Lords Sitting of 19 November 1918

THE ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY.
THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (VISCOUNT FARQUHAR): My Lords, I have to report to your Lordships that His Majesty has appointed this day at a quarter before three o'clock to receive the Address of this House in the Royal Gallery.
House adjourned during pleasure, and proceeded to the Royal Gallery to present the Address of yesterday's date.

HIS MAJESTY'S REPLY.
His Majesty's Reply, delivered to the members of both Houses of Parliament, was as follows:
"I thank you for your loyal Addresses of congratulations on the signature of an Armistice and on the prospect of a victorious peace.
"At this moment, without parallel in our history and in the history of the world, I am glad to meet you and the representatives of India and the Dominions beyond the seas, that we may render thanks to Almighty God for the promise of a peace now near at hand, and that I may express to you, and through you to the peoples whom you represent, the thoughts that rise in my mind at a time so solemn.
"I do this with a heart full of grateful recognition of the spontaneous and enthusiastic expressions of loyalty and affection which I have been privileged to receive both personally here in the metropolis, and by mesages from all parts of these islands, as well as from every quarter of the Empire. During the past four years of national stress and anxiety, my support has been faith in God and confidence in my people. In the days to come, days of uncertainty and of trial, strengthened by the same help, I shall strive to the utmost of my power to discharge the responsibilities laid upon me, to uphold the honour of the Empire, and to promote the well-being of the peoples over whom I am called to reign.
"After a struggle longer and far more terrible than any one could have fore-
200
told, the soil of Britain remains inviolate. Our Navy has everywhere held the seas, and wherever the enemy could be brought to battle it has renewed the glories of Drake and Nelson. The incessant work it has accomplished in overcoming the hidden menace of the enemy submarines and guarding the ships that have brought food and munitions to our shores, has been less conspicuous but equally essential to success. Without that work, Britain might have starved and those valiant soldiers of America who have so much contributed to our victory could not have found their way hither across the foam of perilous seas.
"The Fleet has enabled us to the war. In fact, without the Fleet, the struggle could not have been maintained, for upon the command of the sea the very existence and maintenance of our Land Forces have from the first depended.
"That we should have to wage this war on land had scarcely entered our thoughts until the storm actually broke upon us. But Belgium and France were suddenly invaded and the nation rose to the emergency. Within a year an Army more than ten times the strength of that which was ready for action in August, 1914, was raised by voluntary enlistment, largely owing to the organising genius and personal influence of Lord Kitchener, and the number of that Army was afterwards far more than doubled.
"These new soldiers drawn from the civil population have displayed a valour equal to that of their ancestors, who have carried the flag of Britain to victory in so many lands in bygone times. Short as was their training, they have imitated and rivalled the prowess of the small but ever famous force which, in the early weeks of the war, from Mons to the Marne, fought its magnificent retreat against vastly superior numbers. Not less prompt was the response, not less admirable the devotion to the common cause, of those splendid troops which eagerly hastened to us from the Dominions overseas, men who showed themselves more than ever to be bone of our bone, inheriting all the courage and tenacity that have made Britain great. A hundred battlefields in all parts of the world have witnessed their heroism.

201
have been soaked with their blood, and are for ever hallowed by their graves.
"I shall ever remember how the Princes of India rallied to the cause, and with what ardour her soldiers sustained in many theatres of war and under conditions the most diverse and exacting, the martial traditions of their race. Neither can I forget how the men from the Crown Colonies and Protectorates of Great Britain, also fighting amid novel and perilous scenes, exhibited a constancy and devotion second to none.
"To all these and to their Commanders who, in fields so scattered and against enemies so different in Europe, Asia, and Africa have for four years confronted the hazards, overcome the perils, and finally decided the issues of war, our gratitude is most justly due. They have combined the highest military skill with unsurpassed resolution; and amid the heat of the battlefield have never been deaf to the calls of chivalry and humanity.
"Particularly would I mention the names of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, whose patient and indomitable leadership, ably seconded by his fellow Commanders, has been rewarded by the final rout of the enemy on the field of so much sacrifice and glory; of General Sir Edmund Allen by who, in a campaign unique in military history, has won back for Christendom the spoil for which centuries had fought and bled in vain; and of General Sir Stanley Maude and his successor who gained, in a scene of no less romance, the first resounding victory of the war for the Allied cause.
"While I mention those who have served their country till the end of the struggle, let us not forget the incomparable services of the leaders who, in the early days of the war, before Fortune had begun to smile, upheld the best traditions of British Arms by land and sea; of Field-Marshal Lord French of Ypres, whose title recalls the scene of his undying renown, and of Admirals Lord Jellicoe and Sir David Beatty, who have for four years been the spirit and soul, as they were the successive Commanders, of the fighting Fleet of the Empire.
"Let us remember also those who belong to the most recent military arm, the keen-eyed and swift-winged knights
202
of the air, who have given to the world a new type of daring and resourceful heroism.
"So must we further acknowledge the dauntless spirit of the men of the Mercantile Marine and the fishermen who patrolled our coasts, braving all the dangers of mine and torpedo in the discharge of duty.
"Let our thanks also be given to those who have toiled incessantly at home, women no less than men, in producing munitions of war, and to those who have rendered essential war service in many other ways. There are whole fields of service wherein workers, old and young, have toiled unknown and unrequited save by the consciousness that they were answering to the call of duty. Notable, too, has been the contribution made to the common welfare by those who volunteered as surgeons, physicians, chaplains, and nurses, fearlessly exposing themselves to danger in their tasks of mercy. While all these have laboured with the same glowing spirit of unselfish service, may we not be proud also of the attitude maintained by the whole people at home? Unwonted privations have been cheerfully borne, and the hearts of those who were facing the stress of battle have been cheered by the stedfast confidence with which those whom they had left at home awaited the issue, and assured them of their unfaltering devotion to the prosecution of the war.
"While we find in these things cause for joy and pride, our hearts go out in sorrowful sympathy to the parents, the wives, and the children who have lost those who were the light and stay of their lives. They gave freely of what was most precious to them. They have borne their griefs with unrepining fortitude, knowing that the sacrifice was made for our dear country and for a righteous cause. May they find consolation in the thought that the sacrifice has not been made in vain. These brave men died for Right and for Humanity. Both have been vindicated.
"In all these ways, and through all these years, there has been made manifest the unconquered and unconquerable spirit of our race, nourished on the glorious traditions of many centuries of freedom. This spirit, conscious of its strength, bore the trials and disappoint-

203
ments of these years with a fortitude that was never shaken and a confidence that never failed. It knew its motives to be pure, and it held fast to its faith that Divine Providence would not suffer injustice and oppression to prevail.
"In this great struggle, which we hope will determine for good the future of the world, it is a matter of ceaseless pride to us that we have been associated with Allies, whose spirit has been identical with our own, and who amid sufferings that have in so many cases greatly exceeded ours, have devoted their united strength to the vindication of righteousness and freedom; France, whose final deliverance, achieved by one of the greatest of Commanders, Marshal Foch, has been the reward of a sacrifice and endurance almost beyond compare; Belgium, devastated and held in bondage for nigh upon five years, but now restored to her liberty and her King; Italy, whose lofty spirit has at length found its national fulfilment; and our remaining Allies, upon whose horizon, till lately so dark, the light of emancipation already dawns.
"During the last one and a-half years we are also proud to have been directly associated with the great sister-Common-wealth across the ocean, the United States of America, whose resources and valour have exercised so powerful an influence in the attainment of those high ideals which were her single aim.
"Now that the clouds of war are being swept from the sky, new tasks arise before us. We see more clearly some duties that have been neglected, some weaknesses that may retard our onward march. Liberal provision must be made for those whose exertions by land and sea have saved us. We have to create a better Britain, to bestow more care on the health and well-being of the people, and to ameliorate further the conditions of labour.
"May not the losses of war be repaired by a better organisation of industry and by avoiding the waste which industrial disputes involve? Cannot a spirit of reciprocal trust and co-ordination of effort be diffused among all classes? May we not, by raising the standard of education, turn to fuller account the natural aptitudes of our people and open wider the sources of intellectual enjoyment?
204
"We have also, in conjunction with our Allies and other peace-loving States, to devise machinery by which the risk of International strife shall be averted and the crushing burdens of naval and military armaments be reduced. The doctrine that Force shall rule the world has been disproved and destroyed. Let us enthrone the rule of Justice and International Right.
"In what spirit shall we approach these great problems? How shall we seek to achieve the victories of Peace? Can we do better than remember the lessons which the years of war have taught, and retain the spirit which they ins illed? In these years Britain and her traditions have come to mean more to us than they had ever meant before. It became a privilege to serve her in whatever way we could; and we were all drawn by the sacredness of the cause into a comradeship which fired our zeal and nerved our efforts. This is the spirit we must try to preserve. It is on a sense of brotherhood and mutual good will, on a common devotion to the common interests of the nation as a whole, that its future prosperity and strength must be built up. The sacrifices made, the sufferings endured, the memory of the heroes who have died that Britain may live, ought surely to ennoble out thoughts and attune our hearts to a higher sense of individual and national duty, and to a fuller realisation of what the English-speaking race, dwelling upon the shores of all the oceans, may yet accomplish for mankind.
"For centuries past, Britain has led the world along the path of ordered freedom. Leadership may still be hers among the peoples who are seeking to follow that path. God grant to their efforts such wisdom and perseverance as shall ensure stability for the days to come.
"May good will and concord at home strengthen our influence for concord abroad. May the morning star of peace which is now rising over a war-worn world be here and everywhere the herald of a better day, in which the storms of strife shall have died down and the rays of an enduring peace be shed upon all the nations."
House resumed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF LABOUR (REQUISITION OF PREMISES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons: read 1a, and to be printed.
TERMINATION OF THE WAR (DEFINITION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, could the noble Lord who is acting as Leader of the House tell us what business it is proposed to take to-morrow, and the time at which it is proposed that your Lordships should sit. I should particularly like to know whether it is proposed to take certain Bills through all their stages tomorrow, and if not, what stages.
LORD HYLTON: The Leader of the House will be in his place directly, and no doubt he will be able to answer the noble Viscount's question. I am afraid I am not in a position to do so.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Perhaps the Leader of the House would make an announcement before the close of business. I only want to point out that sometimes at the close of business there is a very small attendance, and your Lordships would have no knowledge of the very serious measures that I understand it is in contemplation to pass through all their stages to-morrow.

THE ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to report that this House attended in the Royal Gallery this day and presented the Address of yesterday's date to His Majesty, and that His Majesty was pleased to make a most gracious reply.
CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
COWDENBEATH WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the new clause which stands on the Paper in my name. This clause is necessary in order to wind up, as it were, the Administrative Expenses Act of 1917. When that is cleared out of the way the new machinery that is set up under this Bill will be able to take its place.
Amendment moved—
After clause 2 insert the following new clause:
"Amendment of s. 1 (2) of 7 & 8 Geo. 5, c. 14.
".—(1) Where a council has failed to discharge in due course any of its functions under subsection (2) of section one of the Administrative Expenses Act, the Minisiter may by order declaring that the council has so failed appoint some person to discharge those functions in the place of the council, and the person so appointed shall by virtue of the order have power to discharge those functions accordingly.
"(2) A declaration contained in any such order to the effect that a council has so failed shall be conclusive evidence of the fact."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 4, line 10, leave out ("ten percent.") and insert ("one tenth").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendments moved:
Clause 4, page 4, line 30, leave out ("of Pensions")
Clause 4, page 4, line 33, leave out ("of Pensions").
Clause 4, page 5, line 15, leave out ("account") and insert ("accounts ").—(Viscount Peel)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendments to Clause 7 on the Paper stand together. They are merely inserted in order to carry out an undertaking given in another place that the power of the Minister under the Special Grants Committee should be to some extent modified.
Amendments moved—
Clause 7, page 6, line 28, leave out from ("term") to ("of")
Clause 7, page 6, line 29, after ("office") insert ("not being less than three years")
Clause 7, page 6, line 31, at end insert as a new subsection:
"(3) If it is represented to the Minister by the special grants committee that any member of the committee is habitually absent from the meetings of the committee, the Minister may declare that that person has vacated his office as a member of the committee."
Clause 7, page 6, line 35, leave out ("of Pensions").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 7, line 9, leave out ("grant") and insert ("grants").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 15, leave out ("at any time").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 39, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commissioners of Works").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 40, after ("thereon") insert ("which the Minister may certify to be").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 27, after ("Pensions") insert ("&c.").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 9, at the end insert ("and the expression 'Ministry' means 'Ministry of Pensions'").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, after ("are") insert ("except so far as relates to the administrative expenses of committees incurred before the 1st day of January nineteen hunded and nineteen").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported; Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROYAL AGRICULTURAL HALL.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK rose to call attention to the amount of compensation awarded to the Royal Agricultural Hall Company by the Losses Commission; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether any steps can be taken to assure to the company adequate compensation for the loss they have sustained.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, before calling attention to the treatment which the Royal Agricultural Hall Company have received in the matter of compensation awarded to them by the Losses Commission, I should like to explain that I am not a director or interested in the management of this company. I am not a share-

209
holder, nor have I any pecuniary interest in the company. It is only because the company have been for many years closely associated with agriculture through the Shire and Hunter Horse Shows, with the annual Smithfield Club Fat Stock Show, with the Dairy Show, and with the Royal Agriculture Society of England, and because of the serious financial position in which the company will be placed by the inadequate compensation awarded to them, that have been induced to call attention to the matter.
I notice that the Minister of Labour, in moving the Second Reading of the Ministry of Labour (Requisition of Premises) Bill in the House of Commons last week, admitted that the procedure and practice of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commissioners had given much dissatisfaction, but he expressed his belief that there had been an improvement of late. He added that he recognised that the Government ought not to act arbitrarily against the interests of citizens. I hope Mr. Roberts is right in his belief that there has recently been an improvement in the procedure and practice of the Losses Commissioners, but even if that be so it is very little consolation to those whose cases have been dealt with previously in an arbitrary and possibly hard manner; and I think that it is only reasonable to ask that such cases should now be reconsidered so that the awards of compensation may conform to the improved practice and procedure which has now been adopted by the Losses Commission.
With regard to the case of the Royal Agricultural Hall Company, I may explain that the Agricultural Hall consists of two parts. There is the Great Hall, to which the offices and other rooms are attached, and there is an adjoining smaller hall, known as the Gilbey Hall, which is frequently let separately and used for smaller exhibitions. In 1916 the Post Office took possession of the Gilbey Hall on June 26, and they occupied it until December 16. For the first two months of their occupation the Post Office refused to come to any arrangement as to the amount of rent that was to be paid. The hall was then commandeered. A claim was made by the company for £1,408 10 s., being the proportion of rent applicable to this hall. The Losses Commission, after considering the claim, awarded the company £134 7s. 6d.; they refunded to the company the amount that they had paid in rates, amounting to about
210
£241, and they allowed the very modest sum of three guineas towards the costs of the application.
I come now to the position of the company in regard to the occupation by the Government of the whole of the premises, including the Great Hall, the offices attached to it, and the Gilbey Hall. In 1914 when the war broke out soldiers were billeted in the Hall, and a considerable loss, amounting to about £2,000, was incurred by the company. There is no question of compensation arising in that case. In 1915 a limited number of exhibitions was able to be held, and no claim for compensation was therefore made. In 1916 the Ministry of Munitions issued an order prohibiting the display of machinery at exhibitions. In consequence eight exhibitions had to be abandoned, and a claim for £8,000 was made for losses; but no compensation was allowed on the ground that there was no direct interference with the company's business. I am ready to admit that possibly in this case the decision of the Commissioners was a correct one.
Then I come to the year 1917, when the Government took possession of the whole of the premises on May 2. A claim was made by the company to the amount of £18,498 in respect of loss of rents from exhibitions for which they held contracts. The claim was heard by the Losses Commission on January 8 in the present year, and the Chairman of the Commission intimated that the company could not claim for exhibitions prohibited in 1916 because, even if the Hall had been commandeered in 1917, they could not have been held in that year; and the chairman of the Commissioners further said that he thought the company were not doing justice to themselves in this claim that they had then made. He suggested that an alternative claim might be made, on the basis of what could be earned by the company if the premises were let for other than exhibition purposes, assuming the company had no contracts and were free to let the hall. The hearing was adjourned to enable the company to prepare a claim on that basis. An alternative claim, on the basis of letting the premises for factory purposes, amounting to about £19,000, was therefore prepared by the company at considerable expense, two surveyors having been employed to make the valuation. The adjourned hearing took place on the 6th of June. This claim was,

211
however, practically ruled out of court, on the plea advanced on behalf of the Government, that as the company were under contract to hold certain exhibitions, which had not been prohibited, they would not have been able to let the premises for factory purposes.
The Losses Commission have now awarded the company the sum of £6,000 a year, and £26 5s. towards the cost of the application, made on the suggestion of the chairman, which cost the company several hundred pounds They have indemnified the company also against rates, which amount to less than £1,000 a year. Exhibitions which have not been prohibited, and which could have been held if the hall were not commandeered, occupy only about four months in the year—namely, from the end of December to the end of April—and for those exhibitions rents amounting to £5,464 would have been paid through the contracts that had been entered into. This would have left a period of eight months in the year, during which the hall could undoubtedly have been let for one purpose or another, but no allowance is made by the Commission for the use of the premises during that period. Indeed, it would appear that the Commissioners merely based their award on the fact that had the hall not been commandeered, the company would have been able to let the hall during the first four months of the year for a sum of £5,464.
I should like briefly to refer to what is the effect of this award on the financial position of the company. Before the war the receipts of the company were on the average about £20,000 a year. For the last seventeen years they have been able to pay a dividend of 8 per cent. to the shareholders. Since 1914 no dividend has been paid, but a considerable loss has been incurred in each year. Under the decision of the Commissioners the company have to maintain the hall in a satisfactory condition, and in addition to this heavy expenditure they have to pay interest on debenture stock, interest on bank loans, insurance and management. They are bound to lose from £1,000 to £1,500 a year under the present conditions, and moreover, as the Government are to pay rent for the period only of three months after giving up possession, whereas it requires at least six months and probably nine months to prepare for an exhibition, the company will sustain further loss at
212
the end of the Government's occupation of their premises.
I do not for a moment suggest that the company can expect to be placed in as favourable a position as that which they were in before the commencement of the war. It might possibly be held by some persons that the shareholders of the company are not entitled to receive even a reduced dividend dining the period of the Government's occupation of the premises. I cannot subscribe to that. It seems to me that although they might not be able to receive the full dividend of the pre-war period, at any rate some consideration should be shown to those who have invested money in the company, and that they are entitled to such compensation as will enable the company to pay at any rate a reduced dividend to the shareholders. I contend this, and I think it is an exceedingly reasonable contention, that the company are entitled to receive an annual payment which will enable them to meet their liabilities, and that the award by the Losses Commission of £6,000 a year is quite insufficient for that purpose. As I have already explained to your Lordships, with the payment of £6,000 a year this company, besides not being able to pay any dividends to the shareholders, is bound to incur an actual loss of £1,000 to £1,500 a year. I venture to submit that that is not an equitable award as to the compensation that they are entitled to receive. I therefore beg to ask the Question which I have placed on the Notice Paper—namely, whether any steps can be taken to assure to the company adequate compensation for the loss they have sustained.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I fear the answer which I have to give will not be very satisfactory to my noble friend. I have to say that the Government do not feel that any step can be taken to assure to the company further compensation than what has been awarded to them by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. My noble friend and the House know that in these cases, where buildings and premises have been requisitioned under the Defence of the Realm Act, there is no right on the part of the owners of those premises or buildings to any compensation at all. Although I am not a lawyer myself, I believe that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is prepared to bear me out when I say that these payments made by the Defence

213
of the Realm Losses Commission must be considered entirely as payments ex gratia on the part of the Crown. The Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, of which my noble friend Lord Terrington, who is present in his place this afternoon, is chairman, is a judicial body against whose decisions no appeal, so far as I am aware, is provided. That Commission has inquired into, I suppose, hundreds of cases since it was first set up, and although I am perfectly willing to admit on behalf of the Government that there is dissatisfaction on the part of certain people who have not got all they expected to get from the Commission—I might, in fact, include myself among them, having made a small claim, on which the award was nil—on the whole I believe that the decisions of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission have been regarded by the public as, at all events, some compensation to the owners of the property or premises that have been requisitioned.
The noble Earl who put this Question on the Paper has dealt with some rather complex and intricate figures with regard to different portions of the premises that were taken by the Government, and in reference to which more than one hearing was held before Lord Terrington's Commission. Perhaps I may be allowed to give to the House the facts as they have been presented to me by the Commission, although my noble friend perfectly understands that I do not for a moment intend to infer that he has not given perfectly accurate figures and statements. It appears that the main hall of the Royal Agricultural Company, Ltd., was requisitioned by the War Department and occupied by the Royal Flying Corps in May last year. I think the noble Earl said on May 2. The company submitted to the Losses. Commission a claim for compensation for the occupation of the property, and it was heard on January 8 of the present year. Counsel appeared for the company and the Crown on the hearing. The loss claimed for was in respect of rent expected to be received by the company during the period of occupation from parties who had agreed to rent the building for the holding of exhibitions of various kinds at different periods of the year. It transpired on the hearing, however, that the greater number of the exhibitions could not be held owing to a general Order of the Minister of Munitions, made as far back as
214
December, 1915, prohibiting the holding of such exhibitions throughout the country without licence, and by evidence it was shown that no such licences had been, or could be, obtained.
As to three exhibitions, however—the Clothing and Drapery Exhibition, the Horse Show, and the World's Fair—the prohibition did not apply, and in respect of these the War Office admitted an estimated gross loss of £5,840, or a net loss, after deduction of rates (against which the applicants received an indemnity from the Crown) of approximately £5,000. The Commission was satisfied that the other exhibitions in respect of which the claim was made could not have been held, and that in respect of these no loss accrued which it was within their power to take into consideration. No compensation has ever been awarded for a loss arising from the enforcement of an Order of general application; that is to say, one that is of a general character and applies to and affects all His Majesty's subjects, as distinguised from an Order affecting a particular property or a particular subject interferedwith. Such was the nature of the general Order of the Ministry of Munitions which prohibited exhibitions and operated to prevent the company receiving rents in this case. That, no doubt, is the Order to which I have already referred as having been issued by the Ministry of Munitions in the month of December, 1915. The Commission took into account the allowance to be made in respect of the possibility of temporary lettings during the period that exhibitions were not being held, and in the result awarded £6,000 a year, together with an indemnity against rates and tenants' taxes in respect of the portion occupied, the rateable value of which was agreed at £2,415, this indemnity to include water rate.
There was an adjourned hearing held by the Commission on June 6 this year when a claim on an alternative basis of what might probably have been derived from the lettings of the occupied portions of the premises for purposes other than exhibitions—namely, for storage or a factory—was submitted and evidence adduced and counsel heard on both sides. The Commission came to the conclusion, after carefully weighing the evidence, that this alternative basis was not sustainable, and agreed to make their determination on the basis of the first claim to which I have

215
already alluded. Secondly, there was a separate claim made by the company in respect of the occupation of Gilbey Hal, from June to December, 1916. I think my noble friend happened to refer to that first. Here also there were two alternative claims. The first was for £1,408 in respect of loss of rent and other receipts from exhibitions contracted to be held at the Hall and from sub-tenants, and the second was for £1,713 in respect of the loss of the probable amount which might have been derived from letting the occupied portion for storage or as a factory. A further claim for £448 for services rendered and gas and water supply was dealt with locally by the Office of Works.
The Commission again held that the first alternative claim was sustainable, and on the same basis as before the claim was allowed and they awarded £134 7s. I think the Losses Commission, in assessing the compensation, applied to this claim that is brought forward by the noble Earl this afternoon the principles embodied in the Warrant under which they exercise jurisdiction precisely in the same way in which they have been applied to all the other claims, amounting I think to several hundreds—my noble friend will correct me if he thinks proper—which came within their purview. Whilst the Government regret that the applicants should feel aggrieved that this entails some sacrifice on their part, it is one which they share in common with many others of their fellow-subjects. I am afraid that is all the answer I can give to my noble friend on behalf of the Government. The House will be able to judge from the speeches they have heard from the noble Lord who is Chairman of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission on this subject or similar subjects in the earlier part of the session, that the noble Lord is well able to justify the decisions which have been made by this Commission.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down began by telling us that he was afraid his reply would be most unsatisfactory to the noble Earl who asked this Question. I venture to say that he had good reason for his fears, because his statement amounts to nothing but a blunt refusal to meet the appeal made by the noble Earl. As I followed the noble Earl's speech, I think he made out a very clear claim to the right to compensation of a considerable charac-
216
ter. The noble Lord met him by saying, so far as he was aware, the general public had complete confidence in the Losses Commissioners and were of opinion that in all cases which had been referred to them some compensation at all events had been received. So far as I was able to follow the speech of my noble friend—unfortunately I hear so ill that there may have been portions of it that I was unable to catch—I gathered that he will not agree with that opinion at all, and I am bound to say that it does seem to me that the treatment awarded to the Royal Agricultural Hall company for the very heavy losses which it has been made perfectly clear they have sustained is unsatisfactory in the highest degree. I venture to think that this will teach us at least one lesson, and that is that when we have before us, as I understand we shall have, another Bill prolonging for the second time the effect of the Defence of the Realm Act, we shall know how we ought to treat it.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before Lord Terrington speaks, I should like to say a word or two on the question of principle. I think the same principle of compensation ought to be adopted whether exgratia or whether it is given in the ordinary legal form. I do not think your Lordships will differ from that principle, but I also think that as much evil may be done by giving too much compensation as by giving too little, and you may have the evil as much on one side as on the other if you are not careful.
What I wanted to say before Lord Terrington spoke was this. I wish to ask him whether he dealt with compensation in this case on the proper basis—namely, that the person claiming compensation should be indemnified against the losses arising from the act in respect of which compensation is claimed. The noble Lord will understand what I mean. For instance, if it is true that compensation was claimed in respect to the loss on certain shows, that is a loss common to every one, because shows of that kind had been generally stopped. Then, although there may be considerable loss, I think the noble Lord himself acknowledged that compensation could not be properly claimed in respect of a loss of that kind. In other words, it was a loss which came not from the act of the Government in respect of which compensation was claimed, but from

217
a general act which affected all persons equally.
But there is another side of the claim on which I hope the noble Lord will say a word if he answers the allegations that have been made. That is, as I understood, on his own initiative he suggested that compensation might be based not on the loss from the shows, but on the loss to which the Hall might be put in respect of parties, although at the time it had been let for certain shows for four months of the year in respect of which no compensation, according to his view, was claimable. And I entirely agree, if I understand the basis on which he acted. But I do not feel so satisfied with regard to the other point, and I hope the noble Lord will explain why it was that the other claim, based on wider grounds, was also disallowed. I am not suggesting that the action was not quite proper, because these compensation claims involve sometimes much difficulty and difference in detail, and you have to consider the details of the evidence. I ask whether the noble Lord is satisfied that in this case the owners were indemnified, in spite of the loss they have undoubtedly suffered.
LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords, in response to the appeal which has been made, I should like to say one or two things. In the first place, the Losses Commission is a quasi-judicial tribunal; it is absolutely impartial, and sits to decide, like any other tribunal, claims between the subjects of the Crown. I think it would be an extremely inconvenient practice if your Lordships were to encourage litigants before this tribunal to ask that the decisions of the tribunal should be reviewed in your Lordships' House, without your Lordships having before you the evidence which had been adduced, and without having seen or heard those who are parties to the case. Your Lordships would not attempt to do it with regard to any other tribunal in the land. The claims have run into thousands, and have involved millions of money, and it will be apparent to your Lordships' House that to encourage such incidents as have arisen this afternoon and occupied a great deal of your Lordships' time, would be very unfair to the parties to the suit, and would not be very fair to the Commission either.
Now this case is extremely simple. Had the noble Earl been aware of the
218
regulations under which the Commission is bound to act, he would not have lent himself to submitting this to the House. Under the Warrant under which the Commissioners act, they have not a discretion. There are many people who imagine that they submit claims to the Commissioners and that the Commissioners exercise their discretion as to what they will award with respect to those claims. That is not so. With the sanction of Parliament, the Warrant lays down strictly the principles on which the Commissioners act, and applicants to the Commission have to do two things. First, they have to establish that there has been an interference by the Crown with the applicants' business or property. Secondly, they have to establish that there had been direct monetary loss flowing from that interference. I say "direct," because the Warrant says "direct and substantial loss." This means that the consequential losses cannot be considered by the Commission.
In this case what happened is this. The main Hall of the Royal Agricultural Hall Company was occupied by the War Department for the purpose of the Flying Corps in May, 1917. The claim submitted to the Commission was for the taking and using by the War Department of that Hall. The claim was for a sum of £18,000, and was based upon the loss of rents receivable by the company from the letting of the Hall for exhibitions. When the claim came to be examined by the Commission it was found that those exhibitions, with the exception of three, could not possibly have been held; and therefore that the company could not have derived the revenue in respect of which they claimed a loss. With regard to the three, they could have been held. It was admitted in respect of them that the loss was £5,800, and when rates amounting to £900 were deducted the net loss was £5,000. The whole of that loss was awarded to the company as the whole loss they could claim in respect of these exhibitions. It does, perhaps, appear hard that the exhibitions in respect of which they could not claim, were exhibitions which had been prohibited by the Government. They were prohibited by the Minister of Munitions under a General Order in December, 1915, which applied to all exhibitions throughout the country; and therefore they were in precisely the same position as all other of His Majesty's subjects who held fairs or

219
exhibitions, precisely in the same position, too, as muncipal corporations throughout the country who came with claims for loss of rents for fairs. The Commission were unable to award a single penny, because it is a fundamental principle that where a general Order has been made under the Defence of the Realm Act which applies to all His Majesty's subjects universally, no compensation can be paid. It is a common sacrifice which the whole people have to bear. It is only when the order entails active interference which affects particular property for the particular subject that a claim can be allowed.
In these circumstances it was not in the power of the Commission to give compensation, except in respect of the loss arising in connection with the three exhibitions, and every penny of that loss was awarded to the Royal Agricultural Company. When the case had been presented to us and had been stated by the eminent and skilled counsel who appeared for the company, I felt the hardship to the company, and I suggested to him, Do you think that you could possibly let this Hall for any other purpose than for these exhibitions? Do you not think that it would be wise for you to consider whether you could not present a claim for that? Evidently they had not considered that. This shows, at all events, that the Commissioners were anxious that the company should consider whether they could not derive some other revenues upon which the Commission could compensate—showing, as I say, the Commissioners' desire to do everything they could to meet them. Counsel thanked me for the suggestion, and asked if we would allow an adjournment so that they could consider it.
Six months later, on that alternative, they came before the Commission, and adduced evidence to show that they thought they could derive revenue from letting the premises for factory or storage purposes. I pointed out that one difficulty was that they had contracts with these three other exhibitions, which would stand in the way of turning the building into a factory or letting it for storage purposes, and that therefore they could not do that. Secondly, skilled evidence was produced by the Crown to show that it could not be turned into a factory except at enormous loss, which would be more than anything the Commission could entertain, and would counter balance any revenue that they would derive. Consequently the London
220
County Council regulation absolutely prohibited it from being turned to any such purpose.
The Commission, carefully weighing in the most sympathetic spirit towards the Agricultural Hall the circumstances, came to the conclusion that the first basis—namely, the loss of rents and income from exhibitions—was the only basis on which they could legitimately award compensation, and they awarded not only the £5,000 but an extra £1,000 a year for any possible lettings in the interval which could not be obtained. In these circumstances the Commission are fully satisfied that they did justice, and more than justice, to the claim that was submitted to them. That is the sum and substance of the whole case, and I hope that I have satisfied your Lordships that the Commission are not deserving of the attack which has been made upon them. I finish as I began with a protest against attempting to review in this House decisions of the tribunal which has carefully and accurately weighed the evidence.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I beg to thank my noble friend for his reply, with which, as he anticipated would be the case, I am not satisfied. I wish to say, in answer to the noble Lord who has just sat down, that I have no desire whatever to make any attack upon the Commission over which he presides. I may say that personally I have no quarrel whatever with the Losses Commission. I am more fortunate than my noble friend who replied just now, for I made a claim—it was a small one—and I received the amount which I claimed. I have, therefore, no personal feelings in the matter.
I do not know whether I made my point quite clear, and the noble Lord will perhaps excuse me if I repeat it. As I understand it, it was on the suggestion of the noble Lord, the chairman of the Losses Commission—and I know that it was made in a most friendly and conciliatory spirit—that the company decided upon the grounds on which they based their claim—namely, that they should make a claim on the basis that the hall could be let for purposes other than exhibitions. That claim was made, and it entailed very considerable expenditure upon the company in the employment of surveyors and others to ascertain what the hall could have been let for. It is quite true that the company

221
were under contract for certain exhibitions which are not prohibited at the present time. Therefore those contracts existed. But those exhibitions only covered a very short period of the year—the first four months of the year. I understand that the compensation granted to the company was based upon the losses sustained through those exhibitions for four months in the year, the period in respect of which the company had entered into contracts. That left eight months of the year free to the company during which, as the noble Lord himself had suggested, they might have let the hall for other purposes, and they understood from the noble Lord's suggestion that those were legitimate grounds on which the claim for compensation could be based. Perhaps I have misunderstood the position, and no doubt the noble Lord is better acquainted with it than I am.
LORD TERRINGTON: I think the noble Earl is under a wrong impression. It is not that the hall was let for four months and that there were eight months left. There were three exhibitions spread over different portions of the year, and the intervals remaining were such that it would be extremely difficult for the hall to be let at all in respect of such periods, but in respect of any loss that might thus be sustained the company got an extra £1,000 a year.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I can only say that that is not the information that was placed before me, and if it is wrong I regret it. I am only speaking on the facts as they have been presented to me, and it is on that basis that I present them to your Lordships. I only wish to say in conclusion that I quite recognise that the position of the Losses Commission is an exceedingly difficult one. No doubt very often, though they would have sympathy, they are unable to give it practical effect owing to the strict regulations laid down. The result is that in this case a company which was in a well-to-do position is now not only unable to pay any dividend, but is placed in a situation in which the amount of compensation awarded does not cover the liabilities imposed upon them to keep the hall in a proper state of maintenance and pay interest on the debentures. Both noble Lords have mentioned that the hall is occupied by the Royal Flying Corps. I think that it must be rather unsatisfac-
222
tory to the Royal Agricultural Hall Company, who have I think received very scanty compensation for the exhibitions that they were unable to hold, when they find that the Royal Flying Corps are now running an exhibition their own in the company's building. There is at the present time an exhibition under the auspices of the Royal Flying Corps being held in the Royal Agricultural Hall. It opened last month, and is to continue until the middle o January, and for admission to it a charge of 1s. a head is being made. I can hardly think that Parliament when they gave authority to the Government to commandeer buildings for the purpose of carrying on the war ever anticipated that those buildings would be used by the Government for running exhibitions with the object of making a profit.

DISTRIBUTION OF FOODSTUFFS.
LORD RATHCREEDAN LORD RATHCREEDAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps, if any, are being taken to release some of the Army Transport with a view to the better distribution of foodstuffs by the numerous firms who in the interest of the Sate gave up their vehicles at the out break of the war.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting the Question which stands in my name, I desire to state at the outset that I do not minimise in the smallest degree the very difficult position in which the Government is placed at the present moment in being obliged to undertake hundreds of matters, all of which are presumed to be pressing, in consequence of the termination of the war. But they must begin somewhere, and there are a certain number of matters which ought to have priority of claim, and certainly any subject which deals either directly or indirectly with the supply of food to the people ought to take one of the first places.
It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that at the outbreak of war a large number of firms throughout the country surrendered the greater part of their transport, both mechanical and horse, to the Army, in a great measure through a feeling of patriotism. My contention is that those firms ought to be rewarded by the surrender to them as soon as possible of a portion at least of such transport as the Government have had placed at their disposal. I am well aware that it will be

223
extremely difficult to bring rapidly from the Front any considerable portion of transport, but there is a certain amount of transport in the hands of the War Office in this country, and I am disposed to think that some small portion of it at any rate might be placed at the disposal of those firms who at the out break of war gave up their transport and who deal with food stuffs.
For some time past, as a member of an Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Food, I have known that the great difficulty with reference to supplies outside the urban areas of this country is due in the main not to a dearth of provisions but to difficulty of distribution. In the rural districts large numbers of the small shops have been closed altogether; in others the shops have been lamentably short of provisions, because it is extremely difficult for the wholesalers to supply the necessary stuffs to the smaller shops. As a result such things as cheese, bacon, margarine, and other substances, which are of supreme importance to the working classes, are not available at these smaller shops, and the working class women, the wives of agricultural labourers and others, are obliged to travel, at least once a week, several miles in order to obtain the provisions necessary for the week. They are obliged to go to the neighbouring towns, where they are not served over-readily.
This difficulty of transport, so far as the agricultural districts are concerned, is further aggravated by the fact that—as many of your Lordships know who, like myself, were members of military appeal tribunals for counties—we were told at the time by the gallant Field-Marshal that we had our backs to the wall and that we should send every available man to the Colours. In doing so we robbed the countryside of a large number of carriers. That further aggravated the scarcity to a very great degree, because it was not worth the while of the wholesalers to adopt some other method, and indeed the wholesalers could not have dealt with the matter, if they had wished, owing to the difficulty of transport.
What I ask is that in view of this difficulty we should have a small amount of mechanical transport at once transferred to the wholesalers. The question is much more pressing than is generally supposed, because into this question enters that of the distribution of the milk supplies of the
224
country, and your Lordships will readily recognise that a supply of milk is even more important for the children than a supply of bread. I may therefore be pardoned if I read an extract from the summary of a Commissioner's Report for the week ending November 2. One of the Commissioners says that in his opinion—
"there is a large supply of milk in the division, which might be tapped if transport could be met by an increased supply of petrol and motor conveyances."
I have made inquiry at the Ministry of Food and I was told that the number of milch cows in this country was as large as ever. Nevertheless, we find great dearth of milk in the country. It would be quite possible to overcome this difficulty if a little petrol and some motor conveyance were provided.
I might also add that this difficulty is aggravated by the fact that, as another Commissioner states, the lack of feeding-stuffs for the cows is reducing the yield, which has dropped from an average of 2¾ to 1½ gallons. That is a very serious consideration. In my part of the country I know that we attribute a great deal of this dearth of milk, or failure in yield on the part of the cows, to the fact that we had an exceedingly wet September, which had such an effect upon the grazing qualities of the soil that in a certain measure it has prevented the supply of milk which might have been anticipated. Both things combined place us in this position, that probably three or four months hence there will be a dearth of milk throughout the country, and much unpleasantness, to say the least of it, will arise among the working classes. I stated yesterday that it was always a source of great gratification to the working classes of this country when anything that deeply affected them was dealt with by your Lordships' House, and this is one of those questions; if your Lordships will support me in this matter you will thereby tend to increase the prestige of your House in the eyes of your fellow-countrymen.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (EARL STANITOPE): My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to give a very definite reply to my noble friend, for reasons which I am sure he will appreciate. The demands for military transport both in this country and in France have, if anything, increased since the signing of

225
the Armistice. The reason is, I think, clear as regards France. The Army has now begun to march forward at a very much more rapid rate than was the case before the signing of the Armistice. It is obvious that that Army must go forward with the whole of its supplies—supplies of ammunition, of engineering material, and of food. Until the railways are capable of carrying these stores forward, a very large amount of that work must be done by motor transport. In many cases it has actually been necessary to use all three échelons of the transport owing to the distance from our railheads. We hope shortly that the railheads will be pushed right forward, and in that case less transport will be necessary on the roads.
As regards this country, I am sure your Lordships will agree with what is being proposed, which is that a large number of motor lorries are being used for the conveyance of our repatriated prisoners of war from the ports to the camps, where they are first accommodated, and from these camps to the railway stations on the way to their homes. There is also a certain amount of movement in this country to clear camps for the accommodation of prisoners, and therefore actually at this moment the demands for transport in this country are rather higher than they were before. A certain number of vehicles no longer required by the War Department have been on sale for some weeks, and we understand that the number will very rapidly increase. It is at present impossible to estimate the wear and tear of motor transport abroad, but we anticipate that it will be less than it has been in the past, and therefore new lorries for replacement will be less required than they were before.
Therefore the number of vehicles for disposal will increase from this time on. Their disposal is effected by the Surplus Disposal Board, and I understand that it works under a Committee presided over by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I am quite sure that this Board will pay every regard to the remarks that have been made by my noble friend, and will endeavour to give such facilities as are possible for the provision of transport for the disposal of food in agricultural districts, and particularly of milk, at the very earliest possible moment. I regret that I am not able to give the numbers and the dates upon which this increase of transport will become available, but I am sure my noble
226
friend will realise why it is impossible at the present time.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord for asking this Question, and indebted also to the noble Earl for his full reply. But to my mind his reply has not answered the real case that the noble Lord made. I understand that the noble Lord's case was this. At present lack of petrol prevents the possibility of distributing our supplies of milk so as to ensure their being received in abundance by all the various consumers. The noble Earl has pointed out, in answer, that the demands of the Army in France in regard to transport remain to a large extent still unabated—this I can understand—and that to some extent also there may even be a slight increase. But there are a large number of instances in which they ought to be very materially reduced. Let us take the Navy for example. It must be plain to everybody that it is no longer necessary to keep the same supply of petrol for the use of our petrol-driven vessels as it was before; and a proportion of that supply ought to be capable of being released at once and used for such purposes as the noble Lord suggested.
Further, there have been a very large number of private cars utilised by the Government for the use of people connected with the Government even in a very remote manner. There is no doubt about their number; they can be counted by anybody who likes to walk down Whitehall or Pall Mall. Nobody was prepared to question the necessity for this while war was raging. We were told that swift transit of Government officials from place to place was necessary. But the exigencies of war have been relaxed, and it seems difficult, at any rate to my mind, to understand why the conditions of Government employment to-day differ from what they would be in ordinary times of peace, and why it is now necessary that a large fleet of motor cars should be kept for people connected with Government Departments when in times of peace nobody would have dreamt of any such thing being done.
Then we see announced in the newspapers—whether the announcement is inspired or not, I do not know—that private people may be expecting petrol shortly, in December or in January. I say without hesitation that it would be nothing less than a public scandal if petrol were to be

227
released for the use of private people in the pursuit of pleasure while such demands as those to which the noble Lord has referred remain unsatisfied. Within my own knowledge I have the case of a doctor who has been unable to see his patients owing to shortage of petrol, and this at a time when able-bodied men are being driven about in motor cars from their clubs to Whitehall over a distance they might just as well walk. However much that may be submitted to in times of war, because of the excuses that war brings, I submit that it cannot be tolerated in times when peace is drawing near. The first petrol to be liberated should not be freed for the purposes of pleasure but for the purposes of the industrial needs and the economic necessities of this country; and in order that it may be made as much as possible the Government should at once take steps to check and to control the use of the cars placed at the service of their own servants.

FREE EXPRESSION OF POLITICAL OPINION.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER, on behalf of EARL RUSSELL, rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether all regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act interfering with free expression of political opinion in speech and in writing have been withdrawn, and whether all expenditure of public money in advocating political views agreeable to the Government has ceased; and to move a Resolution.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl in whose name this Question stands has asked me to express regret to your Lordships that he is unable to be present to ask it himself. This Question is one which I think your Lordships will regard as of considerable importance. It is not merely that we have reached a moment when peace is not only within sight but within our grasp, but we are on the brink of a General Election. I desire to say nothing to divert the discussion upon this to the question of whether that Election is wise or foolish. I myself regard it as calamitous, but that is a mere personal opinion; it is one of the ills for which there is no remedy, and, right or wrong, we have to accept it. As a necessary sequel to that fact, it is in my opinion of the utmost importance that everything should be done which will make that Election real and not a farce, which will enable people freely and without impedi-
228
ment to express their views, and enable them to feel that they are not subject to the restraints and limitations which were very necessary when the war was on foot.
I do not know—this Question is intended to elicit—how many of the Regulations issued under the Defence of the Realm Act now remain. Regulation 9A provides that "where the assembly of any persons for the purpose of the holding of any meeting will give rise to great disorder, the meeting may be prohibited." Does that Regulation still continue on foot? If so, how is it possible that meetings can be held in a town where highly provocative and unpopular views are constitutionally advanced by the candidate who holds them? Again, there is the Regulation which provides that "the printing, publishing, or distribution of any leaflet intended or likely to be used for propagandist purposes in relation to the present war"—that may be disregarded—"or to the making of peace cannot be published unless it has been submitted to the Press Bureau, and has printed upon it the true name of the author and of the printer." Is that Regulation still on foot? If so, I should like to know how a candidate who desires to express the opinions which he is constitutionally entitled to express—though everybody knows they will be perfectly worthless at the present moment; views with regard to the making of peace—how is he going to escape the operation of this Regulation?
I do not desire to weary your Lordships by reading out all the restrictions under the Defence of the Realm Act which, unless they have been recently repealed, limit the liberties that people formerly enjoyed and to which they attached great value. But I would beg of your Lordships not to measure the value of those liberties by the cases where they may have been from time to time abused; nor by thinking of them as liberties which enable people to express unpleasant and unpopular opinions. If constitutional government has any meaning at all in this country it means that, when an Election is on, any candidate is at liberty to express, to advocate, and to seek support for, views which may be entirely subversive of the Constitution itself. There is nothing of which I am aware to prevent a man standing as a Republican candidate, to prevent him standing as a Bolshevist candidate, to prevent him standing as representing any one of the extreme and violent views which from time to time are advocated as views by which

229
other nations desire to be governed. The whole security of our Constitution absolutely depends upon that being possible; upon his being able to do it, and upon its being possible for people to say, "You had your chance of advocating it, but nobody would listen to a word you said." If, on the other hand, you do not let him advocate it—if you say that these are views which have to be restricted and restrained—then your representative government becomes a mere farce, and the Election is robbed of all its value.
I have given these illustrations for this reason. At the present moment, as I understand, there are men who are actually in prison for having expressed such views while the war was on. I make no complaint about—I do not know enough of the circumstances to justify me in making any complaint about—their sentence. It may have been perfectly fair and right and well justified by national exigencies, but it seems to me perfectly impossible that it can continue now. You cannot at once have an Election, in which every form of public discussion is invited, and at the same time say, "We none the less intend to restrict the channels in which discussion shall flow." I have referred, and intentionally referred, to the question of Bolshevist literature, and I have done it for this purpose. I hear—I cannot tell whether it is true—that attempts are being made to introduce Bolshevist literature into this country, and that the authorities think they are justified in preventing its publication and distribution.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That may be so while you are at war, and it may be so under abnormal conditions. If this Bolshevist literature advocates nothing which is contrary to the Criminal Law, but merely a change of Government, I say with all due reflection and consideration that you cannot properly prevent its circulation when you are face to face with a General Election, and a candidate is at liberty, as he assuredly is, to advocate those views if he so desire, if the views are not in themselves criminal or otherwise contrary to the public law. The whole object of an Election is to enable people, if they so desire, to change their form of government, and its value lies in the fact that it gives opportunity for an expression of opinion, which if unexpressed would circulate through some secret and
230
hidden channels and be productive of immeasurable mischief to the State. That is exactly what will happen with regard to this Bolshevist literature, if you get a crowd of people who meet together in a back room and look over one of these pamphlets as if it were something of enormous consequences, which the Government do not desire to have published, and that they could pass from hand to hand as a hidden and forbidden document. You then will have real danger with regard to the movement. Let it be open, let people see it, and the danger will at once disappear. Secrecy with regard to these matters seems to me very much like drug-taking, which begins by being a necessity and ends by becoming a disease. The days for secrecy and restrictions of this kind have gone by, and I ask the Government to inform this House that these restrictions have been removed.
For practical purposes it seems to me that the Press Bureau may now cease to exist. Its functions from the first were limited to the necessity of restricting the publication of matter which either directly or indirectly could possibly affect the fortune of our forces on land or sea. That necessity has gone by, and I cannot see how the Press Bureau now can proceed, on any principle with which we are acquainted, to discharge its duties. The cable branch deals only with newspapers, and foreign cables ought now to be allowed to go straight through without interference or limitation at all. If it be thought that, in connection with the terms of peace, reckless and unguarded statements in newspapers may cause mischief, the proper way to deal with that is to issue one notice to the Press upon it, and then let newspapers get rid of the bundles of notices, minatory and advisory, of every form, with which I know they have been flooded during the last four years, and the need for which justified undoubtedly the interference that then took place. The need has gone by, and the sooner we resume, unrestricted, the liberties for which people have in the past sacrificed a great deal, and to which they attach great value, the more safe and the more secure will the future of this country be.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the closing sentence of the noble and learned Lord's speech makes me ask your Lordships to listen for one moment while I ask him whether his argument is that what

231
was necessary for war is unnecessary now. Technically we may not be at war, but surely all the conditions of war are present at this moment. I venture to take one condition. Nearly all the restrictions which have been put upon private endeavour and private supplies are present and continuing. As regards the personnel, four millions of our countrymen, who would naturally be in this country—a valuable and important element in the consideration of political topics—are absent. That is not a normal condition. The state of wages, the state of supplies, almost every condition of life, is abnormal; and I am quite certain that the noble and learned Lord, when he is arguing that all Bolshevist papers and publications may freely be circulated in this country at present, would scarcely argue that under conditions of censorship the condition of Russia, and of countries in which Bolshevism has penetrated to such an extent, are at least perfectly known.
Nobody desires more than I do to see the censorship removed, but if he means by that counsel of perfection that doctrines which are highly deleterious at any time, but which are specially liable to produce misconception at present, should be allowed to be circulated broadcast by men who have brought their own country to anarchy, I think that would be a most serious responsibility for the Government to take. I venture to urge upon the Government that either, at this moment, to allow the country to be flooded by Bolshevist literature, or, as they are credited with the intention, to release Sinn Fein prisoners to become candidates, in order that they should have full opportunity of airing revolutionary doctrines—I venture to urge upon the Government that either of those courses would be opposed to the sentiments of the vast majority of the people of this country. I have risen because I can hardly believe that in your Lordships' House it should be left only to the Government to repudiate the doctrines of perfection which the noble and learned Lord has advanced, which under ordinary conditions may be sound enough, but which are certainly inapplicable to a country in such a position as we are in at this moment.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words in answer to this Motion. It has been, as your Lordships know, my duty to deal with this matter at the Home Office during
232
the last two years, and, although I am now about to leave that Office, I still hold the seals and I apprehend shall hold them until my successor is appointed, and, as I possess information which the House would perhaps like to have, it would not be inconvenient that I should address your Lordships' House at this moment.
As regards the actual Motion on the Paper it is capable of a very short answer indeed. The noble Earl asks whether all Regulations interfering with the free expression of political opinion in speech and in writing have been withdrawn, and whether all expenditure of public money in advocating political views agreeable to the Government has ceased. There are no Regulations which interfere with the free expression of political opinion, and no money has been expended, or could be expended, in advocating political views agreeable to the Government. The Regulations to which reference has been made are Regulations made for the purpose of the defence of the Realm, and if and so far as any Regulation goes beyond that purpose it is plainly ultra vires and has not any legal effect. I am the first to recognise that under the Defence of the Realm Act very drastic Regulations indeed have been imposed upon the public. Speaking generally, they have been loyally accepted and patiently borne because every body felt they would not have been made unless at all events His Majesty's Government thought they were necessary for the purpose of the safety of our country. It is all the more true that now hostilities have ceased the public has a right to ask whether the time has not come when these Regulations may be relaxed, and we recognise most plainly our duty to look into the matter and see what course ought to be followed.
Now, having said that, may I add one word of caution? I think that even the noble and learned Lord who asked this Question does not fully apprehend the nature and the limits of these Regulations. The Regulations prevent false statements, statements interfering with the conduct of the war, statements calculated to create mutiny and disaffection among our forces; but there is nowhere, I think, a Regulation which can fairly or legitimately be used for interfering with the course of the election that is shortly about to come to pass. Indeed, in the very Regulation to which the noble and learned Lord referred—Regulation 27 H—there is an express

233
provision that prevents that Regulation from applying to the literature of an electoral kind, because in the very last words of the Regulation one finds words which prevent the Regulation from applying to any document issued by or under the authority of a candidate at a pending Parliamentary election for the purpose only of promoting his election. So that, in the very terms of the Regulation, candidates are fully protected. I should like to add one other observation also of a general character, and it is this. It is true that hostilities have ceased, it is true that our enemy is beaten in the field, but I by no means think that the activities of our enemies are at an end.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I am quite sure that in the interval between the conclusion of the Armistice and the conclusion of peace our enemies will seek again and again to undermine our position. If not now by force of arms, at least by other means, he will seek that which, indeed, he has already begun to seek—to destroy, if he can, or to undermine the unity between ourselves and our Allies and to destroy and undermine our unity at home. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord I look upon what are called Bolshevist activities in this country at the present moment not as a genuine movement for the modification of our British constitution but as an instrument of German attack. I believe there is a close alliance between Bolshevism and Germany, and that most, possibly all, of those who call themselves Bolshevists to-day are either the conscious agents or the unconscious tools of our enemies. I have had evidence, even in the last week, of that alliance between the Bolshevists and our enemies. It is only in that sense, and because I hold that view, that I do believe that we may fairly and properly use, and indeed ought to use, the instrument given to us by the Defence of the Realm Act for checking Bolshevist propaganda in this country until peace is concluded.
So far I have made only general observations, but I think the House would like to have some specific information as to what the Government is doing and is about to do. A short time ago the Cabinet asked me to form a Committee for the purpose of considering this very matter and we dealt first with questions affecting the Press Bureau. The functions of the Press Bureau
234
are in the main two. First, when a newspaper goes to the Directors of the Bureau for advice as to whether an article may properly be published without infringing the Regulations that advice is at once given. No one is bound to submit an article for that opinion. When newspapers go to the Bureau for that purpose they go of their own wish. So far as that function is concerned I think the Press Bureau is welcome to the Press, and I see no reason whatever why its existence should come to an end at the present moment. If papers do not choose to go to it they can cease to go, and there would be an end of that part of its activities. The other main part of the work of the Press Bureau relates to foreign cables, both out and in—
LORD BUCKMASTER: Foreign Press cables.
VISCOUNT CAVE: Foreign Press cables. It also has had something to do with inland telegrams which, in cases of doubt, have been referred to the Press Bureau. So far as that is concerned direction has been already given that inland telegrams shall no longer be so referred, and if there has been delay caused in the delivery of telegrams by that means that delay is now at an end. As regards foreign Press telegrams there is more room for doubt. I do not want at this moment to express a final opinion as to whether the Press Bureau shall cease to deal with these cables, but I do point this out—that if our enemies desire to exercise an illegitimate or hostile influence, either upon our publications or our people here, it is by means of these Press cables that they are able to do so. I have myself seen within the past few days cables coming from Russia which have plainly no intention except that they should be used as an instrument of Bolshevist propaganda, containing statements manifestly false and statements which may well have been mischievous. Without expressing a final view I think the Committee ought carefully to consider whether, as respecting those cables, it would not be well to retain the check which is now imposed by the Press Bureau.
One other point affecting the Bureau is this. The noble and learned Lord has truly said that there exists now a whole collection of instructions or directions issued from time to time by the Bureau, and its very size has become something of a burden to those who conduct the Press

235
in this country. I fully recognise that the time has come to reconsider those instructions, and what we propose to do is to sweep them all away, and to issue, if need be, a set of instructions which will be, if it exists at all, found to be very short, easily understood, and readily followed. Before coming to that decision I had a discussion with representatives of the Press, and I found that they would be fully satisfied if that course were followed.
Now, I have only shortly to refer to the other branch of the speech which has been made, that which referred to the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I think they, too, may at the present moment, to a great extent although not wholly, be either suspended or repealed. I do not want to anticipate the decisions which may be come to within a few days by my Committee; I do not even want to indicate them or hold out hope that the particular regulations to which the noble and learned Lord referred will be now suspended or repealed. I see considerable arguments in favour of retaining for the present, during the few weeks or months for which the peace negotiations must last, some of the very Regulations to which he has referred—for instance, Regulation 27, which has been perhaps the one most used throughout the war; and Regulation 42, which has also a general bearing.
It may be that those must be retained, but I want to say this most emphatically. I am quite sure that they will not be used for the purpose of checking the expression of opinion, and least of all opinion expressed by candidates at the coming Election. I entirely associate myself with what has been said that it is desirable that at Election times opinion should have free expression. If it is not then expressed, it will be said that the decision of the electorate does not represent the real opinion of the country upon matters which might be brought before it; and I am quite sure that there will be no desire on the part of the Government to use any of the Regulations for the purpose of suppressing the expression of opinion. My Lords, that is all that I think I can usefully say to day; but I can assure the House that the Committee over which I have the honour to preside will approach their duties with the object of reducing, so far as possible, these Regulations, and of keeping alive only those which are needed for the purpose of the protection of our country at the present crisis.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to congratulate my noble and learned friend opposite [Viscount Cave] on his appearance on that Bench. As he himself stated, his appearance there is something of an anomaly, because we do not, as a rule, find noble and learned Lords holding high judicial office in the House answering for His Majesty's Government. But we all understand the special position in which my noble friend is placed, and it is indeed the greatest advantage to us that he, having the special knowledge and experience that he has of these matters, should have been able, by the accident of his still remaining Home Secretary, to reply to my noble and learned friend to-day. I can say, without hesitation, that there were several points in the noble and learned Lord's speech which we heard with great satisfaction; in particular, the prospect which he held out of the reduction into a quite small compass of the many Regulations which affect the Press; and the substitution, so far as is necessary, of some simple Code in place of this great bundle of existing Regulations. This will be, I am sure, exceedingly welcome to my noble friend Lord Burnham, and to all those who are concerned with the freedom of action by the Press.
Also, I am sure we shall all be glad to hear that the Defence of the Realm Regulations will be carefully gone through with a view to their reduction to the lowest possible number compatible with the situation in which we are now placed, which, we all admit, is not one of peace in the full pre-war sense, and which all of us are bound to concede may demand the continuance of certain restrictions for a limited time. But my noble and learned friend I think was fully justified in bringing forward this Question in the terms in which he did, owing to the nearness of a General Election. My noble and learned friend opposite, in the concluding sentences of his speech, stated that it was his hearty desire—and I gather also the desire of His Majesty's Government—that no implication should be present to the public mind that any of these restrictions are intended to interfere with the free expression of opinion during the General Election. But, my Lords, I am bound to say that that impression, as is evident from what we read in the newspapers, does exist, and that the noble Viscount's desire to divest himself of any responsibility of the kind was by no means unnecessary, because it has been,

237
as we all have seen, a matter of some dread lest the free expression of opinion would, in one way or another, be interfered with by the continuance of various Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act.
My noble and learned friend behind me [Lord Buckmaster] stated the case for free speech in very broad terms, terms in some ways almost broader than I should have ventured to use myself. It must always be remembered, when strong views, the most advanced views, are brought forward, that everything depends on the precise manner in which they are brought forward and the exact terms which are used. People in past days have declared themselves Republicans; some well-known Members of Parliament, some of whom have attained high office, have made such a declaration; but, it is quite possible to conceive terms in which an advanced thinker of to-day might so declare himself which, even without advocating the actual commission of crime, might properly bring him within the meshes of the law. When it is said that Bolshevist views may be uttered, I confess that I do not know precisely what is meant. I am no Russian scholar, but I am told that the word "Bolshevist" is the Russian translation of the word "extremist"—that it means that, neither more nor less—and that being so, there have been a certain number of Bolshevists in this country and in all European countries for many years. I agree with my noble friend that the mere expression of extreme views is less harmful than the suppression of such views and their propagation by underhand means.
But, as I ventured to say just now, it appears to me that everything depends on the manner in which those views are put forward. I can conceive it quite possible that views publicly announced in the Western States of America, demanding the secession of the whole of the western coast of the Union, might be put forward in terms which would cause their violent suppression. It might, I suppose, be said that that is merely an expression of a political aspiration. It might be said also that in France the public enunciation of an intention to try and destroy the Republic was only an expression of a political view, but I should not be surprised to hear that in that country strong measures were taken to prevent such public expressions of opinion.
Everything, as I say, depends on the manner in which views are put forward;
238
but I think that it is most important that His Majesty's Government should make it as clear, as the noble and learned Lord opposite has tried to make it clear this afternoon, that they do not intend, and will not countenance, any suppression of political views as such, however unpalatable or even, if you like, disloyal those views may be; because, if it comes to be believed by any great number of people that suppression of this kind is intended, you may be quite sure that it will be said, and will be believed by hundreds of thousands of people, that this is not really a free Election, that it is a made Election, that the Members of the new Parliament would be rather nominated than elected. It is obvious that the whole repute of the next House of Commons would disappear if any great section of our fellow-countrymen were to entertain such beliefs. I therefore urge the noble and learned Lord, and His Majesty's Government, to use very effort to make it clear that the free expression of speech which is not criminal will not be interfered with at the coming Election.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Viscount for the full answer that he gave to my Question; and I have only to say that, were it not for the imminence of the Election, I do not think that there was anything that he said with which I should have been at variance.

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
LORD BURNHAM LORD BURNHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to provide adequate machinery to deal with emigration and immigration, as the Emigration Bill has failed to pass into law.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should not have put this Question upon the Paper at somewhat short notice were it not of urgent public importance in view of the Prorogation of Parliament, and the probability that the new House of Commons will take some time blowing off steam before it settles down to the business of the day. I would point out that you cannot consider the problem of resettling the men and women of His Majesty's Forces and of the civil works in this country without also providing, as far as you can, for their settlement in the lands beyond the seas. The failure of the House of Commons to pass the Emigration Bill at its Third

239
Reading and to send it up for the consideration of this House was not only a misfortune in the circumstances of the time, but was almost a scandal. At the present time you have the fact that the Royal Commission upon the Development of the Resources of the Empire and a Committee appointed under the chairmanship of Lord Tennyson two years ago for the settlement of the men of the Services on land at home and overseas, reported strongly in favour, as essential to the right administration of the Empire, of the setting up of a strong Central Authority for dealing with emigration in all its branches. That work is now distributed between the different Departments of State. Yet nothing has been done, and nothing is likely to be done for some time to come.
The record of Parliament in dealing with emigration of late years has not been creditable. Between 1834 and I believe 1878 there was every year voted in the House of Commons a sum for the emigration of destitute persons to various parts of the Empire beyond the seas, and that ensured either a debate in the House of Commons, or at least the opportunity of debate. In recent years—since 1889—there has been no consideration of the question, and not even a Parliamentary Committee appointed to consider it in all its recent phases. The consequence is that now, at the end of the war, we have still that part of the machinery of state which deals with emigration abroad lying rusty, and being one of the most ineffective instruments I think in the whole of our organisation. As your Lordships know, the functions of the State in respect of emigration are divided between half a dozen Departments. The Local Government Board looks after the emigration of the children under the Poor Law; the Home Office looks to their treatment when they come from industrial schools, and the question in its general aspects is, of course, under the care of the Colonial Office.
At this moment the question is becoming really grave in view of the desire of so many soldiers and sailors to go abroad. The Emigrants' Information Office was established some thirty years ago. I have been a member of the Management Committee of that Office since 1894, and I am the last to say a word in disparagement of that Committee. It is under the official supervision of the Colonial Office.
240
It has distributed information throughout the country by means of handbooks, circulars, and posters as to the prospect for emigrants in various parts of the British Empire, the cost of passages, the rates of wages, and matters of that kind, but it does not undertake to do more than give general information, and it is not linked up in any way with the organisations of the Dominions and of the various States and Provinces of the overseas Empire. Nobody can dispute that the question is urgent now. It was said long ago that the best emigration agent was the successful emigrant. I am told by Australians and Canadians with whom I have come in contact that they are constantly being questioned by our soldiers at home and abroad as to what the prospects are of success and livelihood in the parts of the world from which our Colonials come.
The Dominions themselves, it is quite true, are carrying on propaganda of their own. The Dominion of Canada has a special office devoted solely to the work of colonisation and land settlement. But there is no link whatever between any of these offices and that part of the departmental machinery of our own country which is supposed to deal with emigration. That in itself is bad enough. Each Dominion naturally tries to spread its own fame and to make the prospects of life out there as attractive as possible. There is nothing to check that, and there is no body charged with the duty at this moment of telling those who are to be demobilised from the Army or Navy, or discharged from the war works, anything of what they are likely to meet with if they emigrate overseas.
Then, of course, there is the danger of their being attracted to lands outside the British Empire and beyond the folds of the Flag. It is not only a question of our patriotic anxiety that all the manhood and womanhood that we can spare from this country should at least be settled and thrive under the Flag. The point is that it is notorious that shipping brokers and agents are in the habit of holding out all sorts of inducements in other countries to which these men and women may be attracted. It may be answered that this question is not urgent because there is no probability of sufficient shipping being available for any important amount of emigration in the next eighteen months. That may be so in regard to our shipping,

241
but I do not conceive that the neutral ships will be hampered in the same way, and, if that is so, great numbers of men, if they are not helped by our own Government with information and all such assistance as they are entitled to have, may be induced to go over to the United States or to other parts of America, when we should like to get them in our own Dominions.
Therefore it is a very serious thing that nothing is being done to set up any body which shall have the general control of the problems of emigration. The Board of Trade knows perfectly well that it has not sufficient power at this moment over the brokers and agents who make it their business for fees to induce people to emigrate abroad. The Bill that was to have reached here contained provisions, which I believe in the end were settled by agreement with shipowners, for combatting those evils. But nothing has yet been done, and yet you have been told, on the strong recommendation of two such bodies as the Royal Commission and the Tennyson Committee, that such a concentration of power is urgently necessary.
There is not only the question of emigration, there is also the question of immigration. I know that some noble Lords are of opinion that there will be such prosperity in Germany after the war that there will be the keenest competition with our own industry—even keener than there was before. I am bound to say that nothing that I have heard or learnt leads me to that conclusion. On the contrary, I think there is likely to develop very great emigration from the Central Empires, which will go to any part of the world where it will be received. I do not know that the United States will refuse immigration of that sort. But I do know that under the existing conditions of the labour market and the grave difficulty of resettling the millions of our own people in the normal course of industrial life it will certainly be a strange thing if we allow that stream to come in unchecked. I am well aware that under the Defence of the Realm Act any regulations may be made for the purpose, but the disposition is to trust as little to the decrees of these Departments of State as possible, and to rely, as I think one ought to do, upon sound principles and canons of ordinary legislation. After the war and practically from this moment you have not only to deal with the pent-up stream of emigra-
242
tion which has been held in check now and even absolutely arrested for nearly five years, you have also to deal with the manifest wish of large numbers of officers and men to seek their future in the new world. Nobody who knows anything of the prospects in our Dominions would say that the man of enterprise and physical strength who can go there with the intention of making a livelihood for himself and his family is wrong to do so. Yet you have not even collected and coordinated schemes that have been already put into operation or are in process of being put into operation in the various States and provinces. The Tennyson Committee heard evidence of the Agents-General and learnt what it was proposed to do for soldiers returning from the war. As far as I know the Government has not issued any statement to those who are soon to be disbanded as to what will be done for them by the Governments of the Dominions overseas.
In these circumstances I think your Lordships will agree that, though it is impossible for us to be prepared perhaps in all respects for the peace that has so suddenly come, still it is the duty of the Government, even so far as it can do by executive action, in the absence of the powers that were to have been conferred upon it by the Emigration Bill, to do everything to see that there shall not be, after the return of the Army, the earlier scandals of emigration which caused so much misery and excited so much odium. Unless something is done the men and women who have served the country are likely to be a prey to unscrupulous agents, and the whole of the skill that they have acquired will be to a large extent wasted. I submit this is a question which brooks of no delay, and I shall be glad to know what the Government has done or is prepared to do in this grave matter.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to prohibit the landing in this country of aliens, except under special passports, until the readjustment of labour conditions, and the re-establishment of supplies enables a different policy to be considered.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am

243
sure it would save the time of the House if I were to deal with my Question now. The noble Lord has put great stress upon emigration, and I want to know what steps the Government are going to take to prevent this country being flooded by immigrants. Let your Lordships think of the state of the Continent—not merely of the Central Empires but Russia as well—the fact that not merely is there a condition of anarchy, not merely have supplies been wasted in the most appalling manner now for over two years, but that all the usual chains of society have been broken. In these conditions surely it is absolutely certain that as soon as the ports are opened you will have hundreds of thousands of persons trying to migrate to this country, which, with the high wages ruling and the comparative absence of scarcity, will be an Eldorado to all these adventurers. We have to look forward in the next few months to the return to this country of something like three millions of our own fellow-countrymen, and we shall have all the time, as honoured and prized guests, a large number of Canadians and Australians, who have not yet been taken home, and a large number of Americans. Surely in the present state of our supplies and with the present demand on all our resources, and with the tremendous changes in the labour world which are taking place and must take place under demobilisation, it would be absolute folly to allow any immigrants from abroad except under the closest possibly scrutiny and rules. By this I mean, of course, that if the Foreign Office finds sufficient material for granting a passport under certain conditions, well and good. But under the old restrictions, by which a man was obliged in some cases to prove that he had sustenance for a few weeks, say £50—I do not think that so high a limit was fixed here although it obtained in other countries—the money was passed from hand to hand, and the same sum, whether it was a £5-note or a £50-note, did duty for twenty men. All those restrictions would be useless; and I would ask—having regard to the fact that we require all the resources of this country for many months for our own people and for those to whom we have a duty to exercise in regard to hospitality—whether His Majesty's Government can give us some assurance that the ports will not be thrown open in any circumstances to immigrants until the conditions have changed.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, the matter of immigration, which was embodied in the Question of my noble friend Lord Burnham and to which he alluded in his speech, and which is the substance of the Question of the noble Viscount who has just spoken, will be answered by my noble friend Lord Cave, in whose charge that particular branch of the subject rests.
I will endeavour—briefly, I am afraid, and somewhat inadequately—to answer the Question that is put to me by my noble friend in regard to what steps have been taken to provide adequate machinery to deal with emigration. If my remarks are somewhat brief and inadequate I hope my noble friend will forgive me, and will realise that it is not from any lack of appreciation of the great importance of the subject, but due rather to the fact that the subject was brought before me only very recently, and I have had during that brief period only what opportunity presented itself to me to obtain the information from the Colonial Office, for which on this occasion I have the honour to answer in this House.
As my noble friend said, the control that His Majesty's Government has exercised in the past in regard to the whole problem of emigration has been extremely slight. The committee, of which my noble friend has been for many years past a most energetic member—the Committee of the Emigrants' Information Office which has been in existence froth 1886—was charged, under the superivsion of the Colonial Office, with the duty merely, as the noble Lord informed your Lordships, of furnishing advice to those who were considering emigration. But that Committee—whose services undoubtedly have been in the past, with the very restricted powers that rested in their hands, of great value—was a purely advisory body and possessed no executive powers. Its functions consisted merely of issuing information chiefly by means of pamphlets and posters, and in answering inquiries that might be addressed to it. The Dominions Royal Commission dealt very fully in their Report with the question of emigration, and they called particular attention in that Report to the very unsatisfactory arrangements connected with the sale of steerage passages to emigrants.
As mentioned by my noble friend, the present system by which the passage

245
broker sells the ticket to an emigrant and is remunerated by a commission from the transportation companies, is one that has undoubtedly led to not inconsiderable abuse. The result has been that an unsuitable emigrant is considered as profitable to a shipping agent as a suitable emigrant; and the agent has no interest in the emigrant's future except in regard to the amount of commission that he is able to secure by means of the sale of the passage. Therefore the agent in the past has undoubtedly been rather more tempted to advise an emigrant to go to the country where the passage has shown a higher rate of profit to the agent than to the country which would have been more suitable for the emigrant's future career.
At an early period of the war attention was called to the fact that it would be necessary at the conclusion of hostilities to consider the question of the opportunities for emigration overseas for ex-Service officers and men. The Governments of the various self-governing Dominions have considered various schemes, and I am given to understand that especially Canada and Australia have submitted schemes of land settlement for men overseas. In 1917 a committee was appointed by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Long, under the chairmanship of Lord Tennyson, to consider measure for settling within the Empire ex-Service men who desired to emigrate after the war. The Report of that committee summarises the openings which are available, and submits proposals for setting up a central authority to deal with the whole question of emigration, particularly in regard to the emigration of ex-Service men. That committee has pointed out that such questions as the advisability of encouraging emigration, or of giving financial support to any class of emigrants, could be decided only in the light of the conditions which would be found to prevail in this country at the conclusion of hostilities.
After considering these two Reports—the Report of the Dominions Royal Commission and the Report of Lord Tennyson's Committee—a Bill was introduced in the other House, the object of which was to establish a new authority on the lines recommended by those two Reports; to lay it down that the duty to supervise and to control passage brokers and their agents would hereafter be undertaken; also to collect the information for the benefit of
246
intending emigrants and to help such persons with advice and assistance. As your Lordships are aware—and I agree with my noble friend that it is to be greatly regretted—that Bill has not passed into law; but I am authorised to state on behalf of His Majesty's Government that it is hoped that, whatever Government is in power after the coming Election, they will at an early date introduce a Bill to deal with the question of emigration.
His Majesty's Government have fully recognised that the question of emigration is one of great urgency and importance, and that the matter cannot really be left in abeyance pending the passage of the necessary legislation. Steps, therefore, have been taken to set up a small Committee, which at present is engaged in preparing a preliminary statement for the information of ex-service officers, and of those men who may wish to emigrate, on their return to this country, to any part of the Empire, Steps are also being taken to prepare the necessary machinery, in order that control over emigration may be exercised the moment the legislation has been passed into law. Steps will be taken to consider, at the earliest possible date, the various problems which are arising in consequence of the declaration of the Armistice, and which will become urgent upon the conclusion of peace, especially such questions as the emigration of women, and the nature of the assistance, if any, which is to be granted to emigration.
At the present moment I am afraid that that is all I can say in reply to my noble friend. He will realise, with me, the difficulties under which the Government is suffering, owing to the fact that the Bill which was discussed in another place has not had an opportunity of being passed into law. I entirely agree with my noble friend that the time has arrived, especialy as the result of this long war, when something of a much more scientific and practical character should be established, to give facilities and advice to those who desire to seek a career in other parts of our empire. I have, in view of this debate, had a cursory look over the report in Hansard of the debate in another place, and I am struck by the speeches of those hon, members who opposed this measure, because it appeared from those speeches that they seemed to detect in this Bill some idea of undue restriction as regards the liberty of the subject—some sug-

247
gestion that a form of compulsion, or undue temptation, was going to be proposed to our fellow-countrymen to leave these shores and go to other parts of the world.
I am sure of this, that whatever measure is proposed hereafter, and still more whatever measure ultimately finds its way on the Statute Book by way of regularising this question, which requires regularising, it will not be in the form of any undue temptation to those who would otherwise settle in this country, and still less in the form of compulsion on them to go elsewhere. Probably the opposition which was exhibited in another place was due, in no small measure, to the fact that members looked with hesitation on any proposal which would have for its object the leaving from these shores of any large numbers of our fellow countrymen. That would be a perfectly legitimate and reasonable idea, that might pass through the minds of those who were opposing this measure. In giving facilities for men to go out to our self-governing Dominions it certainly will not in any way suggest that every possible facility will not be given by other legislation to those of our fellow countrymen who have fought this war for us to settle, if they so desire, under easier terms in their own country. At the same time I am sure your Lordships will all agree that every facility should be offered to those who seek to live elsewhere within the Empire—that every opportunity should be given to them, and that some central authority should at an early date be established from which, when they seek to go to our self-governing Dominions, they may go and get full but accurate information of the country to which they desire to go; and, without any undue restriction, I am sure it will be to the advantage of prospective emigrants if a certain control is placed in the future on some of those perhaps well-meaning associations and societies, which offer inducements to go abroad to our Dominions in a somewhat exaggerated manner.
What our emigrants want is accurate information of the country they are going to, what are their prospects when they get there, and what opportunity they will have of carving out a successful and contented career for themselves in those countries; and every present method, by which exaggerated ideas are put before them of a career which they could not enjoy if they went there, should I think come under Government control. It is in that sense
248
that the Government have now established a small Committee, which will prepare the ground in these various directions and will enable a future Government, I hope at the earliest date, to introduce a Bill based upon those lines which will give the facilities that the noble Lord has expressed as bein so important.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, I feel that I owe your Lordships an apology for the fact that, so soon after I have had the honour of being introduced in this House, I should be troubling you with two speeches in one day. It is no fault of mine, but it is due to the accident, if it be an accident, that I am sitting on this Bench, and also to the accident that two Questions in which I am specially interested have been raised on the same day.
To the second Question asked by Lord Burnham, and by the noble Viscount opposite, I can give a perfectly plain and short answer. During the war we have full power to prevent the landing of foreigners on these shores—power given by the Act of 1914 and by the Aliens Restriction Order. That power has been exercised to the full, so that no one can land to-day without the permission of the Aliens Officer, which is not readily given; but, of course, at the end of the war that provision will lapse unless it is continued. That fact was considered some months ago by a special Committee, which has reported on the matter. That Committee came to the conclusion that unless steps are taken there will arise at the end of the war a very serious position indeed; that the almost certain landing of very many foreigners, many of them without means and many with other disadvantages, might create a very serious position in this country. They also concluded that the Aliens Act of 1905, the only one which would then be in operation, was wholly insufficient—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT CAVE:—to deal with that state of things, and they have made a recommendation, which I have no doubt will be adopted and carried into effect by the Government. It is this—that we should take advantage of the experience gained during the war and that we should ask Parliament to continue in peace time and to extend the provisions of the Aliens Act of 1914, under which we are working

249
to-day. A Bill has actually been drawn for the purpose and is ready for introduction as soon as Parliament meets again. If it retains its present form it will give full power to prevent or restrict the landing of foreigners on these shores. That power will be exercisable by Order in Council, and, of course, it may be the will of Parliament that the Order in Council shall contain certain savings.
In particular, I think it very probable that the old protection given in this country to political refugees will be maintained, but, subject to these exceptions, the Bill would give full power to prevent or restrict the landing of Aliens on these shores. It would also deal with other matters, such as the registration of aliens and the power to deport them—a power very freely exercised in time of war, but which, of course, does not exist in time of peace. All these matters will be dealt with by the Bill. It would also, if it follows its present form, enable the Government of the day by Order in Council to impose special restrictions on the landing here of those who are to-day our enemies, to insert special provisions as to ex-enemies of this country. I need not and I ought not to describe the proposals further, but I am sure the House will see that we have fully considered the matter, are prepared with our proposals and hope to introduce them in good time, so that, if Parliament approves them, they will become law before peace is actually signed and ratified.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure the general tenour of the noble and learned Viscount's speech will have been heard with great satisfaction by the House, but at the same time I confess I do not quite understand why this matter has been deferred so long. It is clear, of course, that the war will be technically at an end and peace will have been declared while still a very large proportion of His Majesty's Forces have not returned home. One of the main objects and purposes, as I take it, of maintaining these special restrictions is that there should be no possible interference with labour and that there should be no taking of situations by foreigners which men returning from the Forces might wish to occupy. I take it that that is one of the prime reasons for proceeding with this measure. I confess I do not quite understand why His Majesty's Government have not proceeded with it during the life of the present Parliament.
250
It may, as we hope, make no practical difference. I think we may assume that when the next Parliament meets it will be of a character which will willingly proceed with a measure of this kind, but there is an element of uncertainty even about that, and it would, I think, have been more generally satisfactory if a quite simple measure—which it must be—had been brought in by His Majesty's Government even during the present week and passed into law, as I suppose it would be, with practically no opposition in either House.
LORD GAINFORD: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount one question, whether this Act of 1914 to which he referred terminates on the cessation of war?
VISCOUNT CAVE: Yes, it does.
LORD WITTENHAM: My Lords, the only thing that occurs to me is that there may be a very awkward hiatus between the time when the Defence of the Realm Act comes to an end and the Bill which the noble and learned Viscount has fore-shadowed comes into force. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and politics are so uncertain. For instance, may not peace have been declared, and, thereupon, through the very circumstance of peace having been declared, may not the Defence of the Realm Act have come to an end before this new Bill is passed into law? Under our present Constitution, however unanimously Bills may have been acclaimed, they do not pass into law as a matter of course. In the next House of Commons there is likely to be a very important minority that may not be in full accord with the Bill outlined by the noble and learned Viscount. Therefore, I should like if I may to ask if he will answer this question—If the Bill which he foreshadows is not passed into law by the time peace is declared, will the Defence of the Realm Act be continued so that there may be no breach? Otherwise, talk about keeping back the Atlantic with a mop, it will be a mere trifle to keeping back the hundreds of thousands of desirable or undesirable aliens who will flock to our shores!
For every kind of reason, as the noble Viscount Lord Midleton pointed out, however difficult our lot in this country is and is likely to be for some period, this country will be a heaven compared to parts of the

251
Continent, and, human nature being what it is, these aliens are certain to come, they must come, unless you prevent them. I see a gap in the barrier. Howeverstringent, however searching, however far-reaching the new Bill may be it might not become law until Dora—as we are accustomed to call the Defence of the Realm Act—has expired. So long as Dora exists I am content, but I should like an assurance from the noble and learned Viscount that there will not be a gap in our defence, a breaking of the bulwark of these islands, but that the bulwark in one shape or another shall be maintained.
VISCOUNT CAVE: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships' House I should like to answer the question put to me. The Act under which we exclude aliens to-day is not the Defence of the Realm Act but the Aliens Restriction Act of 1914. That continues law so long as the state of war exists or, even when there is no state of war, in a condition of great emergency. There is to-day a Bill in Parliament which I think has passed in another place, the effect of which is that a state of war will continue till the Treaty of Peace has been signed and ratified. I am confident that before that moment arrives there will be ample opportunity of passing the Bill to which I have referred. I think if it should happen otherwise, one might still hold that the emergency was such that we could continue the Act by Order in Council, but I do not believe that that point will arise, for I am satisfied that we shall be able to introduce and pass our Bill in good time before the actual ratification of the Treaty of Peace.

WAGES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I propose to ask your Lordships, as we have a rather heavy bill of fare, to meet at 3.30 p.m. to-morrow, when the
252
Bills which have been dealt with in another place to-day and the First Reading of some of which has just been conceded by your Lordships, will be taken. I also would like your Lordships to agree to the proposal that Government business have precedence to-morrow. I shall hope, in these circumstances, to get the Second Reading to-morrow of the various Bills, four or five in number, not all of them of first-class importance, to which I refer. I would them ask your Lordships, if you are good enough to give a Second Reading to these Bills to-morrow, to take the Committee stage of all of them on Thursday, meeting for that purpose, as I think it will be to the general convenience, at 12 o'clock noon. Already, under the suspension of the Standing Order, we have the power to take these Bills through their various stages in a single day, and I shall ask your Lordships, if you give a Second Reading to these measures to-morrow, to pass them through their remaining stages on Thursday, with a view to getting the Prorogation of Parliament that afternoon. The House of Commons will remain in session, I understand, until Thursday for that purpose; and if things go well, I hope that we shall be able to obtain the Prorogation on that evening. I understand that I ought to give notice that I shall move, at the commencement of business to-morrow, that Government business have precedence of all other business. That, my Lords, I will do. I beg to move that the House do adjourn until 3.30 to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of November 18.]

MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA.
Petition of Frederick Temple, Marquess of Dufferin and Ava, Viscount Clandeboye, in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and Baron Dufferin and Clandeboye, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY AILWAY BILL.
  COMMERCIAL GAS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.

  PETROLEUM PRODUCTION BILL.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION (CONSOLIDAION) BILL.
  SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
  House adjourned at fifteen minutes past seven o'clock.