Lords Sitting of 27 July 1916

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Miscellaneous, No. 24 (1916)—Correspondence with the United States Ambassador regarding the relief of Allied territories in the occupation of the enemy:
Education (Scotland)—Amendment of the Superannuation Scheme for Teachers, 1916:
Aeronautics—Report of the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics for the year 1915–1916:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Supreme Court of Judicature (England)—Rules of the Supreme Court (Vacations in Courts and Offices), 1916, dated 25th July 1916:
Public Records (Supreme Court of Judicature)—Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing or accruing in the Office of the Registrars of the Chancery Division and in other Departments of the Supreme Court of Judicature which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The LORD BALFOUR The LORD BALFOUR appointed to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House this day.

LARCENY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): My Lords, in making the Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I think it right that I should call your attention to the position in which the Bill now stands. Your Lordships may remember that you granted a Second Reading to the Bill upon the statement that I made that it was designed to consolidate the existing law with regard to larceny, and your Lordships accordingly referred it to the Joint Committee of both Houses whose business it is
964
to consider Consolidation Bills and report upon them. The Joint Committee have considered this Bill and made a Report. They have proposed a number of Amendments to the Bill as it was originally drawn, and these proposed Amendments are grouped under three heads. With those under the first head I do not think your Lordships need be troubled, because, in fact, they are nothing but verbal Amendments for the purpose of making clear what the law undoubtedly is.
The second class of Amendments stand in a different category. They are designed to remove certain inequalities and anomalies in the existing law, and they undoubtedly effect a slight alteration of the law. If your Lordships thought fit, after I have placed before you the nature of these Amendments, to permit them all to be inserted together in Committee, it would be a convenient course; but that is, of course, entirely in your Lordships' hands, and must depend on the weight and importance which your Lordships give to these Amendments. I will refer briefly to the Amendments under the second head. The first is an Amendment in Clause 26. As the Bill was drawn, it provided that every person who breaks and enters any dwelling-house or any building within the curtilage thereof and occupied therewith, or any school-house, shop, warehouse, or counting-house, shall have committed a felony. That is the way in which the law stands now. The proposed Amendment, which I trust your Lordships will think is a reasonable one, is to add "office, store, garage, pavilion, factory, or workshop, or any building belonging to His Majesty or to any Government Department or to any municipal or other public authority." The effect of that Amendment is merely to extend the definition of a "building"; it does not really affect the offence. It must be just as much an offence to break into a garage as into a counting-house. The Amendment is in effect an extension of the definition of "building" to what is more in accordance with the needs of modern times. There is another Amendment of the same class in Clause 27, where the same words are introduced for exactly the same purpose. There is also an Amendment in Clause 31. That clause provides that every person who with intent extorts valuable property from any person, or induces any person to confer or procure for any person any appointment or office of profit or trust shall be guilty of a misdemeanour,

965
and, on conviction thereof, shall be liable to imprisonment "for any term not exceeding three years." The joint Committee in their Report point out that the term of three years' imprisonment is obsolete, and that in practice the period of two years is never exceeded. It is therefore proposed to reduce the maximum punishment to two years' imprisonment. The only other Amendment under the second head is in Clause 34. This clause provides that every person who corruptly takes any money or reward, directly or indirectly, under pretence or upon account of helping any person to recover stolen property shall be guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be liable to penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years, and in addition, if a male under the age of eighteen years, to be once privately whipped. In all other offences for which whipping is a punishment the age is sixteen and not eighteen years. It is proposed, therefore, to alter eighteen years in this clause to sixteen years. I cannot help thinking that your Lordships will agree that if the punishment of whipping is to be administered at all, most of its objections are taken away if it is administered to young people. Those are the proposed Amendments which are grouped under Part II of the recommendations of the Joint Committee. If your Lordships thought fit, after this short explanation, to permit these Amendments to be inserted, I would, with your Lordships' permission, move them en bloc in Committee, and then, if your Lordships thought they were matters which required further consideration, that could take place on Report.
Finally, a further set of Amendments were included in what is called Part III of the Report of the Joint Committee. Those of your Lordships who were present when I moved the Second Reading of this Bill may remember the peculiar position in which I stated that the law of larceny stands. Speaking generally, it is not larceny to steal a wild bird that is not fit for human food, but it is none the less larceny to steal a hawk, which I think no one would suggest was a suitable subject for human food; and in the same way it is larceny to steal the eggs of a hawk, but it is not larceny to steal the eggs of a swan. As the law stands, a lark is, but a canary is not, capable of being stolen at Common Law, because the latter is not fit for human food. The proposed Amendments will alter this, and leave the law in what I cannot help thinking is a much more sensible form.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR, OF BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move that the Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be made.—(The Lard Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 80.)

REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. The Bill has gone through the. Select Committee appointed by your Lordships, and is now printed in an amended form. I propose, when the House is in Committee, to move that the Amendments made by the Select Committee be adopted en bloc; and, with your Lordships' permission, I would propose taking the Report stage on Tuesday, August 8, which will give noble Lords an opportunity of putting down any further Amendments they may think desirable.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Southwark.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
LORD SOUTHWARK: I move that the Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee be made.—(Lord Southwark.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday the 8th of August next.

POLICE, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Retention by ex-constables of pensions whilst employed for the purposes of the war.
1.—(1) Where for purposes connected with the present war a constable in receipt of a pension under the Police Act, 1890, has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, enlisted or entered or been granted a commission in any of His Majesty's forces, or obtained employment under the Admiralty or Army Council or the Ministry of Munitions, or entered or re-entered the service of any police force, subsection (2) of section thirteen of the Police Act, 1890 (which relates to the suspension of pension in cases of appointments to new offices) shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have applied except to such extent as the police authority may otherwise determine.
(2) This section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution of references to the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890, for the references to the Police Act, 1890.
LORD BERESFORD: I move the insertion, after subsection (1) of Clause 1, of the new subsection standing in my name. I brought this forward in the House of Commons last year. It was agreed to by the Minister of the Crown, Mr. McKenna, but he did not insert it in my words. The point I want to bring before your Lordships is this, that it should be perfectly clear that any police officer who joins the Army, and who has earned a pension in respect of the time during which he served in the Police previously, should not lose that pension owing to any offence he may commit in the Army.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, after subsection (1) insert the following new subsection:
(2) Where a constable entitled to pension under the Police Act, 1890, has been retained under section two of the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1915, and has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, left the Police Service under circumstances which would not render his pension liable to forfeiture had he been in receipt of his pension under the Police Act, 1890, such pension shall be payable from the date of his leaving in like manner as if he had retired on medical certificate or with consent of the chief officer of Police.—(Lord Beresford.)
LORD SANDHURST: By the Police Act, 1890, a constable of twenty-five years service is entitled to retire on a pension, and this pension can be forfeited only in certain cases which are defined by the Act—that is, if he is convicted of an offence
968
punishable with penal servitude or three months imprisonment, or if he knowingly associates with thieves, and so on. The Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1915, suspended this right and enacted that constables who have served more than twenty-five years should not retire during the war except by special permission. But it reserved their right to pension after the war—that is to say, a man retained after twenty-five years service, if subsequently dismissed for any cause for which his pension would be forfeited, will remain entitled to his full pension after the termination of the war. This provision has been shown to be of great value. It has retained in the Police a large number of men who would otherwise have retired on pension, and these men have, almost without exception, accepted the requirement loyally and continued to serve most faithfully. The result has been that no fresh recruiting in the Police Forces has been necessary, and hundreds, if not thousands, of men have thus been left free for military service. There was, however, one exception. A constable who wished to retire and was refused leave to do so deliberately disobeyed orders and had to be dismissed. But at the end of the war he will receive his pension; in the meantime, however, he is not entitled to it. The effect of my noble friend's Amendment would be to give this man his pension at once, and to do the same for any other man who might choose to disobey orders. Its effect would be to nullify altogether the provision of the Police (Emergency Powers) Act to which I have referred, because any constable to whom permission to retire was refused and who disobeyed orders and forced the Police authority to dismiss him could claim at once his full pension. The result would be disastrous to the discipline of the force. Were the proposal in the Amendment sanctioned, it might lead to a large number of retirements of elder men whose places would have to be taken by younger men, with the result that the fighting power of the country would be proportionately diminished. I submit that these are sound reasons against the Amendment, and I hope the noble and gallant Lord will not press it.
LORD BERESFORD: After what the noble Lord has said, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2:
Payments to constables serving in the naval and military forces and their dependants.
2.—(1) Where before the passing of this Act a police authority has resolved, promised, sanctioned or agreed to make to any constable serving in His Majesty's forces for the purposes of the present war, payments in excess of the amounts authorised by the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Acts, 1914 and 1915, any such excess payments up to the date of the passing of this Act, or such later date as may be determined by the Secretary of State, shall be deemed to have been lawfully made, and the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, sanction the continuance of such excess payments after such date as aforesaid, and shall do so in any case where it appears to him that the constable joined His Majesty's forces in reliance on such resolution, promise, sanction, or agreement, and that the amount of the excess is not unreasonable.
(2) In the case of any constable who dies or has died whilst employed on naval or military service in respect of whom no pension or gratuity is payable from the Police Fund the police authority shall have power to return to any of his dependants, as defined in section one of the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, the rateable deductions which have been made from his pay towards pension.
(3) This section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution of a reference to the Secretary for Scotland for the reference to the Secretary of State.
LORD BERESFORD: I move to insert in Clause 2, after subsection (2), the new subsection standing in my name. Reservists and policemen specially selected by the Admiralty or the Army Council were granted police allowances for their wives and dependants, but men who from purely patriotic motives enlisted in the Navy or Army without the consent of the chief officer of the Police Force to which they belonged were compelled to resign altogether their connection with the Police Service. Their wives receive no police allowance, and the men have no legal claim to reinstatement in the Police Service after the war. I think it is rather hard that these men should suffer owing to their patriotism in joining His Majesty's Forces, and I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, after subsection (2) insert the following new subsection:
(3) For the purposes of section one of the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1915, any police constable who enlisted in His Majesty's Forces prior to the passing of the above Act, and who resigned from the Police Force for the purpose of so enlisting shall be considered to have; enlisted with the consent of the chief officer of police of the force to which he belonged.—(Lord Beresford.)
LORD SANDHURST: The Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act of 1914 provided that if a police constable enlisted with the consent of the chief officer, and subject to other conditions, an allowance in addition to the military separation allowance might be made to his wife from the Police Fund. This provision was re-enacted in the Police (Emergency Powers) Act, 1915, and made wider by the omission of some of the conditions previously imposed; but it still retained the condition that the enlistment must be with the approval of the chief officer. It is clear that it is necessary to impose this restriction on the enlistment of police constables. Chief constables have generally been very ready to allow as many as possible of their men to enlist. More than 25 per cent. of the whole of the Police Forces have joined the Army; but it is absolutely necessary, it is considered, in order to prevent the Police Forces being depleted to a dangerous extent, that they should be able to retain a sufficient number to keep the peace and carry out the numerous and arduous duties imposed upon them by the war. One case occurred in the Metropolitan Police, where a constable had been definitely refused permission to enlist and chose to resign and join the Military Mounted Police. It had been made perfectly clear to him before he did so that he would be entitled to no allowance from the Police Fund for his wife. It would be extremely desirable not to alter the law and require the Police authority now to grant an allowance in this case. I may point out that this man has suffered no hardship, for his wife is entitled to the full separation allowance granted to the wives of other soldiers; and perhaps I might add that there are hundreds of other men just as anxious as this constable to join His Majesty's Forces, but who loyally continue to serve in the Police Force on being required to do so, and it would be unfair to them to give one particular man a certain privilege. I hope that in the circumstances the noble and gallant Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BERESFORD: I would point out that this circumstance occurred to more than one man. It was before the Act of 1915 that men resigned the Police and joined the Army. Those are the men for whom I am pleading. The Act of 1915 presses very hardly on those men who did not know that it was coming.
LORD SANDHURST: The point is that a police constable must not join the Army without the leave of his chief officer. That is the point of my objection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BERESFORD: I move the insertion in Clause 2 of the other subsection standing in my name. I understand that if a police officer is promoted while serving with the naval or military forces, his wife gets a reduced allowance.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, insert the following new subsection:
(4) The allowance from Police Funds granted to the wife of a police officer shall not be reduced on account of her husband's promotion while serving with the Naval or Military Forces.—(Lord Beresford.)
LORD SANDHURST: I submit to my noble and gallant friend that this Amendment is not necessary. When an allowance to the wife has been granted under Section 1 of the Police (Reservists' Allowances) Act, it is not liable to reduction because the man has been promoted to non-commissioned rank; and as regards a man promoted to a commission, there is a declaratory clause in the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act which runs—
"For removing all doubt, it is hereby declared that the privileges to which a man may be entitled under the Police (Reservists' Allowances) Act and the other emergency Police Acts shall continue and may be renewed notwithstanding that the man is granted a temporary commission for the purposes of the present war in His Majesty's naval or military service."
The Amendment, therefore is not required.
LORD BERESFORD: I beg to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Can the noble Lord in charge of the Bill give me an answer to the question which I asked in the Committee stage—namely, how long the vote binds those workers who come into the works after the vote has been taken, with regard to certain things which are ordered by this Bill.
LORD SANDHURST: The reply I have to give to my noble friend is that these and other matters must, it is considered, be left to be worked out in connection with
972
particular Orders and particular cases. Different provisions might arise in different circumstances, and it is impossible to lay down a general rule to govern every case that could be inserted in the clause. I venture to remind the noble Lord that the Orders requiring contributions will relate to provisions of additional and special benefit to the workers, the whole cost of which it would be unfair to place upon the employer; and it would also be unreasonable to require an employer in a certain case to lay out a large sum of capital, and then in a year or two to find that the workers no longer wished to contribute. I might emphasise what I said the other day, that cases where these contributions may be required will be very exceptional, and only where a strong case can be made out and it can be shown that the proposal is workable and likely to be of permanent advantage. I would point out that the Secretary of State has power to revoke an Order, or to make a fresh one; so that if a good case were made out for rescinding an Order, that could be done.
LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE: I wish to ask my noble friend whether he will be so good as to consider, before the next stage of the Bill, whether the title ought not to be altered. The title of a Bill generally is a sort of label that gives one an idea of its contents. This Bill is labelled "Police, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill," and nobody would dream for a moment that there were in it a page and a half of provisions relating to factories, and also a provision, the full scope of which it is difficult to ascertain merely from reading it, with reference to lunacy. The fact is that the title, instead of being "Police, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill," ought to be "Miscellaneous Provisions (Police, &c.) Bill," and I suggest to the noble Lord that before the next stage he should consider whether the title ought not to be altered so that people may know that provisions relating to factories and to lunacy are to be found within the Bill.
LORD SANDHURST: I will represent to the Secretary of State what the noble Lord has said. I am sure that in putting all these matters together in one Bill the Secretary of State had the idea only of general convenience and the convenience of public business. The clauses relating to the Police were very necessary. The clauses relating to factories were also necessary

973
because of the large influx of women who have come into factories of different descriptions owing to the war. In regard to the particular clause which the noble Lord mentioned—Clause 11—which has to do with the powers of the late Lunacy Commissioners, the reason for putting it in was this. In the case of a Member of Parliament who unfortunately becomes a lunatic, his seat cannot be vacated without a report from two Lunacy Commissioners. Now that there are no Lunacy Commissioners, it was considered advisable as soon as possible to get this power put in. But I will lay before my right hon. friend the wish of the noble Lord, and will let him know Mr. Samuel's opinion at the next stage of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not believe that the long title of the Bill can be altered at this stage, but I think the short title can. In my opinion the noble Lord opposite is justified in the suggestion be has made. It might be extremely misleading to any one who wanted to find out what had been done on this lunacy provision, for instance, if he could not find the provision because it was concealed under the ample folds of a Police Bill. He would not expect to find it there. I think that in the interests of the study of legislation there should be some phrase at the beginning of the title, such as "Miscellaneous Provisions," as the noble Lord proposed, so that there may be warning that under that heading there may be found these various provisions relating to the Home Department. The title should be made to conform with the contents of the Bill.
Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Tuesday next.

BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give the House any information as to the treatment of British prisoners in the internment camp at Güstrow, Germany; whether British prisoners at this camp are now supplied with greatcoats; whether it is not a fact
974
that during the whole of last winter these British prisoners were without greatcoats; whether they are still under canvas; whether beds have been provided in place of straw; whether they have now been supplied with shirts and boots; whether a Report on this camp was sent to the War Office on 15th July, 1915; whether a reply has been sent to this Report; and what answer has the German Government given to the demand of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for a reply to be sent within a week as to the better treatment of British prisoners in Germany.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, before my noble friend answers the Questions standing in my name, there are one or two points which I should like to bring to his notice on which he may, perhaps, be able to give me further information. Is he aware that the prisoners in this camp were constantly bayoneted, and that many of them had to go to hospital from bayonet wounds? Is he aware that there was an order posted in this camp, stating that—
"On refusal to work, the guards have been directed in the future, if occasion arises, to make use of their weapon";
and that this further order was also posted up—
"Guards are especially enjoined energetically to keep the prisoners at work. Should the attitude of the prisoners demand the use of the weapon, this should be employed without regard to consequences. In the first place the bayonet only is to be employed."
I should also like to ask my noble friend whether it is the fact that this camp is the worst camp of all in Germany in which military prisoners are interned, whether the brutality has not been most pronounced, and whether the facts with regard to this camp were not put into the Report sent home in July, 1915.
LORD DEVONPORT: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Paymaster-General replies to the questions addressed to him by my noble and gallant friend opposite, I would like to say a few words with regard to the last paragraph in the Notice on the Paper. My noble and gallant friend there asks "what answer has the German Government given to the demand of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for a reply to be sent within a week as to the

975
better treatment of British prisoners in Germany." That demand has reference to the treatment of civilian prisoners at Ruhleben. Consequently I embrace this opportunity of saying a few words as regards the position of the civilian prisoners at Ruhleben. I am afraid I have already unduly trespassed on your Lordships' patience on this subject. My apology must be that the matter is serious, and one that we cannot allow to drop.
Three weeks ago we were debating the question on a Motion of my own. We were then mainly directing the attention of the Government to the very serious Report (circulated as a White Paper) from Dr. Taylor, the food expert employed by the American Embassy in Berlin; and that debate came suddenly to a close because the noble Lord sitting below me (Lord Newton) announced that there had been a reply received from Germany on the point which I have just read from my noble and gallant friend's Question, but that he had not had an opportunity of examining it carefully. Indeed he had, he said, only become aware that the reply had been received since he entered the House that afternoon; but he informed us that he was able to gather, from a communication that had been made to him from the Foreign Office, that the reply was not entirely hostile to the demand of our Government that the prisoners should be released or exchanged on some basis. I think the words that he used were, "The answer from the German Government is not a categorical refusal." We have since heard no further details of this correspondence, beyond what was related the other day in the House of Commons by Lord Robert Cecil, as to which I will say a word or two in a moment. But my object in taking advantage of this opportunity is to ask the noble Lord whether he is in a position to give us information as to what is the net result of this correspondence—in fact, what is the actual position that has proceeded from the communications which have passed between the respective parties.
The other day when we were discussing this matter I felt it my duty to express in the strongest possible terms my objection to any idea of retaliation, and I think your Lordships endorsed that view. I gave reasons then, and I am not going to repeat them now, except to say that if we attempt to enter into competition in the way of
976
retaliation with the German nation we shall be hopelessly beaten and out-distanced. I was sorry to notice that Lord Robert Cecil made a statement the other day in the House of Commons which gives colour to the idea that the Government are harbouring the view that retaliation is the right policy to pursue. A supplementary question was put to the right hon. gentleman, in which he was asked—
"May we take it that the policy of reprisals is abandoned?"
Lord Robert Cecil replied—
"No, sir. The House must not arrive at any such conclusion. The Government hold themselves perfectly free to retaliate if that proves to be the only way to obtain justice for our prisoners."
I would like to know whether that represents the Government's attitude, because if it does I venture to say that it is impossible to conceive a more foolish one, and one that exhibits, in my opinion, so palpable a lack of judgment and of appreciation of the consequences which will follow if the Government insist upon it.
The Germans have given you a forecast and a foretaste of what the consequences will be if you attempt even to diminish the ration that you are giving to German civilian prisoners in this country at this moment. They tell you what they intend to do at once. They will first of all withdraw the permit which they have recently given to you, enabling you to send collective supplies on behalf of the civilian prisoners in Ruhleben who are receiving no parcels individually from their friends, because, I assume, they have none. And, further, they will stop the individual parcels that are sent to civilian prisoners. It is made abundantly clear that these civilian prisoners are being kept from starvation solely and wholly through the parcels that are sent by their friends here, and it would be an outrageous thing if our Government were to attempt to apply a policy of retaliation when they know—they have been told in a Despatch—what the German attitude will be. You have to consider the sort of people with whom you are dealing. You are dealing with barbarians, not with a civilised nation; and they will stop at nothing if you give them only half an opportunity.
If you attempt to indulge in retaliation, what will be your position? In the first place, you will never have the courage to

977
carry the thing to its conclusion. And what is its conclusion? To put every interned German civilian in this country on precisely the same dietary that the British civilians are on in Ruhleben. You would never have the courage to put it through. Secondly, if you were to attempt to put it through, the country would repudiate your action. That is the dilemma in which you will find yourself if you attempt to resort to retaliation. I do not know whether Lord Robert Cecil was the official mouthpiece of the Government on that occasion to which I refer. I hope sincerely that he was not. Or it might be that the Government consider that threats may be conducive to good results. That is what is called "bluff," and it is a very poor hand to play, if that is the intention of the Government. I do not say it is. I only suggest that if they do not mean what they say they had better not say it.
Let us consider for a moment what the conditions at Ruhleben are as we know them. There is given to these civilian prisoners a dietary which is intentionally framed and scientifically reduced to such a point that life cannot be sustained upon it. To quote the words of a Minister in another place, "Were it not for the parcels that are sent, these men would starve." Secondly, I have known for a long time, and so has the noble Lord the Paymaster-General, that the housing conditions at Ruhleben are intolerable, scandalously inadequate, and insanitary. Indeed, the state of affairs is terrible. It was so bad that the American Ambassador in Berlin, Mr. Gerard, addressed a letter to Sir Edward Grey on the subject. Sir Edward Grey, in his reply, rather indicated that this communication from Mr. Gerard had brought the matter to his attention. I know perfectly well that Sir Edward Grey must have known of it. But that is the indication which his reply gives. We have known of the housing conditions in Ruhleben for over eighteen months. I will read to your Lordships an extract from Mr. Gerard's letter to Sir Edward Grey—
"The barracks at Ruhleben are overcrowded. The Imperial authorities, after nearly two years of war, have certainly had ample time to provide accommodation for the prisoners. It is intolerable that people of education should be herded six together in a horse's stall, and in some of the lofts the bunks touch one another. In the haylofts above the stables—
I may explain that these poor creatures are housed in horse boxes, the Ruhleben camp
978
having been the race-course of Berlin, and that over the horse boxes are hay-lofts. Mr. Gerard continues—
"In the hay-lofts above the stables the conditions are even worse. For example, in Barrack No. 2 one halfsection of the loft is at the centre about 10 ft. from the floor from the highest point, and the loft slopes downwards, so that at the sides it is only 4½ ft. above the floor; the floor of this part of the loft is about 10 metres 20 by 12 metres 80. The beds are so close together that they touch. In this confined space 64 men live. The light from the little window is so taint that prisoners eyes will be seriously injured, if the sight is not permanently lost, and this semi-darkness will undoubtedly cause depression and mental trouble."
There were published in the newspapers last week the results of the impressions formed by representatives of the London Press who were invited by the Government to inspect the civilian interment camps in this country. I have no doubt your Lordships read those descriptions. These representatives visited the camp at the Isle of Man, the camp in Leicestershire, the one at the Alexandra Palace, and another at Islington, and at all these places they found an abundance of comfort and of food, and good treatment all round. Contrast that with what I have just read to your Lordships. Sixty-four men herded together in a sloping hayloft and down below! Many of those young fellows were simply spending their holiday in Germany; yet they are treated in this disgraceful way. What makes it far worse—I know that Lord Newton subscribes to this view—is that these civilians have had none of the excitement and glory of war. There they are, imprisoned and treated worse than any combatant prisoner. Dr. Taylor makes that quite clear in his Report. The authorities have reduced the dietary until it falls very much below the standard given to combatant prisoners.
What is the history of this civilian internment? I give this for a reason that I will explain in a moment. The Germans, at the beginning of the war interned nobody, or very few—a person or two whom they suspected of spying, or something of that kind, but generally civilians were not interned in Germany, nor were German civilians here interned. But in October, in response to a great agitation in this country—I am not complaining of it—the Government began to intern on a large scale. They were not consistent; they did not carry the thing through to the bitter end. When the Police delivered to them vast quantities day after day,

979
about 5,000 a day for about six days, the Government said "Stop," and they have never resumed internment on a wholesale scale, there being at the present moment probably 20,000 Germans still uninterned in this country. Anyway, the Germans did not commence to intern until we began it here. They took the view, so I have been informed, that all civilians at the outbreak of the war should have been allowed to return to their respective countries. That did not happen. But in the early days of the war—I do not assert this, but it is my impression, and I have it on fairly good authority—the Germans offered to exchange our civilians in their hands against theirs here, and the Government refused. Again I make no criticism; I simply state the fact.
I understand that in this last communication the German Government still offer to exchange the British civilians whom they have interned in Germany for the Germans interned here. His Majesty's Government, apparently, are not inclined to accede to this offer. They are standing out, I believe, on the ground that there are 26,000 German civilians here and only 4,000 British civilians in Germany, and they do not feel inclined to deal on those terms. Meanwhile what is happening? Our unfortunate countrymen at Ruhleben would be absolutely starved were it not for the parcels. They are herded together in an overcrowded and insanitary compound. I ask the Government, Do you prefer that this shall continue, that men shall, as Mr. Gerard suggests, lose their reason and their sight, that their constitutions shall be permanently impaired, all because you are sticklers for what I may call arithmetical proportion, and that, rather than exchange on a basis of six to one, you will leave these poor creatures to their fate? If that is the position of the Government I do not think it is a creditable or dignified position for a great country like this to take up. What would be the harm, what should we suffer, if we said to the Germans, "Take your 26,000 men and let us have our 4,000 back"? Would that be a very serious thing? Of the 26,000 Germans interned here, if the opportunity were accorded them to go back, I do not believe a very large proportion would go. But make the offer, try and arrange things on that basis, and release these 4,000 unfortunates from a terrible condition.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, the circumstances with regard to the camp at Güstrow are more or less in accordance with those indicated by my noble and gallant friend in the course of his Question, but it is hardly necessary for me to point out that the reports upon which my noble friend's statement was made deal with an early period of the war and do not extend beyond March of last year. The case of Güstrow is very similar to the cases of camps generally in Germany. The conditions in Güstrow, as in almost every camp in Germany, were abominable in almost every respect; but those conditions, as everybody must now be aware, have largely changed. I might say that the noble and gallant Lord was correct in his statement about the notices which were placed in this particular camp, and they are typical of the views which prevail in Germany with regard to the custody and guarding of prisoners.
This camp at Güstrow, which the noble Lord was justified in saying was one of the worst camps in Germany at an early period of the war, was visited on April 10, 1915, by Mr. Jackson, of the American Embassy at Berlin, and his Report upon that occasion was generally favourable. Evidently considerable improvement had taken place. He stated that the barracks were well lighted with electricity, that they were heated, that there were good washing facilities, that the hospitals were well arranged, that clothing was issued if asked for, and that there were workshops where money could be earned. He also added that men complained of rough treatment immediately following their capture, as unfortunately was so often the case, but he stated that the commandant was anxious to improve matters as much as possible.
At the end of January of the present year the same gentleman, Mr. Jackson, again visited the camp and reported further improvements. He stated that a new bakery had been built, that the barracks were warm and dry, that the men were generally well clothed, that he had tasted the food and found it satisfactory, that there were theatres, orchestras, and a circulating library, and also that he was able to talk freely with the prisoners without being interfered with by the German guards—a state of things which unfortunately does not prevail in all the camps at the present moment. Then on February 12 of the present year, in consequence of the reports

981
to which my noble friend alluded with regard to alleged bayoneting of prisoners, the camp was again visited by a member of the American Embassy, Mr. Osborne. Mr. Osborne did not announce his visit beforehand; he talked to the men out of hearing of the Germans, and the men with whom he spoke were unanimously of opinion that if any British prisoners had been bayoneted they would have heard of it. Of course, that is not conclusive. We have never been able to ascertain for certain whether bayoneting actually took place, although there is not the smallest doubt that there was a considerable amount of brutality at this camp, more especially in the early period of the war.
In April of this year the Government Committee for the investigation of the statements of returned prisoners sent us further evidence with regard to this camp, and we asked, through Mr. Page, that the camp should again be visited, and that we should be furnished with a further Report. That Report is not yet to hand, but no doubt we shall receive it before long. To sum up the case of Güstrow, I may repeat that it is a typical case where, as I stated in the earlier portion of my remarks, the conditions were abominable at the first, but they have now greatly improved, and there is no reason, so far as I know, to class Güstrow amongst the really bad camps at the present moment.
With regard to Ruhleben, I do not feel that I am in a position to add much to the general information upon the subject. The circumstances have been explained, more or less fully, in the House of Commons. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Devonport), as he has done before, related to your Lordships the absolutely deplorable conditions which have always prevailed at Ruhleben, and which I have been one of the first to acknowledge. I have never concealed my opinion that the men who are imprisoned there are, for reasons which I am not going to repeat to-day, more to be pitied than any other body of unfortunate prisoners in Germany at the present moment. I accept fully all the statements that have been made by the noble Lord behind me. In fact, there cannot be any doubt as to their correctness, because he has only been quoting from Reports which are available to the whole world.
The noble Lord again took the opportunity to denounce any question of retaliation, and criticised to a certain extent the statement made by my right hon.
982
friend Lord Robert Cecil in the House of Commons a short time ago. With regard to the general principle of retaliation, everybody will, I think, be in agreement with the noble Lord behind me. At the same time I cannot help expressing the opinion that it would be an extremely rash proceeding for the Government to announce to the whole world that in no circumstances would we resort to any means of exercising pressure upon the German Government. It does not require any great ingenuity to realise that there are means of exercising pressure upon the German Government which would not necessitate cruelty to any individuals in this country.
Lord Devonport also had something to say about the question of a general exchange. As he correctly stated, the German view of a fair exchange was that we should hand over our 26,000 or 27,000 German civilians here in return for the 4,000 British civilians in Germany; and the noble Lord thinks that it would not be a bad bargain from our point of view. I am disposed to agree with him that it is conceivable that a not large proportion of the German civilians interned in this country might be very desirous of returning to Germany, Germany possessing at the present moment few attractions of any kind to anybody, including Germans interned in foreign countries. But this is one of those questions upon which there is a great deal to be said; and in view of the negotiations which are going on I think it would be rather rash on my part were I to examine too closely this proposal.
As the House is aware, our reply to the German Government was an offer to release an equivalent number of civilians here, and I cannot believe that there would be any question of any very nice and particular—as the noble Lord called it—arithmetical calculation with regard to the exchange. As I said just now, I do not like to say too much upon this point, because I do not want to say anything which would imperil the present negotiations; but I think that without being unduly indiscreet or optimistic, I can hold out some hope that before long we may at all events arrive at an exchange of the older men—I am speaking of men over 45—and if we only succeed to that extent as a first instalment it will be admitted on all sides that we have done something useful and beneficial, for these are the men, above all others, who most deserve our sympathy.

RUSSIAN REFUGEES AND MILITARY SERVICE.
LORD SHEFFIELD LORD SHEFFIELD had the following Question on the Paper:—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, by the powers contained in Section 12 of the Aliens Restriction Consolidation Order or otherwise, any pressure has been put through the Police on Russian subjects in this country to return to Russia; whether Russian and other alien friends are made aware by the authorities that there is no obligation on them to return to their own country; whether the policy of the Government is as indicated by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons on 11th July, to present to refugees here the alternative of deportation to their own country or military service in the British Army; and whether, in the event of His Majesty's Government abandoning the policy of asylum for political refugees which has long been the settled practice of this country, persons whom the British Government desires to expel will at any rate be left a free choice among the countries that do not close their doors to political refugees.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question standing in my name is one which I am very sorry should have to be raised, and I regret extremely that the action of any Minister should have laid the foundation for the points to which I wish to call attention. There is no material dispute about the facts. We have had a case in the Law Courts, and its latter phase is reported this morning in the newspapers. I will not discuss the exact legality of the action of the Home Secretary, because that question is challenged and will come before the High Court. In fact, I do not raise this question as one of mere legality. Under the Defence of the Realm Act we have given to the Government the very widest powers to act for the security of the nation. We have given them powers to intern people on suspicion, and to do all sorts of things; and the wider the powers we give to the administrators the more important it is that those administrators should bear in mind what the tradition of the English Government and of English policy has been, and should keep a severe check on themselves not to use those powers one atom beyond what is necessary for the defence of the country, and not to be led away into acts of violence which are apt to be mistaken as being acts of strength.
The question which I am raising principally relates to Russian refugees, and among these mostly Jews. But I do not raise this subject simply in the interest of Russians or of Jews, but in the interest of the time-honoured custom of this country that it should be an asylum for political and other refugees from other countries. But as to the facts, they must be illustrated mainly from the conditions of these Russian Jew refugees. Although, of course, one might do so, I do not in the least wish to raise the question of the propriety of the acts of any foreign Government, even in time of peace. To my mind, nations ought to be their own critics; and the less one nation makes itself an ethical critic of another the better. And if that is a wise policy in time of peace, I feel it is more obligatory on me in time of war not to raise a discussion which should attack the policy and legislation of a country with which we are in alliance. But, quite apart from that, I do not think that anybody will dispute that these Jewish refugees view with apprehension, and, I may say, even terror, the prospect of being deported from this country and sent back to Russia.
May I just mention—this is incidental, but it illustrates what I think is the thoughtlessness of the Home Secretary—that the great mass of these Jewish refugees are said to come, not from Russia proper, but from Poland. They were inhabitants of that district which is now over-run by the German Armies and under the control of the German Administration. As your Lordships know, Jews are not allowed to settle freely in any part of Russia. Many of these men have come with their wives, others have left their families behind, but in either event it is quite impossible for them, if sent back to Russia, to re-enter the district where they lived and where their associates are; and they have no legal status to stop in other parts of Russia. How incongruous it is for a people which has behind it the traditions of this country to attempt to put these refugees in the position which I have described.
It ought to be stated at once—I think Mr. Samuel mentioned it in the House of Commons—that no invitation or request whatever has come from the Russian Government for us to take this action. It is a purely spontaneous and gratuitous act on the part of the Home Office here. As I have said, it has been our boast for centuries that this country is a hospitable

985
refuge for those who flee from other lands. At the time of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew in 1572 and of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, we were the refuge for the Huguenots. To come to more modern times: Mazzini found a refuge here when he fled from Italy; Victor Hugo came to Jersey to escape from the despotism of Napoleon III. We have never inquired into the antecedents of those who have sought a refuge here, but have received them; and they have been subject to the common law—answerable for their actions, but not for their opinions.
But what has been the action of the Home Office? It is obvious that there is no legal obligation on an alien to serve in the British Army. But by the threat of expulsion—not expulsion to the wide world, but expulsion to Russia, from which these people have fled—the Home Secretary has endeavoured to force them to do a tiling which he had no legal right to demand, namely, to enter the British Army. It was alleged by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons that he first of all invited these people to enrol themselves voluntarily, and that it was because he met with practically no response that he had fallen back upon these threats. Even if he had met with no response, he had no right to fall back on threats; but I am advised that this statement of this invitation to enrol voluntarily was a very deceptive and superficial one. I understand that a few notices were posted up in the Tower Hamlets, but that they were rapidly pasted over with other notices. There was really nothing to bring it home to these people to enlist. And what is more, it was not enough to invite them to enlist; they should be invited to enlist under fair conditions.
What is associated with the obligation of military service? I take it that it is connected in the minds of all with the rights of citizenship. Mr. Samuel has indicated that the idea might be entertained that any Russians who came forward and enrolled themselves in the British Army should at the expiration of the war, were their conduct satisfactory in the Army, be accepted as British subjects, with a waiver of the fee of £5 which is at present charged for naturalisation. That as a basis of negotiation would, I am told, secure a large number of recruits and would be equitable. But this statement would need to be supplemented.
986
If a man is incapacitated by wounds or sickness before the expiration of the war, he should have the same credit, the same right of naturalisation, as if he had gone through the war, and if he is killed or dies of sickness his family should be able to come in just as if he had survived. These men should also have the same rights and privileges with regard to allowances for their dependants. It has been suggested that so long as a man is an alien he has no right to Poor Law relief in this country. For a time he has, but after a while there comes in the question of his removal. If these people are invited to enlist, they should be invited with a large-handed frankness and a willingness to allow them to become naturalised. The action of the Home Office has created a deep sense of mistrust of the offers that have been made to these people, and any further offers would require to be made much more definite and with much more adequate guarantees of genuineness than these people consider previously to have been the case.
Although it is not necessary for my argument—for, as I say, our traditional policy has been to receive these people freely and treat them hospitably until, by some definite act here, they forfeit their right to asylum—I should like to say what has been the reputation of these men in the East End of London. I have had a good deal of experience of them in connection with the late School Board for London. A large number of these people came from a country where their social and mental development had not been cared for. They came here not speaking a word of English, and almost with the elements of barbarism attaching to them What has been our experience of them in the East End of London? They have sent their children to school with excellent regularity; far more regularly than the British inhabitants sent their children, although they had become acclimatised to the School Board system under compulsion for years. The children of these refugees made good progress; they were intelligent, and did well in the scholarships that were awarded by the County Council and other bodies. As to the home, everybody will tell you that the Jewish family relations in tills crowded and poor part of London have been of the highest standard. Their infant mortality is much lower than that amongst the other people round them. They are

987
religious. As to cleanliness, they keep their tenements cleaner than do the others round them. They are also industrious. So far as there has been any distress they have been relieved by the Jewish Board of Guardians, which has endeavoured to set them on their feet and not allow them to sink into the slough of pauperism. To sum up our practical experience, I would say that they have been industrious, sober, fond of their families, and anxious to get on.
Some say that these people are all socialists and revolutionists, and that they are very dangerous members of society. If you want to create revolutionary sentiments you can do it as easily as an epidemic of disease can be engendered in an ill-drained and ill-scavengered town. You have only to get the germs of social repression to produce acts of social revolution. As everybody knows, the longer these people have been here the more their revolutionary feelings wear out and the more anxious they are to be merged into the life of England. As soon as they can save the £5 which is necessary, these men rush forward for naturalisation. If you would do away with the strong suspicion which has been created through, to put it mildly, the impolitic action of the Home Office I believe very satisfactory results would be obtained. According to the figure given to me, there are in London not more than from 5,000 to 6,000 of these men of fighting age; but, whatever the numbers, surely we have not come so low as to seek them by coercive or fraudulent means. Were they approached properly, a large number of them would undoubtedly enlist. And if they are to be enlisted, let me say that I hope they will be invited to enlist in the general movement of the Army—I do not want a military Ghetto. Our object is to get these people to take to the idea of English citizenship. They may have pride in their race and religion, but a true sense of citizenship of the country of adoption can flourish side by side with the, racial peculiarities of the Jews. We see it in France, though it has been set back by the anti-Semitic feeling which has grown up there, and we also see it in the United States. It is said that every country gets the Jew it deserves.
To these people who have paid us the compliment of feeling that our country was an asylum and refuge for the oppressed we owe it to live up to that character and not go back from it. We ought not, by
988
a cruel, oppressive, and abusive use of very vague and extensive powers granted for the defence of the Realm, to offer these people the sort of pirate's alternative, "Either be killed by me on deck or walk the plank." There is very little difference between that alternative and saying to these people that they must either be deported to Russia or join the British Army. Any one who has read the recent remarks of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons might think that I was exaggerating the situation, that I was, as the French say, bursting in an open door. He might say that the Home Secretary has conceded a great deal. That is one of the faults I find with the Home Secretary—namely, that his words and his acts do not correspond. Your Lordships will see from The Times of this morning that about ten days ago, almost at the moment that the Home Secretary was saying that no person had been evicted or forced back to Russia, the Police—and many of these poor people with Russian experience think that when a policeman enters the house it is the law itself coming in—the Police had been set to work illegally and without due authority and had said to these people, "You have to go back to Russia. Here is your ticket; you are to be at Euston Station on such and such a day."
I will illustrate this by the case of Charles Sarno, who, three years ago left Russia and came to this country seeking refuge. An order was served upon him; he was to be deported to Russia. That order was challenged by moving for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the order was valueless, not being signed by the Home Secretary. When it came to argument the representatives of the Crown abandoned the case. They admitted that there was an illegality, and Charles Sarno got his discharge. The Court, however, refused him his costs against the policeman who had illegally imprisoned him. What happened? On, I think, Tuesday last Charles Sarno appeared in Court and was set free. Immediately on leaving the Court he was again arrested at the door and told that he was to be put on board a ship bound for Russia. Now the Home Secretary, on Monday, said distinctly that it was quite false that he had ever ordered any man to go to Russia and that there would be no deportations. I must leave it to the Home Secretary to reconcile his action with his words. I am not surprised that the Jews in the East End of London

989
want something more than the words of the Home Secretary as to how they are to be treated in the speculative regions of the future. As a matter of fact, Charles Sarno moved for a second writ of habeas corpus. His contention and that of his friends is that whereas Section 12 of the Aliens Restriction Consolidation Order enables the Secretary of State to deport a man, it does not enable him to determine the place to which that man shall be deported. I hope that your Lordships and the Government will see that a very grievous mistake has been committed by the Home Department, and that we shall have from the Front Government Bench what we are entitled to demand—namely, a vindication of the traditions of English freedom and hospitality. We ask that people's past in other countries shall not be raked up against them, and that no attempt shall be made to penalise them.
I think it would not be a bad thing for these men, if they were perfectly willing and free, to show their manliness and courage, their sense of recognition of the hospitality this country has extended to them, and their willingness to accept the obligations of citizenship—which I have said the great mass are only too glad to take up—by enrolling themselves voluntarily. But we have no right to intrude any element of coercion into that which ought to be a voluntary act. Let the Home Office attempt recruitment on frank and candid terms, and they will get these men—if they attach importance to them. I do not personally attach importance to them—a mere 5,000 or 6,000 among many millions. I attach importance to our own conduct.
We are not alone in this matter. This question was raised in France by the anti-Semitic party. It was carefully discussed, and a Committee was appointed to investigate it. I have the Report of that Committee in French, and I dare say the Home Office have it. If not, I am perfectly willing to give the Government representative on the Front Bench a copy of this Report, which has been drawn up by a member of the Sorbonne. The French Government refused to apply coercion to aliens who had taken refuge with them. We have a lot of hard cases here. We have a number of Russians who had taken refuge in Belgium, and who, when Belgium was overrun by the Germans, came to this country; and now they are,
990
to be driven out of here, not to be set free like the dove from the Ark, to find any place where they can rest their feet, but to be driven into what is to them the anteroom for Siberia. I put this on the ground of our self-respect, and not on the ground of what we owe to anybody else. But I am told that this action of the Home Office has created grave disquiet in Salonika. The great mass of the population there are Jewish, and the people are hovering on the border of friendliness to the Central Powers or the Allies. Therefore any harsh action we may now take will show the Jews in Salonika that we are no friends of theirs, and they will think that we are not very much better than the Germans. I am told that articles have appeared in the American Press, and that our action is having a very bad effect upon the possible future good relations between us and America. But it is not because our action makes others condemn us that I have called attention to this matter. It is for ourselves and our own good name that I raise my voice—
Pudet hœc opprobria nobis
Et dici potuisse, ct non potuisse refelli.
There is still time for the Government, as a responsible whole, to say that there has been a Departmental mistake, that the Cabinet have not had full consideration of the matter but are not going to be false to the traditions of English freedom.
It is necessary that this question should be raised in order to escape the disgrace, as I think it, of being false to our traditions. If, however, this country, through its official representatives, is going to run away from the most honourable traditions of the English people, do not let us be guilty of sending back refugees to the country from which they have fled, but let us at any rate say that the whole world is open to them. There is Holland, Switzerland, and America; all these countries would give asylum if we do not. Do not let it be supposed for a moment that in order to terrorise these people into joining our Army we are holding over them the threat of what would be a living death owing to the legal severities they might experience elsewhere. These people will go back to a country where they have practically no legal or civic rights; they will go back to a country—I think this is the least I can say about it, and I am obliged to say it—where we know that through official oppression and pogroms their lives have been made a torture. Mr.

991
Samuel said the other day, when asked whether he was going to take any action with regard to Armenians because they were Turkish subjects, "Why bring out the formality that they are Turkish subjects when the Armenians have suffered as hardly any other nation has suffered?" But is he not threatening the people to whom I have referred with something almost as bad as the treatment that has been meted out to the Armenians? I beg to put the Question standing in my name on the Paper, and hope to receive a satisfactory answer.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, my noble friend will forgive me if I do not follow him in every channel of the speech which he has just made. He speaks with a great knowledge of the East End of London, and we know the labours that have engaged him for a lifetime in the educational work of this great city. With regard to the particular case that he mentioned, I cannot claim to be familiar with it. I think I might say, in regard to what the noble Lord said about the invitation to these Russians to enlist, that there were posters in Yiddish and English. This the noble Lord admits, although he does not seem to be quite satisfied with the publicity they obtained.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I said they were promptly pasted over.
LORD SANDHURST: Who pasted them over, I cannot say. But I may add that leading men were taken into counsel, and recruiting offices were opened in Lord Rothschild's office, but the results, as regards the invitation to join the British Army, were not at all satisfactory. It is not the case that any pressure has been put through the Police on Russian subjects in this country to return to Russia. There have been a few cases in which it has been found necessary to expel a certain number of Russian criminals or men of bad character from this country, but there has been no pressure put on Russians of good character living in this country to leave it.
Alien friends living here are not required by the British Government to leave this country; but if the Question of the noble Lord was intended to suggest—which I am sure it was not—that the British Government can excuse Allied subjects of military age from the obligations imposed by the law of their own country, it is impossible for
992
the Government to take any action in this direction. It is obviously desirable in the interests of the Allied cause that the most effective use should be made of their resources in men, and very properly the British Government, in response to requests by the French, Belgian, and Italian Governments, lend their assistance for the purpose of securing that subjects of these Allied Governments who are in this country return to do their duty in their own national Army. If a Frenchman, Belgian, or Italian in this country who is liable to join his national Army refuses to do so when summoned by his own authorities, the British Government consider on the merits of each case whether to make him return to his own country, by force if necessary. This has not been done in the case of Russians, who are being exceptionally treated by being permitted by the Russian Government to serve in any of the Allied Armies.
Those who consider that the British Government propose to present to refugees here the alternative of deportation to their own country or military service in the British Army overlook one fact, and that is that Russian subjects will be given an opportunity of applying to a public Tribunal for exemption from service. And I may say that in the case of these people all reasonable steps will be taken to ensure that applications for exemption from service are considered by Tribunals having as members people specially qualified to deal with the cases before them. The desire of the Government is to enlist Russians in the British Army, and not to refuse hospitality to those who have been living here. It is impossible to apply by legislation the provisions of the Military Service Acts to Russians in this country, and the power which exists under the Aliens Restriction Act to require an alien to leave this country is the only convenient sanction for making service compulsory. If a Russian Jew is ready to enlist here, no question of his return to Russia arises; and the intention is that he shall be given facilities for making application to a Tribunal for exemption from service on exactly the same grounds as are open to a British subject under the Military Service Acts. All Russians in this country are not refugees, and it is obviously unfair to British subjects who are compelled to fight that Russian subjects of military age who have taken up their residence here should not make equal sacrifices in the common cause.

993
There is no question of the abandonment by the British Government of the policy of asylum for political refugees. The British Government have no desire to expel any one, but at the present time, when the restrictions on immigration are closely enforced everywhere, it is impossible to allow any person whose conduct makes it necessary to require him to leave this country to embark for any country except his own; and it is doubtful whether there is any country which would welcome the Russian who was leaving this country because he refused to take his share in the common burden here.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, I do not think the reply a satisfactory one at all. I think it admits everything that has been said by Lord Sheffield. Let me make clear what my view is, so that I may not be misunderstood. I do not in the least object to any one being required to serve his country or the country where he has taken refuge, if you can make him do so by law. That seems to be a reasonable duty to impose on all of us. I should not myself object to saying to a man, "We do not allow you to take the benefit of the defence that is being made by Englishmen and to do nothing yourself when you choose to come and reside here." But what I think is a startling proposition is that you should say to a Russian Jew, "Unless you will give your service in the Army you shall be sent back to Poland or to Russia, where you came from, and to no other country." That seems to me to be wrong. I remember about ten or eleven years ago being asked to take the chair, because I was a Christian and had no connection with the Jews, at a great meeting which was held to protest against the treatment of Polish Jews in Russia. I shall never forget the terror and affliction felt by these people and brought home to my mind by what I saw and heard at that enormous meeting. Now what is being done by Mr. Samuel—if you please!—of all people? If I were a Jew or bad a drop of Jewish blood in my veins, I would sooner cut my hand off than say to one of these men, "If you do not enlist in the British Army you, being a Polish Jew, shall go back, not where you like, to any part of the world, but to Poland or to Russia." That is admitted, apparently, by the noble Lord. This kind of thing will only kindle feelings of bitterness among Jews, who are admirable citizens and have strong racial feelings. I respectfully
994
submit that it ought not to be done, and I hope that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, will use his influence against such an impolitic, such an unworthy, course of action, so widely departing from the past traditions of this country.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Lord who answered this Question is so suave and courteous in his manner that the House might have thought, from the reply received, that we were discussing some trumpery matter of an Irish sub-postmastership or something of that sort; and the Front Bench did not think the matter of sufficient importance to leave a representative here through the greater part of the speech of my noble friend Lord Sheffield. But we do not want smooth words and smooth phrases. We want a considered answer to a very serious question—a question which has excited feelings of concern in all of us who have any care for the old traditions of British freedom. No amount of glozing over will remove the necessity for a plain answer. The question is, Are you going to deport to Russia Russians who, when they get there, will be dealt with by their Government for political offences? The noble Lord has admitted the first part of the charge made by Lord Sheffield. He has admitted that to these Russians of military age the alternatives have been presented: Either you must serve in one of I he Allied Armies or you shall be deported to Russia.
LORD SANDHURST: Subject to the Tribunal.
EARL RUSSELL: Certainly.
LORD SANDHURST: On which carefully selected people are placed.
EARL RUSSELL: That has nothing to do with it. This is a matter, not for Tribunals, but for Parliament. If such laws were required they should not be carried out by administrative action but should be passed by Parliament in a Statute. This seems to me to be a dangerous introduction into this country of that method of punishment by administrative action which has been looked upon as a curse in Russia and as the greatest possible menace to freedom. Lord Sandhurst has not told us—except in regard to the Tribunals,

995
for which I care nothing—what safeguards His Majesty's Government have taken to see that these men are not political refugees and will not be punished for political offences when they return. I dare say they will not accept the man's own statement, but steps should be taken to have it corroborated as far as possible. The noble Lord has not told us that if the man is a political refugee the Tribunal ipso facto will excuse him.
But there is another very simple precaution which could be taken if His Majesty's Government were in earnest in this matter. They could easily obtain an assurance from the Russian Government, particularly now that we are allied with them, that no man who was returned under this system would be tried for a political offence until he had been placed in as good a position at any rate as he was in before he was deported. It is all very well to say, "Here are men who have taken refuge in this country; they are of military age"—that is true, but they are not our subjects and they are not subject to our Military Service Acts—"they are not bearing the burden which their fellow-countrymen and which our own countrymen, under the Military Service Acts in this country, have to bear." That is the sort of argument which is relied upon. But to these men we have an obligation, the obligation of the host to his guest. A host may request a guest to leave his house, but it is his duty to see that his guest returns to the same position of safety and freedom as he enjoyed before he entered his house. But the noble Lord is not giving a chance to these men to go where they like. They are to be deported to Russia, and not to the part of Russia where they lived before, and where they have friends, but to any part of that vast country. If such a great change is to be made in the right of asylum, it should not be done by administrative action; it should not be done by any Home Secretary or by any Cabinet; it should be done by the considered judgment of Parliament, after the matter had been discussed in the ordinary way by both Houses and the measure placed on the Statute Book.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords. I came to the House this afternoon expecting to deal with a very different subject—namely, a Motion which was on the Paper in regard to the Declaration of Paris, but which has been postponed—and
996
I have not considered the question which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Sheffield. It is impossible to have listened to the speeches which have been delivered without realising how deep and sincere is the feeling to which this question has given rise in the minds of the noble Lords who have spoken. I fully appreciate the point on which they have concentrated their attention. I understand that what they desire in particular to secure is that no refugee in this country shall be placed in the dilemma of having either to serve in the Army of this country or to return to another country in which he may find himself liable to pressure or harsh treatment on political grounds. I am quite sure that it is not the intention of those responsible for this policy that any person who has taken refuge in this country should be placed in that dilemma. I will not, however, pursue the subject further to-night; but I can assure the noble Lords who have spoken that I will make it my business to inquire into the matter, and if on some future occasion they are pleased to revert to it my noble friend or I will be prepared to deal more fully with the question.
LORD SHEFFIELD: With your Lordships' indulgence I should like to say that I accept the offer of the noble Marquess and I feel that a consideration of the matter by the Cabinet as a whole will be of the greatest value. I addressed this Question to the Leader of the House, because I wanted to know whether the whole Government were conscious of, and were making themselves responsible for, the action of the Home Office. We have had an answer merely from the noble Lord who represents the Home Office. I do not want to enter too much into controversy, but I may say that he was not accurate in his statement of the facts. I would refer Lord Sandhurst to the categorical statement made by Mr. Samuel on the 11th of this month—column 175 of Hansard:
"Russians of military age settled in this country will, unless they prefer to return for military service in Russia, be required to enlist in the British Army…. The details of the scheme are now being worked out…"
Lord Sandhurst referred to the power to go before a Tribunal to get excused. May I say that I consider it utterly worthless. In the first place, the whole force of the Tribunal attaches to the fact that the applicant is liable to military service unless he shows that he should be exempted. These

997
men are not liable, and you have no right by a side wind to mate out that they are liable when they are not. But what shocked me most was the distinct assertion that these men would be sent back to Russia and not allowed freedom to go to any other country. It was suggested by the noble Lord that they were sending back only criminals and people of bad character. But you are not to take away a man's character by administrative decree on secret Police information. If a man is dangerous, the Government have the power to intern him during the period of the war; and they have power to deport a man if he is convicted of an offence and if the Judge thinks fit to recommend that such a step should be taken. But Heaven preserve us from the blackening of character by administrative decree! That is opening the door to the most ghastly scandal of Continental bureaucracy, from which I earnestly hope we shall always be free. In view of what the noble Marquess has been good enough to say, I trust that we shall soon have a satisfactory assurance with regard to this whole matter.
EARL RUSSELL: I suppose the noble Marquess will promise the House that there shall be no deportations meanwhile?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will make inquiries.

STATE WOOL PURCHASES.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I had hoped to have had the opportunity of asking a question on the subject of wool. I sent a letter this morning to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House saying that I trusted, if it was not inconvenient, I might be given the opportunity, although I had put no Notice on the Paper, of asking a question. But I understand that he has not yet received the letter. It is very unfortunate. I do not know what Department is dealing with this subject, whether it is the War Office, the Board of Agriculture, or the Treasury The last intimation that we had some weeks ago was in the public Press, to the effect that a deputation representative of agricultural interests had been received at the Treasury. Not knowing which Department was concerned I wrote to my noble friend Lord Crewe, but as he has not received the letter I must postpone my question. I am sorry for that, because this matter is getting very urgent. The position is that Colonial owners of wool are permitted to sell their wool but British owners are not, and a great deal of inconvenience is being caused. But I will put the question down for next week.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, till to-morrow, Eleven o'clock.