Lords Sitting of 24 March 1919

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

PUBLIC NOTARIES (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I bog to introduce a Bill to modify the requirements of the enactments relating to public notaries with respect to articled clerks who have served in His Majesty's Forces or in other Public Service or have been prisoners of war or interned in connection with the present war.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to introduce a Bill to extend the provisions of Section 1 of the Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Act, 1918.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

GRANT OF ADMINISTRATION (BONDS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to bonds given by persons to whom administration is granted.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

THE SITUATION IN EGYPT.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord President a Question of which I have given him private notice. Since he last made a statement in the House on the subject of Egypt public
878
attention has been called to events in that country which seem, from the reports in the Press, to be of a serious character. The rumours which have been prevalent of serious disturbances in that country, even far south, up the Nile, followed by the very rapid return of Sir Edmund Allenby to Egypt after a few days spent in Europe, have not. tended to diminish that anxiety, even in the midst of the many preoccupations at home which have attracted public attention during these last few days. We shall all, therefore, be very grateful if the noble Earl is able to give us any further information.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the anxiety as to the position in Egypt which has just been expressed by the noble Marquees, and which fairly reflects, I think, that entertained by the community at large. is not unnatural, and I respond readily to the invitation which he has addressed to me to give your Lordships the latest information that the Foreign Office have on the subject.
The news from Egypt is, I am glad to say, rather less anxious. In Cairo there have been demonstrations on a small scale, chiefly by students, and collisions between rioters and patrols, but on the whole Cairo and Alexandria are quiet. In the Provinces, however, violent outbreaks have occurred. In both Lower and Upper Egypt mobs have attacked communications with a system and method that seem to indicate a carefully-prepared organisation, tearing up railway lines and cutting down telegraph poles, and several railway stations have been burnt. Trains are now being run between Cairo and Alexandria and Cairo and the Canal, and the difficulties and. delays are diminishing. Telegraphic communication between Cairo and Tantah has been re-established, but both railway and telegraphic communications with Upper Egypt have been interrupted, the line and station at Wast a and elsewhere being damaged. Postal and telegraphic communications have, however, been assured by the use of aeroplanes and wireless.
Recent manifestations have been predatory rather than political in character, rioters at Tantah, Zagazig, and elsewhere looting European shops. In certain districts the movement has taken the form of peasant tenants rising against landowners.

879
A more serious feature of the situation is that some of the Bedouin tribesmen who live on the edge of the cultivation, especially in the Behera and Fayoum Provinces, have joined in the disturbances. They constitute a lawless element always ready to take advantage of disorders for purposes of plunder. They are comparatively well armed, and a report has been received that they have killed some British officers who were in the Upper Egypt express, returning from leave at Luxor. Full particulars on this head are awaited. Bedouin on the 19th attacked the detachment of British troop in the Fayoum, but were beaten off with loss, and Australian troops in Sharkia were also attacked with similar results. A party of seventy-one passengers from Luxor and Assouan has arrived saftly at Halfa. Peace and order reign in the Sudan, where there is no sympathy with the present agitation.
One gratifying feature of these deplorable occurrences in Egypt has been the behaviour of many of the Egyptian officials and of the Army and Police. These last have behaved especially well. There are growing signs that better instructed native opinion deplores these outbreaks, and that, some of the notables, who owe us so much and have proved our friends in the past, are doing their best to calm the agitation. As your Lordships are already aware, during the absence from Egypt of Sir Reginald Wingate, of whose valuable assistance and advice we are taking full advantage, General Allenby has been appointed Special High Commissioner with supreme civil and military powers, and he will have our full support in the task of restoring law and order. I do not doubt that before long this task will be sucessfully accomplished, although in view of the great length of the railway and telegraph lines which have been damaged in various places some time must elapse before communications are entirely re-established.
I should like to make clear one point on which there would appear to be some misconception. His Majesty's Government have never entertained the slightest disinclination or reluctance to the two Egyptian Ministers, Ruch i Pasha and Adly Pasha, coming to this country. On the contrary, their presence here would be most welcome. I have a high regard for both these statesmen, who have rendered signal service to Egypt and to the Empire
880
during the war. The request to them at the end of last year to postpone their visit for a short period was solely prompted by the consideration that during the initial phases of the Peace Conference sufficient time and attention could not be afforded to discuss the important questions of our future relations with Egypt and Egyptian constitutional reform. I can only repeat that the visit of these or other responsible Egyptian statesmen would have been welcomed, and would now be welcome, and that the discussion with them of the exact form which the British Protectorate is to assume in the future has always been regarded by us as of capital importance.
But as regards Saad Zaghloul Pasha and the persons who have organised the present movement, it is a different matter. They are the self-appointed and irresponsible leaders of an agitation for the avowed purpose of expelling the British from Egypt, and it is this agitation, timed, as it would seem, to coincide with the meeting of the Peace Conference at Paris, which led to the present deplorable outbreak. With its authors and abettors there is no common ground for discussion. Their presence here would have been generally misunderstood in Egypt, where it would have been interpreted as. evidence that we were willing to consider the complete abardenment of our responsibilities for that country. And, further, it would only have served to embarrass and render abortive those discussions with representative and responsible Egyptian opinion to which we looked and still look, as soon as a favourable opportunity presents itself, for the conclusion of a settlement that will be equally satisfactory to Egypt and to the Protecting Power.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

REPATRIATION OF ENEMY ALIENS.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the principle which governs or regulates the compulsory repatriation of enemy aliens who have been interned during the war.
The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, I put this Question with the genuine and

881
perfectly straightforward desire for information—not with a wish to be critical or to raise points as to what has happened in the past, but definitely to understand what is likely to happen now, because the position seems to some of us to be both difficult and confused. Perhaps, to make my meaning clear, your Lordships will let me, quite briefly, recall to your recollection the facts of what has happened with regard to this internment. I suppose it is true to say that our problem of more than four years, immense in its size and unprecedented in its character, has been one extraordinarily difficult to deal with, because there was no precedent either from our own former history or from the former history of other countries; nor has there been anything analogous to it in other belligerent countries at this time.
At the outbreak of the war we had in this country a very large number of alien enemies who might or might not be a source of danger, and there was obviously at that time an imperative need of rapid and immediate internment, or deportation, on a very wide scale. There was little time, little possibility, of detailed inquiry. The matter had to be done with promptitude and in a more or less wholesale manner. We interned—absolutely rightly, as I imagine—all men of military age belonging to enemy countries, and all who were under any sort, of suspicion, direct or indirect, that their presence in this country might be dangerous, even if they were not men of military age. We deported, at the same time, many older men and many women and children. I have not the exact figures; I do not know whether those figures exist or have ever been made public; but it, is obvious that in dealing with such a matter on such a scale hard cases, about which we hear now and then, were inevitable, and were part of the horrible results, or incidence, of a great war. The public safety was the supreme law, and it was obviously absolutely necessary that the thing should be done in a complete and thorough manner.
Then a good many months passed before a new departure was taken. But in the following spring, when the story of the outrageous conduct of Germans by land and by sea was growing day by day, and then when, a little later, the Report of Lord Bryee's Commission made public on unchallengeable authority on whom some of the worst of these outrages rested,
882
public feeling became, not unnaturallv and not unreasonably, highly inflamed; and then when in May, 1915, there came the sinking of the "Lusitania" things reached rather fever heat, and the Government quite necessarily had to act afresh. There were debates, your Lordships will remember, in both Houses on the subject. The Prime Minister in the House of Commons made a careful speech giving. statistics and facts of what was being, done; and the matter was also discussed in this House. It seemed at that date, from the figures that were given, that there were 19,000 men interned; and there were said to be 40,000 enemy aliens at large, of whom 24,000 were men and 16,000 women. It was decided, with I think general approval, at that time that there should be stronger and sterner measures taken. It was decided to intern—if necessary to deport—all adult males not naturalised, and that all women and children should be repatriated if they were not naturalised, subject to certain large exceptions. For deciding these exceptions and investigating the cases, two Tribunals; were set up.
Once again I make no criticism whatever of the action of the Government in the matter. I am certain it was justifiable, and I have no doubt that it was carried out as well as was possible in the circumstances. That it was done with absolute, consideration for every individual was, of course, impossible. When you look at the tens of thousands of persons who had to be dealt with, there was an inevitable risk of hardship in certain cases and of a certain rough and ready handling of the matter. The Tribunals got to work. I have no official knowledge of the rules on which they acted; I am not aware that they have ever been published in detail;. but it was commonly understood that the working rules were something like these—that exemption should be granted to Germans who had been settled in this country for thirty years and had English wives; but that if a German in this country had a German wife he had to have been here thirty-five years, which period gave, everybody will agree, a pretty fair security that the man was probably not very hostilely inclined. Further, exemption was granted,. I believe, to men who had sons fighting on our side during the war. Investigation was, of course, difficult, and I suppose that there, too, there were hard cases which; were quite inevitable owing to the immense

883
delay that would have been incurred if each case had been examined in great detail. The noble Lord. Lord Lambourne, who has been from the beginning an active and most useful member of the Committee which inquired into the matter, will be able to correct me if I make any mistake, or, perhaps, to amplify what I am trying to say.
Anyhow, if we erred at that time, either in the first instance or in the following spring, it was, I imagine, on the safe side. We did it on a large scale; we left no risks unattended to; and the results were very considerable. I am told that if the. historian hereafter has access to the detailed papers of that period in the Home Office, in the Foreign Office, or in the War Office, it will come out perhaps rather strangely how very few actual native-born Germans proved to be either open to legitimate suspicion or to have been actually proved guilty of acts of spying or of other mischievous kinds. About that we do not know—at all events I do not know—anything now; but I have no reason to doubt what is commonly said, that where mischief was being done it was by neutrals or by disloyal English rather than by Germans. It is not altogether unnatural that this should be so. I imagine that such information as we obtain regarding what goes on in Germany, or such damage (if it be so) as we have done during these years to German interests outside warfare, we have rather looked to those who were not so obviously likely to be suspected as Englishmen resident in Germany would be. No doubt the Germans did the same with us, and traitor citizens were more likely to be proved to be the sinners in the matter.
I do not wish to express the slightest doubt that what was done was right. I want to make it clear that I am not here to criticise it at all. But the position is now entirely changed, or is changing. The fighting is practically over; peace is in sight; and presumably internment will come to an end on the declaration of peace. If I am mistaken about that I can be set right, but that is what I suppose to be impending. What I ask to-night is whether we can have information as to what is now happening or is going to happen, for the problem is evidently a very considerable one. A few days ago the Home Secretary, speaking in the House of Commons, stated that in November last,
884
at the time the Armistice was declared, there were 22,000 civilians in the internment camps; but of those, 10,000 had been repatriated by the time he spoke, and 12,000 remained, of whom 10,000 were Germans and 2,000 Austrians. I am giving round figures.
What I want the Government to tell us is what is going to happen to those men and to their dependants. Of course, I am taking it for granted that they are persons against whom there is now no suspicion of wrong-doing. If there is such suspicion, they come under another category altogether. I am speaking of those who are in the camps simply because they are of German birth and not naturalised British citizens. They were offered, we have been told, the choice of going back to Germany or remaining in the internment camps, and, not very unnaturally, where that choice has been given the choice would be in favour of anything to get out of the camps, and in large numbers they have desired to go back to Germany. So far all seems natural. But there remains a large number of persons in the camps, and one wants to know what is going to happen to these when peace is declared. It is impossible quite to ignore, when we ask wonderingly what will be the condition of things, what we heard at Election time. No one would wish to press unduly things said in the excitement of a General Election, or promises made or undertakings given, but there were things then said which would seem to imply that all those of alien birth, interned or not interned, men or women, would leave this country perforce when the moment for it came.
I desire to ask whether there is going to be any such wholesale repatriation, and, if so, of whom? Is it the men only, or is it to be the men and their dependants as well? There is, I suppose, no question or doubt whatever that most of those now in our internment camps have been long resident in this country. Very many of them cannot speak German at all, some very little indeed, and many of them have no friends in Germany. Most of them have English wives and families, and many have had sons righting in the war, because although it was, as I understand, made a rule when the Tribunals of 1915 started that a man who had sons fighting in the war should not be interned, there are many who since they have been interned have had sons fighting in the war. Indeed,

885
I have heard of cases of one, two, and sometimes three sons being killed in the war. while the father remained in an internment camp. I do not envy the duty of a commandant who had to send news that first one son and then another had been killed in the war, while the father still remained interned. It is something which shocks one a little, and we do not like to imagine that it can be a common case.
We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, the other night that a good many of those who had been interned had for a time been out of the camps to do agricultural work, and I learn from his courteous note which I have this moment received that between 4,000 and 5,000 had been so working, but some have been repatriated, and now about 800 have gone back again compulsorily to camp, because, for sonic mason either of an industrial kind or some other kind, their places are to be taken, if possible, by somebody else. The position of a man who, having been subjected to all the horribleness even in the best circumstances of an internment camp for years, and then allowed to go out and do work in the fields and elsewhere, is then told he is to go back again because somebody else can do his work outside, is a position which personally I do not like to contemplate. I am asking, however, not about the past, but as to the future, and my fear is that if this matter be carelessly or roughly or mechanically handled by mere rule of thumb we shall wake up a few years hence to find that we have, either inadvertently or clumsily, committed a great wrong and withal done a very foolish thing which it would be exceedingly difficult to justify to ourselves, and still more to justify to other countries or to posterity. Therefore it does seem to me that we are entitled to ask that this matter be largely dealt with and that the facts be disclosed to us.
In matters of this kind there is always an immense difficulty from a fever which can easily extend through public opinion in a fluctuating way. You may like to refresh your memory of the events of the last part of the seventeenth century. We have no Popish plot, we have no Titus Gates, and nobody who desires to fabricate statements which are baseless; but we have in the public mind the same kind of tendencies and liabilities, which existed then, of people's minds getting into a dis
886
torted condition upon some subjects and of their acting in a way which, as the history of that time shows, was felt a few years later to be almost intolerably foolish and wrong. I do not for a moment say that we are going to do that now; but I do ask that we may be assured that these fears are groundless, and that there is to be no yielding to a sort of unbalanced panic of the public mind, which I venture to think is far less of a reality at this moment than it was a little while ago, but which is capable of fluctuating, and may possibly be leading those in authority to do things which they would otherwise never think of doing.
I desire to know what rule is being followed or is going to be followed in this matter. What will happen when internment is over? At this moment, as I understand, a man may choose to go back to Germany, under that rather undefined and to some of us rather complicated rule of exchange between us and Germany, or he may stay in internment; but when there is no longer an internment camp, what is the position going to be and to whom will it apply? Is it all the men who have been interned, or also all the men not interned, because they were exempt at the beginning but are no longer to be exempt now. Or take the case of a man who has sons fighting in the war and perhaps dying in the war. Is that man and his dependants to be deported now? If so, the conditions of peace will be much severer than the conditions of war, because they have not all been interned in war time and they would be deported against their will if this were the case. We do not know anything about this, but we want to know.
I do not think it is an unfair thing to ask that we should be told what is intended with regard to the English wives and children. Are the English wives and children to go, and are we thus to lose a large number of younger people who are entirely English, who were born here, who have no other interest or sympathy than that which is English, who have grown up as Englishmen and Englishwomen? Are we to lose them because they are the dependants of men who, being repatriated, naturally want their families to go with them, or are they to stay here separated from the fathers who are compulsorily deported? These are the kind of questions upon which we can form an opinion only when we know what the rules are going to be. I think we are entitled to know a

887
little about them now, when the mystery which rightly shrouds the action of our authorities in war time and under military domination is passing, as we hope and pray, into more normal ways and when civil rights are being resumed.
I hope I have said not a word of unreasonable criticism of the Government. They have had to act in face of quite extraordinary difficulties, and I believe that throughout they have desired to act with perfect fairness and to do what was right. I have purposely avoided all the terrible tales of hardship, suffering, and wrong which can stir people's indignation, perhaps unreasonably, because I always believe in the truth that "hard cases make bad law." I do not want to dwell on a number of exceptional cases of peculiar hardship. I have tried to speak more of the general principles which have been followed, and I want to know how they are going to be employed now. I appreciate what the perplexities have been and are, and I realise, as all your Lordships do, the great gravity of the question which is now at issue. I am profoundly anxious that we shall not, for lack of care, do something now which we shall afterwards be sorry for or ashamed of, and I hope that we shall be to-night definitely assured on behalf of the Government that the patriotism of which we are justly proud shall be, balanced and steadied at this difficult time by a reasonable admixture of clear vision, of thoughtful humanity, and, above all, of common sense.
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, I venture to support the appeal of the most rev. Primate. My reason for addressing you now is the fact that for four and a half years from the inception of the Advisory Committee I was proud, and am proud, to be a member of it. I may say justly proud be cause I think the Member for Bewdley, Mr. Baldwin, and myself wore the only two members who had not had a legal training. I am also proud to think that during those, four and a half years I had the honour to work with Sir John Sankey and Sir Robert Younger. It was hard work, very often monotonous work, but it was extremely interesting work, and I certainly learned a great deal during those four and a half years. One great thing I learned was to have an undisguised admiration for the inexhaustible patience, the fairmindedness and learning, of the two Judges who sat upon that
888
Committee with me. It must have been a very unpleasant task for them with their highly trained legal mind. I kept on wondering in my own lay mind what on earth had become of the British Constitution in the general row. I fancy that it must have been a most unpleasant task for those two Judges to enter upon a wholly different legal method from that which they had been accustomed to employ. Of course, our object was, first of all, to do justice to our country; secondly, to give justice to the individuals brought before us.
The most rev. Primate has quoted some of the very few rules that we had before us at the time. What he said was perfectly correct. Roughly speaking—I am obliged to take my own figures because I have none of the Home Office statistics to go upon—37,500 Germans were in this country when we began work in 1914. In May, 1919, the Germans at liberty numbered about 13,000. Of these more than one-half were interned on the recommendation of the Committee. When the Committee was reconstituted in July, 1918, there were only about 6,000 males at liberty; most of whom were either very old or only technical aliens (such as Alsatians and Czecho-Slovaks) or munition workers. I have ventured to suggest that the idea that interned aliens should all be repatriated and exempted aliens left here is wholly illegical. War conditions and peace conditions are totally different and are not identical in anyway.
Some 600 or 800 Germans were left at liberty in order that they might work at munitions. Many of them had a very short residence in this country and no ties whatever with it. Their work was of the greatest value, and they did it very well, but they might very well be repatriated now. On the other hand, there were many who had the deepest ties and relations with this country, men with every possible interest in this country. Hundreds of them had sons in the Army. There were many cases of three, and I think four sons in the Army, of whom one was killed. In one case I think two were actually killed in His Majesty's service, dying for this country. There was no machinery for extracting from the camps those men whose sons subsequently joined up. A large number of Germans were interned having been removed, say, from what we call a

889
prohibited area, such as Liverpool, who could not find any work in the country elsewhere, and for their own protection—they had nowhere else to go—many of them were interned. Hence I think that the theory that you should repatriate the interned and exempt the exempted is not a tenable proposition at all.
Nearly all these men were men belonging to the working class. The wife and family must follow the bread-winner. They were men with large families of eight, nine, sometimes ten children. I will say this for a nation for which I have not the smallest admiration, which I may say I particularly dislike—no one can accuse me. of being a pro-German—that they were almost in variably good husbands. Their wives and children would elect to follow their fathers if they were repatriated to Germany. If you are going to repatriate these men they will take their English wives and English-born children with them. These are the men and children of whom the Germans have been all along anxious to get hold. They have made no secret of it. Through neutral agencies they have been subsidising them and practically bribing them to go back to Germany. These children, who are British citizens and who can claim British citizenship whenever they like, will be the commercial agents of Germany in the future, and will be able to come back here when they like, to work for Germany. I should be very much surprised if the English nation is prepared to make a present to Germany of these wives and children.
We had a personal and actual knowledge of about 25,000 cases, and of these many hundreds came personally before us with their relations and witnesses. We went into these cases. There were also many cases under Regulation 14B, and I say that the Committee which was appointed have a more personal and intimate knowledge of the whole subject than any other people in the kingdom. Many of these interned were only dangerous in the mass and not as individuals, and of the whole I am sure I am within the mark when I say that there were under 5 per cent. who could be called, in the proper meaning of the word, spies. You want to be a clever and an able man to be really a spy. There were many men who would have given information if they had it, and many men with German sympathies. There were still more with English sym-
890
pathies, and really there was not 5 per cent. of these men who could be looked upon in any way as spies. We know that during a time of war there is always a frenzy about spying in every nation. In the Franco-German War it was Nous sommes trahis! Espion.! Everybody of a foreign nation was looked upon as a. spy, but very few of them were really spies in the proper sense of the word.
I do not think that the cry of "Intern them all," "Repatriate them all," was an honest cry. Personally I regret very much that it was used. I would not for the world say that there were not some of my friends who used that cry in the stress of the Election. I know as well as any man in this House, having fought three or four elections, how one lays hold of a cry that may be more useful than truthful. I do not impute their honesty, but I do impute the honesty of the cry, because many who used it knew perfectly well that such a policy could never be carried out, and that if it was carried out it would be an extremely foolish policy and one which would react very much on this country. I should be inclined to suggest that those who raised the cry, and spoke on the question of interning them all, should be asked to declare that they themselves have never applied for the exemption of any special alien, however ready they may have been in public: to ask that they should all be interned or repatriated. I trust that His Majesty's Government may be able, as the most rev. Primate said, to indicate to us what line of policy they are going to pursue in the: future so that we know exactly where we stand, and that the nation may not think it has been misled by an Election cry which I do not believe was fairly or rightly founded.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I am very glad to note that the most rev. Primate appreciates the difficulties with which the Government have been hitherto faced in dealing with this problem of the alien enemy, as is shown by the very template way, if I may pay so, in which he asked the Question standing in his name. I am glad to notice also that he does not question the general principle that those who have abused the hospitality of this country should no longer be allowed to remain here. He realises that the action which the Government has hitherto taken has been rendered necessary by the policy adopted in particular by the

891
German Government and by the action of the German people themselves as a nation, and that it really is quite impossible that we should resume normal relations with them after peace is signed as one might have hoped under other circumstances would have been possible.
There is another factor to which the most rev. Primate called attention and with which I think your Lordships cannot fail to agree, and that is that there is no subject on which the will of the people of this country has been more clearly manifested than that of dealing with this problem. I do not think there has ever been an instance in which the demands of the people have been more unanimously insistent. If I understand it rightly, the main object of the Question which the most rev. Primate has addressed to the Government is to ascertain whether there is a fixed and unvarying principle on which all interned alien enemies are to be subject, regardless of any special factors in individual cases. It may perhaps be convenient if I answer this question at once, and then try to deal with some of the more specific points which he raked in his speech.
The answer to the Question is this. The Secretary of State has stated in another place that the policy of His Majesty's Government is to repatriate interned civilians who are now alien enemies, and that if any are allowed to remain here it will only be for reasons of an exceptional character. What reasons would be considered strong enough to justify the grant of such permission we are not in a position to say. The repatriation of those who are willing to go is being carried out first, and until it is completed, it is unlikely that any further statement can be made with regard to the remainder. A certain number of individuals who are personally undesirable are being sent compulsorily now.
It may interest your Lordships to know that the number of alien enemies now interned here is about 6,000, and, of these, 2,000 are still wiling to be repatriated. The argument which the most rev. Primate put forward, that these people are entitled to know what to expect in the future so as to be able to make their own arrangements and provisions for their families, is one which I should not venture to dispute. I am sure we all wish to see even Germans treated justly. We have no
892
desire to emulate their countrymen by inflicting needless and wanton torture on helpless people. But it would be impossible to give information on this subject at once. If they wish to make provisional arrangements I am afraid they can only assume that they will be repatriated in accordance with the policy laid down. On the other Land, if they have sufficient confidence in the special merits of their own individual cases, and in their own good character, then they may assume that they will be entitled to remain here; but it must be noted that they must make that assumption at their own risk.
Evidently the most rev. Primate has some cases in mind in which he thinks internment was not justified in the first instance. May I with all respect point out—as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord behind me—that the Advisory Committee thoroughly investigated all these cases, and they no doubt had special knowledge which influenced their decision if they declined to grant exemption from internment, assuming always that the man in question appealed against internment, because I am informed—the noble Lord no doubt will be able to bear out what I say on this subject—that there were many cases in which individuals were interned and went into internment without registering any protest whatever, or without even appealing for exemption. It is quite possible—and indeed quite probable—that many of the cases which have been brought to the notice of the most rev. Primate came under this category, and that it is entirely the man's own fault—
LORD LAMBOURNE: They did appeal in every case, or nearly every case.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: At any rate, I believe the general criticism has been—whether those who made the criticism are well informed or not., I am not prepared to say—that the Advisory Committee was, if anything, unduly lenient rather than excessively severe. The noble Lord behind me has already told us that there were certain prevailing conditions which governed the applications for exemption; and the most rev. Primate has referred to them already. Briefly speaking, they are as follows—that where the applicant could prove that he came under the category either of age and infirmity or of long residence in this country, or that he had sons or grandsons serving in His Majesty's

893
Forces, he was usually granted exemption from internment. If he did not receive that exemption there is no doubt that the Advisory Committee had very good reasons for their decision. I fear that tin; answer which I have given so far will not satisfy the most rev. Primate, but I think I am able to give him an assurance which will, I hope, go some way towards doing so. Due regard will be paid to humane considerations, and any who think that they have special claims to consideration, or that they have been unduly or hardly treated, will have a further opportunity of stating their ease before a tribunal before being finally repatriated.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: What tribunal?
THE EARL OF JERSEY: The exact composition of the tribunal I am not yet able to announce, but I am informed that there is no doubt that a tribunal will in due course be appointed to consider these cases, and I trust that the most rev. Primate will recognise that, by the procedure outlined, humanity will be studied as far as is compatible with the interests of this country; for if internment was justified in the first instance it is, i think, obvious that repatriation would prima facie be the natural corollary. What is the alternative? It appears that there is only one alternative—namely, that these persons should have the option of being released in this country. Surely those who have abused British hospitality have no longer any claim upon the community.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: It is quite true that the Armistice has been signed, and it is true that Peace is, we hope, in sight; but we must never forget the lessons we have learned during these last few years. We know further that we are passing through a very difficult time at home. These persons were interned in the first instance because they could not be trusted out. Their sympathies were under suspicion, and if they were hostile to this country before it is not likely that they will be any better disposed since their internment. There are no doubt a considerable number—I do not say by any means all—who would welcome the opportunity of fomenting the trouble which we all hope so earnestly we may be
894
able to allay. Surely the first duty of the Government is to the people of this country, to study the interests of the vast majority who are absolutely loyal and who most earnestly long for peace after all these years of strife. I cannot think that any one would advocate the release of any possible element of discord.
I think, my Lords, you will agree it is common knowledge—that a very large proportion of our domestic trouble is due to an alien element (I do not say necessarily to alien enemies, but it is very largely caused by persons of foreign extraction), and I quite fail to see why we should wish to add to their number. The policy of the Government if that those who are interned have, to go. This has been repeatedly stated, and there is no reason to suppose that the policy will be varied. If exceptions are made, it will be only where the tribunal is fully satisfied that the circumstances are really exceptional. The most rev. Primate referred to the-position of those who are now uninterned. I submit with all respect that that really is not within the scope of the Question as it appears on the Paper. On the Paper the Question is as to the compulsory repatriation of enemy aliens who have been interned during the war. I hope that he will, therefore, forgive me if I do not deal with the wider question to-day. I have no authority to speak on that matter at this moment, but it will, I think, be obvious that if even those who are interned are to have the right of stating their case before a tribunal, those who have not been interned will have at least an equal opportunity of doing so before any action is taken with regard to them. The fact that such cases will be considered may. I hope, meet with the approval of the most rev. Primate, and I trust it may satisfy him that in administering strict justice humanity will not be overlooked. I am confident that the policy of ridding these islands of those who have abused our hospitality will commend itself to your Lordships' House and to the people of this country.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have no right to speak for the most rev. Primate, but I cannot; think that he will regard the reply which the noble Earl has made to his Question with unalloyed satisfaction.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Earl has stated very clearly what we are to understand to be the policy of His Majesty's Government—namely, that these persons who for one reason or another were interned during the war are to be repatriated, although with a due regard to humanity, whatever that last sentence precisely may mean. When the noble Earl says that those who have abused the hospitality of the country ought to be dealt with there will be no difference of opinion on this matter.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE>: When in the early days of the war some of those who had abused the hospitality of the country by espionage were caught and executed; no voice of protest that I over heard was raised throughout the country. Indeed, I have heard surprise expressed by quite humane people that the number of those who had to meet the extreme penalty was not larger than it was. There was, as my noble friend opposite has said, some exaggeration and some panic about espionage in those days. Some people no doubt rather lost their heads over it. Still the reality of the danger was thoroughly recognised, and in meeting it with sternness and even with severity His Majesty's Government always would have and did have the complete support of the country.
But the question of internment is a quite separate one. The noble Earl does not appear to realise, that a very large number of those who were interned had committed no sort of offence whatever against this country. Some, as has already been explained, were interned simply and solely for their own protection. It was very difficult in those days to guarantee against violence, against the breaking up of their shops and possibly the loss of their own lives, a certain number of quite harmless citizens. Those people were better interned on all grounds. A great many others were interned—old people, as has been mentioned—and a certain number of others, against whom nothing definite was alleged but who were felt to be something of a nuisance, in the condition of war in which the nation was, if they were allowed to be merged in the population of the country. But when it comes to deporting those people finally from this country—when the noble Earl says that deportation from the country is
896
the natural sequel to internment—a great many of us find it very hard to see any logic whatever in that proposition.
The fact is that the general deportation of these people is asked without reference to their past but with reference only to their birth. It is asked on two grounds neither of which can be considered particularly honourable or laudable. In the first place, there are those whose patriotism boils over until it becomes persecution—we have seen instances of that in the Press and in speeches, from the first days of the war—those are quite honest and straightforward people who think that because a man is of German birth he should be treated as a species of vermin. Those people are not very wise, but they are probably most of them tolerably honest. But there are also others—those who simply desire to turn ail Germans out of the country because they are afraid of them as competitors in trade or business. That is a poor feeling in itself. It is poor if it is founded on the belief that Germans are cleverer or altogether more acute in business than ourselves; very likely it may be true of the individual who holds the sentiment, but not at all true of us as a nation. I, for one, protest strongly against the belief that we have anything whatever to fear from German competition in trade on a large scale, or on a small, if that trade is fairly conducted. The complaints which were made, and justifiably made, against what was falsely spoken of by the Germans as "peaceful penetration," were founded on the fact that the penetration was not peaceful in intent; it was not a fair trade competition; it was backed by the German Government with a definitely malevolent object. But no one supposes that these harmless citizens who have resided all their lives in this country are going to become the agents of a German Government which at present does not exist. Therefore that particular type of timidity seems to me altogether unworthy of this country.
The noble Earl was not able to give anything like a categorical reply to the questions of the most rev. Primate, enforced as they were by the long first-hand knowledge of my noble friend on the second bench; and I hope it may be possible for some other member of the Government to express in somewhat clearer terms the general policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter. When the noble Earl said that he was not in a position to

897
deal with the very closely allied point of the uninterned Germans because no mention of that appeared in the Question of the most rev. Primate, it is evident that, as very often happens in such cases, my noble friend was supplied with a carefully confined brief for reply beyond which he was not in a position to go. But I hope that the noble Earl who leads the House, or some other member of the Government, may be able to develop the matter a little; because I cannot feel that the noble Earl's reply—although it is not one of which we should at all desire to complain in itself—entirely exhausts all the possibilities of the question, or is quite the only answer which I think the most rev. Primate was entitled to expect.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend who has just sat down in thinking that the answer of the Government is extremely unsatisfactory, and I very much hope with him that before the debate closes some other member of the Government will throw a little more light upon the subject, and will approach it in a somewhat different spirit from that in which the noble Earl approached it. The whole argument of the noble Earl appeared to ignore the real question at issue. The noble Earl spoke as if the question before your Lordships was whether persons who had abused the hospitality of this country should be permitted to do so any longer; and he said, in several of his sentences, that these people had not only abused our hospitality but had been giving great trouble. He seemed to assume, in fact, that every German, or every person with a German name, was prima facie a spy. If that be true, we ought to have some more evidence of it than has been given. I believe the truth to be—as was stated by my noble friend Lord Lambourne—that very few of those who have ever been charged in this country with, much less convicted of, spying, were resident here before the war. Obviously, as my noble friend also said, the profession of a spy is a very difficult and a very dangerous one; and it was not the people who were resident here before the war who were selected for that or who were doing that work. Most of them, I believe, were neutrals; some of them, unfortunately, were disloyal British subjects. Some of them came from countries which were not then in the war but have since come into the war, and were disguised Germans, but
898
not resident here before the war. I am of opinion that, if it were possible to lay before your Lordships the full statistics, it would be found that extraordinarily few habitual foreign residents here were convicted of spying. In fact I may say I had authentic information, as regards the first six or eight months of the war, that not a single person at that time who had been an habitual resident here had been detected as a spy.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: I do not think I used the word "spy" once in the whole course of my remarks.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I apologise to the noble Earl if I misunderstood him. But I confess that I thought that his words "abused our hospitality"—
THE EARL OF JERSEY: Yes, I did say that
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Those words did carry that implication; and when he spoke in that way and spoke of those people being a danger to us, he assumed that prima facie every one of German origin who had neglected to be naturalised here was an enemy in reality and a person who was likely to be dangerous to us and to use his knowledge of this country as a means of injuring this country. I do not believe that there is any foundation for that assumption. If that assumption could be proved, of course, the whole case would be entirely different, but the noble Earl seemed to assume as a matter of course that it was prima facie evidence of a man's evil intentions and his disposition to injure us that he had been resident here, being himself of foreign birth.
The noble Earl said that this could be done consistently with the principles of humanity, but he did not give us any indication of what the tests were which were to be applied, or of what a man had to prove in order to show that he did not come within the category of dangerous persons. I notice also that the noble Earl seemed to assume that the fact that a man had been allowed to remain interned, having been interned in the earlier years of the war, was strong presumptive evidence that he was a dangerous person. I believe that also to be an entirely unwarranted assumption, and I know in some cases it came within my own personal knowledge that, where people applied to be released from intern-

899
ment and where no evidence whatever could be brought against them, the Committee decided that they should remain provisionally because in some cases they would have been exposed to unfriendly treatment on the part of the people when they were released. We all know that there were days during the war when that was a real danger. But happily that has passed, and I do not believe that there exists that atmosphere of morbid suspicion, that blind hatred of anyone because he was of foreign origin, which was, I think, regrettable but natural enough in moments of excitement, but which surely ought to have subsided now, when all those conditions have passed and we are approaching a period of peace when, so far from Germany being a danger to us, she is rent, and likely long to be rent, by an internecine civil war. I do not suppose there is the least difference of opinion in this House as regards the policy that ought to be followed where there is any real reason for suspicion—I will not go so far as to say even when a man could be legitimately suspected of being a spy. If there is any ground with regard to any person in this country, whether he has been interned or whether he has not been interned, for suspecting that, if allowed to remain here, he would be either a spy or in any way dangerous to this country, there is not one of us who would wish any indulgence to be extended to him. We are all agreed about that.
I come to the case of those against whom there is no evidence, and I say, What ground exists for keeping those persons in prison here or for sending them back to Germany? Now, what does it mean to a man who has been living in this country and exercising his trade or profession here for many years to be sent to Germany? As we all know, most of those people have married English wives, and have English children. If you give such a man the option of being repatriated or of remaining imprisoned here, what does that mean? If he is in prison here he is cut off from his wife and children, who are perhaps left to be supported by charity. If he is repatriated, and if his wife and children elect to go with him, the case arises which was put with great force and clearness by my noble friend Lord Lambourne. We send back to Germany loyal British citizens whom we should be glad to keep, and we present Germany with persons whom she can hereafter, under
900
the sense of injustice which would animate them, use as German agents here. On the other hand, if the wives and children do not elect to go with the husband we send the poor family back to Germany, where probably they have no friends, where they have no means of getting work, and where starvation stares them in the face, and we separate families. Your Lordships will remember that one of the greatest kinds of inhumanity from which they used to suffer in the United States in the days of slavery was that families were broken up, and the husband was sold into one place and the wife and children into another, and the family life destroyed. Is it for us to try to perpetrate on these people the cruelty of separating families unless some clear and strong case is made out?
We are apt to think of these things in general terms, but I should like to give you a case out of my own knowledge and experience to show the way in which this will apply, and I should like to preface this by one word about the suffering that is inflicted. There has been, through these four and a half years, an amount of suffering brought upon the world which probably this world has never seen before within the same period. Much of that suffering has been inevitable, and curiously enough, it seems to have blunted our minds. We have seen so much suffering that he have come to think a little suffering more or less does not much matter. But really ought we not to think of it in a different way? Ought we not to feel that where there has been so much inevitable suffering caused by the war we ought, now that the war is over, to try to bring that suffering to an end which can be brought to an end and that we should try to inflict no more physical or mental anguish upon those who have escaped the war and who now might look forward to some respite from it?
Now, I will give you shortly one case, because a concrete case is more easy to follow. I know of a family where the husband is a German by birth, who had lived between thirty and forty years in this country, living a perfectly quiet and respectable life, following his trade; a man who was liked in the neighbourhood, and who, when he was threatened with internment, procured testimonials from the local authorities testifying to the fact that he was a good citizen and, as far as they

901
knew, a perfectly loyal citizen. He was not a British subject, but he had lived as a citizen and had led a perfectly respectable and worthy life. He was married to an English woman and had eleven or twelve children. Three of these children were in His Majesty's Forces, and have been serving His Majesty through the war. With reference to that case, in the first six months after the beginning of the war I asked the representative of the Government whether regard would not be had to the fact that a man's children were serving His Majesty, and I was told then that the greatest possible regard would be bad to that, and that it would be considered as a very strong element in a man's favour to be exempted from internment that he had sent his children into the army. This man has had three sons in the army. He was interned soon after the beginning of the war, but succeeded in procuring his release upon the evidence of his neighbours. Some months afterwards somebody who seemed to know him by sight, but not otherwise, told the authorities in another town where he happened to be that he was a German. He was immediately thrown into prison and kept in solitary confinement for three months with no charge, brought against him—not a tittle of evidence to show that he was in any way a dangerous or suspicious person. After that he was sent to one of the large internment camps where he has remained to this day, and his unfortunate wife has had the greatest possible difficulty in supporting the young children who remained under her charge.
Is there any one of us who can think that it is either just or humane to treat people in that way? We went into this war for the cause of justice and humanity. Can we really say that it is just and humane to inflict suffering of that kind, not only on the German-born man himself but upon his wife and his children, without the presence of clear and definite evidence to show that in some way or other he is a danger to this country? No such evidence has been indicated by the noble Earl. We do not know what a man like that would have to prove. Apparently the burden of proof is to be thrown upon him of showing he is not dangerous, and I hope we shall have some further light before this debate closes, for I cannot believe that the sentiment of the country, however excited it may have been in the first year or two of the war, will any longer sanction and approve the
902
policy—I will not call it callous—but the policy of indifference to suffering, which I am afraid was visible in the speech of the noble Earl.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of those who have criticised the speech of the noble Earl. I cannot help hoping that he is the mouth-piece of some anonymous official, for I would rather like to think that what he said was the answer delivered to him by an official, rather than the utterance of his own mind. The question is how this matter of repatriation is to be carried out in the future. I think the noble Earl was not entitled to plead that the most rev. Primate had approved of what the Government had done during the war. The most rev. Primate very rightly said that while the war was on things could not be criticised, and that we had not the facts within our knowledge, but that is a very different thing from saying that what the Government had done during the war was wisely and rightly done. The noble Earl said some things which I should be very sorry to have passed over without challenge in this House. He said that the Government would act with humanity so far as was consistent with the interests of this country. Does he mean that when the interests of the country demand that they should act with inhumanity, they would do so? We have taxed the Germans with having put country before all things, and it seems to me that the noble Earl in what he has said puts himself on a level with the worst type of German.
I will give an illustration of the harsh and unfair way in which I think at this moment the internment policy is carried out. It is not an extreme case but a case of ordinary official action. There are a good many Jews interned at Dartmoor. A year or two ago I wrote to the then Home Secretary, asking that they should have facilities for the Passover celebrations. There are no facilities at Dartmoor, and they were invited to go at their own expense to Plymouth, where there is a synagogue. At that time I asked that they should be interned at Wakefield, where there is an internment camp and a synagogue in the town. I got letters from those people that it was contrary to their religion to travel the number of miles to Plymouth, and also that the offer was not sufficient. That is not a particularly hard case, but it is a case of Government

903
action, and I say that now, when the stress of war is over, the Government should recognise that they have a duty very superior to listening to the cry of the people, and that it is high time that they should remember that paramount above national interests come justice and righteousness.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I think that all persons interested in the alien question are under a debt of gratitude to the most rev. Primate for having brought this great and important question before the House—a question which of late has been somewhat allowed to die down. We recognise in the utterance of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury exactly the speech that we should hope and expect from a great prince of the great Protestant Church of England by law established. We recognise the Christian and generous intention to avoid doing any injustice to any individual of any sort or kind, whether of enemy origin or British-born. But we doubt very much whether his speech or his arguments justify the continuance of what we honestly believe to be a great national danger. My noble friend and leader, Lord Crewe, spoke of tolerably honest and straightforward but not very wise persons, who apparently did not agree with his particular view of the question. I am afraid that I must class myself among those stupid people, for I cannot get myself to believe that we ought to tolerate in our midst people who Lord Lambourne, than whom there is no better authority on the alien question in this House, described as people who are dangerous en masse.
LORD LAMBOURNE: I used the words "during time of war."
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Does the noble Lord mean only during war? Dangerous en masse was what the noble Lord said. I was very pleased to hear the speech of the noble Earl who spoke for the Government, and we were in hopes that there might be some alteration in the Government policy from the fact that the noble Earl had accepted office, because we remember very well the straightforward and manly and patriotic speech he made in Committee when he moved his Amendment excluding from the franchise all persons of enemy origin—a proposal which was negatived at once.
904
The Government Whips were put on and it was beaten by two to one. Apparently things have changed since those days. We remember the Second Reading of the Aliens Bill that was brought in about ten months ago—a somewhat slip-slop and wishy-washy measure which failed in any way to meet the general wishes, as I understood them, of the country. We knew that Mr. Lloyd George then put his foot resolutely down and told us that aliens were to have the right to vote for British Members of Parliament, and not only that, but that they were to be eligible for seats in the British Parliament, if they could get anybody to vote for them, and further that the pivotal men, the great city financiers, were to be eligible to receive all the honours that could be bestowed on a British subject—honours which I suppose, in time, will be bestowed on the men who saved the country, French and Jellicoe and Haig and Allenby and Beatty—and that these honours were justified by circumstances and facts within the knowledge of many members of this House in connection with confidential matters of which the public knows little and with relations with individuals of which the public knows nothing. That was the Bill which was brought before the country.
We felt very strongly and very sincerely about that Bill. Why and how was it allowed to pass? Of course, the reason is obvious. The country was in a terrible state of peril. The Germans held the line from the North Sea to Baghdad; Paris was under fire; communications between Boulogne and Paris were cut; and we were told that there was a possibility of the Channel ports and Paris being taken. In these circumstances we looked upon the Government, and rightly looked upon them, as a Committee of Public Safety, and it was our duty not to throw any difficulties in their way. For that reason, and for that reason alone, we made no fight of it and the Bill was passed. The sun then began to shine a little, breaking through the clouds. On July 18 came the counter-stroke of Marshal Foch, and then public opinion in this country among all classes of society began to crystallise. The learned societies took the matter up. I am speaking under correction, but I believe the Royal Geographical Society was the first to intimate to its German members that their room was preferable to their company.

905
Then the Stock Exchange moved, and, under the leadership of the well-known and enthusiastic Mr. Charles Clark, the stock-brokers and stock-jobbers of alien origin were got rid of out of the house. Next came the turn of the, civic fathers. Sir Horace Marshall came up for election at the Mansion Office to the great office of Lord Mayor of London, and, before he was elected, a Major Hawkins intimated that he had addressed a question to Sir Horace Marshall and Sir Ernest Cooper which it was advisable to put publicly at, that stage. Major Hawkins asked the Lord Mayor-elect
"Are you prepared to do all in your power during the ensuing year to urge upon the Government the internment or repatriation of all enemy aliens, especially those holding high and important positions in the kingdom and receiving large salaries?"
Sir Horace Marshall immediately said he was entirely in sympathy with the purpose implied in the question. Cheers greeted this declaration. Sir Ernest Cooper, who was to go in first civic wicket down, promised to do all in his power to secure the internment of any aliens and he said that he yielded to nobody in his loathing for the Prussian German. It was at once announced that the choice of the aldermen had fallen on Sir Horace Marshall.
I should like to remind the House that in November your Lordships passed a Resolution to the following effect—
"That regislation to prevent other than British-born, subjects being employed for the future in the Naval, Military, or Civil Services be as soon as practicable introduced."
This Motion was moved by a gallant Admiral. It was received in a very fair House, it was accepted by His Majesty's Government, and it was corrected by Lord Finlay, whom we independent members of the House recollect with so much gratitude and for whom we have such an affectionate respect. It was passed unanimously as recently as November last by the House of Lords.
Then came the great "eye-opener." On November 11 the news was received that the Armistice had been signed at half-past five that morning. For three days the whole of the country thanked God Almighty for the great mercy that had been bestowed on this country, which had been saved from the outrages and ravages of people whom Mr. Balfour had not hesitated to call "a
906
nation of brutes and beasts." On the fourth day—on the Thursday—Mr. Bonar Law announced the Prime Minister's intention to have a dissolution of Parliament. On November 21 Parliament was prorogued, and in the following week Ministers went into the country—leaving Europe in the melting pot and their offices to their private secretaries—to seek the suffrages of their constituents. They, and all the other Coalition candidates, asked the people of England, "Will you vote for me and Lloyd George?" The answer to that question was immediate and identical. It was another question. The question that the country asked these candidates was, "Are you in favour of getting rid of the Germans out of England and making the Germans pay an indemnity?" Some hawed, some hummed, no very decisive answer was given.
But the situation got so serious that a Government answer had to be given. It was given on December 5 by the Attorney-General, Sir F. E. Smith, at Liverpool. As the late Attorney-General now occupies the great position of Lord Chancellor of England, it may perhaps interest your Lordships to know the exact words that were used on this occasion. The Attorney-General said—
"At this moment there are waiting in Holland about 20,000 aliens—Poles, Russians, and persons of mixed blood and German fusion, with their tickets ready to come back to this country on the day Peace is declared. Here is a great question of national policy. Do you want them? ("No.") What is the good, after winning this great war, if we cannot keep England for the English? (Cheers.) What do we want with the waiters who were spying and the professors who were teaching classes and spying all the time?"
The Attorney-General went on to say—
"I tell you that when the history of the last twenty years comes to be written it will be found that of every twenty Germans who settled in this country eighteen were spies. Clear them all out. That is the policy of the Coalition Government. (Loud cheers.)"
A very short time before this speech the noble Lord who spoke for the Government on this question said that there were 10,000 Germans—I forget the adjective he used, "well conducted," or some other agreeable expression—settled in this country, who were all loose and at large; yet three weeks later the Attorney-General states publicly that 9,000 of these 10,000 are dangerous, and are spies. When two such important political pundits disagree, who is to decide? Of course, there is only

907
one person who can decide, and that is the Prime Minister. We all know what the Prime Minister's policy was ten months ago. But what is to be done now? How can the presence of 9,000 dangerous spies, who are acknowledged to be in our midst, be defended? I can think of nothing except that at the present moment the Minister who defended this policy thought he would re-introduce the policy of our old friend Lot, and that because there were a certain number of persons who gave largesse to charitable objects, and so on, that this leaven might leaven the whole German lump. I do not know; it is too difficult a matter for me to give an opinion about. We know what Mr. Lloyd George's policy was ten months ago, but if I may say so with great respect it seems to me that the present Prime Minister is the very beau ideal of a Coalition Premier. He is a man of nimble mind, and, as might be expected, he threw over his old colleagues and came down heavily on the Attorney-General's side of the fence.
In saying this I hope I may be able to say that I agree with what has been said in this House this afternoon—that these opinions during the Election were not made in any way from a dishonest purpose. I believe that those who made these statements did so because they believed it was for the good of the country, and that they were made from an absolutely honourable and honest intention. What was the statement that the Prime Minister promulgated all over the country on December 6, 1918? He said—
"It is quite impossible to entertain in our midst a population of which a considerable proportion has abused our hospitality. They spied, they plotted, they assisted Germany in the forging of plans for the destruction of the country which had offered them hospitality. It must lead to disturbance if Germany came over here to take the bread out of the mouths of the men whom she had for four years sought to destroy. Much as I regret it, Germany is responsible and she must abide by the consequences."
Those were the words of the Prime Minister of England, the words of the man who is doing his utmost to bring peace to Europe, and who is one of the great advocates of what we all hope will eventually come to be a League of Nations for the peace of the world.
I have only one more word to say. England is awake, the Labour Party is awake, and the country requires the Prime Minister to fulfil his election promises. I
908
am glad to hear from Lord Jersey to-day that, so far as alien enemies are concerned, he is going to redeem those promises, though perhaps he does not go as far as some of us would wish. But not only is England awake, Germany is awake too. We have disquieting news from France to-day, and we know that Herr Kuhlman, who is known personally to many of us, in an intercepted letter has stated that when he can get rid of Marshal Foch, and has only to deal with what he calls the "stupid French and idiotic Yankees," he will be in Paris in five or six years time, and that eventually he will get all the "strings" into his hands. Can there be any doubt that the Government are right in the course they are pursuing, and in their determination that the alien question should be settled once and for all. The Prime Minister and the Government evidently recognise that the old policy of postponement and procrastination in this great crisis can no longer be tolerated and will not avail us now.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: My Lords, I apologise for intervening in this debate with a very few words, but I suppose I may claim the indulgence of the House with a prologue which is appropriate to a Welsh Bishop—Morituri te salutant. Those who have suffered much in the war are not the least qualified to speak upon this subject. They know to their own cost what the atrocities, cruelties, and rupture of the ordinary usages of war mean. But the enemy has surrendered; the enemy is now in our power; he is at our mercy, and it seems to me that the question which overshadows all this discussion is how are we going to treat Germans for the future? Are we going to regard them as human beings, or are we going to regard them as pests already decimated, and to be exterminated? I shudder at the policy first of all of revenge and then of indemnities. I was very much struck by what Lord Bryce said when he talked about the effect of war upon the character of a people. It is quite impossible to say that the constant spectacle of pain and its infliction does not inevitably produce—I will not adopt the word callous—a certain indifference to pain, and I should think that very few people would deny that one of the results of the war has been rather to lessen the value of the human life. I cannot help thinking that the policy of the noble

909
Marquess, to whom we always listen with pleasure, is one that cannot be very wisely adopted. Hatred is a very easy thing to the natural man, and I know that it is a very great test to pursue a policy of mercy and humanity at the present moment. I cannot help thinking, however, even upon political grounds, that it is a wise policy to pursue. We are a chivalrous people, and the policy which has been indicated would I think tarnish our reputation for chivalry. But I have risen to enter a very humble yet a very sincere protest against a policy which I venture to think is unwise politically and is unworthy of our traditions as a nation.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, before some Minister replies for the Government I should like to put to them again the question that was put by the most rev. Primate—What policy is to be pursued with regard to the Germans that we now have in our internment camps? I should have thought that the answer to that question was perfectly simple, and that the answer would have been, "We propose to do justice to each individual man; we decline to lay down any general rule applicable to a general body of people, because we know that that must be unjust; and we are determined to do all in our power both to safeguard this country from the presence of any undesirable alien and to secure that nothing that we do to-day can be urged as a reproach against us in the years to come." In this matter we are not acting only for ourselves. In all such questions as these it is England that has always set the example, and the example that we set to-day is the example that we ought to be able to be proud of in the days to come. Shall we be proud if we take a body of perfectly defenceless people, and, without any evidence that they have been guilty of the abuse of our hospitality, tear them from the homes that they have built up in this country, from their English wives and English children, and drive them back into their country of origin with which many of them may have had nothing but the most scanty communication for upwards of a quarter of a century? Such behaviour cannot be anything but deplorable, unjust and cruel.
I will ask your Lordships just for a moment to consider not only the case that the noble Viscount referred to, but other cases that I have been told have
910
happened. Although I have not the same personal and intimate knowledge of them that the noble Viscount had of the case to which he referred, I have good reason to believe them to be true. Germans who have married English women and have English children hen: are being sent back to Germany, and their wives and children are being left to the charity of this country, and every person who helps them is supposed to be helping, not an English woman and an English child in distress, but the wife of a German, and the assistance is only granted with the probability that its grant may render the donor open to suspicion. What are you going to do with these English children and English women? Leave them here in want for no fault whatever of their own, or send them over the sea to follow their husbands and the parent, and put them in a country of whose language they cannot utter a single syllable, a country that is short of provisions and cannot possibly regard them with anything but undisguised hatred? I want to know if it is that that the Government mean to do by our English subjects, people who are just as much entitled to the protection and assistance of the laws as any Englishman? If the policy adumbrated by the noble Earl be carried out that is undoubtedly what will follow, and I must say that I regard it with profound uneasiness.
I want to know what is the reason why each man in these internment camps cannot be dealt with individually? Why cannot there be a full investigation to see if he has by word or deed abused our hospitality? If he has been guilty of any action which can be considered a breach of the duty that he owed to this country by his residence, if there is any reason—even a remote reason—why he should be considered in anything but name as the enemy of this country, then considerations of pity and humanity must give way before the considerations of the national welfare. It cannot be helped. If there be not such reason surely there can be no justification whatever for taking such a man and treating him in the manner that has been suggested. The noble Lord who sat upon this Commission said something which struck me. He said their first care was to do justice to this country, and then to do justice to the men who were brought before them. I think, if he would permit me to say, that he imagined that the two things were separate. Indeed they are not. It

911
is not possible to do justice to this country and to do injustice to any man.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUGKMASTER: The noble Earl suggested that these people who have been, interned have passed through a preparatory examination, and he thought it right to say that some people imagined that the Committee had been too lenient. I know nothing, and I care nothing whatever, about the opinions of the people who venture to criticise that Committee. It was composed of two of the ablest and finest of our English Judges. I will leave it to other people then to undertake to find fault with the justice that they administered. It was. assisted in its labours by the noble Lord, and every one—even those who for a long time have been his political opponents—knows that there are two characteristics in his life, that he loves justice and hates wrong; and yet I am told that a tribunal so constituted has acted in a manner which has not commended itself to some one at an election meeting. I admit that I am left entirely unmoved.
Finally, I do not think this ought to be overlooked. The noble Earl referred to the opinion of the people of this country which had been roused and expressed at the Election. I do not wish in this debate to embark upon the extremely attractive question of the character of the pledges that were given by representatives of the Government at the last Election. It is no answer to say that people demanded it if the thing that was demanded was wrong. What you have to test is whether we are going to act in this matter in accordance with what we know to be right and what we believe to be just, or whether we are going deliberately to throw aside our old traditions of justice and right-dealing because of pledges that were inconsiderately given in the course of an Election. Really I think there are bigger things at issue in this debate than the mere question of the happiness and welfare of these few unhappy men. There is the question as to how this country is going to conduct itself in its hour of victory, and I would earnestly entreat the Government that they do nothing, now that we have won, to soil and disgrace our victory.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I shall have nothing to say on the general question after the speech of the noble Lord who has
912
just sat down, because I agree with him in all that he has said as to the absolute necessity, having regard to the honour of this country, of approaching this question entirely from the point of view of what is just and right. May I also add that in my view we ought to be a pioneer of what is right and just in our hour of victory.
A real test may be applied as regards the way we deal with these aliens, and from that point of view I want to ask the noble Earl, or whoever is going to reply for the Government, one or two questions. First of all, the noble Earl (Lord Jersey) evidently was instructed about his reply before he heard the very notable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lambourne, and he based his reply on the supposition that if a man had been interned there was aprima facie case against him for deportation unless he could find excuse on one of the three grounds which he stated, these grounds being extreme age or weakness, long length of residence in this country, or having children who served this country during the war.
The first answer I desire to make to that is this. It is quite clear that the fact of; internment is no prima facie evidence; against the person interned. That was stated by Lord Lambourne, and it is the more important to bear it in mind because I agree with what has been said in this House that we ought to place the greatest trust in that Committee, presided over as it was by the two Judges, Sir John Sankey and Sir Robert Younger. But you pervert the whole object and duty with which that Committee sat if you start from the pro-sumption that people interned, or left interned, were only so left because there was aprima facie case against them of abusing the hospitality of this country. What I want to know from the Government is whether it is really the intention that aprima facie presumption should be drawn against a man against whom no such presumption can be drawn in any Court of fair treatment or right justice. It is a very serious thing in a matter of this kind to throw the onus of excuse upon the alien who is sought to be deported.
I will not trouble your Lordships with a number of cases that come under my notice because they are all very much on the same lines. But take the case of a man such as the noble Viscount referred to,

913
who was interned, a man with an English wife and English children. Why should you assume that he abused the hospitality of this country unless he can prove the contrary? The first moment that you explore the facts you find that this assumption is untrue, and that, so far from having abused the hospitality of the country, he was living here in a perfectly just and harmless spirit, doing apparently the best he could for the country of his adoption, because he had no fewer than three sons serving in the Army. It is a monstrous injustice to assume against a man of that kind that his home should be ruined and that he should be subjected to forcible deportation.
I do not want to follow the noble Marquess in his statistics, particularly those which he quoted on the subject of spies and for this reason. We have here a representative of the Home Office in the noble Earl, Lord Jersey. The Home Office have accurate statistics, and I should like to put this question to the noble Earl—and I do not put it without reason, though I may perhaps overstate the facts. Has the Home Office during the whole course of the war (it is putting it very high) brought it home to one of these Germans living in this country that he was acting as an enemy spy? That is a very specific question. I ask. Is there a single instance? and, if there have been any. whether the whole of the cases have not been infinitesimal in number? I believe that the Home Office records will show that the whole idea on which this animosity to enemy aliens has been encouraged is in truth and in essence, wholly wrong and without any support in fact.
There is another point, and it is a very important one. The noble Earl said that these matters were to be referred to a newly constituted Tribunal. We have no intimation how or when that Tribunal is going to be constituted. I should like information on that point, if we can get it. Further, will be undertake on behalf of the Government that these deportations shall not be carried on from day to day until the Tribunal has been constituted and a decision has been given. Only this morning I had a letter of a most distressing character—a person who could not speak German, who had left Germany, as so many did in 1870, in order to be free from the military discipline of Prussia, deported under conditions which will mean absolute
914
poverty, absolute destruction of all means of livelihood, and (he total break up of the family. Surely matters of that kind ought not to be allowed to go on for a single day longer. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give an undertaking that, if this new Tribunal is to be constituted, there shall be no further deportations allowed until it has been constituted and is able to consider particular cases. Anybody who has a most elementary notion of justice must of course agree with what the noble Lord said, that you must regard the particular cases each on its own merits. You cannot deal with matters of this kind in lump or on assumptions; you must take the particular case and see what the conditions really are.
Only one other point in conclusion. The mass of these people, if not all of them, are not only naturalised in this country but they are denationalised in their own, which is a very important consideration. That is to say, not only have we offered them the gift of hospitality—subject, of course, to the special conditions of the war—but they have given up the nationality of their origin and are no longer capable of being considered as members of the country to which it is sought to deport them. A man who has been naturalised and who has been denationalised, on the most primary principles of justice is not entitled to be deprived of those advantages unless a case of some sort or other can be made against him. We are not now talking during war time—though I am one of those, who have protested even in the midst of war time that we should retain our sense of justice—and I protest in the strongest possible manner against an election cry on a matter of this kind being the test of what it is right and just to do to these various aliens: and I hope that, if further information is given, some answer may be afforded to the questions I have suggested.
LORD PHILLIMORE:My Lords, I feel somewhat that one ought to apologise for prolonging this debate, but on the other hand I do not think that one's voice ought to be silent on this occasion. I think that we ought all to rise in protest against the doctrines which apparently have been laid down by the noble Earl who has answered for His Majesty's Government. To say that humanity and justice are to come behind the cause of the country is to my mind to say something which an English-

915
man and a Christian should be ashamed of saying.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Who said that?
LORD PHILLIMORE: During the war it was necessary to act in bulk, and roughly and largely. It was right to intern anybody who might be likely to be a danger to the country by reason of his enemy origin. But internment is not imprisonment; and internment was justifiable only because it was not imprisonment. For my part I think internment was carried on under too severe conditions and is still so carried on. But that, perhaps, is past or is passing. And what one wants to remember is that people were not shut up because they were guilty, or even suspected of being guilty, of crime against this country, but purely as a measure for precaution. Treating it in that way, and it being necessary to act hastily and quickly, there was no great harm and no great injustice in including everybody who could possibly be a danger.
But now comes the time of sorting. There is now plenty of time to sort out people. There is no hurry. There is no necessity to deal with people in bulk. There is no reason why each case should not be minutely and justly inquired into. What we want to know is this. Is it the view of His Majesty's Government that the same conditions which have been applied to internment are to be applied to deportation? If the rule is—as I think the most rev. Primate said—that people are prima facie excused only if they have been thirty years in this country and married an English wife, or been thirty-five years in this country and not married an English wife; if that means that people who have been twenty years in this country and have married English wives but have unfortunately not had sons who have served but have daughters; if it is meant that people of that kind are to be sent back to Germany, that their wives and their grown up daughters and their younger daughters are to be left in this country without any provision except such as charity will give them, or have the option of going to a country where they will be detested and where they will starve—then we wish to have an opportunity of raising our protest against it. I have heard noble Lords to-night—particularly the noble Marquess who spoke from the
916
other side of the House—speak as if in this matter the panic of the mob, the feelings of really causeless fear of the people, were to guide your Lordships. I thought your Lordships were here to guide the people with your wisdom, with your discretion, and above all with your courage. It was a wise man and a Christian man who said that there was nothing so cruel as fear. I can understand even the bravest of us being afraid while the war was lasting; but now that it is over we may at least recover our equanimity and our courage.
I want to know definitely from His Majesty's Government, first of all, whether this Tribunal is really to be established; secondly, whether they will promise us that nobody shall now be deported without first having an opportunity of coming before this Tribunal; and, thirdly, whether this Tribunal is to be a mere Ministerial body which is to apply general rules, sweeping rules—such rules as that people must have been so many dozens of years in this country to qualify themselves for remaining—or whether they are going to deal fairly with each case and not send the husbands of English women and the fathers of English children to a country where they (losing as they will their business here) will probably starve, and where at any rate they will not be able to do anything for the support of their English wives and their English children?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think the most rev. Primate must feel that he did a great public service in raising this debate to-night; because on his speech has been founded a very remarkable expression of opinion. Before my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy replies for the Government, as no doubt he is going to do, I should like very briefly to say how this case strikes me. I am not going to attempt to go over the ground that has been covered, but I wish to associate myself entirely with what Lord Buckmaster said—namely, that it is quite impossible for justice to England to necessitate an injustice to an individual. The two things are incompatible. Justice to England implies justice to the individual, whoever he is.
What I want particularly to say to the Government is this. Do not think only of these German fathers; think of the English mothers and the English children. I must say that, unless the case is of the

917
strongest possible nature and as clear as daylight before a competent Tribunal, the idea of sending English children—who have never been out of England, and who can speak no language but English—compulsonly to Germany is an abhorent act of cruelty. I cannot imagine His Majesty's Government doing such a thing if they could possibly avoid it. The second point is that if they try to deal with this most difficult question by any sweeping general rule they will inevitably commit injustice in many cases. This is a matter which cannot be dealt with by general rule, but must be dealt with by the most careful investigation of each separate case by a competent authority. If they attempt to do it by general rule it is quite certain that injustice will be done here and there, and perhaps in many cases, and each of those cases of injustice, if avoidable, will leave a stain upon our national escutcheon.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I do not propose to deal at any length with the various criticisms which have been made in connection with the answer that I gave to the Question on the Paper, but I think I may justly claim that several of your Lordships have omitted, no doubt accidentally, to notice one or two specific statements which I made. I hope I am not going too far when I say that I really feel that the views which I expressed have been to some extent misinterpreted, Therefore, with your Lordships' permission I would just like to read again two specific statements which I made. I said—
The Secretary of State has stated in another place that the policy of His Majesty's Government is to repatriate the interned civilians who are now alien enemies, and that if any are allowed to remain here it will only be for reasons of an exceptional character. What reasons would be considered strong enough to justify the grant of such permission we are not yet in a position to say.
Surely that paragraph alone makes it perfectly clear that it is contemplated that the new Tribunal to be set up will have special powers to decide what grounds will justify the grant of the permission.
Several NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: It seems to me quite clear from this that the same conditions that were laid down as being
918
sufficient for exemption from internment would not necessarily be the guiding factor in deciding whether or not exemption would be given from repatriation. I further said—
The repatriation of those who are willing to go is being carried out first, and until it is completed it is unlikely that any further statement can be made with regard to the remainder.
That, I think, will answer Lord Parmoor, who quoted a case from which it would appear that the person in question did not desire to be repatriated.
LORD PARMOOR: Is any one being deported now who objects to being deported?
THE EARL OF JERSEY: Yes. A certain number of persons who are considered to be undesirable are being sent now. I do not know whether the case the noble Lord mentioned comes under that clause. I further said—
Due regard will be paid to humane considerations, and any who think that they have special claims to consideration, or that they are being unduly hardly treated, will have further opportunity of stating their case before; a Tribunal before being finally repatriated.
I claim that that answers the accusation made several times in this debate, that the matter is being treated as a whole and that individuals have no chance It makes it perfectly clear that individuals can state their case, and that cases will be treated on their merits and not collectively.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: The only other question which I feel I am in a position to answer is one which Lord Parmoor asked, and which I think I have already answered once, and that is whether I can say how the Tribunal will be constituted, and when it will be set up. I think I said, in answer to the most rev. Primate, that I was not yet in a position to make the statement, but that I had received an assurance that the Tribunal would be set up as soon as it was possible to do so.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but the

919
reply to which we have just listened induces me to say one word. May I say first that I am a little astonished that we did not have some other noble Lord to reply for the Government, because I think the noble Earl in again speaking has committed a breach of order, to which attention was so pointedly called by the Leader of the House a few nights ago. The noble Earl does not seem to appreciate the position. He says that everything asked for is granted by the sentence which he read out at the beginning of his reply. Exactly the contrary is the case. The sentence which he read out implies that every single person is to go before a Tribunal as a guilty person, and is only to be let off if he shows that he is not guilty. That, is a totally different thing from an impartial inquiry. The suggestion is that each case should be taken upon its merits, and the question decided whether the man is guilty or not, and whether he has done anything deserving of deportation or not. To say that he is to go before the Tribunal as a guilty person and to prove his innocence is a negation of the ordinary principles of English justice. I am perfectly certain, after what we have heard, that the further reply of the noble Earl will not be considered any more satisfactory than the first.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I only rise to say, on behalf of many of my noble friends, that we are very much disappointed at the silence of the superior Ministers on the Front Bench opposite. I am sure that Lord Jersey will believe me when I say that it is not for a moment because we have any reason to complain of his speech. On the contrary, he has shown, as on previous occasions, a great sense of how a Parliamentary answer should be made; but it is because the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate are, to put it no higher, persons of very great position and influence in the State, beginning with the most rev. Primate and following with other noble Lords who have held high office in the confidence of His Majesty; and they made a direct appeal to superior Ministers on the Front Bench and asked them to reply. No reply has been given; but instead, as Lord Russell pointed out, Lord Jersey was compelled to commit a breach of order in the teeth of the speech of his Leader a few nights ago, while other noble Lords who sit around him, who are the great men of the House,
920
sit tongue-tied, as if afraid of mingling in this debate. I am sure it is a matter of great disappointment, and I think the country, as well as your Lordships, would have been better pleased if they could have had an assurance from a Minister of Cabinet rank as to the effect which this debate has had upon the Government and the course which is likely to be taken. I think the probability is that this Question will have to be repeated on a future day.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I regret that I should be rebuked for not forcing myself upon your Lordships' attention on a matter with which I have no technical familiarity. It would have been very easy for me to have replied in general terms on the specific lines just stated by, Lord Jersey, but your Lordships will, I hope, recognise the fact, which may be regretted but which is none the less evident, that it is impossible for Ministers on the Government Bench to have technical and official knowledge of every one of the Government Departments. I certainly have no technical or official knowledge of this particular subject, and into the bargain I had the misfortune to be called out during most of the speech of my noble friend beside me. But I certainly repudiate the implication of Lord Salisbury's speech—an implication, I am afraid, which is constantly directed against myself—that it is disrespectful on my part if I do not address your Lordships. The fact that members of great standing—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be very sorry if my noble friend should carry away that view. I did not in the least—if I did, I withdraw entirely—make any charge against himself. There was a still greater man than himself on the Bench during most of the debate.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: All I wish to say is this. From what I can learn, my noble friend Lord Jersey has stated his case with perfect clarity. I understand from the critics, notably Lord Parmoor, that many noble Lords who have spoken differ from the policy. I think that most of the noble Lords who have spoken differ from the policy that he has outlined, but the reply given by Lord Jersey was merely to repeat verbatim certain governing formulae which he had already communicated to your Lordships. Beyond that

921
it was impossible for Lord Jersey, or for myself, or for anybody else, indeed, to go without consulting with the Secretary of State as to the general trend of the debate in your Lordships' House; and, so far from its being discourteous to your Lordships, I venture most respectfully to point out to you that no other course could properly be adopted by myself or by Lord Curzon, if he had not been called to the Foreign Office on an urgent matter.

SUMMONS AND PROCESS SERVERS' FEES (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 4:
Extension of principal Act to higher-rented houses.
4. As from the passing of this Act the principal Act and the enactments amending that Act shall extend to houses or parts of houses or rooms subject to separate lettings where such letting does not include any land other than the site of the dwelling-house and a garden or other premises within the curtilage of the dwelling-house, and where—

(a) in the case of a house situated in the Metropolitan Police district, including the City of London, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed thirty-five pounds, and neither exceeds seventy pounds;

(b) in the case of a house situated in Scotland both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed thirty pounds, and neither exceeds sixty pounds;

(c) in the case of a house situated elsewhere, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed twenty-six pounds, and neither exceeds fifty-two pounds;

and shall also extend to mortgages (not being mortgages to which the principal Act as originally enacted applies), where the mortgaged property consists of or comprises one or more of such dwelling-houses as aforesaid or any interest therein, subject, however, to the exceptions mentioned in subsection (4) of section two of the principal Act, but in the application to those houses and mortgages the principal Act and the enactments amending that Act shall have effect, subject to the following modifications:—
(i) for subsection (1) of section one of the principal Act, exclusive of the provisoes of that subsection, the following provisions shall be substituted:—
Where the rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies or the rate of interest on a mortgage to which this Act applies has been since the twenty-fifth day of December nineteen hundred and eighteen, or is hereafter increased and such increase would apart from this Act have been recoverable, then, if the increased rent exceeds by more than ten per centum the standard rent, or the increased rate of interest exceeds by more than one half per centum per annum the standard rate, the amount of such excess above the said ten per centum or one half per centum, as the case may be, shall, notwith-standing any agreement to the contrary, be irrecoverable from the tenant or the mortgagor, as the case may be, and if paid may be recovered by the tenant or mortgagor in the manner and subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of section live of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1917;
(ii) in proviso (i) to subsection (1) and subsections (2) and (4) of section one of the principal Act the fourth day of March nineteen hundred and nineteen shall be substituted for the twenty-fifth day of November nineteen hundred and fifteen;
(iii) in subsection (3) of section one of the principal Act references to the dale of the passing of the principal Act shall be construed as references to the date of passing of this Act;
(iv) in subsection (4) of section one of the principal Act for the reference to the standard rate there shall be substituted a reference to the rate permitted by this section.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the first paragraph of Clause 4, to omit "or rooms subject to separate letting" and to substitute "let as separate dwellings." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment and another (on Clause 5) are down in my name. The two are to be read together. They are Amendments which are inserted in order to give effect to an Amendment on this subject which was introduced during the Committee stage. The intention of the proposal made in Committee is more completely carried out by these Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("or rooms subject to separate lettings") and insert ("let as separate dwellings").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I accept. The noble and learned Lord has exactly the same object in view as I have.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved the addition of a new paragraph at the end of Clause 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, at end insert:
"(v) At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following proviso:
"'Provided that if the rateable value of the dwelling-house on the said third day of August exceeds the standard rent as so defined, that rateable value shall, as respects that house, be deemed to be the standard rent.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved the insertion of a new clause ("Restriction on raising assessment"). The noble Lord said: I hope that this Amendment is also non-controversial. It is to prevent local authorities from raising the annual assessment of houses to which the Act applies. There is great danger, if the assessments are raised and houses come outside the compounding limit, that the rents will be raised to the disadvantage of the tenant. It is the practice of local authorities to compound for rates in respect of houses up to the limit of, say, £20. If the house rises above this limit as regards the assessment for rates, the 5 per cent. is lost and disadvantages would occur. I suppose it is possible that the whole of this Amendment is contrary to privilege. It is quite an academic question, and I have reason to believe that there are many precedents for the other House not insisting on its privileges on a point of this kind.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
"Restriction on raising assessment.
"5. It shall not be lawful during the period of the operation of the principal Act to raise the assessment (or in Scotland the valuation) for rating purposes of any house to which the principal Act or this Act applies by reason only of any increase of rent permitted by this Act."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not my intention to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division on this suggested new clause. I pointed out in the Committee stage the reasons which on the whole led the Government and their advisers to take the view that a rating matter could not be conveniently introduced into this Bill. But the view is not strongly held, and I am prepared that the suggested new clause should go to another place in order that its deliberate and final judgment may be applied to it before it comes back to your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Minor amendments of the principal Act.
5.—(1) A landlord of a house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies shall, on being so requested by the tenant of the house, furnish to him a statement as to what is the standard rent of the house, and if he fails within fourteen days to do so, or furnishes a statement which is false in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(2) Where a person who has, since the thirtieth day of September nineteen hundred and seventeen, purchased a house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, requires the house for his own occupation or that of some person in his employ, or in the employ of some tenant from him, nothing in the Increase of Rent, &c. (Amendment) Act, 1918, shall be construed as preventing the court from making an order for the recovery of possession of the house, if, after considering all the circumstances of the case, including especially the alternative accommodation available for the tenant, the court considers it reasonable to make such an order.
(3) The principal Act, both as originally enacted and as extended by this Act, shall have effect as if in proviso (vi) to subsection (1) of section one of that Act after the word "until" there were inserted the words "or in respect of any period prior to."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have already explained the object of the proposed Amendment to Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, at end insert as a new subsection:
"(4) Any rooms in a dwelling-house the subject of a separate letting shall for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act be treated as a part of a house let as a separate dwelling."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had the following Amendment on the Paper—
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
"Limitation on rent of houses let furnished.
"6.—(1) Where the occupier of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, lets, or has before the passing of this Act let the house or any part thereof at a rent which includes payment in respect of the use of furniture, and it is proved to the satisfaction of the county court on the application of the lessee that the rent charged yields to the occupier a profit in excess of the normal profit as hereinafter defined, the court may order that the rent, so far as it exceeds such sum as would yield such normal profit, shall be irrecoverable, and that the amount of any payment of rent in excess of such sum which may have been made in respect of any period after the passing of this Act, shall be repaid to the lessee, and, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, may be recovered by him by means of deductions from any subsequent payments of rent.
"(2) For the purpose of this section 'normal profit' means the profit which might reasonably have been obtained from a similar letting in the year ending on the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to carry out an Amendment which was, in substance, accepted in Committee, in order to prevent sub-letting of furnished houses at exorbitant rents. It has been suggested to me by the noble, and learned Lord on the Woolsack that after the word "shall" ["shall be irrecoverable"] in line 10 of the Amendment as it appears on the Paper, you should insert the words "in whole or in part", so as to give the County Court Judge an opportunity of deciding whether an amount should be recoverable in whole or in part, and in fact to do justice according to the evidence that may be brought before him. I therefore ask leave to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "in whole or in part" as suggested.
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
To insert after the word ("shall") ["shall be irrecoverable"] the words ("in whole or in part").—(Viscount Midleton.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: I have an Amendment which I venture to commend to your Lordships as on the whole perhaps more likely to give satisfaction. We have already carried the principle that, having regard to the great depreciation in money, the landlord should be allowed to get some excess rent. If a landlord is to be allowed to get some excess rent from an ordinary tenant when he lets an unfurnished house,
926
why is not the landlord of a furnished house—the tenant, perhaps, of some other landlord, but himself a landlord as regards the person to whom he lets—to get some excess, something which will put him more in the position in which he would have been before the war, before money had so dropped in value?
It has occurred to me, and I venture to submit it to your Lordships, that the right thing would be to introduce after the word "profit," where that word first appears, the words "more than 25 per cent." It would then read, "…the rent charged yields to the occupier a profit more than 25 per cent. in excess of the normal profit as hereinafter defined." I have taken 25 per cent. because it is a very unnecessary detail to make 10 per cent. for one year and 25 per cent. for another, and because in my opinion 25 per cent. would be none too little in other cases. Indeed if it had been 33 per cent. for landlords and sub-landlords it would have been, to my mind, much more likely to do justice. I suggest the words "more than 25 per cent." partly for that reason, and partly because a furnished house is subject to depreciation which you cannot exactly estimate in damage. You cannot recover these damages, but after all they are a very serious loss to the owner. I think that if a person letting a furnished house does not get more than 25 per cent. in excess of what he or she (and it will often be she) would have got before the war that person will not be profiteering in any sense. In fact, such person will not be in as good a position as before the war. I presume that the suggestion of the noble Viscount who has tabled this Amendment is to meet that, but it would be very difficult for a County Court Judge to estimate what is the excess which the person letting a furnished house is to get. We have not left it to the County Court Judge to decide in other cases. It is perfectly certain that one County Court Judge will come to one view, and another Judge to another view; anyhow the object could not be attained without litigation; whereas if we put in a definite provision there would be no necessity for any litigation at all. I am not quite sure how I should raise this point, but I desire at the proper time to move the insertion of the words "more than 25 per cent." after the word "profit." Then there would have to be a repetition of this Amendment later in the Clause. I should oppose the

927
proposal of the noble Viscount to insert the words he now proposes, as they would be unnecessary in the circumstances. But perhaps I may have been so fortunate as to convince the noble Viscount that my provision is on the whole the more suitable of the two.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The authority of the noble and learned Lord on a question of construction is so high that I would not for a moment do more than very diffidently make a suggestion to him. The point which he has so clearly expressed to your Lordships was not overlooked by those who were responsible for drafting this Amendment, and in our humble view the word "profit" was intended to cover not merely an actual pecuniary sum but a pecuniary sum taking into account the fact that the money, in which that sum is reckoned, has depreciated since the period before the war. That was intended by the word "profit."
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am glad to hear the noble Marquess say so, but I am afraid I could not agree that the words "normal profit" would cover that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble and learned Lord holds that view, I am quite sure my noble friend would have no objection to such words as he proposes being put in after the word "profit." We do not desire to treat the owner of a furnished house on a different footing from the owner of an unfurnished house. On the contrary, our whole object was to put them on the same footing, and it was because the Bill left them on a different footing that we thought this Amendment requisite. Unless some such Amendment as my noble friend Lord Midleton has now proposed, and which is not regarded unfavourably by the Government, is put in there would be that immense blot on the Bill—namely, that whereas the landlord, the superior landlord, is not allowed to raise the rent as the Bill will stand more than 10 per cent. and ultimately 25 per cent. above the standard rent, the tenant who lets it furnished is able to make whatever profit he likes, and in that way defeat the intentions of Parliament and also acquire a rent far in excess of anything he is entitled to do in fairness and equity. I suggest, therefore, that it should be left to the Lord Chancellor to decide. If the Lord Chancellor is satisfied with the words as they stand we should be quite content.
928
On the other hand, if he thinks it would be better drafting after the word "profit" to add "more than 25 per cent." I am quite sure my noble friend would be ready to accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps it would not be inconvenient if I made a short and general observation on the principal Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Viscount. Your Lordships will remember quite clearly how it arose. My noble friend pointed out with unanswerable force that the principal object of this Bill was being defeated by subletting, and in particular by the subletting of furnished rooms. He pointed out also that with the increase of the rental value sanctioned by Parliament the mischief was certain to grow. An attempt had been made, not I think perhaps quite such a sustained attempt as is made by your Lordships, to remove this blemish from the Bill in another place. That attempt did not in fact succeed, and your Lordships endeavoured to see whether it was not possible to devise some means by which this mischief could be arrested or cured. I am by no means certain that that object can be obtained, and I told my noble friend that I and others would be very pleased if he would, in association with the Government draftsman, see whether a clause could be designed which would carry out his object. As to the, first Amendment before us I want to say that before I saw Lord Phillimore's Amendment it occurred to us that it was desirable to introduce some kind of elasticity. I agree entirely with Lord Phillimore's view, and in these circumstances I suggest that it might carry out his purpose if he were to move the words he has now suggested. If we therefore accept Lord Phillimore's Amendment I think it would be a convenient course if the noble Viscount were to withdraw the Amendment at this moment under discussion. I only wish to add, in order that there should be no misunderstanding, that I do not myself believe this Amendment will be in any way disagreeable to those who are responsible for the Bill in another place. What they are doing is this. They are going into it most carefully with persons of practical skill in these matters to see if it is workable. If it is workable I have no doubt that this addition to the Bill will be maintained. Perhaps in these circumstances the noble Viscount will withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I can hardly accept the Lord Chancellor's view and withdraw the whole Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; I mean that the noble Viscount should withdraw the Amendment which he moved to his proposed new clause.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I move my Amendment.
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
After "profit," where that word first occurs, insert "more thin 25 per cent."—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it is undoubtedly true that the ingenuity of my noble and learned friend had suggested to him a point which had escaped both the very accomplished draftsman of this measure and myself. I think on principle, if this Bill is to be amended as the noble and learned Lord wishes to amend it, it is desirable that the sub-tenants should be protected to the same degree, whatever that degree ultimately may be, as the landlord was protected either in the original Bill or in the Bill as it left your Lordships' House. In these circumstances I should recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment to the Amendment moved by Lord Phillimore.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I move the consequential Amendment, after "normal profit," where those words secondly occur, to insert "and 25 per cent."
Amendment to the proposed new clause moved accordingly, and on Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Viscount Midleton's proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Exception of new houses.
7. Neither the principal Act nor this Act shall apply to houses erected alter or in course of erection at the passing of this Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved the addition at the end of Clause 7 of the following words: "nor shall it apply to a house in Scotland assessed at over thirty pounds per annum which has been prior to
930
the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, sold or purchased for occupancy at Whitsun nineteen hundred and nineteen."
The noble Lord said: The only other Amendment stands in my name, and with regard to it I find myself in an extremely difficult position. It chiefly affects Scotland, and it is an important Amendment which ought to have been moved in Committee, and which, if we had had reasonable time between the printing of the Bill and the Committee stage in this House, I would have put on the Paper. But owing to the shortness of the time given I had only the possibility of getting it arranged from Scotland by telegram, and although I had it in manuscript on the day of the Committee stage, by agreement with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I postponed it until this day. We are now in this position. I am aware that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack does not intend to accept it, and after a sitting of the House arranged specially to take this Bill in good time, by the Standing Orders another important Question has intervened, and we are in a difficulty, having hardly a quorum of the House to discuss what really is a most important matter in Scotland.
The idea of the Amendment is to go back to the original date in the Bill as it was introduced and drafted by the Government. The departure from that date will cause in Scotland an enormous amount of grievance and difficulty, and taking it all round the departure from that date, I have no hesitation in saying, is the grossest breach of faith that I have ever known in the whole of my Parliamentary experience. When the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons a question was asked of the Leader of the House, "Will it be retrospective?"—that is, retrospective from the 4th of March. It is bad enough to have given such short notice for changes which were to come into operation in England at Lady Day, which will arrive to-morrow, but far worse to make the Bill retrospective beyond the date at which it was announced in the House of Commons that it would be introduced. People knew, if they pay attention to Parliamentary debates—or those skilled persons who do so would know—that after the 4th of March this Bill was to be introduced; and on the 4th of March the Leader of the House was distinctly asked, "will it be retrospective?" and he answered em-

931
phatically, "No." That distinct promise has been departed from, and the Bill has been made retrospective till the month of December. I say that this is not fair and it is particularly hard in the case of Scotland.
After what happened in Committee stage I have had thirty or forty letters from many towns in Scotland—from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Greenock, and many other places—all complaining of what they describe as a distinct breach of faith. I am not going into all these cases—I know it to be useless—but in justice to myself I must state one illustration of the badness of this clause as it stands. The case has been supplied to me of a security holder for a number of self-contained houses in Glasgow. There are six rooms and a kitchen in each, and the rent is £50. The security holder has had to enter into possession in consequence of the bankruptcy of the builder, and not being able to realise his security, he on the 11th December last made an offer to each of the tenants to sell the houses at £750. That is obviously a fair price, beng only fifteen years' purchase of the rent. A fortnight was given to each of the tenants in order that they might give their answer. Some accepted and some refused. I think I had better give the result of this Bill in the words of the firm—a large firm of house agents. They say—
"Acting all through according to the law of Scotland as it stood, we gave intimation to the various bondholders where the purchasers did not wish a bond, that payment of these bonds would be made at Whitsunday. The discharges have been drawn, revised, and ready to be carried through, and we are in a similar position in connection with two covering bonds over the properties. The serious matter is the complications that will arise should this new Bill be passed into law, making it retrospective to December, 1918. The new purchasers of these houses (who are not the tenant purchasers) having bought their houses, have in many cases sold their own houses or given up the houses they presently occupy, expecting to get into their new house, and if they are now to be debarred by this new retrospective legislation from getting possession of their new house they will be thrown entirely out of a house. There is bound to be very serious litigation among sellers and purchasers as to whether the purchases are to be carried out, and between tenants who have given up their houses and new tenants taking these, as to whether the old tenants are still to retain their occupancy or give them up to the new tenants. These were all carried out in good faith according to the law of Scotland as it then stood, and it seems to be altogether harsh and unjust that the law should be made retrospective to a date so far back as 25th December without one word of warning being given of such a drastic change in the law of property holding."
932
Those are the words of a firm which I know to be one of the highest respectability and I believe them to be absolutely true.
I am speaking to an audience the majority of whom are Englishmen, and I would say that the period of letting and selling is different in Scotland from England, and the hardship in these cases is infinitely greater. I believe that I am right in saying that the letting and selling of houses is largely done in England at three months' notice, but the first intimation of the changes in the law was given in the House of Commons on March 4. and it was then distinctly stated that beyond that date this new Bill would not be retrospective. Now, without a word of explanation—I have read the proceedings in the other place, and there was hardly a word in the debate about it—it is suddenly made retrospective till December. That seems to me absolutely unjust, and there can be no defence for such a practice. I have done my best to state the case of those who have relied upon me to do so. The thing seems to me to be an absolute scandal in legislation—the way this House has been hurried, the impossibility of communicating with Scotland; and altogether I say that it is the gravest injustice, and the grossest breach of faith that I have ever known in forty-five years of Parliamentary experience.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, after ("Act") insert ("nor shall it apply to a house in Scotland assessed at over thirty pounds per annum which has been prior to the fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, sold or purchased for occupancy at Whitsun nineteen hundred and nineteen").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has spoken with a great deal of heat on a subject that is not primarily or very directly connected with this particular Amendment, but that would not prevent me from giving him a reply or any assurance that is within my power if I were in a position to do so. But I am really quite honestly unaware of what he referred to when he said that a gross breach of faith had been committed. I have not in my mind the pledge which he is good enough to tell you has been broken, but if he will raise it on what I hope will prove the short stage of the Third Reading I will make myself better able to understand what is in the mind of the noble Lord.

933
As far as this Amendment is concerned, I think it is very much wider in its terms than the noble Lord intended or than could be possible. Supposing the Amendment was now adopted, what would the consequences be? Its effect would be to take a house of this class altogether out of the scope of the present Bill. What would be the effect of that. The purchaser would be free after May 28 to let the house at any rent he could get, and his tenant would be in the enjoyment of none of the advantages which the principal Act and the Bill are designed to confer on the tenant. It must be evident to anybody that no good reason can be found for showing this special favour to this particular class of householder. The truth is that, in attempting to secure his object, the noble Lord has been led so to draft his Amendment as to make it include very many cases which, I have no doubt, he would not have desired to include.
In reference to the particular grievance raised by the noble Lord let me say quite plainly I think he has established a hard case. There may be cases where a man will find that he has to vacate his present-house on May 28 and may not be able to persuade the tenant of the new house to leave. In these circumstances he is undoubtedly in a very unfortunate position, but one of two hard cases must be adopted here. I do not believe that human ingenuity can think of a manner of dealing with it. I have failed to do so myself, and cithers whom I have consulted have failed. The real truth goes much more deeply. There are three people and only two Louses. Either the landlord, the man who has purchased the house, must go without a house, or the tenant must go without a house. In these circumstances there is no reason why the tenant should go, and you have in one case or the other to do some injustice. I find great difficulty in deciding how it ought to be done, but the only observation one can make which is relevant to the immediate purpose of the Bill is that it is to help tenants and in the interests of tenants that the Bill had its origin in the old Act, and that that is the moving consideration still. This Amendment, in any event, goes very much too far, and I am sorry that it is not possible for it to be adopted by the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not surprised to hear the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He
934
has repeated in an amplified form the remarks that he made in reference to an Amendment against the retrospective character of this Bill which was discussed in Committee. I confess I think the reasoning of the noble and learned Lord is singularly unconvincing. It is an absolutely new departure in British legislation that we should have an Act of Parliament which not only breaks contracts but breaks contracts to the great disadvantage of perfectly innocent persons, and persons not affluent, but poor, who are not in a position to defend themselves, and may be placed in a situation of very great difficulty in consequence.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says that there is a hardship any way. I think there is some truth in that observation. But I think the Government would have been far better advised had. they adhered to the old rule, which was not to make legislation retrospective except to the extent of going back to the time when the persons interested at any rate ought to have known that this legislation was probably impending. You could have gone back, that is to say, to the first moment of the mention of this amending Statute. People would have known that if, after that period, they entered into these contracts they did it with the peril over them that Parliament might afterwards break those contracts. But the Government have gone much further than that. They have gone back to a period when no one could have imagined that there was going to be such legislation, and people who entered into perfectly genuine contracts at that time will now by this Bill be placed in a most difficult position. I believe I have seen the case of a soldier who had returned from the front and had acquired for himself a house exactly in this way; he will be placed in a very difficult position.
But I am not surprised, as I say, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has taken this line, because he took the same line in Committee. It would be almost too much to hope that he would be content to give relief to Scotland which he has refused to give in the case of the rest of Great Britain. I can only repeat that I regret it. I think the Government would do much better to have adhered to the old rule—the rule for the respect of contracts. In that case they would not have been, as they will now be, the target of a

935
great deal of abuse from many persons who will have been very unjustly treated by the operation of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, spoke of bad faith, and if there is an answer to these things it is desirable that it should be given. I see that the noble Lord founded himself upon certain observations made in another place, and he has been good enough to hand to me the marked OFFICIAL REPORT—
"MR. KENNEDY JOKES: Will it be retrospective?
"MR. BONAR LAW: No.
"MR. KENNEDY JONES: Is the right hon. gentleman aware that there are a great many tenants awaiting eviction in March?
"MR. BONAR LAW: The answer I gave shows that they will not be able to ask a higher rent than that which is now being charged,"
If one reads back to the earlier passages of Mr. Bonar Law's speech one sees that he has been dealing both with the case of the rents and with the case of the tenants, and I think it must be obvious, if the noble Lord will read it, that when Mr. Bonar Law was asked the question by Mr. Kennedy Jones "Will it be retrospective?" he at least understood that particular question to mean "Will the right of the landlord (which he had just been dealing with) to raise his rents, be retrospective; because otherwise the next question asked would have had no meaning at all, for the next question is, "Is the right hon. gentleman aware that there are a great many tenants awaiting eviction in March?" All the notices were out, and if the Bill were not made retrospective every one of these tenants whom it was the object of the Bill to safeguard could have been turned out. If the Bill had not been understood by everybody to be retrospective, not one of the notices, which the noble Lord knows have been sent out wholesale all over the place, would have been affected by the Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can speak again only by the indulgence of the House. I do not think that the interpretation given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is correct, because the Bill when introduced had the date March 4, and my Amendment was only proposing to put the Bill back in that position. It is a very different thing to make a Bill retrospective before the time when it was announced and to take it
936
back three months in a case where the transactions have been completed in good faith and in ignorance that any such proposal was going to be made. I must say one word more, because I am in this position—namely, that if I run the risk of dividing the House I may put the House and Parliament to great inconvenience. If there are not thirty members present the discussion would be postponed until to-morrow, and to-morrow is Lady Day. If one went to extremities, look at the inconvenience that would be caused, which only shows the extremely unfair way in which this House has been treated with regard to the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord move?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Yes.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships will remember that when I was asked at the end of the Committee stage on what day it was proposed to take the Report stage, I expressed the hope—to which your Lordships were good enough to assent—that it would be possible to take the remaining stages of the Bill to-night. I now move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX to enable that to be done.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I hope it will be clearly understood that I did not divide the House on the last Amendment purely out of consideration for the whole circumstances. I should like to ask now whether any forecast can be given of when this Bill will return, with whatever treatment our Amendments may be given in another place?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: On a point of order. I do not wish in any way to oppose the Motion which has just been made by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, but ought not that Motion to have been made at the. beginning of business?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No; at the stage subsequent to that which was normally in order on our Paper, I am sure that the House, and the Government too,

937
are much obliged to the noble Lord for the way in which he dealt with his last Amendment. I am afraid I am not in a position to state when we shall have this Bill back again, whether the House of Commons will be able to take it at their evening sitting to-night or whether they will take it to-morrow. For the moment I am uncertain. They will probably not be able to take it this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of March 20.]
LONDONDERRY PORT AND HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made on the 6th instant, appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
STOURPORT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 27th of February last and 6th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
ST. GEORGE'S CHURCH, OXFORD, BILL.
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.