Lords Sitting of 11 March 1915

BRISTOL TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

MERSEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
NEATH CANAL NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDIA (EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS).
Papers respecting the creation of an Executive Council for the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh: Laid before the House (pursuant to Address of the 16th of February last) and to be printed. (No. 49.)
CUSTOMS (WAR POWERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Strachie). (No. 50.)
DEFENCE OE THE REALM (AMENDMENT) No. 2 BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Privy Seal (M. Crewe)). (No. 51.)
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ENEMIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 52.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 23) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

IRISH POLICE (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT or THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, this is a small Bill the object of which is to give statutory effect to an arrangement by which 200 constables and 16 officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary have, with the consent of the Police authorities, volunteered and been accepted for service with the Colours during the present war. A certain number of the arrangements necessary are possible by Order in Council; but apart from the fact that it is not desirable to do too much by Order in Council there are some small details which cannot be effected in that way, and in order to regularise the position we are anxious to pass this Bill into law.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART I. AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): My Lords, this Bill is necessitated by the war, and its principal object is to give a much-needed relief to approved societies under the National Insurance Act. The position of soldiers and sailors under that Act is somewhat different from the position of ordinary civilians. When a man who is already a member of an approved society joins the Colours his contribution becomes only 1½d. a week to the society, and his employer—that is, the War Office or the Admiralty—pays another 1½d. The contribution from the State is paid to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund, and not to the approved society. It is quite true that the friendly society, as long as the man is serving with the Colours, is not in a had position, because the soldier or sailor is unable to make any claim upon his friendly society except with regard to maternity benefit, all other provision being made for him, of course, by the respective Services. But when a man is invalided and leaves the Colours he then comes down upon his approved society.

667
The Select Committee of the House of Commons recommended that in the case of total disablement the soldier or sailor should receive a pension of 25 s. a week, and that has been confirmed by the House of Commons. Therefore, except for this Bill, the position of a friendly society would be this. The man would be receiving a pension of 25 s. a week, but the friendly society would have to pay 10 s. sickness benefit for twenty-six weeks, and at the end of that time they would have to give him permanently 5s. a week disablement pay. The Select Committee of the House of Commons originally recommended 20 s. a week as the pension, but the amount was increased to 25 s., and at the same time it was resolved to recommend that the friendly societies should be relieved of 5s. of the sickness benefit and should be relieved entirely of the disablement benefit. The Bill further provides that, in a case where the pension is retrospective and where benefit at the unreduced rate has been paid by the friendly society, the amount of the difference between the benefit at the unreduced rate and at the reduced rate shall be recoverable by the friendly society.
There is also in the Bill a provision enabling the friendly societies to receive the State contribution instead of its being paid to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund. I believe that the reason why originally the provision was made that the State contribution should go to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund was that those who brought in the original Bill were under the impression that no soldiers or sailors would join approved societies but would all belong to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund. In practice, however, that has not been found to be the case. Clause 2 of this Bill is simply an extension of Section 11 of the principal Act to persons affected by the special measures passed in consequence of the war. That Section provides that a man cannot receive sickness benefit at the same time that he is receiving benefit under the Employers' Liability Act.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, this Bill to amend the Naval Discipline Act consists for the most part of emergency provisions, but the opportunity has been taken to add one or two other desirable alterations in the law which are needed at the present time. The Bill was passed in another place with general good will and with only one or two very small alterations. It is entirely a question of detail, and I will explain briefly the various clauses to your Lordships. Clause 1 deals with Section 16 of the present Act. In Section 16 it is provided that if any one in the Navy strikes a superior officer who is in the execution of his office, he is liable to the punishment of death; but if he strikes a superior officer when that superior officer is not in the execution of his office, then he is liable to penal servitude. The effect of Clause 1 of this Bill will be that penal servitude will be the punishment for both offences. As a matter of fact, for the last hundred years no death sentence has been carried out in connection with any offence of this kind, and I think it is generally agreed that penal servitude is a severe enough penalty. There is another advantage. At present, even in a case that is not at all serious, if a man in the Navy strikes a superior officer who is in the execution of his office, he must be tried by Court-Martial, but if this clause is carried it will be possible for a slight offence to be dealt with summarily.
Clause 2 deals with the question of absence. In time of war it is quite clear that absence may be almost, if not quite, as bad as desertion. The utmost penalty at present that can be given, even in time of war, for absence without leave is ten weeks imprisonment, but this clause will enact that imprisonment for two years may be given as a punishment for absence. Clause 3 deals with an amendment of Section 46 of the original Act. Section 46 defines places in which offences are trvable by Courts-Martial, and mentions "Her Majesty's dockyards, victualling yards, steam factory yards, or on any gun-wharf, or in any arsenal, barrack, or hospital belonging to Her Majesty." Modern conditions make it advisable that the places mentioned in Section 46 should be ex-

669
tended. Accordingly it is proposed to add to them the words "or in any other premises held by or on behalf of the Crown for naval or military purposes, or in any canteen or sailors' home, or any place of recreation placed at the disposal of or used by officers or men of His Majesty's Navy which may be prescribed by the Admiralty."
In Clause 4 is reproduced a provision similar to that in Section 158 of the Army Act. It enables a man who has ceased to be subject to the Naval Discipline Act to be tried for an offence committed while he was still under the Act, but it is enacted that the liability shall not, except in the case the offence of mutiny or desertion, extend beyond three months after he has left the Service. Clause 5 and Clause 7 are related. Clause 7 slightly extends the class of officers who can try offences summarily, and Clause 5 will enact that a warrant for arrest may be given not only by the officer in command of the Fleet or the squadron or the captain of a ship or senior officer present at the port, as is now the case, but also by an officer having, by virtue of subsection (3) of Section 56 of the Naval Discipline Act, power to try offences. Clause 6 deals with the power to inflict dismissal in addition to imprisonment. I think this is a very desirable change in the law. In effect, it will not apply to cases summarily tried, inasmuch as by the King's Regulations an officer in command of a ship can only recommend dismissal to the Admiralty. Therefore the effect will be that in cases of Court-Martial the Court-Martial will have the power to add a sentence of dismissal to any punishment that is inflicted.
Clause 8 deals with the places where a Court-Martial may be held. At present I believe a Court-Martial must be held on a ship. This clause will enable the Admiralty or the officer who ordered the Court-Martial in any particular case, for reasons to be recorded on the proceedings, to direct that a Court-Martial shall be held at a port at such convenient place on shore as the Admiralty or the officer who ordered the Court-Martial may direct. That will be a very beneficial change. In the case of Admiral Koppel a special Act of Parliament had to be passed in order that he might be tried on shore. It is obvious that a difficulty may arise and it may be convenient to hold the Court-Martial elsewhere than on board ship. Clause 9 enables the
670
Navy List or Gazette to be evidence of the status of an officer. That is a matter of no great importance as regards most of the officers in the Navy, but there are so many auxiliary ships at the present time that it may be of considerable convenience in the future. Clause 10 deals with the question of two sentences running one with the other. In the case of a man who has been tried summarily and is in detention at the time, if he is tried and convicted for another offence the punishment for his later offence cannot be made to run from the time when the punishment for his first offence cease. In the case of a man who has been tried by Court-Martial it can, but not in the case of a man tried summarily. This clause will remove that difference.
A question which was the subject of a special Bill as applying to the Army, introduced by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack yesterday and passed through all its stages by your Lordships' House, is dealt with in Clause 11, and I think it will be of particular value in the Navy. The clause deals with two cases. First, the case of a man who, under the stress of war, may have committed an offence. The power of suspension will enable him to have a chance of purging that offence. It also deals with the case of a shirker, a man who apparently prefers imprisonment to going, say, to the North Sea at the present time. It will enable any one convicted of an offence of that kind to be sent to the North Sea before he undergoes his punishment. Clause 12 makes a very small change in the law in reference to the officer who can order a change of place of confinement. Clause 13 is complementary to the Army Act (Amendment) Bill, and deals with cases where naval and military forces are serving together. Clause 14 makes a very necessary change in the law. In the case of an officer in command of a hired ship going away and leaving a man in detention who is to be tried, there are many cases in which no one is left at the port where the man is in custody to try him. This clause will add to the class of people who are able to try a man of that kind. The officer commanding the ship, or vessel, or station in which such person may for the time being be held in custody will, under this clause, have the power to try him.
Clause 15 will replace without any sort of doubt the well-known and beautiful

671
Preamble of the Naval Discipline Act, and it will also revive the definition of the Admiralty which enables two Lords of the Admiralty to act. Clause 16 is a common form in all amendments of the Naval Discipline Act. Its principal effect is that when amendments of this Act are made an authoritative print of the Act with the amendments is immediately published. It is obviously very desirable that an important Act of this kind should be kept up to date in this way, so that those who are interested may know exactly what the law is. I have now described briefly what this Bill purports to do. There are a few small Amendments to be moved, and if your Lordships will agree, after reading the Bill a second time, to put it through the rest of its stages to-day, those Amendments could be moved on Third Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Emmott.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, we have not had the time that we should have liked in which to examine the details of this Bill, but I know that in the circumstances that could not be helped. So far as I have been able to follow the explanations of the noble Lord and to examine the details of the Bill, I do not think there is anything in it of which we should otherwise than approve, but if hereafter on further consideration there are points of criticism which arise, we should not feel ourselves precluded from raising them in some future session. I should not like, however, to sit down without expressing my delight that the First Lord of the Admiralty and his Board have had the historical sense to restore that Preamble which, born at the end of the 17th century was temporarily smothered at the time of the revision of the Statutes by some legal luminary who possessed more learning than imagination. I am very glad indeed to see that that act of literary vandalism is now being obliterated.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl who has just sat down congratulated Inv noble friend on the successful determination of the Admiralty to save the historic Preamble of the Naval Discipline Act from the ruthless hand of the Statute
672
Law Revision Committee; but, unfortunately, Clause 15 as it stands in the Bill does not do that. The clause as drawn proposes to repeal a supposed repeal of the Preamble. There has been no such repeal. It was part of the policy of the Statute Law Revision Committee to get rid of all unnecessary Preambles. As it could not be known beforehand which were necessary and which were unnecessary, power was taken in the Statute Law Revision Act of 1893 to repeal such Preambles as might prove to be unnecessary. But in so far as the Preamble to the Naval Discipline Act in question was concerned, the Committee never exercised their power. The clause which the Admiralty have introduced into this Bill proceeds on the hypothesis that something has been repealed which has not been repealed, and restores it. What the Admiralty have overlooked is the power to repeal, which remains untouched by the clause in this Bill. Notwithstanding what has been said about lawyers in this House upon this occasion, I come as representative of the law to the relief of the Admiralty to rescue this historic Preamble from the hands of the executioner. I propose to amend Clause 15 in line 39, after "the," by inserting "schedule to the"; and in line 40 by leaving out "repeals" and inserting "relates to." As so altered the clause will run in this way—
"So much of the schedule to the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, as relates to the Preamble to, and part of section eighty-six of, the Naval Discipline Act shall cease to have and shall be deemed never to have had effect."
What the result of these last words may be I do not know, but as a concession to the outraged spirit of the Navy I propose to insert the words as they will now stand.
Amendments moved—
Clause 15, page 5, line 39, after ("the") insert ("schedule to the")
Clause 15, page 5, line 40,leave out ("repeals") and insert ("relates to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD EMMOTT: The Amendment which I have to propose is a merely verbal one. It is to leave out from Clause 16 words which clearly ought not to be there.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 6, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("the schedule to").—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 53.)

NAVAL MARRIAGES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, in 1908 there was passed through Parliament a Bill which enabled the banns of an officer, seaman, or marine to be published on board a man-of-war. This Bill goes a step further, and seeks to enact that when the banns have been so published and the banns of the lady have been published according to law in the country, the marriage may take place in any place of worship or building in the United Kingdom other than the one in which the banns have been published—that is to say, in any other building in which marriages may lawfully be solemnised or contracted. There are a certain number of marriages which it is not very easy to carry out under conditions of active service. They often have to take place in a great hurry. This Bill will enable a man who comes in on his ship to, say, Newcastle to be married in that town if the lady is there, instead of having to go, perhaps, to a village in, say, Warwickshire.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Emmott.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, to the intent and purport of this Bill I take no exception whatever. On the contrary, from ample experience during the last few months of the difficulties which have attended the celebration of some of the naval marriages that were desired to take place I think that the Bill is admirable. There can be, however, no wish, in exceptional legislation of this kind carried for the sake of facilitating matters during war time, to interfere with the existing law more than is absolutely necessary. That, I imagine, would be the underlying principle in all such emergency legislation, and I want to call attention to the fact that there is a very material change in the existing law effected by the Bill as it is drawn.
By the law as it now stands, if banns are called in a church of the Church of England, or if a licence is given by a Bishop of the Church of England for a marriage, that marriage may take place in particular places which are named, but, of course, only within the churches of the Church of England. This Bill if carried would allow, I think most desirably, that
674
the present limitation which confines the marriage to a particular town or a particular parish should be removed. But it goes further and, unintentionally as I believe, practically allows marriages which are authorised by a licence issued by a Bishop in England or by banns published in the Church of England to be celebrated in any building or place, which would include any registrar's office or the chapels of any denomination. That might cause a good deal of technical difficulty in certain ecclesiastical matters. I have reason to believe that the Admiralty are persuaded as to that, and the words which I desire to see added to Clause 1 actually emanate from the Admiralty themselves. I venture to hope that your Lordships will allow me, when the Bill reaches Third Reading, to move an Amendment to make that point clear.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The Amendment which I desire to move is to insert at the end of Clause 1 words providing that in England no marriage after banns published or an episcopal licence granted in England shall be solemnised elsewhere than in a church or chapel of the Church of England in which marriages may lawfully be solemnised.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, at end of line 20, insert "Provided that in England no marriage after banns published or an episcopal licence granted in England shall be solemnised elsewhere than in a church or chapel of the church of England in which marriages may lawfully be solemnised."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
LORD EMMOTT: I am in rather a difficulty because I did not hear of this Amendment until a few moments ago. I have been intensely busy and have not had an opportunity, until the most rev. Primate was on his feet, of hearing anything at all about the matter. As the provision is confined to the period of the war I do not think the point is a very important one, and it would be a pity to jeopardise, as might be the case were the Amendment accepted, the passing of this

675
Bill. As I say, I have not heard until a few moments ago what the Amendment was, and I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Admiralty with regard to it. But knowing the House of Commons as I do, I feel that there might be on a point of this kind considerable danger of the Bill being lost if we were to accept this Amendment at this moment.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I wish to make my own position perfectly clear. The words in the Amendment are not my words at all, but the words of the Admiralty. The Amendment is in the form in which they thought it might properly he made, and it was furnished to me after an ample correspondence on the point. I did suggest other words, but instead of those the Admiralty thought that these words would be better. Accordingly I have moved the words in the form given to me by the Admiralty. Therefore I think my own action in the matter cannot be regarded as calculated to cause any of the difficulties of which the noble Lord spoke.
LORD PARMOOR: Unless an Amendment of this kind were introduced there would be serious difficulty. You would really almost get back to the conditions when the Secret Marriage Act was necessary. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept the Amendment.
LORD EMMOTT: In the circumstances I do not feel that I can offer a blank negative to this Amendment, but I do not like to accept it without warning your Lordships, as I have done, that I do not know what the effect will be when the Bill goes back to another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD EMMOTT: I have an Amendment in Clause 2 to meet the case of Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 24, after ("publication") insert ("or proclamation").—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 54.)

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill I may recall to your Lordships in a few words the history of the matters to which it relates. Immediately after the war commenced Regulations were made under the Defence of the Realm Act, a number of which created new crimes. Those Regulations were necessary, and the offences to which they related were offences which, in view of the fact that the country was in a state of war, were serious offences. Under that condition of things the Regulations themselves provided for the trial of persons charged with these offences. They were made without prejudice to any other jurisdiction which the law recognised, such as the jurisdiction to try an alien enemy by Court-Martial for a war crime. But in themselves they enacted that whilst the offences generally should be tried by Court-Martial the penalty of death should not be imposed by Court-Martial, and they also enacted that in the case of certain minor offences the prisoner should be tried before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
In that state of things a second Defence of the Realm Bill was introduced last winter in this House and passed by your Lordships. That Bill related to other important matters besides these. It would have been very unfortunate, for the other reasons to which I referred, if it had not been passed, because it conferred valuable powers which had nothing whatever to do with war offences. But on one clause of that Bill a sharp controversy was raised. That was the clause which enabled the tribunal to inflict the death sentence. It was extremely desirable that that Bill should pass, and I gave an undertaking, which was given subsequently in an equally emphatic form by my noble friend who leads the House, that no British subject not under military law should be sentenced to the capital sentence by Court-Martial before the House had had time to consider the matter again.
The matter was next brought up on the Bill introduced by Lord Parmoor. Lord Parmoor's Bill proposed to enact that notwithstanding anything contained in the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, or any Act incorporating, amending,

677
or repealing that Act, or any Regulations made thereunder, no person not at the time of the alleged offence subject to military law within the meaning of the Army Act, 1881, who has committed or is alleged to have committed any offence which is punishable by the law of England, and is within the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts, shall be liable to be tried for such offence under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, or any Act incorporating, amending, or repealing that Act, or any Regulations made thereunder. Your Lordships will notice that the proposal extended to others besides British subjects. On the other hand, it was limited to the case of offences which were punishable by the law of England. After giving your Lordships an undertaking that if the debate on that Bill was not proceeded with the Government themselves would introduce legislation, the further debate on Lord Parmoor's Bill was adjourned sine die. The undertaking which I then gave has been carried out.
The object of the Government's Bill has been to avoid compromising any principle and to endeavour to find a solution of the matter which might be fair to the views that were put forward by both of the contending parties. On the one hand it is very important, in a state of serious war like this, when the nation is struggling for its very existence, that the rights of the State should conic before the rights of the individual; and it is requisite that more stringent powers should be taken than the majority of people in these islands would desire to see in force in time of peace. They are necessary for the public safety and for the deterrent effect which they have. I said that at the time, and I say it again. It is a view which, after consideration, impressed itself on my mind. On the other hand, you ought to be equally careful not to add anything which goes beyond the necessities of the case. I think there was great force in what was said by Lord Halsbury, Lord Parmoor, Lord Loreburn, and other speakers in the course of these discussions, that the civil tribunals of the land with a jury, properly used, at any rate in the case of British subjects and under ordinary circumstances, provided you with the whole of the remedies which you required. I am far from suggesting that it would be convenient or useful to apply that procedure in every case, but there are cases in which it is likely to be quite as effective
678
and at least as appropriate as the provision which at present exists under the Defence of the Realm Act.
The principle which we have endeavoured to carry out in the amendment of the two Defence of the Realm Acts is this. First of all, we go beyond the Bill of Lord Parmoor because we begin by enacting that any offence against any Regulations made under the Acts which is triable by Court-Martial may, instead of being tried by Court-Martial, be tried by a civil Court with a jury, and when so tried the offence is made a felony and there is the same punishment as if tried by Court-Martial. Instead of the offences under the Defence of the Realm Act being purely military offences triable by a military Court, they are made also civil offences punishable by the civil Courts as well. That is the first step forward, and I think it is a step which it is right to take in reconsidering the structure of these Acts. The second point is this. We confined—here going short of Lord Parmoor's proposal—the right to the constitutional tribunal to British subjects. We certainly do not think that an enemy alien ought to have it, and in the case of other aliens it is almost impossible to tell in this class of case whether you are dealing with an enemy alien or not. It is not until matters have progressed that you can be sure whom it is you are dealing with, and it may well be that a person may turn out to be an enemy alien after all when the circumstances are gone into. Then it is provided that notice is to be given of the charge, but, of course, this is not to apply when the offence is being tried before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. There the accused stands just as he did before. In the case of an extreme set of circumstances—for instance, in the event of invasion or other emergency—power is given to suspend the operation of this Act and to allow what is practically the Military Code under the Defence of the Realm Regulations to prevail. That is a power which we thought it right to take, though we have every reason to hope that we shall not have to resort to it.
Various other provisions have been put into the Bill. The Vexatious Indictment Act is applied to these offences, and that simplifies the procedure. Subsection (4) of Clause 1 provides that for the purpose of the trial of a person for a felony under this section the offence shall be deemed to have been committed either at the place in

679
which the same actually was committed or in any place in the United Kingdom in which the offender may be found or to which he may be brought for the purpose of speedy trial. The effect of that is that it will be possible to try the offender civilly just as quickly as it would be possible to try him for any serious military offence. With that provision I think I can say to your Lordships that there is not likely to be any more delay in the case of a civil trial than there would be in the case of a military trial.
I will sum up what has been done. First of all, under these Regulations anybody may be tried before a Judge and jury, but the right to be so tried is limited to British subjects. It may be convenient to try even an alien before a jury, but he has no right to such a trial, the right being limited to British subjects. In the second place, the Bill sends for trial for any breach of the Regulations which in itself would have amounted to a crime. Then there is power to suspend the operation of the Act in case of invasion or other national emergency. The Bill as it stands represents what, in the view of the Government, is the proper balance between the two sets of views which were put forward. On the one hand, it gives the military authorities the fullest powers in the case of aliens; on the other hand, in the case of British subjects, while it leaves minor offences as they are at present—that is to say, subject to summary jurisdiction—in other cases it gives the British subject the right to claim trial before a Judge and jury, and makes amendments in the law which will render that mode of trial as speedy as the other would be likely to be. But I believe there will be a good many cases in which persons will prefer to be tried before a military tribunal. My own experience is that the military tribunal will not err on the side of severity. On the other hand, if it is a very serious case and the offender is in peril of his life, he may desire to go before a Judge and jury. In that event he will be able to go there speedily. I have now explained the Bill as it has been framed after a great deal of consideration and consultation, and I commend it to your Lordships as the best attempt we have been able to make to mark out the sphere in which the views of both parties to this controversy should receive due recognition.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to recognise that this Bill goes a very long way to meet the objection which I raised on the former occasion in your Lordships' House. I do not propose to repeat the objections which I then raised, but I should like to say this. Perhaps your Lordships may recollect that in one of Burke's famous Letters to the Sheriffs of Bristol he talked of the "old cool-headed general law of this country" as at least equal to law dictated by heat. I hold that it is the old cool-headed general law of this country to which we ought to appeal, particularly in time of crisis. If our old cool-headed general law wants reform, I for one should be foremost in advocating it; but you cannot show a greater distrust, I think, of our general law than when at a time of difficulty and crisis you say you must have some special tribunal because the old general law cannot be relied upon to meet the difficulty.
I am the last person to under-rate the serious nature of the present national crisis. I believe I feel it more severely than a great many other people do, judging by what I hear. But that crisis has not affected the availability of our Common Law Courts; and if whenever a national danger or national crisis arises, though our Common Law Courts are still open and available, they are put on one side in order to raise some sort of special tribunal, I think it is a very evil precedent indeed. I quite agree, of course, that when the ordinary Courts are not available we must have recourse to special tribunals, but it is not suggested that the present crisis has in any sense made our old Common Law Courts not available at the present time. In my opinion, so long as they are available the greater the crisis and the greater the national difficulty the more we ought to rely on the Courts which have been established and handed down to us under the best conditions of procedure in order that the guilty man may be convicted, but what is, perhaps, quite as important, particularly in time of panic, that the innocent man should be acquitted. I agree with what was said by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that a Court-Martial is at least as likely to be merciful as a jury. That is not my point. Apart from being merciful or not, I want to get the best tribunal by which the offence can be tried, and according to my view a guilty civilian ought to be subjected to the liability and

681
risks, if they are so called, of the tribunals of his country.
One other point as regards Courts-Martial, and I think it was emphasised by what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said last night. In times like these soldiers have greater duties than to deal with civilian offences on Courts-Martial. Their time is fully occupied with matters of the first importance to our country. Last night the Lord Chancellor in moving the Second Reading of the Suspension of Punishment Bill, called our attention to the great anxiety which was thrown upon the heads of the War Office in dealing with the revision and supervision of trials by Courts-Martial. No such duty in the case of civilians ought to be thrown upon them. It is putting upon them a duty beyond that which the country should require of our War Office and soldiers at the present time. Moreover, it is quite unnecessary, unless you make your premise that the ordinary Courts cannot be trusted in times of national danger and national crisis. I want to make it quite clear—and I mention it in the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford—that I am not one of those who wish to put any facility in the way of a guilty civilian not getting his due deserts. On the contrary, I believe in the fullest sense that the way to ensure a fair trial is to have recourse to the ordinary tribunals of the country.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount one or two points as regards the framework of this Bill. The first subsection of Clause 1 gives what I may call an option between trial by Court-Martial and trial by a Civil Court with a jury. As the noble and learned Viscount has pointed out, that is given in very general terms. Who is to decide in a particular case whether it is to go before a Court-Martial or before an ordinary tribunal? Under the Defence of the Realm Act as it stands the decision is in the hands of the military officer. Again I do not want to throw the slightest aspersion as regards the desire of every military officer to do his duty to the utmost, but it appears to me to be a serious defect in a Bill Which purports to put right a constitutional principle to leave it to the option of a military officer in any particular case to say whether one form of tribunal or the other should apply. The next point is one on which I need say only a few words, because I believe I differ from
682
most of your Lordships in the view I take. I do not like the limitation of this Bill to British subjects. I think all civilians ought to be put on the same basis, and particularly civilians who belong to allied or neutral countries. I am not aware that up to the present moment as regards any feature of our Criminal Law we have drawn a distinction between civilians generally who are resident in this country under our hospitality and British subjects. It may be necessary—I will not say more than that—in these exceptional conditions that such a distinction should be adopted for the first time, but I deeply regret it. I regret it the more for this reason. I bear in mind what Lord Robert Cecil said in the other House on this point. It introduces two grades of justice, two different tribunals dealing with civilians as regards the same class of offence. Surely it is not a right principle that you should have graded tribunals of different characters dealing with the same offence where the offender in any case is a civilian and not subject either to naval or military law.
There is one point on which I certainly desire to congratulate the Government, if I may do so. I notice that it was proposed, I think by more than one hon. Member in another place, that, putting on one side Courts-Martial and the ordinary system of law, there should be constituted some special tribunal to deal with offences at the present time. I should have opposed to the utmost any proposition of that character. To constitute a particular tribunal would, in my view, be going almost back to the Star Chamber principle as regards conditions of this kind, and I must say I congratulate the Government that they did not allow a principle of that nature to be adopted.
The next point upon which I wish to ask the Lord Chancellor a question is one which I do not think he mentioned. There is a limit placed as regards the power of Courts of Quarter Sessions. I do not want to cavil about any small matters in this Bill, but I want to say—though perhaps I am prejudiced, speaking as a chairman of Quarter Sessions—that I believe Quarter Sessions do their work quite as well as the other criminal tribunals in this country; and that is emphasised by the fact that the number of successful appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal is less from the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions than from

683
His Majesty's Judges. I am wholly in favour of subsection (4) of Clause 1. Indeed, I think it essential that there should be a system of speedy trial in cases of this kind; and I notice that this subsection gives as regards a speedy trial the same advantage as, and perhaps a greater advantage than, could be obtained under the Court-Martial system. But those who are cognisant of criminal practice and criminal jurisdiction know that there is a difficulty when a poor man is taken out of his own county for the purpose of a criminal trial. I wish the Government could see their way to provide such financial assistance that no poor men would be prejudiced as regards a fair trial because the venue was changed in order that the trial might take place speedily.
I want to say a word about subsection (6). That subsection deals first of all with the event of invasion. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will agree with me that the introduction of those words into this Bill is not an extension of power in the hands of the military authorities under those conditions but a limitation of power. I do not like that. I consider the present position as regards Martial Law to be this, that when there is invasion and recourse to our ordinary Courts becomes impossible the military authorities have full power to the whole extent of the necessity which has arisen. The principle is that what necessity requires necessity justifies. I do not want that power to be curtailed by any statutory provision whatever. I think it is a most valuable power, and I want it to be kept intact as it is at the present moment. The putting in of the words "in the event of invasion" does not increase the power which the military authorities ought to have under those circumstances. It ought to be an absolute power. If the horror of invasion arises, no one recognises more than I do that the military ought to have an absolutely free hand, of course to act reasonably having regard to a great crisis of that kind. That is the only meaning of Martial Law in this country; it arises in those conditions, and I would not have it hampered in any way whatever.
I must say also that I do not like the words that follow, "or other special military emergency." I agree that if the emergency is of a character that our
684
ordinary Courts are not available, there ought to be provision for Courts to take their place. Nobody would deny that for a moment. But in the absence of invasion and as long as our Courts are available and open I do not think any Executive ought to have power propriomotu, without an appeal to Parliament, to repeal the provisions contained in this Bill and place all civilians under the régime, of Court-Martial trial. I want to make it quite clear that I am not criticising Court-Martial trial, but it is not the trial to which civilians are entitled, and it is not the best form of trial under the conditions in this country. I do not think there is any other point. I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships so long, but I regard the matter as one of great importance. Personally I thank the Government for having recognised that there was a great constitutional matter involved which had to be dealt with, and I heartily accept the Bill which has been proposed, subject only to the questions which I have addressed to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, my noble and learned friend who has just spoken is entitled to congratulate himself upon the success which has attended his efforts, but he will pardon me if I refrain from congratulating him myself. I hope he will not be offended with me if I express the opinion that his action has not only been unnecessary but of a mischievous character, because by it the deterrent influence of this particular Act, which was its chief merit, has been almost entirely destroyed. The Defence of the Realm Bill when it was introduced some months ago represented, presumably, the deliberate conclusions of His Majesty's Government after several months of war. It was presumably founded upon the experiences of the war. It cannot have escaped anybody's notice that both here and in another place, so far as I ant aware, not the slightest attempt has been made to show that any single individual in this country has suffered any grievance under the Act.
The agitation to emasculate this Act arose, if I am not mistaken, in the first place through the Press. The Press was apparently under the impression that editors were liable to heavy penalties under the Act. I cannot conceive why the Press should have entertained any apprehensions whatsoever. So far as I am able to observe,

685
the Press is at liberty to do whatever it chooses unless it takes upon itself to publish adverse criticisms upon Ministers or endeavours to publish news of reverses to our arms. And I should have thought that the fact that Irish newspapers, for instance, have been allowed openly to advocate sedition with absolute impunity, and that cranks and fanatics over here have been allowed, also with absolute impunity, to conduct a campaign against inoculation and vaccination, contrary to the expressed opinions of His Majesty's Government—I should have thought that these facts ought to have reassured them as to their own safety. I should also like to point out that under this Act as it existed and, for all I know, as it exists under its amended condition, His Majesty's Government, should they wish to do so, would be enabled to rid themselves of their most formidable opponents with no trouble at all under the provisions of the Act. I presume that they could incarcerate Mr. Gibson Bowles or Mr. Maxse, and neither of those gentlemen would have any remedy whatsoever.
I cannot help thinking that noble and learned Lords, in their conduct with regard to this particular measure, have been suffering under a complete, or at all events a very strong, misapprehension of public feeling, and that they have been unconsciously swayed to a great extent by their professional instincts. We all know that the legal profession in this country forms a gigantic trade union, starting with the Lord Chancellor and working down to the most impecunious briefless barrister. This gigantic trade union governs the country. I do not think the ordinary citizen realises how we are governed by that profession. Take the Prime Minister. He is himself a retired distinguished barrister. The Chief Secretary for Ireland is a barrister. The Home Secretary is a barrister. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a solicitor, a sentimental solicitor—a rather unusual combination. Up till a short time ago the great offices of Secretary of State for War and First Lord of the Admiralty were held by members of the legal profession. I am inclined to think that other prominent members of the Government, if they were forced to state their occupation, would be obliged to describe themselves as, so to speak, semi-fledged lawyers—and I am not sure that Lord Crewe would not come under that category.
686
The fact is that in time of peace we are completely governed by the legal profession, and, not satisfied with that, the legal profession desires to govern us in time of war. It is intolerable to them, constituting as I say this gigantic trade union, that their functions should be interfered with by any one or any thing. Their feelings on the subject are probably very much the same as the feelings of the medical profession would be if it were proposed to take their business away from them and put it in the hands of Christian Scientists, or chemists, or people of that description. The whole tenor of the debates and of the arguments put forward by noble and learned Lords and by learned gentlemen in another place may be summed up in the very familiar Latin tag Cedant arma togœ. As I said before, it appears to them intolerable that any one should usurp their functions; and the curious thing is that they are obviously under the belief that every member of the public thinks the same thing too. They are under the impression that it is a horrifying thing to an ordinary member of the community—say to a person like myself—that he should be tried by some one who is not a qualified lawyer. I say with the utmost deliberation that if I were charged under this Act, and if I were innocent, I would just as soon be tried by my noble friend Lord Cheylesmore as I would by the Lord Chief Justice or any other eminent Judge. In fact, I should prefer it, because obviously it would be shorter and therefore much cheaper. Again, if I were innocent I should most certainly defend myself instead of employing a very expensive member of the gigantic trade union to which I have alluded. But, of course, if I were guilty I should naturally avail myself of the loopholes so kindly provided for me by my noble and learned friend. I should claim to be tried in the Civil Court, and of course I should retain some expensive learned friend of his in order to defend me, and I should use every artifice in order to prolong the trial as far as possible.
Let me refer to two typical cases which have occurred since the war began. Take, for instance, the case of the man Lody. That man was tried before a Military Court. Upon his own confession he had a perfectly fair trial. He went out of his way to volunteer that statement. Well, that man was condemned and shot. If my noble and learned friend had had his way, Lody

687
would have been tried in a Civil Court. He would have appealed, and very likely at this moment would be in gaol with a large portion of the Press clamouring for his release under an amnesty. Then take the case of the man Ahlers. Ahlers openly avowed and boasted that he had helped his fellow-countrymen to escape from this country to go to Germany in order to fight against us. Well, he was tried in a Civil Court by a Judge. He was found guilty, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. But he appealed. Thereupon a number of other Judges sat upon the case, and, by the exercise of what I should think the Prime Minister would call "juridical nicety," managed to discover that some small regulation had been violated, so to speak; and Alders was acquitted. That may be excellent law, but to my mind it is the negation of common sense. Here was a man who openly admitted that he had committed a crime; yet in spite of that, in consequence of the exercise of juridical nicety, he is returned to the bosom of his family and for all I know may be now living as a highly respected individual in this or his own country.
The illusion, if I may call it so, entertained by my noble and learned friend is not confined to the belief that everybody in this country is horrified at the idea of being tried before a military tribunal. He is also under the strange impression that any departure from Magna Charta is viewed as a sort of intolerable danger, even though the danger may be only a temporary one. I do not know what the opinion of other noble Lords may be, but certainly it is my profound conviction that no sensible people in this country are in the least worried about Magna Charta at this moment any more than they are about the Constitutions of Clarendon, or the Domesday Book, or anything else. What all sensible people—with the exception, perhaps, of those who can speak about the urgent necessity of holding Ascot whether the British Empire falls or not—are thinking about is the desirability of bringing the war to an end at the earliest possible opportunity; and so far from resenting any infraction of Magna Charta or anything of that sort, I think what the public would resent most is anything that would interfere with the speedy procedure of justice where national enemies are concerned.
Far and away the soundest sentiment which has been expressed in this debate or
688
in the debates in another place was a phrase made use of by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, who said that in his opinion it was infinitely preferable that we should run the occasional risk of a miscarriage of justice than that the security of this country should be in danger. I cannot help thinking—perhaps I am prejudiced—that the attitude taken up by these distinguished members of the legal profession upon this point is an instance of the principle, unfortunately so popular in this country, of "Business as usual." It is to me a painful discovery to see that persons of this eminence are so destitute of a sense of proportion. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, the Prime Minister, and other distinguished men, tell us from time to time that we are struggling for our existence. Yet when we are told that we are struggling for our existence and that every effort must be put forward if we are not to be crushed, we get noble and learned Lords coming forward and telling us that we are in danger of being permanently enslaved because there is a chance of iudicium parium or Nullus liber homo being jeopardised. I confess that the action of noble and learned Lords upon this question—I hope they will not be offended by my saying so—seems to me to bear some analogy to the action to which I have already alluded of other eminent and influential persons in this country who think that nothing should be altered and that all our amusements, racing especially, should go on as usual. It seems to me to show a deplorable want of proportion and a deplorable want of sense of the gravity of the situation that we should be occupying ourselves with things of this kind.
I feel so strongly on this matter that were I a person of greater importance I would do my best to restore this measure to its original position. That, I know, is a perfectly hopeless task for a person in my position. And were I fortunate enough to be able to carry some Amendments in the nature of the views which I have expressed, I suppose that I should be told that I was cutting short the holiday of the Speaker of the House of Commons or of a deserving door-keeper or some one of that kind, who ought to be liberated at the earliest opportunity. I am therefore obliged to content myself with making this protest, and I greatly regret that His Majesty's Government have so decisively

689
changed their attitude upon this question. Their attitude at the first was firm and sound enough, but they have now yielded to what I can only describe as a hollow and unsubstantial agitation promoted by my noble and learned friend (Lord Parmoor) who sits below the Gangway.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend who has just addressed the House will be disappointed or pleased to learn, if the views of the important trade union, as he deems it to be, are correct, that I stand somewhat in the position of a "blackleg," because I am quite unable to take the view, at any rate to its full extent, expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor. His attitude appears to me to be characterised by extreme simplicity. It is that, short of absolute necessity, everything shall go on during the course of this great war exactly as it did in time of profound peace. I cannot accept that view. But in saying that, I am not necessarily committing myself to any particular view of what steps should be taken or what should be done.
We have for a considerable time been in a position in which the very life of this nation and the future of civilisation are at stake. This is like no war that has ever taken place before. The systematised preparation for it by our enemy is bearing fruit now, and every safeguard that can be taken should be taken. On the Government, and on the Government alone, must rest the responsibility of what those safeguards should be. My attitude is that if the Government come here and say, "We with our knowledge, which you have not got, and with our experience of what has happened, which you cannot have, say we require this or that in order to ensure as far as we may the safety of the Realm," then speaking for myself, would give it them in full measure. I somewhat share the regret of my noble friend Lord Newton that the Act of 1914 has been modified to the extent to which it has been, but I must accept the explanation which has been given for that change, though the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack must forgive me for saying that, having regard to what was done when the Act was passed and what happened subsequently, we were left in sonic perplexity as to whether the reason for the modification was not somewhat coloured by the
690
pressure put on the Government by noble Lords in this House to whose words we always attach the greatest weight.
But I really only rose for the purpose of calling attention to one or two things which seem to me to require a little consideration. I say at once, quite frankly, that I have no intention of moving Amendments. I think Amendments had better not come front us. But it does seem to me that the position of this Bill is in sonic respects not quite satisfactory. What we have conic to now is that a sharp distinction is drawn between British subjects and aliens. It is true that under sub-clause (1) anybody may be tried in the ordinary Courts, but under sub-clause (2) it is only a British subject who has the right to claim that trial. There is no question that if he puts in a claim according to the rule he is absolutely entitled to be tried by a civil Court, subject, of course, to the emergency provision in the Bill. I do nut think that would always work out quite satisfactorily. One could put hypothetical cases in which there might be a difficulty. I will only put one, and I do not think it is a fantastic case. If there were some obvious case of spying, in which a German or other alien and an Englishman were concerned, both caught, so to speak, red-handed, that would be a case of a class which should be promptly tried by Court-Martial. But there would be this difficulty. You could not try the Englishman by Court-Martial. Therefore you would have to take the German into the civil Courts or try the two men separately at different times and in different places and with possibly different results.
What I want with great respect to suggest is whether in special cases the claim by a British subject to be tried in the civil Courts might not be subject to consideration. If objections to the Executive acting in these matters were overwhelming, would there be the same objection to an application to the Court of King's Bench? There might be a power on the part of the Crown to apply to the Court of King's Bench and satisfy the Court that particular cases ought to be tried by Court-Martial. The power would very rarely be exercised, but it would avoid the difficulties which might otherwise arise. It does seem to me desirable that there should be this power in an exceptional case. Of course I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor that as a

691
general proposition every one would prefer being tried by the ordinary Courts in the ordinary way. But even though the ordinary rights and liberties of the subject should suffer, I am perfectly sure I am right when I say that ninety out of every hundred people in this country would be willing to run some risk if by so doing they contributed by one iota to the safety of the country in this hour of its great trial.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, there are two points in connection with this Bill upon which I should like an explanation. I cannot understand why the Bill should not apply to the soldier serving in this country or to the sailor on shore just as much as it does to the civilian. We are discussing a Bill which rests, I believe, on grounds of what I might call general principle or sound sentiment, though I doubt whether it is of very great practical importance. But it is a question of abiding by a very sound English tradition, and I am going to assume that the Bill is justified on that ground and that the principle is important. Still I cannot see why that principle should be applied to the civilian alone and not to the person who is subject to the Naval Discipline Act or to Military Law. I am perfectly aware that the soldier and the sailor are subject at the present moment, and always have been, to special tribunals and to a special law of their own; but, as I understand, the necessity for that is for disciplinary purposes. Their position in that respect is analogous to the position of a clergyman, or a solicitor, or a member of a club, who also are subject to certain disciplinary tribunals which have no jurisdiction over other men. But this Defence of the Realm Act is not connected with matters of discipline, but with crimes of the nature of treason. It appears to me to be making a wholly false and unnecessary distinction between two men who might be charged with an offence of that kind, one of them being a soldier and the other a civilian, to say that the soldier should not have the right of being tried by the tribunal which it is assumed a civilian ought justly to be entitled to go before. Of course, there may be some reason of practical convenience for that of which I have not thought, but I cannot see why a soldier charged with an offence of this kind should be necessarily hound to be tried by a Court-Martial.
692
My other point is this. I imagine that in some cases the evidence required to prove a charge under this Bill might possibly be of a highly confidential nature. For the purposes of the accusation, and perhaps also for the purposes of the defence, it might be necessary to introduce matters of importance which it would be contrary to the interests of the country to make public, and it might be deemed desirable that such evidence should be treated as evidence given before a Court-Martial. I assume that there are means in such cases of excluding the public from a Court. Nevertheless a number of important matters of a military nature might have to be disclosed to the twelve jurymen, who might be unable to appreciate the necessity of not talking about them afterwards. There may be nothing in this, but I am simply suggesting it, because I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount will give full consideration to it if he has not already done so. Is it not possible to make some special provision which would prevent the Bill operating so as to disclose publicly matters which, for military purposes, should be kept secret?
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, there is one point which seems to me rather difficult to understand in the Bill, and that is Clause 1, subsection (7):—
"The expression 'British subject' in this section includes a woman who has married an alien but who before the marriage was a British subject."
I do not quite understand the meaning of that subsection. As far as I gather from reading the words literally it means that in the case of a German marrying an Englishwoman and both being charged with, say, the offence of spying, the wife will have the right to be tried by a different tribunal. But what seems to me more remarkable than the inconvenience of that from a practical point of view is this. I should have thought that it was reasonable and a general condition of the law that the wife assumes the nationality of her husband, and I do not understand why the Bill should make this extraordinary exception.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, Lord Charnwood has suggested that this option should apply to soldiers and sailors.
LORD CHARNWOOD: Yes, if it is to apply to civilians.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And Lord Parmoor has suggested that it should apply to alien enemies. I hope the Government will give way on neither point. I am sure that the Bill contains sufficient concessions to meet the requirements of the case. It is already perfectly well known that some of our bitterest enemies in this country are British subjects. The man whom the Government thought a sufficient enemy of this country to be tried for treason some months ago was a British subject. It is ridiculous to suggest that we should carry the principle in this Bill further and confer the privilege of option upon aliens. For my own part I would have gladly supported the Government if they had confined the definition of "British subject" to one who had been a British subject for five or ten years—some specified period. Certainly persons who became British subjects the day before the war, or the fortunate ones who became British subjects weeks or months after war was declared, should not be able to secure under this Bill equal rights with those who are British born. And when it is proposed to confer this optional right upon alien civilians, I must again ask what is connoted by the term? Apart from prisoners of war, all aliens in this country are technically alien civilians, there being no portion of our territory occupied by our foes. But though they are alien civilians in that aspect, they are military men none the less. It is perfectly well known that among the adult male alien enemies living in London literally thousands are German Reservists and pro tanto under German military law. It is grotesque to suggest that those persons should have rights and privileges—for the Lord Chancellor himself admits these to be rights and privileges—conferred upon them; and I hope that the Government will not give way any further upon that point.
I have a certain doubt in my mind about the delays which this Bill may involve. I am anxious for promptitude and for despatch. What is the experience of the civil Courts? A man was proceeded against the other day for selling bad meat to the troops in London. It was three months before the Court of First Instance was able to give its judgment. Of course, there will be endless appeals; and the war may be over—I hope it will be over—before that case is settled by the final Court. Now, here you start off with a delay. There have to be Regulations. I hope they will be rather simpler than the
694
Regulations under the original Act. The particulars of the prosecution have to be supplied in writing to the prisoner. That takes days. Then the prisoner has six days in which to settle who shall try him. There is another delay. I defy you to commence any trial under this Act under ten days or ay fortnight, because every prisoner will take as long as he can, and the advocate of every prisoner will take advantage of everything under Clause 2. And starting with these gratuitous delays, you will also have all sorts of frivolous objections raised, I want promptitude and despatch. Soldiers are more capable of giving it than others, and they would probably also give better law.
I strongly approve of subsection (6), to which Lord Parmoor took great exception. He evidently thought that the words "other special military emergency" referred to some mysterious thing apart from invasion. I do not know what was in the minds of the Government, but I can imagine a military emergency of a very concrete character which might prevent the work of the civil Courts proceeding in the normal manner, and I am sure that that particular phrase ought to be left in. I implore the Government not to give way any more, and at any rate to bear in mind that one of the elements of the power of the Act is the knowledge on the part of the country that justice is swiftly rendered. There is one point upon which I wish to ask a question. It may have been a mistake on the part of the printer or the draftsman, but I should like to ask why the right of option is denied to Scotland. Subsection (2) does not apply to Scotland.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I rise not to enter into the discussion of the points of detail which have been brought before the House by several speakers, but rather to deal with one assumption which seems to me to underlie the remarks that have been made against this Bill. I ought, however, in passing to say that I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Charnwood that there is any case whatever for extending the Bill to persons in the military or naval service of the Crown. They are in an entirely different category, and I do not think it would be consistent with the scheme of the Bill to extend the option to them. I come back to what seems to me the fundamental assumption of those who have seen objections to this Bill, an assumption

695
which is quite unproved and which I think is quite baseless—namely, that trial by Court-Martial will have any greater deterrent effect than trial by Judge and jury. As far as I can see, juries are at least as anxious to convict as a Court-Martial would be. I agree with what was said in the House of Commons, and I think by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that a jury in the present state of the public mind is at least as likely to be prone to conviction as a Court-Martial.
In some respects I can imagine that the members of a Court-Martial, whose nerves have been steeled by a long experience of war and who are less apt to be subject to sudden panic than civilians, might be inclined to be more lenient than a jury would be. But a Court and a jury have by long custom been approved amongst us, and in many other countries which have followed our example, as being the best means of arriving at the truth; and except in the case of such an emergency as precluded the regular sittings of the Courts I cannot see why we should depart from what our experience has proved to be the best way of trying offences. If it is a, question of promptitude, I make no doubt at all that the Government will see that all cases of importance are conducted with despatch. There is no reason, after the accused person has had the opportunity of saying in which way he wishes to be tried, why he could not be tried in the civil Courts with as much despatch as before a Court-Martial. I am sure it would be to the satisfaction of the whole public that the use of Courts-Martial should be limited to the cases to which it is limited by this Bill and not extended to the general civil population.
This House may feel glad that the objections taken here to a measure which had inadvertently and perhaps in undue haste passed the House of Commons have received the attention of the Government, and that the Government are now doing what they can to restore those ancient safeguards for the liberty of the subject which are one of the oldest and most treasured parts of our Constitution and which it would be a very great pity to depart from except under proved necessity. No such necessity has been proved. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, that the supreme duty of the hour is to see that all offences hostile to the interests of this country are detected and tried as
696
quickly and as efficiently as possible; but there is no reason to believe that this result will be less duly attained under the Act as it is now proposed to be amended than it would have been under the Act as passed originally in December last.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, this Bill represents the second thoughts of His Majesty's Government with regard to this important question, and I should be sorry to suggest that His Majesty's Government are not entitled to have second thoughts in regard to this or any other of the proposals which they put before us. In these days we find ourselves confronted with a series of emergency measures no doubt necessary, but which, from the very circumstances of the case, must be hastily prepared, and which we are obliged to discuss hastily—hastily does not really sufficiently express it, because in many cases there is denied to us altogether any opportunity of anything which could properly be called discussion. In this case I can quite understand that second thoughts should have occurred to His Majesty's Government; but I am bound to say that it does seem to me unfortunate that they should be obliged, in appearance at all events, and I think in fact, to recede from the position which they took up not many weeks ago after they had already had three months experience of the condition of this country during the present war. We all carry in our minds the emphatic words with which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack dwelt on the absolute necessity of placing upon the Statute Book what he called deterrent legislation, adequate to guard against the evils which he then anticipated; and it is no use disguising from ourselves that this Bill is bound to be very much less of a deterrent than the Bill originally passed by His Majesty's Government.
When my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor brought his Bill before the House the other evening, I ventured to urge him as strongly as I could not to press it forward for the moment. He was good enough to act upon that suggestion, and I think that the House must now feel that he was amply justified in the course which he took. Because whatever this Bill is, it differs very widely from the Bill of my noble and learned friend. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack mentioned, I think, three points in particular in which

697
the two measures differed. The Bill of my noble and learned friend would have given the right to claim a trial before a Judge and jury only in the case of offences punishable by the law of England. This Bill goes a great deal further, and enables the same claim to be made in the case of offences committed in contravention of the numerous Regulations which have been issued under the Defence of the Realm Act. Then there is this very vital difference. The Bill of my noble and learned friend was not restricted, as is the Bill of the noble and learned Viscount, to the case of British subjects. My noble and learned friend would have given a very much wider scope to his measure. Finally, the Bill of the noble and learned Viscount contains a provision which, whether it is entirely adequate for the purpose or not, is at any rate a valuable provision—I mean the clause which secures a certain amount of promptitude where the case is tried before a civil Court. If we are to have a Bill of this kind, I recognise that in the Bill of the noble and learned Viscount there are at all events these two valuable provisions—the provision providing for promptitude, and the provision to be found in subsection (6) under which, in a case of invasion or emergency, the machinery of this Bill ceases to operate. Those provisions go far to mitigate the objection which I should otherwise have felt to these proposals.
I will only say a word or two upon a point which has been a good deal discussed during the course of these debates—I mean the question of the limitation of the right to claim trial by a Judge and jury to British subjects. Undoubtedly that limitation does raise difficult and embarrassing questions. In the first place, there is the question which I think has been raised this evening, When you talk of a British subject what do you mean? Are you going to give this privilege to naturalised British subjects? Are you going to give it to British subjects who have only been naturalised for a few weeks or a few months? I hope the noble and learned Viscount will consider the suggestion that has been made to the effect that that particular provision might be a little stiffened up. I believe I am right in saying that it is not an uncommon case to find a naturalised British subject who still owes allegiance to a foreign Government. In such a British subject to be allowed to
698
claim the privilege of a trial by a civil Court? And remember that you are allowing him to make this claim at the very moment when you are denying to neutral aliens the right of making a similar claim. I am bound to say that I do not see how the noble and learned Viscount could have drafted his Bill at this point otherwise than he has; but there the fact is, that you are going under this Bill to say to a neutral, whose loyalty may be unexceptional, who may be a subject of an allied and friendly Power, "We will not allow you to claim the kind of trial which we claim for our own subjects, and you must be content with something which, upon the face of it, looks less fair to you." I think the point is more one of form than of substance, because I agree with my noble friend Lord Newton, who holds, as he told us just now, that the accused person need not have the slightest apprehension of being treated otherwise than with absolute fairness if tried before a Court-Martial. But the difficulty is there. I cannot see how it is possible to distinguish between aliens to whom you would extend this privilege and aliens to whom it cannot safely be extended. It seems to me that you would in each case find yourself involved in a very difficult and laborious examination of the merits, and you would, in fact, be attempting more than you could possibly perform. On the whole I venture to express my agreement with the noble and learned Viscount when he proposes that these privileges should not be extended to other than British subjects. I do not desire to trouble the House further. I feel that throughout this discussion there has been a tendency to assume that just treatment is only to be obtained by trial by Judge and jury. I have my doubts upon that. I do not feel inclined to accept that proposition as unreservedly as many of my noble friends accept it. I regret that this Bill should have been found necessary, but I certainly do not propose to trouble the House with any suggestions for its alteration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I wish to answer the various points that have been raised in the course of the debate. The noble Marquess who has just sat down spoke, as he usually does, with conspicuous fairness about this Bill. He has recognised that it is a very difficult subject, and one which would have been much better dealt with in a time which was not abnormal.

699
But as we have had to deal with it under these emergency circumstances I am glad that he takes the view which he does. At any rate I think it will he agreed that we have done our best to find a solution, and we are glad to think that the solution we have found has something to recommend it. It is quite true that there may be neutrals, as the noble Marquess pointed out, who may seem to be not so well off as British subjects. That brings me to the first question that was put by Lord Parmoor, who asked whether it was desirable that the selection of the tribunal should be left to the military officers in the case of an alien. What is done under this legislation is carried out by means of Regulations, and the Regulations are under the control of the Executive. The Executive always has power to direct the military officers, and we should take care to watch any case in which a friendly alien found himself in any hardship and extend to him the same privileges as he might have if he were in a more favourable position.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Will special orders be issued in special cases from day to day?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Under the Regulations the matter is placed in the discretion of the military authorities, but it is always open to the Executive to amend the Regulations and say that in any particular case the military authorities should not proceed in that way. The result of that state of things is that the military authorities always have to consult the Executive before any steps are taken. Lord Parmoor also pointed to this, that if matters had remained as he had wished—that is to say, if the Bill applied to other than British subjects—you could try two offenders together, one being an alien and the other a British subject. So you can now. Under the provision as it now stands for the rapid bringing of a case before the tribunal for trial, I see no reason why an alien should not in a suitable case be tried by a Judge and jury, and he might not come off as well as he might before a Court-Martial. At all events the power is there to try the two offenders together, and that is the advantage of the change which we have made from Lord Parmoor's Bill. The noble and learned Lord also drew attention to subsection (6) of Clause 1, and said that by inserting the words "in the event of invasion or other special military emergency" there was a limitation of the power. He referred to the
700
larger powers which may be exercised under what is called Martial Law, which means a general emergency law. It is not law at all, but merely means that a military tribunal in the supreme defence of the country is substituted for the ordinary tribunals. If No. 39 of the Regulations under the first Defence of the Realm Act is looked at it will be seen how the matter is dealt with.
Then there were other points. Lord Desart referred to the question of exercising a discretion. I think that if you took the matter to the Court of King's Bench, as he suggested, the Court of King's Bench would be apt to say that the case should not go to a military tribunal. I am afraid that it would be extremely difficult to allow the matter to be dealt with subject to a discretion.
THE EARL OF DESART: Although I suggested the Court of King's Bench, there are other ways of effecting the same object.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Earl may rest assured that every possible way of dealing properly with the matters concerned has had our earnest attention. Of course, new questions may be raised in each case, but I do not think that in the class of case with which this Bill is intended to deal British subjects charged with offences under it should be dealt with under military and naval law except in certain circumstances. Then Lord Charnwood asked why the option should not apply to soldiers and sailors, while Lord Newton asked why it should apply to any one at all. The divergent views held by those two noble Lords show the impossibility of getting anything like general agreement upon a Bill such as this, touching, as it does, these very difficult questions. That is a difficulty which I fully recognise.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I am inclined to agree with what Lord Newton said, but why should it not apply to soldiers and sailors if to any one at all?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord asks, Why should it not apply to soldiers and sailors? It could not if you are to preserve at all the theory of military law, which is that they must be subject to their own tribunals and their own law. Then Lord Newton said that the Bill was obviously the concoction of a powerful trade union which was asserting itself unduly in the government of the country. With

701
these divergent views about the Bill your Lordships will appreciate how impossible it is to try and meet them all, and I must content myself with trying to steer a middle course. Lord Crawford raised a point, quite a good one, about subsection (2) not applying to Scotland. I had already noticed it. It is a mistake either on the part of the printer or of the copyist, and I propose to move an Amendment to meet the difficulty to which the noble Earl drew attention. Another point was taken by Lord Chain-wood about secrecy. I quite agree that there are many cases in which it would be desirable that there should not be undue publicity in the case of military proceedings, and I propose to move the insertion of a clause giving a discretion to the Court, in a case where the public interest would suffer by publicity, to take the evidence with closed doors, but providing that the sentence is always to be pronounced in public. That is consistent with the principle which was recognised in the case of Scott v. Scott on the doctrine of publicity. I think that is a right principle. What I propose to do is this. If your Lordships will pass the Second Reading I will ask the House to go into Committee simply for the purpose of putting in the two Amendments of which I have spoken. Then I think it will be your Lordships' desire to take the Report stage on Monday, on which day I hope it will be possible to get the Bill through its subsequent stages so as to get the assent of the other House. At any rate the Bill will be reprinted at once, and there will be a better opportunity of dealing with it again on Monday.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Will the noble and learned Viscount explain the point about subsection (7)—namely, why an English woman who marries an alien should have the right to claim to be tried by the Civil Court? Why should she not take her husband's nationality?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the ordinary way such a woman does take her husband's nationality, but it is a principle which has received attention from time to time in legislation and one which varies amongst different people. In this case it often happens that the wife of an alien is British born. But certainly she will not be less likely to be punished if she comes before a Judge and jury.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGIMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Right of British subject charged with offence to be tried by civil court.
1.—(1) Any offence against any regulations made under the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, which is triable by court-martial may, instead of being tried by a court-martial, be tried by a civil court with a jury, and when so tried the offence shall be deemed to be a felony punishable with the like punishment as might have been inflicted if the offence bad been tried by court martial.
(2) Where a person, being a British subject but not being a person subject to the Naval Discipline Act or to military law, is alleged to be guilty of an offence against any regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, he shall be entitled, within six clear clays from the time when the general nature of the charge is communicated to him, to claim to be tried by a civil court with a jury instead of being tried by court-martial, and where such a claim is made in manner provided by regulations under the last-mentioned Act the offence shall not be tried by court martial:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the offence is tried before a court of summary jurisdiction:
Provided also that before the trial of any person to whom this section applies, and as soon as practicable after arrest, the general nature of the charge shall be communicated to him in writing and notice in writing shall at the same time be given, in a form provided by regulations under the said Act, of his rights under this section.
(3) The Vexatious Indictment Act, 1859, as amended by any subsequent enactment shall apply to a felony under this section as if it were included among the offences mentioned in section one of that Act, but a felony under this section shall not be triable by a court of quarter sessions.
(4) For the purpose of the trial of a person for a felony under this section the offence shall be deemed to have been committed either at the place in which the same actually was committed or in any place in the United Kingdom in which the offender may be found or to which he may be brought for the put pose of speedy trial.
(5) An indictment under this section shall not be deemed void or defective by reason that the facts or matters alleged in the indictment for the felony amount in law to treason; and if the facts or matters proved at the trial of any person indicted for any felony under this section amount in law to treason, the person shall not by reason thereof be entitled to be acquitted of such felony; but no person tried for such felony shall be afterwards prosecuted for treason upon the same facts.
(6) In the event of invasion or other special military emergency wising out of the present war, His Majesty may by Proclamation forthwith suspend the operation of this section, either generally or as respects any area specified in the Proclamation, without prejudice, however, to

703
any proceedings under this section which may be then pending in any civil court.
(7) The expression "British subject" in this section includes a woman who has married an alien but who before the marriage was a British subject.
(8) In the application of this section to Scotland "a civil court with a jury" means the High Court of Justiciary, and subsection (2) shall not apply.
(9) This section shall apply in the case of offences committed and persons arrested before as well as after the passing of this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR then formally moved the insertion of the new subsection which he had foreshadowed.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 29, insert as a subsection:
(3) In addition and without prejudice to any powers which a court may possess to order the exclusion of the public from any proceedings, if in the course of the trial of a person for a felony under this section application is made by the prosecution, in the interests of national safety, that all or any portion of the public should be excluded during any part of the hearing, the court may make an order to that effect, but the passing of sentence shall in any case take place in public.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: So far as it goes, that meets Lord Charnwood's case. But Lord Charnwood was also afraid of the jury gossiping. As the noble and learned Viscount will remember, in a Court-Martial the Court is sworn to secrecy, but no such procedure takes place in a normal jury case. I suggest that that should be borne in mind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will bear it in mind. There are always measures that can be taken. In cases of this kind the Judge would impress the need for secrecy upon the jury, and have them kept under observation.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I should also like the Judge kept under observation, and I suggest that that should be put in the Regulations.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, subsection (8), omit "(2)" and insert "(4)."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Amendments reported.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 55.)

THE CENSORSHIP OF NEWS.
VISCOUNT BRUCE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government will lay on the Table of the House a list of the persons who are employed in the censorship of news, other than naval and military intelligence, and in the censorship of private correspondence between this country and foreign countries; and if they will also lay copies of the instructions given to the persons aforesaid to guide them in the discharge of their functions as censors.
I need hardly say that I put this Question with no wish to add in any way to the difficulties which naturally surround the office of censor. It is no purpose of mine to do that, or to indulge in any criticism with regard to particular cases in which the censorship may have been injudiciously exercised. As we know, cases are frequently mentioned in private conversation and sometimes in the Press in which complaint is made of the way in which the censor acts. I do not wish to enter into any of those cases. But I hope the Government will meet the request which I have addressed to them and dispel some of the darkness with which the position is surrounded.
I have had the opportunity of conversing with a number of members of your Lordships' House and with a good many others as to the general feeling entertained with regard to the censorship, and I find that there is a certain amount of uneasiness, no doubt arising from ignorance because we have never been vouchsafed any information as to the principles on which the censorship is guided nor been given the names of the persons who discharge those duties. I have read the debates in the House of Commons on the subject, and after doing so I have known very little more than when I took the paper up. Those debates have always turned on particular grievances alleged by some Member, but no information has been given as to the principles on which the censorship is conducted, still less as to the persons by whom this important function is discharged. Darkness I will not say produces suspicion, but it certainly does not strengthen confidence; and the more our confidence is strengthened the better it will be for us all. I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will see their

705
way to tell us who the censors are, and give us information regarding them which will enable us to feel confidence in the wisdom and tact with which their important functions are exercised.
As noble Lords will have seen, I have excluded any reference to the censorship in connection with naval and military intelligence. We are perfectly willing to leave everything to the discretion of the Executive in these as in other matters; it is their interest to see that no information comes out which could possibly benefit the enemy, and by that discretion I think the country should let affairs be guided. What I want to call attention to is the censorship as it is exercised with regard to other intelligence—intelligence of general interest from foreign countries; with regard to the discussion of questions relating to our home or foreign policy; and especially with regard to foreign private correspondence. The establishment of a censorship for private correspondence between this country and abroad is a perfectly new thing and involves a great deal of very delicate handling. If all the letters that any one in this country addresses to or receives from a person abroad—an intimate friend, perhaps a member of his own family—are liable to be opened and read by a censor, it becomes extremely important to know that those to whom a function of so much delicacy is entrusted are men, or women (as I believe women also are employed) entitled to our confidence—that they are persons of judgment, of experience, and of good feeling. This is a new departure so very new and strange that we desire to be reassured about it.
I could give, were it worth while to take up your Lordships' time, many instances of passages having been cut out from telegrams sent to newspapers or from letters addressed to private persons in which that which had been deleted was most certainly known in foreign countries and would not have been in the least harmful if published here. But I do not want to rest this case at all upon particular instances. We can all make mistakes; "accidents happen in the best regulated families." I admit that even an experienced censor might now and then strike out something he could safely have left in. But whatever accidents we may be ready to allow for in particular cases, we ought to know the general principles on which
706
the censors act, and the instructions they have received for the discharge of this very difficult duty. I cannot doubt that such instructions exist. And if that is so, why cannot they be produced for the benefit of the House? But however carefully instructions are drawn a great deal must depend upon the discretion of the persons who are entrusted with the carrying out of them. No instructions could be drawn so precisely as to cover every possible case which would arise, and a great deal must depend on the good sense and tact of the censors. Therefore I come back to the high importance which attaches to the selection of those who are to exercise this discretion.
May I say that I am not here to take exception to any particular person who is acting now as a censor? It so happens that I am acquainted with only one person who is so acting. He is an extremely suitable person, and he is in the military branch of the censor's work. I can conceive no one more tit to discharge its duties. It is not with any intention of taking exception to any of the persons who are believed to be exercising this function that I make my remarks. What I desire is that the Government should supply us with grounds for reposing such confidence in the censor that when something has been done which appears to us to be unwise or unnecessary we should feel, "Well, after all, the censor is probably right; he has had some experience, and is more likely to know what it is unsafe to publish than can any one of us individually." Therefore I hope we shall be reassured by being informed of the names of the persons acting in this capacity, in order that we should be able to feel that they are likely to be at least as wise as ourselves in the matter.
Let me add something about the transmission of intelligence from abroad. I gather that a good deal of this intelligence is suppressed by the censor. There may be, of course, intelligence not naval or military which at a given moment it may be undesirable to publish. That must be admitted. But there is a strong prima facie presumption in favour of publishing intelligence which is not naval or military, and which it is desirable that the country should know. Let me take an instance from what is passing in China and Japan. Very important negotiations are believed to be going on at this moment

707
there. A conference, I believe, is being held between the diplomatic representatives of those two countries. Very scanty intelligence, however, reaches us here, so scanty, indeed, that one is led to suppose that some of it is prevented by the censor from appearing. Though China and Japan are not at present in the centre of the picture, those who have followed the politics of those countries know that the questions which are being canvassed between them are of the greatest possible importance. In fact, I do not think there is anything which is likely to be a matter of more cogent interest to this country and to the world during the next few years than questions relating to the internal and external politics of China. Consequently, it is very desirable that people in this country should know from week to week what is passing in China and Japan. If we do not know now, then when the time comes that these questions become acute and when it is possible, after the present war, to direct attention to them, the country will not be in a position to understand those questions, and to indicate to the Government a line of policy or to judge any line of policy which the Government for the time being should follow. In a country like ours where the opinion of a free people is in the last resort the guide of the Government, it is of real importance that the people should have all the information that is needed, and can safely be given, to help them to follow the course of foreign politics and have an intelligent knowledge of them.
I will take another case—the case of public opinion as it manifests itself in a large country like the United States. Now there, if anywhere, public opinion is supreme. It is more important as regards the United States to know what is the public opinion of the country than it is to know the view of the Government, because sooner or later—generally very soon—the view of the Administration for the time being will conic into accord with the public opinion of the country. Therefore it will be a thing much to be regretted if cablegrams or letters of correspondents coming from such a country as the United States are to be so cut down or interfered with by the censor that they fail to give to us here a just and complete picture of the movements of public opinion in that country. It is of the highest moment to us that we should know how thought and opinion are moving, particularly at a
708
time when there are questions being discussed between the Administration there and our own Government here. In order that we may judge of the course that ought to be followed by the latter we should know the public opinion of the United States as well as be in possession of diplomatic documents proceeding from its Government, and we cannot have that information if cablegrams and the letters of correspondents are unduly interfered with and cut down by the censor. Whether that is so or not, of course I do not know. I am only putting this as a hypothetical case to illustrate my proposition that it is prima facie desirable that the people of this country should have the fullest knowledge upon all these matters, and that a strict censorship, which may be entirely laudable and necessary where it relates to naval and military intelligence, should be kept within the narrowest limits possible when it relates to intelligence not within the naval or military spheres.
I would sum up by saying that I can imagine cases in which harm would be done by a disclosure of public opinion and passing events in other countries, but they would be very much fewer and very much less serious than the cases in which this country would suffer by not having a proper knowledge of what was going on. I have wished to treat the matter in no faultfinding spirit. I make no accusation against any one. I merely desire to state to your Lordships the situation as I understand it, in the hope that the Government will see their way to give the desired information, and in the belief that if they do so it will tend to relieve the state of tension that exists and be a source of satisfaction to the general public.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am sure that none of us can complain of the manner in which my noble friend has introduced this important and difficult subject of the censorship. He draws in his Question a clear distinction between the censorship as directed upon the dissemination of military or naval intelligence on the one hand, and intelligence of a general character on the other. But as my noble friend himself indicated in the course of his speech, the two spheres are liable to overlap. There are a number of matters dealing, for instance, with trade in respect to which

709
information of importance might, if communications were allowed to pass uncensored, be transmitted to the enemy. There might, indeed, be further cases where untrue statements respecting the trade of this country might be considered as having an untoward effect in affording encouragement to the enemy. Therefore when we speak of a military and naval censorship we have to hear in mind that those terms must be rather loosely, and not too closely, taken.
My noble friend's Question invites us to lay on the Table of the House a list of the persons who are employed in the censorship of news, other than naval and military intelligence, and of correspondence. I am afraid that I cannot oblige my noble friend with a list of those names. They approach probably a thousand in number; the document, therefore, containing them would be most voluminous. But apart from that, it is considered by the Departments concerned that it is not desirable to subject those individuals whose duty it becomes to examine private correspondence of all kinds to the probability that their personal acquaintances in many cases might endeavour to use them for the purpose of a complaint about a particular instance of censorship with which they themselves might not be actually concerned. There is no desire whatever for secrecy in this matter, but it is certairly felt by the Departments that a publication of this kind would not in itself be desirable for that reason.
Then my noble friend asks whether we will lay copies of the instructions given to these persons to guide them in the discharge of their functions as censors. I should prefer not to lay the actual instructions that have been given, for this reason—that these instructions include the enumeration of some of the positive advantages which may accrue to us here by the examination of correspondence. It is not desirable, as I think my noble friend will agree, that the enumeration of such positive advantages as we obtain in some cases should become common property. On the other hand, I am very happy to give my noble friend the general gist of the instructions, especially in stating the objects to be avoided and the more negative advantages to be obtained. The general object of this censorship is to prevent the possibility of anybody communicating information to the enemy or obtaining
710
information with the object of its being communicated through some other channel. Any information which could be regarded as likely in any way to jeopardise the success of our own operations or of the operations of our Allies, would, of course, conic under that head. A further object is to prevent the spread of false reports, reports likely to cause disaffection or of a seditious character, or of statements of a kind likely to prejudice the relations of the Crown with other countries; in general terms, to prevent anything passing which would be inimical to the successful prosecution of the war. Then, of course, a large part of the instructions is naturally taken up with the kind of military and naval intelligence which must not be allowed to pass. But the instructions are strong in saying that there shall be as little interference as possible with private correspondence as such; that whether letters be of a general private character or of a commercial character they are not to be stopped even when they come from a hostile source or even are addressed to a hostile source, provided their contents be in then selves harmless.
There are also certain restrictions regarding letters written in languages which cannot be easily translated. A letter written in Finnish, for instance, or a letter in Swahili, would probably run the risk of being hung up for a considerable time in case it should contain any information of a dangerous character. But instructions are given for the free admission of newspapers of all kinds from hostile countries, subject, of course, to this restriction, which I am sure my noble friend will recognise as a necessary one. It is quite possible to make a rough-and-ready cipher out of a newspaper and thereby communicate information which ought not to be allowed to pass; but subject to an examination of that kind, no restriction whatever is placed upon the delivery of foreign newspapers from enemy countries to this country. In the case of pamphlets a somewhat different system is followed. Where the contents of the pamphlet are thoroughly hostile, for instance making an attack upon some institutions or upon the policy of this country—those pamphlets are in all cases receivable by the editors of newspapers, reviews, and magazines in this country, and also by a large number of other persons of whom a list is prepared and kept—in cases where the pamphlet is considered to be of a thoroughly objectionable character its

711
free passage and dissemination is not allowed. There was a case, I think, of a newspaper of Fenian views in Ireland—now, I imagine, suppressed—which for a time practically published nothing except excerpts from hostile publications of this sort; and as soon as it was found out that that was being done, the pamphlets were stopped on their way before the proceedings were taken—I think I am speaking accurately—for the suppression of the newspaper. That I give merely as an instance.
Then there is the question of items of news from foreign countries. My noble friend mentioned two important instances—namely, that of the interesting relations between Japan and China at this moment, and the statement of public opinion in the United States. I have no reason to suppose that any items of news or expressions of opinion dealing with those two subjects would be interfered with by the censor, unless, of course, there was interwoven with them something of a character which could be taken as having damaging reference of the kind which I have mentioned to the conduct of the war. But I will make it my business to inquire and will inform my noble friend as to those particular cases, of which I fully admit the general importance. Then as regards general private correspondence from abroad, the instructions to the censors are, as I have said, to interfere as little as possible. My noble friend will realise that people writing from abroad may sometimes make a statement dealing perhaps with naval or military matters which to them appears to be absolutely harmless but which on its arrival here might have an inconvenient or possibly even a dangerous meaning attachable to it, and it is a possibility of that kind which makes the general inspection of letters necessary.
As my noble friend has pointed out—and he spoke with great generosity of the censors' work—it is impossible to avoid certain mistakes of tact and of judgment being perpetrated by some of the very large number of persons who have to undertake this duty, which must often be infinitely more tedious than it can be interesting. We ought to remember that in engaging in a censorship of this kind we are attempting something entirely novel. There has never
712
been, so far as I know, in any country anything of the kind attempted before. There has been a censorship of war news at the Front on several occasions in comparatively recent years, and there has, I think, on one or two occasions been exercised a cable censorship between different countries; but there has been no attempt to supervise correspondence generally, and I suppose that the necessity of undertaking that task on this occasion has been brought home to us by the extreme proximity of the war—I am speaking in the local sense—by the vast facilities that now exist for communication of all kinds, and by the wide powers which prevail for the dissemination of news in all ways through the Press; because the Press, of course, has in many cases access to and control of the publication of news which in the strict sense is private.
That is as much information, I am sorry to say, as I am able to give my noble friend. I hope I shall have satisfied him to some extent by stating the general principles on which this work is being done, and I have no doubt that as the weeks and months go on the work is better and more skilfully done, with fewer possibilities of lapse, and by the time the war is over and the censorship no more needed I have very little doubt that the work will be carried on in a manner which is almost perfect. But I hope it is reasonable to state that we believe that the grounds of complaint by the public, although they exist no doubt in individual cases, are not either numerous or serious.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, I wish to say a few words upon this subject because I think it is rather important. I believe that, having regard to the numerous channels through which communication can be passed from this country to another, any censorship is bound to be ineffective in preventing news going from this country to other countries. When you reflect that there are newspapers, that there are books, which may be sent with markings, understood and so forth, quite apart from the multitude of letters which no thousand censors could possibly supervise, it seems to me that you cannot expect the censorship to be effective for the purpose of preventing news that you wish to keep

713
back getting through. Had there been any possible principle upon which a matter of this kind could be conducted, I have no doubt that the noble Marquess would have stated it, but he really has not been able to tell us because it is quite impossible to lay down any principle. All you can do is to give a certain number of people authority to do an unprecedented thing in this country—namely, to open private letters and exercise their judgment as to whether those letters should be allowed to go forward or not. I believe you can do very little good in any way of that kind, but you may do a great deal of harm. You may cause suspicion that information is not given; and there is a good deal of suspicion in the country now that information is not given as it should be. This country is brave enough and steadfast enough to be able to face anything that comes, and I am sure it is a mistake to keep back information. All this shows that this is an extremely difficult subject. I am quite certain that no one wishes to make any reflection upon the censors or on any one else, but I think that you would be able to preserve confidence better if you would give us the names of the people to whom is entrusted this difficult and delicate task. I do not see any reason for withholding them. There is nothing to be ashamed of in the work which those gentlemen or ladies, whoever they may be, undertake. I do not see in the least why they should be shrouded in secrecy. Let them face their duties. They will not be hardly judged by the public. It will cultivate the idea among the public that there is something to keep back if you are not prepared frankly to give the names of those who are exercising this extremely delicate and difficult duty, especially as it is not within anyone's power to lay down more than a general direction that the censors must be prudent, considerate, and fair. I hope the Government will reconsider their decision not to publish the names of these censors.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken has taken the matter into a little wider field, and I should like to support the general purport of that part of his observations. Surely we can lay down this rule very clearly that, where it is a matter of withholding information from the enemy, the military authorities must be the
714
supreme and only judges. I would not for one moment in any degree impair their power to withhold information which the enemy might not possess, or, indeed, which they thought he might not be able to acquire. But there is a certain class of information which we know the enemy must possess. If the enemy takes 500 British prisoners, that fact is not unknown to the German General Staff; or if they take a British trench, that fact is not unknown to the German General Staff. What I think the noble Earl who has just spoken and many of us complain of is that whereas those facts cannot by any possibility be unknown to the German General Staff they are not properly explained to the people of this country. I wrote a letter to The Times the other day on this subject and I have had communications from friends of mine in the Press Bureau who have pointed out to me that, so far as information of that kind is concerned, they have no responsibility, at all—that the military information that is published is furnished to them by the military authorities, and, I understand, in the exact language in which it is to be published. What they are responsible for is every action in respect of any criticisms on that published information and in respect of any information that comes through unofficial channels. If the Press Bureau has no sort of control whatever over the military information published, or even over the words in which it is published, then I quite admit that that part of my criticism ought to be directed not to the Press Bureau but to the military authorities. I do not hesitate to say that in that respect we are just as good judges as the military authorities, not of what ought to be withheld from the enemy which the enemy may not know, but when it is information which the enemy must know we are entitled to exercise our own private judgment and to say that it is a mistaken policy to conceal any portion of that, or any degree of its gravity, from the people of our country.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the question of withholding of items either of military or naval information, or, indeed, of public news of any kind, is not a question, strictly speaking, of the censorship at all. It becomes more possible to do it through the existence of a censorship, but it has, as the noble Earl opposite pointed out,

715
nothing whatever to do with the Press Bureau. It is a matter of the particular information supplied by the Department concerned; and, of course, it is entirely open to anybody to argue, as the noble Earl has just argued, that on the whole more harm may be done by the withholding of certain information than by its publication. The noble Earl mentioned an instance of a hypothetical capture of prisoners by the enemy, known to them but not published; and he stated that in a case of that kind such an announcement ought to be made. I should not go quite so far as he did in saying that we civilians are quite as good judges of the necessity or the desirability of a publication of that kind at a particular moment as are the military authorities themselves. And I would remind him of this, that there are items of information which it would be undesirable for the enemy to know, and if their ignorance of them can be maintained even for a limited time, for a matter of weeks, some military or naval advantage might thereby be gained. That is in itself, I think, a defence for the withholding of information from time to time. But that is a somewhat different subject from that upon which my noble friend Lord Bryce questioned me. As regards the particular point of the names, I can assure my noble friend Lord Loreburn that I will communicate again with those who are more especially affected by it than I am myself. But I think they will continue to hold the view that it is not advisable that these people should run the risk of being individually approached and, if I may use the phrase, "got at" by some of those who consider that they have cause to complain of interference with their correspondence.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Marquess for what he has said and for the promise he has given, in response to the appeal from Lord Loreburn and myself, that this question of giving the names will be reconsidered, I should like to express my own opinion that any possible and conceivable risk, which I think would be very remote, of the evil that has been indicated as likely to arise from giving the names would be quite disproportionate to the amount of good such information would do and the confidence it would tend to inspire.

PRIZE MONEY.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Paper—viz.: To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is true that they have set up a Prize Claims Committee to consider of a distribution to individuals, whose claims have been rejected by the Prize Court, of portions of Prize Money; and if so, whether they can inform the House what are its qualifications, and what cases in respect of what vessels and of what persons are now under consideration by that Committee; and whether it is intended that while all Prize Money is withheld from the officers and men of the Navy, part of it shall be distributed to persons selected by the Prize Claims Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl's first Question is in the affirmative. The Prize Claims Committee has been set up, with my right hon. friend the Attorney-General as its chairman and my noble friend Lord Desart as its vice-chairman; and I ought to add that on it are representatives of the Admiralty and of the Treasury and also of financial and shipping interests. Its functions are to look into claims which may be made by either British or neutral firms in respect of ships or cargoes condemned by Prize Courts. In numbers of cases claims have been made either upon the ships or upon the cargoes by banks and other people. This Prize Claims Committee examines the validity of those claims, and there its functions stop. There has been, of course, in a sense a departure from the old practice in which prizes at sea were regarded as the actual booty of the particular ship that made the capture. It is now intended that Prize Money in the strict sense, should be ultimately allocated among the Navy as a whole. But that, of course, is a question apart from the case, say, of an advance which a British banker has made on shipping documents which have been handed to him as security and as to which he puts in a claim.
The Committee does not pretend to decide from what funds or in what manner the claims should be met. Its functions are simply concerned with the determination and examination of the validity of the claim itself. Suppose, say, that a ship has been captured with a cargo worth £20,000

717
upon which some financier has made an advance of £10,000. It becomes a matter of policy to consider whether the proceeds of the cargo when sold should be handed over in their entirety to the Navy, or whether the claim of the lender should by some means or other be met. But the Prize Committee does not offer an opinion as to how the money is to be found, supposing it to be assumed that the holder of security has an equitable claim for some consideration. All a Prize Court does is to determine the ownership of the property without any respect to the claims on the property. I take it that that is the immemorial function of a Prize Court.
I conceive that the noble Earl opposite, as a former First Lord of the Admiralty, has in mind the interests of the Navy in this matter, and is desirous that the Navy should not suffer. It is not possible, if the principle is adopted of regarding as admissible a question of prize claim, to make an immediate distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the ship or the cargo; and it, of course, becomes much more impossible when the distribution is to be made to the Navy as a whole and not to the actual capturers of the ship. But that in no way prevents the allocation, either at present or at any time during the war or at the close of the War, of such a sum in the form of prize bounty as it may be decided the Navy is entitled to. As regards the particular sums of money produced by the sale of prizes, it is impossible at this moment to regard the Navy as strictly entitled to more than the net proceeds as distinct from the gross; but that, of course, does not prejudice the actual amount of money which in the long run the Navy may receive, because it is a matter for the country to decide how far it is the duty of the taxpayers to indemnify the person who has made the advances on the cargo as well as to reward the seamen and the officers for the capture of the ship. Therefore the whole matter has to stand over in that sense until the end of the war. I must not be taken as expressing an opinion that when a prize of this kind is sold a certain proportion of the proceeds ought to belong to those who have some kind of lien on the cargo or on the ship, and a certain other proportion to the Navy. But, as I think the noble Earl will see, the change which has been made in the whole principle of distribution of Prize Money prevents the immediate
718
I allocation to the particular persons and crew of a particular ship of their share of the proceeds of a particular capture.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I want to say a word, rather more to explain the position than anything else. The noble Earl who asked this Question, I think, feels some uneasiness because he thinks Prize Money has been dealt with by this Committee. Of course my colleagues and I are not responsible for the policy, and at the present moment the Committee are not dealing with money at all. It would be unwise for them to go into these claims and make awards when they have no means of giving effect to them, and there is at present no means of giving effect to them. Therefore as long as the matter is under consideration the Committee cannot tell whether it will be out of this or that fund that the money will ultimately come, and have not in fact made any awards. I think there may arise a feeling amongst those interested that the Committee ought to do something, and that some sort of decision ought to be arrived at as soon as may be. I rose merely to state how the thing stood, and to say that the noble Earl need not be under any uneasiness that money has up to now been paid out of this or any other fund.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble and learned Earl for an explanation? As he says, the actual money is not available for distribution. But why does that prevent the allocation of claims?
THE EARL OF DESART: It was very carefully considered, and it was decided that it would be better to postpone action rather than that witnesses should be examined and people put to expense until we knew how awards will be met.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered on Monday next in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the week.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.