Lords Sitting of 24 April 1923

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

RAILWAYS (AUTHORISATION OF WORKS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to extend temporarily the powers of the Minister of Transport with respect to the authorisation of railway works, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Bill road 1a; and to be printed

FEES (INCREASE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, the other day I stated that, in accordance with a pledge given in another place, I would introduce, an Amendment giving effect to a change in procedure which had been agreed to in the other House. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11 insert the following new clause:—
Amendment of Section 44.
(. In proviso (5) to Section forty-four of the Army Act (which prescribes the scale of punishment by courts martial) after the word "flogging" there shall be inserted the words "or attachment to a fixed object.")—(The Earl of Derby.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I should like to ask what the Amendment is?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I explained it the other day. It is to do away with field punishment No. 1, which enabled you to tie a man to a fixed object. This can

821
be done away with by War Office Regulation, but it was urged that it should also be included in the Statute. For that purpose I have, with the agreement of the other House, thought it desirable to move this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion of which I have given Notice—namely, That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider with a view to reporting if necessary thereon any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make one or two brief remarks in explanation of this Motion. Let me, in the first place, say one word about the origin of this Joint Committee on Indian Affairs. The first reference made to such a Committee is in the Report on Indian Constitutional Reform, but the suggestion there is for the appointment of a Committee of the House of Commons. In the Report of the Joint Committee that dealt with the Government of India Bill of 1919, however, the idea is developed into a Standing Joint Committee of both Houses. The object with which that Joint Committee is to be set up is explained so well in that Report that I should like to read to the House the words of the Committee.
Speaking of the Bill of 1919, they Said:—
"The change which this Bill will make in the political structure and life of India is very important. It marks a great step on the path of self-government and it is a proof of the confidence reposed by His Majesty's Government in the loyalty, wisdom and capacity of our Indian fellow subjects. At the same time it points to the desirability of keeping Parliament in closer touch with Indian affairs than has recently been possible. The Committee accordingly proposes that a Standing Joint Committee should be appointed by both Houses of Par-
822
liament for that purpose. It should have no set Functions, but a purely advisory and consultative status, and among its tasks is one of high importance—the consideration of amendments to the Rules made under the Bill."
As the result of that advice this Joint Committee was set up and it functioned last year and the year before.
Looking into the matter in order that I might understand exactly what the reference to the Committee was, I discovered, rather to my surprise, that the Committee had no reference at all. I have consulted precedents on that subject and I understand that it is not only unusual, but unprecedented, to set up Committees or Joint Committees of both House of Parliament merely to consider generally the affairs of India or of any other place. It seems an extraordinary anomaly to set up a Committee without a reference. A Committee without a reference is like a soul without a body: it has no tenement through which it can act and naturally roves freely, and perhaps rather wildly, over very wide areas. I have been informed, in fact, by my noble friend Lord Islington, who was Chairman of the Committee, that, owing to this general freedom of the Committee, he found it rather difficult to limit the activities of its members in their desire to pasture rather freely on the extensive fields of Indian affairs.
But there is another anomaly about this Committee—namely, that it draws up its own reference. And, if it is an anomaly that a Committee should sit without a reference, it is even more of an anomaly that a Committee should draw up its own reference. And, with all respect to the Committee, I think its reference was drawn up rather freely. It enabled any member to raise any question connected with Indian administration, and I think there are certain risks and difficulties in a procedure of that kind. I will not say that it might to some extent approach to the French system of infringing upon the responsibility of Ministers, but it might have a tendency that way. And whether that system is a good or a had one as applicable to other countries, I think your Lordships will entirely agree with me that it ought not to be introduced by a side wind in the case of a particular Committee, but ought to be introduced, if at all, after careful consideration of the constitutional problems involved. There

823
is or might be another difficulty or danger n the way. If it were generally known in India that a Joint Committee of both Houses was examining into and reporting upon all sorts of administrative questions which are dealt with by the Government of India, it might raise some constitutional difficulty as to the extent to which Committees of the House of Commons really should deal with administrative affairs in India.
But, while I mention those two limitations, it seems to me that it is of very great value, not only for the Government of India and for the Houses of Parliament but also for the Secretary of State, that such a Committee should be established. You thus have a Standing Committee in which is concentrated a great deal of knowledge and information about India and specially fitted to be a sort of standing body to which all measures affecting India should be handed over for consideration and report. Further, any matter which either House of Parliament thinks should be referred to that Committee should stand so referred. But there is another consideration still. As your Lordships know, there are a great many members of this House who, having been Viceroys or Governors of Provinces, have a great knowledge of Indian affairs, and that knowledge might fairly be brought to bear to assist the Government and the Secretary of State on Indian matters. Some of that knowledge, however, must necessarily be not quite up to date, and I think it is a great advantage that a Secretary of State should be able to come before this Committee and post it up, if I may so express it, in what is happening in India in all the different provinces of administration, so that they may be able to apply the great knowledge that they have acquired of India with full information as to the recent developments that are taking place in that country.
You thus have a carefully instructed body of men in both Houses who, when debates on Indian subjects take place, are able to bring to bear in the consideration of Indian affairs not only their own intelligence or their ancient information, but fresh information, dovetailed into the knowledge which they have already gained of India. They thereby have a very considerable effect in organising, controlling, and guiding opinion in both Houses of Parliament as to the best way of conduct-
824
ing Indian affairs. I hope your Lordships will assent to this Motion because, in moving it in this form, I am merely trying to bring back the Standing Committee to the original intention of the Committee on whose recommendation it was set up, and to some extent to limit its functions to those which were intended by the. Joint Committee which advised its being set up.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to thorn specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider with a view to reporting if necessary thereon any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, the Motion of the noble Viscount gives me the opportunity to say how much I welcome the amended form in which he is now presenting it to the House. I say this with a vivid recollection of the experiences of that Committee during the past two years when I had the honour to preside over it. It is true; as the noble Viscount said, that the Committee was appointed without any reference. It was set up as the result of a recommendation made by the Joint Committee presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, which dealt with the Government of India Bill and reported to Parliament upon it. It was set up with a view of bringing about a closer connection between Parliament and India. Having no reference, it fell to the lot of that Committee when it was formed two years ago, to formulate its own regulations. The first two regulations were similar to those now embodied in the Motion, but the third regulation laid it down that any member of the Committee might suggest a topic for inquiry and that, if the majority of the Committee agreed to that particular topic being inquired into, that course should be taken.
I hold the view, which I think must be shared by many of my late colleagues, that this particular provision led us into a good deal of difficulty during the past two years. It certainly entailed on the members a great deal of work which proved in the result to be of a somewhat abortive character. It is the case with

825
Joint, Committees, as with all other Committees, that all their members are not always present when subjects of this character are brought up. The result in our case was that topics for examination were agreed to by the Committee when some of its members from this and the other House were not present. During the past two years we have ranged over several subjects. We dealt, first of all—properly and, I think, usefully dealt—with the Burma Government Bill. The Committee had been asked to draft a Bill for Parliament. The next topic that came before the Committee was the constitutional position of the various races in Kenya, which, as your Lordships are aware, is one of the most complex and pressing questions of to-day. There was a good deal of controversy as to whether that was a proper subject for the Committee to consider. However, the Committee decided by a majority to go into it. Speaking for myself—I know that some of my late colleagues may not agree—I rather think that the Report we made to Parliament on that subject was not without its uses although I grieve to see that Parliament did not recognise it as such and took no notice of it, nor did the Secretary of Star, for the Colonies notice it at all. I may say in parenthesis that the Committee recommended that a Commission should go out to Kenya to inquire, into the matter on the spot, and I cannot help thinking that had such a course been followed two years ago by a properly constituted Commission the difficulties which now confront my noble friend and the Government might not have been so acute. That in a way was an abortive inquiry although we sat for many weeks upon it.
Last year, the Committee decided first of all to examine into the British military establishment in India. It was very soon found by all the members, though some had fully recognised it at the start, that a subject of such tremendous complexity involving the consideration of questions of the highest policy could not fittingly be dealt with and reported upon to Parliament with any authority by a Committee sitting at Westminster. We reported, but, again, I think that Report was not read by many beyond the members of the joint Committee. The subject that we next took in hand, again on the initiative of the Com-
826
mittee, was the financial and general position of the Indian Civil Service. That, of course, was a subject which could not possibly be dealt with by a Joint Committee sitting in Westminster, because it had not access to the necessary information. While I was Chairman I was often approached by prominent Indians with reference to suggesting to the Committee that they should examine an equally complex question—the adjustment of the financial position of the Central and Provincial Governments of India.
I quote those instances to show that unless a Committee is carefully guided by the proper authority it may find itself confronted with subjects which very soon must be recognised by all the members to be beyond their power to deal with adequately or satisfactorily. I doubt whether there are many questions or problems—I refer especially to problems—in India which a Committee of this character can Usefully consider and report upon, because all these problems have become so localised in India, are so complex and so intricate as to require to be inquired into on the spot with all the best expert evidence and documents accessible to the Committee, none of which can be had in Westminster.
It may be that when the Secretary of State for India makes from time to time a general survey of the situation in India, the Committee may find that there is a subject which it will be a public service to bring to the notice of Parliament and, under this revised Resolution, that can be done in the days to come. I very much welcome this limitation of the powers of the Committee because it places that body on a proper constitutional basis. After all, the Joint Committee is appointed by Parliament, and Parliament is the proper body to direct it as to its investigations and work. It is quite right that the Secretary of State should give the Committee from time to time all the information available, and upon this, of course, the Committee can report to Parliament and leave Parliament to decide whether it is a public service to take cognisance of the Report.
The limitation of this power will also be welcomed, I cannot help thinking, in India, because as India proceeds along its constitutional path I am sure that all who are connected with it, whether Govern-

827
ments, legislatures or members of the public, will look very jealously to Parliament at home to see that no undue interference takes place in regard to subjects with which it has become their proper province to deal. They would certainly resent any Report to Parliament by a Joint Committee based upon what very often would have to be inadequate and incomplete information. The Resolution as now drafted will obviate those difficulties, and I feel that the position of the Chairman of the Committee will correspondingly be easier than it was in the past. I welcome the Motion in its present form.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I should like to endorse what was said by my noble friend opposite about the limitation which has been put upon the subjects for discussion by this Committee, because I certainly felt at the end of last Session that we had ranged with very little use over too wide a field. The subjects concerned with the administration of India are wide enough in all conscience to occupy a Joint Committee for many years, but if, in addition to the subjects of the administration of India itself, are to be added the affairs of Indians in any part of the world your Lordships can understand, without my elaborating the point, how immensely the field is widened. That is what happened, as the noble Lord has described, in regard to the subject of the affairs of the Indian colonists in Kenya.
Having accepted the noble Viscount's invitation, subject to your Lordships' approval, for service again on this Committee, I am thankful for the wording of this Resolution. It properly limits the matters which we can be called upon to discuss, and, therefore, we shall be the better able to concentrate upon one or more of the more useful subjects. The only apprehension I have is that the Secretary of State himself, who has a very wide field of reference, may call upon us to report upon any matter relating to Indian affairs, and that may, of course, include the affairs of Indians outside India. I can only say that I deprecate anything of that kind. I sincerely trust that the Secretary of State will curb his desire to refer to us as much as possible, and will confine himself to the affairs of India itself, and not to those of Indians in any part of the world.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, as one of the members of the Committee I welcome, with my noble friends, the proposal which my noble friend Lord Peel has brought forward. There is one point with regard to the work of the Committee on which I should like to lay stress. This Committee originated in the Report which Mr. Montagu and I made on the constitutional affairs of India, and the idea underlying our proposal was this. There were few Members in the other place who were acquainted with the affairs of India, and we felt that it would be a very great advantage to India and to the other place if a certain number of Members of that House were able to meet with the Secretary of State for India, and have brought before them and discuss with him questions relating to India. When it came to the Committee under my noble friend Lord Selborne, that Committee was enlarged by Members from the House of Commons into a Joint Committee of both Houses. I may say that when we made that Report we did not suggest the House of Lords, because we thought that there were many of your Lordships familiar with the affairs of India who could speak of them in this House with knowledge and large experience.
I recognise, however, what Lord Peel has said, that it is of very great value to us who have been in India to have our knowledge brought up-to-date by contact with the Secretary of State within the Committee itself, and that is the point I wish to emphasise to my noble friend Lord Peel. I hope the terms of reference will not be regarded by any of his successors as precluding them from giving the Committee information from time to time on questions relating to India. I am sure that will be of the very greatest value to the Committee; indeed, I, as part-author of the suggestion, regard it as the most important part of the work which this Committee is to do.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, may I say one word in reply to the points raised? I am very much obliged to your Lordships for the way in which you have received these suggestions regarding the limitations and activities of the Committee, and I can assure my noble friend Lord Harris that I will try to use such powers

829
as may be granted me by this House with great discretion, and not load upon his shoulders the burden of examining into illimitable details. As regards the observations of my noble friend Lord Chelmsford, I agree that it was intended the Secretary of State should be in touch with the Committee, and place before them information which would bring their already great knowledge of Indian subjects up-to-date. Nor do I think there need be any anxiety on that account. As my noble friend knows, this Motion is moved every Session, and it is always possible, if the reference is too narrow or too wide, to alter it in accordance with the experience obtained.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEPORTATIONS TO IRELAND.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the recent deportations from this country to Ireland. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Notice which appears on the Paper in my name expresses my desire to call your Lordships' attention to the recent deportations from this country to Ireland. Those deportations are not now so recent as when I put the Notice down. I waited some time before putting it down in the hope that some more able constitutionalist might raise the points I desired to raise. Subsequently, the Easter Recess intervened, so that the question comes on rather late. That, I think, is no matter for regret. I am glad that the subject should come on now when the position of the Free State appears to be definitely improved as compared with what it was at the time when these deportations took place. I hope to make clear to your Lordships before I sit down that, although I think there are questions of considerable importance to be raised, there is nothing that I should be less willing to do than to hamper the new Government in Ireland in any way in exercising its functions and in putting down the rebellion which exists in that country.
Those of your Lordships whose newspapers thought fit to report the fact—and it is rather an interesting matter. I think, that not all of them did so on the first occasion—must, I think, have been rather startled, and must have rubbed your eyes on the morning after these events, when
830
you saw that a great swoop had been made by many hundred policemen all over England, that something like one hundred people had been collected in the dead of night, rushed off to Holyhead, put upon a Government transport or a gunboat, or some official vessel, and carried off to Ireland without trial and without examination. Those are measures to which we were hardly accustomed even during the war. We had, it is true, internment of aliens, but we did not have wholesale arrests and deportations of this character. So far as I recollect the largest deportations were such as you could have counted almost on the fingers of one hand, made at some periods from Glasgow.
The legal question is one with which I do not propose to trouble your Lordships this afternoon. The action purports to be taken under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act. That Act was passed at a time when we in this country were responsible for the administration of Ireland, and when it was our duty to keep order there. That relation between us and that country has since then entirely changed, and what is rather vaguely called Dominion status has been granted to Southern Ireland. It is argued with a great deal of force that in consequence of that change this Act, which was passed to assist us in maintaining order, is impliedly spent. I do not propose to pursue the legal considerations very far. They would involve much more study than I have given to the matter, and I think the decision is one to which it would be very difficult to come. There is the further reason for not pursuing it that it is being raised by a case which is now before the Court, which in due time will decide it in the only way in which it can be decided for us—namely, by the legal tribunals of this country. Therefore the casual opinion of an individual upon the subject ceases to be of any particular importance.
I ant proposing to treat the subject today on the assumption and the footing that these powers did exist, and that they were still in force. And I propose to ask your Lordships whether it is not a very serious thing that such powers should be exercised, and whether, if they are exercised, they should not be exercised with more precautions and under somewhat different conditions from those in which they were exercised in this case?

831
What exactly happened? First of all, how were the persons selected who were to be arrested in the middle of the night? A good deal of light has been thrown on the subject since these deportations took place, and so far as I can make out these were persons who were upon some list furnished by the Irish Free State to the Home Secretary and that the Home Secretary acted upon that list. A list of prescribed persons was presented to the Government here and the Home Secretary simply said: "I will, on your request, arrest these people and hand them over to you." If that were the case, and there is some reason to suppose that it was, it hardly seems to be within the spirit, even if it is within the letter, of the Act, supposing the Act to be still in force. Under the Act the Home Secretary has himself to be satisfied that these are people proper to be arrested, and it is hardly possible to be so satisfied by getting a list, of names prepared by another authority which is not subject to the Home Secretary, and which has not ascertained the facts, an independent authority—namely, the Irish Free State.
Having arrested these people what does the Home Secretary proceed to do? He proceeds to take them out or his jurisdiction to a part of the world where the writ of the King's Bench does not run, and where he, the Home Secretary, has no further control. We have been told by Mr. Bridgman, the Home Secretary, that the arrangement is that they shall not be tried or executed, or in any way dealt with except by internment in the Irish Free State, without his consent and approval. I rather imagine that he has also been promised that they shall not be retained if he asks for them. In fact, I understand that two or three have been here already before the Advisory Committee in order to present their case. Let me ask one question on this. Does this rather peculiar arrangement between the Home Secretary and a foreign Government exist in writing or is it a mere verbal arrangement? If it is merely a verbal promise on both sides in what a remarkable position do we find ourselves. Nothing that was even done in the time of the Lettres de cachet was more autocratic than this curious action of the Home Secretary in seizing a number of people here and handing them over to another authority outside his jurisdiction.
What is to happen supposing either of the parties to this verbal arrangement dies, or supposing their recollections of it differ? One finds that recollections of a verbal arrangement do differ sometimes. Then there is another point: What is the position of these people when they have reached the Irish Free State? Assume everything in favour of both Governments, the Home Secretary here and the Irish Free State, we know perfectly well that unfortunately Ireland is in a very disturbed condition and that discipline, even in the Irish Free State Army, is not all that could be wished. And we know that people do get killed in Ireland without executive authority and without due course of law. These people who have been taken to Ireland are exposed to the risk of being shot accidentally or by some person in excess of his authority, and I do not know what right we have in this country to seize people and deport them to another country where the guarantees of the Government cannot altogether be relied upon.
If you can properly do this—I do not mean legally and under the Act but as a proper constitutional thing—there is nothing to prevent you seizing people and deporting them to Canada, or Australia, or any of our self-governing Dominions. If you can make a private arrangement between the heads of Departments in the Dominions and the Mother Country and simply hand over to them a number of people, then the liberty of the subject is gone. It has always seemed to me that the so-called Conservative and Constitutional Party are very often the last people who are to be trusted on questions of constitutional history and the liberty of the subject. They are apt—not perhaps noble Lords on the Front Bench, who know too well how dangerous such a course would be, but their followers—to assume that to act with the high hand and in this dramatic manner is the way to keep order and restore peace; the way to keep a country governed as it should be governed. I suggest to them that in that consideration they are entirely mistaken. Once you go outside the due course of law—and I am tempted to stray from my subject and to consider who it was that first defied the forces of the Crown in Ireland and was, in my judgment, largely responsible for the present condition of that country—you open the door to the mere exercise of force, and it does not

833
follow that that force may not be exercised, not by those who constitute the Government at the time, but by those who are most numerous. That seems to me to be the best practical reason for keeping to a careful and regular form and order in carrying out matters of this sort.
Your Lordships may be inclined to think that all these people who have been deported are people about whom there is no real doubt; that, however right I may be on the constitutional point, they are all people who were smuggling arms, or preparing bombs, or getting ready to wage a war in this country similar to that irregular war which has been going on in Ireland. But that is not the case, and it cannot be suggested that it is the case. Let me read you a portion of a communication that I have received regarding one of these desperate villains; It is as follows:—
"My daughter Grace, aged 24, a school teacher, born in London, was taken from her bed at 2 a.m. by four men, who took her to the local police station. When we asked for her some hours later we were told she had left there and they would not tell us where she had been taken. The following Wednesday we had a few lines from her saying she was in Mountjoy prison. It is now twelve days since I have received any news of her. I sent a prepaid telegram asking if she was ill. I have had no reply."
These are very drastic measures—to snatch people from their beds, whisk them away at night, let their relations learn, after the lapse of some days, Chat they are interned in another country; and then interrupt communications between them.
I know that the conditions of these people have been improved of late. I understand they are now allowed to communicate with their relations, but I suggest that these are precedents which should not be followed and that if it be the fact that the Act is in force, then the sooner it is repealed the better. I may be asked, as I notice Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Long of Wraxall, what the Labour Party would have done if they were in office; whether they would not have been willing to assist the Irish Free State. I am perfectly certain that every friend of law and order would have desired to do anything possible to assist the Irish Free State, but it is very doubtful assistance to do things of this kind which are likely to have bad reactions. And I would at least suggest that,
834
assuming that it actually was proper that these people should be arrested—and it is already pretty freely admitted that as to at least fifty per cent. of them there was no real ease—at least they might have been kept and interned in this country where the writ of the Courts could run, and where they could have such legal remedies as are left to them.
In the very discussion in which the legality of this Statute is at issue, it was pointed out, I think by the Judge of First Instance, that he was asked to direct the Writ of Habeas Corpus to the. Home Secretary but at the same time he was told that the Home Secretary had not the custody of the body, and that the custody of the body was in some alien country and under some alien control. That at once makes it apparent that the Courts are impotent and cannot act in this matter. I think I am correct in saying that it has already been decided in Ireland that this Act is not in force there, and that you cannot take proceedings under it. It comes therefore to this: that these people are detained by the Free State to whom they have been handed over, one might almost say as a personal favour by the Home Secretary of this country, without any trial and without his being personally satisfied that there was any case against them. It seems to me that this kind of thing is likely to do more harm than good, and I should be very glad to get an assurance from the Government that, such action will not be taken in the future.
If there were any evidence against any of these people they could have been put on their trial here. They could have been put on their trial here if they were making bombs; they could have been put on their trial here if they had been in the illegal possession of arms, and I think I am right in saying that they could have been put on their trial here if they were preparing to levy war against the Free State. Consequently, if there was any evidence against them they could have been tried here, and I suggest that since they have been arrested it is only proper that they should be brought to trial. We in this country are not in a state of war, and I hope it is not necessary for us at present to take such drastic action as might be necessary, and as, in fact, is necessary, for the Free State, which is in the throes of a conflict the issue of which is as yet uncertain, although, as I said

835
before, I am very glad that since I put my Question down the prospects of the Irish Free State have very much improved, and I do not think that anything that can be said here will embarrass them or make their position worse. Moreover, they have done nothing contrary to their own law or contrary to their powers. It is to what we have done that I desire to call your Lordships' attention, and I should be glad to have some assurance from His Majesty's Government on these points.
I should like to repeat one or two of the specific questions which I have put to His Majesty's Government. In the first place, did the Home Secretary satisfy himself in the case of these various people that there was a case against them upon which he was prepared to act, or did he merely take the names as given to him by the Free State? In the second place, what reason was there for deporting them to the Free State instead of interning them where our Courts could have jurisdiction? And finally, I should be glad to have an assurance that this sort of action will not be continued, because I can assure your Lordships that it amounts, in my view at any rate, to lawlessness, and lawlessness by those in high places is likely to lead to very much worse lawlessness, and worse considered lawlessness, by others in other places who see that example.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before the Government answer is given I should like to say a word or two, because I desire to ask one or two questions in addition to those which have been asked by the noble Earl. I shall be very careful to confine myself within the limits which he has very wisely laid down and not to say anything about the law as it is, because I believe that there is at the present time a case actually being argued, or at any rate a case which has just been argued, in our Court of Appeal in reference to which no decision has been given. I desire at the outset therefore to say that I do not intend to refer to the law as it is.
The first question I want to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply is whether the offences were such that the persons deported could not have been placed on their trial in this country. If they are amenable to the tribunals of this country for offences committed here, the first step obviously might have been
836
to arraign them before the tribunal of their country for offences committed against the Government here. Many suggestions which have been made regarding these deported individuals show that they might have been guilty of offences committed in this country and against the Government of this country. The, first question, therefore, that I wish to ask is whether the noble Lord can assure the House that it was necessary that these deportations should take place on the ground that the persons who were deported could not have been dealt with, and dealt with quite practically and properly, under the ordinary law of this country.
Very shortly after these deportations took place my attention was called to two or three cases in which it was alleged that there must have been some mistake regarding the person deported. I happened to be in Manchester not long ago, and I was asked by several persons there how it was that a Manchester merchant, apparently of entirely unexceptionable character and against whom, so far as was known, no charge had ever been made, had been deported under conditions such as those which the noble Earl has described; that is to say, taken out of his bed at midnight and sent over to Ireland. At that time the complaint as further made that, although it was conceded that his solicitor might have access to him, it was in fact not allowed. I believe that what the noble Earl has said is perfectly right and that difficulties of that kind have now been removed. But the difficulty did exist at the time, and it is an extremely serious thing that an English citizen against whom no charge has been made and, as in this case, against whom it was alleged that no charge could be made, should be taken out of his bed by the police under no ordinary warrant such as would have allowed such action in this country, and taken away for deportation to Ireland.
The next question I wish to raise is this. I noticed the other day in the Press—and the noble Lord will be able to tell me whether it is accurate—that the case of a school teacher, apparently a young girl in Liverpool, who had been deported, was brought before what is known as the Advisory Committee. I do not think that an Advisory Committee is any alternative for our ordinary legal process. At any rate, she has been

837
brought before the Advisory Committee, and so far as I followed the case the Advisory Committee determined in her favour, whereupon, haying been in prison for five weeks and having lost her position as a school teacher, she vas discharged, I think at Wormwood Scrubbs, the prison to which, I presume, she had been brought in order that the Advisory Committee might consider the case. That is a charge against a young girl in the position of a school teacher for which no primâ facie excuse could be offered. What I want, to ask the Government is this. Assuming a case of that kind has occurred, are they prepared to give recompense, and, if so, in what form and to what extent will recompense be given? I am assuming that the deportation was legally earned out. If so, it is obvious that she has no recompense from any source unless the Government provide it for her.
I do not want to go so far as the noble Earl went when he said that fifty per cent. of the cases would come within a category of that kind, but I do say, from information that I have and which I will give to the noble Lord if he desires it, that there are a considerable number of cases in which the Government acted upon what has been found to be inaccurate information and that the reasons for deportation cannot be sustained. I do not wonder at that, because if you once depart from ordinary legal process in order to ascertain whether anyone is guilty or not, you really have to rely upon what is practically spy evidence. It is no good disguising the fact that the ordinary rule is that anyone charged with an offence in this country is entitled to meet his amuse' face to face, and is further entitled to be regarded as innocent until the opposite is proved. Now in this case he does not know who his accuser is.
It is all very well to speak of the Home Office, but how can the Home Office obtain information except through what I may call spy evidence—evidence which, before all others, ought either to be rejected altogether or only accepted with the greatest, precautions and after the most careful cross-examination? I am not now speaking in abuse of the Home Secretary. That is the fact. When the Executive acts upon secret information, and there is no open inquiry in Court, it does act on evidence derived from spy sources,
838
because it cannot, obtain any other, and that is sometimes put forward as an excuse why it is not made public. I should like to abolish spies and spy evidence, and the whole system, from top to bottom.
The next question is a very important one, and quite apart from any legal question. It is a question of discretion. I should like the noble Lord to explain how these people were deported out of this country. I ask your Lordships to consider how the matter stands. An ordinary English citizen, without any accusation made against him, without any knowledge of the charges made against him, is suddenly, in the middle of the night, taken out of his bed, and not only taken out of his bed in order that further inquiry may be made in this country, but taken out of his bed and deported to another country. It makes no difference whether it is to the Irish Free State or to any other country. You might have deported him to Germany, or France, or any other country, on the same pretext, apparently.
As the noble Earl has done, I desire to relieve myself of any prejudice in this matter. No one desires more fully than I do that there should be order in Ireland. No one desires more than I do that the Irish Free State should have every opportunity as regards putting down rebellion in Ireland; but that is no reason why the right of an English citizen in this country should be disregarded to the extent of deportation. Why should there he deportation? If there were fears that these people wore doing injury in Ireland—there is no proof of it at present, so far as I know; none has been disclosed—they could have been interned in this country. And as one who has been to Ireland lately I should like to corroborate what the noble Earl has said. What control have we, or what guarantee, that these people, so deported, perhaps under a mistake, are safe under the conditions which prevail in Ireland at the present time? That is a very serious matter when dealing with the question of personal liberty; when dealing with a system of Executive action which has been disallowed in this country for centuries, and in respect of which the great struggles for liberty arose in this country.

839
It may be—I am not discussing that point now, but am carefully avoiding it—it may be that the Regulations made under the Act of 1920 justify precautions being taken, but they do not justify, necessarily, deportation or these other matters, although, of course, assuming as I do that the law has been rightly put in force, they cannot be questioned. If the Executive have the power what they do cannot be questioned, and one is driven back to asking them whether the Executive, or the Government, in a particular case, have really acted with proper prudence.
The last question which I should like to ask is in continuation of what was said by the noble Earl—How were these deportees selected? That is a very important matter indeed, because when you come down to bedrock, where people, protesting their innocence, have been subjected to conduct of this kind, one wants to know what is the information on which the Home Secretary acted. One wants to know whether the Home Secretary made an independent inquiry himself; what were the precautions he took to satisfy himself that the information brought to his notice was really adequate. Of course, to attempt anything like a trial was really impossible, because procedure of this kind makes it impossible, but after all, if we are to have such bureaucratic action, we are entitled to make it as sure as possible that it is not used in too autocratic a manner. I think that bureaucracy is far more dangerous than autocracy. We are not likely to suffer so much in this country from autocracy as from bureaucracy, but our safeguard, and only safeguard, is by open inquiry in either House of Parliament, in order to make sure that power of this kind is used in a proper manner. I do not wish to enter upon the legality of the matter, but I thought it right to ask my questions before the noble Lord replied for the Government.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (VISCOUNT NOVAR): My Lords, the question raised by the noble Earl has been already probed, examined and debated in another place. I must, therefore, apologise to your Lordships for travelling over much familiar ground, as this is the first reference made to the matter in this House. What are the
840
facts of the case? The implacable enemies of the Irish Free State Government were using this country as a jumping-off ground from which to launch attacks on the Free State. These persons were abusing the hospitality of this country by plotting, in the comparative security and shelter of these shores, for the destruction of the Irish Free State. They had formed themselves into a military organisation, under a commanding officer, and were collecting arms and ammunition for transmission to the irregular forces in Ireland, and, in addition to conspiring against their own country, they were further abusing our hospitality by scheming to involve us in the same disorders.
The Free State Government brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government that the harassing campaign of arson and murder which was devastating Ireland was, to an important extent, being organised and fomented from this side. They asked His Majesty's Government to take steps to counteract these baleful activities by allowing the internment of the leading conspirators. His Majesty's Government consented, and it was held desirable that such internment should take place in their own country and under the supervision of the Free State Government, firstly, because the conspiracy chiefly affected Ireland and was directed against the Irish Government; secondly, because the internment of Irish in this country would lead to misrepresentation in other lands, more particularly as the conduct which made such treatment necessary was primarily directed against another Government and another people; and thirdly, because it was more agreeable to Irish sentiment that these persons should be handed over to the custody of the Free State Government.
Altogether 110 persons of Irish nationality or Irish descent, many well known at the Home Office, were arrested in England and Scotland and transferred to Ireland. This action was taken under the Act referred to by the noble Earl, the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, 1920, which provided that where it appears to the Home Secretary and Secretary for Scotland that for the security and restoration or maintenance of order in Ireland it is expedient that a person who is suspected of acting or of having acted,

841
or of being about to act, in a manner prejudicial to the restoration or maintenance of order in Ireland, shall be subjected to such obligations and restrictions as are mentioned in the Act, the Secretaries may by order require that person forthwith, or from time to time, to be interned in such place as may be specified in the Order.
Action was only taken after consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown, who were convinced of the legality of the proposed measure, nor has its legality been seriously questioned by any lawyer in the other House. The expediency of intervention by His Majesty's Government was also examined. It was felt that the Government, having a knowledge of this conspiracy, having received information from the Irish Free State that their efforts to restore peace in Ireland were being hampered and nullified by the ceaseless activities of a semi-military organisation established in Great Britain, and the Government having also in its possession material clearly indicating the existence of this military organisation controlled by a person calling himself Officer Commanding, Britain, were bound to take action.
Could it possibly be argued that His Majesty's Government were to allow this kind of thing to go on, that they should have permitted this widespread and subterranean rebellion to grow in strength, to become more firmly rooted? Were they to allow it to go on till it burst into open conflagration, involving loss of life and property, or till it could only be suppressed by armed force? The dastardly murder of Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson shows to what lengths an inflamed and distorted political passion, working on ill-balanced minds, will go. And that distinguished man was only one of hundreds of victims whose blood has bespattered the altar of Irish nationality. It is surely the duty of every civilised Government to put forth all its strength, to use all its powers, to suppress machinations which lead to such calamities, to check the propagation of incitements to desperate courses, to throw out of gear the machinery which manufactures crimes and criminals. The prevention of crime is a greater achievement than its punishment, and we have convincing proof that this has been the result of the blow dealt to this dangerous conspiracy by our swift and decisive action.
842
At the same time ample precautions have been taken on behalf of the deportees. An Advisory Committee has been specially appointed to receive any representations from interned persons against the provisions of the Order, and already three appeals have come before it. One applicant has already been released on the grounds of ill-health, and on his giving a promise to abstain from all attacks on the Irish Free State. Altogether 32 internees appealed, but all but three withdrew their appeals. Apprehension has been expressed lest severer measures be dealt out to internees by the Irish Free State, or lest they be arraigned and tried in Ireland on more serious charges. But the Irish Free State has pledged itself to keep them from harm and that no proceedings shall be taken against the deported persons without the consent of the Home Secretary and Secretary for Scotland. In that case we should, of course, have to be satisfied before giving consent that a primâ facie case existed, and naturally that consent would never be given without consultation with the Law Officers. Should consent be given, the person to be tried will be placed in exactly the same position, and dealt with in the same way, as if he had not been deported. If an order for internment is revoked the person interned will be at once released.
It may still be argued that the Irish Free State Government will not abide by its pledges, but as we have so recently handed over the whole of Southern Ireland to the Free State, with the warm approval of the noble Earl and his friends, it is scarcely befitting to suggest that, having trusted them with so much, we can now trust them so little, or to conceive it possible that the Irish Government will break faith in respect to its first contract entered into with the British Government.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount will please recollect that I made no such suggestion. I never suggested for one moment that the Irish Free State would repudiate any of its undertakings, but I did ask a question which the noble Viscount is not answering and that is whether these undertakings were purely verbal, or whether they were in writing.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: The undertaking is a binding undertaking, and it is one which the Government has no doubt will be observed.
EARL RUSSELL: In writing?
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I have given my answer. Moreover, as I have already said, the Free State has already demonstrated its good faith by releasing one of the deportees. That the arrest produced the desired end of checking the activities and frustrating the plans of the conspirators is proved by intercepted communications (Irish Republican Army) of which I give these quotations:—Officer Commanding, Britain, wrote to Chief of Staff, Irish Republican Army, Dublin, on March 20. 1923, reporting on the arrests and said—
"This seriously affects every area. Yon knew the possibilities of operations before. Judge for yourself the possibilities now."
The reply on April 5 said—
"Our organisation appeared to be pretty hardly hit by arrests."
In another letter dated April 5 to Officer Commanding, Britain, the Adjutant General, Irish Republican Army, Dublin, said—
"When he was here Adjutant was not quite certain of the actual number of arrests, but made it quite clear of course that serious disorganisation would result."
And in a report to the Chief of Staff, Irish Republican Army, dated April 5, it, is reported—
"I am afraid the chances of operations in Britain are now negligible—if not altogether impossible."
These extracts prove my contentions that this conspiracy was widespread and dangerous, that it aimed at assisting rebellion in Ireland and at creating disorder and trouble in this country, and that the arrest of its leaders has dealt a severe and irretrievable blow to the dangerous conspiracy for the suppression of which the Irish Free State sought, the co-operation of His Majesty's Government.
The circumstances of the case are novel because everything connected with the new conditions of self-government in Ireland is necessarily novel. Each situation has to be dealt with as it arises by the light of common sense. Great Britain must treat the Free State as she would any other Dominion. But where the Irish Free State is concerned, men's
844
judgments are apt to be warped and confused by the memory of ancient controversies and by the strange and distressing developments which have followed on the grant of self-government. Yet, after all, we must hold fast to this: That if she has Dominion status—and she has it—her Government must be treated with the same regard and her representations must receive the same consideration as would be the case were we dealing with any of the Governments of the long-established Dominions. Your Lordships will agree that were inimical forces to be organised against Canada or Australia here in the heart of the Empire, did men congregate here for the purpose of plotting against their Governments, were arms being collected here to be used for the destruction of their civilisation, it is inconceivable that the Government of this country could stand idly by and allow such activities to proceed.
The proximity of Ireland greatly aggravates the evil that can be wrought against her from these shores, and if such active hostilities were allowed to go unchecked, if full latitude were given to disaffected persons to carry on active warfare under the protection of the British law, such nefarious practices would he stimulated. Conspirators when hard pressed in Ireland would merely have to cross the channel and shift their domicile in order to renew their malpractices in perfect security. That would mean that this country would become a sanctuary for evil doers, and a state of things would arise subversive of our own peace and destructive of all hope of the establishment of stable, peaceful conditions in the Free State of Ireland.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with great interest to the statement made by the noble Viscount, but I think he will realise that he has not really answered the questions which were asked by the noble Earl nor the arguments by which those questions were supported. I am bound to say that the last statement which was made by the noble Viscount filled me with alarm. He seems to contemplate that the system of law under which, and under which alone, these arrests are justified is going to form a permanent part of the Constitution of this country. I can only say that I believe the people of this

845
country would almost unanimously repudiate such a proposition. I know that in these times our old liberties and charters are often looked upon rather lightly, but the rights of a roan in this country not to he arrested on suspicion, not to be imprisoned without trial, and not to be punished without sentence, are valuable rights which, I think, ought not to be ignored as they have been wholly ignored in the speech of the noble Viscount.
After all, if his case is right, and if the authorities here knew that people were organising here and plotting nefariously against the well-being of a friendly part of our Dominions, their remedy was clear—to bring them to trial. Witnesses are not afraid to speak in an English court and English Judges are not afraid of passing sentence. Why were they not tried here if the case against them is so clear as the noble Viscount makes out? If the case against them is so clear, the danger of this procedure becomes manifest. If you arrest upon suspicion your suspicions may be ill-founded and you may be arresting innocent men who have no chance whatever of any redress. I am bound to say that to tell a man who has not committed an offence that he has been arrested because he is suspected by somebody, he does not know by whom, of having done something, he does not know what, and that he is permitted to go and make a case before an Advisory Tribunal, is to substitute for the law of this country something which, unless the feeling of the people has considerably changed, I do not think they will accept for a moment.
When I have said that, I am not at all prepared to say that there may not be circumstances connected with this particular event which may have afforded some authority and warrant for what was done. All I say is that they have not been put forward by the noble Viscount, and when this matter is raised, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, for the first time in this House, I cannot help wishing that it could have been found possible to make a defence which was less inconsistent with the constitutional privileges which some of those on this side of the House at any rate value very highly.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I cannot agree that what the noble Viscount has said is in any case an answer to my
846
questions. He said that this matter had been discussed ad nauseam, and he gave us what appeared to be a mere piece of rhetoric. My questions have not been dealt with, and in the circumstances I shall be compelled to place them on the Paper again. In that case, I will give them a more specific form in order that the noble Viscount may know what they are.
THE LORD CEANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, may I say one word in reference to this matter? As your Lordships know, and have been reminded to-day, this whole matter is now being discussed in the Courts. An appeal was taken to the Court of Appeal in England, and was argued yesterday, and, I think, further argued to-day. In that condition of things it would he most improper for me, and, indeed, impossible for me or any member of the Government, to discuss the points of law and the points connected with law which have been raised in this debate to-day. I venture to think that it would have been better had the debate been postponed: but, of course, the noble Earl was within his rights in bringing the matter forward to-day. In doing so he knew perfectly well that he brought it forward in such conditions that it was impossible for us to answer the whole ease he was expeeted to make, and did make.
I have only one other observation to make. I am entirely in accord with my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster in the general statement which he made. There is in this country a very deep attachment to our old privileges under which in ordinary conditions no man can be arrested on mere suspicion, or, if he is so 'arrested, the suspicion must as soon as possible be brought to the test of a judicial investigation. But I must remind your Lordships that the circumstances are very unusual; so unusual that so recently as 1920 Parliament passed this Statute which has been referred to in this debate. Parliament said that if the Secretary of-State had reason to suspect that things were going on in this country directed against law and order in Southern Ireland, this step might be taken. When I say that, I am not, of course, dealing with the legal point; I am putting it in general terms. My object is to show

847
that there were wholly unusual conditions which are dealt with by wholly unusual steps.
This measure will work itself out within a very short time. When that time comes—and the noble Earl himself says he expects it will not be long—when order becomes restored in Southern Ireland, then not only will these exceptional measures be no longer likely to be used, but the whole facts respecting these persons can be disclosed to the House. I intervened only for the purpose of saying that it really is impossible to give the noble Earl a more detailed answer than has been given to-day. I think the noble Viscount has shown pretty clearly that the effect of the measures has at least been to stop a dangerous conspiracy, and possibly to hasten the day when order will be restored in Ireland.

NEWSPAPER REPORTS OF LAW CASES.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the undue publicity which has been given in certain sections of the Press to indecent details of certain recent cases in the Law Courts, and whether they will introduce legislation to deal with the matter. For a long time past the publication of disgusting details of divorce and other cases has been made a feature in a certain section of the Press. The majority of the newspapers of this country report these cases with decency and restraint. There is, however, a minority which offend not only against good taste but against public morals, and also against what is, I believe, the intention of the law.
The Royal Commission on Divorce, which reported in 1912, investigated all these questions very fully indeed, and their Report deals thoroughly with them. Lord Alverstone, the then Lord Chief Justice, giving evidence before the Commission, made the following remarks:
"The mischief done to the young is incalculable. particularly to boys and girls between the age of fourteen and eighteen. The Commission has had accounts, I believe true accounts, of the terrible extent to which immorality does exist between people of that age. It is largely promoted by this
848
sort of publication. Ideas are put into their minds, and there is nothing to be gained by it."
Later he said:
"It is not necessary in the administration of justice that it should he done."
Another witness, Mr. Peacock, who was the Chief Constable of Manchester, and appeared as President of the Chief Constables' Association, went so far as to tell the Commissioners that as a result of his experience in coming into close contact with the evils, he was in favour of the total prohibition of all reports of divorce cases of any kind. In that view he was expressing the opinion, so he said, of ninety-seven out of ninety-eight Chief Constables. I do not mention that as being a view with which I agree. I do not think many people want to see these reports totally prohibited, but I do say that it is very strong evidence of the kind of harm which such reports must have done.
There were also before the Commisssion a number of witnesses connected with the Press. Every one of them agreed that the publication of minute details of such evidence was an evil. These Press witnesses also laid great stress on the fact that while the abuse was mainly confined to papers of a certain class, at the same time the competition of the less scrupulous newspapers compelled the better class ones to publish more than they otherwise would do. It is worth noting that twelve witnesses connected with the Press appeared before the Commission, and that they all agreed that this matter was an evil. No single witness appeared, whether connected with the Press or not, who expressed the contrary view, although, in the words of the Report, Section 492—
"Efforts were made to obtain the attendance of witnesses to whom questions might have been directed with regard to Sunday and other weekly publications, but we have not been able to secure their attendance."
The Report of the Commission sums the matter up as follows:—
"We have been greatly impressed by the evidence which has been laid before us as to the corrupting and demoralising consequences which follow from an excess of publicity of this class of case."
That is a quotation from the Majority Report, but it happens to be one of the matters on which the Majority and Minority Reports were in agreement.

849
That was the state of affairs in 1912. There certainly has not been any improvement since.
There are only two reasons, so far as I know, which can be urged in favour of the continuance of the present state of affairs. One is that this publicity exercises a deterrent effect on the commission of acts of immorality. Secondly, there is the consideration that it is undesirable in the public interest to interfere with the freedom of the Press. With regard to this deterrent effect, I know no conclusive evidence one way or the other. The witnesses before the Divorce Commission were divided on the subject. It is really a matter of opinion. I think a good many of your Lordships will agree with my view, which is that such deterrent effect will act rather in the direction of making people more careful not to be found out rather than in the direction of preventing them from committing such acts.
But granting that a reasonable publicity does produce a salutary effect, I do not think that by any stretch of imagination that can be held to justify the orgy of posters and head-lines and the exploitation of indecent suggestion from which we very often suffer. If we could imagine that all the papers which offend in this manner could by some means or other have been simultaneously blotted out, say, by an air raid, or by a discriminating tidal wave, nevertheless I think it cannot be doubted there would remain plenty of publicity to exercise whatever de-torrent and salutary effect already is exercised. In any case, if this existing publicity of which I complain were lost by doing away with it, I am convinced that its absence would be more than compensated for by the advantages.
With regard to the freedom of the Press, that of course is a most admirable and necessary thing. It is essential that the rights of the Press should be safeguarded in every way. From that it follows that no extension of any return to a system of trials in camera could be tolerated, nor would it be possible to Contemplate the suppression of reports of such cases as are at present heard in open court. But the freedom of the Press, after all, is not a greater thing than the freedom of the individual, and the freedom of the individual is already pretty severely limited. There are some things
850
which at present the Press, any more than any individual, may not do. No newspaper, in fact, dare or does publish at the present time everything that transpires in Court. Moreover, with regard to those two arguments—the deterrent effect of publicity and the freedom of the Press—does anybody suggest that these papers, particularly the Sunday papers, in publishing this class of literature are concerned to prevent the commission of acts of immorality by hypothetical people, or to defend the freedom of the Press, which nobody at the moment is dreaming of challenging?
The law on the subject, as I understand it, is perfectly simple. Section 3 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act reads as follows:
"A fair and accurate report in any newspaper of proceedings publicly heard before any Court exercising judicial authority shall, if published contemporaneously with such proceedings, be privileged: Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise the publication of any blasphemous or indecent matter."
The fact is that these offending newspapers are laying themselves open to a prosecution all the time, but they have all gauged extremely accurately how far they can go without exposing themselves to a conviction.
The intention of the law is perfectly clear; the difficulty rests in the fact that the indecency does not lie so much in the actual words of the report as in the suggestiveness which is underneath. As I understand it the reporter of such dirty eases could be indicted, and there is no doubt that a Grand Jury would find a true bill, but the difficulty of the prosecution would be to establish the fact that the actual report was so filthy as to fall within the definition of "indecent" or "obscene." In one of the leading cases on this subject there is a definition of what is indecent and obscene. The Judge in that case said this:
"I think the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and to corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sift may fall."
There could not be a better definition of the evil of which I am complaining. I want to make it clear that what I am suggesting is not further to limit the freedom of the Press but to render effective the limits which already by law exist.

851
The precise means of doing that is a matter of some difficulty. It may be possible to give Judges discretion to instruct that certain evidence shall not be published, and it may be possible to prohibit the publication of any report until the conclusion of the case. It may be possible to adopt both suggestions. It is not for me to say what is the best method, but I do maintain that it is a problem which has to be faced. The longer the present state of affairs lasts the worse it will get. There is a demand for this class of literature. I do not say that it exists more in one class of the community than in another, but it is a demand which is created by the supply, and the supply will go on increasing because the stress of competition will gradually force the better class of newspapers to abandon the reticence which, all to their credit, they maintain at present.
I am convinced that there is a strong public opinion in favour of strengthening the law, and I believe that the majority of newspapers themselves would welcome legislation. It is a curious thing that in this matter extremes meet. Newspapers whose politics are so far apart as the Morning Post and the Daily Herald are in agreement on this matter. Both these newspapers, and the majority, would welcome legislation. The need is not confined to divorce reports; all cases out of which capital can be made in a similar way should be made the subject of legislation. Difficult as the problem is, it is not beyond the power of the legal advisers of the Government, in collaboration with leading representatives of the Press, to frame a measure which would command general acceptance. I urge upon the Government that it is most important that they should bring forward such legislation at the earliest possible moment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am always unwilling to inflict my views upon you twice in one afternoon but unfortunately the Notice Paper to-day contains two Questions upon which I hold very strong views. I am sure that the whole of the House is grateful to the noble Lord for having brought forward this Question and would also like to congratulate him upon the manner in which he has expressed his views. I find myself unable to follow the lines of improvement he desires I
852
do not think you can by Act of Parliament further limit and define the power the Press now possess to report these cases. If you are going to effect any remedy at all it must be something far more drastic than that, and it is my opinion, having thought the matter over very carefully indeed, that the right thing to do is to prohibit the publication of anything concerning divorce cases except the result.
Why is it suggested that the public have a right to know everything that takes place within the four walls of the Divorce Court? The noble Lord has suggested that it is necessary to create some kind of deterrent to prevent people going wrong, and also in order to secure the liberty of the Press. Liberty is always a word that makes a great appeal to me, but I have never forgotten the woman who said; "O Liberty ! how many crimes are committed in thy name !" And when I hear of the liberty of the Press being invoked as a reason why unpleasant matters should be disseminated broadcast throughout the country I find myself unable to respond. So also I do with regard to the suggestion that the fear of the shame of publication will deter people from going wrong. There is not a single man who has anything to do with the control of the morals of his fellow creatures who thinks that a man or woman would be deflected for an instant from the path of ill-doing by the remote possibility that at some future date some part of their misdeeds may be published in the newspaper. It always seems to me that people underestimate the strength of human passions.
But it is not merely that you are going to interfere with the wrong-doer. You are going to pillory the person who has not done wrong, and that, to my mind, is the great scandal connected with these reports. A woman who has done no wrong at all has to go to the Court to disclose in public matters as to which she would rather die of shame than mention them in public. She has to give her evidence before a Court that is crowded' with vulgar, idle sightseers, who have not gathered for the purpose of seeing justice administered—if they wanted to see justice administered they could go to the Admiralty Court—but who have gathered for the purpose of hearing of unclean matters from the lips of a woman. And to make a woman who is asking for rights

853
which exist, and which the laws of this country still give her, go through that torture before she can obtain them is to do something which offends the most elementary principles of justice.
I would have far wider powers than exist at present to clear the Court and absolutely prohibit the publication of any of these eases. In whose interests are they published? If there is any matter which is a private and domestic concern it is a quarrel between a man and his wife, and the Divorce Court is merely there for the purpose of saying whether that quarrel is of such a character as entitles one of the parties to be free. What rights have the put lie there? What interests of the public are served by publishing the details? No theory was ever more abused than the theory that the liberty of the Press and justice require the opening of the doors of the Divorce Court to everybody who likes to enter and the publication by new spapers of everything that transpires therein. I am satisfied that there is only one effective way of dealing with this matter—a way that is fair to all newspapers and to which none can object. That is that the whole publication, with the exception of the result, should be stopped, and I have yet to learn what is the argument against that course.
With regard to the way in which the newspapers deal with these cases, I have not the same complaint as the noble Lord. If you permit them to deal with these cases, every single one of which depends upon an unclean incident, it is impossible to report it without referring to the uncleanness. You cannot avoid it, and if you are going to inform people of what is going on you have to put the balance of evidence on one side or the other, and to prove whether the wrong that is charged exists or not. As your Lordships all know, I look forward—and my expectations are not shared by all of your Lordships, though I believe by the majority—to a time when we stall greatly extend the powers that now exist to free people from the burden of a bond that has been disgraced and dishonoured, and when that time comes I hope that we shall also enable people to obtain the rights which the law gives them without the shame and humiliation that is imposed upon them to-day by the attendance of the public and by publication in the Press.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, I shall interpose for only a very few minutes. This question raises one of the few matters upon which those who occupy this bench may fitly claim the attention of this House. I should like to associate myself at once with what Lord Buckmaster said in welcoming the speech of the noble Lord who put this Question. As one who had the honour of the acquaintance of his father it is a particular satisfaction to me to witness the noble Lord's appearance in this House in this connection.
I wonder how many of your Lordships connect this subject with the very grave social situation in which the country now stands. It is my lot to be Bishop of a district in the county of Durham, which is suffering beyond many other parts of the country from the great calamity of unemployment. We have many thousands of lads and young men unemployed month after month, some of them even for years together. Imagine the effect of the daily publication of the most degrading matter placed every morning in the hands of these idle thousands, and providing them with the text of the most degrading conversation, protracted for long periods of the day. As I go into my park at Auckland I constantly see hundreds of young miners, during the time of the depression, with these papers in their hands, reading them, talking about them, lowering themselves by matter which is put before them not by sonic private venture in obscenity, but with the prestige and authority of the institutions of this country. That seems to me a consideration which we ought to weigh most seriously when we consider the social effect of the present state of things.
I ask myself what conceivable public advantage can accrue from the publication in full of the painful and humiliating trials which take place in the Divorce Courts, and—I agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh—not only in the Divorce Courts, because perhaps some of the most degrading matter which has been forced on the public in this way has been in connection with other trials which did not take place in the Divorce Courts. What conceivable advantage to the public can flow from these publications? I can imagine that the publication of trials might be regarded as one method of securing justice. I can imagine its being

855
suggested that publicity would be a great influence in deterring people from the kind of offence in question. But we have witnessed the growth in our society of a new type of social offender, one who does not shrink from but exults in the humiliation of publicity, and it is this type perhaps which is responsible for the worst incidents which are reported in our Press.
We have a saying that "Familiarity breeds contempt." I would venture to paraphrase it in this connection by saying that the common discussion of very gross vice blinds men insensibly to its grossness and thereby facilitates its extension in the community. We are living at a time when the almost complete breakdown of domestic discipline has thrown quite special responsibility upon the community for the methods which it allows to be adopted for informing the public mind and shaping the public taste. Think of the conditions under which this disgusting information is daily poured out upon the community. We have now a vast reading public, we have instruments by which information is disseminated so rapidly and with such emphasis that its full meaning is very strongly impressed upon the mind.
I speak here in the name of every agency, without exception, that is at work amongst the people for the raising of their character and the cleansing of their lives. I believe that on this matter there is no division of opinion following any denominational or sectarian lines. All the Churches are at one on this point. All the social workers—I speak with conviction on the point—are at one. I believe that those of us whose business it is to live among the people and to concern ourselves with the influences which are brought to bear on their lives find that there is nothing which haunts us and depresses us so much at the present time as the rapid, the tragic decline of sexual morality amongst the people. Amongst the forces which are ministering to that decline I place very high in the list this daily communication of the degrading and depraving record which flows from the Courts. I hope that before this discussion ceases we shall hear from some of the eminent lawyers who adorn this House what is precisely the state of the law. I confess that I find it difficult to believe that it is really quite so helpless
856
in this matter as we are sometimes led to suppose. But if it be the case that the law has at the present moment no means of restraining this evil, then it is high time that Parliament addressed itself to the matter.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, it is many years since I first thought upon these dreadful subjects, and I was able during the early years of my life, I hope, to do a little to counteract another phase of this impurity question through the passing of an Act relating to indecent advertisements. Since those days I have witnessed, as the right rev. Prelate has just told you, an increase of every sort of temptation to the young which did not exist formerly to induce them to fall into bad ways. In my young days there was family control amongst all classes. No young girl was permitted to read any of these horrible papers, even if they were published, and as a matter of fact, if I remember aright, these details were not published. I cannot remember The Times, for instance, or any respectable paper, publishing any of the details of what was then called "crim. con."
One reason, of course, is that in those days there were large numbers of the population who only read with the greatest difficulty, or not at all. Now, everybody can read, and young girls, as well as boys, are able to do whatever they like. They leave home when they like. They can earn their living, and the father and mother have no power over them whatever. The girls lead bachelor lives, you may say, with the result that they read everything that is read by the boy, and I have noticed, even amongst a much higher class of young women, nowadays, that they know everything, and they are not ashamed very often to talk in public upon these cases, and they enter into details which in my young days no young woman would ever have thought of doing. The result is that there is great licence which did not exist formerly.
It may seem impertinent for me to do as other noble Lords have done, and thank Lord Balfour of Burleigh for raising this Question, but I do wish to thank him, and having known his father I am delighted to learn that he is able to show that he can carry on the work which his father did for so many years. I listened with great attention to what

857
he said, but I cannot really agree with him. I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster. I believe that if anything is done it must be done drastically. I cannot for the life of me see what good the publication of these horrible details does to the public in general, except the idea that if you did prevent their publication some harm would be done to the liberty of the subject. I do not believe for one moment that it would be, and therefore I hope that the noble and learned Lord, with all his great ability, will take this matter up and boldly face it. I for one in my humble way would be delighted to support any measure which he, or any other noble Lord, brought in to prevent in the future the publication in the newspapers of perfectly unnecessary details.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: My Lords, I am sure that the general feeling in the House is one of gratitude to Lord Balfour of Burleigh for having brought to the attention of the House this matter, which is really of very great urgency. I do not think that the evil is confined entirely to reports of proceedings in the Divorce Court, although, from the nature of the business there transacted, the reports of cases there have attracted very naturally a deplorable amount of attention. I remember that in the days when I had occasion almost every day to be at the Law Courts I was struck, day after day, with what always appeared to me to be the most deplorable sight in London—namely, the crowd of people waiting at o the door of the Divorce Court, in order that they might revel in the details of the cases which it was the duty of the Court to investigate. It is, however, not only in that Court that cases are heard which are much better unreported, or at all events if reported only reported in the barest outline, with a statement of the result. Many other cases are open to the same objection, and because flufficient, reasons may exist for admitting the public to hear such cases in Court, there is to my mind no reason whatever why oar houses should be flooded with detailed reports of such cases. It is a most unfortunate thing that it is nowadays impossible to leave newspapers about where there are any young people in the house.
The matter is not one to which my attention had not already been drawn. A
858
very long time ago, in the 'eighties, in conjunction with my dear friend Sir Frank Lockwood, I considered what could be done in this matter, and we made an attempt which unfortunately came to nothing. The difficulty of passing legislation on this subject can only be appreciated by those who have had some practical acquaintance with it. In these circumstances I think it is desirable to call attention to what are the existing powers of the law, and to consider whether, with a suitable choice of cases, something might not be done with the machinery that we already have. It is well settled law—I am quoting from a case of authority—that the privilege given by the law to the reports of judicial proceedings does not extend to reports which contain matters of an obscene and demoralising character, and in the course of the judgments given in that case, it was pointed out by one of the Judges that the matter was well dealt with in a well known work on the Law of Libel, where it was said that where you have had proceedings for the purpose of punishing demoralising literature of that kind, would it not be not merely impolitic but absolutely absurd to allow the same matter to be sent broadcast over the country, in the guise of a report of proceedings intended to prevent the diffusion of such matters?
That being so, is it not worth while considering whether, with a suitable selection of cases, a great deal might be done to strengthen the hands of those concerned in the management of the Press itself, in resisting any tendency to publish reports of this kind? It is, of course, necessary for any reform of this kind to be carried out that we should have the co-operation of the Press, and there is certainly a very large section of those concerned in the management of the Press who would welcome that which would tend to strengthen their hands in dealing with such a great and growing evil. In these circumstances is it not worth the consideration of the authorities concerned with such matters in order to see whether a selection could not be made of some case, which would demonstrate to all England that the law is not so impotent in this matter as is sometimes supposed?
One or two cases in which the law, as described in the passages to which I have

859
called attention, was enforced would have a very great effect in deterring those who might be disposed to offend, and in strengthening those among the Press who are disposed to put themselves at the head of any movement in the direction of excluding from the houses of the people of this country literature of so demoralising a kind. I really cannot conceive what reason there is for our having our houses flooded with details of cases of that kind, and I hope that, whether by a more stringent exercise of the powers that already exist or, if it be possible, by an alteration of the law, something may be done which will tend to prevent the demoralisation which, we have been told, results from the present state of things.
THE EARL OF DESABT: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this matter to-night, but I have been greatly struck by the practical unanimity of nearly all who have spoken on two things—first, that the evil is a very real and a very great one, and, secondly, that somehow or other those in authority ought to endeavour to devise a means of getting rid of the evil, or, at any rate, of minimising it. I would adopt almost every word that my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster said, and I believe that you will never get any remedy except by definite and distinct legislation.
I listened, as I naturally should, with the greatest attention to what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Finlay, but I do not take so sanguine a view as he does that any process of adaptation of the existing law would meet this evil. If you are to depend on the criminal law as to prosecution for obscene or indecent publications I think you will find very few cases indeed in the reports of Divorce Court proceedings in which you would have the smallest chance of success. They are not indecent in that sense. The people who report the cases know their business much too well. The reports are suggestive, they are objectionable in the highest degree, but I do not believe you would have a chance of succeeding on an indictment or before a magistrate in one case out of a hundred; in fact, if you endeavoured to administer the law in that way you would never have a second chance, because they would
860
know perfectly well how to avoid it. I know the difficulties, and I would urge that the Government should consider whether it is possible to get rid altogether of this evil in a manner which, universally applied to all newspapers, would cause a grievance to none of them.
Lord Buckmaster suggested that nothing should be published but results. That which I would suggest is practically the same: that there should be published the names of the parties, the charges made, the result, and the report of any discussion on a point of law which arose in the course of the proceedings. I cannot see that the interests of public justice could possibly require any more than that, if it required so much, and I think it would ensure that anything that ought to be published would be published. There ought to be that amount of public record, but I would take it no further. That, however, requires substantive legislation, and there may be great difficulties of policy. But if you consider the various kinds of newspapers, the audiences they address, and the views of some of those who direct them, I do not think that you would ever get any common action from the Press as a whole; it must come from above and from outside. That I believe to be really the only remedy. A remedy, and a practical remedy, is wanted, for I believe that the evil is very great from the Point of view which the right rev. Prelate urged in his very forcible speech.
But, apart from that, I think this publication is cruel to the last degree, not only to the innocent people, but to everybody. After all, these divorce cases are really tragedies. They mean the breaking up of homes. Why, at a time when, except perhaps in some cases, the utmost suffering is being endured, both by the guilty and the innocent parties, is every detail to be dragged before the public? Moreover—though I admit that this is a minor point, and I only bring it in because I occupied the position of King's Proctor for fourteen years—it is to some extent a hindrance to justice. I have known many cases where important witnesses, or persons believed to be important witnesses, have been asked to make statements, and they have asked: "Will my name appear in the paper?" They at once refused—very naturally; I do not blame them in the least.
In view of the extraordinary unanimity of opinion on the broad question,

861
expressed from every part of this House this evening, I think the Government should earnestly consider whether, by affirmative legislation on some such lines as I have suggested, they could not get rid of an evil which, I am sure, is felt to be an evil by nearly everybody, even by the people who read these things. The owners of newspapers sometimes say:" Oh, we have got to serve our public; we give them what they want." But newspapers can create a demand as well as supply it, and I question whether, if the alteration which we desire was made, you would hear that there was any grievance. I hardly think people would have the face to say: "This is a monstrous outrage on justice." I believe that if you made this change it would be accepted as a proper and admirable thing to be done, and I am afraid that there is no hope of success in any other direction.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like first to endorse the view which has already been expressed by several of your Lordships that Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in bringing forward this Question, has rendered a public service. I believe it is true—and the debate to-day shows it—that what he has said about these publications represents the view of the enormous majority of our fellow countrymen. Lawyers, unfortunately, are obliged sometimes to listen to unsavoury details, because civil rights and sometimes criminal liabilities depend upon their being investigated, and proved or disproved. But there is, I believe, no good reason why details of that character should be broadcasted throughout the country, and published in the great majority of our newspapers.
It is said that some people like to read them, but it is not on behalf of people of that kind that the complaint is made. The effect of printing them indiscriminately is to bring these disgusting matters before the eyes; of people who read their newspapers for quite other purposes, and who abhor this kind of thing, and, worst of all, to bring them before the eyes of young children of both sexes, who are not armed against matters of that kind, and to whom real harm is done. I think, therefore, that all of us are of one mind as to the evil. But I should like to add that, much to their honour, some of our newspapers refuse to publish material of this kind, while
862
others think it proper to insist upon their rights.
The real question is: How can an improvement be brought about without improperly trenching upon what, is called the liberty of the Press? As to the present law, I need add but little to what has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Finlay. Of course, it is true that the privilege of the Press does not extend to the publication of indecent and obscene matter. That is laid down not only in the judgments of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Lord Chief Justice Bovill, to which my noble and learned friend referred, but by the Statute which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. That, of course, is true; but it is also true, as the noble Earl, Lord Desart, has said, that it is very difficult to obtain a conviction in these cases. I know, for of course I have enquired into it, that the Department of Public Prosecutions is always ready to hear and investigate complaints of indecent or obscene publications and to take action where a case can be made. But, as the noble Earl has said, the evil is sometimes not in the publication of something grossly and openly obscene, but of suggestive and improper details, and it is not easy in cases of this kind to procure juries to convict.
I need hardly add that to prosecute without obtaining a conviction does, or may do, a very great deal of harm because it involves the re-publication in paper after paper of the offensive matter. Therefore, unless a conviction ensues, much more harm than good is done. That really is the answer which I have to make to my noble and learned friend when he suggests picking out some cases for prosecution. The Director of Public Prosecutions is always willing to deal with any possible case. I am sure that he exercises his power with a view, if possible, of putting an end to this evil; but I am afraid the effect of what has been said, and truly said, to-day, is that the law as it stands is really not strong enough to deal with the whole of the evil. I do not mean to say that you could enlarge the definition of obscenity or of indecency so as to make that criminal which is not criminal to-day; but I believe that the criminal proceedings which are open to us have proved by experience not to be sufficient to deal with the whole of the evil which exists.

863
My noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, made a suggestion for dealing with the matter—namely, that all publication of divorce cases (I think he confined his suggestion to those cases) should be forbidden except, of course, as to the names of the parties and the result of the case. I want to point out to your Lordships' House that there are difficulties about that. To begin with, the evil is not confined to matrimonial causes. These details are found in other cases, some of them civil but most of them criminal. If you are going really to deal with the matter you must prohibit publication of the facts of those cases, too. Then this serious question arises, that in all of these cases, or in many of them, the character of individuals is involved. When the case is successful or a conviction ensues, the injured party has an interest in having a sufficient publication of the details to show that he or she is free from blame. That is still more the case when an action fails or a person is acquitted of an alleged crime. That person has some right that the public by whom the charge has probably been discussed should know that the acquittal is complete and that he or she is found free from any blame. I think you have to consider those points very carefully before you wholly forbid the publication of any details in cases of that kind.
Certain other proposals were made by the Royal Commission over which the late Lord Gorell presided. One of them was that divorce cases might be heard in camera; that is, with closed doors. Another was that the Judge hearing such cases, and I suppose other cases too, should be at liberty to prohibit the publication of that which he thought might be injurious to the public morals. The Commission also made other suggestions which appear to me to be of less value. Those were important suggestions backed by high authority, and in the Bill which my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster introduced a few years ago he incorporated some or all of the suggestions of the Royal Commission. Your Lordships will remember what happened. Objection was at once taken by some members of your Lordships' House, especially those who were connected with the Press. A debate ensued, and all of those provisions were either struck out or so much truncated that what remained was of little use. The same thing hap-
864
pened in the following year when Lord Gorell introduced a Bill which contained a clause dealing with this question. The clause was objected to and again struck out. So it is plain that the solution of the problem by legislation is not an easy one.
The other day a deputation of Members of the other House came to see me to discuss the matter, and they were good enough to lay before me some of the considerations which have been urged today. After talking the matter over with them, I thought it right to make two suggestions. One was that they should endeavour to get the Press to come into line in this matter; that they should interview those members of the Press who were desirous of helping and try to get some kind of compact among the respectable Press which would have the effect of purifying the columns of our newspapers from matter of this kind. I believe that attempts have been made in that direction but hitherto without result. The other proposal that I made was that legislation should be introduced in another place by those gentlemen who were Members of that House. I believe that effect will be given to that proposal and that my right hon. friend Sir Evelyn Cecil intends in a short time to introduce in another place a Bill for dealing with this matter.
I feel sure that the introduction of such a measure will lead to the serious consideration of this question, and it may be that the feeling in another place will be so strong that the measure will receive sanction there and will come up to your Lordships for consideration. In any ease, it is a good thing to introduce proposals in another place and to ascertain what is the strength of feeling there on the matter. Your Lordships will understand that with the heavy programme which faces His Majesty's Government this Session it will be very difficult for them to introduce legislation on this matter upon which opinion has not yet crystallised; I mean, as to which people are not agreed upon the remedy which ought to be applied. But I believe that the same end will be forwarded by the proposal about to be made to Parliament. The Government will watch what is said and done, and if they see any opportunity of usefully intervening they will not fail to do so.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, there are amongst your Lordships some who remember what a great influence was exercised for so many years in this House by the father of the noble Lord who introduced this Question, and who will welcome most gladly the noble Lord's intervention and his initiation of the subject this afternoon. I am sure your Lordships will all hope that he will continue to take part in the discussions of this House and exercise eventually, perhaps, as leading a position as did his father.
I rise because I am partly responsible for having introduced into your Lordships' House a good many years ago a Bill that became an Act of Parliament which did try in some measure to deal with the difficulties of the publication of indecent matter. In the year 1908 the Incest Act was introduced by His Majesty's Government, and in that Act there is a section which ordains that all proceedings under that Act shall be held in camera. That is going very much further than was suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, with regard to dealing with indecent cases that are now heard in the Courts. But I am bound to point out to your Lordships that that Act was considered unsatisfactory, and that now the provision has been repealed. I think it was repealed in the course of last year. It was thought undesirable that these matters should be heard in camera because people did not realise the gravity of the offence. Therefore the law has now been altered. It is obvious that it would be impossible for us to enact that these cases should be heard in camera, and that there is a very great deal more to be said for the suggestion made by my noble and learned friend that the result only should be made public.
I join with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in his tribute to the newspapers which abstain from adding to their circulation by printing matter of this kind. Papers like the Daily Herald and the Morning Post deserve, I think, the greatest credit for their action in this matter. It would, however, be foolish if we were to blind ourselves to the fact that there are some
866
papers which go out of their way in order to publish as much as they possibly can of cases of this kind, and who probably—we must regretfully own it—add to their circulation because they publish these things. I am afraid there is a very large section of the public which welcomes the publication of these details in their newspapers. At the same time it is evident from what has been said this afternoon that anything which is done in this direction will be warmly welcomed by a very large section of the public.
I would venture, therefore, to urge upon His Majesty's Government that they should take a stronger attitude with regard to this matter. I realise what the noble and learned Viscount has said in regard to their programme for the present Session, but I would ask whether it would not be possible for them to introduce in this House in the next Session a Bill dealing with this matter. It is not unusual during the first few weeks of a Session that this House should have comparatively little to do, and I do not know that we could occupy our time more usefully than in considering a Bill of this kind. If we found, as I am sure we should find, that in this House it met with a considerable measure of approval, then I think we might expect that it would pass in another place without any very great expenditure of the time of His Majesty's Government.
And if that is done I would ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to consider also whether there are not other matters—not only reports of cases, but indecent advertisements and a number of other things of the same type— which might well be dealt with at the same time. I remember sitting upon a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament a good many years ago, and being much struck with the difficulty that there is in dealing with this subject. I am sure that the difficulty does not lie with the reporting of cases only. Therefore, if this matter is dealt with, as I hope it may be, in your Lordships' House in another Session, I hope that these other matters will not be lost sight of, but that advertisements also may be included, and that His Majesty's Government may find a way of dealing with them at the same time.

OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT: AN IRISHMAN'S CASE.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether a British officer at present resident in Dublin, who served in the British Army in France from 1915 to 1919, when he was demobilised, applied to the Oversea Settlement Office for assisted passages for himself and his family with a view to taking up employment which he was offered in Canada, and was refused such assistance on the grounds of his being resident in the Free State; and whether His Majesty's Government will reconsider the matter, having regard to the services rendered by this officer to this country throughout the late war.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, even at this comparatively late hour, for this House, I do not think I need apologise for saying a few words with reference to a class of officer who fought for us in the great war and whom the British Government have thought right, in circumstances I will detail, still further to abandon in Ireland. The matter may look a trivial one to those who live on this side of the Channel, but I can assure your Lordships that that is not really the fact. It is a thing of serious import.
The particular case to which I have referred upon the Paper may be very briefly outlined. An officer, now resident in Dublin, an Irishman, served in the British Army in France from 1915 till 1919, when he was demobilised. He had given up his business to go into the Army, and I need hardly remind your Lordships with what joy you hailed any addition to the forces which you could get at that time from Southern Ireland. Having served, he went back to Ireland. At the present time one of the disqualifications for employment in Southern Ireland is the fact that you have served in the British Army. Indeed, a connection of mine was murdered because he had been guilty of that heinous crime. Your Lordships, therefore, will see that it not a happy situation for a man who has served in the British Army and has then gone back to his abode in Southern Ireland.
This man, like many others, is out of employment. He has a wife and two children, and he applied to the Overseas Settlement Office in March last for an
868
assisted passage for himself, his wife and children, having got employment in Winnipeg, Canada. All the answer he got was that because he lived in the Free State he could not be assisted under the Act of last year. The Act of last year says that you may assist those who are resident in the United Kingdom. Apparently some clerk in the Overseas Settlement Office, who does not even write his name legibly, has decided that this officer, who fought for five years in France, is not to be assisted out of starvation because he is living in Dublin. I cannot conceive a more pedantic decision. Whether it is in accordance with the law or not I am not going to express any opinion—that is a matter which may have to be decided upon argument—but that it can be left to rest in such an unsatisfactory situation is impossible.
What does it mean? It means that we asked this man to go and fight, we begged him to go out with our Army to France, and he went out as a member of the United Kingdom. When he got back and went to Ireland we abandon him and hand him over to those who were his bitterest enemies. When he applies for the relief that has been given to other officers who served in a similar way we tell him that we cannot do it because we made no provision for it when it suited our political operations to make concessions to those who were his bitterest enemies. That is a brutal decision, cold-hearted and callous, and I would like to know on whose authority this letter was written. I am not going into the question as to whether Ireland, when this letter was written, was part of the United Kingdom or not. I know that His Majesty's Government have administrative powers to set it absolutely right, and in any event it does not lie in the mouth of any Government to treat a man who has served his country in the way it is attempted to treat this man.
I should like to take this opportunity of saying that it is high time Departments ceased doing that with which I am so constantly in contact, that is, making the most minute efforts and the most flimsy pretext for not doing anything for those who are in distress in Ireland by reason of their loyalty to this country in the past. You meet it almost every day and upon every request. Surely, having

869
abandoned and betrayed them, the Government at all events might say that they were going to take care that no one who has served us is going to suffer because of the fact that he did serve us. Apart from all technicalities I cannot see how the Government can refuse to treat this man differently from other officers in this country. Here is his own statement:
"Having received the offer of employment in Winnipeg, Canada, I applied to Overseas Settlements for assisted passage, for myself, wife and two children. The enclosed is the reply to my request."
That is the letter to which I have referred. He goes on to say:
"Having served my King and country faithfully from 1915 to 1919 surely I am entitled to any benefits that more fortunately domiciled ex-Service men can obtain. Since 1919 I have been employed in certain trades but at present am unemployed and awaiting to proceed to Canada. I am not asking for anything more than hundreds of other loyal Irishmen have received."
I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to give a favourable answer in this case and that I may have your Lordships' sympathy for this class of man.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, with reference to the concluding
870
passage in the speech of the noble and learned Lord may I say that you will find His Majesty's Government entirely sympathetic to the case of those individuals whose claims he is advocating this evening? For the purposes of Empire settlement, I understand that it is impossible at present for the Overseas Settlement Committee to make any grants to people resident in Ireland. That I believe is under an Order in Council, but that Order in Council is, and can be, varied, and after what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord I shall personally take up this case, and also other cases corresponding to it, in order to see if it is possible to make alterations in the Order in Council so as to secure the object which I am quite sure all your Lordships most sympathetically endorse. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will give me, confidentially, any further particulars he has in this particular case.
LORD CARSON: Let me thank the noble Duke for his sympathetic answer. I should like to point out that the letter from the Overseas Settlement Committee was dated eight days before the Order in Council was passed.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock.