CLAUSE 1.—(Carrying Out of Mutual Arrangements with Allied Countries as to Military Service Obligation.) (Hansard, 15 June 1917)

§ The CHAIRMAN
The first two Amendments are out of place. There is a question which might have been raised at line 10 of the Clause, but I think it is raised in better form in an Amendment of which notice has been given by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno). The next three Amendments are in order with a 1325 slight alteration. The proposal is to leave out the word "foreign" ["foreign country"] and insert instead thereof the word "Allied." It should be to leave out the words "a foreign" and to insert instead thereof the words "an Allied." I understand that the purpose of these three Amendments is to leave out the qualifying words in the Bill referring to the making of a convention with a foreign country.

§ Mr. W. WHITEHOUSE
I cannot see that there is any Amendment in the name of the hon. Member to whom you have referred relating to the ratification by Parliament of any convention.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member will have an opportunity of dealing with that point when we reach line 10.

§ Mr. R. LAMBERT
I beg to move to leave out the words "a foreign" ["a foreign country"], and to insert instead thereof the words "an Allied."
The object of my Amendment is simply this: While it may be very necessary, in the middle of this War, that we should have conventions with our Allies, it seems to me to be pushing the matter very far to include conventions with foreign countries which are in no sense allied to us. The point is a very simple one, and I hope that the Under-Secretary may be able to accept.

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson)
I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The effect of the Amendment would be to narrow the provisions of the Bill to conventions made with Allied States, whereas, as he will see from the short title of the Bill, it is intended that the Bill should apply not only to Allied States, but to other States, such as the United States of America.

§ Mr. LAMBERT
They are Allies.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
At present, technically, they are not. They are engaged in active co-operation with us. In view of that particular fact, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's Amendment

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I am surprised at the position of the Under-Secretary on this question. The instance he gave of America is entirely beyond the point. America now is just as much an Ally of this country as France or Russia, or any continental Ally. As I understand this proposal, it is that the Government will have power to make 1326 conventions with a country which is not an Ally and not in the War, and they will thus be able to make a convention with such a country expressly for the purpose of conscripting British subjects.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
The Bill provides for doing so with an Allied State, or otherwise acting in co-operation with this country.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
It is quite true there is a distinction between an Ally and a country co-operating, but the United States were co-operating with us in the sense that they were supplying money and munitions of war. Docs the hon. Gentleman mean to say that a convention can be made with a country which is not an Ally at present, but which co-operated with this country simply by giving financial support. As a matter of fact, every country is co-operating with this country in this War. They are sending us munitions or food, and in that way helping us to continue the War. Therefore, if the words stand as they are in the Bill they will enable the Government to make a convention for the purpose of conscription in any country in the world. It is that we object to. The purpose of the Amendment is that the powers of the Government in making conventions should be confined to an actual Ally. The words in the Bill at present acting in co-operation with His Majesty arc too wide. We must have the Government restricted in the extent to which they use this power in making conventions with other countries, and we want to confine the Government to using that power with Allies in this War.

§ Mr. KING
I do not think so far as I can see that either the Committee or the Under-Secretary for War realise how important is this Amendment, or what the facts are on which we base our support of it. At the present time we are in actual alliance with no less than fourteen other States—Russia, France, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, Japan, Portugal, Italy, Roumania, the United States, Cuba, and Panama—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hayti,"]—there are thirteen or fourteen, but it is immaterial. These places contain all the nations with which we are at all likely to have any conventions, and that will provide a field for recruiting. I should like to have the attention of the Under-Secretary for War. If the Amendment is to be granted it will save time, but of course if he will not accept this 1327 Amendment in any form, we must really beg leave to put the case. I have no wish, however, to spend the time of the Committee, but if we are compelled to do so on matters like this it is really not our fault but the fault of the Treasury bench. What are the other States, of which there are a number, that have actually severed diplomatic relations with Germany? There are. no less than nine of them, China, Brazil, Bolivia—

§ The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil)
May I state what our object is? There is no trap in these words that are in the Bill, and if there are any other words which would make the provision quite clear, we would be happy to consider them, but we do not want to be defeated by technicalities from making conventions with countries which are substantially acting with us as Allies. We are prepared to consider the matter on the Report stage for we are not quite satisfied that the word "Allied" would include such a country as the United States, though it is practically true that the United States is an Ally.

§ Mr. KING
I welcome very much the intervention of the Noble Lord. I understand, of course, that alliances are of different kinds. For example there is the alliance on a definite treaty of war, and I suppose there is no treaty of any kind with the United States, but everybody recognises, of course, that there is really an alliance with that country. Such countries as Norway and Sweden evidently have definitely and finally determined that, if possible, they will keep out of this War altogether as neutrals. These neutral countries are absolutely, after three years, more determined than ever to remain neutral, and I conceive that if the Bill were passed in its present form it might be made a lever to obtain certain advantages, for example, in connection with blockades that might be undertaken. I want to guard against that, and I want to guard against any convention which has the purpose of mutual recruiting being entered into. The Noble Lord has been good enough to say that he will consider this point on the Report stage and will put in some words which will make good our common object. If on the Report stage he will let us have some words—of course the Report stage cannot be to-day 1328 —which the Foreign Office will approve in this direction, I shall certainly offer no more observations at present.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
I should like to know whether there is any legal meaning in the words "acting in co-operation." Is a country which has taken no part in the War co-operating with us? Our object in moving this Amendment is simply to prevent this Bill from being used as an instrument to enable the State to enter into an arrangement applying to English nationals domiciled in different parts of the world.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
There is no legal meaning, so far as I know, in the actual use of the words "acting in co-operation," and they are simply an example of what we mean at the present moment.

§ Sir C. JOHNSTON
I would suggest that you might insert before "co-operation" the words "naval or military."

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I hope the suggestion of the Noble Lord will be accepted, and I understand that on the Report stage he will submit some word.

§ Mr. TREVELYAN
I want to be quite clear about this, as some of us are doubtful upon the matter. We are bound to accept the general principle of the Bill, and we wish to deal with the countries that are definitely allied with us, and will add the United States of America, even if that is not technically right. I imagine that what the Government have got in mind principally are the countries France, Italy, Russia, and the United States. But the Clause goes far beyond that, and would include, if not now, at any rate at some subsequent time, such places as the Republic of 'South America and other places which may or may not at this moment be acting in co-operation with us. Our point is that we do not want our home nationals in foreign countries to be conscripted by these Conventions, and I think the Government will probably agree that the House do not really want to look forward to conscripting British people in the Brazilian and other Republics. We want to protect nationals in smaller countries who may be drawn into alliance with us, and to confine the operation of this measure to what we may call our principal Allies.

§ Mr. LAMBERT
In view of the assurance of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I desire to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, after the word "otherwise" to insert the words "other than those foreign countries set out in Schedule 1 of this Act."
There are substantial reasons why certain countries should be excluded from the possible operations of this Bill. My case is based chiefly on the objection to sending men of our nationals into the army of a coloured State. We are in alliance now with Japan, and we have the very highest appreciation of the unique and valuable services which they have rendered, but we do not want to put our soldiers under Japanese officers. If you were to go to Australia at present and make the suggestion that British citizens in Japan were to be conscripted into the Japanese Army, you would find emphatic and unanimous disapproval of such a proposal. Then take the case of China. In various parts of the British Empire there are very large numbers of Chinese, and for the purposes of a naval battalion, especially to be used in tropical areas, nothing could be more desirable than to have a naval battalion of coolies. But though that might be done on a voluntary basis, I should have a very strong objection to any convention which' should make British subjects in China liable to serve in the Chinese Army under Chinese officers. That is another case which ought to be excluded from any possible application of this Bill. Then we are already in alliance with countries like Cuba and Panama, where the population is more black than white.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Perhaps, for the information of the hon. Member, I should state that I have got handed in an Amendment to insert, after the words "acting in," the words "naval or military." That might affect the point which he now raises.

§ Mr. KING
It might cover the point, but I am not going to give way on the mere supposition that that might be accepted, because we have got many Allies with whom we cannot possibly be in co-operation of a naval character. Serbia and Montenegro have got no navy, and therefore we cannot be in naval cooperation with those countries.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
The words are "military or naval."

§ Mr. KING
That would be a very good suggestion, but it does not cover the point of my Amendment, which I hope will be 1330 accepted, because I am equally against the sending of our men into the Chinese or the Japanese Army. We are in co-operation with Japan, and therefore that case would not be excluded. We may very shortly be in co-operation with China, and we may very soon be in co-operation with Liberia, Hayti, San Domingo, Honduras, and Guatemala. I do not think that the proposal to send our men into the armies of these nations is one that would be approved of. I move the Amendment and hope that it will be considered before the Report stage, and that there will be a Schedule. When we come to put the various countries into the Schedule, I am sure that we shall all be very reasonable: about it, but it is most desirable to have a Schedule attached to this Bill which would exclude certain countries set out therein.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment in view of the promise that we shall insert the words "naval or military" in this part of the Clause. May I point out that in the case of these other countries English nationals would be able to return home.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill was prepared to take up a reasonable and conciliatory attitude this afternoon, but I am afraid that he has not given any evidence of that. Whether the method by which my hon. Friend proposes to carry out his object is or is not the best I have some doubt, but with his object I have complete sympathy. The only reason which the hon. Gentleman could advance just now for not accepting my hon. Friend's proposal was that British subjects in foreign countries always have the option of coming home and serving. They have not.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
There is an assurance given that in the case of every convention there will be the opportunity of British subjects in foreign countries coming home.

§ Mr. KING
Will there be a corresponding offer for other nationals in our country to go to their own country?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is a substantive point on which I am reserving a particular Amendment.

§ Mr. TREVELYAN
I want to be clear on this. I admit that I am not satisfied with 1331 British subjects being in any circumstances forced into the Japanese Army, even if they remain in Japan. I am not opposing the principle which has now been adopted by the House with regard to European countries. I mean, I take it that the House has decided it, but I do not take it that the House has definitely decided that British subjects are in any circumstances to be forced into the Japanese, Brazilian, Chinese, and other Armies. It is not enough to say that they can come home. What the Government really want is not the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which excludes certain countries from the operation of this Act, but to include in a Schedule all those countries which we are all thinking about. I do not believe the Government want to force British subjects into the Brazilian or the Japanese Armies. I do not think that is their object. I cannot see why they cannot put down the principal countries, which are France, Italy, Russia, and the United States. We should, for instance, differ very likely about Roumania. There may be one or two countries about which we should have some difference of opinion. I do not, however, believe that the great mass of this House want either to enlist Japanese or Brazilians here, or want to have British subjects compulsorily enlisted in the Brazilian or the Japanese Armies. I think the reasonable thing is for us to have a Schedule of inclusion, the opposite to what my hon. Friend is proposing, leaving in the three or four countries in which we are really interested. I suggest that that is the real solution for this difficulty.

§ Mr. KING
This is just a point where, I think, the presence of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs would be very desirable. I know he is very busy. I do not like to bring him here, but I really do think that when we are talking about matters of this sort, and feeling a great deal more, perhaps, than we say about the relations between ourselves and our Allies, a few chosen words of common sense from the Noble Lord would carry us on or bring us together very much.

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
The Under-Secretary has given us an assurance on behalf of the War Office that British subjects resident abroad will be permitted to come home before being conscripted under any such convention as that proposed. If that is already determined, may I ask him why it should depend upon an assurance 1332 from the Foreign Office? Will he at the same time give us an undertaking that words to this effect will be embodied on the Report stage of the Bill?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That point had better not be raised at the present stage.

§ Mr. WATT
I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment, which has been proposed by my hon. Friend opposite. It is an Amendment of considerable importance. May I remark on the unsatisfactory manner in which the Under-Secretary is treating these Amendments. On both occasions he has given us a reply by no means of a conciliatory nature; brief, and of a type that simply cut off by the wrist the hon. Members who moved them. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that the speeches should be in inverse ratio to the courtesy of the Undersecretary. It seems to be his opinion that such brevity in answering will facilitate the passage of this measure; if I were they I should demonstrate to him clearly that it does not always occur as he seems to imagine. The hon. Member has made a promise on behalf of the War Office that men dealt with in this particular convention who are abroad shall have an opportunity of coming homo and joining the Army here. I would suggest to my hon. Friend opposite that such a promise should be put into the Bill. Such promises on behalf of the War Office are generally not worth the paper on which they are written.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid the hon. Member will defeat his own object if he discusses that matter now. It will prevent me bringing the matter up later as I desire to do on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
It is surely not out of Order on this Clause, Mr. Whitley? I think there is a little misunderstanding. My Amendment deals with subjects of this country, whereas the other is the converse and deals with British subjects in foreign countries. Unless we deal with this matter under this first Clause we shall, I would suggest, have no power to deal with it at all. The matter deals with a different class of subjects.

§ Mr. WATT
I should certainly insist upon the promise made on behalf of the War Office in some form or other being put into the Bill, namely, that men who are abroad and who are enlisted under this measure should have the choice to 1333 come here and join the British Army before they are sent into the ranks of foreign armies. The promise may be given in all good faith, but next week it may be worth nothing. We have found that from our past experience.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I hope I may be able to deal with hon. Members opposite with equal courtesy, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend behind me has just said. Perhaps it would assist discussion if I said that between now and the Report stage I shall endeavour to put something in the Bill itself to the effect stated.

§ Mr. KING
That does not quite meet the point. Supposing that a man is out in Japan. He has there his wife and family and a good business. Under this Bill there is a convention with Japan. You say the man can come home, but what has he to do with his wife and family and his business? You simply say that a man shall not be compelled to go into the Japanese Army but can return home. It is absurd. It is not worth anything. We should have a clean-cut solution of the difficulty.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
May I point out to my hon. Friend that there is in the Bill as it stands an opportunity for any man who is in a large way of business in any foreign or Allied country to appeal to the British Consul and to bring forward before that official the whole of the facts and circumstances, so that he may see that no injustice is done?

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
That is not in the Bill. I have listened with very great interest to the explanation given by my hon. Friend; but that is not in the Bill. It is very necessary that we should understand and that we should see that the Under-Secretary understands what is in the Bill. What is in the Bill is that an alien in this country shall have the right of appealing to his own Ambassador in this country and of obtaining a certificate of exemption.

§ Mr. TREVELYAN
It seems to me to be rather unsatisfactory to be discussing this point at this moment. The House fully realises the importance of the question of our own nationals abroad. Whether or not the Government can accept the Amendment I have on the second page of the Order Paper—"provided that no Order in Council shall be 1334 made" and so on, or that that or some other Amendment would really be the best time to discuss it—is a question, because there is a good deal to be said about the position of our nationals abroad. That they should have the opportunity of coming back home docs not really meet the position altogether. I suggest that we should have a discussion on this question either on my Amendment or on another. We will not settle it by merely asking questions.

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The point raised is one of some substance. I do not think, speaking for myself alone, that the right way to meet the difficulty is to attempt to put in any Schedule which discriminates between particular countries. Such a Schedule would necessarily be invidious, and might be regarded as a reflection upon the methods or the Army administration of some or other of our Allies in whom we have the greatest confidence and for whom we have the highest respect. Therefore, I hope; that the Government will not attempt to make any discrimination by way of naming any particular countries either for exclusion or for inclusion in a Schedule. The Committee, if they are to consider the matter, must, when deciding this point, consider the possibility of alternatives. I do not think the alternative suggested by my hon. Friend behind me is practicable— that is, to attempt to apply our Military Service Acts within some foreign country, and to determine whether or not any person there would be liable under the Military Service Acts of this country if he had been in England. I doubt whether in practice such a scheme would be workable. The solution which the Government have in mind, but have not put into the Bill, is that it should be left to the British Minister to defend the right of the 'British subject in foreign countries. I think that the House feels confident that our diplomatic representatives abroad would adequately protect the right of any individual British subject. They always have done so, and I think they always will do so. The advantage of adopting that method is that it would carry out the principle at the basis of this Bill—namely, complete reciprocity. You give the. foreign subject who is resident here the right of appeal to his own Ambassador or Minister to secure exemption. Why not equally give the British subject resident abroad the right to appeal to his Ambassador or Minister? If that were 1335 done, not merely by way of promise across the floor of the House, but by putting it into the Bill, it ought to satisfy the reasonable demands of my hon. Friend. I hope that the Ministers in charge of the Bill will give an assurance that either at this stage or on Report it shall be made clear that what is already in the Bill with regard to foreign subjects in this country will be granted to British subjects abroad by statutory provision.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith)
As some reference has been made to the absence of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, perhaps I may be allowed to say that he has been called away on important business. With reference to the various points which have been raised, my right hon. Friend who has just sat down has stated to the Committee a view which, I think, is based equally on common sense and reasonableness. [An HON. MEMBER: "We cannot hear a word."] It is not unreasonable that it should be asked, in the first place, that the Bill should be so amended on Report as to make it clear that the Convention itself will give the option. It is recommended, in the second place, that there should be some means of dealing with exceptional cases—cases which obviously ought no more to be governed by general rule than is the case in this country. It is true that paragraph (b) of Clause 2 does not secure this, because a contracting country is denned in Clause 1. My right hon. Friend has made the suggestion that the drafting of paragraph (b) should be so amended as to make it reciprocal, and we shall be prepared to consider this.

§ Mr. KING
May I, on behalf of myself and others acting with me, thank the Attorney-General, not only for his promise, but for the whole tone of his speech and the way in which he has met us? I should, therefore, like to withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
I beg to move, after the word "in" ["acting in co-operation"] to insert the words "naval or military."
The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has expressed his willingness to accept this Amendment, and my hon. Friend has also promised that.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
I beg to move, after the word "country" ["British subjects in that country and our subjects"], to insert the words ''who had proceeded from and been last resident in Great Britain and had not proceeded from and been last resident, in any other part of His Majesty's Dominions."
This Clause is a clause which is very compressed. It comprises a great many points, and it seems to me impossible to get what I want inserted except in the way I propose to do it. I should like to explain the difficulty which I desire to meet. The difficulty was alluded to on Second Reading, and it is that when, let us suppose, we have an arrangement with the United States to conscript British subjects, in the United States there may be British subjects from Ireland or the British Dominions, and therefore you will be placing under the Military Service Acts, or under similar Acts there, persons who would not be subject in the British Empire to those Acts. The Under-Secretary seemed to think that the point was provided for in this Bill, but it is not provided for. There is no provision whatever to secure, say, that those coming from South Africa would not be conscripted if they found themselves in America when a convention of this kind came into operation there. The Under-Secretary himself said he did not intend or desire that that should arise, and he' thought it was provided for in the Bill, but, when challenged to point it out, he was unable to do so, because on a very close study of the Bill I think it will be admitted that there is no provision there. But great confusion has arisen because in giving the power to foreign countries to conscript British subjects we have made no provision as to what shall be done, while when those British subjects come here we do make a distinction. Paragraph (c) of Clause 2 says "unless he shows that the part of His Majesty's Dominions in which he last resided was some part other than Great Britain," and the object of that is to provide that, should a person arrive from one of these places—an ordinary resident, we will say, in South Africa having been in America arriving here from America— he should not be conscripted. The distinction is drawn in the Clause, which we want to extend also for the protection of the same class of British subjects in foreign countries, and I have endeavoured to meet that case by my Amendment. If the 1337 Under-Secretary can see his way to accept that Amendment, I should feel very grateful. I regret very much the representative of the Foreign Office has been called away, because I myself feel in great trouble in this matter. We are by this Clause making an enormous change in the whole policy of this country for the last hundred years, that we ought to be extremely careful how we do it, and the course of this Debate has already shown how necessary it is to analyse what the implications are. Therefore, I would ask the Under-Secretary if he would either accept these words or some other words to make the position quite clear.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
My own view is that this Amendment is not necessary, and probably rather undesirable. But I quite realise the point of view of my hon. Friend, and I think, in view of what my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General said with regard to instructions to our Ambassadors as to the treatment of our own subjects there—subjects who are British subjects in the narrow sense—that we should include in the same sense instructions on the lines my hon. Friend suggests. I am not satisfied with these words, but I will undertake to find words which, I trust, will carry out the object.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
Would the hon. Member just remember how impossible it would be for a British subject there to know of these instructions? We want it to be known, so that they can avail themselves of these rights.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I will see that it is done.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I wish to make a suggestion with a view to helping the Under-Secretary. The suggestion is that the words proposed to be added relating to certain responsibilities to be placed on our Ambassadors abroad shall include this point. I believe it will be impossible to adequately deal with so great a subject simply by an instruction to our Ambassadors abroad. Take, for example in this connection, America. How would it work there?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I am putting the words in the Bill.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
In putting the words in the Bill you forget to put them on a wider basis than merely requiring the Ambassador to do certain things. In 1338 the case of America, this is a matter of extreme importance affecting not hundreds or thousands, but tens of thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of people. If you limit this power to the Ambassador without any other machinery at all, in America I am sure the thing will break down of its own weight. The British Ambassador lives at Washington, and it is a week's journey from Washington to a great number of popular centres in the United States of America. Therefore, if you are simply going to give this authority to the Ambassador at Washington the whole sytem will break down, and it is a provision which you could not possibly carry out. I shall be content, however, if the right hon. Gentleman will consider the question with the example of America in his mind.

§ Mr. A. SAMUELS
I am afraid if this Amendment is carried out it will afford a great opportunity for shirkers coming to Ireland and residing for a short time and then proceeding to America.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
They would have to get passports.

§ Mr. SAMUELS
There are a large number of shirkers in Ireland. We have an institution in Ireland which we did not have before the War called whippet racing. This is indulged in mostly by people who slipped over to Ireland when the Conscription Bill was contemplated, and they have become resident in Ireland. You are now legislating for subjects of foreign countries and not for bonâ fide Irishmen. If this Amendment were adopted a man might stay in Ireland for a week, and then he would be able to elude the object of this Act. I may be told that care will be taken that such a thing does not occur. Whatever Amendment may be adopted, there is a danger of Ireland becoming a dumping ground for shirkers, and a place from which a man could slip away.

§ Major NEWMAN
I have a case in mind of a young fellow of eighteen years of age. His father was an Irishman and his mother an American, and his mother took this boy and another son across to America, where they now are. Under ordinary circumstances that man would be liable to serve in our Army. That is one definite case of a young fellow of eighteen being taken away from England to America, and he is now in America.

§ Mr. KING
In the case just mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, the father is an Irishman, and therefore he is outside Conscription. The boy was brought up along with his mother, who is an American, and no doubt she is an American in sympathy, and why she should not take her son off to America I do not know. If these are the cases upon which the two Irish Unionist Members who have spoken justify the charge of calling people shirkers and branding the few Britishers in Ireland as shirkers, then it is a very miserable and piteous exhibition. But why do we need to bring the question of shirkers into this thing? Let us look at this Amendment reasonably. There must be in the United States of America at the present time thousands of young men who were born in Ireland, or possibly born of Irish parents in Liverpool or Glasgow, and they have been taken out to America at a very early age. They will all be Irish in sympathy, and their real national ideal will be Irish rather than British at the present time, and a number of them are in danger of being Sinn Feiners. Anyone who has been over to America recently or has followed the American newspapers knows the sort of audiences which Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington is addressing every week by thousands throughout the whole length and breadth of the land. Therefore, when you are dealing with the Irish in America you have to be very careful indeed, and if you attempt to conscript them without a perfectly clear case, it is going to be a very unfortunate thing. Therefore, I hope the Amendment will be very carefully drafted and very generously considered.

§ Major NEWMAN
May I point out that there are 103 Irish Members in the House of Commons, and not a single one is here to claim protection for Irishmen?

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
May I also point out that there are nearly 300 Tory Members in the House of Commons, and there are only two present?

§ Mr. WATT
I wish to emphasise the desirability of having the gist of this Amendment put into the Bill, instead of being dealt with in the nebulous way of an Instruction to our Ambassadors abroad. If the point was going to be dealt with by some sort of an Instruction to our Ambassadors, it will not be a satisfactory way of dealing with the point, and there should be a clear statement in the Bill.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and I desire to thank the hon. Gentleman for accepting the principle. We are only asking for power to deal with those in this country, and what is going to be done in America we cannot control.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That covers, I think, the point in the next two Amendments.

§ Mr. KING
It does not quite cover the point of the next Amendment, for this reason: Let us take Russians, who are the people under immediate contemplation. Under this Bill as it is you conscript Russians in Ireland, though you are not conscripting British subjects there. That is the point. It is really quite a new point that is raised by this Amendment. There are certainly a few hundred Russian Jews in Dublin, and that is the only part of Ireland, I think, where there are these men. We will say there are a few score, and is it right to conscript Russian Jews in Dublin when you do not conscript British subjects in Dublin? That is the point of this Amendment, and I think I must move it and have an answer from the Treasury Bench to this question: You do not conscript your own nationalists in Dublin; do you intend to conscript foreigners?
I beg to move to leave out the words "United Kingdom," and insert instead thereof the words "Great Britain.''

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I think my hon. Friend is labouring under a misapprehension. The subjects of Allied contracting States can only be made liable to military service under the Military Service Acts of 1916 in the same way as ordinary British subjects, and a British subject is only liable to the Military Service Acts if he is ordinarily resident in Great Britain.

§ Major NEWMAN
The hon. Gentleman says, so far as I can make out, that the alien who ordinarily resides in London, and has since the commencement of the War gone over to Ireland, would not be caught by this particular Bill.

§ Mr. KING
If he is resident regularly there.

§ Major NEWMAN
If he is not resident regularly there, will he come under the Clauses of this particular Bill?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
Certainly.

§ Major NEWMAN
Here we have evidence given in one of the Police Courts in Dublin only the other day, in which William Kimber, described as a china merchant, of New Cut, London, and James Cope, dealer, of Pocock Street, London, were charged with frequenting public places for the purpose of picking pockets. The report says: A detective said he was aware that since racing was curtailed in England, a large number of slackers, thieves, welshers and the riff-raff of the race meetings in England had come across to Ireland. A number of well-to-do honest people had also come. I want to know whether these cut-throats, thieves, and vagabonds will be caught by this Bill or whether they will not.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I beg to move, after the words "United Kingdom," to insert the words "provided that such Convention is ratified by Parliament."
This is the Amendment which I had on the Paper earlier to be inserted after the word "Convention" ["has made a Convention"], but in a somewhat modified form. I am not attached to the form of the words, and I am quite sure that the President of the Board of Education will be a little troubled in his mind by the fact that the words do not run very easily and that the sentence is not quite satisfactory from the standpoint of English. I am not, as I say, attached to those words which, under your ruling, Mr. Whitley, I am moving here, but it is the principle to which they refer with which I am concerned I understand that you are willing that the general discussion on the subject should take place at this point. I regard it as of the utmost importance that each separate convention that is entered into with foreign countries under this Bill should be submitted to Parliament and should be ratified by Parliament. The matter is of the most complicated nature. We are now passing a Bill which will give the executive Government of the day the power to enter into conventions with foreign countries, where the conditions of life are so different and of which we know so little; conventions which will give the foreign countries complete control over the lives not, as I said before, of hundreds, but of thousands, or perhaps even of millions, of British subjects. It is, therefore, a matter of very great importance. It is a great mistake, if I may say so, for us to con- 1342 sider this Bill simply from the point of view of aliens who are living in this country. A great amount of prejudice has been created in connection with this Bill through it being persistently referred to as a Bill to prevent aliens in the East End from snatching the jobs of British people who go to the War. It is a Bill which has a far wider application than that, and which gives the Government of the day the power to make conventions with foreign countries under which those foreign countries will have complete power over our nationals resident in those countries. Before we consent to any such conventions being entered into, and above all being carried out, it is surely perfectly reasonable that the House of Commons should know of what these conventions consist, what arrangements are made to secure justice to British people living abroad, and the machinery by which the convention is to be carried out.
I would suggest to the Under-Secretary for War that if this Amendment is accepted it will not in any way defeat the Bill or even delay its being carried out. I suppose the ordinary form would be followed, that the convention would be laid on the Table of the House, and that an opportunity would be given for an address to be presented in that connection. No substantial delay, therefore, would take place. This is not an Amendment that is going to destroy the Bill, or even to impair it in any way. For my part I think it would make it a much more efficient Bill, and it would be a Bill that would enable these conventions to receive the consideration of Parliament. Parliament would be given an opportunity of remedying, or pointing out, any defects in the conventions that were arrived at. I want to give two instances which show the need for some Amendment on the measure in this connection. We have been informed that discussions were taking place with the Russian Government. These discussions, if they are still taking place, were begun with the old Russian Government. The convention which it was proposed to enter into with Russia was a convention which was suggested to the Government of the Czar, but it does not appear to have been agreed to before the Revolution took place in Russia. I think the House would have resented it if a convention had been concluded with the Government of the Czar the contents of which had not been communicated to the House, and when abuses 1343 and complaints were heard the House had been told that a secret convention had been entered into with that Government. I think the very fact that the convention was being negotiated with the Government of the Czar is in itself a reason why in any future convention that it is attempted to negotiate the House should have the fullest information, and should have the power of ratifying any such convention. It is perfectly obvious that had we entered into a convention with the late Russian Government we should have required to make all kinds of provisions for the protection of our own subjects in Russia. I do not think there is a single Member of this House who would have been disposed to allow an Englishman to be conscripted by the late Government of Russia.

An HON. MEMBER
What has happened?

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I hope I am a little more optimistic than my hon. Friends, but I am sure there is no Member who would have willingly assented to such an arrangement. What may happen in Russia may happen in any country. We should be reluctant for a secret convention to be entered into with China and Japan, and many other countries, and I do not think there is anything unreasonable in asking that the convention should be a public convention and communicated to the House, and that the House should have an opportunity of ratifying it or otherwise. The other example is one of the most important that could be submitted to the Government of the day—that is the United States of America, which have within their borders a far greater number of Englishmen than any other foreign country in the world. It is a great problem. We are in the habit of thinking of America as a compact place, something like our own country, and we do not realise that we are not dealing with one country, but with fifty States, many of them larger than England, and all with their own rights as States, and existing, subject to the Government of the Commonwealth, as independent States. It is essential that we should know whether there is any convention in America—what the terms are; and we should require to know with regard to America whether those hundreds of thousands of Englishmen are going to have adequate machinery established under a convention by which claims for 1344 exemption could be decided. An hon. Member has pointed out the hardship which will fall upon many Englishmen in America who are perhaps engaged in important enterprises, have their wives and families there, and may have lived there for decades, who may be suddenly required under an arbitrary convention to join the American Army or return to this country.
Such a convention should be accompanied by adequate machinery for the hearing of claims, and we should be entitled to know before the convention was ratified by Parliament what machinery had been set up to deal with these genuine cases of hardship which may occur in many thousands of cases in the United States. I trust the Government and the Undersecretary for War will realise that this Amendment is not proposed in any hostile spirit. It is an Amendment which is based on a serious deficiency in the Bill, and I am quite sure, if He looks into this question, he will see the reasonableness of the proposal that Parliament should see such a convention before it is ratified, and should have an opportunity of amending that convention and making it satisfactory.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Before putting this Amendment, I ask Members to bear in mind that I said at the beginning that the place, and perhaps also the form, would be better as proposed by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire at a later point in the Clause; but if taken here, it cannot be debated again there.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I may say that I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because it has never been the case in the whole constitutional history of the country that Parliament should be given power or the right to ratify any such convention. It may be done by Order in Council, and I have no doubt that the House will have the opportunity, if it so pleased, of having them placed upon the Table, and will have the opportunity of discussing and assisting the Government in respect of the convention.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
Is the proposal that the Under-Secretary for War is making a proposal to give us by right the opportunity of criticising the convention before it takes effect?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I cannot say that; that is a matter for the Leader of the House. All that I can promise is that 1345 a Convention may be entered into, and if entered into will be laid on the Table of the House. I do not think my hon. Friend should ask me to go any further. We have no wish to keep anything back. I cannot do anything else, because we have no power to make any such arrangements in a Bill of this kind. We cannot discuss the Convention before it is made, and ratification is the prerogative of the Crown. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark has suggested difficulties which might arise in America. But I would remind the House that a convention is the medium, the bond, between two countries or between representatives of two countries, and, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, our Ambassadors have always looked after the interests of our country where there happens to be some difficulty. I hope my hon. Friend will not insist upon the Amendment and that, in view of what I have said, he will withdraw.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
I ask to be allowed to say a few words with regard to my own Amendment. I understood the Undersecretary that he would not be adverse to accepting an Amendment of the character I put down. I merely made this ordinary provision that it should be allowed to lie on the Table for a convenient time, and then acted upon, if no objection were taken to it. That put the thing in proper legal form, and it would also do what has been pointed out, that the House would not be giving an absolutely blank cheque to the Government and assenting to a convention it had not considered. If the Government would agree to accept an Amendment similar to the one I have put on the Paper, I think that it would reasonably meet the case.
I would again remind the Under-Secretary that even in much smaller matters an Order-in-Council is laid upon the Table of the House for a certain time, and it would be more in accordance with the dignity of the House that in a matter of this importance the undertaking should be given. Of course, a very much longer time would be necessary if you wanted it to be made known, but this is not an unreasonable time, and it really would give the House an opportunity, if it had any grave objection, of saying so. I would ask the Under-Secretary if he cannot see his way to put into the Bill in due legal form exactly what he has told us, that he is going to give us an opportunity, if we 1346 consider that there is anything bad in it, of moving for an Address to the Crown. Why should not that be definitely put into the Bill? I would ask him, if my hon. Friend is willing to withdraw his Amendment, whether he would accept mine. It is very desirable that the House should ratify this sort of thing before action is taken upon it. I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to depart from precedent or to make a new precedent, but merely to conform with what is done in very much less important matters.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The difficulty m the way of accepting this Amendment, as stated by the Under-Secretary, is that it is the prerogative of the Crown to make conventions. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the published diplomatic correspondence relating to the War it was very often stated in the conversations that took place between this country and France that any understanding, arrangement, or convention that might provisionally be entered into was subject to the ratification of Parliament. Those were the very words. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) has taken the form of his Amendment from the words in those papers, but they constantly occur there, and, though the constitutional practice to which the hon. Gentleman referred may be the usual thing, still, when it suits the purpose of the Government not to conform with it, they themselves have put into their diplomatic dispatches the provision, "subject to the ratification of Parliament." We are very anxious that the policy of secret diplomatic arrangements should no longer be the policy of this and other nations. There can be no doubt, if the various treaties and understandings which existed at the time of the outbreak of the European War had been known by Parliament and had been subject to the ratification of Parliament, that we should not be at war to-day. We are anxious to abolish secrecy in these matters. We are anxious to control, or rather to curtail, the power of diplomats and of Governments in making understandings and arrangements and conventions with other nations.
I do not think that the concession—if concession it can be called—at all meets the case. As I understand, it is another promise. It is a promise that the convention shall be laid upon the Table of the House. It is a fact that before an Order- 1347 in-Council laid upon the Table of this House can become operative forty days must elapse, but during the years that I have been a Member of this House I have never but once known a case where an attempt was made by any Member to get a discussion, and, curiously enough, that Member was the present Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord R. Cecil). On that occasion, I believe, he was given the half-hour between the time of the ordinary transaction of business and the close of the sitting. The hon. Member knows how difficult it is for a Member of Parliament or a group of Members objecting to an Order-in-Council to get the matter raised and to have a Debate in this House. I do not, therefore, think that the concession which he has offered is of any practical value. It is most important that there should be some statutory power of restraint upon Governments in making these conventions. If there is nothing at all in the Act of Parliament which says that Parliament shall have some power to override the decision which has been arrived at and embodied in a convention, then those who make the conventions will do pretty much as they like, because they know very well, as we do, that there is little likelihood of anyone challenging the Order-in-Council embodying the terms of the convention. I have not had an opportunity of consulting my hon. Friends, but I think I am expressing their views when I say that we cannot therefore accept the offer which has been made by the hon. Gentleman. We think it is of very little value.
This is really a most important question. Practically all the conditions under which British subjects in foreign countries may be called upon to undergo military service are involved in it. We have had eighteen months experience in this country of the operation of the Military Service Acts, and those of us who have followed this thing closely know that the regulations have been violated and ignored by the statutory bodies that were set up for the carrying of them out. We know that a great many of the tribunals have violated the provisions of the Act itself. We therefore want something stronger even than the powers we have under the Military Service Acts if conscription is going to be imposed upon British subjects 3,000, 4,000, 5,000, or even 6,000 miles away. I take it that regulations analogous to the regulations issued by the Local Govern- 1348 ment Board will be embodied in this convention. I suppose that there will be conditions laid down and rules and regulations inserted, and we want to know what they are going to be. We must therefore insist upon Parliament having the right to see the terms of any convention entered into between this Government and another State before it is embodied in an Order-in-Council and becomes operative.

Mr. CARADOC REES
If I thought that Britishers abroad would be treated differently from Britishers at home I should vote for this Amendment or some similar Amendment. Everyone in the House wants the Britishers abroad treated on an equal footing with the Britisher at home. They have had the advantage of being away for three years. If they had been at home they might be in the Army now. I cannot understand the objection to this Bill. I take it that on the other side the other country will have to pass some Act similar to this. That is clearly the intention, because in this Act we say that the Ambassador of the other country here can set up a tribunal for that country. Clearly the intention is, and the Government will see to it; that when we enter into a convention with any other country, some tribunal will be set up in that other country by our Ambassador there in order to protect and exempt British subjects in that country. If I did not believe that I should feel anxious, to some extent, as hon. Members opposite do. I take it that that is the intention of the Government.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
You have got hold of the wrong Amendment.

Mr. REES
The next point is with regard to ratification. What is there to be gained by asking that the convention shall be subject to the ratification of Parliament? There is nothing secret. Everything is open. This Bill says what we intend to do. I take it that other countries will do to this country exactly what we intend to do to them. What need is there for any ratification, for any delay in time or for any suspicion. I therefore hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
I am rather surprised to hear the contention put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. C. Rees), because, although I have not heard him speak recently in the House and have 1349 only known his views in the past when he was a very active opponent of conscription for this country—

§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)
The fact that an hon. Member has not spoken recently in the House is a very good reason for calling on him.

§ Mr. KING
On a point of Order. I did not understand my hon. Friend to challenge your ruling or to resent in any way that we had the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member. Although I oppose him on this matter, speaking not only for myself but for all my hon. Friends, I can assure him we heard him with the greatest pleasure and respect, even though we recognise that he has occasionally changed his views.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
I would thank my hon. Friend (Mr. King) for having come to my support and saying what I might have said myself, although I know that every opportunity is taken for calling me up when I am speaking. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. C. Rees) seems to have greatly changed his views. He was formerly a violent opponent of Conscription even in this country, but he has little concern now with any conditions which may be imposed upon a British conscript in a foreign army. The suggestion made by the Under-Secretary shows that he realises that our proposal is justified, and I am very sorry to find him, owing to the constitutional practice, unable to satisfy us entirely. That he cannot satisfy us by his pledge is not his fault, but we have had a long experience of pledges given from the Treasury Bench in connection with Conscription; consequently to-day no pledge has any value to us except one which finds itself embodied in the Bill. The reason the Under-Secretary gave will not carry much weight with us—certaly not with myself. We desire to have the suggestion embodied in the Bill. He says it cannot be done because the making of a convention, whatever Parliament may desire or determine, is the prerogative of the Crown. That is an argument raked up from the prehistoric days before the War, the days when conventions were made and the prerogative of the Crown kept them seorpt—conventions which have landed us in this War and which are the main cause of the tragedy of the War.
If this Amendment raises the question of the prerogative of the Crown, it is an 1350 excellent reason why we should discuss it and insist, so far as we can, upon our point. This matter is essentially one in which Parliament should have a say and it should secure an opportunity for discussion. It affects the liberties and conditions of living under military life of British subjects in foreign countries. Are we to understand that the prerogative of the Crown is to barter away or determine the conditions of living of British subjects in foreign countries? It is all very well to imagine that a British subject conscripted into the French Army will be well treated and dealt with on the same footing as if he were conscripted into the British Army. It may be so. But the condition of a British subject conscripted into the Army of Japan, owing to the entirely different conditions of life and the general outlook, might be one which would be a violation of all that man's former condition of life. If we enter into conventions of this kind with certain nations who are to-day our Allies, if any other Ally requests us to make such a convention we shall, of course, have to accede to its desire, so that I suppose we shall have British subjects conscripted into the army of Hayti, which has now declared war upon Germany. I suppose that British subjects will be conscripted into the armies of the South American States. The conditions under which they will be forced to obey foreign Governments under military law, which is the most rigorous of all laws, is certainly a matter which should be discussed in this House. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will stand by his Amendment.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
May I put a question to the Under-Secretary for War, which may facilitate the progress of this Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) just now referred to an Amendment standing in his name, and I understood the Under-Secretary practically gave a promise that that would be carried out. Has he any objection to putting it into the Bill? If he will accept that, we may withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I hope I was not understood to say that I agreed to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, which says: But no such Order in Council shall be made until such convention has lain upon the Table of the House for thirty days and no Address has been pre- 1351 sented by the House praying that such convention shall not be carried into effect. I expressed no opinion whatever upon that.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
What did you offer us then?

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
What I said was— and I think the Committee will agree— that the moment the convention was entered into I would see that it was placed on the Table of the House. It is for the House, if it wishes it, to ask for the discussion, but it is not for me to say whether an opportunity for discussion should be given. That is a matter entirely for the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. TREVELYAN
I want to clear up the matter, because we may come to an understanding, although I am not quite sure. There arc two questions involved— first, the question of ratification. The Under-Secretary said quite clearly that it would be quite wrong for the House in this case, which is an unquestionably minor issues as compared with the greater treaties, to depart from the usual custom of the Constitution and provide that it should be definitely ratified by Parliament. My hon. Friends might insist upon challenging the principle here and now, dividing on that question and making this an opportunity for fighting the question whether this House ought or ought not to ratify treaties. The other is a simpler question and is one of publicity: whether or not, before these conventions come into operation under the Bill, this House, and through this House the public, shall really know what the Government has done in the name of the nation. The Under-Secretary may regret it, but "we have seen a good many Government pledges neglected as time goes on, and unless we have it down in black and white that the thing is going to be done by the Government a certain amount of uncertainty remains in our minds as to whether we are going to get security. I do not want to say that in this case the Government will not give publicity to their conventions, but, at any rate, a certain suspicion remains in the minds of part of the population with regard to their policy. We want to know whether in regard to publicity the Government is ready to put in the Bill that it will lay these conventions on the Table. It is 1352 quite true that my hon. Friend, in his Amendment, speaks of an Address being presented by the House. I have an Amendment of a simpler kind, to provide that no Order in Council shall be made unless the convention out of which it arises shall have been published and laid on the Table of the House of Commons for thirty days. That is publicity pure and simple. I should like to know whether the Government is ready to grant, not by a mere promise of the War Office but in the Bill, publicity pure and simple, because if they are ready to do that matters may be simplified.

§ Sir F. SMITH
I do not really see that there ought to be any difficulty in arriving at a conclusion. The matter has been very fully discussed, and my hon. Friend has indicated his readiness to go as far as our view of the circumstances renders it possible. What we are prepared to do is to agree to put in the Bill that the convention shall lie on the Table of the House. That will give the hon. Member the publicity for which he asks. Further than that we are not willing to go. The matter has been discussed now for a considerable time. Hon. Members have made their point very clearly and distinctly, and my hon. Friend has indicated quite clearly how far he will go.

§ Mr. R. LAMBERT
Will the Order in Council be published simultaneously?

§ Sir F. SMITH
Certainly not.

§ Mr. LAMBERT
How long is the interval to be?

§ Sir F. SMITH
My hon. Friend was quite clear. He said he would accept the first part of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Molteno), but beyond that he would not accept it. I think hon. Members understand the position of the Government now and we understand theirs.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
The right hon. Gentleman has just said something wholly different from what the Under-Secretary for War said. The Under-Secretary for War stated in clear terms that he could agree to no words being added to the Bill.

§ Sir F. SMITH
I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend, and if that is the impression left on the hon. Member's mind he may accept it from me that that is an erroneous impression. My hon. Friend has agreed that the first two lines of the Amendment shall be accepted.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
In view of that concession by the right hon. Gentleman, for which I desire to thank him, I should like to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. MARTIN
I object.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I gathered the sense of the House.

§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I beg to move, after the word "country" ["and the subjects of that country"], to insert the words "provided that no British subject in a contracting country shall be brought under the operation of such a convention without being allowed the option of offering to return to his country."
I do not move this for the purpose of arguing it, but a statement made by the Under-Secretary was interrupted as at the moment it was out of order and we had not had an opportunity of discussing it. I understand the Under-Secretary then gave us an undertaking that he will introduce words to make it clear that no British subject shall be conscripted in a foreign country without first of all being able to return to his country, and that no difficulty will stand in the way. Difficulties with regard to shipping, for instance, shall not be held to make it justifiable to conscript him in a foreign country. I merely move the Amendment for the purpose of getting that definite undertaking.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I accept this Amendment.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "But no such Order in Council shall be made until such convention has lain upon the Table of the House for thirty days."

§ Mr. H. SAMUEL
On a point of Order. What House? The Table of the House is a term of art.

§ Mr. KING
May I move to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "of Commons" after the word "House."

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Perhaps the hon. Member will move it in that form.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
I beg to move it in that form.
Words "But no such Order in Council shall be made until such convention has lain upon the Table of the House of Commons for thirty days '' there inserted.

§ Mr. TREVELYAN
I beg to move, at the end, to add the words: Provided that no Order-in-Council shall be made where the convention with the contracting country does not secure that every British subject made liable to enlistment in the contracting country shall have the same right to claim exemption, and for the same reasons as he would have in Great Britain under the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, and the right of appealing in respect of such claims for exemption to a court composed to the extent of at least one-half of its members of British subjects appointed by the British Government. I am not wedded to the form of words of this Amendment, but I move it. It concerns the interests of our nationals in foreign countries, who may be conscripted under the convention. All that the Government have said is that they will take measures to enable a British subject to return to this country if he does not want to be enlisted and that they will insert words which will enable the British Ambassador in whatever the foreign country may be to ask for exemption for any British subjects that he thinks ought to be exempted. My view is that that does not go far enough. What I propose is that there shall be some kind of machinery by which subjects of our country who ought to be exempted may claim exemption before some sort of tribunal. What is going to be the position of large numbers of our fellow subjects, supposing there was a convention with the United States of America? British subjects are scattered over a vast area of the United States. Is it possible for British subjects living in Arizona, Idaho and California to effectively appeal to the British Ambassador for exemption? The thing simply cannot be done. Some sort of larger machinery is wanted than that which the Government propose, and it ought to be given to our fellow subjects as a matter of right. I would like to ask the Government if they cannot give some better security than the intervention of the British Ambassador. A very large number of people are too humble and too small to be writing to Washington, or wherever the place may be, in order to get the intervention of the Ambassador. There may be large numbers of people in France or in the United States, or elsewhere, who have just as much right to exemption as large numbers of people who have been exempted here for all sorts of reasons, and 1355 yet they will not find that there is any available machinery for obtaining the exemption which is their right, and they will have less chance than people here, because they will have a population around them which is jealous of them, and is wanting to get them into the National Army for trade reasons. This is not a thing which has merely arisen out of my own mind. I have seen letters in a good many papers on the subject. One published to-day Bays, "It is scarcely necessary to point out that British residents abroad have greater risks and responsibilities than their compatriots at home. The breaking up of a home or business abroad entails obviously far-reaching consequences. If it is considered necessary to impose compulsory service on Britishers abroad they should be given facilities similar to the facilities enjoyed by those at home. Separation allowances should be granted with due regard to all the circumstances, and exemption should be allowed to heads of businesses and chiefs of departments. Furthermore, opportunity should be given to them to return to the country of their birth." The latter point has been met, but I do think that the mere proposal that the one chance of exempion British subjects can have is an appeal to the Ambassador, is not a sufficient safeguard to our nationals, if they are to be taken under the laws of any country.

§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, particularly in view of the two concessions which I have already said I am prepared to make and put into the Bill. Further than that, this proposal is obviously unworkable. The best proposal that can be made is the proposal that His Majesty's Ambassador in the contracting country should have complete power to use his own discretion. I am perfectly certain that that really meets the case put forward by the hon. Member.

§ Mr. KING
I quite understand the hon. Member saying that this proposal is going to be difficult to work. The whole Bill is going to be difficult to work, and the concessions that the hon. Gentleman has made, and for which we thank him, are also going to be very difficult to work. Take the case of a Britisher in California who is liable to be conscripted into the United States Army. He has to get from Washington—a place thousands of miles 1356 away, where it takes a week for a letter to go and a fortnight for a letter to return—an exemption from our Ambassador, or he is to have the opportunity of coming from California to this country, a journey which at the least will cost him £50 or £60. He may be leaving in California, not only business, but wife, family, and everything else. Obviously it is not merely this proposal that will be hard to work, it is the whole Pill. The whole thing is extraordinarily difficult, unless you are going to have a great deal of injustice, or, what is equally certain, a great number of people slipping through. That is much more likely. A great deal of the fish for which this net is laid will slip through its meshes. The question of tribunals will come up again a little later on another Amendment. That is not a question that is going to be put off easily. The question of tribunals to which the alien must appeal is a very difficult question. I am very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Samuel) in his place, because a year ago, when he had proposals on this matter, he definitely saw that a special tribunal must be set up for these aliens. That is a question which the Under-Secretary for War has got to face, namely, what tribunals in every land are going to be instituted, or what authority are you giving to them? This proposal to give a man the alternative of returning home or appealing to the Ambassador is, I think, quite ineffective to deal with the real cases of hardship which will often occur to our nationals in America. I have called when in foreign capitals at Embassies, and I have observed that a great number of callers come there, poor Britishers stranded in other lands. Perhaps they are sent on to the Consul, but they are always treated at the Embassies and at the Consulates, too, as an uncommon nuisance, and they are an uncommon nuisance. Very often they are very poor men, men who have fled from justice, or who for some-other reason have fled from their own country which did not want them, and these men, if they appealed to the Embassies or Consulates in foreign lands, would get very little patience. Very often they are ignorant of the forms they would have to go through, and I am quite sure that the alternative to the Amendment which is now proposed by the Government is not at all sufficient to meet their case.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
The hon. Gentle man, in his speech a few moments ago: said that he had already undertaken to put words into the Bill which would have the effect of making our Ambassador in s foreign country practically the tribunal himself. I want to remind my hon. Friend that his undertaking went much further than that. He promised also to consider what kind of machinery ought to be set up to assist our Ambassadors in foreign countries in discharging duties practically analogous to those discharged by tribunals in this country. I want to emphasise that very much, because otherwise the concession would be quite valueless and the whole thing would break down.

§ Mr. CROOKS
That is just what you want—the whole thing to break down.

§ Mr. KING
On a point of Order. The discussion has proceeded in a conciliatory manner on both sides. Is it in order for an hon. Member, who has not attended at this Debate, to come in and cast an accusation against us that we want the whole thing to break down? Is not that observation disorderly and calculated to stop orderly procedure?

§ Mr. CROOKS
On a point of personal explanation. I was here when the Debate on the Committee stage began; I have been in the House ever since, and I did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I am at a loss to understand the interruption. I am addressing myself to the Bill; my remarks are perfectly relevant. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite has any observations to offer to the Committee, I have not the slightest doubt that an opportunity will be given to him to offer them. In the meantime, may I ask him to restrain himself, and to listen, if not with respect, at least with silence, to my observations.

§ Mr. CROOKS
I shall do exactly what the Rules of Parliament allow me to do.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I shall be entirely content if the right hon. Gentleman—

§ Mr. CROOKS
I have just come from an inquest on two little darling children—

An HON. MEMBER
What has that got to do with it?

§ Mr. CROOKS
It has everything to do with it.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I greatly deplore that this interruption has occurred. I desire to address myself to the Amendment before the Committee and to show how necessary it is. Consider for a moment what has happened in our own country. We know very well that the alien in our midst has been the subject of popular passion. There are certain newspapers in this country that have increased that popular passion against the alien who is to be conscripted by this Bill. I believe that most right-minded people deplore the passion and prejudice caused by this question. I greatly deplore the reply that was given by the Leader of the House to-day that job-snatching by aliens would be prevented by this Bill, because I think that that introduces a note of prejudice and passion into our discussion.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That does not relate to this Amendment.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
If such be the prejudice and passion caused by the War in this country, consider the state of our own country people in foreign countries. That is directly relevant to this Amendment. It is because our own people in foreign countries may be subject to passion and prejudice and may be treated unfairly and unjustly that we require this Amendment or an Amendment in this spirit in this Bill, which is providing that many hundreds and thousands of British subjects in the United States, Russia, Italy, and other countries, with which conventions may be made, shall have the same rights with regard to the grounds upon which they can appeal for exemption as though they lived in this country. I do not think that there is anything unreasonable in that, and I do hope that the Attorney-General, who has listened to our criticism with care, will deal with this subject from the same broad standpoint that he has shown in the early stages of the Debate.

Sir H. DALZIEL
I am glad that the Government are not going to give way in this Amendment. I cannot quite understand why there should be so much resentment at the expression used by my right hon. Friend that many of the hon. Gentlemen who were criticising this Bill wished to destroy it.

§ Mr. KING
That is not the position.

Sir H. DALZIEL
Anyone who votes against the Second Beading of a Bill must 1359 wish to kill it. The Amendment before the Committee at the present moment suggests that tribunals, similar to those in this country, should be set up in foreign countries, and that every Britisher there should have the right to appeal the same as he would have in this country; and we are, therefore, to extend the postponement of the operation of this Act from thirty days for probably another six or eight months before these men can be brought to do their duty to this country. When I see men being sent back to the front who have been wounded five times, men of thirty-five or forty, with half a dozen little children, I confess that I cannot understand the enthusiasm of hon. Members for those shirkers who left our country in the early stages of the War, men of twenty-one to twenty-five, who went to America, France, and Italy, and who are hiding there to-day, and I do not know why there should be this anxiety to prevent these men being brought back to do their duty to their country. Why have they not come back before? They have seen our country in trouble for three years. If they had a spark of patriotism left they would not require the machinery of this Bill to bring them back. Many hon. Members who oppose this Bill have announced their intention of not standing for re-election. I am not surprised. I do not think that there is a constituency in this country which would sanction their action in opposing the Government in the hour of trial, when every man is required. Men are ruined every day because they have to join the Colours, and it is said that we are to see aliens getting their business.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is not relevant to this Amendment.

Sir H. DALZIEL
I have already said what I have to say on this matter, and I submit, on a point of Order, it is really important as to whether we should give these men further facilities abroad as those who are actually serving here. I really hope that the Government will stand firm in their position in regard to this matter. The country is already sick at heart at the delay, and I hope that they will make no further concession.

§ Sir F. SMITH
I think it is desirable that the Committee should realise that we have approached the point at which it should be made clear on the part of the Government that they have made every reasonable concession. My hon. Friend 1360 has already made it clear that this is not an Amendment that can be accepted by the Government, and we must invite the Committee to accept that decision. Whatever the facilities or the opportunities this Amendment proposes in respect of British subjects abroad, we have to consider, on the other hand, the cruel sacrifices which we have been driven, much against our will, to impose upon the soldiers who have already done service at the front, and who have returned there after recovering from wounds, and it is clear what our decision should be as between the two classes of men. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is one which we are not prepared to accept.

§ Mr. TREVELYAN
I made it quite clear when I moved my Amendment that we on these benches recognise that the Government are making considerable concessions, but this is a matter in which a very large number of people are taking a good deal of interest. It is that the interests of our fellow subjects in foreign countries must be looked after if they are conscripted in any of those countries. I have said that the safeguards are inadequate, and will the Government give any further safeguards? I am not going to press the Amendment, but I hope the Government will bear the matter in mind. It is not so easy to get justice for our fellow countrymen by the action of the Ambassador. I am very sorry for the heat which has been imparted into the discussion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkaldy, who has not been here during the whole of the Debate.

Sir H. DALZIEL
I have been sitting here during most of the Debate.

§ Mr. TREVELYAN
There has been no obstruction on our side, and I think we have discussed the questions which have been raised, on the whole, with generally good results, that, in the main, satisfy both of us. I am sorry the Government will not give way further on other points, and, therefore, I will not press the Amendment.

§ Mr. TREVELYAN
I beg to move, at the end, to add the words, Provided that no such Order-in-Council shall be made unless the convention with the contracting country contains a clause terminating the convention in the event of either of the 1361 contracting parties concluding peace before the other and securing that in that event their subjects shall at once be released from military service. It is a contingency which none of us want or hope for, and perhaps none of us expect, that any of the contracting countries will retire from the War before" the others. But it is a possibility. At the present moment the country with which the Government are trying to make a convention under this measure is Russia. I sincerely hope, as will everybody in this House, that Russia will not make a separate peace, but nobody in his senses can ignore its possibility. I think that any convention with Russia should contain a clause in defence of our fellow-subjects that if, in the first instance, they are conscripted into the Russian Army, and then Russia makes a separate peace, they shall be entitled to leave the Russian Army at once. I think, in the interests of our fellow-subjects, that should be insisted upon.

§ Sir F. SMITH
I would suggest to the Committee that this is an Amendment which is very unlikely to receive their acceptance. It is one which would affect seriously the operation of the measure, and I do not think that in practice it would be found to be workable. If one of tin? contracting countries concluded peace before the other there would have to be a large number of readjustments in our relations with the contracting country, and if such a provision as this were put into the Bill it would certainly be a great obstacle to the making of these conventions We are trying to deal in a business way with the kind of problems which may reasonably be expected to arise. The hon. Gentleman says that, supposing Russia concluded a separate peace, the position of British subjects in the Russian Army would become a difficult one. I put it to the House that we cannot guard against everything, and I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that what is immediately vital is that the Government should have this matter determined by this House of Commons at the earliest possible moment, and this Amendment, if it were introduced into the measure, would really add to the difficulties and complications, and there is no justification for its acceptance.

§ Mr. KING
I do not think the Attorney-General has dealt with this Amendment 1362 with his usual comprehensiveness and cogency. The matter is really a very important one. The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the position of America. The United States of America is in alliance with us in the War, but the United States refuses to come into the Pact of London. The Foreign Secretary has been over there and has returned, and there is no move whatever for the United States to come into the Pact of London. If there had been, it would have already been before the American Senate. Therefore the possibility, I hope not the probability, of a separate peace in the case of America is there. There are certain facts in the American position—I do not want to go into them or emphasise them—which requires consideration. You have only to read President Wilson's speech in this morning's paper to see that he makes certain references to Germany which are quite different from what we should expect from our Minister. Therefore, I say the possibility of a separate peace both with Russia and the United States is there. I hope it will not come about. I hope there will be much less need for many things than some people anticipate. I am sorry the Government will not accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
I am sorry the Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office is not now present.

§ Sir F. SMITH
My right hon. Friend was called away.

§ Mr. MOLTENO
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very much engaged. At the same time, this Clause deals with foreign Governments, and is reversing a policy which we have pursued for about a hundred years. Under those circumstances it does seem to me to be desirable to know what is the position of the negotiations. We now learn, because we did not know when the Bill was introduced, that there is a definite treaty not only with Russia, but with twenty-one other countries, that we shall do this. That being the case, it is very important that the House of Commons should have some knowledge of what the negotiations are and as to how far they are likely to be carried through. Let me read to the Committee the Clause of the Treaty with 1363 Russia which it would be necessary to do away with or modify if it is to be possible to carry out this Act. Article 14 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Russia is as follows: The subjects of either of the Two High Contracting Parties in the dominions and possessions of the other shall be exempted from all compulsory military service whatever, whether in the army, navy, or national guard or militia. They shall be equally exempted from all judicial and municipal charges and functions whatever, as well as from all contributions, whether pecuniary or in kind, imposed as a compensation for personal service; and, finally, from forced loans and military exactions or requisitions.

§ Mr. CROOKS
What is the date of that?

§ Mr. MOLTENO
It is dated 1859. That is a treaty now in force. We have appealed to the Russian Government many times to allow us to abrogate that clause. The late Russian Government made no reply, although repeated requests were made for an answer to our request. If the late Russian Government was unwilling or unable to agree to the abrogation of that treaty, is it probable that the existing Russian Government will be ready to go further than the late Russian Government and agree to that request? We ought to have some information in regard to the position of these negotiations, and on a matter which so vitally affects the carrying into effect of this Bill. I do not propose to divide against the Clause.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I desire to put a question to the Attorney-General. This Clause gives power to enter into conventions with other countries. The argument was put that such conventions should be subject to the definite approval of the House of Commons, and in reply to that the Under-Secretary for War expressed a view as to our constitutional usage which I should be sorry -should go unchallenged. If I understood the Under-Secretary aright, he said that it was the prerogative of the Crown alone to enter into conventions with other countries. The inference which I had to draw from that was that the House of Commons had nothing to do with the ratification of such conventions. I suggest that that is an incorrect or, at least, an incomplete statement. I would remind the Under-Secretary that we have frequently entered into arrangements with other countries of a tentative character, but only on the understanding that the policy embodied in the convention was ratified by Parliament. The whole policy 1364 which was embodied in what was known as the Declaration of London was subject to ratification by Parliament, which was not completely given. I should be sorry an important point of this kind should go by without some observation from His Majesty's Government.

§ Sir F. SMITH
The constitutional question presents no difficulty either in theory or in practice. It has long been the settled law of our Constitution that the Sovereign has the power of making treaties. That must be read subject to the well understood constitutional practice. The Sovereign in such matters acts on the advice of his Ministers. When the hon. Gentleman expresses apprehension lest the House of Commons should cease to maintain control of the making of treaties, I need hardly remind him that the Sovereign acts, and must act, on the advice of Ministers, and the House of Commons has the most complete control over Ministers. On the general points I think the Government have recognised that it is their duty to listen to the point of view of minority, and that they have shown great patience in this matter. We, of course, have received representations as a Government on these points. I can assure hon. Gentlemen if they knew the weight of public opinion which lay behind this Bill, with British subjects abroad, as has been pointed out, of twenty-two or twenty-three years of age who are not serving, and with no intention of serving, while men of thirty-five and forty, thrice wounded, have gone back to the front; and, still more, if they knew the other side of the case, and that we have here citizens of Allied countries, men of military age, men enjoying the protection of the civilisation of this country, and who for three years have been evading military service and taking the place of Englishmen called to the Colours—I am sure if hon. Gentlemen knew the weight of public opinion on this matter they would not challenge a Division.

§ Mr. KING
With the first part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman I am in great agreement, and I listened to it with real gratitude. I should like at once, as one of the Members who have taken an interest in this Bill, to recognise we have been met extremely fairly by the Government. We may be a minority, but we have been listened to, and we have also received very, very con- 1365 siderable concessions, which I myself consider so valuable that if they had been in the Bill when it was originally introduced, I very much doubt if I should have gone into the Lobby against it. The concessions are very, very considerable. They will be very much appreciated by persons of our own nationality and also those of alien nationality that come under the Bill. To my mind, they will very largely take away the bitterness and the objection that I have felt for the Bill. What are the concessions? First of all, I hope I shall not be complained of if I take the opportunity, seeing the number of Members now in the Committee who have not attended all through, if I briefly point out what are the concessions. The first concession we have received is that the conventions are to be published and laid upon the Table of this House, and that is to be put into the Bill. We pressed for this again and again both before the Bill was introduced and on Second Reading, but we got no offer in connection with our request. We have had that concession this afternoon quickly; the result is that there has been no obstruction in Committee, and we have made rapid progress. The second concession relates to our own nationals abroad, who will have the opportunity of coming back here before they are actually conscripted into a foreign army. I welcome that, and I welcome, of course, the corresponding offer that aliens here who would be conscripted will have the opportunity of going to their own country. That is going to be put into the Bill. These things are fair, and we are grateful for them. I am sorry that the Attorney-General introduced the passage about shirkers. It is so very easy to cry out that others are shirkers, especially for elder men like ourselves who are not asked to go to war; and especially for young men who in one way or another have got exemption, and are perhaps on the Treasury Bench. But I altogether repudiate this introduction of animus and the superfluity of introducing the shirker issue into our discussion. I will not have anything more: to do with it.