Lords Sitting of 29 June 1916

CLAYTON ANILINE COMPANY (RAILWAYS) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee for the consideration of the North British Railway Bill do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Clayton Aniline Company (Railways) Bill [H.L.]; read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877—Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland for the year 1915:
Colonies (Annual)—No. 885. Wei-hai-wei (Report for 1915):
Liquor Traffic Finance Committee (England and Wales)—Report of Advisory Committee on proposals for the State purchase of the Licensed Liquor Trade:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Isle of Man—Account of Revenue and Expenditure in respect of the Duties of the Customs of the Isle of Man, and Accounts of the Accumulated Fund, and of Passenger Tax and Harbour Dues, for the year ended 31st March, 1916; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon:
Post Office Savings Banks—Accounts of all deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1915; together with a statement showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks on 31st December, 1915, and the nature and amount of the securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to meet those liabilities at that date:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
Moved, That this Report be now received.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
LORD HAVERSHAM: On this Motion I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name on the Paper—namely, whether they would favour any scheme of education in the agricultural colleges of discharged soldiers and sailors about to become settlers on the land. This is a very simple question, but during the progress of this Bill through Committee there was no opportunity of discussing it. As far as I understood, the noble Earl who was then in charge of the Bill appeared to consider that the directors of the different colonies would, through their assistants, be able to give sufficient instruction so that ex-Service men who had not had agricultural experience might become competent to manage their own holdings. That is my first reason for asking this question now. Secondly, I wish to call the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who is now in charge of the Bill, to the fact that this plan of putting ex-soldiers and sailors who are about to become settlers on the land into agricultural colleges is at present being carried out by the French Government. I hold in my hand a Report by Mr. Arnold Ward, M.P., who is the agent of the Serbian Relief Fund, as to the treatment of the Serbian refugees who are employed in farm work in the French colony of Algeria. Mr. Ward, in this Report, says—
"It is the intention of the French authorities here that work shall be found for all the refugees (Government officials, those who have private means, and incapables accepted), and in the meantime the refugees are placed in Government agricultural colleges. For a large number, work on farms and in factories, &c., has already been found, and for these further relief work will hardly be necessary. The French authorities only regard the placing of refugees in agricultural colleges as a temporary measure, and they are gradually and continually transferring the refugees to employment in different parts. The number of refugees in agricultural colleges at the present time is 460."

451
We shall be doing a great work if we can settle on the land a large number of the soldiers and sailors who will be left on our hands at the conclusion of the war. Some of these men may have knowledge of agricultural work, but many certainly will not, and unless they are instructed in agricultural operations it will be almost a farce to put them on the land. I have been in communication with the Reading Agricultural College, and I know that they would be willing to give every facility in their power in the direction I suggest; and it must be remembered that in agricultural colleges there are opportunities of instruction—by lectures, experiments, and in other ways—not open to the directors of these small holding colonies, who will be limited to their own areas. I venture to think that it will be a hard measure if we are to say to the great number of ex-soldiers and sailors who have had no agricultural experience but who wish to go on the land that they are to be excluded from this colonisation scheme. Therefore I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be able to give a satisfactory and sympathetic reply.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I must first express my regret that it falls to me instead of to my noble friend the recent President of the Board of Agriculture to reply to the noble Lord's Question. My noble friend behind me (Lord Haversham) will no doubt remember that in the autumn of last year there appeared in the Press a Notice issued by the Board of Agriculture on this subject. I need not read the whole of the Notice, but it was to the effect that, as the result of an Inquiry by a Departmental Committee of the Board, an Interim Report had been presented recommending that fifty men discharged from the Army or Navy owing to disablement should be given a course of training at agricultural colleges; and two colleges were mentioned—the Harper Adams College at Newport, in Shropshire, and the Holmes Chapel College, in Cheshire. The idea was, as my noble friend has pointed out, that they should be trained in the elements of agricultural knowledge with a view to their obtaining permanent employment on the land. The training was to be given free of charge, and the men were to be provided with board and lodging for a terra of about twelve weeks; and at the end of the twelve weeks,
452
if it was found that a man showed particular aptitude for the work, there was power taken to extend the term for a further course. I have heard privately at Holmes Chapel College, which is not far from where I live, that the experiment met with no small success, and I have no doubt that so far as possible the Board of Agriculture will be glad to extend the experiment, which was tried on quite a small scale, still further.
The Board is now, I am informed, in communication with the War Office in trying to devise a scheme by which facilities may be provided for partially disabled men obtaining some instruction in agricultural work before their discharge from the Army. The belief is that there are a number of men who might like to spend, and who could profitably spend, some part of their time of convalescence in this manner. The result, it is hoped, would be to start an interest in the minds of these men in work on the land, so that they might favour the idea of taking up work on the land when the time comes for them to receive their final discharge. I think this is a desirable thing, because—as my noble friend has pointed out on previous occasions—not much is known at present, although attempts have been made to discover, to what extent discharged or time-expired men will, when a large number of them leave the Army, desire to undertake work on the land. Diametrically opposite views are held by people most competent to judge of the probability that large numbers, or on the other hand, that small numbers, of men may desire to undertake an agricultural life. I am speaking, of course, principally of those who have not been on the land before. It may be assumed that a considerable proportion of those who had worked on the land may desire to do so again. But the question at issue is how far men who have been of urban habit before they joined the Army but have since led an open-air life will desire to continue a life of that kind rather than return to town conditions; and it is thought—I believe wisely thought—that a multiplication of experiments of this kind will give a chance of showing roughly what number of disabled men, or of men to be finally discharged, are likely to desire to undertake this different kind of work. I can assure my noble friend that we all regard with great sympathy the extension of the experiment such as he suggests.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: My Lords, I am glad to hear from the noble Marquess that this question of discharging partially disabled men as quickly as possible in order to enable them to work on the land is being considered. This is one of the great grievances which farmers have. We sec partially disabled man retained in barracks and doing no work at all. If we could get these men sent on to the land, especially just now with the hay harvest coming on, it would be a great advantage. I have been to the Board of Agriculture, but they say that it is a question for the War Office. I have ascertained that the military side of the War Office are in favour of the course suggested, but not so the medical side. If the noble Marquess could persuade the medical side of the War Office to let these men go, it would be a great advantage to agriculture.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, as the noble Earl below the gangway opposite (Lord Selborne) knows, we have been doing our best lately to come to some satisfactory arrangement by which these men shall be discharged from the Army for civil work, but the great difficulty is the getting of competent medical officers for the purpose of examining the men and giving them their medical discharge. The Adjutant-General is doing everything he possibly can to facilitate the rapid discharge of these men, and he is in hopes that within the next week or two there may be a perceptible number released from their Army engagement for civil life.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: As the noble Earl opposite has referred to me, I should like to endorse what he has said. His attitude has always been sympathetic, and Lord Kitchener was also sympathetic to the idea. I have pressed all I possibly could the double advantage both to the Army and to the nation of releasing these men for service on the land, but the settlement has stuck somewhere in the War Office most mysteriously; and the noble Earl who has just spoken would be adding one more to the many services he has rendered to the country if he would see that the obstruction is removed.
On Question, Report of Amendments received.
Clause 1:
Power of Board to acquire land for small holding colonies.
1.—(1) During the continuance of the present war, and a period of twelve months thereafter,
454
the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (in this Act referred to as "the Board") for the purpose of providing experimental small holding colonies may, with the consent of the Treasury, acquire by agreement any land which, in the opinion of the Board, is suitable for that purpose:
Provided that whore the Board, or a landlord at the request of the Board, terminates a tenancy of land by notice to quit with a view to the use of the land or any part thereof by the Board for the provision of small holdings under this Act, the tenant upon quitting shall be entitled to recover from the Board compensation for the loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting which the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods or his implements of husbandly, produce, or farm stock on or used in connection with the land.
Provided that the total area of the land for the time being acquired by the Board for the purposes of this section shall not at any time exceed six thousand acres, and that in the selection of persons to be settled on the land so acquired the Board shall give preference to persons who have served in the naval or military forces of the Crown in the present war.
(2) For the purpose of the acquisition of land by agreement under this Act, the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with this Act except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement and the provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land.
(3) Where a labourer, who has been regularly employed on any land acquired by the Board for the purposes of this Act, proves to the satisfaction of the Board that the effect of the acquisition was to deprive him of his employment, and that there was no employment of an equally beneficial character available to him in the same locality, the Board may pay to him such compensation as they think just for his loss of employment or for his expenses in moving to another locality, and any sum so paid shall be treated as part of the expenses of the acquisition of the land.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The first is a drafting Amendment. It is to leave out "Provided that" at the beginning of the second paragraph of subsection (1).
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out ("Provided that").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The words which I propose to insert after the word "quit" [in the second paragraph of subsection (1)] are suggested because it is possible that some notices might have been given before this Bill had passed. I have no reason to suppose that they have been given, certainly not on a large scale, but as it is possible that a notice might have been given, it is desirable, from abundance of caution, to insert these words.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, after ("quit") insert ("whether given before or after the passing of this Act").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The effect of the next Amendment is to meet the desire expressed by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Strachie—as to which he moved an Amendment in Committee, but did not press it on the representation of my noble friend Lord Selborne—that the compensation awarded by Section I of the Small Holdings Act of 1910 should be obtainable by tenants who are disturbed under this Bill. My noble friend Lord Selborne promised to move words which would carry out the intention of the noble Lord opposite, but he preferred to insert them in a form explaining precisely what is to be enacted rather than by reference, as was suggested by the noble Lord.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, after line 21, insert:
" Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this subsection:

"(a) unless the tenant has given to the Board a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation of such goods, implements, produce, and stock as aforesaid; or

"(b) if the claim for compensation is not made within three months after the time at which the tenant quits;

and in the event of any difference arising as to any matter under this subsection, the difference shall, in default of agreement, be settled by a single arbitrator in accordance with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908:
" Provided also that compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1914, shall not be payable in any case to which this subsection applies."—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The leaving out of the words "Provided that" [at the beginning of the third paragraph of subsection (1)], as proposed in the next Amendment standing in my name, turns this into a substantial enactment in the Bill instead of a proviso.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out ("Provided that").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The next is a consequential drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out ("that").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE: I desire to ask the Government whether they will not reconsider the decision taken by Lord Selborne as regards the question of compensation to agricultural labourers. The late President of the Board of Agriculture based his refusal to give compensation as a right to labourers on the Act of 1908. That Act, it is true, only gives county councils permissive power to grant compensation to agricultural labourers. It is equally true to say that in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, which was not a very strong measure and was practically, except for details, an agreed Bill in another place, there was no clause to compensate farmers or agricultural labourers. But pressure was put upon Mr. Harcourt, and in the Standing Committee in another place a permissive clause was brought up giving power to county councils, if they thought fit, to compensate agricultural labourers where they lost their employment and their homes owing to the provision of small holdings by the county council. But that provision was considered—I think rightly—to be not nearly strong enough, and a Conservative Member, Mr. Carlile, moved an Amendment in the Standing Committee to do exactly what I am trying to do to-day—namely, to turn "may" into "shall"; but after a short discussion that Amendment was negatived. It was the intention of those who believed that labourers ought to have compensation as a matter of right to move on the Report stage a similar Amendment to that moved in Standing Committee by Mr. Carlile, but it so happened that the particular clause was guillotined and it was impossible to move that Amendment. Therefore this question has never been decided one way or the other in another place, although those who were interested, whether they sat on the Liberal or on the Conservative side of the House, were most anxious to give this statutory right to agricultural labourers.
I hope the noble Marquess now in charge of the Bill has reconsidered the refusal of Lord Selborne to accept this Amendment, that refusal having been based on the principle that as compensation was not given as a right to labourers under the Act of 1908 they ought not to be given compensation

457
as of right under this Bill. I cannot say that this argument appears to me at all a substantial one, and I shall be interested to hear how the noble Marquess justifies refusing to do something in 1916 because it was not done in 1908. The grievance of the labourers will be very great indeed if the Government refuse this Amendment. This Bill is more drastic than the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908 as regards the way in which land is taken. It is true that very little friction and trouble has arisen out of the Small Holdings Act as administered by the county councils, but this Bill is not to be administered by local bodies but from Whitehall, which is a very different thing. And in the case of this Bill you are going to take a block of 2,500 acres, to entirely denude that area of its present population, and therefore it is certain that a large number of labourers will be displaced. Although this Amendment gives a statutory right to labourers to receive compensation, they will have to prove that they have lost their employment through the land being taken for small holdings. The question of any abuse is most carefully safeguarded. I submit that in the case of a measure of this far-reaching nature it is only fair that those who are affected by it should receive compensation as a right.
In this Bill as introduced the Government had neither provided protection for farmers who were turned out of their holdings, nor for agricultural labourers who lost their employment through the provision of small holdings; but the noble Earl, in Committee, accepted an Amendment giving a statutory right to farmers to receive compensation if they are displaced. If it is fair to give an absolute right to the farmer to receive compensation, is it not equally fair to give the same right to the agricultural labourer, and not let the labourer be dependent on the good will of the Board of Agriculture for the time being as to whether or not he gets compensation? This is not a personal Amendment. I am moving it at the request of the Parliamentary Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. That body is entirely composed of farmers; yet they impressed upon me that they were just as anxious that compensation should be paid as a statutory right to the labourers as that it should be so paid to themselves. I venture to hope that the noble Marquess the Lord President will carefully consider
458
the matter before he refuses to comply with the request of the Central Chamber of Agriculture.
If this Amendment is refused by the Government in this House, it will be moved in another place on behalf of the Central Chamber of Agriculture; and I venture to ask the noble Marquess whether the Government mean to instruct Mr. Acland to refuse in the House of Commons to do what I contend is a mere act of justice to agricultural labourers. And if Mr. Acland, on behalf of the Government, does refuse this act of justice, the House of Commons, I am confident, will not support him. We shall then be in the extraordinary position of this Amendment being inserted in the House of Commons, and of this House being asked to stultify itself, having refused to do justice to agricultural labourers here, by having to do so at the instance of the other House. But I hope that this course will not be necessary, and that the Government will be prepared in this House to give to agricultural labourers similar justice to that extended to farmers. If the Amendment is not accepted I shall feel compelled to divide upon it, as this is a matter upon which the Central Chamber of Agriculture feel very strongly.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, subsection (3), line 17, leave out ("may") ["the Board may"] and insert ("shall").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, I desire to support the noble Lord's Amendment, and I do so for this reason—that it seems very unjust that what is done for the tenant farmer, who is much better able to protect himself than the agricultural labourer, should not be done for the agricultural labourer. Having come so recently from the other House, I am quite satisfied, having some knowledge of the feeling there, that if this Amendment is not put into the Bill here it will certainly be inserted in the other House; and I think it would ill become your Lordships' House that the Lower House should be looked upon as the sole champions of the rights of agricultural labourers, seeing that so many members of your Lordships' House are deeply and closely connected with and interested in agriculture. I hope the noble Marquess who leads the House will take the same view and agree to the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has stated forcibly and with deep conviction his belief in the need for the insertion of the word "shall" instead of the word "may." Your Lordships are exceedingly familiar with contests as to whether the word "may" or "shall" should be inserted in Acts of Parliament, and in a great many cases it has been, I think, shown to the satisfaction of the House that the effect of the substitution of one word for the other is not in reality great. But perhaps I might be allowed to protest against the assumption which has been made by both noble Lords that either His Majesty's Government or your Lordships' House can be regarded as in any way indifferent to the lot of the labourer who is dispossessed by these means, or that we would not do anything that we properly could to secure and safeguard him.
I would ask your Lordships to look for a moment at the wording of the subsection. Where a labourer is able to show that he has been deprived of his employment, the subsection runs—
"the Board may pay to him Such compensation as they think just for his loss of employment."
The noble Lord wants to make it "shall" instead of "may." I should have thought that the real force of the words lay rather in the phrase "such compensation as they think just" rather than in the question of whether "may" or "shall" should be the word used.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: If the words "such compensation as they think just" are retained, in the opinion of the Board the justice of the case might be satisfied by the payment of the sum, say, of one farthing to the dispossessed labourer.
It would almost appear that the noble Lord demands that the labourer should be put in the same position as the farmer in these circumstances—namely, that it should be a matter of arbitration, and not for the judgment of the Board, whether or not the labourer should be compensated—and that is a change which the Board of Agriculture are not prepared to make. They are not prepared, for reasons which I think the House will consider sufficient, to place the dispossessed labourer who loses
460
his employment in precisely the same position as regards compensation by arbitration as the tenant farmer, the whole tenor of whose life is changed by his being dispossessed of his land, is placed in by this Bill. Nor do I think the noble Lord opposite can quite ignore the effect upon those whose interests are affected by the Act of 1908 if he desires to make the change in this particular Bill and to leave the labourers under the 1908 Act in the position in which they now stand.
I am afraid I cannot agree with my noble friend opposite that, whereas all county councils and the small holdings committees of the county councils can be trusted to give liberal compensation to dispossessed labourers, the Board of Agriculture cannot. The noble Lord himself lives in an agricultural county, and it is very likely that in his case, and in certain other cases, the small holdings committee may be highly sympathetic and desirous of giving such compensation, but I should be sorry to say that of all county councils or of all small holdings committees in every county in England. Were I a labourer who was about to lose my employment, I think I would sooner have been placed under the tender mercies of my noble friend below the gangway (Lord Selborne) than under those of some small holdings committees. Therefore from that I deduce that if this change were now to be made there would be loud complaints, and a demand, which it would be exceedingly hard to resist, to place all labourers affected by the earlier Act in the same position.
I cannot believe that the mere substitution of "shall" for "may" in this clause would in the first place have the effect which the noble Lord opposite desires, for the reason I have stated—that the amount of compensation still rests in the complete discretion of the Board of Agriculture; nor, even if it had that effect, do I think it is needed; nor, in view of the fact that by the existing Acts labourers have as a matter of fact received compensation, as I believe, where it is demanded, can I think that a hardship is likely to result to labourers in this case. I therefore hope that my noble friend will think better of it and not press his Amendment.
On Question, whether the word ("may") shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS.

Buckmaster, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lauderdale, E.

Harlech, L.

Crewe, M. (L. President.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Haversham, L.

Powis, E.

Hylton, L.

Argyll, D.

Russell, E.

Kinnaird, E.

Devonshire, D. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Westmeath, E.

Ludlow, L.

Lansdowne, M.

MacDonnell, L.

Salisbury, M.

Allendale, V.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Falkland, V.

Pirrie, L.

Albemarle, E.

Farquhar, L. (L. Steward.)

Rathdonnell, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Sandhurst, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Reay, L.

Brassey, E.

Armstrong, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Camperdown, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Sudeley, L.

Coventry, E.

Blyth, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Cromer, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Suffield, L.

Derby, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Sumner, L.

Eldon, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wimborne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Harrowby, E.

Faringdon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Rutland, D.

Elibank, V.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Peel, V.

Rathcreedan, L. [Teller.]

St. Audries, L.

Lichfield, E.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

St. Davids, L.

Mar, E.

Harris, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Mayo, E.

Joicey, L.

Weardale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 10:
Application to Scotland.
10. This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, "easements" mean servitudes, and "small holding" means a small holding as defined in section thirty-three of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911:

(b) Paragraph (b) of section four and sections six and eight of this Act shall not apply:

(c) Section one shall be read and construed as if two thousand acres were substituted for six thousand acres.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The words which I move to insert in Clause 10 are small verbal amendments which are needed in the application of the Bill to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 4, line 19, after ("Fisheries") insert ("'arbiter ' shall be substituted for ' arbitrator ') ' the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908,' shall be substituted for the ' Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908 '")—The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 56.)

UNINTERNED ENEMY ALIENS.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether they adhere to the statement made by the Right Hon. Herbert Samuel on 21st February, that on that date there were 22,946 uninterned enemy aliens in Great Britain, and to a further statement made a few days later that 6,756 male Germans and Austrians of military age had been exempted from internment, and whether any material diminution of these figures has been made since that date.

2. Whether it is true, as stated in the Press of 7th June last, that a man giving the name of Walter Thomas Lacey applied for a post in the Censor's Office in Liverpool, when it was accidentally discovered that he was a German named Lindver who was reported by the London Police to be a dangerous criminal.

3. Whether it is true that, on the 7th of June, a German subject, who on his own admission was employed before the war in Krupp's works at Essen, was sentenced at Glasgow to three months' imprisonment for failing to register himself as an alien, although he had been in this country since 1st August, 1914.

463

4. Whether the presence in this country of uninterned naturalised and un-naturalised German sympathisers does not constitute a serious national danger; and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter.

In drawing the attention of His Majesty's Government to the question of the uninterned naturalised and unnaturalised German sympathisers in this country and to the danger with which the national interest is threatened by their presence within the British Islands in time of war, I am perfectly aware of the difficulties with which His Majesty's Government would have to contend were an attempt made to solve the problem in a manner entirely satisfactory to the interests of the Entente Powers. But I would point out that these difficulties have in a large measure been overcome by our Allies, and ought, therefore, not to be beyond the power of His Majesty's Government. In making these remarks I am actuated by no hostile or prejudiced feelings towards Germans qua Germans. I have lived too long in Germany and known too many Germans of all classes to fall into such an error. I have been privileged to live several years in Germany. I was educated there. As many of your Lordships know, in my earlier years I was a young diplomatist in Frankfurt and in Berlin. I have since had the privilege of knowing intimately several of Germany's eminent men, and I have had opportunities—special opportunities, perhaps—of knowing the German character.
The German character is one for which I have in many respects the very highest respect. In fact, I dare say a good many of your Lordships may be aware that for years I have been trying to point out to the British people that we fail in many good qualities which the Germans possess. Therefore I am not likely to be one who desires any action which should be of an unnecessarily hostile or prejudicial character towards the German nation. I cannot claim, as a noble and learned Lord [Viscount Haldane] has done, that Germany is my spiritual home, but I may say that for at least six years it was my material home, and as long as I was a student I suppose I may say my intellectual home. Germany never does anything by halves, and in this particular instance, in this question of aliens, she has not done anything by halves
464
either. Germany has not hesitated, as we have, to expel from its soil all persons of both sexes whose presence, in the opinion of its Government, constituted a danger to the interests of the Central Powers; and, for myself, I think they were perfectly right. War is war. One of our Allies—France—has expelled all enemy aliens, and requires that the subjects of neutral and even of Allied nations shall be subject to the constant supervision of the Police, and shall be required every month to renew the official licence to reside in that country, even in the case of British or other friendly alien nurses attending the French wounded in hospitals in France.
Neither our enemies nor our friends could object if the exigencies of self-preservation compelled us to follow the example of France, and protect ourselves and our Allies in a similar manner in time of war. If the figures which I have quoted, given by Mr. Samuel on February 21, be correct, at that date there were nearly 23,000 uninterned enemy aliens in Great Britain. Consider what 23,000 men and women mean! Our notions of figures have expanded very much in recent months. Now in this figure of 23,000 no account is taken of the naturalised British subjects of German, Austrian, Bulgarian, and Turkish origin, some of whom are undoubtedly actuated by feelings of hostility to this country; nor is any mention made of the Germans and Austrians living in the British Isles some of whom masquerade as Swiss, or of the genuine German-speaking Swiss of whom some are not too friendly to this country. I contend that all these men are a potential danger to the Allied cause under our lax system of Police supervision. Why do I call it a lax system? Because everything in this country has been arranged for peace and not for war. By long tradition England has afforded asylum to the victims of religious or political persecution on the Continent, and the British temperament is hostile to all forms of Police supervision except in the case of undoubted criminals; hence the difficulty of grappling with the new danger to our national existence which Germany's autocratic dealing has brought about through her elaborate and costly system of spies and agents all over the globe working in secret for many years against the interests of the British Empire, of our Allies, and of the human race.
I do not think there are many, even after two years of war, who realise perhaps as

465
much as I do how thoroughly the German system of espionage has permeated the whole globe. Personally I know—I knew at the time—that I have entertained two spies under my own roof, and I think perhaps I spied upon them as much as they spied upon me. And I know that my son, 150 miles south of Fashoda, also entertained two spies knowing them to be spies. And we know that this system has gone on throughout the whole world—in Persia, China, Japan, in every part of the world, it is the same thing. I discovered a German who had been travelling in the same steamer with me photographing our fortifications from the utmost peak of Hong Kong. These instances are only a few. All over the world has this system been going on, and if we wish for security we must protect ourselves. No one else will protect us; and we must not trust persons who have shown beyond all question that they will break faith if it suits their purpose to do so.
In my humble opinion this protection should take two forms—first, a more effective and real supervision and control of aliens; and, secondly, the reform of our naturalisation laws. As far as I can perceive, no difficulty arises as regards International Law. Surely it is the inherent right of any nation to exclude foreigners; and that, of course, covers the lesser right of supervising every person admitted. As regards naturalisation, this has always been a matter of grace and not of right. I do not think anybody will deny that. A suggestion was recently made by Mr. Alfred Fellows in the Evening Standard which seems to me worthy of consideration. His proposal was that Germans—and I individually would add German-speaking Austrians and Swiss—who preserved habitually their own language in their own circle should not be eligible for naturalisation; secondly, that any alien whose own country claimed the right of service from him should not be eligible for naturalisation as a British subject. Why should we imagine that the mere act of naturalisation could at once change the entire feelings of a man or a woman towards the country of his or her birth? I cannot see any reason why we should. I always think it is better to put oneself in the place of one's opponent. Now should we, under similar circumstances, renounce our friendly feelings towards our mother country? Individually I certainly should not. A sense of honour
466
or of regard for personal safety might restrain some; but it is only natural to suppose that under the exciting stimulus of war some might consider it their duty to injure as far as they could, notwithstanding any oath they had taken, the enemies of their original mother country.
I have in my Question quoted two instances showing that it is possible—and that is my object in quoting those cases—for dangerous aliens to evade Police supervision. In the case of Walter Thomas Lacey, whose real name was Lindver, it was apparently only through an accident that he failed to obtain the important post of censor at Liverpool. Fortunately the London Police heard of the application, and reported the German to be a dangerous criminal. Conceive what opportunity for mischief would be at the disposal of an enemy censor in such a commercial centre as Liverpool. Why was he at large? That is what I want to know. Since I put this Notice on your Lordships' Paper I have received a letter from a gentleman in Liverpool—I do not know him—who says:
"It is freely stated that there are many people in the Censor's Office of this city of suspicious enemy origin, and any numbers of supposed Belgians and Russians. It seems very advisable that the matter should be strictly investigated."
Whether there is any truth in that I do not know.
The second case which I have quoted is that of a German who, by his own confession was employed before the war in Krupp's great gun factories at Essen. Remember what that means—that he was in Krupp's factory before he came over here, and that he only came over a few days before the declaration of war. He was able to evade the notice of the British Police for how long? For a year and ten months. A still worse case to my mind is that of Wilhelm Scheneber, a German subject who, after being free in this country for twenty-three months—a month longer than in the last case—was lately arrested, when it was found that he had been an officer for fourteen years in the German Army. A number of military maps issued by the German General Staff were found in his possession. Again I ask, Why was he at large? What information may not many of these men during these long periods have conveyed to Germany? What harm may they not in that time have done to our country? And what is going to be

467
done with those men after their three to six months' imprisonments are over? Are they going to be allowed to remain in this country until they are caught a second or a third time?
The instances I mention are typical, and they could be increased in numbers almost indefinitely if desired. It was recently stated, with what truth I do not know, at the Hackney Borough Council by a Mr. Davenport, as reported in the Press, that he had received a telephone message from an official at the Home Office asking him if he would employ an interned German. Why this official eagerness to release enemies who have been at all events tried and thought to be dangerous? But here—if it is true—a Home Office official actually asked that this man might be given employment. If employment should be, given to him, why was he originally interned? Why is he to be released to take the bread out of the mouth, probably, of some Englishman? Why should the Home Office, instead of interning all suspicious enemy aliens, desire the employment in civil life of some of those already interned?
Here is another case. The late German Consul at Liverpool is stated in the Press to be still walking about its streets. Do you imagine that a British ex-Consul would be permitted at the present time to walk about the streets of Berlin or Hamburg? It is actions such as these which cause widespread suspicion that there is some mysterious high-placed influence at work to shield enemy aliens from internment. Resolutions in favour of the internment of aliens have been passed by a great number of public bodies. I came across a letter the other day to a newspaper in which the father of an officer writes—
"A German whom I knew on the Stock Exchange is now an officer in our Army, with an English name hiding his own."
I do not know whether that is true or not. But would an Englishman be allowed by Germany to command German troops? The idea is inconceivable. Are His Majesty's Government going to guarantee the bona fides of this German officer in command of British troops? He may be an excellent man, and perfectly loyal. But we are at war, and we have not to consider the feelings of individuals; we have to consider the interests of the nation.
Again, what assurance have we that the ever-growing number of Swiss waiters—
468
we see them all round us, so-called Swiss in this country who speak German—are really Swiss, or, if they are Swiss, that their sympathies are not with our enemies? It cannot be denied that there exists a widespread feeling amongst all classes that too much leniency is being shown to enemy aliens in our midst, and that not sufficient care is taken to exclude possible spies. It is this feeling which is at the bottom of the numerous rumours, which run from mouth to mouth and do no good, that even members of the Government have financial, personal, or other reasons for their leniency towards aliens. I am a confirmed sceptic in regard to the truth of popular rumours, and have always made it a rule to discount them by 50 or 75 per cent. Sometimes, however, it is difficult to do this; and I confess I found rather a difficulty the other day in the following instance. Some few months ago, at a meeting of a patriotic organisation at which I spoke, I was requested by three ladies to wait after the meeting as they wished to obtain my advice with regard to the following circumstances. Now these ladies were ladies in Society, and I could not for one moment doubt that they believed what they said. They told me that the conduct of a German resident in the West End having brought him under the suspicion of his neighbours, two of these ladies determined to investigate for themselves, and called upon the German under some professional plea. They engaged him in conversation, when he became greatly excited and strongly expressed his sympathy with Germany and his hostility to England. On being asked why, if he sympathised so deeply with Germany, he still remained in England, he stated that he actually held a letter from a member of the Government asking him to remain and assuring him of the complete confidence of the Executive. The ladies, on leaving, went straight to the nearest Police-station and asked the officer in charge whether he knew the German in question. He replied that he did; and when he was asked what he thought of the German this officer said, "He should have been shot long ago," and he added that he had received many complaints in regard to his conduct. Asked by the ladies whether he had reported the case to his superior officers, he replied that he had often done so but could do so no longer, as he had received orders not to report or take notice of anything be might hear or see to the detriment of this German. I

469
desire to express no opinion as to the truth or falsehood of this story. I only wish to point out that it was told me at first hand, and not, as many of these stories are, at second, third, or fourth hand.
This system of espionage has been going on for many months. When we lost those three cruisers, the "Cressy," the "Hogue," and the "Aboukir," there was ground for suspicion that the vessels were sent to their doom entirely through treachery. Several other instances could be mentioned where it was thought that disaster had overtaken the British cause owing to information given to the enemy by spies. If there is only a small modicum of truth in the rumours of German espionage, why should any risk be run when the nation is fighting for its existence, even though that risk be slight? To my mind nothing should be left to chance. The struggle is too vital, the stake for which we are contending is too large, for any odds to be given to the enemy. Let us remember that we have to win this war, and that we can only do this by utilising our fullest strength and giving no chance to the enemy. Let us bear in mind that nothing but ourselves can beat us.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, this question of the aliens at large in our midst has been brought up two or three times in this House, and the public are getting very irritated at the laxity of the Government in the matter. I think it would take very little for the public to take the law in their own hands—which would be fatal and dangerous—something in the way they did at Deptford when reports as to Germans were made to the Police and taken no notice of. There is no doubt that the force of public opinion has good effect on this Government the same as on other Governments, and something is done after every occasion upon which the strong views in the country on this question of aliens have been called attention to. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne will remember that I spoke to him on the last occasion about the German Athenæum Club. There is no doubt in the world that that club, which contained very prominent Germans of high position in this country, was closed entirely on account of public opinion.
The naturalised Germans, in my opinion, are far the most dangerous, because they are not absolved in any way from their allegiance to the German Government.
470
It has been often said, "Once a German always a German"; you cannot change a man's nature. I have had a large number of letters since I took up this question, most of them anonymous and some I can hardly describe as friendly, calling attention to the fact that if the British Government took any action against the naturalised Germans they would be following the "scrap of paper" programme adopted by the Germans. But that is not so, because the German Government do not absolve the German people who come over here and become naturalised from their allegiance to their country. As I have said before in this House, the real position of the Germans over here, whether naturalised or not, is that they must be traitors either to their own country or to ours; and while we are at war we have no room for traitors of any sort or kind. No German can be harmless if he secretly sympathises with the land of his birth. I do not object to his doing that. I have no feelings against the German nation, though I have every sort of feeling against the brutes who have been diabolical in their treatment of our prisoners. But I am thinking more about our own people, and there is some sort of favouritism which I cannot understand on behalf of these German aliens to the detriment and to the danger of our own people.
Let us take the question of these aliens changing their names. What do they change their names for? This is a question which is considerably occupying the minds of the working classes at this moment. Our men are going out to fight for their country. They have given up well-paid jobs and good positions in order to fight for their country, and they come back in many cases maimed and are not looked after properly. And what do they find? That a lot of Germans, with their changed names, have taken over their positions and their trade. I think the Government should look into this matter, and there should be a published list in all boroughs all over the country of these Germans who have changed their names to English names and have taken over most of the trade and the positions which our men patriotically left in order to go to the Front.
Again, I call attention to this point. Why do we arrest hairdressers and waiters, and overlook the people who have influence, wealth, and social position? Anybody

471
who goes down to Windsor, to Egham, or to Englefield Green will find the whole place occupied by Germans. A person told me the other day—and I told my noble friend of this privately—that going out for a walk near Englefield Green he met three German children, two girls and a boy, who were talking to some other children and saying "Ve vill vin the var." That ought not to be permitted. If that is the feeling of the children, it is surely the sentiment of the fathers and mothers also. I agree with Lord Meath that the fact of these people being at large is a danger to our people and ought to be stopped at once. We have no right to take chances with public safety at any time, more particularly during the biggest war that has occurred in the history of the world.
I repeat that our enemies appear to be officially protected to the detriment of our own people. It was said in the other House, I think only yesterday, that there were still 400 German firms in this country carrying on their trade. Lord Meath has called attention to the fact that there are still over 22,000 enemy aliens uninterned, and that 6,756 male Germans and Austrians of military age have been exempted from internment. What are they here for? What do we want them here for? Surely they are a danger to us and ought to be locked up. I do not wish to be hard on them, but I would put the whole lot behind barbed wire and keep them there until the war is over. Any leniency that we show to these people is not treated with gratitude in Germany, but with contempt. They think we are afraid, and dare not lock them up as we should. I would ask my noble friend on the Front Bench opposite to give us full and explicit answers to the Questions which Lord Meath has asked. I certainly support my noble friend in his view that the fact of this large number of alien enemies remaining in our country uninterned, thousands of them being of military age, is a serious danger to the State.
LORD LEITH OF FYVIE: My Lords, I would like to associate myself with the request of Lord Meath and of Lord Beresford for answers on these matters. There are some important points which have not been considered and which have been mentioned by our noted friend Mr. Hughes in several of his speeches—namely, that every German merchant and every correspondent of a German merchant
472
remaining in the United Kingdom is a caretaker for a business in the future. As a caretaker he is holding together that business as much as is possible, and it is in a practical way being carried on largely through America; and correspondence for the business which is being done at the present is for the benefit of the business that is to be done in the future. As long as we leave these associations of influential Germans in our midst have we to look forward to a loss of business in the future and a continuation of what has been a very serious loss in the past.
I know of several cases in which Germans, men of influence and position, are in Government employment here. There is one extraordinary case in the Cable Department. Many officers have tried to get this gentleman removed; he has been removed once and put back again, and he is in the position of receiving and de-coding all the most important naval cables. His name is F. Lange, and he is in T.C.O. employment. As I have said, he has been removed once and been interned, but he is now back again; and this man and his associates have openly gloried in "the defeat" of our Fleet. Such a thing seems inconceivable, but I have investigated the case with friends and associates in the Navy; it is perfectly true, and this man was there last week. And there are others. He has with him men who are not exactly alien enemies although they are the next thing to it. One is a Dutchman who has been in Germany most of his life. Another is an associate of his who is in the employment of the War Department. I give these instances because they seem so absolutely inconsistent. I have thought from day to day that these matters would be corrected, but last week, as I have said, this man Lange was still in the T.C.O., carrying on business, and all the cipher de-coding was going through his hands.
I look upon it as somewhat hopeful that the Government have now given the Declaration of London, as I trust, its quietus. The question is whether we can get progress made also against the alien enemies in our midst who are actively engaged against us. It is no use trying to excuse them; they are by nature, by business, by association, in every way against us; those who are not with us are against us and should be removed. It does not signify what position, social or otherwise,

473
they have or had; at present they must be asked to go out of this country or else be interned.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure the House listened with interest to the preface with which my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Meath) introduced the Questions which he has put to us, and I certainly take him at his word when he tells us that he approaches this subject with no exaggerated feelings of animus and with no special hostility against the German race as such. I admit very fully that, as he contends, and as my noble and gallant friend Lord Beresford contends, this question is one which calls for the utmost vigilance on the part of His Majesty's Government, and I hope I shall be able to show that such vigilance has not been altogether wanting. I also am quite content to assume, as Lord Meath urges, that the German system of espionage, not only in this country but all over the world, has a completeness and an ingenuity which extorts our reluctant admiration and which certainly justifies us in resorting to the most stringent measures of precaution that we can devise.
Let me take in their order the Questions which my noble friend has put. He asks, in the first place, whether the figures given by the Home Secretary in the month of February as to the number of uninterned alien enemies in Great Britain represent the facts as we know them to-day. Those figures are approximately correct. There has been no census of aliens since that time, and therefore we have no precise figures. The total given by the Home Secretary would no doubt require to be to some extent reduced owing to cases of repatriation and internment, but I think my noble friend will be safe in taking the figure as it stands to-day at something in the neighbourhood of 20,000. It will, I think, interest my noble friend to know something of the manner in which this total of 20,000 is made up, because he laid some stress upon that point. I am told that it contains, in the first place, about 10,000 women. Then there are about 4,000 men of friendly race or origin, people like Poles, Italians, Southern Slavs, and others. There are about 1,500 men over 70 years of age; there are a certain number of individuals whose sympathies are beyond all question with the Allies, and who are doing valuable service in one capacity or another to us in
474
this country. Finally, there are about 6,000 others most of whom have been very long in residence in this country; about two thirds of them, I am told, have been domiciled for thirty years and upwards here, and many of them have sons fighting in the British Army. But I am able to add that all these cases have been individually examined by one of the advisory committees that have been set up for this purpose, committees which were, at all events until lately, presided over by a Judge of high standing, and in a few cases which have arisen more lately they have been examined by the Home Office upon the principles laid down by the committees to which I refer. I ought, perhaps, also to say that the decisions in all these cases are provisional decisions and are liable to review should the circumstances call for a reconsideration of any individual case.
My noble friend asked for information with regard to several special cases which he mentioned. Only two are referred to in his Question, and it is only with those two that I am able to deal this evening; but I need not add that if he will supply me with the facts in regard to other cases, or if my noble and gallant friend will do the same in regard to the cases in which he is interested, the Home Office will certainly make it its business to institute the fullest inquiry.
Now I come to the two cases. In the first place, there is the case of Walter Thomas Lacey. This gentleman's career appears to have been picturesque and disreputable. He was in Germany at the beginning of the war, and was then interned at Ruhleben as a British subject. At the end of 1915 he was sent to this country under the agreement for the repatriation of invalided civilian prisoners of war. The man had a withered hand, and therefore came within the scope of that agreement. He produced on arrival a certificate of birth in this country in the name of Walter Thomas Lacey. He soon after proceeded to Liverpool, where he came under the notice of the Liverpool Police, who evidently were not remiss in their watchfulness in this case at all events. They were not satisfied with his bona fides, and they kept him under close observation. Thereafter he applied for a post in the Censor's Office in Liverpool, and there he was fortunately recognised by one of the employees as a man whom he had known in London under

475
the name of Lindner, and he had then described himself as a German. He was finally identified as a criminal who has served several terms of imprisonment in this country between the years 1899 and 1908. He passed under false names and gave various accounts of his nationality. He was sentenced to six months for failing to comply with the Aliens Restriction Order. The facts as to his nationality have not, I am told, even now been finally cleared up; but no information has been obtained which tends to show that the man was really an enemy agent or connected with the spy service. My noble friend says, Why was this man at large? He was at large because he had succeeded in effectually concealing his identity and origin, and I do not think that any general measure of internment, however strict, would have been effectual in terminating this gentleman's somewhat mysterious activities.
Then comes the case of the second man who is, unless I am mistaken, a man named Scheneber, and who, according to his own statement, was employed for two years in Krupp's factory. He left there in 1914 and came to this country, where he appears to have led a wandering life. He is des-scribed as a kind of tramp. The circumstance that he was not ascertained to be an alien and compelled to register as such is to be at any rate to some extent explained by the fact that he is a deaf mute. In the manual language his proficiency appears to be chiefly in English, but he appears to know some German. The Police do not regard this man as very dangerous, and he will be repatriated after he has served the full term of imprisonment to which he has been sentenced.
My noble friend concluded by asking me whether the presence of people of this kind in this country does not constitute a serious national danger. I certainly do not underrate the extent of that danger, and His Majesty's Government have throughout proceeded upon the assumption that the danger is a real one. Their policy has been to divide persons of this class into two categories—persons who have been naturalised, and persons who have not been naturalised. As to the persons who have not been naturalised, the rule is that all adult males are to be segregated or interned or repatriated if over military age. Women and children are also repatriated; but there are certain cases where, in the
476
interests of humanity, it is desirable that an exception should be made. Then I come to the case of the naturalised aliens. These people are, of course, technically British subjects, and therefore prima facie the presumption is in their favour; but it is fully recognised that these naturalised aliens should be kept under the strictest supervision both by the Police and the military, and all suspicious cases are dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Cases where the naturalisation has taken place recently are dealt with with special strictness and severity.
LORD BERESFORD: What does "recently" mean?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I cannot give my noble and gallant friend an exact period.
LORD BERESFORD: Last year?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I can merely state the general rule, that where the person has become lately naturalised he is regarded with more suspicion, and his case is more carefully scrutinised than that of a person who has been naturalised for a long period of years. But I may, perhaps, add that we believe there is not a single alien enemy now at large whose case has not been thoroughly investigated by one of the committees to which I referred a moment ago. Of course, there have been a few cases where the individual has succeeded in concealing his identity, just as the two persons referred to in the Question succeeded in concealing theirs; but such cases, I am afraid, are inevitable. Concealment of this kind is, of course, an offence against the Aliens Registration Act, and is dealt with by the Court in the manner in which the two cases referred to by my noble friend have been dealt with.
It may, perhaps, interest my noble friend if I tell him, before I sit down, that up to this moment there have been about 32,000 male alien enemies interned and 10,000 repatriated. I will only repeat, if I may, that if noble Lords in this House, or indeed anybody in or out of this House, will be good enough to supply information as to cases in which there has apparently been evasion of the Regulations in force, those complaints will be welcomed and dealt with with the utmost care.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just spoken is at a much greater advantage in speaking on this matter than if his place had been taken by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, because those of us who feel strongly on this point must admit that since the time when the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, and his friends joined the Government the action of the authorities as regards naturalised or unnaturalised aliens has been considerably stronger. But those of your Lordships who have been in this House from the early days of the war will, I think, agree with me that the debates here on this subject and the debates in the other House have been the only things that have ever strengthened the hands of the Government in dealing with enemy aliens. It will be within the recollection of many noble Lords that we heard in the early days of the war from the noble and learned Lord who was then on the Woolsack—not the present occupant—that you ought not to intern Germans or send them home because you would inconvenience some very estimable people. But we have got past those days.
There is one class of naturalised alien with whom I have sympathy, and one class only. They are the men who have had sons fighting for this country from the beginning of the war. My own view is that where a man's sons are fighting that is where his heart is, wherever he was born; and as regards aliens who have had their sons fighting willingly with us from the first, I have nothing but sympathy. But I go a step further and say, as regards aliens who have been naturalised but whose sons are fighting against us, that it is a scandal that there should be any such in England who are not in concentration camps. I do not know whether any other member of the Government is going to speak, but I would ask this question. Can any member of the Government get up and defend leaving in England outside a concentration camp any man who has a son fighting against us for Germany? I venture to say that there is not a man in England, a naturalised German, with a son fighting against us, who would be outside a concentration camp if he were not a very rich and influential person. I should like a member of the Government to tell us how they defend that. There are cases of very recent naturalisation. There is one notable case of the naturalisation, since the beginning
478
of the war, of a rich man who has a son or sons fighting against us. I ask the Government, How can they defend allowing that man to walk about at large?
The Government say that there are difficulties as regards naturalised aliens. There are difficulties, I know. But there was a case the other day, fully reported in the newspapers, of a group of men in a London public-house kept by a naturalised German. The actions of these men were extremely suspicious; it was a little nest of active pro-Germans, and eventually they were shut up. The Home Secretary was asked why he had not done anything before, and his defence was that these were naturalised people and he had no power to deal with them. Whose fault is that? Has not this House from the very beginning been willing, and would not the other House have been from the very beginning willing and more than willing, to give to the Government every single power they wanted for carrying on the war? If the Government had come, here and said, "We ought to have power to shut up naturalised aliens if we think it right," both Houses would have given that power to any extent asked for. It is no defence to say that the man was naturalised.
Here is a case which was reported in several of the London newspapers the other day. A Captain Theodore Schlagintweit was German Consul in Manchester until the war broke out. When enemy aliens were first rounded up, he was left at large. Eventually he was interned, but he was not interned until he had been convicted of a breach of the Defence of the Realm Act by travelling beyond his permitted distance. He was then sent to a camp in Denbighshire. He was released, for no known reason, in March, 1915, and then he returned to Germany. He was a Reserve officer in the Bavarian Rifles, and he is now engaged in drilling Germans to fight against this country. That is a pretty strong case.
I should like to ask the Government to revise the Naturalisation Act at once. There may be difficulties, but those difficulties in time of war ought to be got over. And in the case, at any rate, of Germans who have sons fighting against this country, it ought to be taken that whatever professions of loyalty they have made are untrue, and their naturalisation papers ought to be cancelled.

479
There is other action which ought to be taken against Germans. We want in this country to use every power we possess—and there are many other powers we ought to have—for carrying on the war with regard to capital, money. There are numbers of English companies employing Germans abroad. Why should Germans abroad be given a livelihood, and a good livelihood, with British capital supplied by British shareholders? The thing ought to be illegal. There is one notorious case of a large company that is employing a great number of Germans in another country at high salaries. Those Germans ought to be left to earn their living not at the expense of British capital. I venture to say that if British directors of a British company take so lax a view of the matter, it is a case where the Government ought to put in the Public Trustee to administer the company until the end of the war. I press that upon the Government for their consideration. The case is a notorious one; it is the case of a big and important company which employs a large number of Germans. I say that those Germans ought not to be paid by British money, and if the British directors will not stop it the Government ought to step in.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am very glad to have heard from the noble Marquess his acknowledgment that there is a real danger to the State in the subject which I have brought to the notice of your Lordships' House, and also that the Government are quite alive to it and are taking every step they possibly can to prevent it becoming worse. But I want to know why His Majesty's Government cannot do what the French have done. Why should it only be necessary once to interview an alien and then leave him alone until something desperate happens? Why cannot we follow the French example, and let every alien have a permit which is renewed each month and be under the supervision of the Police? The reason will be given that it is inconvenient, and that it is not our custom for the Police to interfere with private individuals. But this is wartime; and without wishing to be hard upon Germans or any other nationality I do say that more power in this matter should be given to the Police, and, as the noble Lord who has just sat down said, and as I said in my speech, the Naturalisation Act should be reconsidered.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I would ask the noble Marquess whether he will answer my question as to whether the Government defend the action of allowing a naturalised alien who has a son fighting against Great Britain to remain at large?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without further inquiry. I should like to say, generally, that I am not at all sure that some of the noble Lords who have spoken this evening are quite aware of the powers we now have under the Defence of the Realm Act and under the Aliens Restriction Act. The subject is very technical, and I would not like to give an opinion as to the scope of those Acts without further inquiry.

MILITARY SERVICE—CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to the administration of the Army Order of May 25, and to ask whether its provisions have been applied in all cases.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I put down the Question which stands in my name for last Tuesday, but at the request of Lord Sandhurst, who is going to reply, I postponed it until to-day. However in the other House the Prime Minister has this afternoon made a statement which very largely affects the matters in reference to which I was going to ask for inquiry. As I have had the advantage of seeing that statement, I propose to say a few words upon it. This Question does not raise any matter of policy, because the matter of policy is settled in the Military Service Acts. It raises entirely a matter of administration, in reference to which the late Secretary of State for War made in this House a declaration which, if it were followed and truly adhered to, would in my opinion be a solution of what in itself is a very difficult question.
We all want to separate what is called the shirker and hypocrite from the genuine conscientious objector. No punishment, I agree, is too severe for the shirker and hypocrite. On the other hand, the policy of the Act is that if a man is a genuine conscientious objector, if his innate sense of right and wrong prevents him from undertaking any military service, he is to have due consideration; although according to my view of the Act that does not mean that

481
he is to escape national service, but that he must do national service—as I believe he is willing to do—but not service of a military character. What the late Secretary of State for War said, speaking on the Committee stage of the Military Service Bill on May 22 last, was this—and I quote it because if the principle in those words is followed I think a complete solution might be found—
"The genuine conscientious objectors will find themselves under the civil power."
Those words are absolutely just and right. The offence of a conscientious objector is not really an offence against the Army, although technically it may come within the Army procedure owing to the form in which the Military Service Act was drawn. It really is in substance and truth an offence against the State; and he ought to be willing, as I think he would be, to bear whatever punishment the State thinks right, after proper civil trial, to impose upon him in a civil prison. In order to carry out the statement made by the late Secretary of State for War, Army Order X, to which my Question calls attention, was framed, and if truly carried out it would go a long way towards removing any sense of injustice or want of due appreciation as regards this particular class.
The first part of this Order refers to paragraph 583 (xi) of the King's Regulations. Paragraph 583 of the King's Regulations gives instructions to Courts-Martial as to cases in which they should give detention as a punishment and as to cases in which they should give imprisonment as a punishment. The Army Order says that if it is a case of a conscientious objection the punishment is to be imprisonment and not detention. These are the exact words—
"Where an offence against discipline has been committed and the accused soldier represents that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service, imprisonment and not detention should be awarded."
The first question I want to ask the noble Lord is this. Has imprisonment been awarded in all cases in the place of detention since this Army Order was issued? I ask this question for this reason. If the information which has been before me is accurate, that part of the Order has not been truly and substantially followed in all cases. Owing to the policy of secrecy—about which I do not want to say anything at the present moment—
482
true information upon these points is exceedingly difficult to obtain. I do not know whether your Lordships noticed that in the other House it was contended by certain Members that secrecy on questions of this kind as regards administration was inconsistent with the position of Members of Parliament, who in reference to matters of this sort were in a certain sense trustees with regard to the persons they represent. That is quite true. The guarantee of freedom is that the public should know whether what the Legislature has laid down as the law is in fact and in truth being carried out by the executive authorities. It is a point on which freedom in the true sense really turns, because immediately you have secrecy in a matter of this kind nobody knows whether the commands of the Legislature are followed or not by the executive bodies.
The Order continues—and your Lordships will here see the importance of the portion of the Order which I have already read—
"A soldier who is sentenced to imprisonment—"
not to detention—
"for an offence against discipline, which was represented by the soldier at his trial to have been the result of a conscientious objection to military service, will be committed to the nearest public civil prison—"
There you have a recognition of the fact that the offence is an offence against the State and not against the Army, and that the person should be in the first instance ordered for imprisonment, and when ordered for imprisonment should be transferred to a civil prison. And the Order goes on to say—
"as if his offence was included in paragraph 607 (i) of the King's Regulations."
That paragraph provides that where a military prisoner is transferred to a civil prison, he shall be transferred to the nearest available prison where there is room at the time. I want to ask the noble Lord whether the Order has been carried out in both respects—namely, first of all as to imprisonment, because persons detained do not come within it; and, secondly, that after imprisonment there has been a proper transfer to a civil prison.
The importance of this, to my mind, lies in the fact that a matter of this sort ought to be settled, particularly in times of this kind, in the way in which it is likely to do least injury to the public service and

483
in the way in which it is likely to do most justice to the parties immediately concerned. I am quite satisfied that you can get that double result only in two ways. First of all, as regards the Tribunal and as regards punishment, you must recognise that the offence of a conscientious objector is a civil offence against the State, and treat him accordingly. That is justice to the conscientious objector. On the other hand, as regards the Army, having allowed the principle of conscientious objection, you ought not to throw the extreme difficulty of dealing with this class of case upon the Army. They have sufficient duties in other directions at the present moment. And if the State says that this is a matter of civil procedure, they ought to deal with it so that the Army may be saved from a task in itself extremely ungracious and one which ought not to have been imposed upon them under existing conditions. As I said at the outset, if these instructions were really followed, and if in addition there was provision to have a satisfactory inquiry before the civil tribunal, although it is impossible in a difficult matter of this kind to satisfy everybody, you would have a guarantee for just and fair treatment which ought, in my opinion, to meet every legitimate cause of complaint.
Now upon this point I want to ask the noble Lord's attention to one or two matters which were stated by the Prime Minister to-day. I have been supplied with a copy of what he actually stated. The statement begins with these words—
"The procedure to be adopted by the War Office in the cases of soldiers, under Army Order X, of May 25th, 1916, sentenced to imprisonment for refusing to obey orders, is as follows."
I have read this document and find it extremely difficult to follow in many respects; but it is important to know whether it is intended to refer to all conscientious objectors or only to those who have been sentenced to imprisonment under this Army Order X. If it is intended to refer only to persons imprisoned under the Army Order, it appears to me that the effect of what has been said by the Prime Minister will be in substance to put those men in a worse position than they are in at the present time. If, on the other hand, it refers to all conscientious objectors, although it might put that particular class of conscientious objector in a worse position than he is in at the present time, yet in
484
its general effect I think it would be beneficial, and at any rate an advance on the conditions as they exist at the present time. Let me refer to two or three of the chief provisions in the Prime Minister's statement in order that the noble Lord may know what the criticism is. In the first of them it is stated—
"…all Court-Martial proceedings on conscientious objectors will be referred for scrutiny to the War Office."
I want to know, are not all Court-Martial proceedings referred for revision and consideration to the properly appointed officer? That is the right principle. When you talk about transferring them to the War Office you mean transferring them to a body which is at the present time so overburdened with work that you are not in the least likely to have any consideration for the particular case at all. Then as to the second provision—
"With regard to those who have never been before a Tribunal the first step will be to require them to answer the categorical questions which the Tribunal might have put."
Does that apply to persons who have been detained as well as to persons who have been in prison? That would be a valuable source of protection. But if, on the other hand, it is applicable only to those who have been in prison, so far from being an advantage, it will be re-transferring them from the civil prison to the military authority.
The Prime Minister went on to say, as regards the information supplied—
"The Army Council will depend on the advice of the Central Appeal Tribunal."
If the Central Appeal Tribunal is to be the deciding tribunal, as far as I am concerned nothing could be better. You want the best civil tribunal you can get in order to deal with matters of this kind. But what does "will depend on the advice of"mean? Some time ago I interrogated the noble Marquess as regards the advisory committees which were then presided over by a learned Judge. I was told that the advisory committees might give advice; that the War Office and the Admiralty might depend on that advice in a certain sense, but considered themselves at perfect liberty to disregard it and to take their own course. That is the essence of officialism as against a just system. Therefore perhaps the noble Lord will tell me whether this clause means merely that

485
advice will be given which may or may not be followed, or whether it means that the investigation is to be made by the Central Appeal Tribunal and that their decision will be followed. Noble Lords will see the distinction between those two cases. Then the procedure continues—
"If the information is refused, and in all oases where the plea is not sustained, the prisoner will remain under military control."
But, as I have pointed out, he is not under military control at all. Therefore I ask the noble Lord to say how he reconciles that with the present position—how a man who is not now under military control can "remain under military control."
I admit that I am thoroughly in favour of the two last clauses in the Prime Minister's statement. They say that if the Appeal Committee find that a man is a genuine conscientious objector he shall be transferred to a Committee consisting of Mr. W. Brace, Sir Thomas Elliott and Sir Matthew Nathan, in order to see that he does national work which it is necessary and desirable should be done at the present time; and I do not believe that conscientious objectors will find any fault with that. It is not that they do not desire to take their part in national service, but they feel an innate sense of wrong in being compelled to take part in a particular character of national service. I should like to illustrate that by what is called non-combatant service. You could hardly insult anybody more than by saying that his objection is not to the Military Service Act but to taking a dangerous position as a combatant under the Act. That is not the point of view of the true conscientious objector. It is really an insult to any citizen to put his objection on a footing of that kind.
I want to say this in conclusion. My desire is to find a fair solution of what is really a difficult problem. It is never more difficult to ensure justice and fair treatment than in the case of an unpopular minority, and everybody knows that conscientious objectors stand in the position of an unpopular minority at the present time. It must be so. One cannot avoid that. It is exactly what has happened to some of the bravest of the brave in the course of history; they have had to suffer because, however brave they are, their views have not been in accord with the powers that be for the time being. One of the greatest examples of what I say was that of
486
Sir Thomas More. He said he was willing to take office, but that he would put his duty to God first, and when his duty to God came first he gave up his life under conditions of which we all know. I am sure nobody in this House wants either persecution or inquisition. I therefore hope that on the lines of civil decision and civil punishment as against military decision and military punishment fair satisfaction can be given with regard to a difficult problem, and that we may relieve the Army of a matter which ought not to be imposed upon it at the present time.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I must first express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for having at my suggestion postponed his Question until to-day. The noble and learned Lord has placed a specific Question on the Paper, and I think I had better first reply to that. He asks whether the provisions of Army Order X of May 25 last have been applied in all cases. I understand that in no case since the Army Order was published and reached the units concerned has an award of detention been passed by Court-Martial—that is to say, in every case the Order has been followed.
I hope that the statement which the Prime Minister made in the House of Commons an hour or two since will go a long way to meet the various comments and objections which have been made by my noble and learned friend. Perhaps the best plan would be for me to read the Prime Minister's statement. It was as follows—
The procedure to be adopted by the War Office in the cases of soldiers, under Army Order X, of 25th May, 1916, sentenced to imprisonment for refusing to obey orders is as follows:
The first step is to sift out the cases where there is prima facie evidence to show that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service. For this purpose all Court-Martial proceedings on conscientious objectors will be referred for scrutiny to the War Office.
With regard to the cases of those who have been before a Tribunal, the records will be consulted. If the data therein are not sufficient, further investigation will be made; answers to categorical questions will be required, and those who have knowledge of the man's antecedents, such as ministers of religion, may be consulted.

487
With regard to those who have never been before a Tribunal, the first step will be to require them to answer the categorical questions which the Tribunal might have put. If the information is supplied investigation will be made into those answers, and for the purpose of such investigation, and in all cases where a prima facie case is established, the Army Council will depend on the advice of the Central Appeal Tribunal, or a committee of that Tribunal who have consented to lend their assistance for this purpose—they are a purely civil body, and we are grateful for their consent to add this to their duties. If the information is refused, and in all cases where the plea is not sustained, the prisoner will remain under military control, his sentence will at once be commuted to detention, and he will be sent to a detention barrack to undergo his sentence.
The men who are held to be genuine conscientious objectors will be released from the civil prison on their undertaking to perform work of national importance under civil control. They will be transferred pro forma to Section W of the Army Reserve, and they will cease to be subject to military discipline or the Army Act so long as they continue to carry out satisfactorily the duties imposed upon them. The Home Secretary has appointed a Committee, consisting of Mr. W. Brace, M.P., Sir Thomas Elliott, K.C.B., and Sir Matthew Nathan, G.C.M.G., who are now engaged on the work of determining to what kind of work these men should be set and under what conditions, and to take the executive action which is necessary.
I think your Lordships will agree that it is an advantage to have the services placed at our disposal for this purpose of the members of the Central Appeal Tribunal. The work which they have done has gained for them the greatest credit, and I believe we are indebted to the good offices of the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Salisbury, for their readiness to assist. I certainly hope that the statement I have read may have met in great measure the points raised by the noble and learned Lord. I understood him to inquire whether the statements in the document I have read apply only to this Army Order X.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
LORD SANDHURST: I understand that this refers to conscientious objectors as a whole. That is my impression. I hope the House will see that an effort has been made to cope with this difficult question; and certainly, speaking for myself, I anticipate great advantage from the assistance which will be received from the Central Appeal Tribunal.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the very wide interest that is taken in this question by some of those who are in constant communication with myself, and with no doubt many of your Lordships, seems to make it desirable that I should say a few words upon this matter. Like the rest of your Lordships, I have tried to understand the intricacies of what is undoubtedly a very difficult question, and to form a judgment for myself as to what ought on general principles to be done. I am afraid that some members of His Majesty's Government know only too well from the trouble I have occasioned them the amount of attention I have been trying to give to this matter. Any member of your Lordships' House must have an acuter brain than mine if he is able, from the statement which has just been read, to deduce with certainty what will be the practical working of the scheme set forth in the several paragraphs. As far as I am able to follow them, it seems to me that the lines indicated by the Prime Minister's statement are the lines which we should desire to see followed. It sounds to me a reasonable line of action, and that which for some time some of us have been trying to advocate, but I speak with reserve until one can read the document in detail and weigh the practical working of its various parts. Everybody recognises the extraordinary difficulty of knowing how to deal with a problem which, from the necessity of the case, is a new question. We are dealing with a question which is necessarily new, because the conditions which surround it are new, and everybody is prepared, I am certain, to make allowances for the difficulties that necessarily arise in the carrying out of what is a very delicate task.
The noble and learned Lord who introduced the subject distinguished, as we all do, between those who are hypocrites and shirkers and the genuine conscientious objectors. But I think we must go further than that. There are two distinct divisions

489
to be borne in mind with regard to the conscientious objectors themselves. There are those who are in the strict sense of the word conscientious objectors on religions or semi-religions grounds. Those men I imagine it is the wish of all of us should be treated with respect, even if we regard their opinions as absolutely indefensible, and I do regard them as absolutely indefensible. I do not think they can be sustained logically by any people who are taking advantage of the rules of a civilised community, rules which must in the last resort find their backing in force. I do not think it is possible to escape from that conclusion. Therefore when I say that they are to be treated with respect I do not mean that I entertain any lurking sympathy with the opinions to which they give expression. But we are not governed chiefly by logic in matters of this kind, and there is a good deal more that has to be considered when we are dealing with them. I believe myself that most of those who belong to that class of objector are perfectly honest. I know I shall carry all your Lordships with me when I say that they are not shirkers and not cowards, but are honest in their objections on religious or semi-religious lines, and that they do partly for that reason require in a special sense considerate treatment in the way we handle them, however much we differ from them. Parliament has endeavoured, by the Acts on the Statute Book and by the rules which have followed from those Acts, to meet their difficulties, and it has been the endeavour of all the authorities, I imagine, to be fair to them. I suppose it is by common experience exceedingly hard to be absolutely sure that we are fair to those with whom we profoundly differ, but, difficult or not, it is what we have to try to do, and I believe Parliament has tried to do it in this particular case.
The other set of objectors are those whose objection does not rest primarily on religious or semi-religious grounds, but who object on quasi-political grounds to conscription and are taking this mode to show their objection to conscription. That seems to me to be an objection which belongs to a different category. These people find themselves in a tiny minority in what is almost a unanimous country, and they adopt a mischievous mode of supporting a political opinion by an attempt to paralyse the Executive. That is not a new policy. It has been acted upon in other fields than
490
this, and it has not always been without defenders even within the limits of Parliament, but to my mind it has seemed absolutely indefensible. These men, too, like all citizens, ought to receive fair treatment and to be safeguarded against cruel or arbitrary punishment. That they have received harsh and cruel punishment in the last few months has been adequately substantiated. Men in both the classes to which I have referred seem to me to have been subjected to treatment which I can only think would be deplored by most of your Lordships, who would feel—if they were satisfied, as I am, as to the truth of the facts—that those who brought about that form of treatment had not been acting in the way that men ought in a civilised country. I think it is absolutely right that such objectors should be subjected to the sternest imposition of labour of even the most strict kind, but I confess that such an argument as found utterance in this House some time ago—that once the Tribunal had rejected the man's appeal as a conscientious objector he became from that moment ipso facto a soldier and ought to be subjected to military laws and military ways of treatment—such an argument seemed to be not only a mistake in policy but something like a false interpretation of our fundamental principles in this matter. Cases of that kind have arisen, and the document which we have just heard read will, I hope, go far to render the repetition of that impossible. I cannot help hoping that what we shall find to be its outcome is this, that we are going to apply large principles of reason and common sense to a difficulty which will never be settled by the mere application of technical rules.
We have to realise that a large number of the men in both classes of conscientious objector to which I have alluded have been placed for treatment forthwith, or almost forthwith, under the control of the military authorities as soldiers. There is nothing more natural than that the officers under whom they are placed should treat them according to military laws and experiences which lave been theirs, but I do think we are justified in saying that military officers are not from their training, which has not always had the result of forming a judicial habit of mind, best qualified to judge about conscientious objections and the way in which the men who entertain those objections ought to be treated. Therefore I, for one, rejoice

491
to learn—as I think we did learn from the document which the noble Lord read to us—that such objectors will be transferred to the civil authority, and that this is to be retrospective in its effect in dealing with the men of to-day as well as the men of the future. I wait, however, to see the document to know whether that is so, but it sounded so as the words were read to us just now.
We are all grateful to the men who throughout the country have been sitting on these Tribunals, the Local Tribunals and the Appeal Tribunals, at great sacrifice of time; but I suppose it is, from the nature of the case, impossible that we should find the several thousands of men who constitute these Tribunals all men of the highest judicial qualifications, able to deal with considerateness and wisdom with such difficult cases as these. However, some sort of revision seems to me to have been necessary, and the fact that this revision will now be possible to a larger extent than formerly will be likely to lead to the result we all desire. It is because of this that I welcome the statement that has been made, and I believe we may by this means get rid of an anxious and difficult problem which has taxed the ingenuity of some of the best brains in this country.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, with so much of what the most reverend Primate has said do I find myself in accord, that I need not detain you for more than a moment. I should, however, like to enter a caveat against the suggestion which he made that it is only the religious who possess a conscience. There is such a thing as a social conscience. I listened as carefully as I could to the very complex statement made by the Prime Minister in another place, which was read to us by the noble Lord, and I hope it may be the case that it carries out what we all desire, though I am not sure that I entirely share the optimism of the most reverend Primate. It is necessary to look very carefully at documents which emanate from the War Office before you can accept them at their face value. Your Lordships will recollect that the noble and learned Lord who raised the question referred to the statement made in this House by the late Secretary of State for War. I think at that time all your Lordships—certainly all the public—understood that that statement meant that people
492
in this unfortunate category would be transferred to civil prisons. When, after some days, it appeared that this was not the case, a long explanatory statement was issued by the authorities in which people learned for the first time that detention was a different thing from imprisonment, and that a person who had been sentenced to two years' detention would remain in barracks instead of being sent to a civil prison. I say without hesitation that this was really a trick upon the public, a rather discreditable trick, and one to which I am sure the late Secretary of State for War would have been the last man to be a party. The public did not understand that this was the intention of the statement, and we shall have to look carefully at this Order and see what it really means. However, as I propose to refer to the subject next Tuesday I will not trouble your Lordships further now.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, perhaps I might, in reply, thank Lord Sandhurst for the answer he gave. It is extremely satisfactory to hear that in all cases the Army Order has been obeyed. In reference to what is meant by the statement of the Prime Minister, I confess that at the moment I can give no opinion. It seems to me at present much too difficult and complex, but I hope it will carry out the suggestions which the noble Lord thinks are to be found in it.

THE IRISH NEGOTIATIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had the following Notice on the Paper—
To ask whether His Majesty's Government will lay before Parliament forthwith—

1. The proposals as to the Government of Ireland which were made by Mr. Lloyd George to Sir Edward Carson and Mr. Redmond for communication to their respective supporters, together with a statement as to the authority upon which these proposals were made; and

2. The Report of Lord Hardinge's Committee relating to the circumstances which led up to the recent rebellion, and also the latest information in the possession of the Government as to the spread of disaffection in the three southern provinces of Ireland.

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I will detain you only a few minutes at this late hour, but the circumstances of the situation in Ireland, and I may add in Parliament and in the Government, are so grave that perhaps I shall be forgiven if I call attention to this subject. This is a moment of very important decision, and it seems to me of first moment that accurate information should be placed at the service of all those who have to decide. I may give as an instance that I am informed, through the usual channels, that there is to be an important meeting of a great political Party, consisting of members of the House of Commons, in the early days of next week. I suppose that this meeting will be addressed by Ministers of the Crown, and that those who attend will be told a great many things which they do not at present know; but it will be rather difficult for them to take decisions upon information supplied at the last moment. They will be called upon to form a judgment upon the statement which is made to them—a statement of facts which are at present very mysterious, and which must be to them very novel unless, as I hope, His Majesty's Government are willing to give the information for which I have ventured to ask.
First of all there is the question, What is the character of the proposals which Mr. Lloyd George laid before certain persons in Ireland? There are several editions of those proposals current—certainly two. There was an edition communicated to the Press, and there was an edition contained in Mr. Redmond's statement on the 12th of this month to his colleagues in the representation of Ireland. I do not want to detain your Lordships at this moment by any careful analysis of those documents. But it appeared in one of the documents that all the great difficulties of the adjustment of the government of Ireland which follow upon exclusion, and with which your Lordships are familiar from the debates which took place in this House two years ago, are to be reserved not only until after the war, but until after a conference of all the Dominions, which is to discuss and arrive at a new Constitution for the whole Empire. That proposal appears in Mr. Redmond's speech. It does not appear in the proposal communicated to the Press.
But there is a more important difference. There is the real status which the six excluded
494
counties are to hold under the scheme. In the Press communiqué there was to be a sort of local option for the six counties, which were to be allowed severally to come in or to keep out of Home Rule as they pleased. That did not appear in Mr. Redmond's edition, which stated that the six counties were to be excluded as a whole during the war emergency period—a purely temporary exclusion. I need not tell your Lordships that this was not the view indicated by Sir Edward Carson to his friends. He told them that the exclusion of the six counties was to be permanent. Now here is a profound difference, which goes to the very root of the settlement. I need not tell your Lordships that all of us who sit on this side of the House have always looked upon the position of the Protestants of Ulster as a matter undoubtedly of importance in a Home Rule settlement, and that there should be any ambiguity on that vital head when these great decisions are to be taken, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is a most deplorable circumstance. I ask that these matters should be cleared up once and for all by laying Mr. Lloyd George's proposals, the proposals he made with great circumstance and pomp, before Parliament. They have been laid before the Nationalists of Ireland; they have been laid before the representatives of Ulster; but they have not been laid before Parliament. I ask your Lordships to agree with me that this should be done.
The next point is, What authority had Mr. Lloyd George to make these proposals? That, again, is a mystery. We heard from my noble friend Lord Selborne the other night a statement of the reasons for his resignation, and he stated that he had never contemplated that Home Rule was to be immediately introduced when he agreed to Mr. Lloyd George's mission. There is no question whatever that all the editions which have been laid before the public agree in one particular—that Home Rule is to be brought immediately into force; differing diametrically from what Lord Selborne conceived to be the state of things when he agreed to Mr. Lloyd George's mission. What authority, therefore, I ask, had Mr. Lloyd George? By whose authority was he acting when he laid these detailed proposals before these various bodies? Surely that is not an unreasonable request. It seems elementary. A distinguished Minister of the Crown makes proposals of the most vital

495
character, touching—except the war itself—the most burning question of contemporary politics; he makes these proposals to various persons in Ireland, and none of us know by what authority he was acting. What had Mr. Redmond to say upon that? He said—
"Mr. Lloyd George has formulated on his own responsibility a proposal which we may fairly regard as the proposal of the Government."
May we fairly regard it as "the proposal of the Government"? That is what he stated to his friends—quite differing, of course, from my noble friend Lord Selborne. Lord Selborne stated that Mr. Lloyd George was not a plenipotentiary, and that his business was to inquire and to report to the Cabinet. So that, gleaning what information we can from the various persons who have addressed the public, we find an absolute mystery as to what authority Mr. Lloyd George was acting on when he made these detailed proposals to the contending parties in Ireland.
What I have said is not the most important part of the inquiries I have ventured to put upon the Paper. The most important point is, What is the condition of Ireland at this moment? What is the condition of the country to which it is proposed immediately to grant self-government? The public is in a condition of ignorance upon the subject, and, if I may say so respectfully, so are your Lordships. The House must remember that there is a censorship in force, and all the information as to what goes on in Ireland is not allowed to appear in the public Press. I do not want to say anything in the least polemical or disrespectful of His Majesty's Government; but the existence of this censorship throws upon them a very special responsibility. I do not complain of this censorship. It is very likely perfectly right. But if the ordinary channels of information are not allowed to operate, then there is a tremendous responsibility thrown upon the Government not to keep their countrymen in ignorance of vital information when great decisions have to be taken.
The question is, What is the condition of Ireland? I think your Lordships all remember the speeches which Mr. Redmond made during the early months of the war. I have in my mind especially the speech which he made on that celebrated 3rd of August, 1914. That speech was hailed,
496
and rightly hailed, with the greatest satisfaction by almost every man of all Parties throughout the country. Mr. Redmond spoke of how the old bitterness which had existed in Ireland for many years had passed away. He did not conceal from himself that some years ago there would not have been anything like that feeling; but now (he said) everybody was united to rally round the country in the great war. That was the speech which Mr. Redmond made—I am sure quite honestly—in 1914. That was the picture of Ireland; and if we had been called upon to grant Home Rule to such an Ireland as that—though I do not mean to say that many of your Lordships who are Unionists would have agreed to it in principle—we would have thought that there would have been comparatively little danger, under proper restrictions, if such a policy had been carried out.
What has happened since? Has there been any oppression in Ireland? Has there been anything done since those speeches which might properly be resented by the Irish people? No. Ireland was governed very badly. I do not attribute that to the noble Lord (Lord Wimborne), if I may say so in his presence. I believe that had his advice been followed things would have been much better in Ireland. Ireland was very badly governed, but it was not oppressively governed. It was governed by Mr. Birrell with the advice of Mr. Redmond and Mr. Dillon. That went on. Nothing was done to oppress the people of Ireland. And then, like a thunderclap, came the rebellion, and it appeared that so far from being entirely friendly to this country, so far from all the bitterness, which we, of course, deplore, having passed away, the old spirit was there. That is a most serious state of things. His Majesty's Government very rightly appointed a Committee, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Hardinge, to inquire into the state of things out of which this rebellion had arisen. Where is the Report of that Committee? I ask the Government in no spirit of offence, Is it not truly wonderful that the country should be asked to consider a profound modification of the government of Ireland when the Committee which the Government themselves appointed to inquire into the condition of opinion in Ireland has never reported?
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The Report has not been published.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend says I ought to have stated that the Report has not been published. I presume he means that it is in existence but has not been communicated to Parliament. That may be so. I ask that it should be communicated to Parliament. But that is not all. It is not merely that, after Ireland had been governed since the war began with every desire to meet the wishes of the Irish people, a rebellion ensued. But every day since that rebellion was suppressed things have grown worse there. We want to know—and, after all, the public has a right to know—how much worse they have grown. What is the state of opinion in Ireland? We know that the few misguided men whom it was necessary to execute as leaders of the rebellion—extraordinarily few compared to the number of innocent persons on the other side who were shot—have excited an enormous amount of sympathy ill Ireland. They have been styled martyrs, not merely by the ordinary people, but, I believe in more than one case, by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, men who have an enormous influence on public opinion in Ireland.
Your Lordships know at any rate to some extent what has happened. Sinn Fein has become the predominant faith in three provinces of Ireland. What are the political opinions of Sinn Feiners? Why, they are for separation. They are not satisfied with Mr. Lloyd George's proposals—whichever edition of them is correct; they are not content to follow Mr. Redmond; they are for separation; they are—I must use the word—enemies of this country. Every day their organisation is increasing and their numbers are being augmented. I am informed that some of the very men who were imprisoned by Courts-Martial for having taken part in the rebellion, and are now being released, have gone back to Ireland, where in Sinn Fein uniform they are organising the country against the Government. How far has that gone?
I am not surprised that my noble friend Lord Selborne said that no man contemplated an election in Ireland at this moment. What would be the result of an election there? I am not sure that the result of an election in the three southern provinces of Ireland at this moment would not be the return of more members favourable to Germany than to this country. I ask the Government whether they will produce the facts on
498
which we can form an opinion. Are the people of this country to be told that Home Rule, self-government, is to be granted to a people who are in such a condition as that? I cannot believe it. To whom are we going to grant Home Rule? Are they to be loyal subjects of the King, or are they to be the King's enemies? I repeal, We ask the Government for Mr. Lloyd George's proposals; we ask the Government for Mr. Lloyd George's authority; we ask the Government for Lord Hardinge's Report; and we ask them for a general statement giving us, as far as they can, the latest information as to the true condition of opinion in Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I think that the noble Marquess and his friends are well aware that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government no public advantage can be gained from a discussion of this matter to-night, except the gratification of a natural and easily understood curiosity in view of the reports of events which have recently appeared in the newspapers. On the other hand, we believe that a discussion of this kind at this particular moment may do definite harm to the cause of national unity. But the noble Marquess and his friends have apparently held that a postponement of this discussion until some day early next week would be disastrous to the country. The noble Marquess has not precisely explained how, beyond stating that a Party meeting to be held at the Carlton Club is entitled to use your Lordships' House as a channel of information in order that the gentlemen who attend it may not be taken by surprise, but may receive sufficient information before they hear their political leaders state their case. In these circumstances I can only give such an answer as appears to me possible in reply to the noble Marquess.
The sole preoccupation of His Majesty's Government in this matter, as in others, is the successful carrying on of the war, and after the lamentable rising which took place in Ireland at Easter had been put down and as the weeks passed it became a matter of serious consideration to the Government how the government of Ireland was best to be carried on in a manner least hampering to the conduct of the war. To some that problem appeared perfectly simple. The general adminis

499
tration of Ireland, it was supposed by not a few, could be carried on by the official Departments still existing there in the absence of the political heads who had resigned, and all civil jurisdiction throughout the country could be suspended. That was what appeared to not a few the proper method for carrying on the government of Ireland during the progress of the war. On the other hand, there were some who foresaw difficulty in taking this simple course. The period under which that system was to endure was, in the nature of the case, undefined, and it might be long. It was impossible, indeed, to say that the period might only be the period until the signing of peace. That might be an extended period; but it was quite clear that the mere signature of peace need not be the signal for a complete change of the system of government in Ireland. It was argued by those who held this other view—also a numerous body in the country—that a mere continuance of that form of government might have a dangerous bearing upon moderate Nationalist opinion of Ireland—which, by common agreement, has played a creditable part throughout the war—with the result that some Nationalist opinion, now moderate, might tend to become more extreme, and that therefore no slight danger attached to what I have spoken of as the simple course.
It is important to remember—it was not, I think, entirely recognised by the noble Marquess in the animated observations which distinguished the latter part of his speech—that you cannot divide opinion in Ireland into two classes, with a dark broad line between them, all the people on one side of the line being enthusiastic loyalists and all the others rebels, but that opinions in Ireland are shaded off like the colours of the prism, with every variety of view, starting at one end from the most extreme holder of Fenian or Clan-na-Gael views and passing through a series of shaded lines until you come to the most enthusiastic type of loyal subject of His Majesty, of whom I am glad to hope there are many. That being so, and those differences of opinion existing, people began to ask, Is it not possible at this time to solve this problem of the manner of carrying on the government of Ireland throughout the war by bringing parties in Ireland together? and, as is well known, the Minister of Munitions was asked to undertake a mediating task. Of the personal qualifications
500
of my right hon. friend as a negotiator I need not say anything. They are well known to the country, and have been proved. He also possessed the special qualification of having been one of those who took part in July, 1914, in the Conference held at Buckingham Palace, so that he was acquainted with not a few of the initial facts belonging to the problem.
The noble Marquess opposite spoke of the proposals of Mr. Lloyd George as though they had been initiated by him and set forth for acceptance to the leaders of the different parties in Ireland. The statement of the noble Marquess is liable to mislead, although I know that this was far from his intention. The proposals—if that is the word to use—were the result of discussions, not only with Sir Edward Carson and with Mr. Redmond, but with a very large number of other gentlemen—some of whom, unless I am mistaken, were members of your Lordships' House—representing a number of different opinions and different localities in Ireland. What, however, is important to remember is that these proposals as they appeared later on to the public were the suggestions coming from a mediator; they were not terms put forward by an arbitrator. It is exceedingly important, if I may impress it on your Lordships, to bear that in mind, because the impression created by the speech of the noble Marquess is, I think, of an entirely different character. He spoke of these proposals as though they had been put forward, to take or to leave, to Sir Edward Carson and to Mr. Redmond by Mr. Lloyd George himself. The correct way to look at the matter is this: that the proposals were made with and through those gentlemen, who, if they found themselves able to concur in them, were presumably able to set them before their supporters with a good hope of their being approved in the country.
The noble Marquess has asked me a number of questions, so I will venture to ask him and his friends one. Do he and his friends raise objection to the approval of the terms by the two Parties in Ireland? Is that the purpose of the noble Marquess's thirst for knowledge—simply to raise objection to the possibility of these terms being approved by those who are most competent to speak for Irish opinion? So far as this part of the subject is concerned that is really the whole story. I do not enter, of course, at this time into any of the particular details belonging to this

501
branch of the subject. They are still under discussion, and nobody can attempt to deny the difficulty which surrounds not a few of them. That is obvious to everybody. Therefore this evening I do not propose to enter into any detail regarding the suggestions which noble Lords have seen in print.
The second Question of the noble Marquess refers to the Report of Lord Hardinge's Committee. He appeared to assume that the country would be asked to take decisions upon these important matters of Irish government without having had the chance of seeing this Report. The noble Marquess's fears are in this respect unfounded. The country is not being asked to take any decision about Irish government, nor can it be until a measure is introduced into Parliament dealing by way of amendment with the Home Rule Act as it now stands on the Statute Book. I can assure the noble Marquess that it will not be long before Lord Hardinge's Report is issued. It is now being prepared for issue. I am not able to name the date, but I hope it will appear shortly; and the statements therein contained will no doubt be of assistance to Parliament and to the country in deciding how the government of Ireland is to be carried on in the future.
Then, in the third place, the noble Marquess asks me what is the latest information in the possession of the Government as to the spread of disaffection in the three southern provinces of Ireland. The noble Marquess knows, and other noble Lords opposite who have had to do with Ireland know, that it has never been the custom to publish the confidential reports received from the Police authorities in different parts of Ireland, and I cannot imagine that any departure from that practice, which has proved in the past to be salutary, is likely to be engaged in now. And when the noble Marquess spoke, again in animated terms, of what he describes in his Question as the "spread of disaffection," I could not help feeling that he was putting the very worst possible colour upon reports which he and his friends may have received from Ireland; and I noticed the enthusiasm with which his rather lurid pictures were cheered by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, who does know Ireland, and has, as we all know, a considerable personal interest in the country. In my opinion the suppression of the rising of two months ago in Ireland
502
was carried out with signal humanity and moderation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I do not believe that there is any country in Europe or out of it, whether the form of government be a Monarchy or a Republic, where a rising of such a character would have been put down with so little bloodshed and with so rare a recourse to the capital penalty.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Of that I am firmly convinced. But it would be idle to deny that in some parts of Ireland, and in some classes, there is felt a degree of sympathy, which cannot be considered by reasonable people as wholesome, with not a few of those who took part in the rising. It may be said, no doubt, that the case of some of those who were engaged in it is not undeserving of sympathy from the fact that they were very young and may have been dupes of those who were either merely designing or else were dangerous fanatics. But it is the case—and it is an old story in Ireland—that the tendency, after a rising of this kind has been put down, is towards a certain sympathy with those, or at any rate some of those who took part in it, to an extent which is not intelligible to the English mind. Something of the same kind was visible in France after the great rising of the Commune in 1871, of which this affair in Dublin may be considered to be a very pale shadow. Wishing at least as strongly as the noble Marquess to avoid anything in the nature of a polemical discussion to-night, I do not desire even to indicate the different conclusions which people of different views and minds may be disposed to draw from that fact. If I were to attempt even to describe those conclusions, I should be getting on to contested ground. I merely desire to point out that such a fact as that may cause people to arrive at quite different conclusions of policy as to the course that ought to be adopted, the country being what it is and the condition of affairs what we know, in regard to the future government of Ireland, and in particular for its government during the period of the war. I do not think that I can usefully add anything to the replies

503
which I have given to the noble Marquess's Questions. He will, I fear, consider them rather barren and inadequate, but I do not think they could be materially added to without entering upon that controversial ground which he has expressed his desire to avoid and upon which I am particularly anxious not to tread.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not think that, whatever the noble Marquess intended to do, he has given any information which will have been very novel to your Lordships in reply to what has been said. But I must take exception to the rebuke which he addressed both to my noble friend to-night and to myself last night as to the public disadvantage of these statements, and I will do so by calling attention to his own record in these matters. As long as a year and a-half ago the noble Marquess protested against my bringing forward the question of the rise of the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland and the encouragement which was given to it by the inaction of the authorities, and indicated that I was doing no public service by that reference. But when the outbreak took place and the subject was discussed in your Lordships' House, I was twitted from the Government Bench on the fact that we had not initiated discussions upon the matter; that, whatever we had done in private, we had taken no public action during the time these private warnings had been given. I do not think the noble Marquess recollects that pressure was brought to bear upon us when the noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, brought forward his Motion. We were told by a private but perfectly open communication that it was undesirable for the Government to enter into the subject because Lord Hardinge's Committee had been appointed. But Lord Hardinge's Committee having been appointed, and your Lordships having been told that you ought to be dumb until after it had reported, the Government set to work on vital subjects without waiting for the Report of Lord Hardinge's Committee. And now to-night we are told again that it is premature for us to bring these matters up. I want to make it perfectly clear what it is we desire. My noble friend Lord Salisbury wanted to ascertain the facts. We are quite aware that we are exposing ourselves to the charge of obstructing, or of saying things which may make more difficult, an arrangement which the Government desire to make.
504
We challenge the action of the Government on two main grounds. First in reference to the Prime Minister's statement that this is the best time to attempt an arrangement of this kind. I do not believe a worse time could possibly have been chosen, because nobody knows the conditions which are obtaining in Ireland except the members of His Majesty's Government, who are learning them only by degrees. Secondly, I think the Government have made the greatest possible blunder by doing everything in their power to belittle the rising. The noble Marquess said with great force that nothing could exceed the humanity with which the whole business had been treated in Ireland. But owing to the fact that in all their communications they endeavour to belittle the rising to the level of a street riot, this, instead of obtaining for them as it might have done the sympathy of the world for the leniency with which the rising was put down, has obtained for them comments, entirely unmerited, on their severity and left a false impression on neutral nations and in America.
I know that the noble Marquess's colleagues have taken great credit to themselves because some assimilation between the opinions of rival Parties in Ireland has been come to. I do not want to go into that, except to say that when one Party believes the arrangement to be permanent and the other Party believes it to be but temporary, it is very easy indeed to come to an agreement. But how long will that agreement continue? I am not going to say a word about Mr. Lloyd George as a negotiator, but if you look back to the record of his negotiations in labour disputes or other matters, whatever we may say of his enthusiasm and ability, or the manner in which he has temporarily composed differences, you will find that in every single case he has done so by taking very short views of life; and in this Irish question I believe you will find that this apparent concurrence is to be numbered not by months but by days. The noble Marquess rather wondered that I cheered the statement which my noble friend Lord Salisbury made. I did so because I do not think he overstated the case. We are warning the Government because we believe that while you are talking here the pro-German party in Ireland is organising. We believe that every day you protract these negotiations is a day of additional danger to this country.

505
We believe that if in the end you put the power into the hands of Mr. Redmond you will be putting it into the hands of men who, by the best evidence we can get, will not return one-third of his supporters if you dared to go to an election. We believe that Lord Salisbury's statement is not an overstatement—that you are going to have a pro-German majority in Ireland if you hold an election at this moment. And we believe that the reason of that is this, that instead of putting down the rising and continuing to govern you have allowed all those who, as the noble Marquess opposite said, are graded off into various shades of Opinion, to throw themselves on the extreme side, which they are doing by hundreds and thousands every week; and you will not arrest that by hastening to give what will be regarded, not as your gratuitous contribution towards the settlement of the country, but as the reward of successful rebellion and as the vantage ground for further agitation.
I will add one or two points which the noble Marquess, I hope, will study, and will bring to the knowledge of his colleagues. In the first place, I assure him that in many parts of Ireland the position of loyalists and of the loyal Nationalists who co-operated against the Sinn Feiners has been rendered precarious. I assert that life is in danger in many parts of Ireland where it was not in danger a fortnight ago. I assert that all the arms have not been recovered, and that those which have been recovered are found to have had an origin which should cause the noble Marquess to look with very grave concern on some whom he is inclined to trust. I assert also that these things cannot be known because of the necessary operation of the censorship. I have in my possession copies of documents which I do not impeach the Government for not publishing, but which, if they were known in this country, would have a very serious effect on public opinion as to whether in these circumstances we are wise in taking any power out of the hands of the Central Government. Every day these things are getting worse, because it is believed that the British Government are going to make a complete surrender of power. You are building your house on sand, and if you complain again that we have not warned you, or if you complain that we on these Benches have interfered to stop delicate negotiations, we reply that the important thing is that the Government should face
506
the facts, and that the country should know to what it is committed by the intolerable position in which the critics of the Government are put by the statement that if they do anything to embarrass the Government it may have a disastrous effect on the conduct of the war.
What I would urge upon the Government is that they should no longer delay to govern in Ireland. Why has there been an absence of a Chief Secretary and a Lord Lieutenant for two months? It is two months since there was any Executive officer in Ireland. We are not asking for a continuance indefinitely of Martial Law. It is perfectly possible to govern Ireland without a continuance of Martial Law to an indefinite period. But you must have the proper officers, and you are bound to make these appointments. Let the Government turn to the ordinary work of governing Ireland. Let Mr. Lloyd George, if he is to take up the reins at the War Office, take up that business and leave this process of negotiation, which is at this moment doing nothing but mischief. I say this because I am convinced that, whatever you may be able to do after the war, you cannot afford at this moment in Ireland to weaken the authority of the Central Government.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I feel that if I allow this conversation to end without saying a few words I may seem to be wanting in respect to noble Lords on the other side who have raised this important question. The first Question placed on the Paper by the noble Marquess opposite raises two quite distinct issues. He criticised with a rather unsparing hand the proposals which are usually described as the proposals made by Mr. Lloyd George to the representatives of the different Parties in Ireland; and then he asked upon whose authority these proposals had been made. I venture to submit to the House that any discussion of these proposals at the present time would he not merely inconvenient to Ministers, but most disadvantageous to the public interest. And for this reason. These proposals have not yet been disposed of by the Cabinet. They only came before the Cabinet at quite a recent date. It was not until after the Whitsuntide recess that the matter was submitted to them, and even at this moment there are points which I can certainly say seem to me to be of vital importance which are still undergoing

507
examination by the Government. In these circumstances, to have in either House of Parliament a heated discussion upon the details of the proposals seems to me to be in the highest degree inadvisable.
My noble friend, I thought, rather gave away his case when he made it a subject of complaint that several editions of these proposals had appeared in the Press. That is quite true. There have been several editions, and they show discrepancies at several points. What does that prove? It proves that the whole matter is still in a fluid state, and that no proposals have yet been stereotyped. If that is the case, and I hope your Lordships will take it from me that it is so, does not that by implication answer the other point with which my noble friend dealt—namely, the question of the authority for these proposals? There can be no Government authority for proposals of this kind until they have been considered, dealt with, and accepted by the Government; and, as I venture to tell your Lordships, that is not the case, because the examination of these proposals is still proceeding. I will not add to what the noble Marquess who leads the House said just now as to the origin of these various schemes. They emerge, I think not unnaturally, from the consultations which have been taking place—consultations certainly authorised by His Majesty's Government, but consultations which in no way bind His Majesty's Government, and for the details of which they can accept no responsibility. I sum up by saying that as we have not accepted these proposals we cannot be regarded as having in any way authorised them.
508
Then my noble friend asks for further information with regard to the condition of Ireland. That is, I think, a very reasonable request. I certainly am not going to lay myself open to the charge of belittling the rebellion. I have never belittled it. I have always regarded it with feelings of the gravest anxiety, and I am not going to complain of the description which my noble, friend Lord Midleton gave just now, speaking with a knowledge which he possesses to an exceptional degree of the present condition of many parts of Ireland. I admit frankly that before we make any proposals to Parliament we shall have to satisfy Parliament that our proposals are adequate having regard to the present condition of Ireland, and having regard to the precautions which we may think it necessary to take in order to prevent a recurrence of these lamentable disorders. But, my Lords, at this moment we are not asking you to accept any proposals, and, therefore, it seems to me that the moment has not come when we need enter into details as to the state of Ireland or as to the precautions by which our proposals will have to be accompanied. I admit readily that that will form a vital and essential part of our case, and we shall be ready to deal with it at the proper time. Let me, in conclusion, say that if we do not seek to prolong this discussion, it is certainly not because we have any idea that this question can be dealt with without the fullest possible discussion in Parliament. We certainly have no idea of evading that discussion.
House adjourned at five minutes past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.