Their ground for so doing was stated by the Lord Chancellor in these words:—
What nationality a man possesses is a question of status, and when once it is conferred it is expected by other countries that the country granting it will not capriciously, or arbitrarily, or hastily withdraw the privileges which have been conceded because that affects other questions.The Noble Lord went on to say:—In other words, you have to consider international law in dealing with this.But have we not advanced somewhat in the last two months? Are we going to be tied up by judicial niceties any more in this than in other matters? Besides the fact that the position has changed in the last two months we have this other fact, that at the end of January—this Debate having taken place in the House of Lords on the 6th of that month—the French Government took this very step. We are told, according to the "Times" of 30th January, in a message from Paris on the previous day, that:—To-day the Chamber dealt, with a Bill against persons of German, Austrian, and Turkish origin who have adopted French nationality. After two counter-projects more sweeping in character, a Government Bill was passed. It annuls naturalisation of persons of enemy origin who retained their original nationality after adopting French, who leave France to avoid military service, who bear arms against France, or who lend any aid to their country during time of war.If we followed up what the French Government has seen fit to do, we might be taking very useful steps in our own defence. What an effect this would have in the case of men like Ahler, which is a well-known case where the man was admitted to be an open enemy of this country, but because he was a naturalised Britisher he could not be interned except by the ordinary proceeding of the law, 851 whereas if there had been power in cases of that kind to revoke the certificate of naturalisation, you would have been able to deal with him as with any other alien and intern him on suspicion, and at the end of the War to deport him.It seems desirable that something should be done with regard to women alien enemies. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) referred yesterday to the case of women frequently attending the railway stations and meeting wounded Belgian soldiers when they were coming to this country. I know nothing about that, but it certainly suggested that these women are capable of doing very useful service to their own country if they are able to meet men coming freshly from the front and to forward any information which they get from them to their own country. Would it not be desirable to send a considerable number of the women, children and men of non-military age who are in this country and are of German origin back to Germany? It is as well that the Germans should have the pleasure of feeding them, instead of the people of this country. Another point which is worthy of some serious attention is the use of motors in prohibited areas. Although you are turning certain people out of these prohibited areas because their presence is a danger there, it has struck me that there is absolutely nothing to prevent them in the course of an hour from running from where they have been made to live inland into any part of the prohibited area they like. It would certainly be desirable that at night motors should only be allowed to be used in prohibited areas under special permits. That is much less invidious than forbidding certain individuals to use motors.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not see how that point arises on the Motion before the House. The Motion relates only to the concentration of administration.
§ Mr. J. MASONI bow to your ruling, Sir, but I thought the question of the use of motors in prohibited areas was one affecting the administration of the law. If you rule that I cannot follow that argument, I will immediately drop that part of my case. I would press the right hon. Gentleman as to whether it is not desirable to make the question of prohibited areas a reality. Is it desirable, while you have prohibited areas in which it is suggested that it is dangerous to allow aliens 852 to live, that you should have some 3,000 of them still left in those areas? It is a question whether you should not have prohibited areas in places where you have not got them now. The most obvious case from that point of view would be London, where we are told there are some 20,000 aliens now living. I would emphasise the view that naturalised aliens are probably the most dangerous of the enemies we have in this country, and ask whether there is not sufficient ground for revoking the certificate so that it should be possible in some way to make them register, in order that their numbers and the locality in which they live should be known, and also that under certain conditions they should be subject to the Alien Restriction Orders which already apply to unnaturalised aliens.
I admit to the full the difficulty of dealing with these cases, but I maintain that the danger which is admitted could undoubtedly be reduced to the minimum. No precaution is too small to take, and there is no reason why we should run any risk which could possibly be avoided. The spies and enemies in this country, whether of British or neutral nationality, are sufficiently troublesome for us to deal with as it is. That cannot be helped. Where you have people of undoubted sympathy with our enemies, probably of enemy blood and family ties, and possibly having relatives fighting against us, there you have cases where you must obviously expect more danger than in the case of neutral or British subjects, and it is quite undeniable that the remedy is also very urgent. If we could revoke the certificates of naturalisation, we should to a considerable extent reduce the danger to which we are now open.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion did not cover the whole ground of the Motion, but I have assumed that he intends his Motion to apply only to enemy aliens. He does not say so in the actual terms he put upon the Paper.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI am very sorry. I did mean to add the word "enemy" before aliens, and to move it in that form.
§ Mr. McKENNAThen I need not dwell upon the Motion as it stands, because I could have shown shortly that it would have been absolutely impossible to put the whole administration of the law in 853 relation to aliens under one department, because we have pauper aliens and criminal aliens as well.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI meant alien enemies.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Gentleman desires that the whole responsibility for the administration of the law in relation to enemy aliens and suspected persons should be vested in one department and under a Minister responsible to this House. I have made repeated attempts to explain, as far as I can, to the hon. Gentleman wherein the responsibility lies, but I regret to say that after six months' effort his speech to-day has convinced me that I have failed.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI am afraid so.
§ Mr. McKENNAI deplore it. Although I have not had the time or the desire to read what I had said myself on this subject, on former occasions, I did send for the speech made by me on 26th November, 1914, which he quoted. I was astonished to find in that speech—astonished, having regard to the attitude which the hon. Gentleman adopted—that I then stated in a manner which appears to me to be as clear as possible, that the responsibility rested, not upon the Home Office, but upon the War Office in respect, to the two subjects to which he has specially drawn attention. I hope the House will forgive me if I read two very short passages. I said, in regard to internment:
On the question of internment the military authority has the deciding word. It is light it should be so. Internment is a military measure under the law of nations, and all I can do is to arrest. When I have arrested, I hand the prisoner over to the military authorities who decide how many I am to arrest and how long I am to go on arresting. They tell me when I am to stop. If I arrest I cannot hold. In the case of a civil offence, by bringing a charge against anybody I arrest I do hold the prisoner; I keep him in the prison cell, and I bring him up for trial. But a military prisoner stands in a different position. I arrest him, but I have to deliver him over to the military authorities, and if they say they do not want him. I have to let him fro free."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1914, col. 1395, Vol. LXVIII.]I should have thought that was almost, in one-syllable language, a statement as clear as could be made that it is the War Office that decide when, for how long, and to what extent enemy aliens shall be interned. That statement was made nearly four months ago, yet the hon. Gentleman is still in doubt as to the responsibility. On the other subject, as to the division of responsibility between the two authorities, again in the same speech I used language which, to my unenlightened intelligence, 854 appears to be as plain as it could be, and which ought to have left no doubt in the mind of the hon. Member. If I may again quote my words, I said:—There is no discordance of policy between the different Departments of the Government—not the slightest. The House will agree, I imagine, that the military authorities are the right authority to balance and determine the degree of danger which is suffered in a military sense through the presence of these enemy aliens. I think they are the right authority to determine that, and, when they have done so and settled on the action which should be taken in consequence of the degree of danger they recognise, then the Home Office places the whole of its powers at their disposal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1914, col. 1396, Vol. LXVIII.]5.0 P.M.Once again in this matter I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for what may be termed the policy rests with the War Office. The moment the War Office have decided upon the policy the Home Office places at the disposal of the War Office the whole of its machinery. If the hon. Member has any case in which he can show that we have failed to give every assistance in our power to the military authorities in the execution of their duties I will take full blame to myself. Certainly as regards the Metropolitan Police I should be entirely responsible. As regards the police outside the Metropolitan area, the local police authorities are themselves responsible; but I am not aware of a single instance in which the local police authorities have refused to give all the assistance in their power to the military authorities, and I really do not believe that there is any discordance of authority, or any divergence of policy, or any unwillingness to render mutual assistance between any of the Departments of the State, and when the hon. Members desires the whole of this subject to be placed under one single responsible authority the only answer that can be made is that there is but one final responsible authority, and that is the military authority.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDThe naval authority?
§ Mr. McKENNAI include under the term "military" both the naval and the military authority in the technical sense. I think the Noble Lord will agree that that is a correct use of the word "military." They have the ultimate responsibility, and I submit that it is right that the ultimate responsibility should rest upon them. Let me explain why that is so. First of all, neither the Army nor the Navy would be willing for one moment to surrender their own Intelligence Department. The hon. 855 Member says he would like to see everything placed under the Home Office. I believe he would desire to add, under the Home Office represented by a different Home Secretary.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSYou are pressing me rather hard.
§ Mr. McKENNAWe will assume that. I will not suggest for a moment that the hon. Member would desire to see it all placed under the present Home Secretary, but be it this Home Secretary or another Home Secretary, let him consider the proposition in its whole extent. You must have an Army Intelligence Department. Nothing would persuade Lord Kitchener to give that up. You must also have a Naval Intelligence Department. Nothing would persuade the First Lord of the Admiralty to give that up. Both those Departments are dealing in a large measure with the very subject-matter of this Motion. One of these Departments, the Army Department, is at this moment, in this country, the only authority which has an organisation extending over the whole country. The whole country is divided into military commands and the military authority has a local representative in every district in the country. There is no other Department of the State which has a similar organisation or a similar authority.
There is no single Department of State, except the military authority, which could undertake this work, unless you were to reorganise either the whole of our police authority or the whole of our local authorities, or undertake a work of Government reorganisation which would practically be impossible. Again there is no reason why you should do so. The military authorities have at their disposal ample means. They have numbers of men who are trained to the work of organisation. The military authorities are able to command, as they have in fact commanded, the willing service of the police over the whole of the country, and in these circumstances I ask, could you devise at this moment a better system than that which leaves the responsibility where it has always rested, upon the military authorities. The hon. Member speaks of poor Lord Kitchener. Is it fair to throw upon poor Lord Kitchener this heavy burden while he is engaged in such responsible work of carrying on the War outside the country? How little the hon. 856 Member knows poor Lord Kitchener. I do not think "poor" is the epithet I should ever apply to Lord Kitchener in any circumstances. I can assure the hon. Member that Lord Kitchener knows as well as anyone alive how to take care of himself and of his authority. There is no question about it.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGHear, hear.
§ Mr. McKENNAI agree. I am replying to the hon. Member's description of poor Lord Kitchener, a description which was cheered by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. LONGThe right hon. Gentleman is replying to his version of what we said on this side of the House.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe words, "poor Lord Kitchener," were used by the hon. Member, whose whole argument was that either the rest of the Government or I had thrust upon poor Lord Kitchener a responsibility with which he ought never to have been burdened. That is what I understood his argument to be. Am I misrepresenting him?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIn substance not; I believe I used the expression "poor Lord Kitchener" once. I shall vise it ten times after the right hon. Gentleman's defence of him.
§ Mr. McKENNAI am not sure that my defence of Lord Kitchener is more injurious to him than the hon. Member's defence. However, whether it is right to speak of "poor Lord Kitchener" or not, of this I can assure the hon. Member, that Lord Kitchener would not be willing to relinquish his responsibility, and if the hon. Member desires the responsibility to be transferred from the War Office to the Home Office he must deal with Lord Kitchener.
§ Sir J. H. DALZIELmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
§ Mr. McKENNANever. I do not think my right hon. Friend was in the House during the whole speech. The same statement was made by the hon. Member. I explained to him what actually had occurred. From the very first no one but Lord Kitchener has had the sole responsibility for the internment of aliens. Nobody else has ever had any responsibility for determining whether aliens should be interned or not interned, or the numbers which should be interned.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSHad he the knowledge as well as the responsibility?
§ Mr. McKENNACertainly he has had full knowledge. I said, I think in the speech in November, perfectly clearly that Lord Kitchener had knowledge and had come to a decision which, pace the hon. Member, is, I think, a wise decision. Be that as it may, we are dealing now only with the question of unity of responsibility. Responsibility is single, and it attaches to the War Office. Now we come to the question of the release of interned prisoners. Down to some time in October, I think, the sole responsibility for the release of interned prisoners rested also with the War Office. Many questions arose with regard to the release of interned prisoners. It was quite obvious that whatever representations might be made in regard to the harmlessness of particular individuals who had been interned, it was obviously necessary that police inquiries should be made as to the character of the individual before he was released in order that no person against whom the police had anything to say should be set free. So much use was made, in consequence, of the local police and the Metropolitan Police that it was thought convenient for a time to leave the last word with the Home Secretary as to the release of prisoners, and I think that condition lasted for two or three weeks.
On 11th November, Lord Kitchener decided that he must resume the responsibility for the release of prisoners. As he had the sole responsibility for the internment he thought, on the whole, he had better resume the sole responsibility for the release. Consequently, since 11th November, responsibility for internment and release alike has rested solely with the military authorities. I hope I have said enough on the general principle of responsibility. I have stated the facts. That there is a single undivided responsibility now is the fact. I think it is a responsibility which is very judiciously exercised and with considerable knowledge. I have had experience now for some four years, or longer. I had experience already when I was at the Admiralty, and I have had experience of the Intelligence Department which works under the War Office in conjunction with the Admiralty and the Home Office for upwards of four years, and in my judgment there is no more, efficient Department of the State than the Intelligence Department now conducted by the War Office.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILLIs the same-authority responsible for the landing of aliens?
§ Mr. McKENNANo. I am responsible for that.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Member already at the opening of the Debate agreed that he intended to limit the subject to enemy aliens. I am asked whether I am responsible for the landing of aliens. I say I am.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSEnemy aliens?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Member wished to have two Departments represented at the landing of every steamer, one to deal with such aliens as are enemy aliens and the other to deal with all other aliens. The landing of an alien in this country is one operation, and it must be one Department which deals with it. It is quite impossible to break up existing responsibility in the way the hon. Member suggests should be done. With regard to aliens in prohibited areas, here again the ultimate responsibility rests with the military authorities. I think there is a little misconception in the mind of the hon. Member (Mr. James Mason) with regard to the powers both of the police and of the military authorities in prescribed areas. I do not know if I misunderstood him. He seemed to be under the impression that a suspected person—a person against whom the military authorities had any feeling of suspicion in a prohibited area—could not be removed unless he was an enemy alien. If that was the view he had, and if he thought therefore that in the case of persons who are naturalised there ought to be power to cancel their certificates in order that the authorities might be able to remove them—
§ Mr. J. MASONMy impression certainly was that a man who was a naturalised British subject could not be interned on suspicion.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Gentleman is right that he cannot be interned on suspicion, but he can be removed from a particular area and compelled to live in a particular place. If he leaves that particular place he can be put in prison for breaking the law.
§ Mr. McKENNAHe could not be arrested in the area or anywhere else unless a charge was brought against him. A naturalised enemy alien, or a British subject, or anybody, whether naturalised or not, if living anywhere, not necessarily in a prohibited area, but in any part of the country—if the hon. Member for Brentford himself is living in any part of the country he can be removed on suspicion by the military authorities. He can be ordered to go and live in a particular place. That is the existing law. It would apply to the hon. Member for Brentford. He could be removed from where he lives and compelled to live in Brentford, and not only so, but to remain there.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIt would be more difficult to get me out of it.
§ Mr. McKENNAI think if the hon. Member bears in mind the powers which the military authorities already enjoy nothing more is needed. If there is a case of suspicion, they have full power to deal with a suspected person.
§ Mr. McKENNAAny person may be told, if the military authorities have any ground of suspicion, to go and live at Land's End or John o'Groats, and if he has got to live at John o'Groats it will be very like internment.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDHe would be safe there.
§ Mr. McKENNAHe can be ordered to live wherever the military authorities think he would be safe. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the internment of women. I believe it would be quite a new practice to intern women. On what grounds would you intern women—apart from suspicion? Would it be on the ground that they were aliens? If they were interned, the general ground upon which it would be done would be that they are dangerous or likely to be, or possibly might be, dangerous. That has been the general ground in regard to men. But in regard to women, if the practice were adopted, it would have to be on the general ground that the woman was of German nationality. The hon. Gentleman told the House of the case of a German to whom I have recently given a certificate of naturalisation. How are you going to distinguish 860 between a case of that kind and the case of a man to whom you give a certificate of naturalisation? How are you going to distinguish between a person who may be justly given a certificate and another against whom you have no evidence whatever, except such suspicion as may attach to German birth?
§ Mr. McKENNAEvery case of suspicion is dealt with, and can be dealt with, under the existing law. Internment does not necessarily apply to suspicion. Women can be and are being dealt with under the existing law.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSCan they be interned?
§ Mr. McKENNAThat would not be the method by which you would wish to deal with them. They can be imprisoned, but it would be found practically impossible to distinguish in the case of nine women out of ten between the innocent and the guilty—the innocent woman to whom a certificate of naturalisation might be perfectly safely granted, and the guilty woman who ought to be interned. He would find himself in the position of interning, or rather arresting and handing over to the military authorities, a large number of women, and afterwards he would be requested from all over the country by persons interested in individual cases to grant them certificates of naturalisation. It is impossible, in view of the existing state of the law, and of our practice, to treat mere nationality as an offence. It cannot be done. If the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) had at the present time the ideal Home Secretary of his imagination—if he had the hon. Member for Brentford himself in that office—I am sure he would not act upon the policy which he suggests should be adopted
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSWhy not intern aliens of military age?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Gentleman has referred to aliens of military age. He would grant them certificates of naturalisation.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat is only prophecy.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIs the right hon. Gentleman referring to two cases which have been quoted against me?
§ Mr. McKENNAI mean to say that the hon. Gentleman invited me to naturalise three Germans. If that is his actual personal policy, if he were Home Secretary, he could not carry out what he professes to be the policy that ought to be adopted—the policy of interning all Germans of military age.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI certainly would.
§ Mr. McKENNAThere are many Germans of military age he would intern without regard to the circumstances. He would find that there are Germans who have lived in this country from the age of a few weeks, who have no German relatives, who know no language but English, who have known no country but England, and who are as English in every respect as the hon. Gentleman himself.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSNo!
§ Mr. McKENNAAs English in feeling. He would find that many of the Germans he would intern are in that position. I know one case of the father of seven sons, every one of whom is fighting for this country. I have had before me case after case of persons, men and women, of technical German nationality who are as bitter enemies of Germany and as strong admirers of this country as the hon. Member. With the knowledge that the hon. Member could not fail to acquire that these things are as I state, how could he, as a reasonable human being, carry out a policy which would be inhuman, without adding one tittle of strength or advantage to this country? No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman really had power to carry out the policy which he professes in this House, I do not think he would really do it. It is inconsistent with the traditions of this country. When we have been at war in the past we have never done it, and I venture to express the humble but sincere opinion that the military authorities were right when they refused to carry out the policy laid down by the hon. Member. He referred to a case in Hertfordshire. I do not know why he should have thought of Hertfordshire. He instanced the case as an illustration of divided responsibility. It was not so at all. The responsible authority was the military authority. The military authority requested the assistance of the local police. They do so in nearly every case. The Home Office had nothing to do with the Hertfordshire case.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThe Home Office wrote to the chief constable in the district.
§ Mr. McKENNAHas the hon. Gentleman got the letter? If he will look at the papers he will see that the Home Office has no responsibility in the matter at all. I would very much like the hon. Gentleman to read the letter.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThe letter, which is from Scotland Yard, is in the following terms:—
With reference to your telephone message to New Scotland Yard, on 21st ultimo, I am directed, by the Chief Constable of Herts, to acquaint you that careful enquiry has been made, and it cannot he ascertained that Elderhorst has acted in any way against the interests of this country. He is duly registered, and has complied with the terms of the Order.
§ Mr. McKENNAThis case would not come to the Home Office at all. I imagine that inquiry would be made at Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard writes for information and gets the information. How is that an instance of divided responsibility? It is a case of one police authority communicating with another, but I cannot understand why that should be held up as an instance of divided responsibility. In Hertfordshire the outward responsible authority is the military authority. With that authority this gentleman, or any other, could be removed from the district. But in the investigation of facts, and in communications between different counties it is usual to use the different police authorities. The notion that a single authority can be set up to have control of the military and police in London and throughout the country is a chimera. Actually the final and full responsibility rests with the military authorities. The police throughout the country give their highly efficient services to the military authorities, and there is no foundation, I submit to the House, for the allegation of the hon. Gentleman that there is either inefficiency or divided responsibility.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThere has been, as the right hon. Gentleman said, considerable doubt as to the authority which dealt with aliens. I think that his speech this afternoon made, in one respect, the position quite clear. It is now quite evident that there is a large number of departments which deal with this subject, but that the nominal responsibility rests with the War Office, and while the War Office is nominally responsible, it is the Home Secretary, who, in my opinion, if this matter were dealt with as it ought to be 863 dealt with, would be the Minister who would have the most to do with the matter. In spite of the fact that the War Office is nominally responsible, it is the Home Secretary who deals with the question in the House of Commons. I am quite sure that the House will give us all credit for not desiring to attack any Minister in this matter. The last time I remember that I was unfortunate enough, unintentionally, to irritate the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that to-day I shall not do so. But I wish to point out that in my belief there is a fundamental difference between the point of view from which this question is regarded, certainly by myself, and I believe by all my hon. Friends, and the point of view from which it is regarded by the right hon. Gentleman.
At the beginning of the War a statement was issued to the War Office stating that something was being done in regard to aliens, but there was a sentence in it that the overwhelming number of these Germans were decent, inoffensive people from whom no danger was to be anticipated. And in his speech to-day he has pointed out, what we all know, that there are many cases—I know some myself—of Germans who were born in Germany but who have lived so long here that their sympathies are English, and I know myself more than one family whose sons are fighting in our ranks, and whose sympathies are just as much British as are mine or those of the right hon. Gentleman. I quite admit that, and I should be the last to inflict hardship on individuals of that kind unless there was a real danger which made it necessary occasionally to do injustice to some in order to protect the interests of the country as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman says that nationality is not an offence. Certainly not. But in time of war nationality is a ground of suspicion, and what we have a right to ask is that every man or woman of German birth should be regarded with suspicion, beginning with the idea that if they get a chance they will help their own country and damage ours, and that therefore it is our business to prevent them getting that chance if we possibly can. Surely that is a sound principle. How is it going to be carried out?
Here again the right hon. Gentleman or the Government—I am alluding to the action of the Government as a whole—have taken a view which is entirely different from what I think they ought to 864 take. For instance, in the last Debate, if my memory is correct, we were told that they interned a certain number of people in London, but from that internment were excluded all doctors or members of learned professions and all men who were employing labour. If that is the principle on which the Government act, I would have taken the very opposite view. I would have considered that there was far more danger from that class than from poor workmen scattered over the country. Again I say that it is not a question of the fault of the Home Office, but they do not treat this question seriously. The two instances given by my hon. Friend are proof of that. An order was issued in September that all reservists were to be made prisoners. In the one case, which was referred to, I think, by a justice in the North of England on the 7th October, the order was suspended, and a week or two later it was put in force. What is the meaning of this? Are they acting without any principle at all, or are they simply doing something to satisfy the demand of the public at the moment that something should be done? Or take the case of Sunderland, after the raid at Hartlepool. Could anything seem worse? I do not know whether it is the fault of the Home Secretary or the War Office. Notice was given that all aliens should be moved inland on the Monday. On the Friday the notice was cancelled. How can anyone believe that the thing is seriously treated when we find vacillation such as this?
§ Mr. TENNANTThere is an explanation, which I gave in answer to a question put by the hon. and learned Member for York. When the order was originally issued by the local military authority, the competent military authority, it was brought to our notice, and there was a fear that it was ultra vires. Owing to the fact that that was feared, a suspensory order was sent down to the local command.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWas it afterwards reversed?
§ Mr. TENNANTAfterwards the local military authorities made a separate investigation into each separate case.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat is an explanation; but from the point of view of a nation at war it makes the case worse. The order, I presume, was given because they thought that it was necessary for military reasons, and the explanation is that it was reversed because there was a 865 fear that it was ultra vires. I would say that that shows that the whole question was not treated seriously. I really believe that the reason for this laxity is that the Government do not believe that there is any real danger from spies. I am as little inclined as most people, I hope, to run after popular cries when I see that there is nothing in them, and I am sure that the spy mania has been greatly exaggerated. But I do ask the House to consider this. The right hon. Gentleman says that we never acted in the way suggested in any previous war. No; but espionage had never played the part in any previous war which it now plays as a definite part of the military system of Germany. I believe that the Germans used it in the Franco-German war almost as much as now; but in any war in which we have been engaged it was never used in this way. But I put it to any hon. Gentleman opposite, who has followed what has happened in Belgium and in the part of France that was invaded by Germany, what do we find?
We find—and this is really no exaggeration—that the army of spies was the advanced guard of the German Army, and that it prepared the way for the advancing hosts. If that happened in Belgium and France, and since we know that Germany does not love us any better than she loved Belgium or France, can we not feel certain that they have been doing the same thing here, and that, if the opportunity offers, we shall find the same advanced army working in our midst? I think that that is certain. Of course, until the country is invaded there is not the same danger; but if there is, as I believe, an elaborate system of espionage in which every German with real patriotic feeling is more likely to assist than not if he gets the chance, if there is this disposition, then it is a real danger and it ought to be seriously met. I think I can prove to the House, from an incident which I noticed in the papers the other day, that it is a real danger. First of all, it is said that there is not this danger until there is an invasion of the country. But we run peculiar dangers of our own.
We know that our Admiralty are making tremendous efforts, some of which the House does not altogether approve of, to keep secrecy. We know that there is a long coast from which information of movements of our ships can be transmitted by those whose business it is, whether they are paid for it or are actuated by patriotic motives. Over this long coast there is a 866 means through which, by signalling, information may be given to our enemies, which will be dangerous to the lives of the sailors who are fighting our battles. The Government recognise that and they make prohibitive areas. That seems to me to be a right and sensible thing to do. To my mind there are only two ways of dealing with this problem. You have either got to intern all these enemies all over the country or you have got to keep your eye on them and to have them constantly watched, and instantly to arrest any of those of whom you have any suspicion; or yon have got to mark out particular areas and make certain that no alien enemies is to be found within those areas. They did mark out those areas. What have they done? They are prohibited to aliens. But there are 600 male aliens in that area, and, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, there are 2,000 or 3,000 female aliens.
What in the world is the use of making a prohibited area if it does not prohibit? What more reason have you to suppose that those who are left are not dangerous than to suppose that those whom you have sent away are? The thing is futile. Either you should not have the prohibited areas, or you should make them effective and not have a single alien within them. I have said I had noticed in the papers the other day how dangerous that was. A certain gentleman, a Dane or a Swede, was tried—and I saw the report of the trial in the papers—for answering what were supposed to be German signals. As I understood the trial, our Admiralty, in order to test whether this signalling was being done, sent a ship along the coast. They put up two supposed German signals, and they were instantly answered. What does that mean? The people who are ready to answer those signals had been answering other signals, and surely that in itself shows that this is a real danger, and that it has not been properly dealt with.
I should like to say a word or two about responsibility. I do not think it matters to us in the least who is responsible. It is the Government. Lord Kitchener has a broad back, and when the Prime Minister read out his statement—which I thought meant a change in policy and which apparently did not—I thought it was not a bad plan that this broad back should be asked to bear this little additional burden. But it does not matter. If that is wrong— 867 if Lord Kitchener is responsible, we will criticise him just as readily as we would the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. It is the Government that we expect to keep us safe in this matter. What about this Department? It is quite obvious that the responsibility is divided in the most complex manner. The Admiralty as well as the War Office has its Intelligence Department. That Intelligence Department is constantly at work, and if the War Office is responsible it is only nominally responsible. It only means that the Admiralty uses them as the instrument for getting their decrees carried out. The real crux of the question is that you are asked to keep an eye on these people who are likely to be dangerous. The right hon. Gentleman said it is a military authority who decide upon internment.
If the War Office say that every alien in a certain area ought to be interned, that is a military operation. But if you are dealing with individual aliens about whom you have a suspicion, the right authority to deal with them is surely the police, who are spread all over the country, who ought to know all about these persons, and be the best guides as to who ought to be interned and who ought not. If that be true, and if there is one Department which more than another co-ordinates that work, in my opinion it ought to be the Home Office. That would not in the least interfere with the authority of Lord Kitchener or of the First Lord of the Admiralty. If for reasons of their own—if, as the result of the investigations of their Intelligence Department, they find that somebody is suspect, all they have to do is to give instructions to the Home Office that he is to be arrested. That would not interfere with their authority. What happens? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary admits that for London it is his business to see that suspicious people are looked after. What about the country? Just as the police are the right people to do it in London, so they are the right people to do it everywhere. When I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman before, he said that he had no real authority over the county police.
Again, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are at war. This House will give the Government any authority they want. The police are the right people to use, and there ought to be some central body to see that they are being used all over the country. I do not wish to raise 868 prejudice against poor waiters and people of that kind, who are as innocent as I am, but, if I were in the right hon. Gentleman's position, I would no more have thought of allowing men like the brother of the Governor of Liége to go about with perfect freedom in this country than I would of allowing a German Army to land on our shores. I would never dream of it. The cleverer a spy is, and the more useful he is, the more certain it is that your investigations will not find out what he is doing. If you find men like these, whose sympathies are certainly against us, in a position in which we see that they could do us damage, it is childish folly to allow them to stay. I would say the same thing, although it is not a pleasant thing to say, and although I am sure it would do great hardship to many innocent people, in the case of great German financial houses, who have the power of doing us infinitely more injury than all the waiters. I do not believe that the Government have sufficiently realised the seriousness of this danger, and I do not think they have taken every step that they might have taken to make it as small as possible.
§ Sir H. DALZIELThough I associate myself with what the hon. Member for Brentford said, and agree generally with the main contentions put forward in the speeches that have been made, when I brought this question, some months ago, in a slightly different form, to the attention of the Government, I did not ask what the hon. Gentleman opposite asked, that there should be a Minister who shall be entirely responsible in regard to this matter. I did, however, suggest that there should be a Department and a responsible Minister and a Department representative of the military and naval authorities concerned in this matter. I still think that is the best solution. The speech of the Home Secretary to-night has not removed from my mind, and I do not believe will remove from the mind of the public outside, the anxiety they entertain with regard to this question, and the undoubted feeling of dissatisfaction at the way it has been handled. Take the speech of the Home Secretary to-night. He knows, of course, that we are speaking of his Office and not of himself. His speech to-night, in effect, justified the complaints that have been made that there is no central authority, and no business basis on which our whole policy in regard to aliens is founded. What did the right hon. Gentleman say? "I have no responsibility; it is the War 869 Office. If Germans are to be interned, they ask me, and I do it. They say how many there are to be, and when I am to stop." That admission gives the whole case which has been made against the Government. Does the right hon. Gentlemen suggest when they give him instructions that they know the exact character of every German to be interned? Nothing of the kind. They get their instructions in bulk: "We have got accommodation to-day for 3,000." "Take 3,000 to-day, and a week later we want another 3,000."
The policy of the Government has been entirely guided by accommodation. "How much room have we got?" The right hon. Gentleman does not pretend for a moment that the thousands of men who are interned have ever had a fair consideration of their character or of their case before they were interned. It is not enough that a policeman should put his hand on a man's shoulder because somebody suspected him. I say that the poorest German in this country ought to have an opportunity of going before a tribunal and having his case stated, and Germans should not be sent wholesale to camps without any opportunity of their case being considered. Some of my hon. Friends, with myself, have visited those camps, and only yesterday we visited 2,000 or 3,000 prisoners. One man whom we came across was brought to this country when he was three months old. He was a respectable looking man who bad married an English woman, and has two sons now in the trenches at the front. The policeman had simply put his hand upon his shoulder, and taken him to that camp. That is only one of many cases, and I say that there is no system whatever on which this has been done. I know one or two cases in which aliens have been told in London to go to the police station to be interned, and they have gone day after day, saying, "Here we are," and they have been sent back—"We have got no room for you; when we want you we will send for you." The man to whom I refer occupied a considerable position in London, and I do not know whether he is yet free. That is the principle on which we have gone.
It is not the case of the military with secret service, or of having sent a member of the Intelligence Department to the person suspected, saying, "We must get this man; we are convinced he is a suspect; we are convinced that he may give information to the enemy, and we must send 870 word to the Home Office, or the right hon. Gentleman, to carry out the instructions of the military." That is not what is done at all. It is only done by telephone—"How much room have you at Southampton, or down at Stratford; let us have a few thousand more?" That is what is done at the beginning, that is the basis on which it has been done, and I venture to submit that it should not be continued by the Government. How can you defend taking men by the thousand right away? At first there was a sort of panic, and they were taken away; but they left 16,000 or 20,000 men of military age still free in London. How can you reconcile your policy of taking all these men to different camps and places, and yet leave 16,000, or, I believe, 24,000 men of military age in London alone? No inquiry was made, and all these prisoners were sent away while this large number was left free.
6.0 P.M.
If those people who were sent away were suspect, what of those left free, and how is it that some thousands have been released simply on the guarantee of two persons? I cannot reconcile the sending a man away for months on the ground that he was a public danger, and then, because two persons come forward and guarantee him, he is released. If the evidence was sufficient in the first place, he ought to be kept there. That all goes to show that there is no systematised effort with regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no pressure, and that everything was working perfectly smoothly. It does nothing of the kind. In my own Constituency men were getting money from Germany and they were under suspicion, and it was said, of course, that they got their money from house property in Germany. The police were convinced there was very good ground for their suspicion, but they were dismissed without any inquiry at all by the military authorities. That does not indicate to my mind that there is the harmony and perfect working which the right hon. Gentleman says. Take the case of Baron von Bissing, raised in this House by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I ask, is there unity there? The chief constable of Brighton arrested him, and said he had sufficient evidence to retain him in custody. I venture to say that is still his opinion, but the man is still free. He has been in this country for years, ostensibly as a London correspondent. He visited the Kaiser when he was in Ryde a 871 year or two ago, and got an Order conferred on him, and, by the way, it is not usual for the Kaiser to give Orders to Germans living permanently in a foreign country. Even if they had not found any evidence, I say it is due to the respectable public opinion and anxiety in this country, that this case ought to have been dealt with. There you have the case again of divided authority. I venture to say that if the local police had their way, this man at this moment would be in custody.
§ Mr. McKENNAWhy say divided authority?
§ Sir H. DALZIELThe police say this man should be interned and the military say, "No, he is a very decent fellow." I think that is divided authority. In a matter of that kind where there is a resident in a locality, the knowledge of a man's character must be better known to the police than it can possibly be to the central military authority, and their opinion ought to go before the opinion of any military person who may be appointed. I know a case myself in a matter of the most supreme importance in this crisis, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is not here at the moment, also knows of it, in which information of the most valuable character was obtained, and, it will hardly be believed, that the Secret Service Department of the War Office and of the Admiralty had been working at it for over a week before one knew that the other knew anything about it. What does that point to? It points to the justification for having a Committee, not for dealing with every detail, but with its eyes open directing the whole question, and working so as to see that each Department is helping the representatives of other Departments, and that they all should be under a central and proper control.
At the very opening of the War, who will pretend that the alien question was properly dealt with? Why were Germans of military age at the beginning of the War allowed to go back to Germany, and stopped later? If the policy of stopping them was good a month or two later, why were they not stopped at the beginning? Why did you allow them to go on neutral ships months after the War started, and then suddenly an order goes out. "This has got to be stopped." I say again, that that is a clashing of authority, and it could not happen if you had a proper responsible Board working together for the general 872 benefit. I say, generally, about this question of internment, that every man ought to have the right of going before some sort of tribunal to have it decided whether there is any proper evidence on which to intern him.
The other side of this question which is the spy question, is in my opinion, the most important. The Government know that there is a settled spy system in this country at the present moment, and it is no use pretending they do not. It is no secret that there are a large number of spies still in this country, corresponding regularly with the German Secret Service on the borders of a neutral country. A very short time ago it was no secret of how that information was given. Every spy had a number, and by whatever his number was, he wrote in invisible ink on the page of a magazine or a newspaper or any other periodical he might take up. That, after going on for two or three months, has been stopped, and I believe it is not possible to act in that way now. I say that if every effort is taken as it ought to be taken, the Government could get at every paid spy of Germany in this country. How can it be done? It can be done by releasing the bankers of their oath of secrecy, for I assert that those men are being paid regularly to-day by bank drafts.
I say, we have no machinery that is working in all these larger issues to get at the real facts of the spying that is going on. It is also the fact known to those who have made inquiries that there is not a portion of the United Kingdom which has not been cycled over by an officer of the German Army, who knows every inch of the ground, and if ever there was an invasion, which I do not myself anticipate, the officer responsible for the knowledge of the particular territory would be with the division of the Army that went to that particular territory. So completely and in such a businesslike way has the whole thing been arranged. It is known that one of the most distinguished German generals at the very present moment on the Western front walked himself every inch of the way from Berlin to Paris two years ago, and, of course, observed everything on the way. He went in a capacity which I will not describe in order to avoid any suspicion. We have got to remember that this spy question is part and parcel of the German organisation, and that they know what is going on just as well as we do. They have 873 their English newspapers and they are using secret codes, and have been using secret codes to neutral countries and to firms in Rotterdam and elsewhere. Therefore, I say it is the duty of the Government to do everything they can to cope with such a system. We have no guarantee that that has been done, is being done, or will be done.
Take the way, although it is outside the question, in which this matter is being handled in Germany itself. In Germany no Englishman or Britisher of military age is allowed freedom at all, and children and women, and men over military age who are not interned, have to report themselves three times every day. The French and Russians have to report themselves once every three days. Therefore, they are dealing with the British in Germany in a much harsher way than we are dealing with the Germans here. On the question of the employment of Aliens here, just consider what they do in Austria. Any person of a neutral State, such as an American, who desires to employ a Britisher in Austria, has to prove that it is absolutely essential to the carrying on of his business that that Britisher should be so employed, and when permission is granted for his employment the employer has to contribute £20 to the funds of the Austrian Red Cross Organisation. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would try that on some of the people who are employing Germans over here. I am not at all sure that it would not damp their enthusiasm a great deal.
I still consider that the Government have never met this case with that seriousness with which it ought to have been met. I much regret that the Prime Minister, who has so many claims on his time, has never yet heard an Aliens' Debate. After all, he is the deciding factor between the different Departments, and it would have been a great advantage to have the benefit of his presence. I am not complaining of his absence, but until he is possessed of the importance of this matter, and as to the present position of things, I do not think we can entertain very much hope of relief. I say that the present position is unsatisfactory, and that it is on a totally unbusinesslike and indefensible basis, and until it is vitally changed the public will be entirely dissatisfied with it.
§ Mr. BUTCHERThe speech to which we listened from the Home Secretary gave the House to understand that the regulations affecting aliens and suspects are being worked in the most admirable 874 manner, and he would have us to believe that all the Departments have their various functions, and that nothing is wrong. Could anyone who heard that speech have guessed that we are at this moment engaged in the most terrible struggle in which any nation has ever been involved and engaged—mark you, with the nation which is using all the powers it possesses of espionage in the most ruthless and infamous manner? I agree most heartily with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law) said, that the Home Secretary is not serious in this matter, and that he does not realise, or, if he does, he does not appear to realise, the danger, because I think we may be confident that there are real dangers in this matter. No one can say what mischief these spies may be doing, and certainly he would be a rash man who would say what mischief they could do in the case of invasion.
The Home Secretary tells us there is no divided responsibility, no confusion, and no real danger. I say that in every one of those propositions the exact reverse is true. Let me deal with the question of alien enemies. The Home Secretary, on the 12th November last, told us that in the matter of alien enemies the whole responsibility, both for their internment and their release, rested with the War Office. His words were:—
He (that is the Member for Brentford Mr. Joynson-Hicks) appears to be unaware that the civil authority has no initial responsibility either in the internment or in the release of any aliens. It is purely a military matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th November. 1914, cols. 93 and 94, Vol. LXVIII.]He went on to draw a very harrowing picture of his own sufferings during two or three months when he said he had been subjected to a great deal of abuse in this matter of dealing with alien enemies. I confess I did not understand, and I do not think anyone else understood, that during the three or four weeks immediately preceding that speech he, and he alone, had been the person responsible for the release of alien enemies, as he has told us to-day.
§ Mr. McKENNAWhat is the date of that?
§ Mr. BUTCHERIt is the 12th November. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say to-day that the Home Office, and the Home Office alone, up to that date was responsible for the release of alien enemies. We are learning, we are getting on, and we have perhaps cleared up some of the confusion and some of the things 875 which have happened. We got a little more light the other day from another Member of the Government in another place. It was so remarkable that I will venture to read a few words which were addressed by Lord Lucas, who lifted a little further portion of the veil. Although we are told now that the internment and release of these alien enemies is purely a military matter, we are assured by Lord Lucas that it is all done in consultation with the Home Office, and if he is wrong in his statement. I shall be glad to have it corrected. He said:—
Enquiries are made by the police, and then a joint consideration of the case is made by the Home Office and the War Office, in order that the War Office may satisfy itself of the efficiency of the enquiry made by the Home Office.Then, after this joint consultation with the Home Office, the War Office is to act and undertake the responsibility. If that is not divided authority, or divided responsibility, likely to lead to confusion, I should like to know what is. We heard that from Lord Lucas by accident. Perhaps someone speaking on behalf of the Government in this Debate will tell us a little more about this joint consultation between the War Office and the Home Office? No wonder, when you have a system of that sort in operation, you get 22,000 alien enemies loose in London, and 16,000 of military age.There is another matter in which there is divided responsibility It arises under the Aliens Restriction Act of last year. Under that Act enemy aliens are prohibited from residing in prohibited areas unless they get a permit. How do they get a permit? If the prohibited area lies within the jurisdiction of the Home Office the permit is obtained from the Home Office; if the area lies outside that jurisdiction the permit has to be obtained from the chief constable. The Home Secretary has told us, no doubt with perfect accuracy, that he has no control over the chief constables, and no responsibility for them. So that in this matter you have the Home Office as the authority as regards anything within its area of jurisdiction, and the chief constables, over whom the Home Secretary has no control, operating in another area. There, again, there is a division of responsibility which ought to be removed. I have no doubt whatever that if the Home Secretary came to this House and asked, as an emergency matter, to be given authority over the chief constables 876 for this purpose the House would gladly give it, in order that this very deadly peril, as I conceive it, might be removed.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. and learned Member has not described the whole of the relations of the chief constables with the local military authorities in dealing with enemy aliens in prohibited areas. The regulations are issued by the Home. Office under the authority of the Order in Council. By those regulations the chief constables are instructed to inform the local military authorities, or to consult the local military authorities, in any case in which they allow an enemy alien to remain in a prohibited area, and to inform the War Office in every case if a licence is given. So that the War Office has the knowledge and also the ultimate power.
§ Mr. BUTCHERThe point I was making is that the Home Secretary, who has this matter within his authority under the Aliens Restriction Act, so far as his jurisdiction extends, has no responsibility for the actions of the chief constables in dealing with the matter outside the jurisdiction of the Home Office. The right hon. Gentleman said, indeed in this House on the 12th November—
I can say that I have no individual responsibility in the matter. The Home Office does not come into these transactions at all. I have no control over chief constables.The next matter to which I wish to refer arises under the Defence of the Realm Act. By Rule 14 under that Act a very important power is given to the competent military authorities. That power, in substance, is that where they suspect any persons, be they aliens or be they British subjects, of action prejudicial to the public safety, or to the defence of the realm, that competent military authority may order those persons to be removed from the prohibited area, or from any other area they like, and order them to reside in any area they may direct. That is a power residing in the military authority. The Home Secretary—I think he will agree—has nothing to say to their action at all—that is to say, he ought not to have. I will see whether he has in a moment. In exercising that power the military authority must act on the advice of the local police; they are really the machinery through which the military authority can get information upon which they ought to act and upon which alone they can act. I think the Home Secretary assented to 877 the statement of my right hon. Friend, that the police authorities are the persons to be trusted in this matter.I wish to draw the attention of the House to two cases which occurred within my own knowledge and information, in order to show in what a confused, unsatisfactory manner this regulation works, owing to the division of authority. The first, which occurred shortly after the raid on Scarborough, is a case in which the Home Secretary endeavoured to interfere in a matter in which I think he ought never to have interfered. After the Scarborough raid, the General Officer Commanding the Northern District made an order directing that all aliens, whether naturalised or otherwise, should be removed from the East Coast. That order was made under the regulations of the Defence of the Realm Act, and it was made by the General Officer Commanding, as the competent military authority for that purpose. That order was in no respect invalid. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the other day whether it could be suggested that the order was invalid, and he said it could not. Yet what happened?
On the 1st of January last, before any aliens had been removed under this order, the Home Office, on the strength of some report in a newspaper, without even taking the trouble to verify it, or seeing a copy of the order, addressed a letter to the War Office suggesting that the order was invalid. First of all, why did the Home Office write this letter at all? Secondly, why did they suggest that the order was invalid? The Home Office have given a reason for writing the letter, but they have given no reason, as far as I have been able to discover, for suggesting that the order was invalid. Their reason for writing the letter was that they had complaints from some persons, presumably aliens about to be removed, who imagined that it was a Home Office order. Therefore, the Home Office at once wrote off to the War Office to have the matter looked into.
§ Mr. McKENNAI did not do anything of the sort.
§ Mr. BUTCHERThey wrote suggesting that the order was invalid.
§ Mr. McKENNAA letter was written from the Home Office to the War Office calling attention to a communication which had been addressed to us. The matter 878 was not one that concerned the Home Office, but it did concern the War Office, and we naturally sent on to the War Office the communication that had been made to us. In sending it to the War Office we pointed out that if the communication was true the form of the order was wrong.
§ Mr. BUTCHERThe right hon. Gentleman does not say that I was wrong in stating that his letter suggested that the order was invalid?
§ Mr. McKENNAWhat I said was that if the communication made to us—which included a newspaper report of the order—was correct, in our opinion the form of the order was wrong.
§ Mr. BUTCHERQuite so. Would it not have been more businesslike if, before suggesting that a perfectly valid order made by a competent military authority for the purpose of the defence of the country was invalid, the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to see the order and ascertain whether it was valid? Instead of that, on the strength of this newspaper report, the right hon. Gentleman writes to the War Office suggesting that the order is invalid. That was not very helpful. See the position. The General Officer Commanding, who was responsible for the safety of the East Coast, thinks the matter so important that he makes an order for the removal of aliens from the East Coast. If the Home Secretary thought there was any technical irregularity in the order would it not have been better to write to the War Office, saying, "You seem to have committed some technical irregularity. I will tell you how you can put it right in order to carry out your object which ought to be mine—that is, the defence of the country." But never for one moment did he suggest any way in which the order could be put right. I asked for the letter the other day, but the right hon. Gentleman declined to give it. We know this much about it, however—that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the order was invalid, and he did not suggest how the irregularity could be put right.
That is a case, I will not say of divided responsibility, but of interference which was certainly not helpful to the purpose of the General Officer Commanding, namely, the defence of the realm. But see what follows. The letter was written by the Home Secretary on the 1st January. On the same day a telegram was sent from the War Office to the 879 General Officer Commanding, telling him to suspend the order which he had made. I am told by the right hon. Gentleman, and of course I do not dispute it, that the War Office sent that telegram before they got the Home Office letter. The inquiry naturally arises, if it was not sent in consequence of the letter from the Home Office, why was this War Office telegram sent at once post haste to the General Officer Commanding telling him not to lock up any aliens, but to suspend the order? The Under-Secretary of State for War gave the reason in answer to a question of mine on the 8th February. He said:—
The War Office had already, on learning that a large number of removals had been made, telegraphed to the military authorities to suspend action.I really think that that answer must have been given per incuriam, because there is some confusion about it. I asked two days later how many aliens had been actually removed under this order before the 1st January, and the right hon. Gentleman told me none at all.
§ Mr. TENNANTThey went of their own free will. The order had not come into force.
§ Mr. BUTCHEROh, what a good thing! Because these aliens were going of their own free will, are we to understand that the War Office in London telegraphed suspending the order for the removal of these dangerous persons? That seems very strange; really the confusion becomes considerably greater as we go on. At any rate, the result of it all was that in consequence of that telegram of 1st January the order made by the responsible military authority in Yorkshire—that is the general commanding the Northern Command—was cancelled and suspended, and only twenty-eight aliens have been removed from the coast since 1st January, while the cases of 414 others on whom the order had been made are still under consideration.
The only other case to which I wish to draw attention is one of a lady who was ordered to be removed by the general officer commanding the Northern Command, acting, as he did, on the advice of the local police. That order was superseded from the War Office in London. It suggests to me, unless there is some explanation given which at present I cannot understand, a very great deal of confusion in the administration. Let me tell the House in a very few words what is the 880 case: A Mrs. Savile was resident at Beverley, which is a prohibited area. This lady was a born German subject, the sister of General von Bothmer, who holds a high command in the German Army. She has as an intimate friend Admiral von Tirpitz, and, indeed, was on such terms of intimacy with him that his son was about to stay with her when the War broke out. She was never naturalised, but she married an English gentleman living at Beverley, and therefore, of course, became a British subject.
Let us just see what has been done in the case of that lady. As long ago as September last the case was reported to the War Office. They asked the General Officer in Command of the Northern Command to take action. At his request the local police went carefully into the case, made every investigation and inquiry which they could, and in the result both the chief constable at Beverley, where the lady was living, and the chief constable of the East Riding, in which Beverley is situated, strongly recommended that the general officer in command should order this lady to remove from the prohibited area of Beverley and go to some other place satisfactory to the authorities. The general acted on that advice—indeed, he could not have done anything else. The Home Secretary has said that in these matters the local police make the inquiries on behalf of the military authorities, because they are the persons, and the only persons, upon whom the general can rely on making the order.
The general officer accepted the advice of the local police. He made the order on 25th January. It was made after full consideration. It is quite true that there is an officer living at Hull, in that district, who, I believe, took the somewhat unusual course of personally interviewing that lady. I believe he did not take the view of the local police in thinking the lady should be removed. Why he did so is perfectly immaterial to this discussion. His views no doubt were properly considered by the military authorities who made the order on 25th January. I need not go into the grounds given by the local police for their suspicion. I can show the right hon. Gentleman if he chooses, and if necessary could read to the House, papers on that point; and I think hon. Members would agree with me that the police had ample grounds for suspicion and for the lady's removal, not desiring to take any risks. Mark what happened! The order was made on 25th January. From that day to 881 this it has never been executed. What has happened I am not really in a position to say. One can only suspect.
At any rate, one can only say this—I will not go further—that I have known cases—and I suppose everyone in this House has known cases—where aliens have been interned and influence from outside has been brought to bear to get them out. This has been the influence of persons who probably knew nothing about the circumstances in which the aliens were interned, or in which orders were made for removal. These influences are, to my knowledge, and I have no doubt to that of every hon. Member of this House, exerted. Whether that happened in this case or not the order for the removal of the lady from Beverley was withdrawn on 7th February. The lady was allowed to leave Beverley for a time to visit her friends, and the last that seems to have been heard of her was at York Station Hotel, an admirable place for making observations—if she desired to make them—as to the movements of the troops and other military movements.
I wish to state that the information I have got in this matter does not come from the military authorities. I want to make this further statement, that I do not in the least blame the distinguished head of the office in London whose name is familiar to us all, General Belfield, for what has happened, because, as the hon. Member for Brentford said, it was quite impossible that he should be able to deal with the enormous mass of topics which come up nominally in his Department. I do say this: it is a most unfortunate thing that an order for the removal of a suspect from a prohibited area made by the military authorities in this part, competent to deal with the matter, and made on the advice of the police in this part, should be cancelled and suspended, on the advice of some person unknown. It is the very worst precedent to set up. Could anything be more calculated to discourage the local police? The local police, as I think the Home Secretary said, willingly work for the military authorities to find out suspected persons, to find out those who ought to be interned and removed, and the rest of it. Could we devise a more fatal mode of damping their loyalty and discouraging their efforts than that their advice, given after full consideration and inquiry, should be thrown in the waste paper basket, and discouraged by the order of somebody in London.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONWho?
§ Mr. BUTCHERWe shall probably hear in time.
§ Mr. TENNANTI shall be able to give that information.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIt was done in London. It does not matter for my purpose who did it. It was done, and the lady is at liberty now. I have given two illustrations, both of them under the Defence of the Realm Act, to show that there is divided responsibility. In the one case it was interference from the Home Office, and in the other interference from London. There ought to be none. I strongly support my hon. Friend that there shall be no divided responsibility and no overlapping, but one Minister, who, with a staff suitable for the purpose, shall be able to undertake this matter without interference from anyone. He will then be responsible to the House and the country for the due administration of the law.
§ Mr. HENDERSONIt seems to me that the cases cited by the hon. Member opposite go a very long way to support what the Home Secretary said in regard to authority in this matter. They cannot blame the Home Secretary, because manifestly the suspension of the order came from the War Office. The whole of this Debate, and the previous Debates, is to me very unreal. All centres on an effort to get at my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. HENDERSONIt looks very like it; that is how it impresses us here. You cannot get a case against the right hon. Gentleman, because he has thrown the responsibility—very properly thrown it—upon the man who is very well able to bear it, and of whom hon. Members are just a little afraid. Although I am one of those who quite understand, and quite fully appreciate, the danger of espionage amongst alien enemies, I say deliberately that this alien business has just been a little overdone. There was the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) who went up to my native place and set the heather on fire because, it was said, our enemies were getting supplies from the coast. He could not give a single specific case. The foundation, he said, of his case was that the submarines came so many hundred miles, and that they could not go so many hundreds of miles without oil; therefore they must be supplied from somebody or other near the coast who had signalled to them, 883 and so forth. He did not know then that the ambit of some of the newer submarines is from 2,000 to 3,000 miles. This would enable them perfectly well to go up to Aberdeen and back again. The result of that was there was a great panic up in the North, and then came a prohibited area. The policy adumbrated by the hon. Member for Brentford, if carried out to the full, would entail most vicious and fearful hardships upon thousands of perfectly honest and decent citizens. Let me give a case. Aberdeen has been made a prohibited area. The authorities there took hold of a decent musician, a Bohemian, whose brothers are now fighting for Russia. They turned him out of Aberdeen. "You must not stay here," said the authorities, "you may be fiddling all day, but you may be communicating with the enemy by night." The police sent him to Braemar where, of course, he could get no business—nobody to teach. Then to Glasgow. From Glasgow he was sent on board the "Lake Manitoba," somewhere near Portsmouth. The military did that.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDIt was the Government.
§ Mr. LONGThe hon. Member makes an attack upon my Noble Friend behind me. What he is now describing results from the policy of the Government.
§ Mr. HENDERSONIt was, no doubt, because of the alarm created by the Noble Lord. I do not suppose that now there are any alien enemies in that district.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDThank God!
§ Mr. HENDERSONI only mention it because of the great amount of hardship resulting from the unnecessarily severe policy of the Government. I suppose that every German, Austrian, or Bohemian, and this old man the Bohemian who has nothing to do with Germany, will be interned when they are found. The hon. Member for Brentford said that the police had been employed to help get employment for these men. That has been explained, and perhaps I can give some information with regard to that. You take a man away from his employment—you cannot help it; it is a hardship, no doubt, entitled by war—and you intern him. He may be a clerk, a professional man, a manufacturer, or anything. You take him right away from his employment and intern him for two, three or six months, and 884 then, as he cannot go back to his own business, what has he got to do? [An HON. MEMBER: "Keep him there!"]
When the Secretary of State decides that a man is to be released, what the police properly do is to ascertain whether this man can get employment and not become a burden on the rates, because if that man is cast loose without a shilling, without an occupation, without a means of living, he is sure to come on the rates, or, at all events, he will be going about and, for the first time in his life perhaps, become dangerous. That is why the police interfere, and that is the amount of interference they make. They go to hotels, for instance, and ask if they can give a man employment, but the War Office will not give consent if he is going to be a burden on the rates. So it is with the chief constables of all the various towns. It is a very good practice that, when a man is to be released from internment, after full inquiry that he cannot go back to his old place, he must be sent to some other town outside the prohibited area. He has then got to find employment, which is a very difficult thing for him, and the chief constables of every one of these towns—Manchester, Leeds, and so on—not in the prohibited area insist on knowing that he will not become a burden on the rates—a very proper provision to make.
Now, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) made a very strong case with regard to the point of there being no discrimination. I certainly think there ought to be some sort of discrimination before some Board, where a man would be able to state his case and show that he was not in the least likely to be a dangerous enemy. The hon. Member for Brentford wished to lock up everyone of these men. Now Germany does not do that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] They put them under guard—that is to say, they go every day to see them.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDThree times a day.
§ Mr. HENDERSONWell, three times a day. We have some in this country who are visited once a day, and who are forbidden to go beyond a certain area; but Germany does not lock them up and intern them. If the Noble Lord were asked if he would rather be visited or interned, I know which he would choose.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDIt would depend who my companions were.
§ Mr. HENDERSONThere is no doubt whatever that the military authority ought to be the authority to decide who shall be interned and who shall not be, and it is not fair—it is even, I would go to the length of saying, rather unmanly—to attack the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. HENDERSONPeople outside do.
§ Mr. HENDERSONSometimes they take their policy from inside. However, the military authority is the proper authority, at all events, in war time. In war time you must place confidence in one man. It is quite clear that he is the responsible person. I know, as a matter of fact, that when the police have gone into a case of whether a man should be released from internment, whenever they have satisfied themselves on all these points, the matter has got to go for final arbitrament and decision to the War Office to say whether he shall, be released or not. They never release him until every inquiry has been made, and they are satisfied he will not go on the rates; but the final words, both for internment and for release, lie with the military authority, as it ought properly to do. Reference has been made to Belgium. Belgium is not quite the same thing as this country, although I admit that certain things might be done in this country just the same as in Belgium. Let the House not forget the extraordinarily close relationship that existed between Belgium and Germany before the War. There were a very large number of Germans settled in Belgium, compared with the population, and there was a great deal of intermarrying, far more than there is in this country. And, of course, we knew of cases where the Germans have laid concrete foundations, and all that sort of thing.
We have heard something about concrete foundations at Willesden, which caused great excitement. There was no such thing. We have heard other stories, but there has not been a single rumour, so far as I know, in the papers of specific cases, which the moment it was inquired into has stood the test. We saw them all in the papers; what has become of them? You have not found a single case, and that ought to give you pause before starting on a policy of locking up every German and creating an awful amount of misery. The military authority, if left to itself, I am 886 perfectly certain, would never lock up everybody without discrimination, and I think it is a policy this House ought not to advocate.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDThe hon. Member who has just sat down paid me a singular compliment. He said that I set the heather alight in Scotland. That any individual in this House, or out of it, could make that hard-headed and thoroughly business race take up a panic is, to my mind, quite impossible. Whatever I did in his constituency had the desired effect of removing aliens from the coast. The hon. Gentleman also said that I had made certain statements I could not prove, with, regard to lights being shown along the coast. I again reaffirm what I said before. The German spy system in this country is well-known to the Home Office, and everyone, and it must be more than a singular coincidence that ships went out without their escort and were blown up by submarines. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that the knowledge of the squadron going to sea when the "Formidable" was blown up was known to spies. When the "Formidable" was blown up the Home Secretary charged me with not being able to prove these things.
I acknowledge it is very difficult to prove many of these statements, but there is a common-sense way of dealing with these things. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we are at war, and being at war alters circumstances altogether, and we have got to think of our own people before we think of alien enemies. I do not for one moment deny that the question is very difficult indeed, and I do not at all object to the remark of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that certain injustice may be perpetrated. But surely it is better to perpetrate this injustice to save our own people from a most trying danger, than to have these alien enemies at large and leave our people to that trying danger. The Home Secretary made the position of responsibility very much more difficult than it was before. He brought in other Departments. He said the Secretary of State for War is solely responsible, but he is only responsible in a certain position. The local police are the people who know the situation. They will go to the chief constable, who may or may not go to the Home Office. The Home Office goes to the War Office or the Admiralty, and then the individual is interned, or let out.
887 All that my hon. Friend asks for is a bureau with one head, and representatives of all those Departments who can grapple with these cases and think of nothing else. It is surely a better and more businesslike plan, and it is a plan certainly more likely to be fair, as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said, to individuals who should not be locked up. I object altogether to locking-up barbers, waiters and chiropodists and all those people. They are not the people who are going to do us any harm. They talk German and know German, but have not the chance of doing any harm. It is the people in high positions, the bankers and others who are feted and heard much of in times of peace, who can do harm, but it is difficult to get hold of those people, though you are far more likely to get at them if you have a bureau.
7.0 P.M.
I would take it away from the Home Secretary who, I think, has plenty of work to do while we are at war, and I would have a Minister to look after this business and nothing else, to examine every case of suspicion, more particularly those cases which are represented by the local police and the local people who know the individuals they are talking about, and the War Office can know nothing about. That is the view I express with regard to that question. I think myself this is the greatest danger we have at the present moment. We shall hold our own. We shall win with the Army, and we shall win with the Fleet; but it is a very serious thing to have a large number of people in this country who can stab us in the back if they get the opportunity. We must remember we have got men in the trenches and in the field who are laying down their lives for the country, and those men are all anxious. They are leaving behind them hotbeds of treason, which is far more dangerous to the life of this country than the German submarines with which we are confronted. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a great and increasing anxiety in the country on this matter, principally because the country does not know who is responsible. The right hon. Gentleman says the Secretary for War is responsible, but is only responsible for one part. We ought to have a Minister responsible for the whole of this business, and not for a part of it. I think there has been incredible laxity both in connection with the internment 888 and release of these alien enemies. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that many people have been locked up who ought not to have been locked up without a proper inquiry, and there is a great number who ought to have been locked up who are not locked up. When these people are liberated, there is no check on what they do subsequently. If they are liberated from internment, are they kept under police supervision?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDThen our alien enemies are officially protected. We saw some symptoms of sanity in regard to the treatment of those pirates and sea murderers, and I wish we could see a little more in regard to the locking up of the alien enemies, and the right hon. Gentleman must see that the Government have no sense of proportion. Every British subject is interned in Germany irrespective of age or whether he is ill, and he is ill-used, insulted, and ill-fed. Here we have aliens almost caressed by the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes there are. They are looked after in every possible way, and made much of, and they are still allowed all over the place after they are interned, whereas in Germany they are kept under the conditions which I have described. I think the House will agree with me when I say that it is time we looked after our own people without concerning ourselves so greatly about aliens, so long as we are fair to them. We do not want to persecute them. I do not think we should concern ourselves so greatly about our alien enemies.
The Government have admitted that all the British prisoners in Germany are treated much worse than the prisoners of other nations. We must remember what they do to us. I do not want reprisals, but I want common-sense action with regard to our enemies. Do not let us forget that there is not one single man-of-war prisoner in Germany, although they could have been picked up after the sinking of the "Monmouth" and the "Good Hope," whereas, on the other hand, we have lots of German sailors who have been saved by our ships. I mention that to show the remorseless hatred for us of these men whom we are pampering at the present moment. Why did we give the captain of the "Blücher" an honourable military funeral? He could have been buried in the ordinary way. He had the full 889 honours paid to an honourable foe, and yet he was one of those men whom the Prime Minister told us was instrumental in killing and wounding 388 women and children. That man was not worthy of the military honours we gave him.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONHe had to obey orders.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDThat has nothing whatever to do with it. Pirates obeyed orders in the old days. This captain was the representative of a piratical act, ordered, you may say, by the Government, but I do not wish to insult a man when he is dead. I wish to give him a proper funeral, but he had no right to military honours. Such a funeral is particularly offensive to those who have lost their wives and children by these piratical acts. Why did they not give military funerals to the men—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis Motion relates to the internment, and not to the interment of these people.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDI feel rather warmly on this question, and I think it is serious that we should pay these honours to the people who murder our women and children. I think the leniency and chivalry shown is rather in the nature of chivalry gone mad. We do not want to show the sort of flabby sentimentality which we have been showing in regard to these aliens. I do not want them ill-treated, but I want them all locked up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—I want them all locked up, after we have a proper bureau so show that they should be locked up, and such a bureau does not at present exist. The necessity for such a bureau is shown by the speech of the Home Secretary. I must again refer to the case of Donington Hall. Why cannot we think more of our own people, and the enormous amount of money we are spending there?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis Motion does not relate to the treatment of prisoners of war at all.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDIt relates to more direct responsibility than we have got at the present time. I think the question is really more puzzling than it was at first, after the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I say that we shall not have this question put on a proper footing—to be fair to our own people and to remove a terrific danger in our midst—unless we have a Minister solely responsible 890 for it, and unless we have a bureau, composed of representatives of the Army, the Navy, the Home Office, and Scotland Yard, which, to my astonishment, have been brought into this matter. Let us have everybody in this bureau who knows the circumstances, and will be able to adjudicate fairly on the cases. I think my hon. Friend who brought this Motion forward put his case very clearly. In this matter we are fighting the most formidable enemy this country has ever fought. We are fighting for our homes, our existence, and our liberty, against the most dastardly, cruel enemy, who approves of the methods of assassins and pirates, and these people emanate from that country. Until we get such a bureau as has been suggested on both sides of the House we shall not have this matter settled in the way the country wishes it to be settled—that is by having a Minister directly responsible for this question, and this question alone, instead of it being mixed up with the whole of the Departments of the Government.
§ Mr. TENNANTThe question raised by the hon. Member for Brentford is really a question of the number of authorities which have to deal with the subject of internment, which he contends ought to come within the ambit of one Minister. The hon. Member must see that certain Acts of Parliament deal with this alien question and it is impossible to co-ordinate them. We could not bring the Registration of Aliens Act under the War Office, and it is equally impossible and undesirable for the Home Office to undertake the administration of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Those enactments are quite separate and distinct and each perform a function essential for the welfare and safety of the State. It is necessary that they should each be administered by separate Departments. In the course of his observations the hon. Member seemed to commiserate with the Secretary of State for War because he was charged with the responsibility of seeing that these regulations were carried out and because he was generally responsible for the safety of the Realm. I have seen my Noble Friend in many characteristics and lights, but I have never before seen him the object of commiseration, and I will take care to represent to him that he has the commiseration of my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSTell him it is deeper since this afternoon.
§ Mr. TENNANTMy object in rising is to reply to a few observations made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope I shall be able to allay a certain amount of anxiety which I think resides in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, and which I think may be increased by the observations he made to the House a few minutes ago. My right hon. Friend behind me stated that nationality was no offence, and the right hon. Gentleman said that that is true, and ought to be a ground of suspicion. I am here to inform the right hon. Gentleman that nationality is a ground of suspicion. It would not be considered the only ground, but it is a ground of suspicion with other things. Every single alien enemy in this country is known and is at this present moment under constant police surveillance. That does not apply to neutrals.
§ Mr. LONGDoes the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that every alien enemy in the United Kingdom at this time is under police surveillance?
§ Mr. TENNANTIn the first place, the House ought to know that every single alien enemy is known and registered under the Registration of Aliens Act.
§ Sir H. DALZIELNot at all. Some come in as Americans.
§ Mr. TENNANTBut they are not aliens.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think we had better hear what the right hon. Gentleman has got to say, instead of having this general conversation.
§ Mr. TENNANTI am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and I quite appreciate your suggestion. It is a fact, in spite of what my right hon. Friend behind me says, that every alien enemy resident in this country—I cannot say it of one who came in yesterday, but as soon as the authorities become aware of him it will be so—is registered under the Aliens Restriction Act, whether in a prohibited area or not. He is known and he is under constant police surveillance. That is a very important fact which I hope the House will appreciate. Again, every alien of whatever nationality is obliged to register in the prohibited areas. That is not alien enemies alone, but every alien of what—ever nationality in a prohibited area. The prohibited areas consist of the whole of the coast line from the North of Scotland to the Isle of Wight, right down the East Coast; and they embrace also certain parts 892 of the West Coast. Under the Defence of the Realm Act regulations the competent naval and military authorities have power to remove any suspected person, whether British or alien who is named in the order from any place and make him submit his future address, which also in turn has to be approved by the competent naval or military authority. Again, the competent naval or military authorities have power to remove the whole or any part of the inhabitants of any area specified in an order for naval or military reasons.
I have now given the House facts. The right hon. Gentleman charged us with taking this matter lightly and said that we seemed to have forgotten we were at war. Does the House seriously think there is any one of us sitting on this Bench, engaged in the anxious administration of our Departments day by day and almost more than by day, who can possibly forget that we are at war? I think the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reflect upon that statement, will see that it is really groundless, and will do us the honour, or, at any rate, consider that it was a statement which he might have omitted from his remarks. The Noble Lord opposite talked about a bureau. I want to inform him and the House and the Country that we have at the War Office a branch of the Department which includes the Censorship and other services, all directed to the one end of safeguarding the country from the operations of these very undesirable people.
I do not think it would be desirable for me to take the public into the confidence of the War Office as to the activities of this branch of our Department. I can enlighten the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition if he will do me the honour of talking to me upon the subject. I can tell him a good deal about the activities of the Department; but I am sure the House will realise that it would not be desirable to disclose all, or indeed any, of the many branches of its activities. I can also say that it has displayed the greatest efficiency, and so far from there being any necessity for such a bureau as the Noble Lord has suggested, I believe that is at the present time in existence inside the four walls of the War Office. Although in some cases the branch has to utilise—as it necessarily would do—the services of the local police for ordinary investigation, it does not follow that it is confined to that particular service.
893 I really do not want to be led on any further into a description of what the branch does. I do trust that what I have already stated may have allayed certain apprehensions in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen. I agree that espionage is a real danger. If I felt that what the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth said were true of the country generally, the picture which he has painted of there being this laxity everywhere with regard to alien enemies, I should really share his apprehensions and feel all the anxieties which he feels; but as I know that is not the case I may be able, I hope, to relieve his mind of some of the anxieties which he has felt. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said he thought it was a scandal that the brother of the Governor of Brussels should be allowed to go free. I can only inform the House, as I have informed it before, that this brother of the Governor of Brussels has been under our careful watch for more than two years, and everything there is to be known about him is known, or is believed to be known. I know the right hon. Gentleman smiles at that, because he thinks we are so superior that we imagine we have all the information when, in point of fact, we have not.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat was not my idea at all. My idea was that just in proportion to the ability of the gentleman was the difficulty of finding out what he was doing.
§ Mr. TENNANTWhen I have the pleasure of conversing with the right hon. Gentleman. I may be able to tell him what we have done.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLThe right hon. Gentleman will remember that I had a conversation with him about this gentleman, and he told me on that occasion that he had not got the information, although it was very important.
§ Mr. TENNANTSince the hon. Gentleman was good enough to put that question to me, I have obtained the information from his Friend and colleague the Member for Armagh. Perhaps I ought to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh was good enough to call upon me and to give me a good deal of information. He afterwards had a conversation with one of my officials, and the whole matter was gone into.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLI understood the right hon. Gentleman just now to say that this 894 information had been at the disposal of the Government for two years.
§ Mr. TENNANTYes, that may have been one of the things which my officials knew and which I did not know, but I am not really able to say. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me exactly what he has in mind. The main fact is that this gentleman has left home, and I believe that he is now in this City. The case of Mrs. Saville mentioned by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) is an interesting one. I do not think the hon. and learned Member was quite accurate in one or two of the facts which have been supplied to him. It is not true to say—I am not in the least complaining of anything the hon. Gentleman said; I only think that he has been misinformed—that the General Officer Commanding the Northern Command was strongly of opinion that this lady should be expelled. I understood him to say that was the fact.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI said that the general officer of the Northern Command had sent to the local police for investigations. The local police had strongly recommended the removal, and, of course, the general officer in command acted upon that recommendation.
§ Mr. TENNANTThe facts in that respect are practically as stated by the hon. and learned Member. The chief constable did recommend the expulsion of the lady. Thereupon the competent military authority sent the General Officer Commanding the Humber defences to interview the lady and to ascertain whether there was real ground for her removal. I think the General Officer Commanding the Northern Command did make the expulsion order, but he was so uncertain in his mind as to whether an injustice had not been done that he communicated to the War Office before the order was put in force. After some correspondence an officer from the War Office went to Yorkshire to inquire personally into the matter and to confer with the General Officer Commanding himself. After a very exhaustive inquiry, this officer satisfied himself that there was not sufficient grounds for removing Mrs. Saville and her daughter by an expulsion order. The General Officer Commanding the Humber defences was strongly of opinion that the suspicions formed against Mrs. Saville were not based on satisfactory evidence. As a result of the whole thing, the General Officer Commanding suggested that the 895 order for expulsion should be withdrawn, on Mrs. Saville and her daughter undertaking to leave the prohibited area voluntarily and reporting all their movements. Mrs. Saville has now left the district voluntarily, and she has agreed to communicate her address from time to time as she removes to the General Officer Commanding. This course has now been adopted, and she is giving her address. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman need be apprehensive about this lady, nor do I think this is a case where you can say that there was any laches on the part of the branch of the War Office itself. On the contrary, this case has been most carefully handled. It has been the subject of most exhaustive investigations. So far from there being anything in the nature of neglect, it has been most carefully treated, and, instead of doing what would have been a real injustice, the lady has been allowed to go free and to move out of the prohibited area.
§ Mr. BUTCHERMight I ask what means of investigation this officer who went down from the War Office to inquire into the case had beyond what the local police who reported that she ought to be removed had themselves?
§ Mr. TENNANTThere are many other sources of information, but I am most reluctant to take the public into my confidence as to what other sources of information are at our disposal. I hope I have, in the few remarks I have been able to make, allayed some feelings of apprehension in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I feel it is very undesirable that any kind of suspicion should go abroad that we at the War Office do not take this matter seriously. I wish to controvert that with all the earnestness I can. So far from that being the case, we have at our disposal a most efficient intelligent branch which has done admirable service.
§ Mr. LONGThe right, hon. Gentleman is very much perturbed by my right hon. Friend's remarks earlier in the afternoon that the Government has not taken this question of aliens sufficiently seriously, and he asks us whether we really hold that view. I am sure it is not necessary for me to assure him that had my right hon. Friend not felt it, had he not felt it strongly, and had he not believed that view was held, not only by himself and by 896 those who sit here, but was also shared by a great many people in the country, who do not by any means belong to one political party, he would never have made the statement. The right hon. Gentleman who complained of it does not seem to realise that when that charge is made we do not mean to convey the impression that we think the Government are treating matters carelessly or neglectfully. But with regard to this particular branch and I think, with great deference, the same comment might be made in regard to other branches of administration with regard to this particular question of dealing with aliens, we maintain that the Government, whatever their intentions may be, have led us and the people in the country to believe that they have not appreciated, either the gravity of the situation, or the very general feeling which exists in the country about it.
How did the right hon. Gentleman begin his speech? I desire to thank him for the information he has given us as to two or three cases, but I do not think that information has removed any of our apprehensions. He will not find to-morrow that the feeling in the country, which he knows is strong generally, and is not confined to any particular party, has been in any way allayed by what he said. What was the first line of defence he made. He admitted, as of course he is bound to admit, in regard to the question of alien enemies, that, as the law stands at present, it is not possible to concentrate the administration in one Department or under one head alone, and he added, perfectly accurately, this cannot be done without legislation. If I had nothing else to go upon I would be content to take that as evidence on which to rest the statement made by my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. TENNANTI also said it was not desirable.
§ Mr. LONGThat is a matter of opinion. I am not taking the right hon. Gentleman's opinion now. I am dealing with matters of fact, which I wish to keep quite distinct. The right hon. Gentleman said that, as a matter of fact, these duties fall under more than one Department. He also said, "You cannot concentrate them without legislation," and that I submit is evidence in support of the charge my right hon. Friend has made: "You cannot concentrate this administration without legislation." But you do not propose legislation! Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to express 897 his opinion, which is, that this concentration is not desirable. That is where we differ from him. We are satisfied that concentration is essential, and that you will never get an administration as effective as it should be, however hard you try, until you do concentrate. We differ from the right hon. Gentleman, and say that the Government have not grappled with this vastly important question as they should do.
I want to refer to a question which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Personally, I do not attach very great importance to it, and I am rather surprised that the Home Secretary devoted so much time to it. Both he and the Under-Secretary fixed upon a casual remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) when he spoke of "poor Lord Kitchener." They made rather merry at my hon. Friend's expense The Home Secretary sought to identify him with this particular aspect of Lord Kitchener's condition. It never entered into my head, whatever Minister of the Crown may be concerned, to apply that particular description, and certainly if it did I should not select Lord Kitchener as one of them. I do not think he deserves our pity or needs it. He deserves, as he receives, our gratitude and our admiration, and there is no question of pity. The two right hon. Gentlemen did not understand what my hon. Friend meant when he used that term. They did not appreciate what was the meaning of our charge. It is not that you are throwing upon one particular Minister duties which are too heavy for him to deal with and therefore he is to be commiserated. Our argument is—and it specially applies to the War Office—that you are casting upon a Department which has already got more work than is enough for any one Department to do, in conducting the greatest War in which this country has ever been engaged, and not one war but five others, and possibly assisting and advising in the conduct of a sixth—a heavy enough task—but added to this, you are putting upon the Department the very difficult and technical work of dealing with the alien enemy question.
The Under-Secretary for War, in dealing with the specific case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford, told us of the process of inquiry adopted by the General Officer Commanding the District. I am quite familiar with it. I have taken a very great interest in this 898 alien enemy question from the beginning. I have made it my business to watch its working on the spot, and I say, at once, that I do not believe that a soldier—even the General Officer Commanding the District—is by any means the best or even the right person to select to come to the very difficult decision as to what action should be taken in these cases. It has been said, and it cannot be said too often, that we are dealing not alone with spies. Your alien enemies are divided into two quite distinct classes. There are the spies who are necessarily much more limited in number than are the main body.
You have spies on one side and alien enemies on the other, and to ask the General Officer Commanding the district, a man trained in military work, probably as brave as a lion, and a highly accomplished soldier, to deal with this work—work of a totally different kind to that for which by his training and experience he is fitted—is, I venture to say, to lay upon him a task which, while no doubt he would do it to the best of his ability, is nevertheless one that is not likely to be accomplished with the amount of success we hold that it should be. Therefore I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation meets the case. It is not because we are sympathising with Lord Kitchener on the extra burden of work. It is because we believe you are throwing on one Department an amount of work in connection with this particular business which is more than it can successfully perform. The right hon. Gentleman at the end of his remarks passed a panegyric—I did not catch the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
§ Mr. McKENNAMy right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary observed to me it was essential that the administration should be in the War Office. I agreed, but I also said I should be quite willing to undertake it.
§ Mr. LONGThat is, I think, the very general view. It is a view which is not confined to those who are now criticising the Government, but it is the general view that the whole responsibility ought to be concentrated in one Department in charge of a Minister sitting here, and for the reasons I have given, we think that Minister should be the Home Secretary rather than a soldier. The Under-Secretary, at the end of his remarks, passed a panegyric upon the Intelligence Department of the War Office. I believe it to be absolutely deserved. I believe the 899 Intelligence Department of the War Office is wholly admirable in every respect. I have heard with satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman a statement, which has never been made before, that for two years the Intelligence Department of the War Office has been carefully watching these spies in this country, and has become completely familiar with all their movements.
§ Mr. McKENNAFor a very much longer time.
§ Mr. LONGI am taking the period mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary. The statement was that for two years they have been absolutely familiar with all the circumstances connected with these spies. The War has been going on for over six months. This House has been sitting for six months. We have had repeated Debates on the alien question. Why was not this statement made six months ago? Why were we not told that our fears were groundless, because this information was in possession of the War Office? Has the whole country been fooled? We have had the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel). We know that the Home Secretary was quite unable to deal with the cases he raised four months ago as occuring on the East Coast of Scotland. How is it that these cases were allowed to come to the point which they reached if this information has been in the War Office for two years, and if you have actually been watching these people? The right hon. Gentleman is making a large demand on the credulity of the House and of the country when he tells us they have got all this information, and when we know, as we do—the evidence is abundant and it cannot be contested—that you have had all these difficulties to deal with, and that you have them at the present moment. That is, so far as the spies are concerned.
I come next to the alien enemy question. It has been quite impossible to understand, from the speeches of the two Members of the Government who have addressed the House, how the responsibility is divided. I understood from the Home Secretary that the War Office decided whether it was desirable that groups of alien enemies should be arrested and gave him instructions, that he carries out the arrests, and that the persons arrested are treated as military prisoners. That, I 900 gather, is a repetition of what the right hon. Gentleman said before. I can quite understand the military authority being the proper authority to decide whether a large body of men in a particular district can be safely left there or whether they ought to be interned in case they should, as it were, form an army of their own and do injury to this country. But that is a totally different question from having scattered throughout the community a large number of men or women who are not spies, and never would become spies, as they have neither the training nor the ability, but who are a danger to this country because they are a means of circulating information to enemy aliens who are allowed to live here in far larger numbers than the majority of people in this country think they ought to. It has not been contended that the statement made here by the right, hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy as to the number of enemy aliens in the Metropolis is inaccurate.
§ Mr. TENNANTI said they were known.
§ Mr. LONGThe right hon. Gentleman does not deny that there is this great number. There are 16,000 of military age, and 24,000 in all, in the Metropolis, and he says that they are not a source of danger because they are under constant surveillance. Is that information really correct? I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would not use the word "surveillance" if he did not mean effective, continuous, and satisfactory surveillance. If it means merely that they are known to the police, that there is a dossier of each one in the pigeon-holes at Scotland Yard—if that is what the right hon. Gentleman means, then his statement will give us no confidence at all. But when he tells us that these enemy aliens are not only known to the police, but are under close police surveillance, that means that there is between us and the risks to which we are undoubtedly exposed by the existence of this large army in our midst, the protection of a continuous and efficient supervision of these people by our police authorities. That is a hurculean task which I do not think has ever been attempted by the police of any metropolis in the world, to keep under close supervision 24,000 people who may at any moment become active enemies of the country. However, we have the statement, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman means that this Department, which is apparently responsible, 901 will take care that this supervision is so effective that at any moment they can, if necessary, lay their hands upon those of whom they get unsatisfactory reports, and deal with them in a different manner.
So far from allaying our apprehensions, the admission of the existence of this large number of alien enemies and the statement that they are regarded as harmless because they are under close supervision by the police, rather increase than diminish my anxieties, and I confess I still feel that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition only expressed what we all hold, that this matter has not been dealt with in a manner in which it ought to have been if this very real and serious danger is to be properly tackled. The Under-Secretary of State was good enough to intimate to my right hon. Friend that he would be glad to give him privately information which he could not give him across the floor of the House. I can assure him that nothing is further from our thoughts than that he should show anything to us which would be likely to prejudice good and wise administration. We ask for no statements from him or the Government which they think they cannot make in the interests of the country. We have never asked for a statement, never pressed for it, and never suggested it. We do ask for incessant and untiring vigilance, without which the existence of this large number of people is a very real danger and without which we are afraid that that danger may grow into something greater, if, which God forbid, this country should become for any time, however short, the victim of a raid by our German enemies. Then the real danger and trouble of the existence in our midst of these people will be found out. We should be much happier than we are if we thought the Government realised this more fully and proved that they realised it, not by their speeches here, but by their actions outside.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLMy right hon. Friend who has just sat down has dealt with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that these enemy aliens are all under police supervision, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite intended to represent that this supervision would extend to naturalised aliens. If that is so, it certainly would not extend to the case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred a little earlier in the afternoon, namely, the case of the brother of the Military Governor of Brussels. That case, which has been several times brought 902 to the notice of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Armagh (Sir J. Lonsdale), is one which is a very good example of the sort of danger we apprehend and of the treatment of it by the Government. Indeed, it appears to many of us to be very typical of their treatment of the whole question. In referring to that particular case this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had had full information with regard to this gentleman of German origin for two years past.
If that is so, if the Government have really been fully acquainted with all the circumstances of this gentleman's career and all the aspects of it in relation to the alien question, and if, with all that knowledge, the Government still think that there is no real case for the internment of this gentleman, then all I can say is that instead of diminishing the apprehensions of those who know the circumstances, that statement of the right hon. Gentleman will very materially increase them. As the right hon. Gentleman has thought that the information at his disposal in regard to this case is insufficient to justify him in taking any more stringent step than ordering the removal of this gentleman from Brighton to London, I should like to tell the House the sort of information which some of us, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Armagh, have placed at the right hon. Gentleman's disposal. This gentleman, whose name has been frequently mentioned in the House during the last few weeks—Baron von Bissing—is a German by birth who has been naturalised in this country for between seven and eight years. The other day I supplied the right hon. Gentleman with one item of information about him which at that time he said was new to him. This gentleman has been for a considerable period the London correspondent of a newspaper in Germany which is, I believe, at once the most Anglophobe of their newspapers and, in some way, the official or semi-official organ of the German military party. Herr von Bissing has been living in this country for seven or eight years as a naturalised subject.
The hon. Member for Mid-Armagh has told the right hon. Gentleman of the evidence at his disposal, which certainly should throw suspicion upon this German gentleman. In the light of the admission made from the Government Bench this afternoon that the mere existence of enemy nationality was a ground of suspicion—a proposition in which I entirely 903 concur—I should have thought that if you added to the initial suspicion excited by this gentleman's nationality the fact that he was closely related to a very high military potentate in Germany, who has been taking a prominent part, and by no means a very creditable or honourable part, in the invasion of Belgium and who is now the Military Governor, the cruel Military Governor of Brussels, you would not have to go any further than that relationship itself to make the Government very ill-disposed to show particular leniency to the gentleman over here. Let me go a step further. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Armagh has had a statement made to him by a gentleman whose name and address he has already given to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or is quite prepared to do so, a gentleman of high standing in this country who is quite prepared to put that statement in the form of a statutory declaration. It is to this effect: He says that some four years ago—that is to say, three or four years after Von Bissing went through the form of naturalisation in this country, that he had a conversation with him at Brighton. They were members of the same club, and I believe that they used to play cards together. On one occasion this informant said to Von Bissing
How do you put in your time down here.and the reply wasOh, I am here ostensibly as a journalist, but my real profession or real occupation is that I am in the service of the German Foreign Office.There you have a definite statement to which a gentleman of high standing is prepared to swear, in an affidavit, that this man four years after his naturalisation was in the paid employment of the German Foreign Office. Could you possibly have a stronger reason for supposing that he is or may be in the same employment, not after four years but after eight years, and that no change whatever has taken place in his status? My hon. Friend has another declaration, made not four years ago, but made within three or four months of the outbreak of this War, from another gentleman who had a conversation with Von Bissing. They were discussing some question of public interest at the moment, some labour problem which was under discussion in this country, and at the end of the conversation Von Bissing said to the EnglishmanI am very much obliged to you for the information you have given me. It is exceedingly interesting, and I shall certainly forward it to my Minister in Berlin to-morrow.904 Then he corrected himself and saidNo, not to-morrow, Wednesday is my day for writing.There you have, coming on top of the other declaration, a statement on the very eve of the outbreak of war that this man was in constant and evidently some sort of official communication with the German authorities in Berlin.Yet, in the face of all that knowledge, the right hon. Gentleman tells us this afternoon that he does not think the case is one in which this distinguished German gentleman should be interned. He tells us he has had the greater part of this information for two years or more, and yet all that has happened at the present moment to him is that he has been removed from Brighton to London, and, if my information is correct, even that removal had nothing whatever to do with the action of the Government, but only took place owing to the social pressure which the people in Brighton themselves brought to bear upon this gentleman to make the place too hot for him. That suggests to our mind a very great danger if this sort of slackness—we still think it is slackness—is allowed to go on. Nothing could possibly be worse than that the people in the various districts of this country should get so exasperated or resentful at the favour shown to conspicuous German people living among them—that they should be so hopeless of any real drastic action being taken by the authorities, that they are prepared to take matters into their own hands and drive these people out from among them. If it goes much further, and especially if this sort of case were to occur in a rather rougher class of society than that in which this gentleman moves on the sea front at Hove, it may be that the action taken in order to induce such gentlemen to remove themselves elsewhere may assume a much more dangerous form, and incidents might occur which all of us would regret in the interests of the good name of this country.
These cases arise very largely from that very want of concentrated authority of which we have been complaining all through. In listening to the speech of the Home Secretary this afternoon, it appeared to me that he was much more anxious to show that this or that particular aspect of the case did not fall under his own personal responsibility than he was to show that the whole question could be possibly gathered together under one 905 single command, or to show that the administration of the different parts of it, left as they are to different Departments, had been at all efficiently managed. He only succeeded, so far as many of us on this side are concerned, in showing us the utter chaos which exists in this administration. I remember that, when he was speaking upon the question of arresting and interning, he said, with very great emphasis
I arrest and the military authorities intern.8.0 P.M.There at the very outset you have surely as chaotic a condition as you could possibly have in matters of this sort. There are two parties, one to arrest and the other to keep or release. I was very much astonished to find that the right hon. Gentleman impressed us all very much with the fact that the authority for dealing with the matter was all really in the hands of the War Office. I ventured to interrupt and ask him whether the War Office was also responsible for the landing of aliens in this country, surely a very important part of the question! The right hon. Gentleman said "No. The War Office has nothing to do with that. That is my Department." He was responsible for the landing of aliens. Surely the landing of enemy aliens is just as important—perhaps more important, and certainly as difficult—as the question of who should arrest them, who should keep them, or who should release them, and yet although the right hon. Gentleman admitted that this important part was in his jurisdiction, I notice that he gave no reply whatever, nor did the Under-Secretary, to the very remarkable case brought up by my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) with regard to the landing of aliens in Liverpool. How does that case stand? My hon. Friend quoted an answer of the Home Secretary to him that no Germans had arrived in this country by the "Lusitania," and that the supervision of the arrival of these steamers was complete and efficient, or words to that effect. The right hon. Gentleman has apparently supplied himself now with an answer which appears to him sufficient, but he made no sort of reply to the case made upon that point by hon. Friend.
What was that case? I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman may think he has at his disposal at this moment, but I think it would be very difficult to get evidence which would be more convincing than that which was produced a short time ago by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend 906 has been in communication with passengers—men who have given their names and addresses, and obviously men who, on the smallest inquiry, could be found in the City of London. They say they themselves came by that ship, and that they spent their time on the voyage among Germans. Is it going to be suggested that they could be for five days on the same ship with Germans and not know them to be Germans? They had conversation with them, saw their writing, heard their speech, and came from Liverpool to London in railway carriages with them. They declare that there were a number of Germans on that very vessel. But it is even more inconceivable that their information can be faulty with regard to the efficient examination of the passengers.
My hon. Friend said that these gentlemen who had been in communication with him said they were never asked any questions beyond mere perfunctory inquiries as to their names, address, and place of birth. I know something of what that sort of inquiry is. I remember at the outset of the War, when we crossed backwards and forwards to Ireland, someone met us at the gangway, and said, "What is your nationality?" They may do it still in some of the boats, though not in all. Any German who spoke even decent English and could give an account of himself, which would very easily pass muster, would not be detained five minutes at the gangway. It is certainly very much more easy, if it comes to a question of evidence, for a German to pass himself off as an Englishman to the officer who would be standing at the gangway than it would be for the gentlemen who had been in communication with my hon. Friend to be mistaken with regard to their nationality during five or six days' voyage. Therefore, the case which my hon. Friend made, to which the right hon. Gentleman never attempted to reply in any particular, although it is with regard to that part of the case which he himself admits was under his jurisdiction, is the very strongest possible evidence that we could bring forward to show the maladministration, as we think, or the slackness of administration, with regard to this part of the case.
§ Mr. McKENNAWill the hon. Member allow me to explain why I did not attempt to give any answer. As the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) will agree, I had no notice that he intended to raise any particular case. I had not in the least prepared 907 myself with information with regard to alien enemies or other persons landing from the steamship "Lusitania." The matter had been the subject of question and answer. Since then I have heard nothing further on the matter, and it came as a complete surprise to me that the hon. Member had further information which he had not subjected to the analysis of question and answer. But, of course, when I have had an opportunity of examining the witnesses whom the hon. Member quoted, I shall be very happy to make a full statement.
§ Mr. McNEILLPerhaps I ought to beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon for having referred to it in the particular way I did. I did not know that he required notice of it. Perhaps it would have been as well if he had mentioned that in the course of his speech, but as he passed it sub silentio I thought he had no reply to make. After the account which has been given by my hon. Friend it is very difficult to imagine that it would be possible to persuade the House and the country that the supervision of passengers and the exclusion of dangerous persons is quite as complete as the right hon. Gentleman led us to suppose.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer, because it is an illustration of what we complain of about "divided authority." It appears to me as the result of the Debate to which we have listened that there is a hopeless splitting up of authority between the military and the police. Both my right hon. Friends who have spoken from the Front Bench have laid stress upon the fact that although the military authority may be all very well for dealing with the general question as to how far classes of people should be interned, the military authorities are not meant for the same detective work which is necessary in order to pick out individuals in the general population and to declare whether or not they are, or ought to be, subject to internment. A case which illustrates this occurred within my own knowledge. An hon. Member opposite, I think the hon. Member (Mr. J. M. Henderson) spoke about the great number of exaggerated cases and stories of spies and one thing and another which we all hear—rumours in the street or in the train or in the club. Of course, that is perfectly true, and it is quite natural that it should be so, but for every true case of espionage, or 908 treachery or anything of the sort in times like these, you must expect to have dozens and scores and probably hundreds of false cases, and it is the duty of the authorities to investigate any prima facie, case that is brought before them, and it may be that here and there a real case will be found.
The case I have in my mind, at all events, did present a prima facie case. It was an example of what we have heard so much about, very often falsely, but occasionally truly, of signalling going on from buildings on the sea coast. In this case the particular building had been under suspicion for signalling for a considerable time, and it was now under supervision in the first instance by the special constables of the district. They investigated it, and they took with them on one occasion, to observe as closely as possible, a skilled telegraphist, who reported that the flashlights that he saw he was able to say were flashlights in the Morse code. He was not able, so far as I know, to read what was said, and I am not sure he was even able to say what language was being flashed, or whether it was code, but he was able to say that the Morse code was being used. That in itself constitutes a strong primâ facie case. In the course of keeping this place under observation it came to the knowledge of the special constables that suspicion had been aroused in the minds of the local military authorities as well, and that they were also keeping their eye on the place. That, of course, was either divided authority or overlapping. The fact that two different authorities were at work might have been very objectionable.
Up to this point nothing objectionable happened. They found they were both working on different lines of scent towards the same object and they began to co-operate, and the military authorities of the district, I do not know whether from not having any great confidence in the local county police, sent a special request to the officer of the local county police to leave the matter alone as it was in the hands of the military authorities, and they were also employing to help them two men from Scotland Yard. My information, and I have taken the trouble to investigate it, is that these authorities, the special constables and the military, were confident that they were on the point of fruitful results of their inquiry, when to their very great chagrin the local police interfered, whether it was from jealousy between the police and the military or between the 909 police and the special constables, I neither know nor care. All I say is that, whatever result may have been expected from these investigations which had been going on for some time, entirely missed fire Nothing was found, although all the authorities concerned are quite persuaded that it was only through the misadventure of a warning coming through the intervention of the police at the wrong moment. My point is that in this particular case, and no doubt it is the same elsewhere, you have different authorities, whether acting under orders from headquarters or not does not very much matter, whose work was either overlapping or subject to divided authority at headquarters, and that bad results have accrued from that system. It is common knowledge that this sort of thing is likely to occur in different parts of the country.
We on this side of the House are so anxious to see that simple grasp and unified treatment of the whole question of aliens in this country, whether in regard to their landing in this country, to their internment in this country, to their release in this country, or whatever side of the question you approach, that we want to have it all co-ordinated and all kept in the same hands, and therefore, as we hope and believe, subjected to a much more drastic treatment and to much more efficient administration. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that you cannot get that under present conditions without legislation. I think he has had a sufficient answer on that point from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long). He points out that on all sorts of subjects we have passed legislation requested by the Government giving the necessary powers for dealing with this question. We have passed Bill after Bill in an hour or two, and, in some cases, in only half an hour. The right hon. Gentleman has only to tell us that, to get efficient administration of this whole alien question, he requires a certain Bill to be passed, and he knows perfectly well that it would pass through in less than half and hour, and, therefore, to take as an excuse, if it is intended to be an excuse, for avoiding this central administration that an emergency Bill would be required is to trifle with the public, and to justify up to the hilt the expression which was used by the Leader of the Opposition that the whole treatment of this question by the Government, as illustrated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, really justifies us in saying that they forget that they are at War.
910 All these matters of urgency require treatment which we should never dream of asking or wishing for in time of peace, but, in a time like the present, looking to the terrible dangers that might happen to the country in the present crisis, we do ask the Government to show a stronger lead to the country and to take a firmer grasp of the subject. It has been thought by some persons that we are exaggerating the apprehension of danger. It has been said, "What, after all, can these people do? Do you think that these Germans scattered about the country can do any useful service to the German Government? They do not know anything." It is not for us to say exactly what are the dangers we may have to face from the enemies within our gates. We should remember what these people may be able to do for their own country while in our midst. Let me mention one case. We have heard a great deal about raids over London by aircraft. We know the inconvenience we have submitted to in the matter of the deprivation of light for some months.
We have been told that there are so many thousands of alien enemies abroad in London. Whether they are under police supervision really does not matter. If there were to take place the raid of aeroplanes, of which we have heard a great deal, and which, I think, we fear so little, is it not easily imaginable that the thousands of Germans throughout London might in a short time create a conflagration? Is it not likely that they would devote their energies to the matter of illumination, and that they might light up certain places in London as objects for attack, such as Westminster Abbey, the British Museum, and Buckingham Palace? It would be quite easy to provide the enemy with facilities for attacking these places. If we had taken the precautions which they have taken against our people, we would have interned these men to keep them out of harm's way. Really to be told, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) told us, that we are going to subject people to awful hardships, does not meet the case. He was very pathetic when he spoke of taking away a Bohemian fiddler from Aberdeen and sending him to Braemar. But I think that is a kind of hardship which we cannot avoid if it has to be done at the possible cost of terrible military dangers. That is trifling with the subject, and it shows that some hon. Gentlemen opposite do require to be reminded that we are at war.
§ Mr. SANDERSONI think most of the points to which I desired to call attention have already been mentioned, and I do not think I would have risen but for the fact that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire charged those who are speaking with a want of reality in their contributions to the Debate. I think he must have observed very inadequately the spirit which was actuating the speakers. Speaking for myself, I only take part in the Debate because I think this is a matter of the greatest possible gravity, and I think it is just in such a matter as this that we civilians, who are bound to stay at home and cannot go out to the front, can really help those, who are fighting our battles both on sea and land. The Under-Secretary of State for War has given us some information this afternoon which personally I did not know before, and I think it is valuable information. He told us that the 16,000 alien enemies who are of military age in London are under police surveillance. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke on the Front Bench just now pointed out that they might not be of much use. Personally, I do not think they could. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to what extent are they under police supervision? Can he, for instance, tell us how many of the 16,000 alien enemies of military age have arms?
§ Mr. TENNANTNone.
§ Mr. SANDERSONThat is certainly a piece of information which is very satisfactory. But is it information on which we can rely? I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman says that we can. My information is—it may be wrong—but I have it on very good authority—that until very stringent regulations were made in regard to the sale of arms a considerable number of alien enemies were purchasing them. I suppose, if they purchased them, they probably have them now. I do not wish to contradict anything the right hon. Gentleman said, but it is very hard to believe that anybody will be satisfied that none of the 16,000 of military age in this country have arms in their possession. Again, can he tell the House how many of the 16,000 are out of employment, because that seems to me a very important matter? If you take a man who has lived for a considerable number of years in this country, and who has been thrown out of employment because of the fact that he is German, you have a man who might be harmful. I know of several 912 cases. I have one case in my mind of a man who was employed at a hotel in London, and as soon as the War broke out he was thrown out of employment because he is a German. At the present moment that man is walking the streets trying to get employment here and there. If he is a man with a family he is likely to be a desperate man. I cannot imagine a more fruitful source of possible danger than such a man at the present moment. He is dissatisfied, and, being probably a desperate man, he is glad to get money from whatever source to support himself and his wife. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the 16,000 are out of employment at the present moment?
§ Mr. TENNANTI can find out.
§ Mr. SANDERSONI wish the right hon. Gentleman to understand that I am not speaking in a spirit of carping criticism. I am putting a matter of vast importance and asking the right hon. Gentleman to give it his consideration. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was very pleased with the organisation which was at the present moment established at the War Office with regard to the Intelligence Department. I have no doubt that is perfectly correct, and it would not be in the War Office unless it was an efficient Department. It does not seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman has appreciated the points put, not only from this side of the House, but also by the right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite.
The proper authority to keep an eye on alien enemies is the police. Does that Department in the War Office have any control over the county police or the police of any particular borough. Of course not. To show how inadequately it works I may mention that a police authority told me the other day that he had a certain number of alien enemies in his charge—I think it was about 2,000—and word had come down that a number of them were to be released. He was very much annoyed because he did not think that they ought to be let out. I asked what he was going to do and he said, "It is an extraordinary thing how long the papers take to be filled up," meaning that he was not going to let them out sooner than he was bound to. Is not that a ridiculous state of affairs? Here we are at war and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy tells us that those people who are interned, because they are dangerous enemies, are sent away by the authority because they 913 have no room to intern them. That is the kind of thing which one would expect to find in a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera rather than in a country like this, which is engaged in a war of such magnitude. Though the right hon. Gentleman may have his Intelligence Department in the War Office, he cannot control the different authorities through whose hands these matters must go.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in his speech this afternoon tried to prove that there was unity of authority. If he proved anything, to my mind he proved that there was no unity of authority. He proved first of all that there was the Intelligence Department of the War Office, then the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty, then there was the police, because they were the people who had to keep their eyes on suspected persons, and I suppose that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has to look after the Irish police, and the Secretary of State for Scotland has to look after the Scottish police. There are five authorities, and then there are all the chief constables in the different counties. It is no answer to the points which have been raised to say, "I am quite satisfied with my Intelligence Department and the War Office."
This matter is one of real anxiety, and I do not believe that either the speech of the Home Secretary or that of the Under-Secretary for War has relieved that anxiety. I remember speaking about this—I think it was in the month of September—and I said then almost exactly what my hon. and learned Friend has just said now. Do for goodness sake put this into the hands of one man. I do not care who he is; get the very best man you can find in the country and give him unlimited powers and ample staff and let him look after this job, and this job alone. If you have not got the powers to do it I am sure that the House of Commons will give you the powers. I do hope that the Government will not think that we are debating this matter simply for the sake of debating. It is the last thing in the world which anybody on this side and which I myself would desire to do. The Government should see whether they cannot carry out the suggestions which have been made, not only on this side, but also on that side of the House.
§ Mr. NIELDI think, perhaps, that the Home Secretary will admit that the Government do owe it to the House and to 914 the country to be unusually vigilant in this matter. They have reduced the fee for, naturalisation, they have made the facilities for naturalisation infinitely easier than they were before, and therefore it is their duty to exercise this vigilance with the knowledge that Germany makes war in a peculiar manner, and does it not merely by firing off munitions of war, or taking prisoners in the field, or acting as a pirate on the sea, but sends forth its commercial army in order to secure trade, and incidentally get all the information which they possibly can, and which may be of use to their Government in other directions. Therefore, we should take all possible precautions to secure that subjects of that kind should be properly looked after and dealt with promptly and efficiently. If by police supervision, as referred to by the Under-Secretary for War, is meant something akin to police supervision under the criminal law, then I do not suppose for a moment that anybody with knowledge would say that, even if it was properly carried out—and I doubt whether it could be with 15,000 male aliens in the London area alone—there are not great difficulties, especially with regard to questions of identification. In the one case you have the record of a man's career always at hand for reference, but that is not the case with regard to these aliens.
We have heard enough in this Debate to make us want a totally new system of control. The Debate has, for one thing, given us the amusing illustration of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, who sometimes chastises the Government on financial matters when they do not agree with his views, but who caresses them, as he did to-day, on other matters. But he did make one suggestion which was also made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy. That is that there should be some means of going down to these places where persons are interned and hearing applications from them upon such evidence as they can give that they are well disposed towards this country. Very early in the War, which commenced within a few days of the legal Long Vacation, I personally, as I was unable to help in warlike action myself except by recruiting, did make a suggestion of this kind that such of us as are willing to put our experience at the service of the Home Office should be constituted an authority to visit these interned prisoners and hear applications of this character. The Home Secretary informed me, not on one occasion, but 915 on two, that such a tribunal could not be established. I am sorry that he did. I hope that after the advice given by the Member for Aberdeenshire and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy, he may reconsider his decision. If so, he can call on such services as I can render in that direction. It does seem to me open to objection to intern everybody for an indefinite period, though there is no objection to interning everybody, subject to the power on the part of those interned to make application to show that; they are persons who are well disposed towards the British Government.
I may refer to the case of Baron von Bissing, which was made the subject of questions in this House in reference to what had taken place at his residence at Hove. When Brighton and Hove were both under lighting orders of the most, stringent kind, signals were being flashed from the house in which that gentleman lived, and apparently flashed with some effect. It does not show much acumen on the part of the War Office to say that they knew all about it. Here, on the other hand, is an illustration of the abundance of caution on the part of the War Office. There was a gentleman whose grandfather came into this country from Germany when he was three months old, and afterwards held for many years before his death a justiceship of the peace in Hertfordshire, which was not an easy thing to get in those days. His son was born in this country of an English mother, and the son of this man decided to go to the front to fight. So you have three generations in this country—the first coming in at the age of three months, and the last being a young man who is ready to fight now and is prevented from going to the front because he bears the name of Schmidt.
That is a case of abundant caution on the part of the War Office. On the other hand, you have a case which occurred in my own Division a little time ago. A gentleman, a public man, who had as a young man been all through the Franco-Prussian War, and who was resident in Paris during that time, in going home one night saw one who, obviously a German in British khaki uniform, was comporting himself in such a way as to attract attention. On leaving the train in which he was travelling this gentleman thought it his duty to give information to the police. The police-constable treated the matter seriously, and asked the person who was 916 suspected to accompany him to the police station. Arrived there, the sergeant in charge said he knew all about the person, and that the man who had given the information had better mind his own business. When inquiry was made at the Home Office as to this incident, they might have shown themselves grateful for the assistance of this civilian who knew something of German and Continental people, and who at least thought that he was rendering a service. It is quite right, as it turned out, that the person was very well known, and that he was a foreign officer in the service of the Government. My object in mentioning this incident is to show how the War Office and the Home Office can be abundantly cautious in one instance and in another can discourage men anxious to be of service by telling them to mind their own business. The mischief of the whole matter is that the Government, in these circumstances, is so self-complacent, and each Member of the Government so self-sufficient. We want to do our best to help our country, and we claim to be as even bit as ready to do it as any hon. and right hon. Member on the Front Bench. We feel that this is a matter of great urgency and importance, and some of us are anxious and willing to devote not only our leisure, but as much time as we are able to give to help the Government in dealing with this all-important question.
§ Question put, and negatived.