Lords Sitting of 30 January 1918

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I beg to move that Lord Stanmore do take the Chair in Committees of the Whole House this day.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

TREATMENT OF RUSSIANS.
LORD SHEFFIELD LORD SHEFFIELD had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the circumstances of the internment and of the deportation of Mr. G. Tchitcherine, and to ask what agreement or understanding, if any, was come to between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government at Petrograd as to the removal of the embargo on British subjects detained at Petrograd, and whether any undertaking was given on behalf of His Majesty's Government that the Russians at that time interned here should be set at liberty and allowed to return to Russia, and how many Russians are still at present interned in this country, and to move for any papers or correspondence relating to this subject which have passed between this Government or their representative at Petrograd and the Russian authorities at Petrograd.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that it is necessary to read my Notice of Motion because it is in your Lordships' hands, and, I will proceed at once to the facts. This case of Mr. Tchitcherine is, I think, one in which very hard and unjust treatment has been meted out to a man of honour and position who never ought to have been treated so. The Home Office made an Order for his internment on August 7, 1917. He was informed that he was to be interned on August 11, and he then represented that he was actively engaged on behalf of the Russian Government disbursing money on their behalf and having money of theirs which he must account for, and that it was impossible that his activities should be broken up. Therefore the Order was served on him on August 22, and he was interned on August 25. I should like to
176
call attention to the alleged reasons, for which he was interned. The first was that he was of hostile association because he associated with Germans at an International Club at 107, Charlotte Street, W. The other charge against him was one of anti-Ally and pro-German activities that were a danger to public safety and to the defence of the Realm.
As to the first charge that this was an international club. It was one of a socialist character that Mr. Tchitcherine had belonged to before the war, and it was allowed to continue. The Government had power to close it, but it remained open under the sanction of the Police, and therefore was a perfectly lawful place to frequent. I believe that the great mass of the Germans belonging to it were interned at the outbreak of the war in August, 1914. At any rate, it was in the power of the Government at any time to have interned any dangerous Germans, or to have closed the club, and it was rather late in the day on August 25, 1917, three years after the outbreak of war, to make it a charge against a man that he frequented a club where practically no Germans did attend after the war.
The second charge was of anti-Ally and pro-German activities which constituted a danger to the public safety and to the defence of the Realm. I think that it is one of the misfortunes of this procedure of internment that the Advisory Committee which had it in hand took no evidence, or at least did not communicate the evidence which they took to what I may call the defendant. The Committee does not allow the defendant to see the evidence which it sees. All you can say is, that not only was Mr. Tchitcherine unaware of any evidence showing that he was anti-Ally and pro-German, but he absolutely repudiates any such imputation. Mr. Tchitcherine is a man of distinction. He formerly was in the Russian Foreign Office. His family relations held important posts in Russia. He being a man of revolutionary sympathies, as many good people were in Russia in those days, left that country, and was in this country at the outbreak of war actively engaged on a Committee for befriending and helping political refugees from Russia. This continued to be his activity down to the outbreak of the Revolution. When the Revolution broke out and the Tsar was deposed Mr. Tchitcherine became an active member of a Committee

177
for repatriating Russian exiles who then were willing to go back to Russia.
Your Lordships know that there was a good deal of dispute while the Tsar's Government was in power. There was a proposal to coerce these men into the English Army or to deport them to Russia. That would be practically to deport them to Siberia. But when the Revolution broke out a large number of these people were ready and willing to go back to Russia, and this Committee was appointed under the sanction of the then Russian Government, and was maintained by the money of Russia, in order to repatriate these people. This remained Mr. Tchitcherine's activity up to the time that he was interned. But early in August he hail assigned to him a much more important function. The Russian Revolutionary Government got access to the secret archives of the Secret Police of the Tsar at Petrograd, and these archives disclosed in their judgment a mischievous activity on the part of the Russian Secret Police not only in connection with Russian refugees but, as they believed, in connection with Germany. Mr. Svatikoff was sent from Russia on behalf of the Russian Government. I believe that the Secret Police work was mainly organised from Paris and not from London. Mr. Svatikoff was sent from Russia to investigate further the ramifications of the actions of the Russian Secret Police, and in the course of his investigations he had reason to suspect that one person in the Russian Secret Police named Sulievanoff was not only one of the Tsar's Secret Police but also was a German spy. Svatikoff and his Committee, of course, had no power to interfere, to visit houses or search for documents in order to bring home their suspicions by means of proof. But on or about August 3 or 4 a letter was sent to Scotland Yard calling its attention to the suspicions that attached to Sulievanoff. Scotland Yard, in consequence, arrested Sulievanoff for about half an hour and then discharged him and no investigation whatever was made.
Mr. Svatikoff whose activities extended to Paris as well as to London, appointed Mr. Tchitcherine and another to carry on the investigations in London. want to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that at the time Mr. Tchitcherine was interned he was actively engaged in the service of the then Russian Government with whom we had diplomatic relations,
178
and that his internment cut short these operations which the Russian Government thought very important as to tracing the underhand work of the Tsar's Secret Police. Mr. Tchitcherine, like many other Russia n and social democrats, was revolutionist, or whatever you like to call him. He held very strongly what are known as international opinions—that is to say, he felt that the time had come when the nations of Europe ought to draw near together and to rest less upon national antipathies, and to bring pressure to bear upon their Governments which they thought were tainted with obsolete ideas, so as to develop more a fraternity of nations. That is very much what our Government and the American Government are now urging with a view to a conclusion of the war—namely, a League of Nation. It is quite obvious that if our policy is to develop a League of Nations to correct the animosities and jealousies of separate nations—though we may have differences as to the extent to which it is to be pushed—we cannot consider a person blameable who holds in what I may call a reasonable way international Opinion. When what we call international opinions are coupled with Bolshevist social proposals as to property and so forth, no doubt the Internationalism gets merged in another form of revolution, the social revolution, of which think very few people in this country approve, and which I should think that even in Russia, when she gets quieter, will not command such an overwhelming support.
But it is only fair that I should read what Mr. Tehitcherini himself submitted in his answer in dealing with this imputation of anti-British and pro-German propensities. This paper was submitted to the Advisory Committee. He says—
"Referring to the second point, I must declare that the characterising of International Socialism, the teaching which inspires my activity and sentiments, as being presumably anti-Ally and pro-German is a total misrepresentation of its nature and aims. We, the international Socialists, oppose imperialism in its totality, alike in its British, German, or other representatives."
I need not read the next. He goes on to quote what the Committee of Delegates of the Russian Socialist Groups have resolved. It only carries out the same idea. Then he says—
"The idea of the International movement for working-class emancipation from all forms of political economic and Imperiali ti exploitation was also put forth by the great Leeds Convention held on June 3, at which 1,300 delegates took

179
part, representing 207 trade councils and local labour parties, 371 trade union organisations, and over 500 other organisations. If I am to be interned, are we to expect that the hundreds of thousands of Britishers who are members of these organisations will also be interned ?
Mr. Burke said you could not draw an indictment against a nation. Equally I do not think you could intern all the active labour organisations in this country. But whether you agree with this idea that Internationalism is a thing to be encouraged at the expense of a more isolated patriotism, or whether you think it goes too far and is only to be encouraged in a temperate and moderate degree, I contend that that attitude does not justify you in imputing to a man that he is pro-German and anti-British. I think I may say of Mr. Tchitcherine that to him probably Germany and its present Government represent in its very highest degree the most odious form of bureaucratic and militarist oppression of the people of the country.
So much for the circumstances. May I say that after his internment there was an additional charge put in, that he was associated with Trotsky and Madame Kolontai. Trotsky is now, as you know, one of the leading men in the present Russian Government; and as to Trotsky, Mr. Tchitcherine in his answer said that he was not associated with him at all. Trotsky at the outbreak of the war was running a newspaper in Paris, and Tchitcherine, I think, at that time was in London. The French Government thought Trotsky an awkward neighbour, and cleared him out into Spain. Then the authorities in Spain put pressure upon Trotsky and told him he must clear out to America at very short notice. Trotsky found himself in Spain without any money, and made an appeal to Mr. Tchitcherine, who was in London, to enable him to go to America, and, without meeting each other, Mr. Tchitcherine in London, managed to raise the necessary funds to enable Trotsky to emigrate to America. That is the amount of Mr. Tchitcherine's connection with Trotsky during the war. I may say, as to Madame Kolontai, who is now, I am told, at the head of some high school or something of the sort in Petrograd, and who is a lady of education, that he repudiates any particular association. He says that a few letters of an ordinary character have passed between them, but nothing else.
To my mind these charges are so trumpery that, even if they were directed against
180
a man who was not at that moment in the service of an Allied Government, they ought not to have been considered. I cannot help thinking, as I am satisfied in some other cases of internment, that the Government have got private motives for action which are not the motives which they set forth—motives which, whether they be strong or not, will not bear statement and therefore they put forth fictitious and fanciful motives. I think Mr. Tchitcherine was of opinion that, owing to their action in tracing the Secret Police of Russia to quarters outside of Russia, and to their thinking that they would even trace them to Scotland Yard itself, Mr. Tchitcherine's investigations were becoming dangerous. I do not put that forward myself. I cannot at all say what the secret investigations were, but there is no doubt these are some of the impressions on the mind of Mr. Tchitcherine. He is now in Russia in a high post in the Russian Foreign Office and he is able to give strong effect to his views; and the more you leave the impression upon him and his friends that he has been harshly, unfairly, and unjustly treated the more you will exacerbate the relations between us and his countrymen.
But I do think I have a right to say this, that there was evidence in their possession that Scotland Yard was not dissociated from the Russian Secret Police. I am informed that a certain Inspector Powell was in the pay of the Russian Imperial Government and their Secret Police, and that, on the fall of that Government, Inspector Powell, his employment having ceased, sent in a demand for three months' salary in lieu of notice, and that that salary was paid him by the subsequent revolutionary Government. Of course, if Inspector Powell was receiving this salary without the knowledge of his superiors, he was guilty of an extremely improper act. I think it would be an unfortunate thing, if, with the consent of his superiors, any one of our inspectors was allowed to receive a salary from a foreign Government in connection with their Secret Political Police. But whether that be so or not, that would indicate what would create an impression in Mr. Tchitcherine's mind that his internment was not dissociated from the disagreeable and unpleasant revelations which he and his colleagues were engaged in pursuing. Of course, when Mr. Tchitcherine was interned, that cut short abruptly these investigations. I think it is a pity.
Passing from the circumstances of his internment, his position at the time, and his character, I wish to touch a little upon the character of his internment and. his subsequent deportation. I hold very strongly, and I said so in the debate in your Lordships' House some time ago, that when you use this right of internment you should use your power only to the extent that is necessary for security, but that subject to security a person interned ought to be treated certainly as liberally as an unconvicted prisoner awaiting his trial. Mr. Tchitcherine was treated very harshly. He was not allowed free access to his friends, and many of them were not allowed to see him at all. Any people who were prominent by their sympathy with him and his cause were prohibited from access.
I wish to mention now the case of two people who were sent back to Russia with him—the case of the Petroffs. I am going to make an appeal to the Government. This question of Madame Petroff at Aylesbury Gaol was raised twice in the House of Commons, first of all in November, 1916, by question, and afterwards in a debate in August, 1917. A very grave charge was made that at the Aylesbury Gaol there was a woman of infamous character whom the other detained women were forced to consort with. At that time the answer given, I think by Mr. Samuel, was that, after twenty-four hours, this woman had been isolated, and the others detained had not bad to associate with her. But in August, 1917, Mr. King brought forward in debate the charge—whether it was this woman or not I do not know, but I think it was the same woman—that a prostitute suffering from an advanced stage of venereal disease was in the prison, and that these interned persons were forced by the rules of the prison to go and take a bath immediately after her and use the same utensils as she used. On the second occasion Sir George Cave replied, and he entirely passed that over in silence. May I say (it was mentioned in the debate) that more than one Labour organisation in England who had heard of this, sent violent protests to the Home Office at the time. Official denials, of course, are of very little value in a case like this. The Home Secretary receives reports from officials, and "speaks by the book."
This matter is felt to be an outrage, and it is causing intense bitterness not only
182
among the Labour classes but among many Radical organisations; and I would urge upon the Government to have an independent inquiry into these goings-on at Aylesbury Gaol. There are ladies of high position who visit this institution, among them being the Duchess of Bedford and Lady Battersea, and you have men of eminence as Visiting Justices. I would suggest that the Government should not be content to be fobbed off with an official reply, but that they should appoint an independent committee to go through the books of the doctors, and so on, in order to see how long this woman was in prison. I do not think it was a proper thing that this woman should have been in this place at all. I urge the Government to undertake to have that inquired into by an independent body of people.
I come now to the question of the deportation of Mr. Tchitcherine. In some of the newspapers which are more or less inspired by the Government there had been paragraphs, for a fortnight or more before his confinement ceased, representing that Mr. Tchitcherine had been set at liberty. That is, of course, absolutely false. I think it was represented at Petrograd—though I am not sure—that he had been set at liberty. The War Cabinet said, I believe, he should not be detained, more than a fortnight before he was deported. He was not set at liberty at all. I understand that Mr. Tchitcherine was sent down to Aberdeen on January 3. On January 2, the Police authorities came and told him that he was to be sent out of the country on the next day. He was not released from prison. He was not allowed to go home. He was not allowed to communicate with any persons with whom he desired to communicate. The authorities (whoever they were) sent telegrams to a selected group of people, who, among others, had been allowed to visit Mr. Tchitcherine, to the effect that they might see him before he went away; but those he most wished to see were not put upon that list. There was not even a telegram sent to the Russian Consul to say that he might see Mr. Tchitcherine before the latter went.
Mr. Tchitcherine at that moment was not at all an insignificant person. The dominant Government at Petrograd had proposed some time before that he should be their diplomatic representative in England. This was the man whom you interned while he was holding a responsible

183
official position. This is the man—I will not rise the expression "Russian Government" because that would be open to controversy—whom the Petrograd Government wanted to put in charge of their diplomatic relations. Mr. Tchitcherine was sent down to Euston Station in the custody of the police; he was taken thence to Aberdeen in custody of the police; he was put on hoard a ship at Aberdeen, still in the custody of the police; and yet paragraphs were put in the papers implyng that he had not been deported but had been set at liberty.
In Russia it was generally understood and believed that, when they removed their embargo upon those British subjects who were detained at Petrograd, there was to be reciprocity, and that any Russian detained in England should be set free. The Bolshevists (whatever fault you may find with them) did not put the English people under lock and key, or send them in charge of policemen by train to Finland and thence to Sweden. Therefore I feel very strongly that the Government should tell us what communications, either verbal—because Sir George Buchanan is now in England—or in writing have been received; because I cannot help thinking that some letters must have been exchanged on this subject. I might say that Russians were strongly under the impression that there was an agreement by both sides that all impediments should be removed.
I ask to-day that we should be told how many Russians are at present interned in the country. There are several, but I have not their names. I hope the Govern-will let us know; because I saw, in answer to a question by Mr. King the other day, that it was stated there was one woman who refused to leave the country without her husband, but that she had been told that her husband could not be allowed to leave because he was a German. Such objections as these are pettifogging. You must look at things in a broad way. If you have people here who belong to the Revolutionary Party in Russia, and who are willing to go to that country, it is a pettifogging thing to say, "We shall send the woman to Russia but not her husband, because the latter happens to he of German origin." That is the view of an attorney and not the view of an able diplomatist.
I think I have set forth that Mr. Tchitcherine was a loan of character and position;
184
a man against whom it was absurd to rake up, after the war had been raging more than three years, the fact that he was a member of a club to which Germans belonged before the war. If you thought that this was a proper case for internment or deportation von ought to have waked up to that before 1917. I do not say that the reason for his internment was that he and his colleagues were getting on the track of activities which might have involved Scotland Yard; but I do say that some of the Russians believed it; and it is a bad thing to leave that impression if you can clear it up. I do not know whether we shall be told in the reply that these trumpery cases are still sufficient, in the opinion of the authorities, to intern a man.
We get by question and answer in the House of Commons very often very unsatisfactory results. I see that the other day Sir George Cave was asked whether Mr. Tchitcherine was allowed to take away his books and papers; and the Home Secretary replied that he was given every facility but did not avail himself of it. All I can say is that I heard a diametrically opposite report. Mr. Tchitcherine was told, on the evening of January 2, that he would be sent away by train on January 3. He was not released from prison; and so far from his books and papers being offered to him they were kept for investigation. I have been told by Mr. Ellis, of 30, John Street, Bedford Row, Mr. Tchitcherine's solicitor, that this gentleman's books were to be sent to his office after Mr. Tchitcherine had gone in order to be kept for him. Your Lordships may say that this is a small matter. It is a small matter compared with the very much graver things to which I have called the attention of the House. But these things show a pettiness and evasiveness which does not do credit to people when they come to deal with greater things. I hope I have not taken too long in setting forth this case, which required exposition; and I will now put my Question and make my Motion.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I must, with all respect to the noble Lord and to your Lordships' House, protest in the strongest manner against the course which the noble Lord has thought fit to adopt upon the present occasion. It is one of the peculiar, and, as I think, anomalous, features of the practice of your

185
Lordships House tint a noble Lord is at liberty to put a Question upon the Paper without the slightest knowledge on the part of the Minister who is called upon to reply to whether the noble Lord is merely going to put the Question as on the Paper and receive a reply to it, whether he is going to talk about other subjects not directly connected with the Question on the Paper, or whether he is going to expand the Question on the Paper into a le gthy speech.
My Lords, it is only as an act of courtesy to your Lordships' House that I represent the Foreign Office in this House. I am not Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and am not familiar with everything that passes in the Foreign Office; but I do week by week, as occasion arises, add to my labours, which are by no means inconsiderable, the additional labour of looking at Foreign office questions in order that I may be able to gratify your Lordships' legitimate curiosity on such points. I am not prepared, however, to represent the Foreign Office if, without a word of warning or hint of what a noble Lord is going to do, I am to be expected to come down here and answer a speech of half an hour, full a detail, packed with imputations and charges, and containing all sorts of ex parte statements and invidious mid unfair remarks, directed at the Government, at the Police, and at everybody concerned, after which the noble Lord is to be at liberty to resume his seat and expect me to give the reply that he wishes. I will not do it, my Lords; and no Minister who has any sense of his own responsibility will be content to represent the Government or the Foreign Office if placed in such a position.
Let us take the Question on the Paper. Your Lordships have seen it or can read it if you like. The Question covers ten or twelve lines of print, and anybody reading the Question might reasonably have inferred, as I did, that what the noble Lord desired to be acquainted with, and had a perfect right to be acquainted with, were the circumstances and the arrangements under which these gentlemen had been sent back to Petrograd. I was prepared, and am prepared, to give the noble Lord full information on that point. But on that branch of the subject he has scarcely said a word. He confined his remarks upon it to about four minutes at the end of his speech. It is true that in the second line of the Question there is a reference to the circumstances of the
186
internment and upon that branch of the speech the noble Lord occupied exactly twenty-seven minutes. He is judge of his own action, but, if he proposed to do that, I submit that the least he could have done was to let me know the charge to which I had to reply. Not one, word did I have in advance, and if my reply is, as it must be, jejune, and I dare say quite unsatisfactory to the noble Lord, I submit that he and he alone is to blame for that consequence. As regards the circumstances of the internment of these gentlemen, I cannot enter into the question because I do not know. All I know is that these gentlemen and some other Russians were interned at an early date of the war—
LORD SITEFFIELD: No, last August.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Very well, at a late date in the war, under the Defence of the Realm Regulatimis, on the ground that their activities would be a danger to the Realm. If the noble Lord desires to challenge that, let him send me information in advance and give me an opportunity of making a reply. I know this further, that as regards these gentlemen His Majesty's Government would have been willing at any time to deport them from the country if they had been formally requested by the Russian Government to do so. No such request ever reached us, and His Majesty's Government could not in the public interest concede them the perfect liberty of movement to which the noble Lord seems to think they were entitled.
Now we Conte to the question of deportation. Let me say, in passing, that I cannot answer the question which the noble Lord raised about what passed in Aylesbury Gaol. He spoke about some nameless lady who was subjected to some nameless indignity, of which I never heard till he spoke. I know nothing about this case, and unless the noble Lord gives me the information I can give him no reply. I will pass to the Question which he asked on the Paper—namely, the circumstances in which Mr. Tchitcherine and Mr. Petroff were sent back. These events, my Lords, arose as a result of the situation at the end of November last. In consequence of the demand of Mr. Trotsky for the release of these two Russian gentlemen, who were at that time interned in this country, and of Mr. Trotsky's refusal to allow British subjects to leave Russia until they were

187
released, an understanding was then arrived at whereby His Majesty's Government expressed their willingness to release and repatriate all Russians interned in this country except those against whom there might be charges of offences against the laws of this country, and Mr. Trotsky restored full liberty of movement to British subjects in that country. Six Russian subjects were interned in this country. Of these, two—namely, Tchitcherine and Petroff—have been returned to Russia. Of the circumstances in which they were taken from London or sailed from Aberdeen I know nothing whatever. If the noble Lord desires to make charges, let him give me the information privately, and not for the first time across the floor of this House. The four others were offered the alternative of returning to Russia or remaining interned in this country. Two have chosen to go back to Russia. The third refused to say which alternative he preferred, and it is proposed to send him to Russia with the other two as soon as possible. The fourth, a woman, declines to go back unless accompanied by a German prisoner of war, whom obviously His Majesty's Government cannot release. His Majesty's Government not being in official relations with the Government at Petrograd, the understanding was not the result of official correspondence but of unofficial third party conversations. In these circumstances there are no Papers which can with advantage be laid.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I do not know anything of the circumstances of this case which has been mentioned by my noble friend behind me, and I therefore do not propose to discuss it. As to whether these particular Russian gentlemen ought or ought not to have been interned or returned to Russia at a particular time I am unable to express an opinion. I think, however, that the noble Earl opposite was a little hard on my noble friend in resenting, as he obviously did, the particular demand for information which my noble friend made. The noble Earl complained that my noble friend Lord Sheffield had not informed the Government of the particular points on which he desired to be informed, and of the particular charges which he proposed to bring against some authorities at home especially. I did not hear all his speech, but I think that if he did not bring charges
188
at any rate he suggested that the action of the Police was open to criticism and comment. I cannot recall that it has ever been supposed in your Lordships' House that any noble Lord who desires to bring some charges in regard to a particular question should of necessity state beforehand to the Government the precise information which he has himself received or the arguments which he designs to use; and while I entirely understand, and am sure we shall all agree, that it is an extra and I would say unfair burden on the noble Earl opposite in addition to the great amount of public work which he has to do, to be asked to answer detailed questions of this kind, which are only in, perhaps, an indirect sense Foreign Office questions—because the action complained of in this particular case occurred mostly at home—
LORD SHEFFIELD: The Home Office.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: And although it is, we all agree, hard on the noble Earl to have to deal with questions of this kind, I should have thought it would have been possible for His Majesty's Government, with all the talent at their command, to have got one of the noble Lords who sit as colleagues of the noble Earl to undertake replies to more detailed questions of this kind—I do not say smaller questions, because questions affecting persons are often much more important than questions affecting policy, but detailed questions of that kind—of which the noble Earl, we all agree, cannot be expected to undertake the full study. Questions of this sort may and sometimes do assume very great dimensions indeed. As we all know, questions affecting the proper treatment of particular individuals have sometimes in the past affected the fate of Governments. This particular question is not likely to have any effect on His Majesty's present Government, but still it cannot be ignored or set aside; and I feel, therefore, that while I entirely sympathise with the personal position of the noble Earl opposite, I also sympathise with my noble friend who desires, as a member of your Lordships' House, to obtain certain information which I think he has a perfect right to obtain, and with which I trust, in due course, His Majesty's Government. De able to supply him.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, in reply to one observation that the

189
noble Marquess made, may I intervene for one moment ? I would like to say this, that I had the honour to sit in the House of Commons for thirteen years, and I never remember an occasion, either when I was a Minister myself—and I was for four years—or when I acted as a private Member, in which a Member of that House, desiring to bring before the House a matter affecting a Department, more particularly if it required a detailed reply or if it contained charges, failed to give an intimation in advance to the Minister concerned of the course that he proposed to pursue. Further, as regards this House, whether that practice prevails here or not—and I think it does; I myself have acted up to it in the past—surely, my Lords, it ought to prevail in a case where the individual who happens to be answering for an Office—the Foreign Office in this case—is not a member of that Office, and cannot, therefore, be expected to have all the information at his fingers' ends. The only other observation I would make has reference to the concluding words of the noble Marquess. He said that no doubt it would be possible to select some noble Lord who sits on this Bench to answer the ordinary Foreign Office questions, but, as the noble Marquess himself remarked, you never know into what small and detailed questions may expand, and it Wag because this Question raised rather large international issues that, instead of asking one of my noble friends to reply to it, out of respect to your Lordships' House I attempted to do so myself.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, if the noble Earl who leads the House had made a statement in the temperate manner in which he has just spoken and had said that there were some things put forward by my noble friend which took him by surprise and which he could not answer at the moment, I think the House might have felt very general sympathy with him. But surely it is not sufficient in the public interests, in answer to a question of this sort, even if it should be sprung upon you, merely to meet it with a passionate declamation. That might meet with the applause of the majority of your Lordships' House, but I would remind the noble Earl that there is a public outside which also takes cognizance of these things, and that the only effect which I think this answer will leave will be that these were matters which the Government preferred on the whole not to stir up and not to investigate.
190
Now, my Lords, the suggestions which were made were suggestions which went rather to the root of good government, and I do think it might better have occurred to the noble Earl, in the interests of good government, to have said that, although they were sprung upon bins and although no one could expect hint to answer them at the moment, still, if notice of this sort were given by a member of your Lordships' House, he would consider it the duty of the Government to investigate them and to refute them if they could be refuted. I think I should also call the attention of the noble Earl to this fact. When he began his speech he said he would answer the Question on the Paper, of which he has had ample notice. He has not in fact answered it. The very first lines of the Question "call attention to the circumstances of the internment." Now the noble Earl said not a word about the circumstances of that internment, not a word as to the charges made against Tchitcherine or as to the supposed charges which were made against him or the subjects of which he was thought guilty. Further on in the same Question, he is distinctly asked to say "how many Russians are still at present interned in this country." Not one word did he say in answer to that.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I beg your pardon. These were the words which I read from the paper I had in my hand, and therefore I could not be mistaken—I said "There are at this time six Russian subjects interned in this country."
EARL RUSSELL: Then I apologise to the noble Earl. I heard him speak about four Russians, but I did not understand him to say that these were all who were interned. In that case, I am entirely mistaken as to that. But I do not think the question has been sufficiently met in the public interest, although perhaps it cannot be expected that it should be met to-day. If such things are said it is important in the interests of the reputation of the Government that they should be dealt with. They are matters to be investigated, and not brushed on one side.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, in reply I do not think it necessary to go into the personal question, but I will merely say this, that, though I referred to the case of Mrs. Petroff in Aylesbury Gaol

191
because it was closely connected with the matter, I said I did not put it to the Government as a thing to be dealt with now, but I did ask, as these allegations had been made in the House of Commons, whether they would take steps to have an independent inquiry. I think that was a moderate demand. As to the other points, may I say that when I brought forward a somewhat similar question about a year and a half ago, Lord Derby was deputed to answer me ? As Mr. Samuel and Sir George Cave were involved, I naturally thought it was a question for the Home Office, but, at any rate, Lord Derby wrote to me when I gave notice of the Question and asked for particulars. I gave him the fullest particulars, and if the noble Earl had written to me—the Question had been on the Paper for a good while—and had asked for particulars I would have furnished them at once. I did not know he was going to answer me. I was not asked for particulars. For the rest I do not think I need add anything, but I can say I think the noble Earl has by implication admitted that they have broken faith with the Russian Government.
EARL CURZON of KEDLESTON: No, no.
LORD SHEFFIELD: The noble Earl will allow me to say why. He said that by conversations it was agreed that these people in England should be released if the Russians were released, but they were not released, and more than a fortnight after it was determined they should be sent to Russia they were still kept in custody. That is not being released, and it is felt very bitterly by people connected with Russia that advantage was taken of Russia, and that while that Government had released our men and allowed them to go, others were kept here in custody and sent abroad in custody.

NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to be good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill. Put in a nutshell, the object of the measure is that, during the war and for a period of five years after the war, no company, firm, or individual shall be allowed to win, refine,
192
or deal in a wholesale manner with these non-ferrous metals without in the first instance obtaining a licence from the Board of Trade. Before I go on to deal with the details of the Bill, I think I ought to ask your Lordships for a few minutes to consider what was the position of this country with regard to the non-ferrous metals industry at the moment when war broke out. I do not intend to weary your Lordships with a mass of details as to the exact extent of the trade in this country in respect to each of these non-ferrous metals at that time or in the years immediately preceding the war, because those are figures which, after all, any of your Lordships who are sufficiently interested in the subject can easily obtain by looking at Whitaker's Almanack or any of the ordinary books of reference. To a certain extent it is true that the position, with regard to these different metals, slightly varies. But there are two common features attaching to the position with respect to non-ferrous metals in this country and in the Empire at the time when war broke out. The first is the very limited extent to which these metals were, either produced, or refined in the United Kingdom, and the second point—a common feature—was the control that was exercised by foreign interests even where the sources of the supply of the requisite ores existed, either in the British Empire, or were owned by British companies.
How was this control by foreign interests exercised ? It was exercised by means of a group of German metal companies who largely controlled the world's metal market for these non-ferrous metals. This group formed a complex organisation by means of stock control, inter-ownership of stock, inter-locking of directors, joint syndicates and a common policy, though with methods so varied and, in some eases, so intricate and insidious that any action to prevent, after the war, a revival of the activities of the group must, in the opinion of the Government, be very comprehensive. I have here details as regards the names of most of the companies connected with this group to which I have alluded, and I have some details regarding the procedure adopted by them. But I am most loath to take up the time of your Lordships unnecessarily, and I am anxious therefore not to be obliged to go into a mass of figures, although I have them here.
But there is one point to which I might call your Lordships' attention, in passing,

193
and it is that, even during the war, the energies of this great German metal group are not altogether dormant, for it is the fact that a case has occurred in Cornwall where an attempt has been made, during the war, to acquire certain tin mines by foreigners acting, it is believed, in the interests of the enemy. When the war began this group had control, and complete control, by means of long-period contracts, over the whole of the output of the Australian zinc concentrates which form the raw material of smelter. This group had also gone a long way in controlling other nonferrous metals. It had, in fact, complete world-control with regard to some of the non-ferrous metals, and a huge world-control in respect of others. This control, as I have said, was exercised by German companies or by German controlled firms. This position has not unnaturally caused Very grave embarrassment to us and to our Allies during the war, and it is essential in the opinion Of the Government, that this state of things, so dangerous in the first place to the defence of this country in war time, and in the second place to its economical stability in peace time, should not be renewed after the war. It is a matter that has engaged the close attention of a Committee that was appointed some time back by the Board of Trade to consider the question of the non-ferrous metal industry after the war, and that Committee urged upon the Board of Trade that, if the nonferrous metal industry and the trade of the Empire was to develop freely and on sound lines, it was essential that legislative measures should be taken against the perfectly certain German attempt that would be made to renew, after the war, their action and control over the industry. I may mention that the Government have been in communication over this matter with the French Government. They enjoy the full sympathy of the French Government on this matter and the French Government have promised, or undertaken, to deal on similar lines with it.
As regards the Bill itself, it provides in Clause 1 that during the war, and for five years after the war, no company, firm, or individual shall carry on the business of winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing by way of wholesale trade in metal or metallic ore, unless licensed to do so by the Board of Trade. The licence is to be in the form set out in the Second Schedule of the Bill, and once granted it will continue to remain in force
194
so long as the Bill is in force. The licence will, necessarily, be liable to suspension or revocation, under the circumstances set out in Clause 1, subsection (4). The metals to which the Bill is to apply include zinc, copper, tin, lead, nickel, and aluminium, and provision is made for its extension to other non-ferrous metals by the Board of Trade. In order to avoid unnecessary interference by the Board of Trade there are excluded from the scope of the Bill, in the first place, cases where the purchase of metal is merely incidental to the trade carried on by the purchaser or seller. For instance, a builder or plumber may buy metal for his own use and may sell some which he wishes to dispose of. He will not come under the Bill; nor will a lank, which sometimes deals with considerable parcels of metal. There is also excluded from the scope of the Bill cases where the winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing is carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom. The Board of Trade have certain powers under Clause 6 to exclude from dealings by way of wholesale trade dealings in quantities below certain limits, as may he prescribed generally, in order to relieve the smelter and dealer from the necessity of taking out a licence.
The conditions are so framed as to bring within the Schedule, in the first place, businesses controlled or managed to any substantial extent by persons who are or may have been enemy subjects. This is intended to cover the case of the businesses of naturalised British subjects of enemy origin. Secondly, it brings in companies whose capital is or was held by or on behalf of an enemy. Thirdly, any company, firm or individuals, which have been parties to any agreement, arrangement, or understanding which enables an enemy to influence the policy or conduct of the business. Fourthly, any company or firm in which enemies are interested, directly or indirectly, to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital, profits, or voting power. Fifthly, companies, firms, or individuals who are by any means whatever subject, directly or indirectly, to enemy influence or association. And sixthly, companies which have issued share warrants to bearer and have not given notice under this Act requiring the holders of the share warrants to surrender their warrants for cancellation.
Clause 1, subsection (5), your Lordships will see, gives a right of appeal to a Divisional Court on the following points:

195
(a) as to whether or not the business carried on by the company, firm, or individual is such as to require a licence under this Bill; or (b) as to whether or not any of the conditions set forth in the First Schedule of this Bill apply in respect of the company, firm, or individual; or (c) as to whether or not the company, firm, or individual is controlled by a company, firm, or individual in respect of which any such conditions apply; or (d) as to the requirements of the Board of Trade for the production of books or documents for inspection. Your Lordships will see that there is no right of appeal in the Bill given from the refusal by the Board of Trade in the exercise of their discretion to grant a license if the conditions apply.
Clauses 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 are necessary for carrying the Act into operation. Clause 4 makes certain provisions regarding bearer shares. Clause 6 empowers the Board of Trade to carry the rules into effect, and provides that such rules shall provide for excluding from dealings by way of wholesale trade which fall within the limits of the Bill dealings in quantities below such limits as may be prescribed generally or as respects any particular metal or metallic ore. It is also provided that the Rules are to be laid before Parliament. Clause 10, subsection (2), provides that the Act shall continue in force only during the continuance of the present war and for a period of five years after its termination.
Notice has been given by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, of his intention to move that this Bill be rejected. Of course, it is impossible for me to anticipate what the arguments will be by which the noble Earl will enforce his wishes in this matter, but I should like to call your Lordships' attention to certain objections that have already been raised against the Bill in another place. I believe most of the objections that have been raised against the Bill hitherto are objections founded on misconception of the objects of the Bill. Some strong language has been used in another place with respect to this measure. It has been described as a protective and punitive Bill introduced by the present corrupt and inefficient Government. Secondly, it has been stated that an atmosphere of suspicion surrounds its initiation, and in the third place, it has been asserted that the Bill was introduced in order to further the interests of a certain nickel
196
company. It has also been alleged that the Bill is an attempt to injure British trade, and so forth. Now, my Lords, I humbly venture to assert that language of that kind is not calculated to prove the strength of the arguments that it professes to support. Quite the reverse. It seems to me rather to remind one of the advice that was said in past days to be familiar at the Old Bailey, that if you had no case you should abuse the plaintiff's attorney.
But there are objections to the Bill which have been stated elsewhere in far more moderate terms than those I have alluded to just now. These objections that have been stated in more moderate terms come mainly under three heads. The first class of objection has been that the Bill carries with it Government control over the non-ferrous industry after the war. My Lords, that is not so. The object of the Bill is to eliminate any enemy influence from a British industry that, as I have said, is vital to the defence of the country in war time and to its economic independence in peace. And though this business cannot be carried on, if this Bill becomes law, either during the war or for a period of five years after the war without a licence first obtained from the Board of Trade, once that licence is granted the licencee will be free from Government interference provided he keeps clear of the Schedule contained in the Bill.
In the second place it has been urged against the Bill that it does not control these metals either at the source or on the market. That is so; but the Bill does not profess to obtain that object, and has not been framed with that intention. The object is to eliminate enemy influence from this industry during a period which in the opinion of the Government is long enough to enable a strong industry to be established in this country. The period of five years which has been fixed by the Bill is, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge, the shortest period during which it would be possible to attain this object. The third objection which has been raised against the Bill is on the ground that the First Schedule infringes the rights of naturalised British subjects. This question has been very carefully considered by the Board of Trade and those responsible for the drafting of the Bill, and they hold that the provision is absolutely necessary. There is no intention to refuse a licence to

197
a man because he is a naturalised British subject, but the fact of his being naturalised is in the opinion of the Government a sufficient reason for bringing his case under view and investigation. That is all the Bill intends to do. There have been instances during the war where naturalised subjects have sought to evade the Acts passed against trading with the enemy. There was one case, I understand, in which a number of books and documents dealing with the transaction of a firm were actually destroyed. I venture to think that the conditions attached to the grant of these licences must be considered in conjunction with others such as those I have indicated as to the proportion of the capital of a company held by an enemy.
There is probably no one in your Lordships' House, and I strongly suspect few in the country, who wish to sec any legislation passed giving the Board of Trade or any Government Department power and authority to interfere with any branch of British industry; but I humbly venture to think that we must not forget that we live in a new world. Things that were or seemed impossible before the war have become possible and may be necessary now. In asking your Lordships to give the Board of Trade the powers contained in this Bill, I admit that any powers given to a Government Department, or to a Government, are capable of abuse, but it seems to me that, if you push such a doctrine to its extreme limits, no legislation at all would ensue. Whilst apologising for taking up more time than I might do in bringing in this Bill, I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, I hope that I may say to the noble Lord who has just sat down that he need not offer any apology for the time that he took in moving the Second Reading. I am sure that, as one interested in the measure, I was immensely pleased by the lucid, clear, and able way in which he explained the provisions of the Bill. I only wish that he had gone still further and, in the course of some further time, had laid before your Lordships some of the facts to which I am afraid I shall be obliged to ask you to give your attention during my remarks.
198
I confess that there was one special point in the observations which the noble Lord made that failed to carry conviction to my mind. He explained lucidly and clearly what were the objects of the Bill. We understood that they were to prevent the enemy from. getting too great a control over the non-ferrous metals lest that, when peace came, they would embarrass the trade of this country and also lest that, in the event of war, there would be a situation that would be exceedingly dangerous with respect to the manufacture of munitions. He explained with equal clearness the method by which no enemy was to be allowed to trade in this country. I fail to see the connection between the two. Let us take an analogy. Supposing that there was a shortage of butter or sugar or meat or any of the things of which we have a shortage at the present moment. How Would it assist us to get more of them if you prevented certain people from dealing in them in this country? It seems to me that what you could rather do in matters of this kind would be to encourage everybody here to deal in them, for the more restrictions that you put in the way of people dealing with them the less likely you are to get the goods which you want. In peace time, and without the operation of this Bill, it would be perfectly possible for any firms to bring these goods into this country at a time when there might be a commercial shortage of them here and when we might be wanting them. This Bill would prevent them from relieving our distress in that matter.
I am afraid that in one respect I may disappoint the noble Lord. I must rank myself amongst those who oppose this Bill for, amongst other reasons, this one, that it is of a protective character. I oppose it on the old-fashioned. Free Trade grounds of which I am not ashamed, for, after all, Free Trade means a great deal more than the imposition, or forbidding the imposition, of duties on imports and exports. It means freedom of internal trade as well as freedom of external trade, and I am sure that even the noble Lord himself will admit that the provisions of this Bill are meant and are designed to interfere with the enemy dealing with this country.
I think that tins is an unfortunate moment to bring forward a Bill of this kind. The commercial community of this country are very restive under all the regulations which the Government have issued during

199
the past two years. We know that a great many of the restrictions might be necessary. At the same time we must all admit that the commercial community feel that a large number of restrictions have been imposed which are not necessary, and that there is nothing more necessary for the future of British trade than that Government control should be removed as soon as possible from every commodity from which it can possibly be taken away. More than that, I think that it is not unfair to say that at the present time, amongst the different services in this country, those which are most intimately connected with the Government are those which are probably the least satisfactory.
The period for which the Bill has been introduced is one upon which I think it is only right to say something. The noble Lord has explained that it is for a period of five years. That is a very considerable period and is one which the Board of Trade has advised to be necessary. Let me recall a passage from one of the speeches of the President of the United States of America, in which he says that that country shall not enter into any vindictive action on any account. "No nation or people," he said, "should be robbed or punished because the responsible rulers of a single country have themselves done an abominable wrong." I think that it is very questionable if this distinction against the enemy people at the conclusion of the war would not fall under the ban of President Wilson in those terms. I think that an alternative, and a more satisfactory alternative, would have been if His Majesty's Government had asked for a much shorter period than five years, and if they had been content with six months. If after six months they had found it necessary, they could have come and told this House that a further period was required, and I cannot doubt but that your Lordships would have agreed to give them a longer period than the six months originally asked for.
But there is still more to be said on the subject. As we understand it, this Bill is recommended to your Lordships' House on the Report of one of the Committees which has been appointed by the Board of Trade. It is one of those Committees, I think, which were appointed by my right hon. friend Mr. Runciman while he was at the Board of Trade, and which was making a series of Reports, upon which a further Report was to be made by a super-Committee
200
of which the noble Lord. Lord Balfour of Burleigh. is super-Chairman. But this Report has never been published or laid upon the Table of either House of Parliament. That seems to me to be an unsatisfactory procedure. We should like to know a great. deal more about this Report. There are other recommendations in it. What are they? Do they recommend that other measures should be taken by His Majesty's Government, and if so why is this the only measure which they have hatched in order that it should receive legislative sanction at once? More than that, who comprises this Committee? Were they only manufacturers and dealers, or was the consuming interest also represented? Your Lordships will see that it makes a very great distinction indeed if you merely represent one of the two classes in the community who wish to deal with this subject. If you do that you get a recommendation which may not necessarily be fair as it affects the other classes in the community. I therefore wish to press His Majesty's Government to allow the Report of this Committee to be placed upon the Table of your Lordships' House.
There is something to be said with regard to the method of the Bill. Obviously it will be very easy for the German rivals of British traders to make considerable use of the provisions of this Bill. They will say to those with whom they are trying to deal, "It is all very well your going to our British rivals, but you must remember that they have to get a licence from their Board of Trade. That licence is liable to be revoked. If they come to you and make a contract with von, are you perfectly sure that they will be able to carry it out?" My Lords, an unscrupulous enemy will be able in that way to affect very seriously the position of the British trader.
Your Lordship will have heard from the noble Lord how under Clause 1 it is only licence-holders who may deal with all these non-ferrous metals. That, I have already said, does not by itself bring a single ounce more of any one of these metals to this country, and if the object is to prevent a shortage, as I understood from what was said by the noble Lord opposite, and to prevent us from being in time of war in a dangerous position, I would ask which is the clause in this Bill which will prevent a shortage of that kind. The enemy will still be able to speculate in the metals, provided his business is not a metal business entirely.

201
That is under the first proviso of Clause 1. You do not entirely remove enemy influence. Another thing is that the enemy can deal through anybody else who is not habitually engaged in dealing with those goods, so that if an enemy were anxious to corner one of these metals it would be perfectly simple for him, by dealing with a number of different firms, who might not know whence the orders came, to effect as great a disturbance upon our market as if he were acting directly in the matter. Then a licence-holder can do nothing. He might buy metal for a German trust. It is true that under those circumstances, when the Board of Trade got to know about it, they would have the power of revoking it, but by that time the mischief might have been done. There are two or three loopholes of this kind which will certainly not prevent that action of which the noble Lord is afraid.
But more than that, every foreigner except enemy foreigners will be able to deal in this matter, and they will be able to deal through some friendly neutral. There is nothing, so far as I can see, in the Bill which will prevent a friendly neutral firm dealing on behalf of a foreign firm on exactly the sate terms as if they were themselves a British firm. More that that, a British company with capital invested in a United States company, in which a German company has also funds invested, is not to get a licence except for special reasons. That is in the fourth paragraph of the First Schedule. That might put a British company in a very serious position, quite unknown to themselves. The German company proceeds to buy a number of shares in. say, an American company dealing with these things; the British company is also interested in the same company, and thereupon the British company forfeits its licence, and the Board of Trade have to investigate all the circumstances of the case. I venture to think that one of the ways in which British companies may be hampered will be if enemy firms take that line, and try to buy up in neutral countries the share of neutral companies in which British companies happen also to be interested.
These are all naturally new methods in dealing with British trade, but there is another one to which I think it is only fair to take some exception, and that is the one by which nobody is to trade unless the
202
Board of Trade approve of them. I wish that we could hope that His Majesty's Government would place the obligation the other way, and that everybody should be allowed to trade unless the Board of Trade had some reason to suppose that they should not do it. There is an inquisition of books provided for, a statutory inquisition of books, which will be very I much resented indeed, and certainly by those companies which are quite innocent of any guilty intent. It follows from what I said just now that if the Board of Trade object the applicant has to prove his case in the High Court. The Board need do nothing at all, but they find a man guilty without any evidence, and they leave it to him to prove his innocence. That, I think, is a thoroughly unsatisfactory provision, and one which British traders will not appreciate.
I said just now something on the question of time. May I return to that. The Federation of British Industries passed a Resolution in favour of the Bill. But it was a somewhat halting approval of the Bill, because they say that they reserve to themselves "the right to criticise certain details of the Bill at a later stage, especially in regard to the period for which control is to be taken." and in conveying this expression of view to the Government, "special attention should be drawn to the peculiar position of the copper smelters and to the importance of sources of supply and the supply of raw material for that industry to be assured." And the National Union of Manufacturers took the same line. I could only wish that the Government would give me some assurance that an Amendment in Committee was likely to meet with any success, if I were to move it on the lines of the resolution of these very important bodies, asking the Government to curtail very largely the period of time through which this Bill is to act. I am quite sure that, supposing it was found that there was a real desire and need for this Bill both Houses of Parliament would be willing and anxious to pass a measure effecting what the Government might desire.
I was somewhat surprised at the fear which was expressed by the noble Loud of a shortage of these metals in time of war. There was no shortage when this war broke out. There was no shortage in copper. I wish that the noble Lord had told us which of the metals that are going to be

203
dealt with under the Bill we were short of in this country at the beginning of the war. It would have been of very real interest to those of us who are concerned about this Bill if they had known which of these metals it was particularly that was in the mind of the Government. It is perfectly true that at a later stage in the war there may have been a shortage of ammunition, but that would have been due rather to the shortage of munition works than to the shortage of these metals. The noble Lord no doubt knows quite well that more than once in another place it has been stated, without any contradiction, that there was no shortage of these metals when the war began. In fact, I believe that there has never been any shortage of these metals owing to enemy action. There may have been owing to want of certain facilities or certain methods of dealing with them in this country, but owing to enemy action I believe there has never been any shortage.
I confess that it is with a good deal of hesitation that I should accept the theory of the noble Lord that the result of this Bill will be to transfer the control of copper to this country. Copper is, as I understand, controlled in the United States, whence 50 per cent. of the production comes; and I wish I knew if the Report does mention copper as being one of those non-ferrous metals. With regard to the immense control which the Germans have over zinc, of which the noble Lord spoke quitefairly, surely that was due rather to tin fact that their methods of education and research and industry had allowed them to discover the proper way of dealing with zinc rather than to any hostile action of their part. And. I am quite sure that that is a point which would be enforced by Lon Haldane as being one of the stronges arguments in favour of the further prosecution of industrial research in this county Because it is undoubtedly true that, in that particular case, the Germans, by the knowledge and research, have been all to take over the control of zinc.
Tin was mentioned by the noble Lord, but I do not think there is any cause c quarrel between us in regard to tin. The somewhat obscure attempt which seem to have been made to get hold of some tin mines in Cornwall was effectually dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act, and no more has been heard of since that time. I would wish, indeed that before this Bill became law we coal have one single instance when these firms,
204
against whom this Bill is directed, ever diverted their metals from this country so that we may really understand what is the need for the introduction of this Bill. With regard to the rights of the naturalised enemies, to which the noble Lord referred I will not trouble your Lordships. That is a matter upon which, I think, a circular has probably reached every member of your Lordships' House, and therefore it is unnecessary for me to deal with it. It is, perhaps, sufficient to say that I view with very great suspicion this alteration of the naturalisation laws; but it may be that this is a subject which we shall discuss more properly and more conveniently when it comes up (as we understand it will have to come up) at the conclusion of the war.
To summarise what I have said. I confess that the contents of this Bill seem to me thoroughly unnecessary. I have a considerable fear in the matter which is based upon the doubt that I feel as to why His Majesty's Government have chosen to deal with these non-ferrous metals. Why non-ferrous metals? Why have they not dealt with iron and steel in the same way? Is there not the same case for them? What is the difference between iron and steel and these non-ferrous metals? Why have they not dealt with chemicals and with dye-stuffs? Or is it that this is the first of a series of Bills of a protective character which are going to be introduced, dealing with a number of different articles? It seems clear to me that a Bill of this kind must unsettle British trade; and so far as you put shackles upon, and make difficulties for, British trade, so far you handicap it when it enters into competition with its rivals. It is a measure of Protection by bits; a negation of Free Trade; and in so far as it is an interference with British trade (as I think it is) it seems to me that it can certainly do very little good, and will probably do a great deal of harm. I beg to move that the Bill be now read six months hence.
Amendment moved—
To leave out "now" and insert at the end of the Motion "this day six months."—(Earl Bauchamp.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise to endeavour, to the best of my ability, to answer some, at any rate, of the objections which the noble Earl has put before the House. I shall not follow him into any abstract argument as to

205
whether Free Trade or what he called Protection is or is not the best system for this country. To a large extent, as the noble Earl knows, I share in theory the views of which he is a distinguished exponent; and, if I may say so, I have in the course of my political life given certain pretty substantial guarantees that, so far as theory is concerned, I am upon the side of the Free Trader rather than in the opposite camp.
But I have always held, and I hold now, that no abstract rule should dominate the policy of any country—certainly not of our own—if it is proved that a blind adherence to that rule, in all circumstances, is operating to the disadvantage of the country. I think in the case of these metals to which this Bill specially refers it will not be difficult to make out that case. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill (Lord Hylton) told the House that non-ferrous metals were largely controlled by an international syndicate. The position of German interests in the syndicate was so strong that they were able to force the smelters of these metals in other countries into combinations which regulated the world prices.
The noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill asked, How on earth are you to get more of any particular commodity by preventing people from dealing with it in this country? That is not the object of the Bill. As I understood him, the point which I he noble Lord who introduced the Bill made, and the point which I want to press upon the House, is this—the fact that the existence of this monopoly prevented the goods from coming to this country. It was because those who were in control of the market had the power to say where this or that article was to go, which deliberately attempted to prevent the goods coming here. Now, it is to prevent that power and that monopoly that this Bill is framed. It is the fact that these syndicates controlled the market. They were able to restrict the development of smelting everywhere else than in Germany. They controlled, by long-period contracts, the output of Australian zinc, the raw material of which was actually produced in our own Dominions. I say that this is an improper condition, and one to which we should never have been subject. I hope that this Bill—and any other necessary Bill—will be produced and passed by Parliament to prevent a recurrence of that position. That is not Free
206
Trade in any fair acceptation of the term. It is a monopoly, ruled by those who are hostile to this country, for the purpose of doing harm to our interests.
The noble Earl asked for an article, and I give him as a specimen the article zinc, the raw material of which is spelter provided from the Australian Dominions. I go further, and I answer the question of the noble Earl by saving it is a fact that the control of this non-ferrous metals trade (especially in this matter of zinc, and, perhaps, copper) by German interests has been, during the war, the cause of grave embarrassment to the Allied Governments; and it is essential that this control should not be renewed after the war. As the noble Lord said, it has engaged the attention of the Board of Trade, and a Committee was appointed by that Board to deal with it.
I may perhaps tarn aside, in answer to a question put by the noble Earl, and say that this Committee was not what is called a subordinate Committee to the large Committee on Commercial and Industrial Interests after the War, over which I had the honour to preside. But we saw its Report. I may say that the special circumstances of this non-ferrous industry make it necessary, in my opinion, that it should be taken first. It is not specially mentioned in the Report to which the noble Earl referred—the Report of my Committee—which has been in the hands of the Government for some weeks. It is no secret that this is the case; and I have every reason to believe that, so soon as the text of that Report has been communicated to the Dominions and the Colonies, it will be made public for the information of Parliament and of the country generally.
The noble Earl said that the commercial community would be restive about control. I believe that is absolutely the case; and I join with him in thinking that control is an evil which should be, if possible, avoided; and I shall rejoice with the noble Earl when every domestic industry can be freed from control so far as practicable. I am of opinion that there is nobody more anxious than the Board of Trade to get rid of the control which is necessary during a period of war. But, so far as the safety of the Realm is concerned, the control of these important raw materials must be continued during the war. One of the objections which I understood the noble Earl to indicate —I do not know whether he committed

207
himself to it—was that it would involve Government control of the nonferrous metals industry after the war. That is not the case. I have every reason to believe that this is not the intention of the Board of Trade; and that the sole object of the Bill is to make sure of being able to eliminate hostile interests from British industries.
My Lords, the industries of which this is a specimen are vital to the defence of the country in war, and also to our economic independence, and it is not right or reasonable that there should be a control, acquired perhaps by legitimate and legal means, but exercised contrary to the interests of this country. To obviate that, the Board of Trade formulate the policy of giving a licence. Once a licence has been granted, the applicant, if he play the game, will be free from all Government interference. The whole power is vested in the Board of Trade to license if the conditions in the Schedule apply, or to suspend or revoke a licence which has been granted. The noble Earl tried to make the point that It the onus of proof would be upon the applicant for a licence. That is not the case. There was a provision in the Bill, I believe—I did not see it, but, so far as I have read the discussion which took place in another House, I think I am right in saying that there was a stringent condition in the Bill, as it was first introduced, which I would have given weight to the noble Earl's contention—that the onus of proving, if the applicant went to the High Court, that he was not guilty of being under enemy influence, was upon the applicant for the licence. That has been changed, and the position now is, as I understand the Bill, that if the applicant applies to the Board of Trade for a licence, and is refused, he can then go to the High Court, and the Board of Trade will before the High Court be obliged to produce its case and show reasons for refusing the licence. That seems to me perfectly fair and reasonable, and the conditions to which the High Court have to adhere are given in the Bill. The whole point turns upon the question whether the conditions under which the licence is to be granted are fair or not. I say, reading them fairly, with the experience which we have, that they are obviously reasonable and in the interests of the country, and I cannot see one of them to which any one who desires reasonably to carry on business in the interests of this country could refuse to adhere.
208
There was one other objection—namely, that the conditions in the Schedule infringe the right of naturalised subjects. We have had experience of naturalised subjects and some of them have not, as I have said, played the game. Some of them, after taking all the privileges of naturalisation, have not accepted all the obligations and duties of British citizenship. They have been more or less secret agents for the enemy. Now, I say, that is a thing which, with our past experience, we have to provide against in the future. If a man comes here and asks for all the privileges of British citizenship, then let him become a British citizen in fact as well as in name. He must not, with all the privileges of British citizenship, go on working in the interests of the country which he has apparently left and from whose allegiance he has departed. I have read the debates on this Bill in another place, and I say—can produce quotations if necessary—that it was distinctly stated by the President of the Board of Trade that there is no intention of refusing a licence because a person happened to be a naturalised subject, but that, as I have said, our recent experience justified us in taking precautions in the case of naturalised subjects, although it would be quite unreasonable to refuse a licence to a man who had otherwise shown himself to be a good subject of this country, merely because he was naturalised. It would be unreasonable to refuse a licence if a small portion of the capital of the company belonged to foreign subjects, but the fact that the company or firm falls under any of the conditions is a case for careful scrutiny, if not for actual refusal. I think it may be fairly said that the restriction of the activities and influence, nether direct or indirect, in the United Kingdom, of powerful alien influences, is essential if British non-ferrous industries are to be given an opportunity of free development. Only by that means can we have effectual protection against the growing dependence upon foreign supplies which has been the cause of grave peril in the past. Any one who desires to trade in this country and who has, so to speak, a clean bill of would be entitled to and will get a licence. I believe that this Bill will be a great safeguard in the future, and I hope it will be passed into law.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am anxious to say a few words upon this Bill, particularly because, when it was

209
introduced in another place, it was stated to be the outcome of the Economic Conference held in Paris in the month of June, 1916; and as I was one of the representatives of this country at that Conference, in company with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, the subject is naturally of particular interest to me. The noble Lord, who so capably introduced the Bill, said he thought that the Bill had been the subject of not a little misconception, My Lords, that may be. But so has the Economic Conference at Paris. I have been often almost diverted by the comments that I have seen made by quite different schools of thought on what passed at the Economic Conference at Paris.
One would have supposed from what I have observed, both in Free Trade speeches and Free Trade newspapers, and equally in Protectionist organs and on Protectionist platforms, that the Paris Conference was in effect something of a Protectionist orgy, and that it was the prelude to the dropping of a system of Free Trade by those countries who were represented there and which had hitherto made it their main policy, and of a series of economic changes in the policies of countries which had not before confined themselves to dirties for revenue purposes. That, of course, is a complete error. The respective merits of Free Trade and Protection were never a subject of discussion in any sense at the Economic Conference at Paris. All sorts of different views were represented, not only by the representatives of this country, but by the representatives of other European countries there, and I can cheerfully ask the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or Mr. Hughes to confirm absolutely what I have said. But, my Lords, it is said, of course, that the whole theory of Free Trade is to be reconsidered in the light of the war, and my noble friend who has just sat down has stated his view that while the theory of Free Trade may be held to be good by him or by others, yet that certain departures from the strict canons of Free Trade may be necessary in the present circumstances. I have no doubt or hesitation in saying that I still hold the view which I held before, that the free exchange of commodities between nations should be the general rule, with certain exceptions which can be shown to be necessary. This, of course, is the reverse view to that of those who hold that the encouragement
210
of production at home ought to be the general rule, although certain departures from that rule may be necessary in permitting free imports in some eases. All I can say, my Lords, is that nothing that has happened in the war has led me to depart in any degree from the views which I held before, and a great many things have happened to confirm those views.
But that is not in itself, of course, the subject of discussion this afternoon. I certainly do not deny that there are cases in which what I all the exceptions from the Free Trade rule may be enlarged and multiplied in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. One subject not altogether remote from those which we are asked to consider this afternoon, and one of supreme importance, is a question on which I would say one word—that of optical glass, which might very properly have been the subject of a similar measure to that which we have before us to-day. As your Lordships are aware, the trade in optical glass had fallen almost entirely before the war into German hands. There were only one or two manufacturers of that glass in this country; and of somewhere about 150 varieties of the glass that were made only, possibly, some twenty were made at all in this country, and we were dependent on our supplies from abroad, in fact from Germany. That dependence proved a serious misfortune. It can be said of this commodity, what has been said less correctly of others, that without doubt our shortage in it was directly responsible for the loss of a number of lives of our soldiers, which, if we had had a full supply, might have been saved. That, I think, cannot be disputed. There is no Free Trade or Protectionist argument, I venture to think, to be founded on that fact. Nobody, I imagine, would maintain that if we had had a duty on optical glass in this country before, the production here would have been so stimulated as to give us the supply which we needed, but I have not the slightest doubt, now we have taken in hand most seriously on a large scale, not merely the greater production of this glass in the country, but also the education of those workmen, students, and researchers and others who are con erned with it, that it will be necessary to take—and I have not the least doubt that His Majesty's Government will confirm the view—in one way or another special steps to protect (if that is the proper word) the industry, when once more imports from a broad can be introduced.

211
That is to say, you must place that commodity, and you may place others, in the same position in which we have always placed, and in which every country places, material of war. Nobody has ever suggested that we should be dependent for our artillery or for our armour-plating on any other country, however friendly, and if it can be shown that the metals which are mentioned in this Bill are in the same position as the illustration which I have given of optical glass—which would have to be taken out of the Free Trade list and put into a special list with other commodities after the war—I should not have a word to say against this measure.
I confess, however, that I cannot see from what has been said, not even from the very powerful and convincing speech of my noble friend who has just sat down, that as regards these particular non-ferrous metals—at any rate, the whole of them—the case is anything like so strong as it may be for certain other commodities like that which I have mentioned. In the debate in another place a further instance was mentioned by a strong supporter of this Bill of a commodity which is not included in the Bill. The particular case was pressed by the hon. Member, and the circumstances of it happen to be quite familiar to myself because I was concerned with them as head of a Department. There is a substance called thorium, a, rare metal used for making gas mantles in the Welsbach incandescent gas system. It is a very rare metal of which a large quantity was discovered, I believe, by a German-American—rather picturesquely discovered—in a part of the world which is not very familiar to tourists or specially devoted to commercial enterprise—I mean the Southern Indian State of Travancore. There great deposits of monazite sand, from which thorium is produced, were discovered. Well, these deposits fell in the manner in which my noble friend describes into German hands. It was regarded as indispensable by the Department that the company should be a British company, but by manœuvres of the kind which have been mentioned the business fell into German hands, with the result that the incandescent mantle makers in England could not get thorium at a reasonable price, whereas the German makers obtained as much as they pleased. That is a flagrant instance, but I do not feel that it is an instance which can be correctly prayed in aid of this Bill as regards all the metals mentioned. For this
212
seems to me to point to the fact, which I should have thought cannot be disputed, that the only method of definitely preventing the diversion of any one of these valuable commodities from this country is to obtain control of the source of supply. There we were able to control the source of supply, and as soon as it was discovered that thorium was being manœuvred away from this country, steps were taken to prevent it and to see that manufacturers here got their fair chance.
But of which of the metals mentioned in this measure have the Germans ever had, or conceivably can have, control of the sources of supply? My noble friend mentioned Australian zinc. That, of course is a question which is greatly complicated by the fact mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, that the smelting of that particular form of zinc ore—these particular Australian concentrates—was carried out by a German invention, by, if you like, superior metallurgical skill, with the not unnatural result that the industry itself went rather to Germany than here. But, so far as the actual source of supply is concerned, the moment the war began we obtained complete control of that, and I was surprised to hear my noble friend say that the supply of zinc to this country had been adversely affected by what was almost the German monopoly of smelting the Australian concentrates. My information was to the contrary effect. Certainly I had supposed that, as regards tin and copper, the same can be said and that the diversion of any appreciable quantity of the materials which we require, owing to the action of the Metallgesellschaft, which is the body complained of, could not be proved.
It is quite true that when war began we found we wanted a great deal more of some of these materials than we had ever supposed to be possible, and we could not, at once, get all that was required. That was owing to the enormous development of munition making, and armaments generally, which made it difficult for the supplies to keep pace with the new demand. Although there may be facts of which we know nothing contained in the Report of this confidential Committee, which I understand cannot be laid upon the Table in another place because some of the information it contains might be of advantage to the enemy, so far nothing has been stated in public to show that as regards these

213
particular metals the ease can be said to have been proved.
One objection to the Bill is that, on the whole, it seems to tend to discourage the continuance of London as the main centre of this particular international trade. We all know the circumstances which have made London the great en repôt of the world, kind it obviously will be difficult after our colossal war expenditure to maintain the position of London as the great central market in all its branches. This of course, one may say, is one and by no moans the largest, but everything which would tend to operate adversely in that direction is surely to be deprecated. My noble friend also alluded to the objection which many British traders find of submitting their books to a public Department for inspection before they can get a licence. If it can be shown to be necessary for the general protection I have no doubt they would submit to it, but they would have to be convinced that this was so, and so far I do not think they have.
I confess I am not myself convinced by the arguments which have been used that this measure is, as it stands, entirely fair upon the naturalised aliens. We ought, I think, to be careful how we pare anything away from the full right of citizenship which is granted by naturalisation. When a man naturalised—I have said it before in this House, it may have been too easily done in the past, I do not dispute that, and I should not myself regret to see it made more difficult—but, once it is done, one does not like the idea of the citizenship being whittled away even in a good cause like that of the elimination, not of German competition, but of illegitimate German influence from a particular trade.
There is another objection which I think my noble friend did not mention, but which I understand is felt by some. There is a feeling that the effect of a Bill of this kind may be to encourage the creation in this country of an English Metallgesellschaft, and that there may be a tendency for the trade to get into the Lands of great trusts or rings, which would be composed of a few powerful firms, and that the smaller people will not have the chance they had before. I have not sufficient knowledge myself of the circumstances of the trade to express any Opinion cm that point, but it is a fear which I know has been uttered. Therefore, my Lords, cannot myself look upon this Bill with any particular satisfaction.
214
I have always regarded our economic weapon against Germany as one of the most powerful we have. it is one of the weapons which, when the time comes and the terms of peace have seriously to be considered, may prove to be the most valuable to us of any.
The Germans talk of the possession of parts of France and Belgium and the rest of it as pawns in the game of chess which they have to play. My Lords, our economic control of the seas and of the sources of raw material, now that the United States is whole-heartedly with us in the war, is far more powerful as a piece on the chessboard than the possession of any territory which Germany may hold. I say that without hesitation: that the power which we continue to hold over. Germany of practically, if we so desire, debarring her for as long as we like from any substantial overseas trade, leaving out the question of the enormously expanded trade which she had before the war—our power of absolutely throttling that trade is a source of strength to us when it comes to seriously counting up the pieces on both sides of the chessboard the value of which it is impossible to over-estimate. But that fact, to my mind, is a reason for not beginning to employ it now.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: if now you begin to impose various restrictions, or to inflict disabilities upon German trade, you either place Germany in the position of knowing the worst already and of having to face it now and light it as best she can, or you place us in the position of conceivably having to withdraw certain restrictions which we have placed on German trade now by this Bill, because those particular restrictions may form part of the discussions of the terms of peace. I, for one, would very much rather leave the question of the imposition of such disabilities until a moment when they can be most profitably used. That is another reason why I cannot regard this Bill with great favour.
At the same time I confess I cannot advise my noble friend below the gangway to press his Motion to a division, and indeed for this reason. The Bill as introduced in the House of Commons contained not a few provisions infinitely more objectionable from our point of view than any which

215
appear in it now. I have mentioned those which we do not like, but it has been already pointed out that the licence, which at one time had to be renewed every year, has now become a permanency during the currency of the Bill. It is also true that the power of appeal was considerably enlarged during the progress of the Bill, and therefore I cannot advise my noble friend to divide against the Second Reading, although I am glad that he has so fully exposed what he considers, and what many of us consider, to be the defects of the Bill, and has given His Majesty's Government, and in particular my noble friend, Lord Balfour, the chance of stating all there is to be said in its favour.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this discussion but for the fact that I am to some extent acquainted with the subject-matter of the Bill, and the House Will perhaps not take it amiss if I return somewhat more closely to the Bill itself. I happen to be connected with a company which is the largest producer in this country of tungsten, and which had the enviable distinction of being the only company able to supply our war requirements of tungsten during the first six months of the war. Tungsten is not actually mentioned in the Bill, but power is taken to include other nonferrous metals, and I cannot doubt that it will be one of those included. I am rather surprised not to see it in the Bill itself, and I think the history—I am not proposing to weary the House with it at any length—but the general history of how it was that in this country there was only one firm in a position to supply tungsten for war requirements is instructive as supporting the principle urged in favour of this Bill.
There are now in this country at least six companies supplying tungsten, but had it not been for the particular company with which I happened to be connected we should have been without any plant for manufacturing tungsten in this country, and that would have been a serious thing. That arose in the way which has been pointed out. The sources of supply, the ore from which the metal is produced, had passed into German hands. There were long contracts and good prices given and so on, although the prices were to some extent reduced by the elimination of competition by their methods. This raw material the wolfram ore which is converted into
216
tungsten—was obtained to a large extent from our own Dominions, and yet the entire control was absolutely in German hands before the war.
I understand that what is at the back of this Bill is a desire to make that state of things impossible, and if I have any particular criticism to make on the Bill itself it is rather that I do not think it carries out by a very long way the high expectations with which it is supported and with which the noble Lord recommended it to the House. There is, as has been stated in the course of this discussion, only one real way of making certain of obtaining these supplies, and that is to control the source of supplies. There is probably only one real way of ensuring that you have smelting furnaces and other works for the purpose of producing the metal in this country, and that is either fostering them by a tariff, which I do not recommend, or giving them contracts which make it worth their while. That policy was not adopted before the war. What you are competing against is not the ordinary American idea of a trust which gets hold of a thing and raises the price to the consumer and makes it difficult to get. That is met by business men with their own business methods. But you have here the same thing with a national backing behind it. No one can doubt that these industries were carefully fostered by the German Government and that they had public money behind them. You can only meet that kind of national competition by some method of national defence. I understand this Bill to be some attempt to do that. I do not myself think it will achieve much. I think the most you can say for this particular measure is that it will prevent or make it difficult for the financial and commercial resources of this country to be used for dealing in these particular metals.
There is one very serious blot in the Bill to which I should propose to put down an Amendment in Committee, and that is the second proviso to which reference has been made:—"Provided also that no licence shall be required when the winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing is carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom." I do not quite know what "dealing" means in that respect, but if it means that a mine may be owned by a British company outside this Kingdom and that the produce of that mine being sold where it is raised to somebody else is not dealing with it in this Kingdom—I

217
rather think it is not—then it seems to me that you lose a very important item of control. I can give your Lordships au instance which is in my own knowledge of a British company registered in Great Britain, but which has a very large number of bearer shares—one of the very evils which this Bi11 seeks to prevent. As to these bearer shares, it is known that a great many are held in Holland, and it is suspected that a great number are controlled from Germany. That company owns a mine which is not in this country nor in any of the Dominions, and it could, as I understand it under this Bill, without a licence be able to work that mine in this foreign country and deal in its produce at the mine and enter into a contract there to sell its products to Germany. That seems to me to be a gap in the Bill which ought to be removed, and I should be disposed to put down an Amendment to remove that proviso unless it can be explained.
I do not think, however, that this Bill will do much. I do not think that it can honestly be said to have a protective element about it. I do not believe that manufacturers, as such, are going to welcome the necessity of applying for this licence. They are not particularly anxious to have their books overhauled. They are not particularly anxious to be compelled to go to the Board of Trade for a licence, and they are quite prepared to compete on a business footing with all comers, and are very likely to do as well, and possibly even better, if they are not in any way controlled. But you certainly cannot allow—and this I feel most strongly—that state of things to be re-established which undoubtedly did exist when the sources of supply, and the arts and processes and plant for the purposes of manufacture, were entirely outside the Empire, and the Empire was deprived of the things which it required, at the outbreak of the war. With the objects of this Bill I sympathise, and my only regret is that it does not do very much towards what is required. The view has been expressed that it is a protective measure. I dislike protective measures now as much as ever I did.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I ought to explain that it was far from my intention to imply that this measure could be described as protective. In the accepted sense of the word it certainly is not.
EARL RUSSELL: I am glad that the noble Marquess agrees with me. I was referring rather to what was said by the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Second Reading of this Bill. I think that if you were to impose a protective tariff, although it might, be to the advantage of manufacturers here, you would not by any means necessarily achieve your object. Your object is to be able to rely upon a supply of all these particular things when you want them. It is perfectly true that we must have a command of the metals which are now included in the Bill. The case for zinc I am aware of, and I am also aware how strong a case there is for including these others. I am not personally aware of the conclusions of the Committee which have been referred to, but if they stand on anything like the footing of tungsten, about which I know, and of zinc, of which I also know a little, there would be ample justification for taking all the measures that you can to secure a supply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): Does the noble Earl press his Amendment ?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COMPULSOR RATIONING.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask whether, in view of the Food Controller's statement that a system of compulsory rationing will be almost certainly introduced, His Majesty's Government will lay before Parliament the proposed scheme in accordance with the statement made on. November 20 of last year by the Food Controller that he would see whether this House could be given the opportunity of considering the scheme before it became operative.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to postpone this Question until to-morrow, at the request of Lord Rhondda.

Military MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, this Bill, though a small Bill in itself, may be said to touch a large number of very important subjects and to open up very wide considerations. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be content if I present it for your consideration in a rather concentrated form. The Government have considered the character and the number of the Forces both of ourselves and. of our Allies, their strengths, reserves, and the potential reserves in civil life, and they have arrived at certain conclusions as to the numbers of men that are required to extend the Navy and the Air Service and to maintain our Forces in the Field.
There are several sources from which these men may be drawn. They may be drawn from the Armies abroad, and I understand that those Armies have already undergone a strict scrutiny. Secondly, they may be drawn from the Army at home. I am informed that the position of the Army at home has been investigated so as to get the largest possible proportion of the men required from the Army itself. There must naturally be a balance over. That balance has been stated as one of between 420,000 to 450,000. The Government has decided how these men are to be drawn from the industries at home. I ought to state that these numbers are a minimum and that it is possible that more may be required as the military situation develops in the course of the year.
There were three ways of raising these men, or a portion of them, which were considered and rejected for the present. There was the lowering of the military age, the raising of the military age, and the introduction of compulsory military service in Ireland. These ways, partly on grounds of economy and partly on grounds of expediency, were for the present set aside. Therefore it became necessary to withdraw the men required from our existing industries. I should like to add, incidentally, that in order to fulfil certain pledges that had been given, and to make recruiting more easy, certain conferences were held with the trade unions. There were two joint conferences and a number of group
220
conferences in which the proposals of the Government were filly explained, and in which certain discussions took place between the different groups and the representatives of the industries concerned. Many valuable suggestions were made, some of which were of great use to the Minister of National Service.
In these matters the Minister of National Service occupies an entirely neutral position as regards the recruits raised for the Army. He not merely has to raise the men that he is ordered to raise. He is also responsible for the whole man-power and its distribution to the different industries at home. He is, therefore, no more interested in one particular industry than in another, but it is his duty to spread the man-power as impartially, as fairly, and as equally as it can be, between those who require it, whether it be the Army, or whether it be the industries. The problem, therefore, has been how to withdraw these particular men from industries with the least possible disturbance to the increase of national production. The aim always has been to equalise sacrifices and to remove any sense of injustice that there may be as to an unequal treatment of different trades or occupations.
The working of the Military Service Acts has revealed certain anomalies and inequalities, the most flagrant of which this Bill is designed to remove. Chief among these anomalies is the difference of treatment between the men who hold protection certificates and those who hold exemption certificates, and the main object of the Bill is to assimilate the position of the men holding exemption certificates to the position of the men holding protection certificates. This object, as carried out in the Bill, may be described as twofold. First of all, in Clause 1 the Bill proposes to cancel the existing periods of grace of two months or of two weeks, allowed to the men after the expiry of their certificates of exemption before they are liable for military service; and, secondly, it permits the Director-General of National Service to cancel certificates of exemption granted—and and this—and this is an important point—on occupational grounds. The Military Service Act, 1916, allowed a man two months exemption on the expiry of his certificate. The Military Service Act (No. 2) of the same year limited this two months grace to men in certified occupations or in occupations under the Munitions of War Act, 1915.

221
The latter were subject to the leaving certificate system, which has now been entirely abolished. In all other cases under this second Act the two months were cut clown to two weeks. Clause 1 abolishes both periods of grace so that, so far as that clause is concerned, a man will become liable to military service immediately on the expiry of the certificate unless he has applied for renewal under the Military Service Act, 1916. Under Clause 3, subsection (5), of that Act he may not be called up for service till his application, if any, has been finally disposed of by the Tribunal.
What I have said refers to the men who come under the Military Service Acts; that is, the unattested men. I ought to contrast their position with that of the attested men. These attested men have never enjoyed these periods of grace, but, subject to the terms of the instructions of the Tribunals, they can apply for renewal of the certificate of exemption. This clause, then, does not apply to the latter class. Of course, it may be said that the larger proportion of men in civil life who are barred from recruitment do not hold certificates of exemption which were granted by the Tribunals or Government departments, but hold protection certificates given under administrative direction. These latter, as opposed to the exemption certificates, can be cancelled by a stroke of the pe, subject, of course, to arrangements with the trade or other interests concerned. Certificates of exemption—and it is with these that this Bill deals—cannot be cancelled except with the concurrence of the Tribunal or the Government Department concerned. Lack of uniformity and difficulty in obtaining cancellation have made it necessary for the Ministry of National Service to obtain some powers over these exemption certificates—the same powers as the Ministry has over the administrative order certificate. But I want to make this point quite clear, that this Bill gives no power to interfere with certificates granted on personal grounds, such as hardship, conscientious objection, and other matters; it only permits cancellation on occupational grounds.
Under Clause 2, therefore, the Director-General of National Service gains power to cancel certificates of exemption not less than fourteen days after the date of the Order, as may be specified in the Order. Clause 2, subsection (2), makes Orders applicable to any exemption certificate
222
granted by Tribunals or Government Departments to attested as well as unattested men provided always that it was granted on occupational grounds. Clause 2, subsection (3), enables individual certificates granted by Government Departments to be cancelled, but—and this is the exception—not individual certificates granted by the Tribunals. This power of cancelling certificates applies also to certificates granted to classes or bodies of men or to men of any class or description. Rights of renewal of certificates also are restricted, hut only so far as is absolutely necessary to secure the cancellation of the Order from being a real cancellation under Clause 2, subsection (4). These restrictions are twofold. A certificate is not granted or renewed if the renewed exemption would have been of value if it had been in force at the date, of the cancellation of the Order. Let me take an example of that. Jewellers or printers, for instance, could not get a renewed exemption if jewellers' and printers' certificates had been cancelled, and, further than this, a man cannot change to another occupation and then apply for a fresh certificate. These restrictions are only to secure that when the cancellation order is made it is really carried out
There is this restriction on the power of the Director-General of National Service. Clause 2, subsection (5), requires class cancellation Orders to be laid on the Table of the House, and they will be void if either House within fourteen days presents an Address against them. The Rules Publication Order does not apply to these Orders; otherwise they would have to wait for forty days before they came into force, and it must be clear to your Lordships that, with the necessities of getting the men, it would be impossible to wait for so long a period as forty days. Under Clause 2, subsection (6), in individual cases notice of cancellation is given, but that, of course, cannot be given in the case of the cancellation of certificates applying to classes, but some general notice will be inserted in the Press, and other means will be taken so that the cancellation applying to a class will be brought to the notice of the men concerned. There is another very important point in Clause 2, subsection (7), that is to say, to decide what are or are not these exemptions granted by Tribunals on occupational grounds. As your Lordships know, many of these exemptions are granted on what might be called mixed

223
grounds, and the Director-General of National Service is made arbiter on the question whether they were or were not granted on occupation grounds.
May I call your Lordships' attention to a printing error of some importance in page 2, line 19. The words "except as otherwise expressly provided by the Order" ought obviously to come out of line 19, and to come in after the word "then" in line 21. Possibly your Lordships will excuse this error owing to the considerable difficulties there have been in printing during the last few days.
I have only to say one word about the system of recruiting which can be thoroughly put into force as soon as this Bill passes, because I think I have made it clear to your Lordships that this Bill deals with the question of exemptions, and not with the question of protection certificates, which latter can be altered to-day by a stroke of the pen. It is felt that it would not be possible to apply the bare and undiluted principle of the youngest or the single men first, to the question of recruiting. Certain industries, for instance, can spare hardly any of the men engaged in them—such as shipbuilding; whereas there may be other industries, less essential, from which older men can quite well be spared. In fact, the basis of the recruiting system must be an occupational basis, conditioned, if you like, by age and by marriage. The system will be, therefore, one of clean cuts by age in the different occupations; so that the age may be, and will be, different in the different occupations according to the nature of the industry in which these men are engaged. The sole test will be national necessity and national production.
To make this quiet clear, may I take the cases of three different industries? I will assume that these industries are vital to national production and to the necessities of the country. But the question will be whether, each industry being vital, the whole of that industry is vital; and whether, therefore, you cannot withdraw for the Army men from that industry who represent the excess over national requirements. Take first a particular industry, the whole of the output from which is absolutely necessary. In that case, speaking generally, it would not be possible (except, of course, for substitution) to withdraw any man from that industry.
224
Suppose the production in that industry were one-third in excess of what was determined to be absolutely essential, then you might, roughly, say that you would withdraw one-third of the men from that industry; and so on if it were one-half, or whatever the proportion might be. Thus it is perfectly clear that, as between occupations, the age must be different; but, of course, speaking generally, in the occupations themselves you would proceed with the youngests first.
To sum up the few observations I make on this question of recruiting. Young men will be taken from the essential industries, and, if male substitutes are required and have to be found, the object will be to find these men for the most part from amongst those who have been in those industries before, but who have gone abroad and fought, or been wounded, and who, though they are not fit for active military service, yet may be capable of doing industrial work at home. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that this Bill is absolutely essential in order that the men may be obtained, and that this recruiting system may be carried on in the fairest possible way. As the hour is late, I will now ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading; because it is most important—every day is of importance—that the Bill should be carried and put into practice as soon as possible.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD BUCKMASTERMy Lords, the noble Viscount who has introduced this Bill has explained its details with a lucidity to which this House is now becoming agreeably accustomed; and I feel satisfied that there is no member of your Lordships' House who desires to place any impediment whatever in the way of the passage of the measure. But the Bill does provoke one or two considerations, and there are a few matters to which I desire to direct the attention of your Lordships, even though the hour has grown rather late. The first thing is this. I think it would be a pity, when we are passing Bills for the extension of compulsory military service, if we forgot all that we owe to the men who voluntarily joined the Colours in the first months of the war.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: For upwards of two years this country depended entirely upon the free gift of its citizens; and in the earlier months of the war the miseries and discomforts which those men suffered in training and in the camps are something which the people who are taken under this Bill will never know. It was no fault of the War. Office, but the fact is that those men were trained in muddy swamps; they lived in leaky huts; they had imperfect equipment; they had frequently to drill in what a soldier always regards as a disgrace—civilian clothes. But none the less they bore all their hardships with courage and with cheerfulness, and they were formed into an Army that never knew defeat. Nor ought we, in remembering what we owe to those men, to assume that all the men who stayed behind were not animated by patriotic feeling. In many cases it was a very hard struggle for the man to decide between the claims of his country and the urgent claims of his own home. Upon him depended the maintenance of his business, the future of his children, the comfort, and, it may have been, the health of his wife; and it is not surprising if, in those circumstances, there were many men who were compelled to stop at home with a heavy heart, but who, if they had been free agents, would have been only too glad to go where their friends had gone before.
The Military Service Acts, of course, broke down all those considerations. They tore these men up by the roots, and formed them into Armies no whit inferior to those by which they were preceded. But I think that one ought to bear in mind the fearful dislocation that such measures must necessarily cause, and one should keep before one's eyes constantly the essential need of making the way smooth for these men when they return, and of enabling their roots once more to grow deep into their native soil.
One thing further needs to be said. The Government must accept a very grave and a very solemn responsibility for the safety of the men who are drawn into our Armies under Bills such as this. They are bound to secure that nothing is done to weaken the confidence of the men in the Generals by whom they are led, and, at the same time, to see that those Generals deserve their confidence. There is no question at all as to collision between civil and military control. At no time in the history of this
226
war have I ever heard it suggested that the military were the people who controlled the civilians. Civil control is, and has been throughout the whole of this war, an essential feature of the whole conduct of operations, and the members of the Government cannot escape from the duty and obligation that that fact lays upon them. My Lords, if there is any one in any position whatever who, in the opinion of the Government, does not command the fullest confidence of the Army, then their first duty is to remove him. If the men do command that confidence it ought to be sufficient for the public that they are retained in their office, but let the public know that that confidence is firm.
The one thing that is to my mind dangerous and disgraceful is that men in high command in our Forces should be subject in this country to systematic and organised attacks by newspapers, against which they are quite unable to defend themselves. The Government, I think, are in a difficult position in this matter. It is no use avoiding plain speech on a question of this kind. It is far better that the things that people say should be openly spoken in the Houses of Parliament than that they should be whispered in lobbies or muttered in clubs; and what the public do not understand is why the Government permits a certain group of newspapers, under one control, to start first in one organ and then in another spiteful and vicious attacks upon men in high command, and takes no steps whatever to interfere.
Do not let the Government be under the misapprehension that they have no power which will enable interference. If some wretched misguided man had put into an ill-printed and ill-lettered pamphlet one-half of the matter that has appeared in recent days in the Daily Mail, and had circulated it at the gates of a factory, I have no doubt whatever that he would have been sent to gaol. I want to know why it is, if the Government do disapprove of these attacks, that they do not take steps to stop them. There can be no security, there can be no satisfaction or confidence in this country, unless something of this kind is done. If you can get a group of newspapers, purporting to be independent organs but in fact under one control, beginning an attack in one to-day, echoing it in another to-morrow, and repeating it in a third the day after, until you have the whole chorus in unison in one cry of

227
spiteful abuse—if you permit that and allow it to be directed first against one public man, then against another, then against some great General and then against a Commander, until you have driven these men from public life—I say in that way lies anarchy and the negation of all constitutional government. I think that the present moment is one of grave menace for the people of this country, unless the Government are prepared to take a firm, strong hand in this matter.
In the history of this country we have experienced many forms of government, but up to this moment we have never submitted, and I trust we shall never submit, to government by the newspapers. Owing, it may be, to our insular position, we are far too apt to confine our attention to things which exist at home and we do not look far enough to see things which are happening abroad. But the fever of political revolution is not hindered by any limit of territorial boundaries, any more than is the fever of disease. Discontent unallayed, suspicion excited and provoked, lack of confidence carefully and sedulously disseminated among the men upon whom our victory in the war must depend—these things will work their inevitable consequences, just as in other countries, unless care be taken. I have said what I have said because I believe it is a public duty that these things should be publicly stated, and that it should be shown that in your Lordships' House at least people are not uneasy about expressing their own plain views upon great and urgent questions.
The powers given by this Bill are undoubtedly drastic and severe. I have myself an earnest though a faint hope that it may be possible that it will not be necessary to exercise them to their fullest extent. The Government have recently made a statement with regard to the terms of peace which I think all fair-minded men regard as not unreasonable. They must have been put forward with the sincere and earnest desire on the part of the Government that they should receive favourable acceptance, but I do not think the Government can, with the responsibility on their hands, let the matter stand there. Those terms need more emphatic warrant than they have hitherto received. It must be of the very first importance that the Government should secure the consent of all our Allies and of the United States of America to a plain, simple, catalogued definition of what our
228
war aims are, and of what we mean to do in order to secure them. That should be stated stripped of all rhetoric, in plain and simple words, for the consideration of the world. Finally, I trust that in the exercise of these powers fairness and consideration will be given, or difficulties will surely arise. Unless this Bill be administered justly, so that no man can say that certain classes of poeple are kept back while other classes less favoured are taken, this Bill will work confusion. The only chance of its successful working is in absolutely strict, openhanded, impartial justice, so that people may feel that, heavy as is the burden, it is a burden which all alike equally share.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has made this scathing criticism of the campaign in the Press. But I will go to the actual consideration of the Bill. The noble Viscount, in moving the Second Reading, dealt chiefly with the details of working of the Bill, rather than the main considerations which had necessitated its introduction. He said the Bill proposed to produce, I think, 420,000 to 450,000 men.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, what I said was that the balance required for the Army was such. I did not say they would be produced under the Bill, but I said the removal of the exemptions would assist in getting these men.
LORD LAMINGTON: I understand that the monthly wastage of the Armies at the Front is about 86,000 men, and in conducting this debate it is almost impossible to disregard those letters which have appeared recently in the Press by that very eminent War Correspondent, Colonel Repington. In one of those letters, I think he put the requirements of the Army for this year at 1,200,000 men, and if the Government mean that by this Bill they are going to satisfy the requirements of our different Armies, I ask on what basis have they arrived at that conclusion? It seems to me most inadequate, but, if the matter has been carefully considered and it has been decided that this Bill will suffice to repair the wastage of our Armies, then I would ask by what date do the Government contemplate that this Bill will produce this half-million men? By what date do they estimate they will be able to put in force the provisions of the measure so that the men will be obtained? Are

229
they really satisfied that in doing this they will do enough to make good the wastage which goes on so heavily at the Front?
I see from yesterday's newspaper that Sir Auckland Geddes says that the Germans are bringing 1,600,000 men from the Eastern to the Western Front—about three times the number of men that will be obtained by means of, or in conjunction with, this Bill. Are the Government satisfied with the present position? We see what happened at Glasgow. We were told by Viscount Peel that the Government had done their best to arrive at a satisfactory agreement with the different unions, but the outlook at present is not very promising. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said that if the Government were satisfied that what they put forward was really requisite it only remained for them to act with courage and fairness. Many noble Lords in this House have had commands of various sizes during this war. I had the privilege of commanding a regiment for about three and a half years, and I confess it was terrible to see the paltry expedients to which from time to time the Government were put in order to secure men.
The noble Lord also spoke of the working of the Bill, and said it should be on the basis of non-favouritism to any class. The other day the Prime Minister spoke of a privileged class which, up to the present time, by reason of certificates of exemption, had not taken its share in the war. Any one who has had command of a unit and has seen the wretched condition of men who (sometimes wounded) have been brought before the medical boards and stripped—men who, it is known, are to be put into Class A and thus rendered liable for service at the Front—and has reflected on the strong able-bodied men of military age who were secluded and safeguarded in various industries, could have felt only shame that anybody calling himself a democrat should be content that the very first duty of democracy should be worked on such false and unfair principles. The noble Viscount referred to the manner in which the various industries will be affected and the way in which it was proposed to regulate the call upon an industry so as not to reduce its output too seriously. He mentioned nothing about dilution, however. I was informed by a manufacturer in the steel-plate trade about a year and a quarter ago that at the instance of
230
the recruiting authorities, dilution had been proposed, and that in these particular works eighty women had been trained to take the places of men. The women were trained and this change was about to be put into operation, when at the last moment the trade unions said: "No, we will not allow it." The trade unions were backed up by the Government, and I believe to this very day the eighty men who were to have been displaced are still there. This, I believe, has taken place over the whole of the steel-plate trade. Is that going to be continued under the operation of this Bill when it becomes law? Will the Government have the courage to put the whole manhood of the country on an equal footing with regard to military service? The success of this measure—the success of the war in fact—mainly depends on this. As Lord Buckmaster said, the people of the country want to be treated with candour and want to know where they are, and I believe that all classes will accept the decision of the Government if the position is first of all thoroughly explained to them and then the Government act courageously.
Look at this House this evening, when what I regard as perhaps the most important Bill which has been before your Lordships for a very long time is under discussion. Look at the concentrated attention of your Lordships on this measure. What is the reason? Noble Lords think it is unnecessary to attend simply because they have confidence in His Majesty's Government. I do not know that we all individually share that confidence so largely, but at all events we realise that when the Government say a thing is necessary, the public, including your Lordships, will respond to the claims that may be made upon them. Therefore, I trust that the Government will act in this case with candour, will tell the people what are the real requirements for carrying on this vast war, and then—having told the people what their requirements are, and having full power to act—that they will utilise those powers unflinchingly and with absolute courage.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, just one word on behalf of those of the public who have been supplying recruits to the Array up to now. I think the noble Viscount may be perfectly certain of this, that the Bill will be received with satisfaction by those who have been coming before the Tribunals during the last three and a half

231
years. There has hardly been a case that one has had to deal with which has not been a case of hardship, and of course of late months of increasing hardship, on account of the ages of the men, of the fact that they are family men, and of their occupations. Whilst I am proud to be able to say that there has been a conspicuous absence of vindictiveness or rancour in consequence of men haling been sent into the Army when they have received the ultimatum of the Tribunal—having a sense that at any rate justice has been done—I am perfectly sure that there has been a feeling of bitter indignation that men of the age that we constantly now have to send to the Army, men with families, have to go while a number of young men are left behind. It has been a matter of surprise to us that industries in our own neighbourhood somehow or other—how, we never could make out—have managed to protect these young men. I am certain that in all the classes which have been supplying men for the Army during the last two years there will be a strong feeling of satisfaction that the Government have taken the matter in hand in the form of this Bill.
The noble and learned Lord opposite expressed the very strong hope that in putting the provisions of this measure into execution fairness and justice would be observed. I want to point out that, under the working of this Bill, all those attributes will have to be displayed by the Director of National Service. He is the man who is going to select, from the various occupations, the men whom he and his Department wish to send into the Army. The men are going to have the right of application to the Tribunals; but what is there to guide the Tribunals? Nothing. The Director selects the occupation; he is the only person who will know whether the occupation is of the first, the second or the third importance. He selects a certain number of men from each of these occupations and those men apply to the Tribunals. The Tribunals will know nothing whatever about the importance of these special occupations, and they must assume that the Director knows. Then, if a man is physically fit, can the Tribunal possibly refuse? I submit, therefore, that at an early stage, so far as fairness and justice are concerned, I do not quite see where the Tribunals will have an opportunity of exercising these attributes. It seems to
232
me that the whole responsibility must fall on the Director.
I am going to have the temerity to say one word as regards the important appeal the noble and learned Lord has made with regard to attacks upon distinguished officers. Of course we know attacks upon distinguished officers have not been confined to this war. The Duke of Wellington suffered many attacks of a similar kind in the Peninsula War, but I am sure that as long as gallant officers feel they have the confidence of the Government their shoulders are broad enough to bear the attack, whether it comes from speakers outside or inside this House, or from the Press. But I cannot help thinking that there is a feeling among the public that the confidence of the Government might be expressed. I am afraid, from the very beginning of this war, there has been an inclination to avoid that responsibility. The first instance I saw of that was the failure of the late Lord Kitchener to support General Von Donop when he was charged with failure to supply certain munitions of war. I remember sitting on that Bench, on the day after General Von Donop was bitterly attacked, with the late Lord Kitchener sitting on the front Ministerial Bench and, to my astonishment, in making a speech he never said one word in protection of his subordinate. The noble Earl, Lord Derby, has a great reputation for resolution and, shall I say, indifference to public opinion. What I mean is that where he knows he is right he is always prepared to state it in public, and I do not think he will suffer in public opinion in the least if he will state what his opinion is. After all, he is the head of the Department, the head of the Army Council; these officers are his subordinates, and, if he has confidence in them, he is the man to tell the country so. It has been said that these officers have been supported in the House of Commons, but it was by one of the Parliamentary officials of the War Office, with nothing like the position of the noble Earl, and I beg the liberty of adding my appeal to that of the noble and learned Lord, that he will take some opportunity of giving his opinion as to the merit, or otherwise, of these attacks which have been made on these gallant officers.
LORD TREOWEN: My Lords, I crave your Lordships'indulgence on this the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House. I

233
rise with considerable hesitation, having heard the very able speech which proceeded from the noble and learned Lord opposite, who raised matters of the very greatest and deepest importance, and I feel I can only rise as one who has taken a keen interest in the raising of the Army since the war began and who, before the outbreak of war, had given a great deal of thought to the question of how to raise an Army. I propose to confine my remarks, brief as they will be, entirely to the Bill, and to its bearing on the question of raising men for the Army.
This Bill is the fruit of a very important decision which was taken by the noble Earl now at the head of the War Office—and I am very glad to have this opportunity of congratulating him on that decision—last summer, to transfer the work of recruiting for the Army from a military to a civil Department. It was a decision of very great importance. A great part of our difficulties, in connection with raising men for the Army under the Military Service Act, has arisen from the fact that no authority existed in this country which could take cognisance of the needs of the country generally for man-power. For one reason or another—I will not go into the early history of the raising of the great Army we have now—it seemed to be ignore that material and personnel of an Army had to be drawn from the same pool; that you cannot have shells, aeroplanes, ships, and all the material that is required for carrying on a successful war without men, and that, at the same time, you must draw from the same reserve the men to do the fighting. That was the cardinal principle that was ignored. I do not say any one was to blame, but it is the fact that it led to many of our difficulties. After much hesitation—things go slowly in this country—and an unnecessary amount of deliberation, we came to the conclusion that it was necessary to take stock of our Whole man-power in a Registration Bill, and then to render a man, within certain limits of age, liable to military service. But we failed to recognise that, in doing that, we mast at once set up an acute competition between military needs and industrial needs, and this has led to what is now the only cause of dissatisfaction in this country in regard to the Military Service Acts.
I entirely endorse what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in regard to the manner in which the country has
234
accepted those Acts. It is one of the remarkable facts of the war, and I do not think at the present time there would be any demand that we should go back upon that legislation. But when we decided to take men compulsorily, rightly or wrongly, the War Office came under great suspicion. Parliament was not going to give the War Office the decision as to what men should be taken for Military Service and what men should be left for equally important duties in connection with the war. There seemed to be an idea that the War Office was a sort of ogre, endeavouring to secure all the manpower of the country to the detriment of the industries most necessary for the successful conduct of the war and the needs of the country. Such an attitude led to a system—I will not call it a system because it was not systematic but of protection being given in a most haphazard manner to men who came under that Act.
I will not trouble your Lordships with the details of the many and various forms of protection which were instituted, but there was gradually evolved out of a system of individual protection a document which I hold here in my hands called the Schedule of Protected Occupations, a voluminous document which was issued by the Ministry of Munitions. There was further a list of certified occupations issued by the Local Government Board for the guidance of Tribunals. There was recruiting for munitions, there was recruiting for the Army. There followed after that recruiting for agriculture, recruiting for shipbuilding under the Admiralty, and recruiting for the Air Service for the manufacture of aeroplanes. Who was to decide on the various claims which were put forward? The obvious result was this, that every man who did not feel inclined to go and be shot at took good care to get into some trade that was protected by one of these Departments, and you had a conflict between the protection which was accorded to a man by the certificate of some Department and the claim by the War Office for him for military service. The trades concerned became flooded with men who were not skilled workers, men who are now known by the name, which is certainly an offence to the King's English just as the individual is often an offence to patriotism, of "dilatees." These dilutees swarm in all manner of industries connected with warlike material and others, and the out ry has been against these men being allowed to retain that protection while other men were

235
taken by Tribunals although they could bring forward personal reasons for exemption which were such as to awaken the sympathy of their neighbours and friends and the Tribunals also.
I may remind your Lordships that about a year ago a Bill was introduced—I did not think it a very wise one, and I said so at the time—for revising certain certificates of exemption given on the ground of physical inability. The whole feeling of the country was against the revision of those certificates, and at the same time it accentuated the feeling against men holding certificates of exemption in trades in which they were not skilled. It has recently been my duty to take over certain responsibilities in connection with the National Service Department as a Director of National Service. One of the first duties I had to perform was to go to the various regions under my control to meet Tribunals which had refused to carry out their duties on account of this very grievance. These gentlemen, who had worked, and worked honestly, and were most anxious to do the best they could for the country, said that they could not in the circumstances go in the face of the feeling of the country and take men of higher age, men with families, men with all sorts of reasons for personal exemption, while at the same time, day by day, the streets of the industrial districts were crowded with young men who were only doing half-time work and who were not skilled workers. It was unfortunate—I said so at the time, and my noble friend will remember my views—that they should have selected one set of certificates of exemption for review and not placed under review other sets of certificates of exemption.
I am happy to say that now there is to be a revision. The Minister of National Service has the power to withdraw certificates of exemption. The holders of those certificates will have the opportunity of going before the tribunals, and if there are personal matters to be considered they will no doubt have the benefit of them. But there will be a very large revision of those certificates which were issued in a most irregular and broadcast manner. I would even go further and say with regard to those certificates that in many parts of the country it is looked upon as a great scandal, and there is a firm belief that in certain departments it is only necessary to get hold
236
of the right man and a certificate of exemption can always be obtained. More than that, it is said—and one cannot ignore these things that are said, although I do not pretend to have any evidence on the subject—that a regular business is done in the obtaining of exemptions under certain Departments of the State. That is a most unfortunate condition, and such a condition of things as that cannot lead to a general respect for the law; and the Military Service Acts are now an integral part of the law of the land. Therefore, my Lords, I welcome the introduction of this Bill, just as I welcome the decision, to which I have already referred, taken by my noble friend. But this is not all that is necessary in order to make effective the Military Service Acts. The Government, I understand, has now in another place a Bill dealing with registration which will—
THE EARL OF DERBY: It is here.
LORD TREOWEN: Then I am afraid I have not sufficiently closely followed the proceedings of your Lordships' House. I had not noticed the fact that it had come here, but I am very glad to hear it. That will have a very important bearing upon the efficiency of the Military Service Acts, because the registration, though carried out some years ago, has not been thoroughly maintained in all its efficiency. For some reason we did not think it necessary to go low enough down the scale, and we have already exhausted all those young men who were on the Register and who might be coming forward for military service.
Another criticism was made in the House of Commons upon this Bill in regard to which I should like to say a few words, because that criticism may have given rise to some misapprehension. It was asserted that dictatorial powers were given under this Bill to the Director of National Service. That is not the case. He cannot deal with certificates granted for personal reasons. I would add that it is most important that there should be no interference with the decisions of Tribunals in the matter of men brought up under the Military Service Act. That has done a great deal of disservice to the working of the Act. The Tribunals should be the final court to decide whether a man has to be taken or whether he has not. Unfortunately in the past there has been interference from other Departments, and men have been granted certificates to my know

237
ledge after the local Tribunal had adjudicated on the case and ordered military service. I want to tender to your Lordships my thanks for the attention which you have been so good as to grant to me.
LORD BERESFORD: I hope that your Lordships will allow me a few minutes in which to protest against the unfair, cowardly, and malignant attacks upon our Generals at the Front. It does not matter if my noble friend Lord Derby or the Government does defend them now. The harm has already been done in the trenches. What we read in the morning is read by the men in the trenches in the evening. When men have done what these men have done out there, and when they hear it said that whole divisions have been wiped out by machine guns, and when they hear charges made such as those which have been made in the Press, doubts are put into their heads and they are not likely to have confidence in going forward, or to have the trust in their leaders which they ought to have in order to achieve success. When these things are said they have a very bad effect indeed in the trenches, and they also foster an idea at home as to whether we can win the war.
When the men in the trenches read these things, is it to be wondered at if they should say, "We have been sent over the top and we ought not to have been sent over the top. We have been badly led." Any man who has ever commanded men will tell you that this is the worst possible thing that can happen. I say that it must be stopped under the Defence of the Realm Act, or there will be such a situation created in this country and in the trenches that the Government will go out of power. My noble friend Lord Derby, who has been in the Army, and other officers who have been in the Army, know that what I say is right. The putting of these false ideas into the heads of the men in the trenches ought to be stopped. If it goes on, how can you expect the men to trust their leaders? It is disgusting that a Press which does these things should have been seen to be powerful enough to force a man like Sir John Jellicoe out of the Navy. I say to the Government that if we are to win the war they must stop this sort of thing at once under the Defence of the Realm Act. I hope that your Lordships will forgive my beat, but I feel very strongly on this matter. The men are doing their best for us. They are being shot for us,
238
and this sort of thing ought not to be allowed to be put into their minds. We will lose the war if it is permitted to go on.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Tan EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this Bill, but I hope that your Lordships will pardon me if I say a few words. Your Lordships' House is in some ways a wonderful place, because there do not appear to be any rules of order to which anybody need keep if he does not wish to do so, and a great deal of matter has been brought before this House which I suppose, under ordinary circumstances, would not be called in order. But I am glad that it should have been brought before this House. Your Lordships will pardon me for a few minutes while I deal with some of the matter that has been raised.
It is the easiest thing in the world to be wise after the event. I started at the beginning of the war a very strong supporter of the voluntary system, and I did my best to make it a success. Looking back upon it, I see that I was absolutely wrong except for the moral effect that the huge voluntary Army produced, I think, in all parts of the, world. But from the point of view of administration and of fairness to the men that we took for the Army, I do not hesitate to say that if one was to do it again one would go on a quite different system. One would have compulsory service at once, and would work at what I may call turning out Territorial Division after Territorial Division, because the Divisions were based to a great extent on the population of the counties in which they were raised. From the very first day of the war I would have put the whole question of recruiting under a civil authority. Let the civil authorities be, as they are now, the arbitrators between what is wanted for the Army and—what is just as necessary for success—that which the Army has to use in the way of shell and other material. Therefore I may plead guilty to having supported a cause which, at the time, I thought right, and to raising a voluntary Army which I still think is the best thing a country can have as showing its spirit. At the same time there is no doubt whatever that, owing to the military authorities being the people who did the recruiting, we took at the beginning, among all the splendid patriotic fellows who come forward, many who ought, to have been left at home, while many of those who perhaps are still at home ought to have

239
been taken. That is why last year, when it became a question as to whether there should he a transfer of recruiting from the Army to National Service, I was only too glad to make the transfer.
Your Lordships may remember that when the Military Service Bill was first before this House I was not in the Government. I had been helping with recruiting at the War Office, but I warned your Lordships then of the number of loopholes that there were in that Bill. There is no doubt whatever that that was so, as the enormous amount of trouble which has arisen since has shown. We have had to follow with other Bills, and we are still following with. Bills, but I sincerely hope that the Bill which is now before your Lordships will be the last of this nature that will be necessary in order to get the men required for the Army. I hope that under this Bill, and under the powers of the National Service Department, we shall be able to get the men we want for the Army without disturbing those essential industrial trades which are, in some ways, just as valuable to us as the men themselves.
The noble and learned Lord (Lord Buck-master) dealt shortly with something which is rather outside my province, as I am not a member of the War Cabinet, and that was the terms of peace. I am not going to discuss with the noble Lord as to whether the terms that have been put forward by our own Government and by the United States of America are definite or not definite enough. The noble Lord admitted that they were not unfair terms, and I do know this, that you are going to get no terms, fair or otherwise, from Germany unl ss you are prepared to enforce those terms, and therefore the Bill which will give you the power to take young men who can be spared from industries to enforce peace terms is to my mind just as essential as actually stating in more definite language the terms of that peace.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I never disputed the noble Earl's proposition about the necessity for the Bill.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am sorry if I gave that impression.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I did not think it was meant, but I do not want to have it understood.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I would not have said that if I had thought it would have been misunderstood. The noble Lord paid a well-deserved tribute, which everybody in your Lordships' House will endorse, to those men who came forward at the beginning of the war. It was, indeed, a hard struggle for many also to decide that they could not come forward, and I join with the noble Earl most sincerely in the sentiments that he has expressed.
I now come to what is, perhaps, the most difficult part of my answer to the noble Lord, and that is in regard to the question that he and my noble friend Lord Beresford raised with regard to attacks on distinguished Generals. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, called on me to express my confidence in them. At somewhat great length yesterday, I tried to express the confidence that I have in our Generals. I am afraid the noble Lord thinks that I failed to make myself clear. I therefore want to repeat what I said. I recognise—everybody must recognise—that the civilian heads of the Government must be the head and controlling body. They have a right to get rid of whoever they like, whether a colleague or subordinate, and. it ought to be clearly understood by everybody that it is the duty of the Government to get rid of anybody in whom they have not confidence. But it is equally the duty of a Government and of the head of a Department loyally to support all those in whom he has confidence. I have no hesitation whatever in again repeating my confidence, and I can assure the noble Lords that if at any time I fail to retain my confidence in any individual who is serving under me, as head of the War Office, I shall ask for no dictation from outside. I shall make a change myself. But as long as I have confidence in a man, I will stick to him as loyally, I hope, as your Lordships would wish. The noble Lord spoke with some heat. I agree with him. I speak with heat now, because I feel that this discussion as to the merits or demerits of Generals is doing an infinity of harm. I made an appeal yesterday, and I make it again to-day, that they should not be the subject either of praise or criticism. They want neither. They want to be left alone, to go on with the work of the war, and what I beg the House and the country at large to believe is that those officers are retained in command because we have the confidence

241
in them that I believe the whole country has.
LORD BERESFORD: That was not my point. We know that they have confidence, but, if you do not stop the Press, the men will lose their confidence in them. They will say "This is allowed to go on; therefore these Generals are sending us to laughter." If the Government will come forward and say This thing must be stopped," we shall be satisfied.
THE EARL OF DERBY: What I ask for is that all controversies should cease, and then there can be no question of taking any of those steps that the noble Lord has suggested.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: In rising to ask your Lordships to agree to this Report, I shall he very brief in fulfilling an undertaking given last night during the debate. That undertaking was to bring up a new clause to bring about the results which were agreed upon between myself and my noble friend Lord Knutsford, who was a critic of some of the propositions in the Bill. Those have been fully considered, and the result is that I bring up a clause now to replace Clause 22. The proposal is that a married woman ceasing work within one Year after marriage is to be considered as having been employed when she has been actually away from work for eight consecutive weeks not due to illness. She is to be insured for sickness benefit at the rate of 5 per week for one year following employment, subject to the condition that not more than six weeks benefit in all are to be received during the year. She is also to be insured for a maternity benefit of 30 s. for one confinement within two years of the date of marriage—this meets the point of the noble Lord—and further, she is to be entitled to medical benefits and sanatorium benefits to the end of the calendar year next after that following marriage. Those are the proposals which are embodied in this clause. They come, as I hoped they would come, as an agreed clause before your Lordships. The work has been extremely difficult and
242
has taken the best energies to bring it to a head, and it would have been impossible to do it without the continuous assiduity, patience, and talent of the Parliamentary counsel and the officers of the Insurance Office, with whom it has been such a pleasure to me, to work.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I move to strike out Clause 22 for the purpose of inserting a new clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 22 and insert as a new clause:
"Special pro isions with respect to married women.
"(1) Where a woman being an insured person and a member of an approved society marries she shall, if she had before the date of her marriage ceased or if at any time within twelve months after the date of her marriage she ceases to be a person whose normal occupation is employment, cease as from that time (hereinafter referred to as "the date of unemployment") to be entitled to the benefits to which she would otherwise have been entitled under the provisions of the principal Act, and in lieu thereof she shall subject to the provisions of that. Act be entitled to the following benefits, that is to say, to sickness benefit at the rate of five shillings a week for not more than six weeks in the period of twelve months commencing next after the date of unemployment, or if the date of the unemployment was anterior to the date of her marriage within so much of that period as is subsequent to her marriage, to maternity benefit of thirty shilings in respect of her first confinement after the date of I unemployment and within two years of the date of her marriage, and to medical and sanatorium benefits until the termination of the, year next following the year in which she ceased to be such a person as aforesaid, and she shall until the expiration of two years from the date of her marriage remain an insured person.
(2) For the purposes of this section a woman shall be deemed to have coated to be a person whose normal occupation is employment as soon as she has been unemployed for eight consecutive weeks commencing next after the week in which she ceased to be employed.
"Provided that a woman who is or was unemployed by reason of incapacity for work in respect of which she has received, or but for any disentitling provisions of the principal Act would have received, sickness or disablement benefit, shall not be deemed to have ceased to be a person whose normal occupation is employment until the expiration of eight weeks commencing next after the end of the last week in which she was or would have been as aforesaid in receipt of such benefit.
"(3) If a woman after becoming entitled to benefits by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section becomes employed before she ceases to be an insured person she shall be treated as if she had become insured for the first time on the date on which she so heroines employed:
"Provided that no woman shall by reason only of so becoming employed be deprived of any

243
benefit to which she would, but for the provisions of this subsection have been entitled unless and until she becomes entitled to corresponding benefit by virtue of her new insurance.
"(4) No married woman shall during her coverture be entitled to be a voluntary contributor and any woman who is, at the commencement of this Act, a voluntary contributor under the terms of subsection (2) of Section 44 of the principal Act, shall cease to be such a contributor and an insured person and to be entitled to the benefits mentioned in that subsection, and in lieu thereof shall be entitled to receive by way of benefit payment of a sum of forty shillings:
"Provided that—

"(a)Nothing in this provision shall prevent a married woman who has been employed for at least the prescribed number of weeks in any period being deemed to be a voluntary contributor for the purpose of any regulations made under this Act with respect to the benefits of persons in arrears: and

"(b) Where any woman who is a voluntary contributor under the terms of the said subsection (2) is at the commencement of this Act in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit, she shall continue to be entitled to sickness or disablement benefit so long as the incapacity continues, and the said sum of forty shillings shall become payable only on the expiration of a period of eight weeks commencing next after the date when the incapacity ceases.

"(5) Where any woman being an insured person and a member of an approved society marries, the prescribed sum shall be transferred from the credit of the society to the credit of the Reserve Suspense Fund, and all moneys which are at the commencement of this Act standing to the credit. of the Married Women's Suspense Account mentioned in section forty-four of the principal Act shall be carried to the credit of the Reserve Suspense Fund, and the said account shall he closed.
"(6) Where any woman being an insured person and a member of an approved society marries and after her marriage continues to be or becomes an employed contributor, the appropriate reserve value shall be credited to the society in respect of her as if she were a person joining the Society.
"(7) The Insurance Commissioners may make regulations providing for such financial adjustments between approved societies and the Reserve Suspense Fund as appear necessary in order to place the societies and the Fund respectively in the position in which they would have been if the two last preceding subsections of this section had come into force on the commencement of the principal Act instead of on the commencement of this Act.
"(8) Where any married woman is, at the commencement of this Act, entitled to have any sum applied for her benefit under the terms of the proviso to subsection (2) of section forty-four of the principal Act and that sum or any part thereof remains unexpended on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and nineteen, that sum or the unexpended part thereof shall, instead of being applied as aforesaid, be paid to her in cash on
244
that date and she shall as on that date cease to be an insured person:
"Provided that if any cash payment so required to be made is not made before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty, an amount equal to the sum to be paid shall be transferred from the credit of the society to the Reserve Suspense Fund.
"(9) In the case of any woman being a voluntary contributor who marries this section shall apply as though the date of her marriage were the date of unemployment.
"(10) Subject as aforesaid, the provisions of Part I of the principal Act shall apply to a woman who has been married, both during and after her coverture, as if she had never been married.
"(11) In the application of this section to Ireland for the words 'for not more than six weeks in the period of twelve months commencing next after the date of unemployment' there shall be substituted the words 'for not more than eight weeks in the period between the date of unemployment and the date of the completion of the second year of marriage.'
"(12) It shall be the duty of every woman being an insured person and a member of an approved society who marries to give notice of her marriage to her society within eight weeks thereof, and if an approved society pays to any married woman who has failed to give notice in accordance with the foregoing provision any sum by way of sickness benefit in excess of the amount properly payable to that married woman, the society shall, if it was not aware of her marriage, be entitled to deduct the amount so paid in excess from the amount of any benefits subsequently payable to her.
"(13)In this section the expression "employment" means employment within the meaning of Part I of the principal Act, and the expression 'employed' and 'unemployment' shall be construed accordingly."—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord for the trouble he has taken to meet our views, and to say that we most cordially agree with the proposed new Clause. It is a very good solution that every woman who marries and ceases employment should have 5s. a week, limited to six weeks, and that she should have 30 s. maternity benefit for her first child born within two years of her marriage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order.)
MIDWIVES (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.

NATIONAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which brings the National Register of 1915 up to date.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

PORT GLASGOW WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed and (pursuant to the Private
246
Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (LORD STANMORE); and reported from the Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, I beg to give notice that the noble Earl the Leader of the Home will to-morrow move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX in respect of the Military Service Bill and the National Registration (Amendment) Bill.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.