Lords Sitting of 14 September 1915

Preamble
The Earl VANE (M. Londonderry)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl of FEVERSHAM—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY.
Petition of Charles Stewart Henry Vane Tempest Stewart, Marquess of Londonderry, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following Papers, having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty, had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Standing Order No. 104, viz:
1. (Colonies) Annual—

No. 851. Sierra Leone (Report for 1914). (July 30);

No. 852. Grenada (Report for 1914–1915);

No. 853. Bermuda (Report for 1914). (September 9);

2. Mines and Quarries—
I. Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines under the Coal Mines Acts, the Metalliferous Mines Acts, and the Quarries Act, for the year 1914—

1. Scotland Division, H. Walker;

2. Northern Division, J. R. R. Wilson;

3. York and North Midland Division, T. H. Mottram;

4. Lancashire, North Wales, and Ireland Division, A. D. Nicholson;

5. South Wales Division, W. N. Atkinson;

6. Midland and Southern Division, Hugh Johnstone. (August 2);

II. Annual Report of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines, with Statistics, for the year 1914. Part I. Divisional Statistics, (August 10);
3. Currency and Bank Notes Acts, 1914.—Treasury Minute, dated 19th July 1915, relative to currency Notes Certificates. (August 3);
4. Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland)—Seventieth Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland for the year ended 31st December 1914. (August 4);
5. Commercial, No. 1 (1915) (Suez Canal)—Returns of Shipping and Tonnage, 1912, 1913, and 1914. (In continuation of "Commercial, No. 1 (1914) "[Cd. 7466]). (August 5);
6. Meteorology—Tenth Annual Report of the Meteorological Committee to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury for the year ended 31st March 1915 (the sixtieth year of the Meteorological Office). (August 5);
7. Explosives Act, 1875-Thirty-ninth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives for the year 1914. (August 5);
8. Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation—Eleventh Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for the year 1914. (August 5);
9. Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894–1906—Return of all British and Foreign Ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its officers during the period from 1st July 1914 to 30th June 1915 to be provisionally detained as unsafe. (In continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 7617]). (August 5);
10. Dublin Hospitals — Fifty-seventh Annual Report of the Board of Superintendence of the Dublin Hospitals, with Appendices, for the year 1914–1915. (August 6);
11. Railway Accidents—

I. Summary of accidents and casualties reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months

785
ended 31st March 1915, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871; together with reports to the Board of Trade by the Inspecting Officers, Assistant Inspecting Officers and Sub-Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department upon certain accidents which were inquired into. (August 6);

II. General Report to the Board of Trade upon the accidents that have occurred on the railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1911. (September 9);

12. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—

I. Appendix to Annual Report of the Horticulture Branch for the year 1913–1914. Maps. (August 9);

II. Annual Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer for the year 1914. (August 17);

III. Final Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to inquire into Swine Fever; with Minutes of Evidence and Appendix. Part IV. Final Report Minutes of Evidence and Appendix, (August 20 );

IV. Interim Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to consider the Production of Food in England and Wales. (August. 28);

13. Trade Reports (Annual Series)—

No. 5452. Chile (Consular District of Coquimbo, 1914;

No. 5453. Spain (Canary Islands, 1914);

No. 5454. Russia (Consular District of Batoum, 1914;

No. 5455. China (Nanking, 1914);

No. 5456. Netherlands (Surinam, 1913);

No. 5457. France (Corsica) 1914. (August. 9);

No. 5458. Argentine Republic (Trade of Rosario and District during recent years);

786

No. 5459. United States (Trade and Commerce of the Territory of Hawaii for the year 1913–1914);

No. 5460. China (Trade of Hang-chow, 1914). (September 11);

14. India (Accounts and Estimates, 1915–1916)—Explanatory Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India. (August 10);
15. Dominions Royal Commission—Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions. Minutes of Evidence taken in the Maritime Provinces of Canada in 1914. (August 10);
16. Agricultural Statistics (Ireland)—

I. Report and Tables relating to Irish Agricultural Labourers, 1914. (August 11);

II. Abstracts showing the Acreage under Crops and the Numbers and Descriptions of Live Stock in each county and province, 1914–1915. (August 25);

17. National Insurance Acts—

I. Reports of Decisions on Appeals and. Applications under Section 67 of the Act of 1911 and Section 27 of the Act of 1913. Part. II. (August 13);

II. Order, dated 17th August 1913, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Glasgow Boundaries Extension) Order. 1915. (August 25);

18. Railway Returns—

I. Returns of the Capital, Traffic, Receipts and Working Expenditure, &c., of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom, for the year 1913 (pursuant to the Acts 34 & 35 Vict. cap 78, 51 & 52 Vict. cap. 25, and 1 & 2 Geo. 5. cap. 34), with a General Report thereon, and Summary Tables for a series of years;

II. Return relating to the Railways of the United Kingdom for the year 1914. (August. 17);

19. Irish Land Commission—Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April 1914 to 31st March 1915. (August 17);
20. Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire (Royal Commission)—Sixth Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inventory the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions of Wales and Monmouthshire, and to specify those which seem most worthy of preservation (August 20);
21. Agriculture (Scotland)—Agricultural Statistics, 1914, Vol. III, Part II. Returns of Produce of Crops in Scotland, with a Summary for the United Kingdom. (August 21);
22. Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887—Return of the Number of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June 1915. (August 23);
23. Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland—Report of the Departmental Committee on Food Production in Ireland. (August 23);
24. Government Chemist—Report of the Government Chemist upon the work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March 1915; with Appendices. (August 27);
25. Treaty Series (1915)—No. 8. Agreement between the United Kingdom and Russia for the Reciprocal Waiver of Consular Fees on Certificates of Origin relating to Exports. Petrograd, July 3 (16), 1915. (August 27);
26. Evictions (Ireland)—Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th June 1915. (August 28);
27. Public Records (Ireland)—Forty-seventh Report of the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records (Ireland) for the year 1914. (September 2);
28. Board of Education—

I. (Elementary Education—Annual Report for 1914 of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education. (September 3);

II. (Public Education in England and Wales)—Statistics of Public Education in England and Wales. Part II. Financial Statistics, 1912–1913. (September 3);

788

III. (Universities, England and Wales)—Statement of Grants available from the Board of Education in aid of technological and professional work in Universities in England and Wales. (September 7);

29. Osborne—Report by the House Governor and Medical Superintendent for the year to 31st March 1915. (September 6);
30. Factory and Workshop (Industrial Fatigue)—Interim Report on an Investigation of Industrial Fatigue by Physiological Methods, by A. F. Stanley Kent, M.A., D.Sc. (Oxon), Henry Overton Wills Professor of Physiology in the University of Bristol. (September 6);
31. European War—Correspondence relating to the Occupation of German Samoa by an Expeditionary Force from New Zealand. (September 10);
32. Local Government Board (Scotland)—Twentieth Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland, 1914. (September 10);
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Trade Reports (Annual Series)—

No. 5461. China (Foochow, 1914);

No. 5462. France (Consular District of Brest, 1914);

No. 5463. China (Ichang, 1914):

Education (Scotland)—

1. Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 19th August 1915, amending the Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes, 1915 (pursuant to Section 67, Education (Scotland) Act, 1872);

2. Regulations for the preliminary education, training and certification of teachers for various grades of Schools, 1915:

Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Army—Revised Rates for Billeting, dated 27th Au gust 1915:
Naval Medical Compassionate Fund Act, 1915—Order in Council, dated 28th July 1915, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty under the Act:
Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865—

I. Orders in Council approving Memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty under the Act—

1. Seven Orders, dated 28th July 1915;

2. Two Orders, dated 12th August 1915;

II. Order in Council, dated 20th August 1915, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to the transfer to the General List of Officers of the Royal Navy, of Officers on the Supplementary List who perform meritorious service during the War:

Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, 1890 and 1913—

I. Two Orders in Council, dated 12th August 1915, made under the Acts;

II. Order in Council, dated 28th July 1915, entitled the Behrein (Amendment) Order in Council, 1915:

Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1877—Statute made by the University of Oxford on 25th May 1915, and sealed on the same day, amending Statute Tit. IV, Section 1, § 3, Clause 4 (c) of the Statutes of the University:
Munitions of War Act, 1915—

1. Munitions (War Service Badges) Rules, 1915 (Scotland) —Rules, dated 29th July 1915; made under Section 8 of the Act, by the Minister of Munitions as to Badges;

2. Munitions Tribunals Rules (Scotland)—Rules for constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals made in pursuance of Section 15 of the Act by the Secretary for Scotland as far as relates to Offences, and by the Minister of Munitions as far as relates to other matters;

790

3. Munitions Tribunals (Provisional Rules) (Ireland)—Rules for constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals in Ireland, made ill pursuance of Section 15 of the Act by the Lord Lieutenant as far as relates to offences, and by the Minister of Munitions as far as relates to other matters:

Copyright (British Museum) Act, 1915—The British Museum (Delivery of Books) Regulation, 1915:
National Insurance Acts—

1. Unemployment Insurance—Unemployment Book (War) Regulations, 1915, made by the Board of Trade on 20th August 1915 in pursuance of Section 91 of the Act;

2. The National Health Insurance (Employment under Local and Public Authorities) Exclusion Order (Scotland), 1915, dated 14th July 1915:

3. The National Health Insurance (Exempt Irish Migratory Labourers' Benefits) Regulations, 1915, dated 11th August 1915:

Post Office (Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post)--The Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 72) Warrant, 1915, dated 11th August 1915:
Supreme Court of Judicature—Rules of the Supreme Court, dated 12th August 1915:
Friendly Societies—Regulation, dated 27th August 1915, made by the Treasury under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896:
Superannuation—Treasury Minute, dated 31st August 1915, granting a retired allowance to Richard Percy Armstrong, Officer, Liverpool, Customs and Excise, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887:
Immediate Life Annuities—Table showing the sum for which an Immediate Life Annuity of £1 will be granted under the provisions of the Government Annuities Act, 1882:
Metropolitan Water Board—Twelfth Annual Report, for the year ended 31st March 1915:
Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899— Amending General Orders, dated 28th July 1915, for the regulation of proceedings under and in pursuance of the Act:
Shops Act, 1912—Orders by the Secretary for Scotland—

1. Dated 24th August 1915, in terms of Section 5 of the Act affecting certain classes of shops in the Burgh of Port Glasgow;

2. Dated 11th August 1915, in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act affecting certain classes of shops in Woodside Ward, Aberdeen:

Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) Act, 1881—The Annual Local Taxation Returns (Scotland) for the year 1913–1914:
Port of London Authority—Sixth Annual Report of the Port of London Authority for the year ended 31st March 1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Upper Medway Navigation and Conservancy Act, 1911—Statement of the Accounts of the Conservators of the Upper Medway, for the year ended 31st March 1915: Delivered (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

PROMISED STATEMENT BY LORD KITCHENER.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I desire to state for the information of the House that my noble friend the Secretary of State for War will, before business to-morrow, make a statement of a similar nature to those which he has made on former occasions.

WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Marquess the Lord President a Question of which I have given him private notice. In common with many others, I should be thankful if he could inform me how the question of the coming into operation of the Welsh Church Act exactly stands to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have to thank the right rev. Prelate for giving me private notice of his intention to put this Question to-day. I am able to state, for his information and for that of the House, that this morning an Order in Council received the Royal approval drawn in the following terms—
"The date of Disestablishment under the Welsh Church Act, 1914, shall be postponed until the end of the present war."
I think that supplies the information which time right rev. Prelate desired to have.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask the Lord President of the Council whether His Majesty's Government intend to adopt all or any of the suggestions of the Speaker of the House of Commons for reducing national expenditure which were made by Mr. Speaker on the 27th August at Parliamentary War Savings Committee meeting at Penrith.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to explain the reason why I have put this Question on the Paper. No doubt like other noble Lords who happen to he chairmen of Parliamentary Recruiting Committees and War Savings Committees in the various constituencies, I have found myself in the same difficulty as apparently Mr. Speaker was in when addressing meetings, at which awkward questions have been continually put to the speakers who tell the working men that out of their comparatively small incomes they ought to save. I cannot help believing that it would have been very much better if, before inaugurating this campaign, the Government had themselves given a lead in this matter to the speakers and to the people of the country generally. The Lord President of the Council may say, "is a Retrenchment Committee." That is quite true; but that Committee has not reported, and probably will not report—certainly no real action will be taken—until after all these meetings have been held and these appeals made to the working men to come forward and assist by contributing their savings.
I submit that His Majesty's Government should have dealt in a drastic way with this question of retrenchment in national expenditure before starting the present

793
campaign in the country. We should not then have had such questions asked as these—"Why did the Government spend thousands of pounds on a new tea-room in the House of Commons?" "Why was it necessary, there being very little work in the House of Commons at the present moment, to appoint a Chief Whip at £2,000 a year?" "Why have the salaries of some of the Ministers been increased?" Those are awkward questions to answer. The feeling in the country, certainly in the part in which I live, is very strong on this question of economy in national expenditure. The people strongly deprecate the absence of any attempt on the part of the Government to bring about economies. Instead of doing that the Government have created fresh offices and given large salaries to new officials; and under the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill which your Lordships thought fit to suspend—I believe entirely with the sanction of the country, for I have never heard one word against the House of Lords on the ground of interfering with the people's will in this matter—it was proposed to set up further new offices carrying with them large payments to officials without, as my noble friend Earl St. Aldwyn pointed out at the time, any Treasury control. In addressing the meeting at Penrith Mr. Speaker expressed the opinion that something ought to be done in connection with the payment of salaries to Members of Parliament, and I have constantly heard protests made against gentlemen receiving salaries as members of the House of Commons and also pay as Army officers.
I would also draw attention to the farce, which is still going on, of valuing houses in London under the Valuation Act of 1909. Is it not ridiculous that this should continue when we all know that house property has practically gone to nothing in this country? With the heavy taxation which will have to be imposed, and rightly imposed, house property in London cannot be half the value that it was in 1909; yet there are Government officials still going about carrying on this work of valuation at great public expense. Only the other day I received a notice that my house had been valued at a perfectly ridiculous figure, and I was told that I could appeal, not at present, but "later on," thus creating more work for Government officials. I venture to say that before telling working men earning, perhaps, 26s.
794
or 30 s. a week that they ought to save, it would have been better had the Government put their own house in order, got rid of these redundant officials, and given the country a lead in this matter by a reduction of national expenditure.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the House, I think, will hardly expect that I can give anything like a complete answer to the Question which my noble friend opposite has asked. He himself spoke of the work of the Parliamentary War Savings Committee, and he added, quite truly, that that Committee has not so far reported or made any specific recommendation. It is therefore not possible for me, as I think the House will perceive, to attempt to anticipate any recommendations that they may make. Still less is it possible for me to anticipate to-day any part of the financial statement which my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make in a few days in another place. In these circumstances I fear that I must ask to be excused from replying to the substance of my noble friend's Question. I need not say that any observations made after consideration by one of so much knowledge and experience as Mr. Speaker would naturally always receive the respectful attention of the authorities. But with particular reference to what has just fallen from the noble Lord, I hope he will not take me as agreeing with his statement that no attempts had been made to economise in public directions, but that rather—as he stated, I confess somewhat to my surprise—there had been an increase of public expenditure in various directions. As a matter of fact, close attention has been paid to this question of public economy. I am not going to attempt to indicate the various ways in which that has been, is being, and will be brought about, but. I am obliged to enter this passing protest against the assumption made by the noble Lord that carelessness, or, indeed, something worse, has been shown by His Majesty's Government in respect to public expenditure.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think your Lordships are greatly indebted to the noble Lord who sits by me for having again called attention to this matter. This is not the House naturally where such questions would be primarily discussed. They ought to have been discussed long ago in the House of Commons. I ventured,

795
when this subject was last before your Lordships' House on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Midleton, to speak my mind as to the conduct of the late Government with regard to this matter. It is all very well for the noble Marquess to say that the Government have not failed to give it their attention. All I can say is this. If they had given it their attention as they ought to have done as soon as the war broke out, if they had foreseen as they ought to have foreseen the gigantic cost of such a war as this, and if they had then devoted their minds and energies to a reduction of the civil expenditure of the country, they would have done their duty. But they have failed absolutely to do their duty. The result is that we are now face to face with Civil Service Estimates framed on the extravagant footing to which this country has become accustomed in peace times, and which has really no reference at all to the present position of the country or of its financial affairs. I quite understand that the noble Marquess cannot say anything to-day either with regard to the views of the Committee which was appointed to consider this matter or with regard to the financial proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have to place before the House of Commons next week. I do not know why that Committee was not appointed long before it was, and I do not know why, when it was appointed, it took a holiday of a fortnight before it held a single sitting. This whole subject of public economy appears to me to have been neglected by the late Government and to have been approached by the present Government in a manner which fails to show that they really appreciate its importance and its urgency. I hope the noble Lord who has asked this Question to-day will keep his eyes open to the matter, and will continue to press His Majesty's Government as to the action which they ought to take at the earliest possible date.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM CASES.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the Lord President of the Council on whose authority it is determined whether an application shall be made for the hearing of a criminal charge in camera.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I understand that the Question which I am going to ask, and which is almost of a formal nature, will be answered by the Lord Chancellor, and I have already indicated to him that the words of the Question as it appears on the Paper are wider than I really intended. I desire to ask on whose authority it is determined whether an application should be made for the hearing in camera of a criminal charge under the Defence of the Realm Amendment Act of this year. Your Lordships will recollect that under an Act which received the Royal Assent on March 16 of this year the right of British citizens to the ordinary procedure of criminal trial was restored to them. It was restored with certain limitations, and it is in reference to one of those limitations that I wish to ask this Question. The limitation is contained in subsection (3) of Section 1, and is in these words—
"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."
I assume that no one would object to a power of trial in camera where an application was properly made that a case should be so heard in the interests of national safety. But we all regard publicity as the great sanction and safeguard of our legal liberties in this country. Our legal liberties do not depend on some of the high-flown theories that we find in Continental Codes, but on the constant insistence that as regards criminal proceedings they shall, except for very special objects and purposes, always he held in public and therefore subject to public opinion.
The Question I am asking is this. Who is it who decides in a particular case that it is in the interests of national safety that the hearing should be in camera? My own view is that if that decision is given and the responsibility taken by the Department of the Public Prosecutor there is really no safeguard that the true meaning and intent of the subsection will be guaranteed and carried out, because it almost follows that from the Public Prosecutor's point of view it might be advantageous in many cases to have the

797
hearing in camera, not from the point of view of national interests but from the point of view of the prosecuting authority. If, on the other hand, the responsibility is taken by some Minister, such, for instance, as the Home Secretary, who would determine the matter on wide public grounds, then I for one should have no objection and should consider that the words of the subsection which I have quoted constituted a proper provision as regards the public safety.
I noticed not long ago a letter from the Home Secretary in which he stated perfectly accurately—as the Home Secretary would be sure to do on any legal point—the present position under the Defence of the Realm Amendment Act. He said—
"if a British citizen in time of war so acts that his conduct is likely to cause disaffection or to prejudice recruiting he undoubtedly renders himself liable to legal proceedings."
There is no doubt that that is a correct statement of the law. It is a new law, part of what is sometimes called the panic law or the exceptional Law applicable to war time only. No such provision, for instance, was considered necessary during the Crimean War or during the Napoleonic period, although I apprehend that during the Napoleonic period the crisis as far as this country was concerned was at least as severe as it is at the present time. But the words "likely to cause disaffection or to prejudice recruiting" are extremely wide. In one sense, any criticism of the Government nifty be said to be likely to cause disaffection. In the same way, any criticism of the present method of recruiting may be said to interfere with and prejudice recruiting generally. In my own view, nothing has interfered more with what I consider our admirable system of voluntary recruiting than much that has been said and written as regards the compulsory system. I only throw that out as one of the points which make it exceedingly necessary that the authority dealing with this subsection should draw a line between fair criticism and matters that are really important as regards national safety. But for that I apprehend that Lord Chatham, in the American War, might have been subjected to prosecution, and certainly Mr. Fox during the Napoleonic period.
I am sure there is not a single member of this House who is not sincerely earnest in his desire to preserve the ordinary rights of public discussion and of public
798
freedom in this country. Therefore what I ask the Lord Chancellor is, I think, in no sense a controversial question, for I believe we should all be agreed as regards the benefit of publicity on 1he one side and the necessity for restriction under very special conditions on the other. But until one knows with whom the responsibility rests and who actually gives the direction under which the prosecuting counsel acts, one does not feel sure that a wide power of this kind may not be used in a way which might be considered hardly fair in particular instances. Therefore I desire to ask the Lord Chancellor the Question which I have read, in order to know by what authority and on whose responsibility the decision in such cases is given.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): My Lords, it is a very simple and easy matter to answer the Question which has been placed on the Paper by the noble and learned Lord. I think your Lordships must all have felt in listening to the noble and learned Lord's speech that it was not merely the information that was asked for by the Question which he desired to obtain, but that he was seeking, I will not say to encourage, but to provoke a discussion on the merits of the Act of Parliament, under which this procedure exists. I say that for this reason, that an acute and learned lawyer like the noble and learned Lord could have found the answer to his own Question at once by looking at the Act of Parliament, which makes it perfectly plain that in all cases where a trial takes place in camera it can only so take place on the application of the prosecution, and, most important of all, that application must take place at the trial. He knows perfectly well that the application by the prosecution at the trial must be made with the sanction of the counsel for the Crown, the Director of Public Prosecutions instructing him, and, it may be, at the suggestion of any Department behind. It is perfectly impossible to say in any particular prosecution that any one particular person would be responsible for the application being made.
I think it would be well, now that this question has been raised, that your Lordships should permit me to recall to your memory the exact conditions under which this power of hearing in camera takes place. The original Statute for the Defence of

799
the Realm practically provided that every offence should be tried by Court-Martial, the only exceptions being cases which were trivial and which might be tried by Courts of summary jurisdiction. It was then that the Act was passed this year which provided that a case which was triable originally under the first Statute by Court-Martial might be tried by a civil Court with a jury and when so tried the offence should be treated as a felony, the object of that being to enable a bill of indictment to be presented to the Grand Jury without going through the formality of proceedings before the magistrate. In that case there is a provision that, if the prosecution thinks it in the public safety that the proceedings should take place in private, application may be made to the Court, and it is for the Court to determine whether or not the public should be excluded front the trial. The question as to who instigated or instituted the application to the Court is, I submit to your Lordships, a matter of no moment at all, because the Court decides, and not the prosecution, whether the public shall be admitted or shall be shut out. Consequently no advantage whatever would be gained by asking any Government Department to consider a matter which strictly, I suggest, is hardly one for their consideration. Those who have charge of the proceedings have before them all the evidence and know its tendency, and are best able to form a judgment as to whether the publication of the documents or the disclosure of the evidence might tend to prejudice or imperil the safety of the realm. In those circumstances application can be made to the Court, and the Court can exclude the public from its proceedings. That applies to cases where the offence was to be tried as equivalent to a felony.
By a subsequent Order in Council two other classes of cases have been included. One is where the competent naval or military authority, in their discretion, think that the trial should take place before a Court of summary jurisdiction. In that case, again, the prosecution is at liberty to apply to the magistrate who is hearing the case for the same leave, and the magistrate may accept or refuse the application as he thinks right. The third case is more important. Originally power was given to the competent naval or military authority, if they thought right, to enter any place where they believed
800
that matter was likely to exist the publication of which would be dangerous to the safety of the realm, or would prejudice recruiting, or in any way affect the relationship between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of foreign Powers. In those cases there was power to enter and to seize printing, presses, and other material and to destroy them. That was modified by an Order which provided that there should be power to go to a magistrate and apply for a search warrant, and that when the documents had been seized under this search warrant the person who was respondent to the proceedings should be called before the Court to show cause why these things should not be destroyed. In this case again power was given to the Court to declare that the discussion of the whole proceedings should take place in private, and once more that application was at the instance of the prosecution.
The noble and learned Lord said that he did not desire to discuss tote wisdom of the Statutes. I am bound to say, having once more carefully considered them, that the only surprise they give rise to in my mind is surprise at their moderation. I am astonished that, when we stand in the peril and jeopardy in which we find ourselves to-day, when we not only have to fight the foe in the open field hut know that their spies are in every land intriguing to enmesh and entangle every Government, we have found it possible to proceed under the comparatively mild and benevolent legislation which has been established.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say, in answer to the Lord Chancellor, that questions of policy have been raised by him which certainly were not raised by me. If his view is, as I understand it to be, that the present legislation is insufficient —that is not my view—then I assume that the Government will take the responsibility of introducing legislation of the character which they think necessary, and not too moderate, having regard to the views which the Lord Chancellor has expressed. I can only say for my part that if legislation of that kind is introduced I shall do my best to oppose it at every possible stage, because I believe that you only promote some of the evils to which the Lord Chancellor referred by attempting too drastic legislation against the feelings of large masses of the people of this country. After all, we are the heirs of

801
free opinion, and there are many people in this country who still believe in the maintenance of free opinion. We all, of course, regret the existence of spies, but it may be that the doubt and feeling of insecurity to which the Lord Chancellor referred is more advanced, as I think it is, by the absence of publicity to a certain extent and the absence, as I consider, of truth in matters which the Government disclose, than by allowing free discussion according to the old principles of free opinion. I have been led into that digression by what the Lord Chancellor said.
The noble and learned Lord has not given any satisfactory answer to the Question which I asked. It is, of course, quite clear that the prosecuting counsel makes the application to the Court, but when an application is made on the ground of national safety it is very seldom that the application is otherwise than favourably entertained. I do not consider that the prosecuting counsel is the person to decide whether or not particular documents or particular matters can be disclosed consistently with national safety. That national safety is an essential element I do not suppose any member of your Lordships' House can doubt for a moment, but the question I asked was, Who took the responsibility? I regret to hear that it is taken by the prosecuting counsel. Though the Lord Chancellor says I am acute lawyer enough to know, I do not at all agree with what he said. I should have thought that the prosecuting counsel in a matter of this kind acted on instructions. My question was, Who gave the instructions? I cannot imagine that it is the duty of any counsel to get up and what I may call invent a case of public or national safety. He acts on instructions, and I ash, Who is responsible for those instructions? I regret to say that I have had no answer.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I rise with the greatest possible reluctance to add a word or two to this discussion. I confess that I am moved not so much by the anxiety of my noble and learned friend to know whether the application to the Court is made by the prosecuting counsel on his own responsibility or on the responsibility of instructions given to him by the Home Office. That is the question which the noble and learned Lord opposite desired to put, and which the noble and learned Lord
802
on the Woolsack essayed to answer. As I say, I am not so much concerned with that. But I am very much concerned with the spirit and the language of the speech of the Lord Chancellor in answering the noble and learned Lord. In this very difficult and important matter in which we are engaged surely we must all feel very strongly the desirability, if possible, of maintaining every safeguard of publicity in the conduct of any prosecution in one of the Courts of Law.
I submit that a case should be made out to the satisfaction of some judicial person as to the necessity of abating the publicity which is our greatest safeguard of justice. I gathered from the answer given by the Lord Chancellor that that was secured by the Statute and the Order in Council made under the Statute, but I am bound to say that it is not clear to me that it is so secured. It is not clear to me that in practice the conduct in the cases that have arisen has been quite up to the level of the conditions laid down by the noble and learned Lord. The Lord Chancellor says that the prosecuting counsel makes the application and that the application must be determined by the magistrate—or by the Court, whatever the Court may be—and that the Court has the power of declining to accede to the application. That is all very well, but some case, one would suppose, must be laid before the magistrate for his decision—some prima facie case, showing that there is danger in publicity, which the application for the restriction of publicity is based upon. The action of the magistrate should be founded upon proof brought before him of the danger of publicity.
In the few cases that I have noticed which have been held under this Act and the Orders made upon it, I have not observed that there has been any attempt to put before the magistrate evidence as to the danger involved in permitting the usual publicity. But I am glad to think—proud to think—that in some of the cases that have occurred the subsequent action of the magistrate has demonstrated that we are maintaining the old principles of our Constitutional Law, and that no danger such as is involved in the present dreadful struggle, and no fear of the crowd of spies who seem to have excited the mind of the Lord Chancellor, has prevented the magistrate from applying himself pretty

803
strictly to an examination of the documents brought before him and coming to the conclusion that the application was not worthy of confirmation. The fact that magistrates have been able to arrive at that conclusion is in itself, to my mind, a very damning condemnation of the action of the Executive in bringing these special applications before them. If the magistrate, on examination of the documents which are said to involve these dangers, has conic to the conclusion that no such dangers are involved, surely there is a great burden of disproof laid on the prosecuting authorities to show that they were not led astray by excited alarms and by misguided fancy in instituting an application which had so lamentably failed. Observe that the whole thing turns on the examination of documents which were open to the prosecuting counsel. It is, I say, a great condemnation of the Executive Government that they should have taken the step of making the application, and the fact that they have failed is the worst vote of censure which could be passed upon them in such a question. I am of opinion that in no stress of anxiety should our old Constitutional guarantees of liberty be in any way abated. I would not have entered at all into this discussion —which I take part in, as I said at the commencement, with great. reluctance—had not the language which was used by the Lord Chancellor inspired me with anxiety as to the temper in which prosecutions of this kind might be instituted and conducted.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I rise because I think it would be unfortunate if the speeches of Lord Parmoor and Lord Courtney were answered only by the Lord Chancellor, by a member of the Government, for that might be taken to mean that the bulk or a great many of the members of your Lordships' House were in favour of the views which those two noble Lords have put forward. I cannot think for a moment that that is the case. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Parmoor) has on more than one occasion, if my memory serves me right, tried to weaken the provisions of those Acts which were brought forward for the Defence of the Realm. I remember his moving Amendments on several occasions—
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: And he has told us to-day that in his view those Acts are already too strong. With the exception of Lord Courtney, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord opposite has a single sympathiser in this House in the view that he takes. I believe the view which was put forward by the Lord Chancellor represents the feelings of us all. The noble Lord who sits by me (Lord Courtney) talked of the "safeguards of publicity." He said that the safeguards of publicity that are dear to us all must be maintained. My Lords, Lord Courtney and Lord Parmoor are dealing with other days. What were the safeguards of publicity for? They were to prevent poor individuals from being oppressed by richer people; to prevent the poorer classes being trampled down by other classes; to prevent subjects who were weak being trampled upon by a strong Government. In old days there was meaning in the "safeguards of publicity." But we are now in other times. We are not now afraid of a tyrannous Government. Some of us would like the Government to be even stronger. We are not afraid of one class trampling upon another class. All classes in this country are at present engaged in one cause and thinking about one thing in the main, and one thing only. We are not thinking about any class or any individuals. I submit that all this talk about the safeguards of publicity is now out of date; it is absurd. It may be relevant in one year or in two or three years from now. But to-day, my Lords, it is nonsense. What we have to think about to-day is the safety of the country, and that is what every one is thinking about out of doors. I have risen to say these few words because I believe they represent the view with which most of us sympathise, and because in my opinion it would have been most unfortunate had the speeches of the noble and learned Lord opposite and of Lord Courtney been answered by a member of the Government only.

PRECAUTIONS AGAINST AIR RAIDS.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Question on the Paper:—
To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the result of the Zeppelin raids on London last week were not a proof that anti-aircraft guns are of little use against aerial attack; and whether the establishment of a landing place for

805
our aircraft on the south side of Hyde Park is not desirable, so that we might follow the methods adopted so successfully in Paris by patrolling regularly the London skies and by posting other aircraft in Hyde Park in readiness to fly should the approach of Zeppelins be signalled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, just before I came down to the House, this afternoon the noble Duke the Civil Lord of the Admiralty asked me to postpone this Question. I quite understand the reasons for this request, because from the announcement which we have seen in the newspapers to-day it is evident that the Department which the noble Duke represents is going to reorganise the whole of its preparations and precautions in this matter. I hope that. when the noble Duke is in a position to make his statement he will be able to answer the suppositions contained in my Question—namely, that up to the present the uselessness of antiaircraft guns has been demonstrated, together with the need of a landing station and a jumping-off station in the centre of London, copying what has been done in Paris. The noble Duke is, of course, aware that for some time Paris has been, owing to the precautions there taken, entirely free from air raids; and it is to be hoped that the noble Duke will be able to inform your Lordships that similar precautions here are about to be taken—though late, better late than never—by the Admiralty.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for agreeing to postpone his Question. I am unable now definitely to promise any statement on the subject. I am, however, aware of the keenness that exists to know full details on this subject, and if it, is possible later I shall be glad on behalf of the Admiralty to make a full statement. It may be some time before any such statement can be made, but as soon as I am in a position to do so I shall be glad to place what facts I can before the House.
LORD STRACHIE: Perhaps the noble Duke will communicate with me when he considers it convenient that the Question should be again put down.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes.

LEGISLATION AND THE "END OF THE WAR."
On the Motion for the adjournment of the House,
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN said: I should like to ask the noble Marquess who leads the. House a question. At the commencement of our proceedings to-day he stated that the Order in Council for postponing the date of Disestablishment under the Welsh Church Act until the end of the war was signed this morning. I do not know whether he is able to tell us what terms were used in that Order as explaining what is meant by the "end of the war." That phrase appears in the Amending Act of last year which empowered the issue of this Order in Council, and it finds a place in a good many Acts that have been passed in the course of the last twelve months. But it appears to me to be a most indefinite phrase, and I ask whether some precise interpretation by Statute cannot be applied to it—as, for example, the date of the ratification of the Treaty of Peace between the belligerents, or something of that kind. It is obvious that the phrase is open to more than one interpretation, at any rate to the ordinary mind. I do not know whether there is any legal interpretation of it, but I have never heard of one. Will His Majesty's Government consider this matter, and, if they think it necessary that there should be a definite interpretation of the phrase, propose legislation on the subject? With regard to the Welsh Church Act it is very important that the precise date should be known. As the noble Marquess is aware, many very important things happen on the date of Disestablishment which could not be recalled if they had once happened.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I have frequently drawn the attention of noble Lords opposite to this point, and I understood from what my noble friend Lord Curzon said on a recent occasion that the Government had it under consideration, and that there was to be a general Act introduced at some time or another which would state exactly what was meant by the phrase "the end of the war." That is the case, is it not?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I do not remember exactly the words in which my noble friend Lord Curzon spoke on this subject, although, like the two

807
noble Earls, I have a distinct recollection of this subject having been raised before, indeed more than once, and I fully recognise its importance. If the noble Earl will allow me, I will consult my colleagues once more in order to see what steps can properly be taken—I confess I do not see why they should not be taken fairly soon—with a view of arriving at some final definition of this obscure date, which, as we all know, appears in various Acts of Parliament, and of which, so far as I
808
am aware, no authorised interpretation has been given either in this or in the of her House.

NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, &c., BILL.
The Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading to be resumed on Thursday next.
House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.