Sitting of 3 March 1915

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Worksop and Bawtry Railway Bill,
Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill committed.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st December, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (BRITISH EMPIRE).
Copy presented of Statistical Abstract for the British Empire in each year from 1899 to 1913. Eleventh number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
METROPOLITAN POLICE STAFF SUPERANNUATION ACTS, 1875 to 1885.
Copy presented of Draft Order proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department respecting the Superannuation Allowances of certain officers of the Staff of the Metropolitan Police Courts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the county of Pembroke (urban district of Fishguard and at Goodwick in the parish of Llanwnda) and of the county borough of Gateshead, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MOTOR CAR ACTS.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 17th February, 1915, partially rescinding The Motor Cars Regulation (County of Forfar) (No. 1) Order, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee,
"That, in the case of the Aberdare Urban District Council (Tramways, etc.) [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
"That, in the case of the Liverpool Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
"That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Wandsworth Borough Council,' the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
"That, in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Wandsworth Borough Council,' the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
"That, in the case of the Worksop and Bawtry Railway Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that Clause 13 is struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."
Resolutions agreed to.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Robert William Hugh O'Neill, esquire, commonly called the Hon. Robert William Hugh O'Neill, for the County of Antrim (Mid-Antrim Division).
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    TORPEDO COTTON.
    Mr. PETOasked what was the quantity of cotton actually, or approximately, used in a single sea mine and a single torpedo used by the enemy, so far as it can be computed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the information asked for.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACT (GERMAN DRAFTSMAN).
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a firm of constructional engineers under contract with the Government have in their employ a German draftsman whose services they are still retaining; that this man has been employed on drawings and plans of an existing East Coast aerial station; that, after having been removed from the works, he still continued to do his work for the firm from his private house; and that this man communicates with his friends in Germany through a neutral country; and what action it is propos ed to take?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The firm referred to had a draftsman on their staff—a German subject. We made inquiry into the matter, insisting that none but natural born British subjects should be employed on our work. We were informed by the firm that they were no longer employing the man in their office; but that they had given him work, which bad no connection with the Admiralty or any other Government Department at his own home. I understand that the man is no longer in the employment of the firm in any capacity whatever.

  ENGINEER-LIEUTENANTS (PAY).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether engineer-lieutenants under the old scheme receive only 11s. a day, while lieutenants (E) under the new scheme receive 11s. a
  774
  day and an additional 4s. a day specialisation pay; and, if so, whether he will take steps to redress this inequality?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative as regards the initial rates only. It is not proposed to alter the existing scales.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked why engineer officers of the Royal Naval Reserve have not been called up for ser vice in the Royal Navy during the present War?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The necessity for calling out commissioned engineer officers of the Royal Naval Reserve has not yet arisen. As the Noble Lord is probably aware a certain number are employed in merchant ships taken up.

  H.M.S. "CLAN MACNAUGHTON."
  Mr. FALLEasked if His Majesty's ship "Clan Macnaughton" was surveyed after her guns were put aboard; and, if so, was she passed and by what authority?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The "Clan Macnaughton," a nearly new vessel of the Clan Line, classed by the British Corporation Registry, was fitted out for His Majesty's service at Tilbury under the supervision of naval, constructive, and engineering officers deputed to act for that purpose. The armament placed in the vessel was light in comparison with her size, and all necessary stiffening to take it was fitted. Investigations as to the loading and the stability of the vessel were made at the Admiralty, and instructions were issued to the commanding officer of the ship. The Admiralty are satisfied that the vessel was in good condition and seaworthy, and that she possessed ample stability.

  STOKER RATINGS.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way to grant war rant rank to stoker ratings instead of requiring these ratings to seek promotion for their services as mechanicians?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty do not see their way to the adoption of the

  775
  hon. Member's suggestion. As is indicated by the terms of his question, opportunities for promotion to warrant rank already exist.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the statements made by Admiral Beatty and Admiral Sturdee in their dispatches published today, and does he not consider, in view of these statements, that some recognition ought to be made of the stokers?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As to the fine work done by the stokers the Admiralty are entirely aware of it.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I asked whether there would be some recognition of their work?

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to make any concession to the masons and bricklayers employed in the Royal dockyards; and, if not, will he say why these trades were overlooked in the recent concessions announced?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The case of bricklayers and masons was considered with those of the other classes of employés, but, having regard to all the circumstances, it was not considered that any further increase in the rates for this class was warranted at present
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the masons and bricklayers do not know of this?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the same concessions will be conceded to men of all trades working in His Majesty's gunwharves as have been given to men employed in His Majesty's dockyards?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The concessions granted in the replies to the 1914 petitions to tradesmen in His Majesty's dockyards will be conceded to corresponding grades in naval ordnance establishments, including the gunwharves.

  SOLDIERS' DEPENDANTS (SEPARA TION ALLOWANCES).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether
  776
  he is aware of the hardships that follow the non-granting of separation allowances to the wives of men who have reached warrant rank in the Royal Navy; and whether he can see his way to give the same privileges in this respect to warrant officers, Royal Navy, as is now given to men who have reached that rank in the Royal Marines?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: This matter is under consideration by the Select Committee.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he gave me the same answer some months ago?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think it could be the same some months ago. We made representations to the Select Committee, and I issued a memorandum which included that point.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked if soldiers dependants whose claims for separation allowances are refused will be informed of the reasons for such refusal; and if the War Office will acknowledge as a dependant entitled to separation allowance an aunt or niece or nephew or a woman who has reared from infancy a boy who since he grew up has been contributing to her support?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I will consider the suggestion in the first part of the question. The case referred to in the second part is covered by the recommendations of the Select Committee, which have been adopted by His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office which regulation permits the allowance to a dependant being diminished or discontinued in the case of a soldier being imprisoned, with the indirect effect of punishing also the dependant; and, if it is not the intention to punish the dependant, whether instructions will be given which will prevent the allowance from being diminished or discontinued?
  Mr. BAKER: As I stated in a reply to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on 25th February, it has been decided that separation allowance shall continue in these cases so long as the soldier remains in the Army, and the necessary instructions are being issued.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what steps

  777
  are being taken to acquaint the soldier of the conditions of the new separation allowances; and whether the men serving abroad have had intimation made to them of the new payments?
  Mr. BAKER: New leaflets are being issued this week and will be distributed not only to the public through post offices but to the troops at home and abroad.

  MASONS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that complaint has been made by the Operative Masons' Association of Scotland against the firm of Thorborn and Sons working men ten and half hours a day instead of the current nine hours of the district of Rosyth, it being further alleged that there is no justification for it, inasmuch as there is a margin of 8.3 unemployed masons; and if he will cause inquiry to be made?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am inquiring into the matter. I may say, as regards the last part of my hon. Friend's question, that it is anticipated that additional masons will shortly be required at Rosyth.

  PAINTERS (WAGES).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Painters' Society of Scotland complain of a breach of the Fair-Wage Contract Clause at the yard of D. and W. Hendersons, of Glasgow; and if he will take the matter up with a view to getting the rates of wages as current elsewhere paid in the yard for the work done in hand?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Investigation has been made into a complaint in regard to the painting of the hull of one of His Majesty's vessels by red-leaders. This, I assume, is the complaint to which my hon. Friend refers. On the evidence before me, it does not appear that there has been any breach of the Fair-Wages Clause, but I propose to go into the matter further.

  H.M.S. "ROBINA" AND "SYREN" (GRANT TO OFFICERS).
  Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty when the grant to the officers of His Majesty's ships "Robina" and
  778
  "Syren" will be paid; and if he can expedite the payment of these grants to all officers
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Member's question refers to the allowances in aid of outfit payable to the officers of the "Robina" and "Syren," I understand that the necessary authority for payment has now been issued.

  ARCHBISHOP OF LEMBERG.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Archbishop of Lemberg, arrested by the Russians in territory invaded by them and imprisoned in a Russian fortress six months ago, still lives; if so, can he give any particulars of the prison treatment in the case; whether there is any difference in substance between the offence and that for which the Cardinal Archbishop of Malines is restricted to his diocese; whether it is by direction of the Foreign Office or of the Censor the entire British Press is closed against one of these cases while giving full particulars of the other; and whether he will, on the principle of reciprocity, suggest to the Russian Government to concede to the Archbishop of Lemberg treatment similar to that accorded by the Germans to the Archbishop of Malines for an identical offence?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Primrose): I have not sufficient information about either of these cases to enable me to give information or to institute comparisons, nor can I, even if I had it, give information as to what the Censor may or may not have done in any particular case.
  Mr. GINNELL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will get the information if I postpone the question until this day week?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask the question this day week?

  IMPERIAL OTTOMAN BANK.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will be represented at the hearing of the motion made by the Imperial Ottoman Bank for an injunction to restrain the Imperial Bank of Persia from opening a branch at Busra?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: The answer is in the negative.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if it is desirable on public grounds that this Motion should succeed?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I understand that it is a matter within the discretion of the bank itself.

  DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a letter from the St. Andrew Society, of Glasgow, enclosing marked copies of the British Blue Book and of the French Yellow Book of diplomatic correspondence with regard to the War, showing that the inaccurate terms England and English are almost invariably used instead of the correct terms Britain and British; and whether he is taking any steps to secure the use of the correct terms in future diplomatic correspondence?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I have received the letter referred to. In the reply returned to the society attention was drawn to the answer made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on 9th February regarding the pressure under which Government Departments were working at the time.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that he will not repeat the offence?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that I am Under-Secretary and not responsible in this matter.

  TERRITORIAL TROOPS IN INDIA (FOOD).
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Under-Secretary for India if the arrangements for feeding the Territorial battalions in India are now proving satisfactory; and, if they are not, if the Government intend taking any steps to improve the commissariat arrangements?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): In accordance with the answer given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Eastbourne on the 18th February, the Secretary of State has asked the Government of India for a report on the subject.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if it is impossible to make arrangements for the satisfactory feeding of the troops in a country where the beef is bad and the mutton is miserable?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I have not received any statement which would lead me to believe that anything is really wrong with the feeding arrangements. The Secretary of State has agreed to make an inquiry. I must not be understood as agreeing with the statement of the hon. Member.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if questions on the subject are being asked by cable and by letter?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I think they have been by letter.
  Sir J. JARDINE: May I ask when the result of the inquiry is expected?
  Mr. ROBERTS: As soon as possible.

  CURRENCY NOTES.
  Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what amount of the Treasury currency notes has been issued to banks and on what conditions; and what amount, if any, has been expended by the Treasury directly for account of naval, military, or other national expenditure; and (2) whether there is any limit to the issue of Treasury currency notes; if not, does he contemplate any further issue; and, if so, what limit will be fixed for such an issue of notes?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): With the permission of my hon. Friend I will answer these questions together by circulating with the Votes a full statement on the matters referred to.—(See Written Answers this date.)

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS (PROFITS).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause an examination to be made of the books of Government contractors, and of the shipowning, farming, food, and coal firms, with a view to ascertaining the present and prospective profits that such interests are making out of the War;

  781
  whether he will make public the result of the inquiry; and whether he has considered the question of levying a special tax upon profits obtained from the War emergency?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid that under the present law the Income Tax authorities scarcely possess powers of the precise nature and extent implied in the first part of the question. But my hon. Friend may rest assured that the profits he mentions will be fully assessed.

  ENLISTMENTS (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICERS).
  Colonel YATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, considering that officers of the Customs and Excise Department have had to resign their posts and be struck off the establishment in order to be able to enlist in the Army or Navy for the duration of the War, steps will be taken to ensure that such officers shall be eligible for reinstatement in their appointments on their return from naval or military service; and (2) if the pressure on the Customs and Excise Department has now been so far reduced as to permit of officers of that Department desirous of enlisting in the Army or Navy for the duration of the War to do so; and whether the posts of any such officers enlisting will be kept open for them until their return from naval or military service?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Some 900 members of the Customs and Excise service are serving with the Colours, but so much War work has devolved on the Department that the Board have reluctantly been obliged to announce to the service that no further permission to enlist could be given. In taking this action the Board had the entire approval of the War Office. The pressure of this War work, so far from decreasing, is steadily growing, so that it is less possible than before to spare any more men. The posts of all members of the service who are with the Board's permission serving with the Colours will be kept open for them; but it would not be possible to promise similar treatment to those who have enlisted without permission, nor would it be fair to those of their colleagues—and there are many—
  782
  who have at the sacrifice of their personal patriotic desires continued to perform their civilian duties.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: May I ask whether consideration will be given to men who enlisted without permission when they return from the front?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fear it would be impossible to give any such undertaking in the case of officials enlisting without permission whose services in their civil capacity are absolutely essential for war work.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask if it is not possible to get old retired pensioners to come in and do the work and so enable the young men to go?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it is very likely that that has been done, but I will look into the matter.

  WAR OFFICE (TIMBER PURCHASES).
  Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether Lord Emmott, as First Commissioner of Works, was consulted as to the terms of the contract with Mr. Meyer in regard to the buying of timber before the contract was made; and did he give his authority for the same to be carried into effect?
  Mr. BECK (Lord of the Treasury): The matter was mentioned to the First Commissioner, and he told his Department to render all the assistance they could to the War Office, and gave general approval to make such arrangements as they thought best. He was not informed of all the details at the time, but he has since made inquiry about the matter, and he has not the least doubt that a very great saving of public money was effected by the course adopted.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask whether, that being interpreted, it means that he knew nothing at all about it?
  Mr. BECK: I do not think my hon. Friend is justified in saying that.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask, did he or did he not know of it before it was concluded? I think "Yes" or "No" would answer the question.
  Mr. BECK: This is a matter for my Noble Friend, and I must ask my hon. Friend to give notice of the question.
  Sir H. DALZIELasked whether the hon. Gentleman will state the terms of the communication sent by the Office of Works to 200 timber firms asking them to quote for the supply of timber, and the date on which such communication was made?
  Mr. BECK: In view of the urgency of the case the method adopted was to instruct local officers of the Office, of Works to make personal inquiry as to stocks and prices in their districts, and to make similar inquiries from the head office where this could be most readily done. The instructions were issued on the 15th of October.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I take it that no communication was sent to 200 persons?
  Mr. BECK: My hon. Friend is entirely wrong in that question. The Office of Works sent letters to agents in all parts of the country asking them to make full inquiries in every possible case.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the latter part of the question asked about the date of the terms?
  Mr. BECK: I said that the instructions were given on the 15th of October. I am quite willing to show the terms of the letter which was sent to any Member of the House, but only for his own information.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May we take it that no circular letter at all was issued?
  Mr. BECK: No; there was not time. The great point was that the War Office wanted wood very urgently, and the answers to the whole of the inquiries had to be received in three days at the very latest. The Office of Works sent a letter, which I hope the hon. Member will do me the honour of reading, to its people in every corner of the country to make inquiries as to prices and stocks.
  Sir H. DALZIELasked the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether a new contract has now been concluded with Mr. Montague Meyer as buyer of timber for the Government, and, if so, will he state its exact terms?
  Mr. BECK: A new arrangement as to Mr. Meyer's commission is under consideration, but it is not proposed to make any contract otherwise than by a letter supplementing the letter of the 19th of October which is known to my hon. Friend.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to how long these negotiations have been proceeding and, meantime, will he take care that Mr. Meyer stops the advertisement that he is selling the same goods as he is buying for the Government, a copy of which I will be glad to give the hon. Member?
  Mr. BECK: I must ask for notice of that.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Has the existing contract been rescinded?
  Mr. BECK: I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but the existing contract is in the form of a letter which was dispatched by the Office of Works to Mr. Meyer and was published in the papers, and if he will read it he will see that the contract can be terminated on any day by sending a registered letter.
  Mr. BUTCHER: My question was—has that contract been rescinded?
  Mr. BECK: No.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the Government consider the proposition of engaging a buyer of timber at a fixed salary?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Is the 2½per cent. still in force?
  Colonel YATE: Considering all the complaints about these huts would it not be better to put a stop to their further construction?
  Mr. YOUNG: Is the 2½ per cent. still in force?
  Mr. BECK: It is still in force, as has been explained.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether it is possible to trace any of the timber bought by Mr. Meyer to its ultimate destination in soldiers' huts; and whether any of the huts admittedly built of damp timber come within that category?
  Mr. BECK: It is not possible to trace all the timber supplied through Mr. Meyer, but a considerable percentage can be traced and the War Office have stated that the supply has proved most satisfactory.

  FERNHURST SCHOOL (SUSSEX).
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the school buildings in the village of Fernhurst, West Sussex, was handed over to the military authorities from 16th November until 24th February, and that during that period no accommodation whatever was found for teaching the children elsewhere; and whether in any other districts children have been or are being in like manner deprived of all educational facilities?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): The Board were informed of this occupation. In this small village it was found impracticable to provide other accommodation, either for the troops or for the children. With regard to the last part of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for North Somerset on 16th February last, a copy of which I am sending him.

  CANADIAN TROOPS (BRIGADE COMMAND.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Solicitor-General if he will state for what reason English newspapers are forbidden to publish Canadian comment on the recent appointment of a Member of this House to command a brigade containing Canadian troops?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): No such prohibition as that referred to has ever existed. Only one message relating to the subject of the appointment mentioned in the question has been stopped, and the reasons for stopping it have been communicated to the newspaper to which it was addressed.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that statements have appeared in more than one newspaper to the effect that their own correspondent's communications on this subject have been censored, and does the hon. and learned Member say that those statements are untrue?
  Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I have only seen one newspaper which contained such a statement, and the statement in that newspaper was evidently either uninformed or for some other reason misleading.

  WAR NEWS (ITALY).
  Mr. PETOasked the Solicitor-General whether his attention has been called to a letter, dated 26th February, signed by Gino Calza-Bedolo, London correspondent "Giornale d'Italia," Rome, and Arundel del Re, London correspondent "Rassegna Contemporanea," Rome, complaining of the action of the Censor's Department in placing obstacles in the way of the transmission to Italian newspapers of war news from this country and of the delay both of Press telegrams and dispatches to Italy; and whether he will see that steps are taken immediately to remove these obstacles to the formation of unbiassed opinion in Italy?
  Sir S. BUCKMASTER: My attention has been directed to the letter in question. The greater part of it relates to delays in postal and private telegraphic matter, over which I have no control. I have asked for particulars of the complaints so far as they affect the Press Bureau; up to the present none have been furnished. I am not aware of the existence of any obstacles to the formation of unbiassed opinion in Italy.

  LOCAL RATES (BRIERFIELD).
  Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the notices sent out to the ratepayers in Brierfield by authority of the urban district council; and if, having regard to all the circumstances, which include shortage of work in the textile industry and a large number of men in the district having gone to the War, he proposes to take any action, with a view of more time being given for payment of rates and more consideration being given to the ratepayers in the special circumstances now obtaining?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the notices referred to. The Local Government Board are not empowered to take any action in the matter. Under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, it is within the discretion of the Court to prevent the levy of distress for the non-payment of rates, where the failure to pay is due to circumstances attributable directly or indirectly to the present War.

  MERCHANT SERVICE.

    INSURANCE AGAINST WAR RISKS.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the terms on which masters, officers, and seamen in the British merchant service are to be enabled to insure their effects against War risks; and whether life policies will be granted at the same rate of premium per cent.?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): A certificate of insurance covering the personal effects of masters, officers and seamen against War risks can be obtained at the Mercantile Marine Office at any of the principal ports in the United Kingdom. The insurance is for an amount limited to a maximum, ranging from £100 for the effects of a master to £5 for the effects of a seaman, subject to proof of loss, and is valid for six months. The premium is at present at the rate of 2 per cent. for six months. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a handbill which gives full details of the scheme. The Government have decided to pay compensation on the scale applicable to officers and men employed in Fleet auxiliaries in the case of any British master, officer or seaman on a British merchant ship who is killed or injured by mines, torpedoes or other hostile operations. This scheme, which is in effect a free life insurance, will date back to the beginning of the War.

  FOREIGN TRADE (IRISH EXPORTERS).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has circularised Irish chambers of commerce drawing attention to the advisability of extending and capturing new Foreign trade; if so, why no steps were taken by his officers to facilitate those Irish exporters who acted upon the advice of his Department; whether his attention has been called to the case of Messrs. John Plunkett and Company, of Dublin, who shipped from that port on 28th November last a consignment of crystal malt to Hull to be transhipped to Gothenberg, Sweden, by the Wilson line; if the Customs authorities at Hull refused shipment until Messrs. Wilson produced certain forms filled in by Messrs. Plunkett and Company; whether, notwithstanding that all forms and particulars
  788
  had been immediately complied with, the goods were not shipped till the 22nd or 24th December and did not arrive in Gothenberg till the 2nd January; and will he state the cause of the delay?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am in communication with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise with regard to the case to which my hon. Friend refers, and I will let him know the result in due course.

  NEWSPAPERS (HAWKING).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether anything can be done to stop the raucous calling of papers in the residential quarters of London after business hours?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Commissioner of Police reports that his officers have instructions to prevent, so far as possible, newspapers being hawked in such a manner as to be a nuisance to residents and passers-by, and that on the whole their efforts have been successful. They are on the alert to deal with hawkers who offend in this way.
  Mr. W. THORNE: What a shame.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether anything can be done to stop the raucous noises of the hon. Member's motor omnibuses?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will do my best.

  COAL (PRICES).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the present price of coal, some of the Acts of Parliament which have in recent years so largely added to the cost of production, such as for instance the Mines (Eight Hours) Act, will temporarily or permanently be amended, suspended, or repealed?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the full answer which I gave on the 15th February to the hon. Member for Aston Manor. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the speech of Mr. D. A. Thomas, the gentleman who used to sit

  789
  behind him, in which he says that this legislation is the largest factor in the high price of coal?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the speech?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman will send me a copy I shall be glad to do it.
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, while other parts of the country are suffering from insufficient supplies of coal at very high prices, many collieries of Durham and Northumberland are still working short time solely for want of sufficient trucks and steamships to transport the coal; and what further steps, if any, the Government have taken to deal with this deficiency since the 11th February?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I am aware that coal miners in Durham and Northumberland have not been so fully employed as last year, and this is presumably due in part to interference with foreign markets owing to the War. So far as coastwise coal carrying is concerned all the available interned enemy steamers are now being utilised. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any specific complains of shortage of wagons I will see that it is at once considered.

  ANILINE DYE INDUSTRY.
  Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of remitting the question of the best method of giving security to the dye industry in this country to a representative meeting of dye users, with power to settle whether this end can be best attained by Government subsidy, prohibition of imports, or imposition of a tariff?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The whole question of dye supplies has already been thoroughly examined in consultation with the representatives of dye users.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether the intimation given by the Government that from hence-forward no goods of any description are to be allowed to enter or to leave ports
  790
  of the enemy prevents the importation of aniline dyes from enemy countries under licence of the Board of Trade?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The prohibition would not cancel licences from His Majesty's Government for the importation of aniline dyes of enemy origin into the United Kingdom.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Is that not some modification of the speech made by the Prime Minister, in which he declared that nothing should go in and nothing come out?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Noble Lord must ask that question of the Prime Minister, and not me.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not a modification of his speech made in this House?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No; I do not think so.
  Mr. HEWINS: Is it the fact that those licences are going to be withdrawn?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; they are not to be withdrawn. They are necessary for the War Office and Admiralty purposes, as well as for civil purposes.
  Mr. R. MCNEILL: Is it the intention to continue the licences for the introduction of German goods into this country, and would it be possible to prevent them from being exported from Germany to other countries, such as America?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot enter into a discussion of that question. It is necessary that we should get, if we can, some goods from Germany. For instance, if we required explosives, and could buy them from Germany, we should certainly not be squeamish about getting them.
  Mr. HEWINS: Are these licences extended to other goods as well as aniline dyes?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certainly, if they are absolutely necessary for British requirements.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman, at all events, before he decides that these licences are to continue indefinitely, take into consideration the effect that those licences may have on the diplomatic question existing between this country and America?
  The PRIME MINISTERindicated assent.

  CASUALTY LISTS.
  Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange that, in future, lists of casualties should state the approximate date of the operations to which they relate, instead of only the date on which they are communicated from general headquarters?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): This information is always furnished to the next of kin when available, but it would not be easy to introduce it into the published lists without considerably complicating those lists.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, in that case, of omitting all dates, as dates are merely misleading?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I will consider that. I do not think there is any advantage myself.

  RAILWAY EMPLOYES (WAR BONUS).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether the War bonus which is now being paid to railway employés falls alike in England and in Scotland within the category of working expenses to be met by the State?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As was stated on 25th February in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Westhoughton Division, a portion of the War bonus which the railway companies have agreed to give to their operating staff will fall to be paid by the Government. This applies to all companies whose lines have been taken over by the State, and it is not proposed that English and Scottish companies shall be treated differently.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. BIRDasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the advance in the cost of food and coal, the Government will take steps forthwith to increase old age pensions from 5s. to 6s. weekly during the continuance of the War?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sorry to think that even the old age pensioners have to take their share in bearing
  792
  the burden thrown upon the country by the War, but I am afraid this proposal would be impracticable.
  Mr. ALDEN: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether in certain exceptional cases, recommended by the pension officers, he could then increase the amount?
  The PRIME MINISTERS: I will consider that.

  DEPARTMENTAL PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS.
  Mr. PARTINGTONasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the increase in expenditure at the War Office and the Admiralty, he will consider the advisability of appointing an advisory committee to assist these Departments in their purchases, so that due regard may be had to economy consistent with the pressing needs of those Departments?
  Mr. W. YOUNGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which exists in the business community and in the country generally with regard to the placing of Government orders and contracts, he will consider the appointment of a consultative committee of business men, composed of Members of the House of Commons and men of approved standing outside, with full powers to examine into and advise upon the business and commercial operations of the Departments affected by the War, and, more especially in view of their magnitude, in connection with War Office purchases and contracts?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Sir Francis Hopwood and Sir George Gibb have been appointed directly to supervise the placing of Admiralty and War Office contracts respectively, and the strictest attention is given to economy of purchase consistent with the celerity demanded by war conditions. Since the outbreak of war the War Office have profited by the advice of men of approved standing in all the large branches of trade. As the Financial Secretary informed the House recently, the War Office are now considering whether these informal consultations may not be systematised in the form of committees.
  Mr. W. YOUNG: Is it not the fact that the gentlemen mentioned in the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply are already overburdened with work, and,

  793
  therefore, are quite incapable of coping with the great necessities of the two great buying Departments of the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think they are. They are both very able men who devote the whole of their energies to their duties, and, so far as I know, they perform them efficiently.
  Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that those two gentlemen are instructed that contracts should not be given to firms of German nationality or to firms which have a large proportion of German directors on the board?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that arises out of the question.

  GERMAN AIRCRAFT RAID (COLCHESTER).
  Major WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Prime Minister whether compensation will be granted out of public funds to the owner and occupier of the house in Butt Road, Colchester, for the damage to the building and contents caused by a bomb dropped by hostile aircraft recently; and if he will say to whom claims should be sent?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for East Essex on Monday last. With reference to the latter part of the question, I will communicate with the hon. Member in a day or two.

  DISABLEMENT PENSIONS.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister if he will state when the House may expect to receive the Report from the Select Committee appointed to consider the question of disablement pensions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 15 and following of the Committee's Report. It is hoped that a further Report may be presented very shortly.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What is meant by "very shortly"?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That depends upon the Committee.

  DISTRESS IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he can say if the Government have recently received a sum of £3,661 3s. 4d. from the New Zealand Government to be used in the relief of distress in the United Kingdom; and, if so, will he say what Department administers this relief, and how the money is distributed; and can he see his way to give a list of contributions in money and in kind received from the Oversea Dominions for the same purpose?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): No, Sir. The sum in question and many other similar remittances have, I understand, been received by the High Commissioner for New Zealand from the New Zealand Government, and are being distributed by him to various committees which are organising the relief of distress in this country. For particulars of the contributions in money and kind which have been received from His Majesty's Oversea Dominions, I would refer the hon. Member to Parliamentary Papers Cd. 7608 and Cd. 7646. A further Blue Book giving particulars of the other gifts which have been received from the Oversea Dominions and Colonies will shortly be laid before Parliament.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that there is dissatisfaction in the country owing to the treatment meted out to German prisoners; whether he is aware that British prisoners in Germany are treated as convicts, while German prisoners in this country are treated as if they were an honourable foe; and if he will state to the House what steps he intends to take in the matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can only repeat that the question is receiving the most careful consideration of the Secretary of State for War.
  Colonel YATEasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the desirability of employing the German prisoners of war interned in this country on some useful work of benefit to the country generally, such as the construction of the Firth of Forth and the Clyde Ship Canal, and other works of a like nature?
  Mr. TENNANT: The possibility of finding useful work of a public nature for German prisoners of war in this country in the neighbourhood of the camps is still receiving consideration. Up to the present no employment suitable for any large number of men has been found.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask whether the camps could not be shifted to a place where suitable work could be found?
  Mr. TENNANT: That would involve an enormous amount of labour and considerable expense.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the feeling throughout the country as to the alleged luxury permitted to the German prisoners at Donington Hall, he will permit two or three Members of this House to visit it and make a report thereon for the satisfaction of the public mind?
  Mr. TENNANT: A delegation from this House is already visiting the various camps.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Who are they?
  Mr. TENNANT: Their names have already been announced. I will give the list to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Will these Gentlemen make a report to this House?
  Mr. TENNANT: No; they will make unofficial reports to the War Office.
  Mr. SMITH: Having regard to the fact that this question asks that a Committee may visit this place and make reports, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the appointment of some Committee which might make reports?
  Mr. TENNANT: All these questions have been considered, and we felt it was more desirable that these right hon. and hon. Gentlemen should go round and visit the camps and issue such reports to us as they felt inclined without making formal reports to this House.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if anybody representing the Midlands will be on this Committee, the reason being that there is very strong feeling in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire on the subject?
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has any information which he can communicate
  796
  to the House regarding the arrangements made by the Ottoman Government for the reception and treatment of prisoners of war from the Allied Armies?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: His Majesty's Government have no information to show that arrangements have been made by the Ottoman Government as regards British, French, or Russian prisoners of war.

  REDUCTION OF LIGHTING (LONDON).
  Mr. BOYTONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the neglect of private householders, and particularly the occupiers of high blocks of flats, to the notices issued by the police authorities for screening lights; and, if so, why the same prompt and drastic action is not taken as in the case of shopkeepers and others?
  Mr. McKENNA: Complaints on this subject have been brought to my notice. The police are taking all necessary steps for the enforcement of the Order for the reduction of lighting in the London area.

  SUGAR (GERMANY AND AUSTRIA).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked at what date or dates the prohibitions on the export of sugar were removed by Germany and Austria, respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am endeavouring to obtain the exact dates, but at present I can say no more than that sugar was exported from these two enemy countries in October and subsequently.

  FARMERS (LOANS).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the Governmental recommendation for increased tillage and the necessity for enlarged saving barns consequent on its adoption, he will arrange that applications for building loans to farmers for limited amounts will be favourably considered by the Treasury, especially where it can be shown that the outlay is required to meet the requirements of an increased tillage area?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): I understand that the products of extra tillage can be adequately stored without the erection of permanent barns, and indeed a temporary increase of tillage would not provide security for a building loan. On this apart from other grounds, I see no reason to modify the decision already arrived at in regard to these loans.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES (REDUCTIONS).
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury what reductions in Estimates for English and Scottish purposes have been announced corresponding to those which the Treasury have notified Irish Departments; and will a Return be presented or correspondence published from which the principle on which the Treasury is proceeding in the three Kingdoms can be studied?
  Mr. ACLAND: For details of the reductions of civil expenditure which have been effected I must ask the hon. and learned Member to await the issue of the Civil Service Estimates which will shortly be in the hands of Members. The only principle which has been followed, or can properly be followed in making economies at a time like the present, is to exclude all civil expenditure which is not clearly and immediately necessary. I shall be glad if the hon. and learned Member desires when the Estimates are published to indicate to him the chief directions in which reductions have been made, and I believe he will not find that any injustice has been done to Ireland, if he will bear in mind that several matters which are left to private enterprise or to local authorities in Great Britain are in Ireland carried out by State assistance.
  Mr. HEALY: May I ask whether the Treasury take into account that they are guaranteeing the dividend of the whole of the English railways and are providing a sum of five million pounds in extra wages in England, and are also allowing the use of enemy ships to English merchants for the purpose of carriage and advancing money in connection with the aniline dye industry, none of which are in Ireland?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am not quite sure that that means we ought to have a different
  798
  standard for giving advances of capital sums in Ireland from the standard we have in Great Britain.
  Mr. HEALY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the cutting off of £1,500 for books for a Dublin library might very well be set against the question of finding five or six or ten million pounds for some English industry?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think all expenditure on anything that can really wait ought to be cut off, whether in Ireland or in Great Britain.
  Mr. HEALY: How soon shall we see the comparative savings?
  Mr. ACLAND: Any hon. Member can make calculations on this matter as soon as the Civil Service Estimates are published, and they will be published, I think, sooner this year than in ordinary years.

  DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked what sums are now in the hands of the Development Commission; and how much of their expenditure since the War began is attributable to the War and the distress caused by it?
  Mr. ACLAND: The actual amount standing to the credit of the Development Fund is £2,429,000. After allowing for obligations not attributable to the War, the amount available for new schemes is approximately £1,000,000. In the first few weeks of the War, the Development Commissioners recommended or agreed to recommend advances amounting to £188,000 for schemes which were taken up owing to the War, and were engaged in negotiations with the authorities concerned for the execution of various other schemes. Since, however, it appeared after a short time that the anticipations of unemployment among men would not be fulfilled, almost all these schemes have been dropped or held temporarily in abeyance.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TEMPORARY CLERKS).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the case of clerks now being appointed for temporary service in Government Departments owing to the War, any written

  799
  engagement is made with such clerks stating definitely that their employment is of a purely temporary character and carries no prospect of permanent employment?
  Mr. ACLAND: The letter of assignment normally addressed to temporary clerks engaged by the Civil Service Commissioners intimates that the Commissioners cannot give any undertaking respecting the length of their service, and that it should clearly be understood that their employment is strictly temporary, does not entitle to a gratuity and cannot lead to a permanent situation in the Civil Service. If there are any cases in which this practice is not being followed I shall be glad to hear of them.

  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS (PARCELS).
  Mr. TICKLERasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a number of parcels addressed to men serving with His Majesty's ships are returned to the senders with a request for the payment of further charges on account of their ships being in foreign waters, thereby causing considerable delays and disappointment, and, owing to their being a regulation that the locality of the ships cannot be disclosed to the senders, they have no means of obtaining the necessary information to enable them to address parcels more fully; and whether he will cause a flat rate to be made for the delivery of such parcels, the same as now obtains for the parcels sent to men serving with the Expeditionary Land Forces?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): Such a flat rate as the hon. Member suggests is already in operation. The postage payable on parcels for His Majesty's ships in foreign waters, the locality of which is unknown to the senders, is at present 1s. for a parcel not exceeding 3 lb., 2s. for a parcel over 3 lb., but not over 7 lb., and 3s. for a parcel over 7 lb., but not over 11 lb. I am considering a reduction of the two latter rates to 1s. 9d. and 2s. 6d. respectively during the continuance of the War. In the case of insufficiently paid parcels, steps are taken to collect the amount of the deficiency from the senders; but the despatch of the parcels is not delayed for this purpose.

  SOLDIERS DROWNED (GAINSBOROUGH).
  Mr. BENTHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the death by drowning of seven soldiers at Gainsborough on the 19th February, while on duty; and whether he is taking steps to have a full inquiry into this incident?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. A full inquiry is being made into this regrettable loss of life, but a final report has not yet been received.

  YEOMANRY REGIMENTS (FOREIGN SERVICE).
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state how many foreign service yeomanry regiments have been broken up in order to supply one squadron as divisional Cavalry to divisions of the Army proceeding on active service abroad; how it is proposed to employ the squadrons left behind; and why it has not been possible to supply several divisions with a squadron apiece from the same regiment instead of breaking up a fresh regiment in each case?
  Mr. TENNANT: The matters to which the hon. Member draws attention have not been overlooked, but it is not considered desirable to discuss in public or to disclose details of the organisation of the troops.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the intensity of the dissatisfaction felt in those regiments at finding them broken up for this purpose and therefore being deprived of service as a unit abroad?
  Mr. TENNANT: Men who are serving are doing great service to the country and one does not wish to say anything to discourage them. I am sure that they will take their orders from headquarters.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that what is being done is discouraging them very much?
  Mr. TENNANT: I really do not believe that.

  SPIES (NUMBER SHOT).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many spies have been shot in this country since the War began?
  Mr. TENNANT: One, Sir.

  ARMY BOOTS.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a London firm connected with the boot trade has been appointed by the War Office to act as advisers, supervisors, and agents for the War Office in the purchase, handling, and distribution of boots for the Army; if so, what is the name of the firm; what steps, if any, were taken by the War Office to ascertain that the firm was sufficiently experienced to handle the work efficiently and what terms were arranged with the firm by way of remuneration?
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked whether Mr. Edward Penton, of the firm of Edward Penton and Son, Mortimer Street, W., is acting in the capacity of buying agent or official buyer for the War Office in connection with the purchase of Army boots and leather material; if so, what remuneration does he receive for his services; what is the total amount paid to him to date in commission or otherwise; and how much is due to him on completed or partially completed contracts?
  Mr. BAKER: Messrs. E. Penton and Son, Mortimer Street, W., have been appointed for the purposes stated in the first question. Their duties also include the organisation of the boot trade for Army boots, and the administration of the now Ordnance Depot for the receipt, storage, and issue of Army boots. Mr. Penton has already performed work for the Government, and was known to possess organising capacity of the kind required. Mr. Penton himself and one other managing director receive salaries of £600 a year each, and Messrs. E. Penton and Son £1,000 for each million pairs of boots received. No payment has yet been made, but the number, of pairs of boots received since the formation of the depot is about 3,700,000, representing a payment due to the firm of £3,700.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Is it not the case that Messrs. Penton and Son, though an old-established firm, are really a merchanting house and not a manufacturing firm, and that Mr. Edward Penton, jun., who is the gentleman in charge, has had no experience in the technical side of the manufacture of the boots?
  Mr. BAKER: I believe the firm are what is technically known as boot factors, and were chosen because they were not manufacturers. Mr. Penton has very large experience.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked whether any complaints have been received from soldiers at the front regarding the unsatisfactory character of the boots supplied to them; whether any member of any firm acting for the War Office went recently to France to investigate these complaints; whether any report on this matter has been received; and whether such reports will be asked for and made public?
  Mr. BAKER: Owing to the weather conditions in the trenches at the end of last December, boots of abnormally large sizes were required in considerable quantities for the Expeditionary Force. There was not a sufficient supply of Army regulation boots in these abnormal sizes to meet the sudden demand, and some trade pattern boots had to be obtained with the least possible delay and sent to complete the total required. The Inspector-General of Communications Overseas brought to the notice of the War Office the fact that in some cases these boots had proved unsatisfactory. An officer of the headquarter staff of the War Office, accompanied by a boot expert employed by the Department, has recently been sent to France to make special inquiries regarding the quality of boots and the conditions of their use at the front, but their report has not yet been received.

  INOCULATION AGAINST DISEASE.
  Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the prevalence of meningitis and cerebrospinal meningitis and of the percentage of deaths that has resulted therefrom amongst British troops in the United Kingdom since the outbreak of the War, he will recommend that a careful investigation be instituted into the possible

  803
  connection between inoculation against typhoid fever and the diseases first mentioned?
  Mr. TENNANT: Experts, both military and civilian, have been consulted on this point and they are of opinion that there could not possibly be any connection between inoculation and the occurrence of cerebro-spinal meningitis, and in the circumstances it is not considered necessary to institute any special investigation.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: As this is the third time that an endeavour has been made to use the Papers of this House in order to suggest that this particular disease is spread by inoculation, which nearly everybody knows to be false, will the right hon. (Gentleman say something to discourage the practice of putting down these questions?
  Mr. TENNANT: I sympathise very much with the desire expressed by the hon. and learned Member, but it is a matter for the authorities of the House, and not for me. I have to reply to the questions which are put down.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing the lion, and learned Member (Mr. Healy) Censor of Questions?

  RECRUITING APPEALS.
  Mr. EUGENE WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the pictorial appeals for recruiting posted on hoardings and walls, all of them more or less attractive, and some of them genuinely artistic, are being preserved; and, if so, whether they could be reproduced in a small uniform size and published at a trifling price for collection and preservation, so as to preserve not only now but in the future the spirit of patriotism which these stirring pictures and words have done so much to stimulate?
  Mr. TENNANT: These posters have been preserved, and I will undertake that my right hon. Friend's suggestion shall be considered, although I can give no pledge that it will be carried out. I am informed that the cost of reproducing these posters will be considerable, but the question has not as yet been fully investigated.

  CENSORSHIP OF MAILS (TRADE BRANCH).
  Sir W. BULLasked what was the occupation or profession, immediately before his appointment, of the present Head Censor of the Trade Branch of the Censorship of Mails; how many sub-head censors are employed; how many of these are retired military men; and how many possess special qualifications to deal with commerce and contraband and business questions?
  Mr. TENNANT: I understand that the gentleman referred to in the first part of the question was formerly a solicitor. There are four assistant censors in the trade branch. None of these is a retired military man, and they all possess special qualifications to perform the duties with which they are entrusted. I may add that those who are now considering candidates for prospective vacancies will be glad to consider any names the hon. Member may care to put forward.

  VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS (ARMS).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked whether, in the event of arms being hereafter supplied by the War Office to Volunteer Training Corps, an equivalent allowance will be made to those Volunteer Training Corps who may, for purposes of training and practice, provide themselves now, at their own expense, with such rifles as are at present available?
  Mr. TENNANT: I can give no undertaking in this sense.

  SOLDIERS' BILLETS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in many billets beds are only provided on the floor, and as many as six men are sometimes placed in one room; and whether any regular inspection is made of the men's billets?
  Mr. TENNANT: Mattresses or palliasses are accepted in place of beds where separate beds are not available in billets. The number of men to be placed in a room is, of course, dependent on the superficial area of the floor space, and 400 cubic feet is the standard considered

  805
  sufficient. The regulations provide that billets shall be inspected with great regularity.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there are no cubic feet in superficial area?
  Mr. H. SMITH: Might not some of the luxuries at Donington Hall be disposed of for the benefit of our own men?
  Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. Member is so familiar with the luxuries at Donington Hall, perhaps he will give me a specimen?
  Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to go there?
  Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the 4th and 5th Suffolks paid 2s. 6d. per week per four men billeted in occupied houses at Mile End, Colchester; and, if so, whether, seeing that this rate is 18s. 6d. a week below the only authorised billeting rate in occupied houses, the difference will be paid to the owners of the houses, and when?
  Mr. BAKER: I find that in this case voluntary arrangements were temporarily made for the use of unfurnished rooms in certain houses at 2s. 6d. a week, four men in each room. Since 15th January this has been superseded by statutory billeting at the statutory rates.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these people were told that they would have got much more if they had asked for it?
  Mr. TENNANT: It was a voluntary agreement between the parties.

  SCOTTISH TROOPS (SUPPLY OF TARTANS).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the decision of the War Office as to the continued use of tartan for Scottish troops; and whether there is now any shortage in the supply?
  Mr. TENNANT: There has never been any intention to discontinue the use of Highland tartans, but there is still a shortage in the supply.

  SERGEANT-INSTRUCTORS (COMMISSIONS).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether non-commissioned officers of the Territorial Force have been and are being given commissions over the heads of sergeant-instructors under whom they have been trained; and, if so, whether, seeing that this places the sergeant-instructors at a serious professional disadvantage, he will say how soon it is proposed to grant them commissions?
  Mr. TENNANT: The method of selection for first commissions in the Territorial Force is provided for in the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act and in the Territorial Force Regulations, and any names of sergeant-instructors which have been submitted to the War Office have been duly gazetted. Any non-commissioned officer candidates who are recommended as suitable for temporary commissions and whose services can be spared are being granted such commissions.

  ROYAL ARTILLERY OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the slow promotion of officers on the divisional officers list of the Royal Artillery; and, in view of the fact that these officers have risen from the ranks and have already seen many years' service before being placed on this list, he can arrange for some acceleration, so that instead of having to wait ten and twelve years for promotion, as is now often the case, lientenants on this list can get promotion more within the period taken by other officers in the Royal Artillery?
  Mr. TENNANT: Promotion on the list of district officers, Royal Artillery, is governed by establishment. On various occasions proposals have been made to introduce a system of time promotion for those officers, but experience has shown that although time promotion would benefit a few, still the present system confers the greatest benefit on the majority. Records show that normally promotion to captain on the district officer list compares favourably with that on either the Royal Field Artillery or the Royal Garrison Artillery lists, while promotion to major is very much quicker.

  ALIENS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he has ordered the release of one Schlangenweit, the late German Consul at Manchester, who had been interned for some months; and, if so, will he say why this course has been adopted?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Schlangenweit was one of the twelve German Consular officials detained in the United Kingdom whose exchange was recently agreed to for an equivalent number of British officials and other civilians detained in Germany.
  Mr. NEEDHAM: May I ask whether before the release of Captain Schlangenweit was ordered the local authorities in Manchester were asked to give their views as to the advisability or otherwise of the proposal to release him?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I should like notice of that.
  Sir J. RANDLES: Is it not a fact that Captain Schlangenweit resigned his Consulship some weeks before war broke out?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I must ask for notice of that question.

  ROYAL FUSILIERS (BRITISH EMPIRE COMMITTEE).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether General Woollcombe has now submitted to him any Report of the inquiry into the nature of the illicit commissions paid to the members of the British Empire Committee in connection with the Empire Battalion Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment); and whether he will state the nature of that Report?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have not received the Report referred to, but I am making inquiries.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the imputation conveyed by this question rests on all the members of the committee, and will he consider the advisability oil calling for the Report at once?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have already done so.
  Major BOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House his opinion as to whether the question is a fair one to ask, when these gentlemen are doing patriotic work?
  Mr. TENNANT: As I have not yet seen the Report I am wholly unable to give a reply.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that there are one general, four major-generals, two colonels, one lieutenant-colonel, two majors, one captain, and two Members of Parliament on the general committee responsible for raising the Empire Battalion, Royal Fusiliers; and whether, in view of the fact that so many distinguished officers are connected with this and other special battalions, he can see his way to take them all over and place them under the direct control of the War Office?
  Mr. TENNANT: Steps are being taken to place this and all other local battalions under the direct control of the War Office.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a popular impression, from the fact that there are so many military men associated with it, that this committee is a War Office concern? Will he hurry up the matter in order that the public may be disabused of that idea?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am reluctant to believe that this committee is confused with the War Office, and I hardly think my hon. Friend seriously believes that that is the case. I have already taken steps in the matter, as I have said.
  Major BOWDEN: Is it suggested that any of these eminent officers or Members of Parliament mentioned in these two questions have been guilty of taking commission?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have expressed no opinion of that kind.
  Major BOWDEN: Has the suggestion been made?
  Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only suggestion that has so far been made is that Messrs. Devereux and Watson, who are members of the committee, have accepted illicit commissions?
  Mr. TENNANT: I think it very undesirable for a Minister to express an opinion upon a matter which has not been officially brought to his notice.

  MILITARY HUTS.
  Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War who was responsible for the design and erection of the huts at Seaford; who passed them as fit for habitation; and whether the repairs and reconstruction have been left to be supervised and arranged by the same authority?
  Mr. TENNANT: The huts were constructed on the lines of the typical design prepared at the War Office under the authority of the Army Council. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command, was responsible for the erection of the huts, the work was carried out by a contractor, selected under the usual open tender system, and supervised by surveyors appointed under War Office authority. The huts have not yet been passed as lit for habitation, nor has the contract been completed yet. The huts were, however, temporarily occupied, under orders of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command, as a preferable alternative to keeping the men in tents, but they were subsequently evacuated. Repairs are being carried out as required, the contractor being bound to make good defects in bad workmanship. There have been changes in the supervising officials mainly owing to sickness and death.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks whether the same man (or men) as in the first instance is going to be entrusted with the work of supervision?
  Mr. TENNANT: As I have already informed the hon. Gentleman there have been changes in these supervising officers: new ones have taken the place of the old.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many men the huts at Seaford were designed to accommodate; when the camp was first occupied; when it was vacated; and when it is expected it will be suitable for occupation?
  Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is fifteen battalions; to the second, 11th November; to the third, 2nd December; to the fourth, this month (March).
  Mr. GWYNNE: Is it customary to allow these huts to be occupied before they have been passed for habitation?
  Mr. TENNANT: I dealt with that aspect of the matter in the speech I delivered on the Army Estimates; it has been a purely temporary expedient, rendered necessary because of the abnormal circumstances.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss the matter now.

  TSINGTAU.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is proposed to lay upon the Table despatches about the proceedings against Tsingtau?
  Mr. TENNANT: This question is under consideration.

  WAR TRADE DEPARTMENT (QUESTIONS).
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Prime Minister to which Minister should Questions relating to the War Trade Department be addressed?
  Mr. McKENNA: This question ought to be addressed to the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

  ARMY PAY (LIEUTENANTS).
  Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that the pay of first lieutenants (divisional officers) of the Royal Artillery is at present 7s. 10d., and 2s. armament pay, in all 9s. 10d. a day, whilst that of second lieutenants is 12s. a day; and, in view of the fact that divisional officers are men who have been in the past promoted from the ranks and that under recent regulations second lieutenancies are granted to men promoted from the ranks, he will see that men who have twenty and thirty years' service to their credit are given at least the same pay as officers recently joined or men recently promoted from the ranks?
  Mr. BAKER: I think the hon. Member is referring to district officers of the Royal Artillery. The question of raising their rate of pay is under consideration, and will, I hope, be settled shortly.

  LOCAL REPRESENTATION COM MITTEE (MANCHESTER).
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has had his attention drawn to the recommendation of the Manchester local representation committee that, haying regard to the increased cost of living occasioned by the War, instructions should be issued to pension officers to increase the allowances to dependants, other than wives, by a sum equal to 25 per cent. of the amount of such allowances; and whether he can give instructions to carry out such recommendations?
  Mr. BAKER: The recommendation to which my hon. Friend refers has not been brought to my notice, but in any event I could not give any undertaking to go beyond the recommendations of the Select Committee.

  NATIONAL RESERVE.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can see his way to pay a gratuity to National Reservists who enlisted in Territorial battalions which are serving abroad, similar to those Reservists who undertook Class I. obligation who, on enlisting into the Regular Army, received gratuities?
  Mr. BAKER: These gratuities were paid in respect of a specific obligation and, as I have previously explained, it is not possible to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that the basis on which they were instituted should now be altered.

  SAND BAGS (PURCHASES).
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, in future purchases of sand bags, he will buy bags made from cotton sacking in competition with bags made from other materials?
  Mr. BAKER: The usual War Office specification provides for jute bags, but contractors have recently been given the option of suggesting alternatives. Sand bags made from cotton sacking will receive full consideration, but it cannot be traced that any have yet been offered.

  YEOMANRY (SERVICE UNIFORMS).
  Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the extra expense incurred by the older officers of the Yeomanry in providing service uniforms on mobilisation, some allowance will be granted to them such as has been granted to the younger officers more recently commissioned, so that officers serving under similar conditions may have similar treatment in the way of allowances?
  Mr. BAKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Edgbaston, Birmingham, on the 22nd February, of which I will send him a copy.

  DOCKERS' UNION AND LONDON SHIPOWNERS.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I desire to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given private notice: Whether he is aware that the Dockers' Union has submitted proposals to the London shipowners for an increase of twopence per hour in their wages to meet the increased cost of living, and that the shipowners refuse to meet the men's representatives; whether he is aware that the Government/Committee recently appointed to obviate disputes during war time has also been approached in this matter, and has replied that it is outside their terms of reference and should be submitted to the Board of Trade; whether, seeing that the men's union are willing to have arbitration on the questions at issue, thus responding to the Prime Minister's appeal, what steps it is proposed shall be taken to bring the parties involved together, with the view of an amicable settlement, or to what tribunal, if any, can the matter be referred?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I am sorry that the question has reached neither my hon. Friend nor myself, and therefore I have no answer to it.
  Mr. O'GRADY: It was sent last night.

  Justice Clerk, Lanarkshire.
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether the clerkship to the justices of the peace for the Middle Ward of Lanarkshire when it comes to be filled will be an all-time appointment, precluding the holder or holders from continuing in their private practice as law agents, in view of the fact that the position of justice clerk is held to be an advantage over the other members of the legal profession in the district?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): As was stated by my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate on 18th February, matters relating to this appointment are at present under consideration, and the point raised by my hon. Friend's question will not be overlooked.

  Doncaster Education Committee.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the Doncaster Education Committee has declined in one case to provide meals under the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts for school children living in a home where the total income was at the time 21s. a week, out of which weekly sum rent, maintenance, insurance, unpaid doctor's bills, and household expenses for eight persons had to be met; in another case, where the total income available for all purposes for five persons was 7s. 7d.; and in another case, where the total income available for all purposes was 21s. for a family of eight persons; and whether he will take steps to bring the Doncaster Education Committee to a proper sense of their responsibility to the children in their care?
  Mr. PEASE: I understand that the three cases mentioned came before the local authority in November last, and were referred to the local committee for the prevention and relief of distress, who investigated them and gave relief. In two of the cases I am informed that the mother did not wish the children to receive school meals. The authority have made arrangements for using their powers under the Provision of Meals Acts should necessity arise. I have no power to require an authority to provide meals or children or for any particular children.

  Child Labour, Salford.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked, having regard to the prevalence of child labour in the borough of Salford, what action, if any, the Board of Education has taken to cope with the evil?
  Mr. PEASE: Questions relating to the employment of school children out of school hours and also those arising under the Employment of Children Act do not belong to the province of the Board of Education, but to the Home Office; and it is for the local authority to introduce by-laws further restricting or abolishing such employment.

  Vaccination Officers.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the names of the Poor Law Associations that he is now in communication with relative to the loss of income sustained by vaccination officers in consequence of the operation of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907; the date that such communication was sent; the date that the National Poor Law Officers' Association, Incorporated, first pointed out to the Local Government Board the loss of income that these officers had suffered; the date that this association asked the Local Government Board to issue an order which in effect would restore the income of these officers to the same which they had formerly received and the reimbursement of the loss that they had then sustained; and what steps he proposes to take to put these officers in receipt of income to enable them to live during the difficult period of the War?
  Mr. H. LEWIS: My right hon. Friend communicated with the Association of Poor Law Unions of England and Wales, and the Union and Rural District Clerks Association on 1st February last. The answers to the third and fourth parts of the question are 12th March, 1909, and 27th May, 1909, respectively. With respect to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question of the 24th February.
  Mr. PETO: As six years have now elapsed since this matter was first brought to the attention of the Department does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it was about time that a reasonable settlement was arrived at?
  Mr. LEWIS: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the matter is now under consideration.
  Mr. BUTCHER: We have been told constantly that this matter is under consideration, and has been so for six years. When will it be settled?
  Mr. LEWIS: The Local Government Board are waiting for the reports which they hope to receive shortly.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does it mean that the Local Government Board desire to defer consideration of the matter for six years?
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the date that the Local Government Board received a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of the Poor Law Unions Association of England and Wales, expressing the opinion that the continued applications by vaccination officers to the guardians to make up the deficiency in income caused by the increasing number of exemption certificates granted was open to considerable objection, and that in their opinion the Vaccination Order, 1898, should be amended so as to provide for a fee to be paid to the officer for registering exemption certificates; and, in view of the communication received from this association, will he urge the Poor Law associations that he is now in communication with for an early reply, so that he can give the matter his attention?
  Mr. LEWIS: The communication referred to was dated 24th September, 1909. With respect to the last part of the question, one of the associations has replied and a reminder has been sent to the other.
  Mr. PETO: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the great increase in the cost of living as now existing constitutes an additional reason why this matter should at last receive some sympathetic consideration?
  Mr. LEWIS: As I have already told the hon. Gentleman, the matter is under consideration. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to give it his early consideration, and the hon. Gentleman may count upon it that he will receive a reply one way or another.
  An HON. MEMBER: If he lives long enough.

  Nervous Breakdown (Early Treatment).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet been able to take the administrative action promised to a deputation last July, which urged upon him the desirability of encouraging county or borough councils to establish homes or hospitals for the early treatment of nervous breakdown, apart from lunacy administration, in view of the need of such hospitals at the present time?
  Mr. LEWIS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Monday to a similar question by the hon. Member for South-West Ham.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
  "To amend the Naval Discipline Act." Presented by Dr. MACNAMARA; supported by Mr. Churchill and Mr. Attorney-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
  NAVAL MARRIAGES BILL.
  "To provide further facilities for the marriage of officers, seamen, and marines borne on the books of any of His Majesty's ships during the continuance of the present war." Presented by Mr. LAMBERT; supported by Dr. Macnamara; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
  ARMY (SUSPENSION OF SENTENCES) BILL.
  "To authorise the suspension of sentences of penal servitude and imprisonment passed on soldiers engaged in active service beyond the seas during the present War." Presented by Mr. TEXNANT; supported by Mr. Harold Baker; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WAR.

    ALIENS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the whole administration of the Acts and regulations concerning Aliens and suspected persons during the War should be concentrated in the hands of one Minister who should be responsible to this House."
    I start with the fact that I do not think will be disputed by anyone, that there are some 70,000 alien enemies now in this country. I would call the attention of the Home Secretary to a speech that he made ii this House on 26th November, 1014, in which he said:—
    "You have got the peril to life in the presence of enemy aliens, many of whom may be spies or a danger to the State in the event of a raid, or may in other forms injure us, and you have got to consider what steps yon can take to deal with that peril." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1914 col. 1389, Vol. LXVIII.]
    This afternoon I want to consider with the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary for War what steps should be taken to deal with the peril which the Home
    834
    Secretary admits might overtake us in the event of a raid. This, I need hardly say, is not a party question, and, if I possibly can, I am not even going to make the Home Secretary angry because of my speech. I remember on the last occasion when we debated this I did, perhaps, introduce some little heat into the matter, but I do not propose to do so to-day, because I believe it is a matter in which all parties might come to terms and all parties might realise we are solely concerned with what is the interest of the State. The Home Secretary himself admitted that there are over 20,000 male aliens in London, of whom 16,000 are of military age—that is to say, we have in our City to-day in our midst 16,000 aliens of military age. I wonder how many Englishmen of military age there are un-interned in Berlin to-day!
    However minute the danger may be, we are entitled as a country to guard against it. I may be answered that there is no likelihood of a raid. The Home Secretary admitted in his speech in November that, in the event of a raid, there is quite a possibility of danger from these un-interned aliens. I cannot accept—and I do not think we can accept—the position of the impossibility of a raid. The military authorities, at all events, accept the possibility of a raid. They are guarding the East Coast. The East Coast is trenched; London is being trenched; armed camps are being formed all round our camps. I do not say there is a probability of a raid, but I say there is a possibility of a raid, and it cannot lie in the mouth of anyone on the Front Bench opposite to say there is no possibility of a raid because of the precautions—the very proper precautions—which the military authorities are taking to guard against any possibility of a raid being successfully carried out.
    If the military authorities are taking these precautions against a raid being successfully carried out some other authority, whether it is the military or whether it is the Home Office, or whoever it may be I do not know, ought to take similar precautions to prevent the danger to which the Home Secretary referred in November last. Precautions should be taken to prevent any possibility of danger from a raid through the presence of these enemy aliens in our midst. I do not say they are all spies—not for one moment. I do not say everyone of them is a danger, but I say, nobody knows who are spies or who are dangerous in the event of a raid. It

    835
    is not necessary to recall to the House what took place in Belgium and in other parts of France. It was men who were not suspected who turned out to be spies. It was men who were living perfectly respectable, commercial lives in Belgium, and who were friendly with their Belgian neighbours. They were the first to help the German Army when they overran Belgium. I can tell of an incident I know myself with regard to espionage in Belgium and the fear the Belgium Government has of them even at this moment. I have been chairman of the Belgian Field Ambulance Service. The head of the Red Cross in Belgium, on behalf of the Belgian Army, declines to allow us to send even English drivers with the motors, declaring that they are so afraid of the possibilities of espionage. They have asked us that for the motor ambulances which we are giving as a free gift they should be allowed to have only Belgian military drivers who have already fought in the War.
    That is an instance of the light in which one of our Allies who has suffered from spies views this question of espionage, and I venture to suggest we ought to be guided somewhat by the views they hold as to the danger of the spy system—I do not want to put it higher than that—and we ought to take some adequate precaution in order that, if there were the possibility of a raid, the 16,000 enemy male aliens in London alone should not be a source of danger to us. I do not want anything harsh done with these Germans, but they have come here for their own purposes, not for ours; they are admittedly born Germans, they have not even become, as they might have been, many of them, naturalised Englishmen. These 16,000 have said, "No, we will not become citizens of Great Britain; we prefer to live and trade in that country as alien enemies," and I say that when there is a war between ourselves and Germany these men who are here for their own purposes, and who have declined the advantages and responsibilities of naturalisation in this country, cannot complain if we treat them as alien enemies.
    The two main causes of uneasiness with which I want to deal to-day are, of course, the large number of un-interned alien enemies and aliens in prohibited areas. But there are one or two smaller points I should like to mention. There is, of course, the question of interned alien enemies in those ships at Portsmouth.
    836
    I believe the Noble Lord who sits for that town (Lord Charles Beresford) will deal with that point. I do trust we shall have a better answer than we have had hitherto. Then I want to say one word with regard to a dispute I had with the Home Secretary regarding the entry of aliens into our country. In November last I asked a question containing statements regarding the entry of alien enemies, particularly from America—whether large numbers of aliens did not come over in Atlantic liners; and I suggested that there was no adequate precaution taken at Liverpool for bringing together aliens there. I was crushed by the right hon. Gentleman, and I want to suggest to the House how very easy it is for a Miniser to crush a private Member in this way. A Member questions a Minister and this is the answer he gets. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was:—
    "The facts are not as stated. No passengers of German nationality on the 'Lusitania.' The examination of passengers at Liverpool is extremely careful and strict."
    Naturally I thought I had been misinformed. Naturally I thought the right hon. Gentleman was speaking by the book, particularly when he said the examination of passengers was extremely careful and strict. What are the facts? Two passengers by that particular boat called upon me, a complete stranger, and made a statement to me, authorising me to give their names and addresses. They are Mr. Hall and Mr. Meredith, both working in the City of London. I will not read the whole statement. The right hon. Gentleman can have it if he likes. They say that there were a large number of Germans on the "Lusitania" on that very voyage. German was heard being spoken all over the ship, and one of them saw on a writing pad distinct German words which had been blotted. As regards the gravamen of my very slight quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman, these gentlemen say:—
    "On arriving at Liverpool no passports were demanded, the only questions asked being 'Is your name so and so?' 'Where were you born, and your address'? It was the simplest thing to give any name and address, and immediately you were passed through."
    These gentlemen gave their names and addresses, and they add:—
    "No application has been received at the addresses we gave to verify our statements."
    4.0 P.M.
    Does that look like strict and careful inquiry as to the persons who land on American boats at Liverpool? There was another gentleman who came to me with an introduction, and he came to this country by

    837
    another boat, which landed in the Mersey a week ago. He is an Englishman trading in South America. He went out to New York, and he came back on the "Baltic." He states that on reaching the Mersey two or three Custom officers came on board, and he says:—
    "They spoke to the stewards who came along the deck and shouted, "Aliens this side, Britishers the other!' Those of us who were Britishers, or who came along with the Britishers, passed off the boat without any further formalities or examination of any kind. I can personally testify to one alien who came through with the Britishers without any inquiry at all, and travelled in my compartment from Liverpool to London."
    Does that look like careful and strict inquiry? It may be that there were dozens of others, and men do not come to Members of Parliament in this way without careful inquiry. I could give other cases showing that there was no strict and careful examination at Liverpool, but I think it is enough for my purpose to ask the Home Secretary to make further inquiry, and see that there is a more strict observation kept upon the landing of aliens in our ports. Then, again, there is a considerable difference as to the way in which some men are interned and some are not. There is the case of one of the big Italian banks, the Banca Commerciale Italiana. It is a German controlled bank, with German directors, and it is one of the leading Gorman financial houses connected with the Italian Bank at Milan, and it has a branch here. The London Office is in Old Broad Street, and it is really a German agency, with a German manager, a German deputy-manager, and three enemy sub-managers, all of military age. Will it be believed that for the first five months of the War not one single member of that staff was interned? After the War had been been going on for five months—I do not know that they had become more dangerous—three or four of these gentlemen wore interned, and two of them are still interned, but the rest have been let out. There is a German named Weil, who was either the manager or the deputy-manager, who has been there during the whole period of the War, managing or controlling that Italian bank, and is it possible to believe he was not managing and controlling that bank more in the interests of German directors than of this country? Another case was put before me of some suspected people in Suffolk. This is rather curious, because I understand that the Homo Office handed over these questions to the War Office on the 11th of November.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): No.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Well, that is what I am trying to find out. I want to know whether they have been handed over or not, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is still responsible for dealing with these questions. One of my hon. Friends, the Member for Newbury (Mr. Mount), asked a question last week about the alleged drilling of aliens in the Isle of Man camp, and in spite of the fact that we were led to believe that the War Office was dealing with this question, it was the Home Secretary who answered the question, although it was addressed to the Secretary for War. It is difficult for Members of this House and the public outside to know who is responsible for dealing with these questions. On the 28th of November the Home Secretary was corresponding with the chief constable of Suffolk in reference to aliens born here of German parents, and, the chief constable writes:—
    "A man and his sister are British-born Germans. They are on my confidential register.…"
    I can give the name, if necessary, but I do not think it is desirable.
    "They go about expressing themselves in favour of Germany. For years I have had great, difficulty in dealing with these people."
    They were in a prohibited area and they have apparently not yet been removed from the coast. Then there is the case of Baron von Bissing, and there is also the case of another well-known German, Count von Büllow, the brother of the German ex-Chancellor, who throughout the whole of the War, has been living comfortably at Putney. This man is the brother of the ex-Chancellor, and he is himself connected with Krupp's, and all that happened to him was that his telephone was cut off, although it was put on three days afterwards. I wish to call attention to the kind of snubs which are administered to people who try to help the Government in dealing with this question of aliens. One of the special constables wrote to Scotland Yard, as all of us are entitled to do, because those at Scotland Yard are our servants and not our masters. He wrote to Scotland Yard in regard to this, gentleman's telephone, and this is the answer that he received:—
    "Scotland House, 25th September, 1914.
    "Dear Sir,—I am informed that yon have sent a report concerning a certain gentleman's telephone to the War Office. I am instructed to inform you that

    839
    the matter is one with which the authorities were already acquainted, and which may safely be left to them to deal with."
    Now I do not think that is the type of letter that a man should receive who is a special constable, giving his time to the country, and who goes out of his way to assist the administration of justice. I do not think he should get a snub of that kind instead of a polite letter saying that his complaint will be attended to. I wish to say a word in regard to what happened after the bombardment of Hartlepool. A friend of mine in Sunderland wrote:—
    "Two days after the bombardment of Hartlepool thirty-four Germans were arrested and taken to the police station. The next day they were released, on whose authority I cannot say. The following Monday all aliens received notice that they would have to go back from the coast within seven days. A notice appeared in the Sunderland paper on the Saturday following, stating that instructions had been received from the Home Office cancelling the order given on the previous Monday. To my mind, this is a shocking state of affairs, and I am afraid, will lead to some great calamity."
    That was done after the bombardment of Hartlepool. Whether it was done by the Home Office or the War Office I do not know, but contradictory orders were issued.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Home Office had nothing to do with it, and the hon. Member knows that the Home Office had nothing to do with the matter. He also knows that the question has been asked and answered in this House again and again, and yet in spite of that fact he still insinuates that it is the Home Office.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I said I did not know whether it was the Home Office or the War Office, but I do not want to get into a heated altercation with the right hon. Gentleman. The reason for my Motion and the points of my argument is that we are entitled to know who is responsible.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I have answered a great many questions on this subject put by the hon. and learned Member for York, and I have already said that it was through the War Office instructions that these orders were withdrawn.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On the 28th of November, through the Under-Secretary, the Home Office wrote a letter to the Chief Constable of Suffolk with regard to the removal of aliens in a prohibited area. Therefore the Home Secretary is taking some part in this matter. It is
    840
    perfectly well known that questions in this House have been answered dealing with aliens by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, since the transference of these duties from the Home Office to the War Office. It is very difficult to know who we are to recognise as the responsible persons. The right hon. Gentleman says these matters have been handed over to the War Office. Does he mean us to infer that the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for War is responsible for all this, and that the responsibility has been put on the shoulders of Lord Kitchener? If so I have two things to say: First, that it is a crying shame that Lord Kitchener should have the responsibility for this matter when he has the responsibility for the whole of the War on the other side of the Channel. It is not fair to put these matters on to his shoulders, and it is not fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman has handed them over to the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. McKENNA: That has never been said. The responsibility for the internment of aliens rested from the first on the War Office and has always remained with the War Office. There has never been any doubt or division of responsibility in the matter. The responsibility has not been handed over to Lord Kitchener. Lord Kitchener had the responsibility, and has had the sole responsibility with regard to the internment of aliens from the first.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That does not coincide with the Prime Minister's statement.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Prime Minister's reply related to the release of interned aliens. For a short period, before 11th November, the release of aliens was handed over to me, but it was resumed by Lord Kitchener on 11th November.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think if we debate this matter a little longer we shall find out where the responsibility really lies. The object of my Amendment is to have the whole matter concentrated under one Minister. If we are told that these matters are concentrated in Lord Kitchener, I say at once they ought not to be concentrated there. It is not quite fair to say that we wish to criticise him, because I do not wish to criticise Lord Kitchener. [An Hon. MEMBER: "You are

    841
    afraid to."] The Home Secretary is now showing how pleased he is to have got out of the responsibility for these matters.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member has no right to say that. I have not got out of the responsibility, because I never had it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is almost impossible to carry on a Debate on a question of this kind by question and answer. I do not want to say anything to provoke an angry discussion, but I want to arrive at some solution of this very difficult question. I say perfectly frankly that if Lord Kitchener is responsible for some of the things which I will mention in a moment, then I shall criticise Lord Kitchener. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Why not? I say quite frankly that by putting the responsibility on poor Lord Kitchener you are endeavouring to prevent criticism on the part of those who want to leave him to carry on the War, and it is not fair. We desire to leave Lord Kitchener to manage his own business, which is the War in foreign parts, and it is not fair to a man who has that responsibility to put the responsibility for these matters on his shoulders. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite will say he accepts full responsibility for the War Office we shall be able to deal with him.
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Gentleman has made that appeal to me, and naturally I accept all responsibility for War Office matters. I am here for that purpose.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, you cannot quite get out of it in that way.
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not want to get out of it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary says that Lord Kitchener is responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "The War Office."] Well, the War Office, which means Lord Kitchener. If only we can get it established here that Lord Kitchener is not to be bothered in this matter, and that the Under-Secretary will personally accept full responsibility, taking his decision, and that in criticising him we shall not be considered as criticising Lord Kitchener, then I think we shall have arrived at some means of ascertaining who is responsible, and, if necessary, of apportioning the blame. What happened in this matter, particularly of the release of aliens which was handed over to the War Office? It was on 11th November
    842
    that there was an exchange of letters between Lieutenant-General Sir Herbert Belfield on behalf of the War Office and Sir Edward Troup on behalf of the Home Office. It was decided in the Cabinet, and the letters were, I think, dated a week later. Lieutenant-General Sir Herbert Belfield wrote and said:—
    "I have found considerable difficulty in carrying out the duties. Police information I can obtain only through the Home Office. It is suggested that the Home Office organisation should work under War Office authority and supervision."
    Sir Edward Troup, on behalf of the War Office, accepted that position, and this follows in his letter:—
    "Mr. Waller (who is an officer of the Home Office) will make inquiries as at present, and deal with all questions of release in accordance with such general or specific directions as you may give."
    There is divided responsibility. A Home Office official, Mr. Waller—
    Mr. McKENNA: A Prison Commissioner.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I appreciate Mr. Waller's position. I have the honour of knowing him in another capacity. He is a very able man, and so also is General Sir Herbert Belfield. Mr. Waller is to make the inquiry and to satisfy himself as to "A" or "OB" being released. Then I assume he walks over to the War Office, sees Sir Herbert Belfield, and puts before him in docketed form the information he has obtained from the police with regard to the release of enemy aliens. I should imagine he says, "We think that these men might be let out. What do you think?" Do you mean to suggest that the War Office is responsible for saying "Yes"? Do you mean to suggest that Lord Kitchener is responsible? From 22nd November, when Sir Herbert Belfield started this work, to 12th February, 1,916 aliens were released. Roughly, they are released at the rate of one thousand per month. Sir Herbert Belfield is an officer in high office at the War Office, and he has a large number of other duties to perform. I cannot help knowing that, because he happens to be the gentleman who is in charge of the formation of battalions of which I had the honour to raise one. Therefore I have come into personal contact with him, and I know the work that he has to do and the very able way in which he does it. I venture to suggest that it has been impossible for Sir Herbert Belfield, in addition to his other duties, to personally consider the release of one thousand enemy aliens each month since he has been appointed to this work. It must be the

    843
    Home Office who makes the investigations and forms the opinion, and Sir Herbert Belfield who merely signs the order.
    In addition to the Home Office and the War Office, I have come across various other bodies who have to do with aliens. There is the Chief Constable of every county, there is the Admiralty, there is the London Intelligence Department, there is the London Division of the War Office at the Horse Guards, there is the Secretary for Scotland who also has a department, and there is an Intelligence Department, more or less efficient, in every military command throughout the country. There are at least twelve or fifteen different organisations or bodies, or persons who have to deal with this question of the internment and the release of aliens, in one way or the other. Surely they should be co-ordinated and put under one responsible head. We ought to have confidence that one responsible head is in touch with all these different organisations, and I do not hesitate to say that the proper head is the Home Secretary, who is the head of the police in London and who is certainly in touch by correspondence with the police in other parts of the country and is undoubtedly able to give orders or recommendations to the police. I cannot find that there is any co-ordination between the Home Office and the different bodies.
    I have another instance of a man who tried to help the administration of justice with regard to these aliens which I should like to mention. He is a man who lives in Hertfordshire and who was convinced, as many people there were convinced, that there was a certain German amongst them who ought to be interned. He telephoned to Scotland Yard on 21st November that there was this gentleman living in an important position close to Wellington Embankment, near telegraph wires and telephone poles, and so forth. He was a man who openly boasted of his anti-British feelings and who desired that the Germans should win in this War. He was just the kind of man who certainly ought to be interned. The Home Office sent a letter to the chief constable of Hertfordshire, and the chief constable of Hertfordshire wrote to my friend, a man of position in the county and a man whose name I can give the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not hesitate to say that instead of getting thanks he got bullying from the chief constable for dealing with the matter. Perhaps it is only fair to say that
    844
    my informant wrote a rather hasty reply [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I want to be perfectly frank. This is the letter which he wrote to the chief constable:—
    "The fact that you are unable to find out any action on the part of this German against the interests of this country is of minor importance—"
    I do not suppose that the police liked to be told that.
    "What others and myself resent"—
    It is not one letter which I have received, and I am sure everybody interested in this matter has had them by scores—
    "is that this man is allowed to reside practically free in our midst and occupy a house in such a position. If you will not act in this case, the public will act for themselves in accordance with local feeling, which now runs very high, on account of the laxity shown by the police in regard to these matters."
    I admit that is a strong letter, but instead of the alien being interned the chief constable turned round and abused ray friend as if he had been the alien and had no rights in the matter at all. When Sir Alfred Palmer, one of the justices up in Northumberland, made the complaint that the Home Secretary makes laws one day and rescinds them the next, Sir Edward Troup was detailed by the Home Secretary to trounce the unfortunate Sir Alfred, and he did properly trounce him for saying anything of the kind. What were the facts? The Home Office on 7th September issued a circular, "All German Reservists under the age of forty-five to be held as prisoners of War." On 13th October the Home Office suspended that order, and on 30th October the Home Office removed that suspension. At that time Sir Alfred Palmer did not know that the Home Office was acting on the instructions of the War Office. I did not know it, and I have certain advantages in this House over outsiders. We in this House did not know that those orders were issued by the Home Secretary on the instructions of the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. McKENNA: Has the hon. Gentleman got the orders with him?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. I have not. I have the correspondence between Sir Edward Troup and Sir Alfred Palmer. It is only a small point, but how could any man know? The public could not be expected to know who is responsible with regard to the letting out of these enemy aliens. We have asked questions in this House with regard to alien waiters. Again, I am going to make an admission. I admit that the statements in regard to alien waiters were exaggerated, but there were

    845
    some alien waiters who were released after the police had been to their employers in order to ask whether they could be taken back. I venture to suggest that our police are not paid to be employed to find berths for enemy aliens of any kind.
    Mr. McKENNA: They were not so employed. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have spoken to men to whom the police have been, and to say that they were not so employed is ridiculous. A policeman goes, presumably by orders from someone, to the owners of a restaurant or the manager of a hotel, and says, "If we let out Herr Schmidt can you, or will you, take him back into your employ?" The right hon. Gentleman says that is not employing the police. Of course it is.
    Mr. McKENNA: The police were never employed for this purpose. The police were instructed to inquire of certain persons whether a statement made by an interned prisoner was true. I have inquired of the police, and they never exceeded their instructions so far as I have teen able to discover. There was not any desire on the part of any policeman to find employment for any German. The simple question was put: Is the statement made by so and so that you wished to give them employment true?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is one way of putting it, and I go so far as to say that I object to the police being sent at the public expense to ask people whether they are prepared to take back enemy aliens. That is really what it comes to. There are to-day in London a considerable number of the hotels who have a certain number of Germans in their employ. Surely there is no need at this time of the day to employ aliens. There are many of our own men wanting work, particularly in those directions. I do not see why I should not mention it. There are two well-known railway terminus hotels in London which have aliens in them to-day. They are the terminus hotels of our principal railways, and, while special constables are guarding the railways and the stations outside, it is rather a shame that there should be enemy aliens employed in the hotels. The gravamen of my charge all comes to this. You have 18,000 enemy aliens in London to-day and 685 male enemy aliens in the prohibited areas on the East Coast. That is the last number we got from the Secretary of State for War.
    846
    I said that I might have to criticise the Secretary of State for War. If there is anybody here who says that Lord Kitchener is responsible for permitting 685 enemy alien males to reside on the East Coast of this country, having regard to the raid which has taken place, and having regard to the possibility of further raids taking place, I say that I should require very strong evidence that His Lordship has considered the matter, and that if he has that is his opinion. I should go further and say, "We, the people of the country, are entitled to express our feelings and say that it is not a right thing." What is the good of having a prohibited area if you allow 685 alien enemies to reside there? I have been informed, in answer to a question, that their cases have been under consideration. They began to consider them on the 1st January, but 412 cases still remain to be dealt with. There might have been a good many raids during the interval of nine weeks since the consideration commenced. Who is it is considering them? Is it Sir Herbert Belfield, of the War Office, or Mr. Waller, of the Home Office, or the chief constable of the county? Who is it has to decide whether these people shall continue to remain in the prohibited area?
    The demands I make are threefold. First, that all alien enemies in London should be interned. That is a large order, but it is done in Germany, because Germany is thorough in regard to the way in which it is conducting this War. It is said there is a scarcity of huts or places in which to put these aliens. I will venture to suggest two places. Our workhouses, happily, are not so full as they were, and there are many inmates at the present time who might easily be allowed to go home and be granted a sum of from 10s. to 15s. for sustenance. You would then have a good deal of workhouse accommodation available for these aliens. In addition to that, there is the Crystal Palace, which would accommodate from 15,000 to 16,000. I know there are 5,000 of the Naval Brigade still left at the Palace, but they could be moved. I do not wish to say where, but everybody knows there is a vacant camp to which they could be sent. The Crystal Palace is a place admirably adapted for the accommodation of alien enemies. Is there any reason why they should not be sent there? It is not their benefit we are thinking of; it is the safety of our women, our wives, and our daughters that we are anxious about. There may be no danger now

    847
    unless there is a raid. But the same might have been said of Belgium at the outset, and we know what has occurred there. Consequently, I ask that all the aliens in London should be interned. Secondly, I ask that all the aliens in prohibited areas should be cleared out—men, women, and children. There is no need for them to live there at all. They can go to any part of the Midlands to live. The third demand I make is embodied in the words of the Motion. I want the administration of all the Acts and regulations in regard to alien enemies or suspected persons, which includes Englishmen, to be concentrated during the War in the hands of one Minister, that Minister to be responsible to this House.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: In seconding the Motion, I think I may claim justification for the form in which it is placed in the fact that we have only been able to raise this question in a broad sense by the concession of the Government in giving us today for that purpose, because when, some weeks ago, I placed on the Paper a Resolution on the Civil Service Estimates, I was led to understand that I could not on that occasion raise that part of the alien question which dealt with matters that refer to the War Office, whereas if I had placed the same Resolution on the consideration of the Army Estimates I should, of course, not have been able to raise the question so far as it affected the action of the police. I think it is clear, from the Parliamentary point of view, it is very inconvenient that the responsibility should be apparently divided between these two Departments. But apart from the question of Parliamentary convenience, I would ask, Are we following the best system? Is the division of responsibility between the local police and the military authorities the best system that can be devised? You may have the case, for instance, of a chief constable who can arrest a man in a prohibited area and intern him there. The War Office can release that man, if they think it desirable to do so, and can return him to the prohibited area. But the chief constable is not bound to allow the man to go on residing there, and, therefore, may again remove him out of it. It seems to me that, unless some responsible head exists to decide that kind of question, there must be a certain amount of unnecessary overlapping and confusion. My hon. Friend dealt with the general question of
    848
    divided responsibility, and I will not therefore pursue that subject further. I prefer to deal with some of the general questions arising out of the alien danger. Surely it is not disputed in any quarter that the danger is a very real one! It is admitted we have some 70,000 aliens dwelling in this country, and I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, which has already been quoted, goes far to show how much he realises the extreme gravity of the position. In that speech, on the 26th November last, he said:—
    "You have got the peril to life in the presence of many aliens, many of whom may be spies, or a danger to the State in the event of a raid, or may in other forms injure us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1914, col. 1389, Vol. LXVIII.]
    There are a good many forms in which the enemies of the State may injure it. I wonder whether anyone will say it is impossibe that the enemies of this country have been taking advantage, or might take advantage, of the industrial position in certain parts of the country to foster a feeling which is not wholly consistent with the national interest. I cannot help thinking—I do not say it is the case—but it is certainly a possibility. Nothing will induce me to believe that a large body of my fellow-countrymen are spontaneously capable of any unpatriotic action. Rather I believe enemy agitators may easily have endeavoured to foster and increase any feeling of irritation which may exist to our detriment and our loss. If my words could reach so far, which I think is very improbable, I should not hesitate to warn the men who, by working on the manufacture of munitions of war, are doing every bit as much for their country as those who are fighting in the trenches or serving in the Navy—I should not hesitate to warn them that when they hear suggestions that they should put their own interests before the interests of their country, they should ask themselves whether that voice which they hear is really a British voice, or whether it is not more likely to be a gramophonic reproduction of a time which is being played in Berlin.
    As regards the general question, if it is true—and it is true undoubtedly—that all aliens are not enemies, it is equally true that all enemies are not aliens. We have a great variety of classes of people who may be dangerous to us in the present position, and I would go so far as to say that the unnaturalised German living in this country, the man who remains openly a German subject, is not by any means

    849
    the most dangerous. He is frequently in that position through sheer carelessness. I know a case, personally, of a man who has lived in this country for forty years. He married an English woman and has two sons seining in our Army. That man at the outbreak of the War was a German subject; he had never taken the trouble to become naturalised. The right hon. Gentleman has since, and I think very rightly—I intervened in this matter myself—given the man his naturalisation papers, is it is obviously due to carelessness that the man did not take the trouble to naturalise himself at an earlier date. I believe that by far the most dangerous are those Germans living in this country who have recently, in many cases, become naturalised British subjects. Obviously, if a man came to this country with mischievous intentions, he would take the precaution to become a naturalised Britisher in order to facilitate the objects he had in view, especially as he is able to do so without losing his German nationality. I think we can look upon the cases of these men with a good deal more suspicion than upon the cases of the unnaturalised Germans here.
    Then I come to the question of women. Apparently there is no provision for the internment of women; yet no one will doubt that a woman is fully as capable as a man of being a dangerous spy. Most of the actions which are attributed to male spies could quite easily be carried out by women. Will anyone deny that a woman could signal through a window overlooking the sea quite as easily as a man? Yet in these prohibited areas to which my hon. Friend has referred, on the 1st January there were 695 alien enemy males and 2,302 alien enemy females. I cannot help thinking that something should be done to make provision against this danger. Even if you intern the whole of the Germans living in this country, you would not entirely settle the danger, and you would not put an end to the spy danger, because there are great numbers of subjects of neutral States, aye, and British subjects too, who may be acting as spies and doing great detriment to this country. It is well known that very large numbers of men of German blood and sympathies are subjects of neutral countries, especially of the United States, and they may be in this country doing a very considerable amount of harm. Of course, these subjects of neutral States, and British subjects, too, can only be dealt with by the means
    850
    already at our disposal. I admit that the whole question is an extremely difficult one, but I think that is a reason why we should endeavour to reduce the danger to the smallest possible proportions, in order that dangers which we cannot avoid may be more effectually dealt with. As regards the question of what can be done, beyond what has already been done, my first suggestion is that powers should be taken to revoke the certificates of naturalisation which have already been granted, especially in the case of those who retain their enemy nationality. It seems to me that that power of revocation is a very necessary one to have, and it might be used on certain occasions. I know this question was raised in another place some two months ago, and on that occasion the Government objected to adopting the course proposed. Their ground for so doing was stated by the Lord Chancellor in these words:—
    "What nationality a man possesses is a question of status, and when once it is conferred it is expected by other countries that the country granting it will not capriciously, or arbitrarily, or hastily withdraw the privileges which have been conceded because that affects other questions."
    The Noble Lord went on to say:—
    "In other words, you have to consider international law in dealing with this."
    But have we not advanced somewhat in the last two months? Are we going to be tied up by judicial niceties any more in this than in other matters? Besides the fact that the position has changed in the last two months we have this other fact, that at the end of January—this Debate having taken place in the House of Lords on the 6th of that month—the French Government took this very step. We are told, according to the "Times" of 30th January, in a message from Paris on the previous day, that:—
    "To-day the Chamber dealt, with a Bill against persons of German, Austrian, and Turkish origin who have adopted French nationality. After two counter-projects more sweeping in character, a Government Bill was passed. It annuls naturalisation of persons of enemy origin who retained their original nationality after adopting French, who leave France to avoid military service, who bear arms against France, or who lend any aid to their country during time of war."
    If we followed up what the French Government has seen fit to do, we might be taking very useful steps in our own defence. What an effect this would have in the case of men like Ahler, which is a well-known case where the man was admitted to be an open enemy of this country, but because he was a naturalised Britisher he could not be interned except by the ordinary proceeding of the law,

    851
    whereas if there had been power in cases of that kind to revoke the certificate of naturalisation, you would have been able to deal with him as with any other alien and intern him on suspicion, and at the end of the War to deport him.
    It seems desirable that something should be done with regard to women alien enemies. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) referred yesterday to the case of women frequently attending the railway stations and meeting wounded Belgian soldiers when they were coming to this country. I know nothing about that, but it certainly suggested that these women are capable of doing very useful service to their own country if they are able to meet men coming freshly from the front and to forward any information which they get from them to their own country. Would it not be desirable to send a considerable number of the women, children and men of non-military age who are in this country and are of German origin back to Germany? It is as well that the Germans should have the pleasure of feeding them, instead of the people of this country. Another point which is worthy of some serious attention is the use of motors in prohibited areas. Although you are turning certain people out of these prohibited areas because their presence is a danger there, it has struck me that there is absolutely nothing to prevent them in the course of an hour from running from where they have been made to live inland into any part of the prohibited area they like. It would certainly be desirable that at night motors should only be allowed to be used in prohibited areas under special permits. That is much less invidious than forbidding certain individuals to use motors.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how that point arises on the Motion before the House. The Motion relates only to the concentration of administration.
    Mr. J. MASON: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I thought the question of the use of motors in prohibited areas was one affecting the administration of the law. If you rule that I cannot follow that argument, I will immediately drop that part of my case. I would press the right hon. Gentleman as to whether it is not desirable to make the question of prohibited areas a reality. Is it desirable, while you have prohibited areas in which it is suggested that it is dangerous to allow aliens
    852
    to live, that you should have some 3,000 of them still left in those areas? It is a question whether you should not have prohibited areas in places where you have not got them now. The most obvious case from that point of view would be London, where we are told there are some 20,000 aliens now living. I would emphasise the view that naturalised aliens are probably the most dangerous of the enemies we have in this country, and ask whether there is not sufficient ground for revoking the certificate so that it should be possible in some way to make them register, in order that their numbers and the locality in which they live should be known, and also that under certain conditions they should be subject to the Alien Restriction Orders which already apply to unnaturalised aliens.
    I admit to the full the difficulty of dealing with these cases, but I maintain that the danger which is admitted could undoubtedly be reduced to the minimum. No precaution is too small to take, and there is no reason why we should run any risk which could possibly be avoided. The spies and enemies in this country, whether of British or neutral nationality, are sufficiently troublesome for us to deal with as it is. That cannot be helped. Where you have people of undoubted sympathy with our enemies, probably of enemy blood and family ties, and possibly having relatives fighting against us, there you have cases where you must obviously expect more danger than in the case of neutral or British subjects, and it is quite undeniable that the remedy is also very urgent. If we could revoke the certificates of naturalisation, we should to a considerable extent reduce the danger to which we are now open.
    Mr. McKENNA: The speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion did not cover the whole ground of the Motion, but I have assumed that he intends his Motion to apply only to enemy aliens. He does not say so in the actual terms he put upon the Paper.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very sorry. I did mean to add the word "enemy" before aliens, and to move it in that form.
    Mr. McKENNA: Then I need not dwell upon the Motion as it stands, because I could have shown shortly that it would have been absolutely impossible to put the whole administration of the law in

    853
    relation to aliens under one department, because we have pauper aliens and criminal aliens as well.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I meant alien enemies.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman desires that the whole responsibility for the administration of the law in relation to enemy aliens and suspected persons should be vested in one department and under a Minister responsible to this House. I have made repeated attempts to explain, as far as I can, to the hon. Gentleman wherein the responsibility lies, but I regret to say that after six months' effort his speech to-day has convinced me that I have failed.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid so.
    Mr. McKENNA: I deplore it. Although I have not had the time or the desire to read what I had said myself on this subject, on former occasions, I did send for the speech made by me on 26th November, 1914, which he quoted. I was astonished to find in that speech—astonished, having regard to the attitude which the hon. Gentleman adopted—that I then stated in a manner which appears to me to be as clear as possible, that the responsibility rested, not upon the Home Office, but upon the War Office in respect, to the two subjects to which he has specially drawn attention. I hope the House will forgive me if I read two very short passages. I said, in regard to internment:
    "On the question of internment the military authority has the deciding word. It is light it should be so. Internment is a military measure under the law of nations, and all I can do is to arrest. When I have arrested, I hand the prisoner over to the military authorities who decide how many I am to arrest and how long I am to go on arresting. They tell me when I am to stop. If I arrest I cannot hold. In the case of a civil offence, by bringing a charge against anybody I arrest I do hold the prisoner; I keep him in the prison cell, and I bring him up for trial. But a military prisoner stands in a different position. I arrest him, but I have to deliver him over to the military authorities, and if they say they do not want him. I have to let him fro free."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1914, col. 1395, Vol. LXVIII.]
    I should have thought that was almost, in one-syllable language, a statement as clear as could be made that it is the War Office that decide when, for how long, and to what extent enemy aliens shall be interned. That statement was made nearly four months ago, yet the hon. Gentleman is still in doubt as to the responsibility. On the other subject, as to the division of responsibility between the two authorities, again in the same speech I used language which, to my unenlightened intelligence,
    854
    appears to be as plain as it could be, and which ought to have left no doubt in the mind of the hon. Member. If I may again quote my words, I said:—
    "There is no discordance of policy between the different Departments of the Government—not the slightest. The House will agree, I imagine, that the military authorities are the right authority to balance and determine the degree of danger which is suffered in a military sense through the presence of these enemy aliens. I think they are the right authority to determine that, and, when they have done so and settled on the action which should be taken in consequence of the degree of danger they recognise, then the Home Office places the whole of its powers at their disposal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1914, col. 1396, Vol. LXVIII.]
    5.0 P.M.
    Once again in this matter I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for what may be termed the policy rests with the War Office. The moment the War Office have decided upon the policy the Home Office places at the disposal of the War Office the whole of its machinery. If the hon. Member has any case in which he can show that we have failed to give every assistance in our power to the military authorities in the execution of their duties I will take full blame to myself. Certainly as regards the Metropolitan Police I should be entirely responsible. As regards the police outside the Metropolitan area, the local police authorities are themselves responsible; but I am not aware of a single instance in which the local police authorities have refused to give all the assistance in their power to the military authorities, and I really do not believe that there is any discordance of authority, or any divergence of policy, or any unwillingness to render mutual assistance between any of the Departments of the State, and when the hon. Members desires the whole of this subject to be placed under one single responsible authority the only answer that can be made is that there is but one final responsible authority, and that is the military authority.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The naval authority?
    Mr. McKENNA: I include under the term "military" both the naval and the military authority in the technical sense. I think the Noble Lord will agree that that is a correct use of the word "military." They have the ultimate responsibility, and I submit that it is right that the ultimate responsibility should rest upon them. Let me explain why that is so. First of all, neither the Army nor the Navy would be willing for one moment to surrender their own Intelligence Department. The hon.

    855
    Member says he would like to see everything placed under the Home Office. I believe he would desire to add, under the Home Office represented by a different Home Secretary.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: You are pressing me rather hard.
    Mr. McKENNA: We will assume that. I will not suggest for a moment that the hon. Member would desire to see it all placed under the present Home Secretary, but be it this Home Secretary or another Home Secretary, let him consider the proposition in its whole extent. You must have an Army Intelligence Department. Nothing would persuade Lord Kitchener to give that up. You must also have a Naval Intelligence Department. Nothing would persuade the First Lord of the Admiralty to give that up. Both those Departments are dealing in a large measure with the very subject-matter of this Motion. One of these Departments, the Army Department, is at this moment, in this country, the only authority which has an organisation extending over the whole country. The whole country is divided into military commands and the military authority has a local representative in every district in the country. There is no other Department of the State which has a similar organisation or a similar authority.
    There is no single Department of State, except the military authority, which could undertake this work, unless you were to reorganise either the whole of our police authority or the whole of our local authorities, or undertake a work of Government reorganisation which would practically be impossible. Again there is no reason why you should do so. The military authorities have at their disposal ample means. They have numbers of men who are trained to the work of organisation. The military authorities are able to command, as they have in fact commanded, the willing service of the police over the whole of the country, and in these circumstances I ask, could you devise at this moment a better system than that which leaves the responsibility where it has always rested, upon the military authorities. The hon. Member speaks of poor Lord Kitchener. Is it fair to throw upon poor Lord Kitchener this heavy burden while he is engaged in such responsible work of carrying on the War outside the country? How little the hon.
    856
    Member knows poor Lord Kitchener. I do not think "poor" is the epithet I should ever apply to Lord Kitchener in any circumstances. I can assure the hon. Member that Lord Kitchener knows as well as anyone alive how to take care of himself and of his authority. There is no question about it.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: Hear, hear.
    Mr. McKENNA: I agree. I am replying to the hon. Member's description of poor Lord Kitchener, a description which was cheered by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. LONG: The right hon. Gentleman is replying to his version of what we said on this side of the House.
    Mr. McKENNA: The words, "poor Lord Kitchener," were used by the hon. Member, whose whole argument was that either the rest of the Government or I had thrust upon poor Lord Kitchener a responsibility with which he ought never to have been burdened. That is what I understood his argument to be. Am I misrepresenting him?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In substance not; I believe I used the expression "poor Lord Kitchener" once. I shall vise it ten times after the right hon. Gentleman's defence of him.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not sure that my defence of Lord Kitchener is more injurious to him than the hon. Member's defence. However, whether it is right to speak of "poor Lord Kitchener" or not, of this I can assure the hon. Member, that Lord Kitchener would not be willing to relinquish his responsibility, and if the hon. Member desires the responsibility to be transferred from the War Office to the Home Office he must deal with Lord Kitchener.
    Sir J. H. DALZIELmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. McKENNA: Never. I do not think my right hon. Friend was in the House during the whole speech. The same statement was made by the hon. Member. I explained to him what actually had occurred. From the very first no one but Lord Kitchener has had the sole responsibility for the internment of aliens. Nobody else has ever had any responsibility for determining whether aliens should be interned or not interned, or the numbers which should be interned.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Had he the knowledge as well as the responsibility?
    Mr. McKENNA: Certainly he has had full knowledge. I said, I think in the speech in November, perfectly clearly that Lord Kitchener had knowledge and had come to a decision which, pace the hon. Member, is, I think, a wise decision. Be that as it may, we are dealing now only with the question of unity of responsibility. Responsibility is single, and it attaches to the War Office. Now we come to the question of the release of interned prisoners. Down to some time in October, I think, the sole responsibility for the release of interned prisoners rested also with the War Office. Many questions arose with regard to the release of interned prisoners. It was quite obvious that whatever representations might be made in regard to the harmlessness of particular individuals who had been interned, it was obviously necessary that police inquiries should be made as to the character of the individual before he was released in order that no person against whom the police had anything to say should be set free. So much use was made, in consequence, of the local police and the Metropolitan Police that it was thought convenient for a time to leave the last word with the Home Secretary as to the release of prisoners, and I think that condition lasted for two or three weeks.
    On 11th November, Lord Kitchener decided that he must resume the responsibility for the release of prisoners. As he had the sole responsibility for the internment he thought, on the whole, he had better resume the sole responsibility for the release. Consequently, since 11th November, responsibility for internment and release alike has rested solely with the military authorities. I hope I have said enough on the general principle of responsibility. I have stated the facts. That there is a single undivided responsibility now is the fact. I think it is a responsibility which is very judiciously exercised and with considerable knowledge. I have had experience now for some four years, or longer. I had experience already when I was at the Admiralty, and I have had experience of the Intelligence Department which works under the War Office in conjunction with the Admiralty and the Home Office for upwards of four years, and in my judgment there is no more, efficient Department of the State than the Intelligence Department now conducted by the War Office.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Is the same-authority responsible for the landing of aliens?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. I am responsible for that.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member already at the opening of the Debate agreed that he intended to limit the subject to enemy aliens. I am asked whether I am responsible for the landing of aliens. I say I am.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Enemy aliens?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member wished to have two Departments represented at the landing of every steamer, one to deal with such aliens as are enemy aliens and the other to deal with all other aliens. The landing of an alien in this country is one operation, and it must be one Department which deals with it. It is quite impossible to break up existing responsibility in the way the hon. Member suggests should be done. With regard to aliens in prohibited areas, here again the ultimate responsibility rests with the military authorities. I think there is a little misconception in the mind of the hon. Member (Mr. James Mason) with regard to the powers both of the police and of the military authorities in prescribed areas. I do not know if I misunderstood him. He seemed to be under the impression that a suspected person—a person against whom the military authorities had any feeling of suspicion in a prohibited area—could not be removed unless he was an enemy alien. If that was the view he had, and if he thought therefore that in the case of persons who are naturalised there ought to be power to cancel their certificates in order that the authorities might be able to remove them—
    Mr. J. MASON: My impression certainly was that a man who was a naturalised British subject could not be interned on suspicion.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman is right that he cannot be interned on suspicion, but he can be removed from a particular area and compelled to live in a particular place. If he leaves that particular place he can be put in prison for breaking the law.
    Mr. MASON: Can a naturalised alien be interned and arrested for inquiry?
    Mr. McKENNA: He could not be arrested in the area or anywhere else unless a charge was brought against him. A naturalised enemy alien, or a British subject, or anybody, whether naturalised or not, if living anywhere, not necessarily in a prohibited area, but in any part of the country—if the hon. Member for Brentford himself is living in any part of the country he can be removed on suspicion by the military authorities. He can be ordered to go and live in a particular place. That is the existing law. It would apply to the hon. Member for Brentford. He could be removed from where he lives and compelled to live in Brentford, and not only so, but to remain there.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It would be more difficult to get me out of it.
    Mr. McKENNA: I think if the hon. Member bears in mind the powers which the military authorities already enjoy nothing more is needed. If there is a case of suspicion, they have full power to deal with a suspected person.
    Mr. MASON: Can they deal with a suspected alien?
    Mr. McKENNA: Any person may be told, if the military authorities have any ground of suspicion, to go and live at Land's End or John o'Groats, and if he has got to live at John o'Groats it will be very like internment.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: He would be safe there.
    Mr. McKENNA: He can be ordered to live wherever the military authorities think he would be safe. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the internment of women. I believe it would be quite a new practice to intern women. On what grounds would you intern women—apart from suspicion? Would it be on the ground that they were aliens? If they were interned, the general ground upon which it would be done would be that they are dangerous or likely to be, or possibly might be, dangerous. That has been the general ground in regard to men. But in regard to women, if the practice were adopted, it would have to be on the general ground that the woman was of German nationality. The hon. Gentleman told the House of the case of a German to whom I have recently given a certificate of naturalisation. How are you going to distinguish
    860
    between a case of that kind and the case of a man to whom you give a certificate of naturalisation? How are you going to distinguish between a person who may be justly given a certificate and another against whom you have no evidence whatever, except such suspicion as may attach to German birth?
    Mr. MASON: My suggestion in regard to women was that they may be dangerous.
    Mr. McKENNA: Every case of suspicion is dealt with, and can be dealt with, under the existing law. Internment does not necessarily apply to suspicion. Women can be and are being dealt with under the existing law.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can they be interned?
    Mr. McKENNA: That would not be the method by which you would wish to deal with them. They can be imprisoned, but it would be found practically impossible to distinguish in the case of nine women out of ten between the innocent and the guilty—the innocent woman to whom a certificate of naturalisation might be perfectly safely granted, and the guilty woman who ought to be interned. He would find himself in the position of interning, or rather arresting and handing over to the military authorities, a large number of women, and afterwards he would be requested from all over the country by persons interested in individual cases to grant them certificates of naturalisation. It is impossible, in view of the existing state of the law, and of our practice, to treat mere nationality as an offence. It cannot be done. If the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) had at the present time the ideal Home Secretary of his imagination—if he had the hon. Member for Brentford himself in that office—I am sure he would not act upon the policy which he suggests should be adopted
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Why not intern aliens of military age?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman has referred to aliens of military age. He would grant them certificates of naturalisation.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is only prophecy.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to two cases which have been quoted against me?
    Mr. McKENNA: I mean to say that the hon. Gentleman invited me to naturalise three Germans. If that is his actual personal policy, if he were Home Secretary, he could not carry out what he professes to be the policy that ought to be adopted—the policy of interning all Germans of military age.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I certainly would.
    Mr. McKENNA: There are many Germans of military age he would intern without regard to the circumstances. He would find that there are Germans who have lived in this country from the age of a few weeks, who have no German relatives, who know no language but English, who have known no country but England, and who are as English in every respect as the hon. Gentleman himself.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No!
    Mr. McKENNA: As English in feeling. He would find that many of the Germans he would intern are in that position. I know one case of the father of seven sons, every one of whom is fighting for this country. I have had before me case after case of persons, men and women, of technical German nationality who are as bitter enemies of Germany and as strong admirers of this country as the hon. Member. With the knowledge that the hon. Member could not fail to acquire that these things are as I state, how could he, as a reasonable human being, carry out a policy which would be inhuman, without adding one tittle of strength or advantage to this country? No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman really had power to carry out the policy which he professes in this House, I do not think he would really do it. It is inconsistent with the traditions of this country. When we have been at war in the past we have never done it, and I venture to express the humble but sincere opinion that the military authorities were right when they refused to carry out the policy laid down by the hon. Member. He referred to a case in Hertfordshire. I do not know why he should have thought of Hertfordshire. He instanced the case as an illustration of divided responsibility. It was not so at all. The responsible authority was the military authority. The military authority requested the assistance of the local police. They do so in nearly every case. The Home Office had nothing to do with the Hertfordshire case.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Home Office wrote to the chief constable in the district.
    Mr. McKENNA: Has the hon. Gentleman got the letter? If he will look at the papers he will see that the Home Office has no responsibility in the matter at all. I would very much like the hon. Gentleman to read the letter.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The letter, which is from Scotland Yard, is in the following terms:—
    "With reference to your telephone message to New Scotland Yard, on 21st ultimo, I am directed, by the Chief Constable of Herts, to acquaint you that careful enquiry has been made, and it cannot he ascertained that Elderhorst has acted in any way against the interests of this country. He is duly registered, and has complied with the terms of the Order."
    Mr. McKENNA: This case would not come to the Home Office at all. I imagine that inquiry would be made at Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard writes for information and gets the information. How is that an instance of divided responsibility? It is a case of one police authority communicating with another, but I cannot understand why that should be held up as an instance of divided responsibility. In Hertfordshire the outward responsible authority is the military authority. With that authority this gentleman, or any other, could be removed from the district. But in the investigation of facts, and in communications between different counties it is usual to use the different police authorities. The notion that a single authority can be set up to have control of the military and police in London and throughout the country is a chimera. Actually the final and full responsibility rests with the military authorities. The police throughout the country give their highly efficient services to the military authorities, and there is no foundation, I submit to the House, for the allegation of the hon. Gentleman that there is either inefficiency or divided responsibility.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There has been, as the right hon. Gentleman said, considerable doubt as to the authority which dealt with aliens. I think that his speech this afternoon made, in one respect, the position quite clear. It is now quite evident that there is a large number of departments which deal with this subject, but that the nominal responsibility rests with the War Office, and while the War Office is nominally responsible, it is the Home Secretary, who, in my opinion, if this matter were dealt with as it ought to be

    863
    dealt with, would be the Minister who would have the most to do with the matter. In spite of the fact that the War Office is nominally responsible, it is the Home Secretary who deals with the question in the House of Commons. I am quite sure that the House will give us all credit for not desiring to attack any Minister in this matter. The last time I remember that I was unfortunate enough, unintentionally, to irritate the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that to-day I shall not do so. But I wish to point out that in my belief there is a fundamental difference between the point of view from which this question is regarded, certainly by myself, and I believe by all my hon. Friends, and the point of view from which it is regarded by the right hon. Gentleman.
    At the beginning of the War a statement was issued to the War Office stating that something was being done in regard to aliens, but there was a sentence in it that the overwhelming number of these Germans were decent, inoffensive people from whom no danger was to be anticipated. And in his speech to-day he has pointed out, what we all know, that there are many cases—I know some myself—of Germans who were born in Germany but who have lived so long here that their sympathies are English, and I know myself more than one family whose sons are fighting in our ranks, and whose sympathies are just as much British as are mine or those of the right hon. Gentleman. I quite admit that, and I should be the last to inflict hardship on individuals of that kind unless there was a real danger which made it necessary occasionally to do injustice to some in order to protect the interests of the country as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman says that nationality is not an offence. Certainly not. But in time of war nationality is a ground of suspicion, and what we have a right to ask is that every man or woman of German birth should be regarded with suspicion, beginning with the idea that if they get a chance they will help their own country and damage ours, and that therefore it is our business to prevent them getting that chance if we possibly can. Surely that is a sound principle. How is it going to be carried out?
    Here again the right hon. Gentleman or the Government—I am alluding to the action of the Government as a whole—have taken a view which is entirely different from what I think they ought to
    864
    take. For instance, in the last Debate, if my memory is correct, we were told that they interned a certain number of people in London, but from that internment were excluded all doctors or members of learned professions and all men who were employing labour. If that is the principle on which the Government act, I would have taken the very opposite view. I would have considered that there was far more danger from that class than from poor workmen scattered over the country. Again I say that it is not a question of the fault of the Home Office, but they do not treat this question seriously. The two instances given by my hon. Friend are proof of that. An order was issued in September that all reservists were to be made prisoners. In the one case, which was referred to, I think, by a justice in the North of England on the 7th October, the order was suspended, and a week or two later it was put in force. What is the meaning of this? Are they acting without any principle at all, or are they simply doing something to satisfy the demand of the public at the moment that something should be done? Or take the case of Sunderland, after the raid at Hartlepool. Could anything seem worse? I do not know whether it is the fault of the Home Secretary or the War Office. Notice was given that all aliens should be moved inland on the Monday. On the Friday the notice was cancelled. How can anyone believe that the thing is seriously treated when we find vacillation such as this?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is an explanation, which I gave in answer to a question put by the hon. and learned Member for York. When the order was originally issued by the local military authority, the competent military authority, it was brought to our notice, and there was a fear that it was ultra vires. Owing to the fact that that was feared, a suspensory order was sent down to the local command.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Was it afterwards reversed?
    Mr. TENNANT: Afterwards the local military authorities made a separate investigation into each separate case.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is an explanation; but from the point of view of a nation at war it makes the case worse. The order, I presume, was given because they thought that it was necessary for military reasons, and the explanation is that it was reversed because there was a

    865
    fear that it was ultra vires. I would say that that shows that the whole question was not treated seriously. I really believe that the reason for this laxity is that the Government do not believe that there is any real danger from spies. I am as little inclined as most people, I hope, to run after popular cries when I see that there is nothing in them, and I am sure that the spy mania has been greatly exaggerated. But I do ask the House to consider this. The right hon. Gentleman says that we never acted in the way suggested in any previous war. No; but espionage had never played the part in any previous war which it now plays as a definite part of the military system of Germany. I believe that the Germans used it in the Franco-German war almost as much as now; but in any war in which we have been engaged it was never used in this way. But I put it to any hon. Gentleman opposite, who has followed what has happened in Belgium and in the part of France that was invaded by Germany, what do we find?
    We find—and this is really no exaggeration—that the army of spies was the advanced guard of the German Army, and that it prepared the way for the advancing hosts. If that happened in Belgium and France, and since we know that Germany does not love us any better than she loved Belgium or France, can we not feel certain that they have been doing the same thing here, and that, if the opportunity offers, we shall find the same advanced army working in our midst? I think that that is certain. Of course, until the country is invaded there is not the same danger; but if there is, as I believe, an elaborate system of espionage in which every German with real patriotic feeling is more likely to assist than not if he gets the chance, if there is this disposition, then it is a real danger and it ought to be seriously met. I think I can prove to the House, from an incident which I noticed in the papers the other day, that it is a real danger. First of all, it is said that there is not this danger until there is an invasion of the country. But we run peculiar dangers of our own.
    We know that our Admiralty are making tremendous efforts, some of which the House does not altogether approve of, to keep secrecy. We know that there is a long coast from which information of movements of our ships can be transmitted by those whose business it is, whether they are paid for it or are actuated by patriotic motives. Over this long coast there is a
    866
    means through which, by signalling, information may be given to our enemies, which will be dangerous to the lives of the sailors who are fighting our battles. The Government recognise that and they make prohibitive areas. That seems to me to be a right and sensible thing to do. To my mind there are only two ways of dealing with this problem. You have either got to intern all these enemies all over the country or you have got to keep your eye on them and to have them constantly watched, and instantly to arrest any of those of whom you have any suspicion; or yon have got to mark out particular areas and make certain that no alien enemies is to be found within those areas. They did mark out those areas. What have they done? They are prohibited to aliens. But there are 600 male aliens in that area, and, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, there are 2,000 or 3,000 female aliens.
    What in the world is the use of making a prohibited area if it does not prohibit? What more reason have you to suppose that those who are left are not dangerous than to suppose that those whom you have sent away are? The thing is futile. Either you should not have the prohibited areas, or you should make them effective and not have a single alien within them. I have said I had noticed in the papers the other day how dangerous that was. A certain gentleman, a Dane or a Swede, was tried—and I saw the report of the trial in the papers—for answering what were supposed to be German signals. As I understood the trial, our Admiralty, in order to test whether this signalling was being done, sent a ship along the coast. They put up two supposed German signals, and they were instantly answered. What does that mean? The people who are ready to answer those signals had been answering other signals, and surely that in itself shows that this is a real danger, and that it has not been properly dealt with.
    I should like to say a word or two about responsibility. I do not think it matters to us in the least who is responsible. It is the Government. Lord Kitchener has a broad back, and when the Prime Minister read out his statement—which I thought meant a change in policy and which apparently did not—I thought it was not a bad plan that this broad back should be asked to bear this little additional burden. But it does not matter. If that is wrong—

    867
    if Lord Kitchener is responsible, we will criticise him just as readily as we would the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. It is the Government that we expect to keep us safe in this matter. What about this Department? It is quite obvious that the responsibility is divided in the most complex manner. The Admiralty as well as the War Office has its Intelligence Department. That Intelligence Department is constantly at work, and if the War Office is responsible it is only nominally responsible. It only means that the Admiralty uses them as the instrument for getting their decrees carried out. The real crux of the question is that you are asked to keep an eye on these people who are likely to be dangerous. The right hon. Gentleman said it is a military authority who decide upon internment.
    If the War Office say that every alien in a certain area ought to be interned, that is a military operation. But if you are dealing with individual aliens about whom you have a suspicion, the right authority to deal with them is surely the police, who are spread all over the country, who ought to know all about these persons, and be the best guides as to who ought to be interned and who ought not. If that be true, and if there is one Department which more than another co-ordinates that work, in my opinion it ought to be the Home Office. That would not in the least interfere with the authority of Lord Kitchener or of the First Lord of the Admiralty. If for reasons of their own—if, as the result of the investigations of their Intelligence Department, they find that somebody is suspect, all they have to do is to give instructions to the Home Office that he is to be arrested. That would not interfere with their authority. What happens? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary admits that for London it is his business to see that suspicious people are looked after. What about the country? Just as the police are the right people to do it in London, so they are the right people to do it everywhere. When I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman before, he said that he had no real authority over the county police.
    Again, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are at war. This House will give the Government any authority they want. The police are the right people to use, and there ought to be some central body to see that they are being used all over the country. I do not wish to raise
    868
    prejudice against poor waiters and people of that kind, who are as innocent as I am, but, if I were in the right hon. Gentleman's position, I would no more have thought of allowing men like the brother of the Governor of Liége to go about with perfect freedom in this country than I would of allowing a German Army to land on our shores. I would never dream of it. The cleverer a spy is, and the more useful he is, the more certain it is that your investigations will not find out what he is doing. If you find men like these, whose sympathies are certainly against us, in a position in which we see that they could do us damage, it is childish folly to allow them to stay. I would say the same thing, although it is not a pleasant thing to say, and although I am sure it would do great hardship to many innocent people, in the case of great German financial houses, who have the power of doing us infinitely more injury than all the waiters. I do not believe that the Government have sufficiently realised the seriousness of this danger, and I do not think they have taken every step that they might have taken to make it as small as possible.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Though I associate myself with what the hon. Member for Brentford said, and agree generally with the main contentions put forward in the speeches that have been made, when I brought this question, some months ago, in a slightly different form, to the attention of the Government, I did not ask what the hon. Gentleman opposite asked, that there should be a Minister who shall be entirely responsible in regard to this matter. I did, however, suggest that there should be a Department and a responsible Minister and a Department representative of the military and naval authorities concerned in this matter. I still think that is the best solution. The speech of the Home Secretary to-night has not removed from my mind, and I do not believe will remove from the mind of the public outside, the anxiety they entertain with regard to this question, and the undoubted feeling of dissatisfaction at the way it has been handled. Take the speech of the Home Secretary to-night. He knows, of course, that we are speaking of his Office and not of himself. His speech to-night, in effect, justified the complaints that have been made that there is no central authority, and no business basis on which our whole policy in regard to aliens is founded. What did the right hon. Gentleman say? "I have no responsibility; it is the War

    869
    Office. If Germans are to be interned, they ask me, and I do it. They say how many there are to be, and when I am to stop." That admission gives the whole case which has been made against the Government. Does the right hon. Gentlemen suggest when they give him instructions that they know the exact character of every German to be interned? Nothing of the kind. They get their instructions in bulk: "We have got accommodation to-day for 3,000." "Take 3,000 to-day, and a week later we want another 3,000."
    The policy of the Government has been entirely guided by accommodation. "How much room have we got?" The right hon. Gentleman does not pretend for a moment that the thousands of men who are interned have ever had a fair consideration of their character or of their case before they were interned. It is not enough that a policeman should put his hand on a man's shoulder because somebody suspected him. I say that the poorest German in this country ought to have an opportunity of going before a tribunal and having his case stated, and Germans should not be sent wholesale to camps without any opportunity of their case being considered. Some of my hon. Friends, with myself, have visited those camps, and only yesterday we visited 2,000 or 3,000 prisoners. One man whom we came across was brought to this country when he was three months old. He was a respectable looking man who bad married an English woman, and has two sons now in the trenches at the front. The policeman had simply put his hand upon his shoulder, and taken him to that camp. That is only one of many cases, and I say that there is no system whatever on which this has been done. I know one or two cases in which aliens have been told in London to go to the police station to be interned, and they have gone day after day, saying, "Here we are," and they have been sent back—"We have got no room for you; when we want you we will send for you." The man to whom I refer occupied a considerable position in London, and I do not know whether he is yet free. That is the principle on which we have gone.
    It is not the case of the military with secret service, or of having sent a member of the Intelligence Department to the person suspected, saying, "We must get this man; we are convinced he is a suspect; we are convinced that he may give information to the enemy, and we must send
    870
    word to the Home Office, or the right hon. Gentleman, to carry out the instructions of the military." That is not what is done at all. It is only done by telephone—"How much room have you at Southampton, or down at Stratford; let us have a few thousand more?" That is what is done at the beginning, that is the basis on which it has been done, and I venture to submit that it should not be continued by the Government. How can you defend taking men by the thousand right away? At first there was a sort of panic, and they were taken away; but they left 16,000 or 20,000 men of military age still free in London. How can you reconcile your policy of taking all these men to different camps and places, and yet leave 16,000, or, I believe, 24,000 men of military age in London alone? No inquiry was made, and all these prisoners were sent away while this large number was left free.
    6.0 P.M.
    If those people who were sent away were suspect, what of those left free, and how is it that some thousands have been released simply on the guarantee of two persons? I cannot reconcile the sending a man away for months on the ground that he was a public danger, and then, because two persons come forward and guarantee him, he is released. If the evidence was sufficient in the first place, he ought to be kept there. That all goes to show that there is no systematised effort with regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no pressure, and that everything was working perfectly smoothly. It does nothing of the kind. In my own Constituency men were getting money from Germany and they were under suspicion, and it was said, of course, that they got their money from house property in Germany. The police were convinced there was very good ground for their suspicion, but they were dismissed without any inquiry at all by the military authorities. That does not indicate to my mind that there is the harmony and perfect working which the right hon. Gentleman says. Take the case of Baron von Bissing, raised in this House by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I ask, is there unity there? The chief constable of Brighton arrested him, and said he had sufficient evidence to retain him in custody. I venture to say that is still his opinion, but the man is still free. He has been in this country for years, ostensibly as a London correspondent. He visited the Kaiser when he was in Ryde a

    871
    year or two ago, and got an Order conferred on him, and, by the way, it is not usual for the Kaiser to give Orders to Germans living permanently in a foreign country. Even if they had not found any evidence, I say it is due to the respectable public opinion and anxiety in this country, that this case ought to have been dealt with. There you have the case again of divided authority. I venture to say that if the local police had their way, this man at this moment would be in custody.
    Mr. McKENNA: Why say divided authority?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: The police say this man should be interned and the military say, "No, he is a very decent fellow." I think that is divided authority. In a matter of that kind where there is a resident in a locality, the knowledge of a man's character must be better known to the police than it can possibly be to the central military authority, and their opinion ought to go before the opinion of any military person who may be appointed. I know a case myself in a matter of the most supreme importance in this crisis, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is not here at the moment, also knows of it, in which information of the most valuable character was obtained, and, it will hardly be believed, that the Secret Service Department of the War Office and of the Admiralty had been working at it for over a week before one knew that the other knew anything about it. What does that point to? It points to the justification for having a Committee, not for dealing with every detail, but with its eyes open directing the whole question, and working so as to see that each Department is helping the representatives of other Departments, and that they all should be under a central and proper control.
    At the very opening of the War, who will pretend that the alien question was properly dealt with? Why were Germans of military age at the beginning of the War allowed to go back to Germany, and stopped later? If the policy of stopping them was good a month or two later, why were they not stopped at the beginning? Why did you allow them to go on neutral ships months after the War started, and then suddenly an order goes out. "This has got to be stopped." I say again, that that is a clashing of authority, and it could not happen if you had a proper responsible Board working together for the general
    872
    benefit. I say, generally, about this question of internment, that every man ought to have the right of going before some sort of tribunal to have it decided whether there is any proper evidence on which to intern him.
    The other side of this question which is the spy question, is in my opinion, the most important. The Government know that there is a settled spy system in this country at the present moment, and it is no use pretending they do not. It is no secret that there are a large number of spies still in this country, corresponding regularly with the German Secret Service on the borders of a neutral country. A very short time ago it was no secret of how that information was given. Every spy had a number, and by whatever his number was, he wrote in invisible ink on the page of a magazine or a newspaper or any other periodical he might take up. That, after going on for two or three months, has been stopped, and I believe it is not possible to act in that way now. I say that if every effort is taken as it ought to be taken, the Government could get at every paid spy of Germany in this country. How can it be done? It can be done by releasing the bankers of their oath of secrecy, for I assert that those men are being paid regularly to-day by bank drafts.
    I say, we have no machinery that is working in all these larger issues to get at the real facts of the spying that is going on. It is also the fact known to those who have made inquiries that there is not a portion of the United Kingdom which has not been cycled over by an officer of the German Army, who knows every inch of the ground, and if ever there was an invasion, which I do not myself anticipate, the officer responsible for the knowledge of the particular territory would be with the division of the Army that went to that particular territory. So completely and in such a businesslike way has the whole thing been arranged. It is known that one of the most distinguished German generals at the very present moment on the Western front walked himself every inch of the way from Berlin to Paris two years ago, and, of course, observed everything on the way. He went in a capacity which I will not describe in order to avoid any suspicion. We have got to remember that this spy question is part and parcel of the German organisation, and that they know what is going on just as well as we do. They have

    873
    their English newspapers and they are using secret codes, and have been using secret codes to neutral countries and to firms in Rotterdam and elsewhere. Therefore, I say it is the duty of the Government to do everything they can to cope with such a system. We have no guarantee that that has been done, is being done, or will be done.
    Take the way, although it is outside the question, in which this matter is being handled in Germany itself. In Germany no Englishman or Britisher of military age is allowed freedom at all, and children and women, and men over military age who are not interned, have to report themselves three times every day. The French and Russians have to report themselves once every three days. Therefore, they are dealing with the British in Germany in a much harsher way than we are dealing with the Germans here. On the question of the employment of Aliens here, just consider what they do in Austria. Any person of a neutral State, such as an American, who desires to employ a Britisher in Austria, has to prove that it is absolutely essential to the carrying on of his business that that Britisher should be so employed, and when permission is granted for his employment the employer has to contribute £20 to the funds of the Austrian Red Cross Organisation. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would try that on some of the people who are employing Germans over here. I am not at all sure that it would not damp their enthusiasm a great deal.
    I still consider that the Government have never met this case with that seriousness with which it ought to have been met. I much regret that the Prime Minister, who has so many claims on his time, has never yet heard an Aliens' Debate. After all, he is the deciding factor between the different Departments, and it would have been a great advantage to have the benefit of his presence. I am not complaining of his absence, but until he is possessed of the importance of this matter, and as to the present position of things, I do not think we can entertain very much hope of relief. I say that the present position is unsatisfactory, and that it is on a totally unbusinesslike and indefensible basis, and until it is vitally changed the public will be entirely dissatisfied with it.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The speech to which we listened from the Home Secretary gave the House to understand that the regulations affecting aliens and suspects are being worked in the most admirable
    874
    manner, and he would have us to believe that all the Departments have their various functions, and that nothing is wrong. Could anyone who heard that speech have guessed that we are at this moment engaged in the most terrible struggle in which any nation has ever been involved and engaged—mark you, with the nation which is using all the powers it possesses of espionage in the most ruthless and infamous manner? I agree most heartily with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law) said, that the Home Secretary is not serious in this matter, and that he does not realise, or, if he does, he does not appear to realise, the danger, because I think we may be confident that there are real dangers in this matter. No one can say what mischief these spies may be doing, and certainly he would be a rash man who would say what mischief they could do in the case of invasion.
    The Home Secretary tells us there is no divided responsibility, no confusion, and no real danger. I say that in every one of those propositions the exact reverse is true. Let me deal with the question of alien enemies. The Home Secretary, on the 12th November last, told us that in the matter of alien enemies the whole responsibility, both for their internment and their release, rested with the War Office. His words were:—
    "He (that is the Member for Brentford Mr. Joynson-Hicks) appears to be unaware that the civil authority has no initial responsibility either in the internment or in the release of any aliens. It is purely a military matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th November. 1914, cols. 93 and 94, Vol. LXVIII.]
    He went on to draw a very harrowing picture of his own sufferings during two or three months when he said he had been subjected to a great deal of abuse in this matter of dealing with alien enemies. I confess I did not understand, and I do not think anyone else understood, that during the three or four weeks immediately preceding that speech he, and he alone, had been the person responsible for the release of alien enemies, as he has told us to-day.
    Mr. McKENNA: What is the date of that?
    Mr. BUTCHER: It is the 12th November. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say to-day that the Home Office, and the Home Office alone, up to that date was responsible for the release of alien enemies. We are learning, we are getting on, and we have perhaps cleared up some of the confusion and some of the things

    875
    which have happened. We got a little more light the other day from another Member of the Government in another place. It was so remarkable that I will venture to read a few words which were addressed by Lord Lucas, who lifted a little further portion of the veil. Although we are told now that the internment and release of these alien enemies is purely a military matter, we are assured by Lord Lucas that it is all done in consultation with the Home Office, and if he is wrong in his statement. I shall be glad to have it corrected. He said:—
    "Enquiries are made by the police, and then a joint consideration of the case is made by the Home Office and the War Office, in order that the War Office may satisfy itself of the efficiency of the enquiry made by the Home Office."
    Then, after this joint consultation with the Home Office, the War Office is to act and undertake the responsibility. If that is not divided authority, or divided responsibility, likely to lead to confusion, I should like to know what is. We heard that from Lord Lucas by accident. Perhaps someone speaking on behalf of the Government in this Debate will tell us a little more about this joint consultation between the War Office and the Home Office? No wonder, when you have a system of that sort in operation, you get 22,000 alien enemies loose in London, and 16,000 of military age.
    There is another matter in which there is divided responsibility It arises under the Aliens Restriction Act of last year. Under that Act enemy aliens are prohibited from residing in prohibited areas unless they get a permit. How do they get a permit? If the prohibited area lies within the jurisdiction of the Home Office the permit is obtained from the Home Office; if the area lies outside that jurisdiction the permit has to be obtained from the chief constable. The Home Secretary has told us, no doubt with perfect accuracy, that he has no control over the chief constables, and no responsibility for them. So that in this matter you have the Home Office as the authority as regards anything within its area of jurisdiction, and the chief constables, over whom the Home Secretary has no control, operating in another area. There, again, there is a division of responsibility which ought to be removed. I have no doubt whatever that if the Home Secretary came to this House and asked, as an emergency matter, to be given authority over the chief constables
    876
    for this purpose the House would gladly give it, in order that this very deadly peril, as I conceive it, might be removed.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Member has not described the whole of the relations of the chief constables with the local military authorities in dealing with enemy aliens in prohibited areas. The regulations are issued by the Home. Office under the authority of the Order in Council. By those regulations the chief constables are instructed to inform the local military authorities, or to consult the local military authorities, in any case in which they allow an enemy alien to remain in a prohibited area, and to inform the War Office in every case if a licence is given. So that the War Office has the knowledge and also the ultimate power.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The point I was making is that the Home Secretary, who has this matter within his authority under the Aliens Restriction Act, so far as his jurisdiction extends, has no responsibility for the actions of the chief constables in dealing with the matter outside the jurisdiction of the Home Office. The right hon. Gentleman said, indeed in this House on the 12th November—
    "I can say that I have no individual responsibility in the matter. The Home Office does not come into these transactions at all. I have no control over chief constables."
    The next matter to which I wish to refer arises under the Defence of the Realm Act. By Rule 14 under that Act a very important power is given to the competent military authorities. That power, in substance, is that where they suspect any persons, be they aliens or be they British subjects, of action prejudicial to the public safety, or to the defence of the realm, that competent military authority may order those persons to be removed from the prohibited area, or from any other area they like, and order them to reside in any area they may direct. That is a power residing in the military authority. The Home Secretary—I think he will agree—has nothing to say to their action at all—that is to say, he ought not to have. I will see whether he has in a moment. In exercising that power the military authority must act on the advice of the local police; they are really the machinery through which the military authority can get information upon which they ought to act and upon which alone they can act. I think the Home Secretary assented to

    877
    the statement of my right hon. Friend, that the police authorities are the persons to be trusted in this matter.
    I wish to draw the attention of the House to two cases which occurred within my own knowledge and information, in order to show in what a confused, unsatisfactory manner this regulation works, owing to the division of authority. The first, which occurred shortly after the raid on Scarborough, is a case in which the Home Secretary endeavoured to interfere in a matter in which I think he ought never to have interfered. After the Scarborough raid, the General Officer Commanding the Northern District made an order directing that all aliens, whether naturalised or otherwise, should be removed from the East Coast. That order was made under the regulations of the Defence of the Realm Act, and it was made by the General Officer Commanding, as the competent military authority for that purpose. That order was in no respect invalid. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the other day whether it could be suggested that the order was invalid, and he said it could not. Yet what happened?
    On the 1st of January last, before any aliens had been removed under this order, the Home Office, on the strength of some report in a newspaper, without even taking the trouble to verify it, or seeing a copy of the order, addressed a letter to the War Office suggesting that the order was invalid. First of all, why did the Home Office write this letter at all? Secondly, why did they suggest that the order was invalid? The Home Office have given a reason for writing the letter, but they have given no reason, as far as I have been able to discover, for suggesting that the order was invalid. Their reason for writing the letter was that they had complaints from some persons, presumably aliens about to be removed, who imagined that it was a Home Office order. Therefore, the Home Office at once wrote off to the War Office to have the matter looked into.
    Mr. McKENNA: I did not do anything of the sort.
    Mr. BUTCHER: They wrote suggesting that the order was invalid.
    Mr. McKENNA: A letter was written from the Home Office to the War Office calling attention to a communication which had been addressed to us. The matter
    878
    was not one that concerned the Home Office, but it did concern the War Office, and we naturally sent on to the War Office the communication that had been made to us. In sending it to the War Office we pointed out that if the communication was true the form of the order was wrong.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The right hon. Gentleman does not say that I was wrong in stating that his letter suggested that the order was invalid?
    Mr. McKENNA: What I said was that if the communication made to us—which included a newspaper report of the order—was correct, in our opinion the form of the order was wrong.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Quite so. Would it not have been more businesslike if, before suggesting that a perfectly valid order made by a competent military authority for the purpose of the defence of the country was invalid, the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to see the order and ascertain whether it was valid? Instead of that, on the strength of this newspaper report, the right hon. Gentleman writes to the War Office suggesting that the order is invalid. That was not very helpful. See the position. The General Officer Commanding, who was responsible for the safety of the East Coast, thinks the matter so important that he makes an order for the removal of aliens from the East Coast. If the Home Secretary thought there was any technical irregularity in the order would it not have been better to write to the War Office, saying, "You seem to have committed some technical irregularity. I will tell you how you can put it right in order to carry out your object which ought to be mine—that is, the defence of the country." But never for one moment did he suggest any way in which the order could be put right. I asked for the letter the other day, but the right hon. Gentleman declined to give it. We know this much about it, however—that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the order was invalid, and he did not suggest how the irregularity could be put right.
    That is a case, I will not say of divided responsibility, but of interference which was certainly not helpful to the purpose of the General Officer Commanding, namely, the defence of the realm. But see what follows. The letter was written by the Home Secretary on the 1st January. On the same day a telegram was sent from the War Office to the

    879
    General Officer Commanding, telling him to suspend the order which he had made. I am told by the right hon. Gentleman, and of course I do not dispute it, that the War Office sent that telegram before they got the Home Office letter. The inquiry naturally arises, if it was not sent in consequence of the letter from the Home Office, why was this War Office telegram sent at once post haste to the General Officer Commanding telling him not to lock up any aliens, but to suspend the order? The Under-Secretary of State for War gave the reason in answer to a question of mine on the 8th February. He said:—
    "The War Office had already, on learning that a large number of removals had been made, telegraphed to the military authorities to suspend action."
    I really think that that answer must have been given per incuriam, because there is some confusion about it. I asked two days later how many aliens had been actually removed under this order before the 1st January, and the right hon. Gentleman told me none at all.
    Mr. TENNANT: They went of their own free will. The order had not come into force.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Oh, what a good thing! Because these aliens were going of their own free will, are we to understand that the War Office in London telegraphed suspending the order for the removal of these dangerous persons? That seems very strange; really the confusion becomes considerably greater as we go on. At any rate, the result of it all was that in consequence of that telegram of 1st January the order made by the responsible military authority in Yorkshire—that is the general commanding the Northern Command—was cancelled and suspended, and only twenty-eight aliens have been removed from the coast since 1st January, while the cases of 414 others on whom the order had been made are still under consideration.
    The only other case to which I wish to draw attention is one of a lady who was ordered to be removed by the general officer commanding the Northern Command, acting, as he did, on the advice of the local police. That order was superseded from the War Office in London. It suggests to me, unless there is some explanation given which at present I cannot understand, a very great deal of confusion in the administration. Let me tell the House in a very few words what is the
    880
    case: A Mrs. Savile was resident at Beverley, which is a prohibited area. This lady was a born German subject, the sister of General von Bothmer, who holds a high command in the German Army. She has as an intimate friend Admiral von Tirpitz, and, indeed, was on such terms of intimacy with him that his son was about to stay with her when the War broke out. She was never naturalised, but she married an English gentleman living at Beverley, and therefore, of course, became a British subject.
    Let us just see what has been done in the case of that lady. As long ago as September last the case was reported to the War Office. They asked the General Officer in Command of the Northern Command to take action. At his request the local police went carefully into the case, made every investigation and inquiry which they could, and in the result both the chief constable at Beverley, where the lady was living, and the chief constable of the East Riding, in which Beverley is situated, strongly recommended that the general officer in command should order this lady to remove from the prohibited area of Beverley and go to some other place satisfactory to the authorities. The general acted on that advice—indeed, he could not have done anything else. The Home Secretary has said that in these matters the local police make the inquiries on behalf of the military authorities, because they are the persons, and the only persons, upon whom the general can rely on making the order.
    The general officer accepted the advice of the local police. He made the order on 25th January. It was made after full consideration. It is quite true that there is an officer living at Hull, in that district, who, I believe, took the somewhat unusual course of personally interviewing that lady. I believe he did not take the view of the local police in thinking the lady should be removed. Why he did so is perfectly immaterial to this discussion. His views no doubt were properly considered by the military authorities who made the order on 25th January. I need not go into the grounds given by the local police for their suspicion. I can show the right hon. Gentleman if he chooses, and if necessary could read to the House, papers on that point; and I think hon. Members would agree with me that the police had ample grounds for suspicion and for the lady's removal, not desiring to take any risks. Mark what happened! The order was made on 25th January. From that day to

    881
    this it has never been executed. What has happened I am not really in a position to say. One can only suspect.
    At any rate, one can only say this—I will not go further—that I have known cases—and I suppose everyone in this House has known cases—where aliens have been interned and influence from outside has been brought to bear to get them out. This has been the influence of persons who probably knew nothing about the circumstances in which the aliens were interned, or in which orders were made for removal. These influences are, to my knowledge, and I have no doubt to that of every hon. Member of this House, exerted. Whether that happened in this case or not the order for the removal of the lady from Beverley was withdrawn on 7th February. The lady was allowed to leave Beverley for a time to visit her friends, and the last that seems to have been heard of her was at York Station Hotel, an admirable place for making observations—if she desired to make them—as to the movements of the troops and other military movements.
    I wish to state that the information I have got in this matter does not come from the military authorities. I want to make this further statement, that I do not in the least blame the distinguished head of the office in London whose name is familiar to us all, General Belfield, for what has happened, because, as the hon. Member for Brentford said, it was quite impossible that he should be able to deal with the enormous mass of topics which come up nominally in his Department. I do say this: it is a most unfortunate thing that an order for the removal of a suspect from a prohibited area made by the military authorities in this part, competent to deal with the matter, and made on the advice of the police in this part, should be cancelled and suspended, on the advice of some person unknown. It is the very worst precedent to set up. Could anything be more calculated to discourage the local police? The local police, as I think the Home Secretary said, willingly work for the military authorities to find out suspected persons, to find out those who ought to be interned and removed, and the rest of it. Could we devise a more fatal mode of damping their loyalty and discouraging their efforts than that their advice, given after full consideration and inquiry, should be thrown in the waste paper basket, and discouraged by the order of somebody in London.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Who?
    Mr. BUTCHER: We shall probably hear in time.
    Mr. TENNANT: I shall be able to give that information.
    Mr. BUTCHER: It was done in London. It does not matter for my purpose who did it. It was done, and the lady is at liberty now. I have given two illustrations, both of them under the Defence of the Realm Act, to show that there is divided responsibility. In the one case it was interference from the Home Office, and in the other interference from London. There ought to be none. I strongly support my hon. Friend that there shall be no divided responsibility and no overlapping, but one Minister, who, with a staff suitable for the purpose, shall be able to undertake this matter without interference from anyone. He will then be responsible to the House and the country for the due administration of the law.
    Mr. HENDERSON: It seems to me that the cases cited by the hon. Member opposite go a very long way to support what the Home Secretary said in regard to authority in this matter. They cannot blame the Home Secretary, because manifestly the suspension of the order came from the War Office. The whole of this Debate, and the previous Debates, is to me very unreal. All centres on an effort to get at my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Mr. HENDERSON: It looks very like it; that is how it impresses us here. You cannot get a case against the right hon. Gentleman, because he has thrown the responsibility—very properly thrown it—upon the man who is very well able to bear it, and of whom hon. Members are just a little afraid. Although I am one of those who quite understand, and quite fully appreciate, the danger of espionage amongst alien enemies, I say deliberately that this alien business has just been a little overdone. There was the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) who went up to my native place and set the heather on fire because, it was said, our enemies were getting supplies from the coast. He could not give a single specific case. The foundation, he said, of his case was that the submarines came so many hundred miles, and that they could not go so many hundreds of miles without oil; therefore they must be supplied from somebody or other near the coast who had signalled to them,

    883
    and so forth. He did not know then that the ambit of some of the newer submarines is from 2,000 to 3,000 miles. This would enable them perfectly well to go up to Aberdeen and back again. The result of that was there was a great panic up in the North, and then came a prohibited area. The policy adumbrated by the hon. Member for Brentford, if carried out to the full, would entail most vicious and fearful hardships upon thousands of perfectly honest and decent citizens. Let me give a case. Aberdeen has been made a prohibited area. The authorities there took hold of a decent musician, a Bohemian, whose brothers are now fighting for Russia. They turned him out of Aberdeen. "You must not stay here," said the authorities, "you may be fiddling all day, but you may be communicating with the enemy by night." The police sent him to Braemar where, of course, he could get no business—nobody to teach. Then to Glasgow. From Glasgow he was sent on board the "Lake Manitoba," somewhere near Portsmouth. The military did that.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: It was the Government.
    Mr. LONG: The hon. Member makes an attack upon my Noble Friend behind me. What he is now describing results from the policy of the Government.
    Mr. HENDERSON: It was, no doubt, because of the alarm created by the Noble Lord. I do not suppose that now there are any alien enemies in that district.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Thank God!
    Mr. HENDERSON: I only mention it because of the great amount of hardship resulting from the unnecessarily severe policy of the Government. I suppose that every German, Austrian, or Bohemian, and this old man the Bohemian who has nothing to do with Germany, will be interned when they are found. The hon. Member for Brentford said that the police had been employed to help get employment for these men. That has been explained, and perhaps I can give some information with regard to that. You take a man away from his employment—you cannot help it; it is a hardship, no doubt, entitled by war—and you intern him. He may be a clerk, a professional man, a manufacturer, or anything. You take him right away from his employment and intern him for two, three or six months, and
    884
    then, as he cannot go back to his own business, what has he got to do? [An HON. MEMBER: "Keep him there!"]
    When the Secretary of State decides that a man is to be released, what the police properly do is to ascertain whether this man can get employment and not become a burden on the rates, because if that man is cast loose without a shilling, without an occupation, without a means of living, he is sure to come on the rates, or, at all events, he will be going about and, for the first time in his life perhaps, become dangerous. That is why the police interfere, and that is the amount of interference they make. They go to hotels, for instance, and ask if they can give a man employment, but the War Office will not give consent if he is going to be a burden on the rates. So it is with the chief constables of all the various towns. It is a very good practice that, when a man is to be released from internment, after full inquiry that he cannot go back to his old place, he must be sent to some other town outside the prohibited area. He has then got to find employment, which is a very difficult thing for him, and the chief constables of every one of these towns—Manchester, Leeds, and so on—not in the prohibited area insist on knowing that he will not become a burden on the rates—a very proper provision to make.
    Now, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) made a very strong case with regard to the point of there being no discrimination. I certainly think there ought to be some sort of discrimination before some Board, where a man would be able to state his case and show that he was not in the least likely to be a dangerous enemy. The hon. Member for Brentford wished to lock up everyone of these men. Now Germany does not do that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] They put them under guard—that is to say, they go every day to see them.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Three times a day.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Well, three times a day. We have some in this country who are visited once a day, and who are forbidden to go beyond a certain area; but Germany does not lock them up and intern them. If the Noble Lord were asked if he would rather be visited or interned, I know which he would choose.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: It would depend who my companions were.
    Mr. HENDERSON: There is no doubt whatever that the military authority ought to be the authority to decide who shall be interned and who shall not be, and it is not fair—it is even, I would go to the length of saying, rather unmanly—to attack the Home Secretary.
    Mr. LONG: Nobody has done anything of the kind.
    Mr. HENDERSON: People outside do.
    Mr. LONG: That is another matter.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Sometimes they take their policy from inside. However, the military authority is the proper authority, at all events, in war time. In war time you must place confidence in one man. It is quite clear that he is the responsible person. I know, as a matter of fact, that when the police have gone into a case of whether a man should be released from internment, whenever they have satisfied themselves on all these points, the matter has got to go for final arbitrament and decision to the War Office to say whether he shall, be released or not. They never release him until every inquiry has been made, and they are satisfied he will not go on the rates; but the final words, both for internment and for release, lie with the military authority, as it ought properly to do. Reference has been made to Belgium. Belgium is not quite the same thing as this country, although I admit that certain things might be done in this country just the same as in Belgium. Let the House not forget the extraordinarily close relationship that existed between Belgium and Germany before the War. There were a very large number of Germans settled in Belgium, compared with the population, and there was a great deal of intermarrying, far more than there is in this country. And, of course, we knew of cases where the Germans have laid concrete foundations, and all that sort of thing.
    We have heard something about concrete foundations at Willesden, which caused great excitement. There was no such thing. We have heard other stories, but there has not been a single rumour, so far as I know, in the papers of specific cases, which the moment it was inquired into has stood the test. We saw them all in the papers; what has become of them? You have not found a single case, and that ought to give you pause before starting on a policy of locking up every German and creating an awful amount of misery. The military authority, if left to itself, I am
    886
    perfectly certain, would never lock up everybody without discrimination, and I think it is a policy this House ought not to advocate.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The hon. Member who has just sat down paid me a singular compliment. He said that I set the heather alight in Scotland. That any individual in this House, or out of it, could make that hard-headed and thoroughly business race take up a panic is, to my mind, quite impossible. Whatever I did in his constituency had the desired effect of removing aliens from the coast. The hon. Gentleman also said that I had made certain statements I could not prove, with, regard to lights being shown along the coast. I again reaffirm what I said before. The German spy system in this country is well-known to the Home Office, and everyone, and it must be more than a singular coincidence that ships went out without their escort and were blown up by submarines. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that the knowledge of the squadron going to sea when the "Formidable" was blown up was known to spies. When the "Formidable" was blown up the Home Secretary charged me with not being able to prove these things.
    I acknowledge it is very difficult to prove many of these statements, but there is a common-sense way of dealing with these things. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we are at war, and being at war alters circumstances altogether, and we have got to think of our own people before we think of alien enemies. I do not for one moment deny that the question is very difficult indeed, and I do not at all object to the remark of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that certain injustice may be perpetrated. But surely it is better to perpetrate this injustice to save our own people from a most trying danger, than to have these alien enemies at large and leave our people to that trying danger. The Home Secretary made the position of responsibility very much more difficult than it was before. He brought in other Departments. He said the Secretary of State for War is solely responsible, but he is only responsible in a certain position. The local police are the people who know the situation. They will go to the chief constable, who may or may not go to the Home Office. The Home Office goes to the War Office or the Admiralty, and then the individual is interned, or let out.

    887
    All that my hon. Friend asks for is a bureau with one head, and representatives of all those Departments who can grapple with these cases and think of nothing else. It is surely a better and more businesslike plan, and it is a plan certainly more likely to be fair, as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said, to individuals who should not be locked up. I object altogether to locking-up barbers, waiters and chiropodists and all those people. They are not the people who are going to do us any harm. They talk German and know German, but have not the chance of doing any harm. It is the people in high positions, the bankers and others who are feted and heard much of in times of peace, who can do harm, but it is difficult to get hold of those people, though you are far more likely to get at them if you have a bureau.
    7.0 P.M.
    I would take it away from the Home Secretary who, I think, has plenty of work to do while we are at war, and I would have a Minister to look after this business and nothing else, to examine every case of suspicion, more particularly those cases which are represented by the local police and the local people who know the individuals they are talking about, and the War Office can know nothing about. That is the view I express with regard to that question. I think myself this is the greatest danger we have at the present moment. We shall hold our own. We shall win with the Army, and we shall win with the Fleet; but it is a very serious thing to have a large number of people in this country who can stab us in the back if they get the opportunity. We must remember we have got men in the trenches and in the field who are laying down their lives for the country, and those men are all anxious. They are leaving behind them hotbeds of treason, which is far more dangerous to the life of this country than the German submarines with which we are confronted. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a great and increasing anxiety in the country on this matter, principally because the country does not know who is responsible. The right hon. Gentleman says the Secretary for War is responsible, but is only responsible for one part. We ought to have a Minister responsible for the whole of this business, and not for a part of it. I think there has been incredible laxity both in connection with the internment
    888
    and release of these alien enemies. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that many people have been locked up who ought not to have been locked up without a proper inquiry, and there is a great number who ought to have been locked up who are not locked up. When these people are liberated, there is no check on what they do subsequently. If they are liberated from internment, are they kept under police supervision?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Then our alien enemies are officially protected. We saw some symptoms of sanity in regard to the treatment of those pirates and sea murderers, and I wish we could see a little more in regard to the locking up of the alien enemies, and the right hon. Gentleman must see that the Government have no sense of proportion. Every British subject is interned in Germany irrespective of age or whether he is ill, and he is ill-used, insulted, and ill-fed. Here we have aliens almost caressed by the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes there are. They are looked after in every possible way, and made much of, and they are still allowed all over the place after they are interned, whereas in Germany they are kept under the conditions which I have described. I think the House will agree with me when I say that it is time we looked after our own people without concerning ourselves so greatly about aliens, so long as we are fair to them. We do not want to persecute them. I do not think we should concern ourselves so greatly about our alien enemies.
    The Government have admitted that all the British prisoners in Germany are treated much worse than the prisoners of other nations. We must remember what they do to us. I do not want reprisals, but I want common-sense action with regard to our enemies. Do not let us forget that there is not one single man-of-war prisoner in Germany, although they could have been picked up after the sinking of the "Monmouth" and the "Good Hope," whereas, on the other hand, we have lots of German sailors who have been saved by our ships. I mention that to show the remorseless hatred for us of these men whom we are pampering at the present moment. Why did we give the captain of the "Blücher" an honourable military funeral? He could have been buried in the ordinary way. He had the full

    889
    honours paid to an honourable foe, and yet he was one of those men whom the Prime Minister told us was instrumental in killing and wounding 388 women and children. That man was not worthy of the military honours we gave him.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: He had to obey orders.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: That has nothing whatever to do with it. Pirates obeyed orders in the old days. This captain was the representative of a piratical act, ordered, you may say, by the Government, but I do not wish to insult a man when he is dead. I wish to give him a proper funeral, but he had no right to military honours. Such a funeral is particularly offensive to those who have lost their wives and children by these piratical acts. Why did they not give military funerals to the men—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Motion relates to the internment, and not to the interment of these people.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I feel rather warmly on this question, and I think it is serious that we should pay these honours to the people who murder our women and children. I think the leniency and chivalry shown is rather in the nature of chivalry gone mad. We do not want to show the sort of flabby sentimentality which we have been showing in regard to these aliens. I do not want them ill-treated, but I want them all locked up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—I want them all locked up, after we have a proper bureau so show that they should be locked up, and such a bureau does not at present exist. The necessity for such a bureau is shown by the speech of the Home Secretary. I must again refer to the case of Donington Hall. Why cannot we think more of our own people, and the enormous amount of money we are spending there?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Motion does not relate to the treatment of prisoners of war at all.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: It relates to more direct responsibility than we have got at the present time. I think the question is really more puzzling than it was at first, after the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I say that we shall not have this question put on a proper footing—to be fair to our own people and to remove a terrific danger in our midst—unless we have a Minister solely responsible
    890
    for it, and unless we have a bureau, composed of representatives of the Army, the Navy, the Home Office, and Scotland Yard, which, to my astonishment, have been brought into this matter. Let us have everybody in this bureau who knows the circumstances, and will be able to adjudicate fairly on the cases. I think my hon. Friend who brought this Motion forward put his case very clearly. In this matter we are fighting the most formidable enemy this country has ever fought. We are fighting for our homes, our existence, and our liberty, against the most dastardly, cruel enemy, who approves of the methods of assassins and pirates, and these people emanate from that country. Until we get such a bureau as has been suggested on both sides of the House we shall not have this matter settled in the way the country wishes it to be settled—that is by having a Minister directly responsible for this question, and this question alone, instead of it being mixed up with the whole of the Departments of the Government.
    Mr. TENNANT: The question raised by the hon. Member for Brentford is really a question of the number of authorities which have to deal with the subject of internment, which he contends ought to come within the ambit of one Minister. The hon. Member must see that certain Acts of Parliament deal with this alien question and it is impossible to co-ordinate them. We could not bring the Registration of Aliens Act under the War Office, and it is equally impossible and undesirable for the Home Office to undertake the administration of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Those enactments are quite separate and distinct and each perform a function essential for the welfare and safety of the State. It is necessary that they should each be administered by separate Departments. In the course of his observations the hon. Member seemed to commiserate with the Secretary of State for War because he was charged with the responsibility of seeing that these regulations were carried out and because he was generally responsible for the safety of the Realm. I have seen my Noble Friend in many characteristics and lights, but I have never before seen him the object of commiseration, and I will take care to represent to him that he has the commiseration of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Tell him it is deeper since this afternoon.
    Mr. TENNANT: My object in rising is to reply to a few observations made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope I shall be able to allay a certain amount of anxiety which I think resides in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, and which I think may be increased by the observations he made to the House a few minutes ago. My right hon. Friend behind me stated that nationality was no offence, and the right hon. Gentleman said that that is true, and ought to be a ground of suspicion. I am here to inform the right hon. Gentleman that nationality is a ground of suspicion. It would not be considered the only ground, but it is a ground of suspicion with other things. Every single alien enemy in this country is known and is at this present moment under constant police surveillance. That does not apply to neutrals.
    Mr. LONG: Does the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that every alien enemy in the United Kingdom at this time is under police surveillance?
    Mr. TENNANT: In the first place, the House ought to know that every single alien enemy is known and registered under the Registration of Aliens Act.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Not at all. Some come in as Americans.
    Mr. TENNANT: But they are not aliens.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better hear what the right hon. Gentleman has got to say, instead of having this general conversation.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and I quite appreciate your suggestion. It is a fact, in spite of what my right hon. Friend behind me says, that every alien enemy resident in this country—I cannot say it of one who came in yesterday, but as soon as the authorities become aware of him it will be so—is registered under the Aliens Restriction Act, whether in a prohibited area or not. He is known and he is under constant police surveillance. That is a very important fact which I hope the House will appreciate. Again, every alien of whatever nationality is obliged to register in the prohibited areas. That is not alien enemies alone, but every alien of what—ever nationality in a prohibited area. The prohibited areas consist of the whole of the coast line from the North of Scotland to the Isle of Wight, right down the East Coast; and they embrace also certain parts
    892
    of the West Coast. Under the Defence of the Realm Act regulations the competent naval and military authorities have power to remove any suspected person, whether British or alien who is named in the order from any place and make him submit his future address, which also in turn has to be approved by the competent naval or military authority. Again, the competent naval or military authorities have power to remove the whole or any part of the inhabitants of any area specified in an order for naval or military reasons.
    I have now given the House facts. The right hon. Gentleman charged us with taking this matter lightly and said that we seemed to have forgotten we were at war. Does the House seriously think there is any one of us sitting on this Bench, engaged in the anxious administration of our Departments day by day and almost more than by day, who can possibly forget that we are at war? I think the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reflect upon that statement, will see that it is really groundless, and will do us the honour, or, at any rate, consider that it was a statement which he might have omitted from his remarks. The Noble Lord opposite talked about a bureau. I want to inform him and the House and the Country that we have at the War Office a branch of the Department which includes the Censorship and other services, all directed to the one end of safeguarding the country from the operations of these very undesirable people.
    I do not think it would be desirable for me to take the public into the confidence of the War Office as to the activities of this branch of our Department. I can enlighten the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition if he will do me the honour of talking to me upon the subject. I can tell him a good deal about the activities of the Department; but I am sure the House will realise that it would not be desirable to disclose all, or indeed any, of the many branches of its activities. I can also say that it has displayed the greatest efficiency, and so far from there being any necessity for such a bureau as the Noble Lord has suggested, I believe that is at the present time in existence inside the four walls of the War Office. Although in some cases the branch has to utilise—as it necessarily would do—the services of the local police for ordinary investigation, it does not follow that it is confined to that particular service.

    893
    I really do not want to be led on any further into a description of what the branch does. I do trust that what I have already stated may have allayed certain apprehensions in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen. I agree that espionage is a real danger. If I felt that what the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth said were true of the country generally, the picture which he has painted of there being this laxity everywhere with regard to alien enemies, I should really share his apprehensions and feel all the anxieties which he feels; but as I know that is not the case I may be able, I hope, to relieve his mind of some of the anxieties which he has felt. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said he thought it was a scandal that the brother of the Governor of Brussels should be allowed to go free. I can only inform the House, as I have informed it before, that this brother of the Governor of Brussels has been under our careful watch for more than two years, and everything there is to be known about him is known, or is believed to be known. I know the right hon. Gentleman smiles at that, because he thinks we are so superior that we imagine we have all the information when, in point of fact, we have not.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That was not my idea at all. My idea was that just in proportion to the ability of the gentleman was the difficulty of finding out what he was doing.
    Mr. TENNANT: When I have the pleasure of conversing with the right hon. Gentleman. I may be able to tell him what we have done.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I had a conversation with him about this gentleman, and he told me on that occasion that he had not got the information, although it was very important.
    Mr. TENNANT: Since the hon. Gentleman was good enough to put that question to me, I have obtained the information from his Friend and colleague the Member for Armagh. Perhaps I ought to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh was good enough to call upon me and to give me a good deal of information. He afterwards had a conversation with one of my officials, and the whole matter was gone into.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I understood the right hon. Gentleman just now to say that this
    894
    information had been at the disposal of the Government for two years.
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, that may have been one of the things which my officials knew and which I did not know, but I am not really able to say. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me exactly what he has in mind. The main fact is that this gentleman has left home, and I believe that he is now in this City. The case of Mrs. Saville mentioned by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) is an interesting one. I do not think the hon. and learned Member was quite accurate in one or two of the facts which have been supplied to him. It is not true to say—I am not in the least complaining of anything the hon. Gentleman said; I only think that he has been misinformed—that the General Officer Commanding the Northern Command was strongly of opinion that this lady should be expelled. I understood him to say that was the fact.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I said that the general officer of the Northern Command had sent to the local police for investigations. The local police had strongly recommended the removal, and, of course, the general officer in command acted upon that recommendation.
    Mr. TENNANT: The facts in that respect are practically as stated by the hon. and learned Member. The chief constable did recommend the expulsion of the lady. Thereupon the competent military authority sent the General Officer Commanding the Humber defences to interview the lady and to ascertain whether there was real ground for her removal. I think the General Officer Commanding the Northern Command did make the expulsion order, but he was so uncertain in his mind as to whether an injustice had not been done that he communicated to the War Office before the order was put in force. After some correspondence an officer from the War Office went to Yorkshire to inquire personally into the matter and to confer with the General Officer Commanding himself. After a very exhaustive inquiry, this officer satisfied himself that there was not sufficient grounds for removing Mrs. Saville and her daughter by an expulsion order. The General Officer Commanding the Humber defences was strongly of opinion that the suspicions formed against Mrs. Saville were not based on satisfactory evidence. As a result of the whole thing, the General Officer Commanding suggested that the

    895
    order for expulsion should be withdrawn, on Mrs. Saville and her daughter undertaking to leave the prohibited area voluntarily and reporting all their movements. Mrs. Saville has now left the district voluntarily, and she has agreed to communicate her address from time to time as she removes to the General Officer Commanding. This course has now been adopted, and she is giving her address. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman need be apprehensive about this lady, nor do I think this is a case where you can say that there was any laches on the part of the branch of the War Office itself. On the contrary, this case has been most carefully handled. It has been the subject of most exhaustive investigations. So far from there being anything in the nature of neglect, it has been most carefully treated, and, instead of doing what would have been a real injustice, the lady has been allowed to go free and to move out of the prohibited area.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Might I ask what means of investigation this officer who went down from the War Office to inquire into the case had beyond what the local police who reported that she ought to be removed had themselves?
    Mr. TENNANT: There are many other sources of information, but I am most reluctant to take the public into my confidence as to what other sources of information are at our disposal. I hope I have, in the few remarks I have been able to make, allayed some feelings of apprehension in the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I feel it is very undesirable that any kind of suspicion should go abroad that we at the War Office do not take this matter seriously. I wish to controvert that with all the earnestness I can. So far from that being the case, we have at our disposal a most efficient intelligent branch which has done admirable service.
    Mr. LONG: The right, hon. Gentleman is very much perturbed by my right hon. Friend's remarks earlier in the afternoon that the Government has not taken this question of aliens sufficiently seriously, and he asks us whether we really hold that view. I am sure it is not necessary for me to assure him that had my right hon. Friend not felt it, had he not felt it strongly, and had he not believed that view was held, not only by himself and by
    896
    those who sit here, but was also shared by a great many people in the country, who do not by any means belong to one political party, he would never have made the statement. The right hon. Gentleman who complained of it does not seem to realise that when that charge is made we do not mean to convey the impression that we think the Government are treating matters carelessly or neglectfully. But with regard to this particular branch and I think, with great deference, the same comment might be made in regard to other branches of administration with regard to this particular question of dealing with aliens, we maintain that the Government, whatever their intentions may be, have led us and the people in the country to believe that they have not appreciated, either the gravity of the situation, or the very general feeling which exists in the country about it.
    How did the right hon. Gentleman begin his speech? I desire to thank him for the information he has given us as to two or three cases, but I do not think that information has removed any of our apprehensions. He will not find to-morrow that the feeling in the country, which he knows is strong generally, and is not confined to any particular party, has been in any way allayed by what he said. What was the first line of defence he made. He admitted, as of course he is bound to admit, in regard to the question of alien enemies, that, as the law stands at present, it is not possible to concentrate the administration in one Department or under one head alone, and he added, perfectly accurately, this cannot be done without legislation. If I had nothing else to go upon I would be content to take that as evidence on which to rest the statement made by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. TENNANT: I also said it was not desirable.
    Mr. LONG: That is a matter of opinion. I am not taking the right hon. Gentleman's opinion now. I am dealing with matters of fact, which I wish to keep quite distinct. The right hon. Gentleman said that, as a matter of fact, these duties fall under more than one Department. He also said, "You cannot concentrate them without legislation," and that I submit is evidence in support of the charge my right hon. Friend has made: "You cannot concentrate this administration without legislation." But you do not propose legislation! Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to express

    897
    his opinion, which is, that this concentration is not desirable. That is where we differ from him. We are satisfied that concentration is essential, and that you will never get an administration as effective as it should be, however hard you try, until you do concentrate. We differ from the right hon. Gentleman, and say that the Government have not grappled with this vastly important question as they should do.
    I want to refer to a question which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Personally, I do not attach very great importance to it, and I am rather surprised that the Home Secretary devoted so much time to it. Both he and the Under-Secretary fixed upon a casual remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) when he spoke of "poor Lord Kitchener." They made rather merry at my hon. Friend's expense The Home Secretary sought to identify him with this particular aspect of Lord Kitchener's condition. It never entered into my head, whatever Minister of the Crown may be concerned, to apply that particular description, and certainly if it did I should not select Lord Kitchener as one of them. I do not think he deserves our pity or needs it. He deserves, as he receives, our gratitude and our admiration, and there is no question of pity. The two right hon. Gentlemen did not understand what my hon. Friend meant when he used that term. They did not appreciate what was the meaning of our charge. It is not that you are throwing upon one particular Minister duties which are too heavy for him to deal with and therefore he is to be commiserated. Our argument is—and it specially applies to the War Office—that you are casting upon a Department which has already got more work than is enough for any one Department to do, in conducting the greatest War in which this country has ever been engaged, and not one war but five others, and possibly assisting and advising in the conduct of a sixth—a heavy enough task—but added to this, you are putting upon the Department the very difficult and technical work of dealing with the alien enemy question.
    The Under-Secretary for War, in dealing with the specific case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford, told us of the process of inquiry adopted by the General Officer Commanding the District. I am quite familiar with it. I have taken a very great interest in this
    898
    alien enemy question from the beginning. I have made it my business to watch its working on the spot, and I say, at once, that I do not believe that a soldier—even the General Officer Commanding the District—is by any means the best or even the right person to select to come to the very difficult decision as to what action should be taken in these cases. It has been said, and it cannot be said too often, that we are dealing not alone with spies. Your alien enemies are divided into two quite distinct classes. There are the spies who are necessarily much more limited in number than are the main body.
    You have spies on one side and alien enemies on the other, and to ask the General Officer Commanding the district, a man trained in military work, probably as brave as a lion, and a highly accomplished soldier, to deal with this work—work of a totally different kind to that for which by his training and experience he is fitted—is, I venture to say, to lay upon him a task which, while no doubt he would do it to the best of his ability, is nevertheless one that is not likely to be accomplished with the amount of success we hold that it should be. Therefore I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation meets the case. It is not because we are sympathising with Lord Kitchener on the extra burden of work. It is because we believe you are throwing on one Department an amount of work in connection with this particular business which is more than it can successfully perform. The right hon. Gentleman at the end of his remarks passed a panegyric—I did not catch the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary observed to me it was essential that the administration should be in the War Office. I agreed, but I also said I should be quite willing to undertake it.
    Mr. LONG: That is, I think, the very general view. It is a view which is not confined to those who are now criticising the Government, but it is the general view that the whole responsibility ought to be concentrated in one Department in charge of a Minister sitting here, and for the reasons I have given, we think that Minister should be the Home Secretary rather than a soldier. The Under-Secretary, at the end of his remarks, passed a panegyric upon the Intelligence Department of the War Office. I believe it to be absolutely deserved. I believe the

    899
    Intelligence Department of the War Office is wholly admirable in every respect. I have heard with satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman a statement, which has never been made before, that for two years the Intelligence Department of the War Office has been carefully watching these spies in this country, and has become completely familiar with all their movements.
    Mr. McKENNA: For a very much longer time.
    Mr. LONG: I am taking the period mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary. The statement was that for two years they have been absolutely familiar with all the circumstances connected with these spies. The War has been going on for over six months. This House has been sitting for six months. We have had repeated Debates on the alien question. Why was not this statement made six months ago? Why were we not told that our fears were groundless, because this information was in possession of the War Office? Has the whole country been fooled? We have had the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel). We know that the Home Secretary was quite unable to deal with the cases he raised four months ago as occuring on the East Coast of Scotland. How is it that these cases were allowed to come to the point which they reached if this information has been in the War Office for two years, and if you have actually been watching these people? The right hon. Gentleman is making a large demand on the credulity of the House and of the country when he tells us they have got all this information, and when we know, as we do—the evidence is abundant and it cannot be contested—that you have had all these difficulties to deal with, and that you have them at the present moment. That is, so far as the spies are concerned.
    I come next to the alien enemy question. It has been quite impossible to understand, from the speeches of the two Members of the Government who have addressed the House, how the responsibility is divided. I understood from the Home Secretary that the War Office decided whether it was desirable that groups of alien enemies should be arrested and gave him instructions, that he carries out the arrests, and that the persons arrested are treated as military prisoners. That, I
    900
    gather, is a repetition of what the right hon. Gentleman said before. I can quite understand the military authority being the proper authority to decide whether a large body of men in a particular district can be safely left there or whether they ought to be interned in case they should, as it were, form an army of their own and do injury to this country. But that is a totally different question from having scattered throughout the community a large number of men or women who are not spies, and never would become spies, as they have neither the training nor the ability, but who are a danger to this country because they are a means of circulating information to enemy aliens who are allowed to live here in far larger numbers than the majority of people in this country think they ought to. It has not been contended that the statement made here by the right, hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy as to the number of enemy aliens in the Metropolis is inaccurate.
    Mr. TENNANT: I said they were known.
    Mr. LONG: The right hon. Gentleman does not deny that there is this great number. There are 16,000 of military age, and 24,000 in all, in the Metropolis, and he says that they are not a source of danger because they are under constant surveillance. Is that information really correct? I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would not use the word "surveillance" if he did not mean effective, continuous, and satisfactory surveillance. If it means merely that they are known to the police, that there is a dossier of each one in the pigeon-holes at Scotland Yard—if that is what the right hon. Gentleman means, then his statement will give us no confidence at all. But when he tells us that these enemy aliens are not only known to the police, but are under close police surveillance, that means that there is between us and the risks to which we are undoubtedly exposed by the existence of this large army in our midst, the protection of a continuous and efficient supervision of these people by our police authorities. That is a hurculean task which I do not think has ever been attempted by the police of any metropolis in the world, to keep under close supervision 24,000 people who may at any moment become active enemies of the country. However, we have the statement, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman means that this Department, which is apparently responsible,

    901
    will take care that this supervision is so effective that at any moment they can, if necessary, lay their hands upon those of whom they get unsatisfactory reports, and deal with them in a different manner.
    So far from allaying our apprehensions, the admission of the existence of this large number of alien enemies and the statement that they are regarded as harmless because they are under close supervision by the police, rather increase than diminish my anxieties, and I confess I still feel that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition only expressed what we all hold, that this matter has not been dealt with in a manner in which it ought to have been if this very real and serious danger is to be properly tackled. The Under-Secretary of State was good enough to intimate to my right hon. Friend that he would be glad to give him privately information which he could not give him across the floor of the House. I can assure him that nothing is further from our thoughts than that he should show anything to us which would be likely to prejudice good and wise administration. We ask for no statements from him or the Government which they think they cannot make in the interests of the country. We have never asked for a statement, never pressed for it, and never suggested it. We do ask for incessant and untiring vigilance, without which the existence of this large number of people is a very real danger and without which we are afraid that that danger may grow into something greater, if, which God forbid, this country should become for any time, however short, the victim of a raid by our German enemies. Then the real danger and trouble of the existence in our midst of these people will be found out. We should be much happier than we are if we thought the Government realised this more fully and proved that they realised it, not by their speeches here, but by their actions outside.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: My right hon. Friend who has just sat down has dealt with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that these enemy aliens are all under police supervision, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite intended to represent that this supervision would extend to naturalised aliens. If that is so, it certainly would not extend to the case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred a little earlier in the afternoon, namely, the case of the brother of the Military Governor of Brussels. That case, which has been several times brought
    902
    to the notice of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Armagh (Sir J. Lonsdale), is one which is a very good example of the sort of danger we apprehend and of the treatment of it by the Government. Indeed, it appears to many of us to be very typical of their treatment of the whole question. In referring to that particular case this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had had full information with regard to this gentleman of German origin for two years past.
    If that is so, if the Government have really been fully acquainted with all the circumstances of this gentleman's career and all the aspects of it in relation to the alien question, and if, with all that knowledge, the Government still think that there is no real case for the internment of this gentleman, then all I can say is that instead of diminishing the apprehensions of those who know the circumstances, that statement of the right hon. Gentleman will very materially increase them. As the right hon. Gentleman has thought that the information at his disposal in regard to this case is insufficient to justify him in taking any more stringent step than ordering the removal of this gentleman from Brighton to London, I should like to tell the House the sort of information which some of us, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Armagh, have placed at the right hon. Gentleman's disposal. This gentleman, whose name has been frequently mentioned in the House during the last few weeks—Baron von Bissing—is a German by birth who has been naturalised in this country for between seven and eight years. The other day I supplied the right hon. Gentleman with one item of information about him which at that time he said was new to him. This gentleman has been for a considerable period the London correspondent of a newspaper in Germany which is, I believe, at once the most Anglophobe of their newspapers and, in some way, the official or semi-official organ of the German military party. Herr von Bissing has been living in this country for seven or eight years as a naturalised subject.
    The hon. Member for Mid-Armagh has told the right hon. Gentleman of the evidence at his disposal, which certainly should throw suspicion upon this German gentleman. In the light of the admission made from the Government Bench this afternoon that the mere existence of enemy nationality was a ground of suspicion—a proposition in which I entirely

    903
    concur—I should have thought that if you added to the initial suspicion excited by this gentleman's nationality the fact that he was closely related to a very high military potentate in Germany, who has been taking a prominent part, and by no means a very creditable or honourable part, in the invasion of Belgium and who is now the Military Governor, the cruel Military Governor of Brussels, you would not have to go any further than that relationship itself to make the Government very ill-disposed to show particular leniency to the gentleman over here. Let me go a step further. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Armagh has had a statement made to him by a gentleman whose name and address he has already given to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or is quite prepared to do so, a gentleman of high standing in this country who is quite prepared to put that statement in the form of a statutory declaration. It is to this effect: He says that some four years ago—that is to say, three or four years after Von Bissing went through the form of naturalisation in this country, that he had a conversation with him at Brighton. They were members of the same club, and I believe that they used to play cards together. On one occasion this informant said to Von Bissing
    "How do you put in your time down here."
    and the reply was
    "Oh, I am here ostensibly as a journalist, but my real profession or real occupation is that I am in the service of the German Foreign Office."
    There you have a definite statement to which a gentleman of high standing is prepared to swear, in an affidavit, that this man four years after his naturalisation was in the paid employment of the German Foreign Office. Could you possibly have a stronger reason for supposing that he is or may be in the same employment, not after four years but after eight years, and that no change whatever has taken place in his status? My hon. Friend has another declaration, made not four years ago, but made within three or four months of the outbreak of this War, from another gentleman who had a conversation with Von Bissing. They were discussing some question of public interest at the moment, some labour problem which was under discussion in this country, and at the end of the conversation Von Bissing said to the Englishman
    "I am very much obliged to you for the information you have given me. It is exceedingly interesting, and I shall certainly forward it to my Minister in Berlin to-morrow."
    904
    Then he corrected himself and said
    "No, not to-morrow, Wednesday is my day for writing."
    There you have, coming on top of the other declaration, a statement on the very eve of the outbreak of war that this man was in constant and evidently some sort of official communication with the German authorities in Berlin.
    Yet, in the face of all that knowledge, the right hon. Gentleman tells us this afternoon that he does not think the case is one in which this distinguished German gentleman should be interned. He tells us he has had the greater part of this information for two years or more, and yet all that has happened at the present moment to him is that he has been removed from Brighton to London, and, if my information is correct, even that removal had nothing whatever to do with the action of the Government, but only took place owing to the social pressure which the people in Brighton themselves brought to bear upon this gentleman to make the place too hot for him. That suggests to our mind a very great danger if this sort of slackness—we still think it is slackness—is allowed to go on. Nothing could possibly be worse than that the people in the various districts of this country should get so exasperated or resentful at the favour shown to conspicuous German people living among them—that they should be so hopeless of any real drastic action being taken by the authorities, that they are prepared to take matters into their own hands and drive these people out from among them. If it goes much further, and especially if this sort of case were to occur in a rather rougher class of society than that in which this gentleman moves on the sea front at Hove, it may be that the action taken in order to induce such gentlemen to remove themselves elsewhere may assume a much more dangerous form, and incidents might occur which all of us would regret in the interests of the good name of this country.
    These cases arise very largely from that very want of concentrated authority of which we have been complaining all through. In listening to the speech of the Home Secretary this afternoon, it appeared to me that he was much more anxious to show that this or that particular aspect of the case did not fall under his own personal responsibility than he was to show that the whole question could be possibly gathered together under one

    905
    single command, or to show that the administration of the different parts of it, left as they are to different Departments, had been at all efficiently managed. He only succeeded, so far as many of us on this side are concerned, in showing us the utter chaos which exists in this administration. I remember that, when he was speaking upon the question of arresting and interning, he said, with very great emphasis
    "I arrest and the military authorities intern."
    8.0 P.M.
    There at the very outset you have surely as chaotic a condition as you could possibly have in matters of this sort. There are two parties, one to arrest and the other to keep or release. I was very much astonished to find that the right hon. Gentleman impressed us all very much with the fact that the authority for dealing with the matter was all really in the hands of the War Office. I ventured to interrupt and ask him whether the War Office was also responsible for the landing of aliens in this country, surely a very important part of the question! The right hon. Gentleman said "No. The War Office has nothing to do with that. That is my Department." He was responsible for the landing of aliens. Surely the landing of enemy aliens is just as important—perhaps more important, and certainly as difficult—as the question of who should arrest them, who should keep them, or who should release them, and yet although the right hon. Gentleman admitted that this important part was in his jurisdiction, I notice that he gave no reply whatever, nor did the Under-Secretary, to the very remarkable case brought up by my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) with regard to the landing of aliens in Liverpool. How does that case stand? My hon. Friend quoted an answer of the Home Secretary to him that no Germans had arrived in this country by the "Lusitania," and that the supervision of the arrival of these steamers was complete and efficient, or words to that effect. The right hon. Gentleman has apparently supplied himself now with an answer which appears to him sufficient, but he made no sort of reply to the case made upon that point by hon. Friend.
    What was that case? I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman may think he has at his disposal at this moment, but I think it would be very difficult to get evidence which would be more convincing than that which was produced a short time ago by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend
    906
    has been in communication with passengers—men who have given their names and addresses, and obviously men who, on the smallest inquiry, could be found in the City of London. They say they themselves came by that ship, and that they spent their time on the voyage among Germans. Is it going to be suggested that they could be for five days on the same ship with Germans and not know them to be Germans? They had conversation with them, saw their writing, heard their speech, and came from Liverpool to London in railway carriages with them. They declare that there were a number of Germans on that very vessel. But it is even more inconceivable that their information can be faulty with regard to the efficient examination of the passengers.
    My hon. Friend said that these gentlemen who had been in communication with him said they were never asked any questions beyond mere perfunctory inquiries as to their names, address, and place of birth. I know something of what that sort of inquiry is. I remember at the outset of the War, when we crossed backwards and forwards to Ireland, someone met us at the gangway, and said, "What is your nationality?" They may do it still in some of the boats, though not in all. Any German who spoke even decent English and could give an account of himself, which would very easily pass muster, would not be detained five minutes at the gangway. It is certainly very much more easy, if it comes to a question of evidence, for a German to pass himself off as an Englishman to the officer who would be standing at the gangway than it would be for the gentlemen who had been in communication with my hon. Friend to be mistaken with regard to their nationality during five or six days' voyage. Therefore, the case which my hon. Friend made, to which the right hon. Gentleman never attempted to reply in any particular, although it is with regard to that part of the case which he himself admits was under his jurisdiction, is the very strongest possible evidence that we could bring forward to show the maladministration, as we think, or the slackness of administration, with regard to this part of the case.
    Mr. McKENNA: Will the hon. Member allow me to explain why I did not attempt to give any answer. As the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) will agree, I had no notice that he intended to raise any particular case. I had not in the least prepared

    907
    myself with information with regard to alien enemies or other persons landing from the steamship "Lusitania." The matter had been the subject of question and answer. Since then I have heard nothing further on the matter, and it came as a complete surprise to me that the hon. Member had further information which he had not subjected to the analysis of question and answer. But, of course, when I have had an opportunity of examining the witnesses whom the hon. Member quoted, I shall be very happy to make a full statement.
    Mr. McNEILL: Perhaps I ought to beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon for having referred to it in the particular way I did. I did not know that he required notice of it. Perhaps it would have been as well if he had mentioned that in the course of his speech, but as he passed it sub silentio I thought he had no reply to make. After the account which has been given by my hon. Friend it is very difficult to imagine that it would be possible to persuade the House and the country that the supervision of passengers and the exclusion of dangerous persons is quite as complete as the right hon. Gentleman led us to suppose.
    There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer, because it is an illustration of what we complain of about "divided authority." It appears to me as the result of the Debate to which we have listened that there is a hopeless splitting up of authority between the military and the police. Both my right hon. Friends who have spoken from the Front Bench have laid stress upon the fact that although the military authority may be all very well for dealing with the general question as to how far classes of people should be interned, the military authorities are not meant for the same detective work which is necessary in order to pick out individuals in the general population and to declare whether or not they are, or ought to be, subject to internment. A case which illustrates this occurred within my own knowledge. An hon. Member opposite, I think the hon. Member (Mr. J. M. Henderson) spoke about the great number of exaggerated cases and stories of spies and one thing and another which we all hear—rumours in the street or in the train or in the club. Of course, that is perfectly true, and it is quite natural that it should be so, but for every true case of espionage, or
    908
    treachery or anything of the sort in times like these, you must expect to have dozens and scores and probably hundreds of false cases, and it is the duty of the authorities to investigate any prima facie, case that is brought before them, and it may be that here and there a real case will be found.
    The case I have in my mind, at all events, did present a prima facie case. It was an example of what we have heard so much about, very often falsely, but occasionally truly, of signalling going on from buildings on the sea coast. In this case the particular building had been under suspicion for signalling for a considerable time, and it was now under supervision in the first instance by the special constables of the district. They investigated it, and they took with them on one occasion, to observe as closely as possible, a skilled telegraphist, who reported that the flashlights that he saw he was able to say were flashlights in the Morse code. He was not able, so far as I know, to read what was said, and I am not sure he was even able to say what language was being flashed, or whether it was code, but he was able to say that the Morse code was being used. That in itself constitutes a strong primâ facie case. In the course of keeping this place under observation it came to the knowledge of the special constables that suspicion had been aroused in the minds of the local military authorities as well, and that they were also keeping their eye on the place. That, of course, was either divided authority or overlapping. The fact that two different authorities were at work might have been very objectionable.
    Up to this point nothing objectionable happened. They found they were both working on different lines of scent towards the same object and they began to co-operate, and the military authorities of the district, I do not know whether from not having any great confidence in the local county police, sent a special request to the officer of the local county police to leave the matter alone as it was in the hands of the military authorities, and they were also employing to help them two men from Scotland Yard. My information, and I have taken the trouble to investigate it, is that these authorities, the special constables and the military, were confident that they were on the point of fruitful results of their inquiry, when to their very great chagrin the local police interfered, whether it was from jealousy between the police and the military or between the

    909
    police and the special constables, I neither know nor care. All I say is that, whatever result may have been expected from these investigations which had been going on for some time, entirely missed fire Nothing was found, although all the authorities concerned are quite persuaded that it was only through the misadventure of a warning coming through the intervention of the police at the wrong moment. My point is that in this particular case, and no doubt it is the same elsewhere, you have different authorities, whether acting under orders from headquarters or not does not very much matter, whose work was either overlapping or subject to divided authority at headquarters, and that bad results have accrued from that system. It is common knowledge that this sort of thing is likely to occur in different parts of the country.
    We on this side of the House are so anxious to see that simple grasp and unified treatment of the whole question of aliens in this country, whether in regard to their landing in this country, to their internment in this country, to their release in this country, or whatever side of the question you approach, that we want to have it all co-ordinated and all kept in the same hands, and therefore, as we hope and believe, subjected to a much more drastic treatment and to much more efficient administration. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that you cannot get that under present conditions without legislation. I think he has had a sufficient answer on that point from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long). He points out that on all sorts of subjects we have passed legislation requested by the Government giving the necessary powers for dealing with this question. We have passed Bill after Bill in an hour or two, and, in some cases, in only half an hour. The right hon. Gentleman has only to tell us that, to get efficient administration of this whole alien question, he requires a certain Bill to be passed, and he knows perfectly well that it would pass through in less than half and hour, and, therefore, to take as an excuse, if it is intended to be an excuse, for avoiding this central administration that an emergency Bill would be required is to trifle with the public, and to justify up to the hilt the expression which was used by the Leader of the Opposition that the whole treatment of this question by the Government, as illustrated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, really justifies us in saying that they forget that they are at War.
    910
    All these matters of urgency require treatment which we should never dream of asking or wishing for in time of peace, but, in a time like the present, looking to the terrible dangers that might happen to the country in the present crisis, we do ask the Government to show a stronger lead to the country and to take a firmer grasp of the subject. It has been thought by some persons that we are exaggerating the apprehension of danger. It has been said, "What, after all, can these people do? Do you think that these Germans scattered about the country can do any useful service to the German Government? They do not know anything." It is not for us to say exactly what are the dangers we may have to face from the enemies within our gates. We should remember what these people may be able to do for their own country while in our midst. Let me mention one case. We have heard a great deal about raids over London by aircraft. We know the inconvenience we have submitted to in the matter of the deprivation of light for some months.
    We have been told that there are so many thousands of alien enemies abroad in London. Whether they are under police supervision really does not matter. If there were to take place the raid of aeroplanes, of which we have heard a great deal, and which, I think, we fear so little, is it not easily imaginable that the thousands of Germans throughout London might in a short time create a conflagration? Is it not likely that they would devote their energies to the matter of illumination, and that they might light up certain places in London as objects for attack, such as Westminster Abbey, the British Museum, and Buckingham Palace? It would be quite easy to provide the enemy with facilities for attacking these places. If we had taken the precautions which they have taken against our people, we would have interned these men to keep them out of harm's way. Really to be told, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) told us, that we are going to subject people to awful hardships, does not meet the case. He was very pathetic when he spoke of taking away a Bohemian fiddler from Aberdeen and sending him to Braemar. But I think that is a kind of hardship which we cannot avoid if it has to be done at the possible cost of terrible military dangers. That is trifling with the subject, and it shows that some hon. Gentlemen opposite do require to be reminded that we are at war.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I think most of the points to which I desired to call attention have already been mentioned, and I do not think I would have risen but for the fact that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire charged those who are speaking with a want of reality in their contributions to the Debate. I think he must have observed very inadequately the spirit which was actuating the speakers. Speaking for myself, I only take part in the Debate because I think this is a matter of the greatest possible gravity, and I think it is just in such a matter as this that we civilians, who are bound to stay at home and cannot go out to the front, can really help those, who are fighting our battles both on sea and land. The Under-Secretary of State for War has given us some information this afternoon which personally I did not know before, and I think it is valuable information. He told us that the 16,000 alien enemies who are of military age in London are under police surveillance. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke on the Front Bench just now pointed out that they might not be of much use. Personally, I do not think they could. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to what extent are they under police supervision? Can he, for instance, tell us how many of the 16,000 alien enemies of military age have arms?
    Mr. TENNANT: None.
    Mr. SANDERSON: That is certainly a piece of information which is very satisfactory. But is it information on which we can rely? I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman says that we can. My information is—it may be wrong—but I have it on very good authority—that until very stringent regulations were made in regard to the sale of arms a considerable number of alien enemies were purchasing them. I suppose, if they purchased them, they probably have them now. I do not wish to contradict anything the right hon. Gentleman said, but it is very hard to believe that anybody will be satisfied that none of the 16,000 of military age in this country have arms in their possession. Again, can he tell the House how many of the 16,000 are out of employment, because that seems to me a very important matter? If you take a man who has lived for a considerable number of years in this country, and who has been thrown out of employment because of the fact that he is German, you have a man who might be harmful. I know of several
    912
    cases. I have one case in my mind of a man who was employed at a hotel in London, and as soon as the War broke out he was thrown out of employment because he is a German. At the present moment that man is walking the streets trying to get employment here and there. If he is a man with a family he is likely to be a desperate man. I cannot imagine a more fruitful source of possible danger than such a man at the present moment. He is dissatisfied, and, being probably a desperate man, he is glad to get money from whatever source to support himself and his wife. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the 16,000 are out of employment at the present moment?
    Mr. TENNANT: I can find out.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I wish the right hon. Gentleman to understand that I am not speaking in a spirit of carping criticism. I am putting a matter of vast importance and asking the right hon. Gentleman to give it his consideration. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was very pleased with the organisation which was at the present moment established at the War Office with regard to the Intelligence Department. I have no doubt that is perfectly correct, and it would not be in the War Office unless it was an efficient Department. It does not seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman has appreciated the points put, not only from this side of the House, but also by the right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite.
    The proper authority to keep an eye on alien enemies is the police. Does that Department in the War Office have any control over the county police or the police of any particular borough. Of course not. To show how inadequately it works I may mention that a police authority told me the other day that he had a certain number of alien enemies in his charge—I think it was about 2,000—and word had come down that a number of them were to be released. He was very much annoyed because he did not think that they ought to be let out. I asked what he was going to do and he said, "It is an extraordinary thing how long the papers take to be filled up," meaning that he was not going to let them out sooner than he was bound to. Is not that a ridiculous state of affairs? Here we are at war and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy tells us that those people who are interned, because they are dangerous enemies, are sent away by the authority because they

    913
    have no room to intern them. That is the kind of thing which one would expect to find in a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera rather than in a country like this, which is engaged in a war of such magnitude. Though the right hon. Gentleman may have his Intelligence Department in the War Office, he cannot control the different authorities through whose hands these matters must go.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in his speech this afternoon tried to prove that there was unity of authority. If he proved anything, to my mind he proved that there was no unity of authority. He proved first of all that there was the Intelligence Department of the War Office, then the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty, then there was the police, because they were the people who had to keep their eyes on suspected persons, and I suppose that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has to look after the Irish police, and the Secretary of State for Scotland has to look after the Scottish police. There are five authorities, and then there are all the chief constables in the different counties. It is no answer to the points which have been raised to say, "I am quite satisfied with my Intelligence Department and the War Office."
    This matter is one of real anxiety, and I do not believe that either the speech of the Home Secretary or that of the Under-Secretary for War has relieved that anxiety. I remember speaking about this—I think it was in the month of September—and I said then almost exactly what my hon. and learned Friend has just said now. Do for goodness sake put this into the hands of one man. I do not care who he is; get the very best man you can find in the country and give him unlimited powers and ample staff and let him look after this job, and this job alone. If you have not got the powers to do it I am sure that the House of Commons will give you the powers. I do hope that the Government will not think that we are debating this matter simply for the sake of debating. It is the last thing in the world which anybody on this side and which I myself would desire to do. The Government should see whether they cannot carry out the suggestions which have been made, not only on this side, but also on that side of the House.
    Mr. NIELD: I think, perhaps, that the Home Secretary will admit that the Government do owe it to the House and to
    914
    the country to be unusually vigilant in this matter. They have reduced the fee for, naturalisation, they have made the facilities for naturalisation infinitely easier than they were before, and therefore it is their duty to exercise this vigilance with the knowledge that Germany makes war in a peculiar manner, and does it not merely by firing off munitions of war, or taking prisoners in the field, or acting as a pirate on the sea, but sends forth its commercial army in order to secure trade, and incidentally get all the information which they possibly can, and which may be of use to their Government in other directions. Therefore, we should take all possible precautions to secure that subjects of that kind should be properly looked after and dealt with promptly and efficiently. If by police supervision, as referred to by the Under-Secretary for War, is meant something akin to police supervision under the criminal law, then I do not suppose for a moment that anybody with knowledge would say that, even if it was properly carried out—and I doubt whether it could be with 15,000 male aliens in the London area alone—there are not great difficulties, especially with regard to questions of identification. In the one case you have the record of a man's career always at hand for reference, but that is not the case with regard to these aliens.
    We have heard enough in this Debate to make us want a totally new system of control. The Debate has, for one thing, given us the amusing illustration of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, who sometimes chastises the Government on financial matters when they do not agree with his views, but who caresses them, as he did to-day, on other matters. But he did make one suggestion which was also made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy. That is that there should be some means of going down to these places where persons are interned and hearing applications from them upon such evidence as they can give that they are well disposed towards this country. Very early in the War, which commenced within a few days of the legal Long Vacation, I personally, as I was unable to help in warlike action myself except by recruiting, did make a suggestion of this kind that such of us as are willing to put our experience at the service of the Home Office should be constituted an authority to visit these interned prisoners and hear applications of this character. The Home Secretary informed me, not on one occasion, but

    915
    on two, that such a tribunal could not be established. I am sorry that he did. I hope that after the advice given by the Member for Aberdeenshire and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy, he may reconsider his decision. If so, he can call on such services as I can render in that direction. It does seem to me open to objection to intern everybody for an indefinite period, though there is no objection to interning everybody, subject to the power on the part of those interned to make application to show that; they are persons who are well disposed towards the British Government.
    I may refer to the case of Baron von Bissing, which was made the subject of questions in this House in reference to what had taken place at his residence at Hove. When Brighton and Hove were both under lighting orders of the most, stringent kind, signals were being flashed from the house in which that gentleman lived, and apparently flashed with some effect. It does not show much acumen on the part of the War Office to say that they knew all about it. Here, on the other hand, is an illustration of the abundance of caution on the part of the War Office. There was a gentleman whose grandfather came into this country from Germany when he was three months old, and afterwards held for many years before his death a justiceship of the peace in Hertfordshire, which was not an easy thing to get in those days. His son was born in this country of an English mother, and the son of this man decided to go to the front to fight. So you have three generations in this country—the first coming in at the age of three months, and the last being a young man who is ready to fight now and is prevented from going to the front because he bears the name of Schmidt.
    That is a case of abundant caution on the part of the War Office. On the other hand, you have a case which occurred in my own Division a little time ago. A gentleman, a public man, who had as a young man been all through the Franco-Prussian War, and who was resident in Paris during that time, in going home one night saw one who, obviously a German in British khaki uniform, was comporting himself in such a way as to attract attention. On leaving the train in which he was travelling this gentleman thought it his duty to give information to the police. The police-constable treated the matter seriously, and asked the person who was
    916
    suspected to accompany him to the police station. Arrived there, the sergeant in charge said he knew all about the person, and that the man who had given the information had better mind his own business. When inquiry was made at the Home Office as to this incident, they might have shown themselves grateful for the assistance of this civilian who knew something of German and Continental people, and who at least thought that he was rendering a service. It is quite right, as it turned out, that the person was very well known, and that he was a foreign officer in the service of the Government. My object in mentioning this incident is to show how the War Office and the Home Office can be abundantly cautious in one instance and in another can discourage men anxious to be of service by telling them to mind their own business. The mischief of the whole matter is that the Government, in these circumstances, is so self-complacent, and each Member of the Government so self-sufficient. We want to do our best to help our country, and we claim to be as even bit as ready to do it as any hon. and right hon. Member on the Front Bench. We feel that this is a matter of great urgency and importance, and some of us are anxious and willing to devote not only our leisure, but as much time as we are able to give to help the Government in dealing with this all-important question.
    Question put, and negatived.

  SUPPLY [1ST MARCH].—REPORT.

    SUPPLEMENTABY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1914–15.
    Resolutions reported,
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £37,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1915, for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry. Business, and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all Expenses arising out of the existence of a state of war."

    VOTE OF CREDIT, 1915–16.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £250,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1916, for general Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business, and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all Expanses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
    Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY [23RD FEBRUARY].
  Resolutions reported,
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1914–15.
    Class IV.
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Millbank, including a Grant-in-Aid for the Purchase of Pictures."

    CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESS), 1913–14.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £441 13s. 9d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good an excess on the Grant for International Exhibitions for the year -ended on the 31st day of March, 1914."
    Resolutions agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS [1ST MARCH].
    Resolutions reported,
    1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1914 and 1915, the sum of £37,223,440 13s. 9d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, the sum of £286,855,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolutions agreed to.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Acland. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART II.) AMENDMENT.— [MONEY.]
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of Moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such additional sums as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable contributions to be made for the purpose of Part II. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, by workmen employed abroad in insured trades on work connected with the present War."
  Resolution agreed to.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (PART II.) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Thursday).

  IRISH POLICE (NAVAL AND MILI TARY SERVICE) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  IRISH POLICE (NAVAL AND MILI TARY SERVICE) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Pensions and Allowances in Respect of Members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police who, are Reservists or join the Naval or Military Forces.)
    (1) Where a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police belongs to the Naval Reserves or the Army Reserve and has, in pursuance of any Royal Proclamation, been called out, in the case of a constable belonging to the Naval Reserves, for service during

    919
    war or any emergency, or in the case of a constable belonging to the Army Reserve, on permanent service, the police authority may, with the approval of the Treasury, grant to or for the benefit of his wife and children or any of them, or in the case of an unmarried constable to or for the benefit of any person whom he is legally liable to maintain and towards whose support he has regularly contributed, an allowance of such amount and subject to such conditions and restrictions as they think equitable:
    Provided that—

    (a) any such allowance shall be granted for a limited period not exceeding one year and may be renewed for a further period, but shall not be continued after the police authority have received notice that the constable has ceased to be employed on naval or military service;

    (b) the aggregate amount of the weekly allowance granted in respect of a married constable together with the weekly amount of any separation or other allowance required to be paid out of naval or military funds in pursuance of any Royal Warrant and the weekly amount of any compulsory deductions from the constable's pay as a seaman or soldier shall not exceed the total weekly amount he was receiving from police funds on being called out;

    (c) the allowance granted in respect of an unmarried constable shall not exceed in the aggregate eight shillings a week.

    (2) If the constable dies or is disabled whilst employed on naval or military service, the police authority may, with the approval of the Treasury, grant to his widow and children or to him pensions and allowances equal to one-half the amount payable out of naval or military funds in pursuance of any Royal Warrant, so, however, that the total amount receivable from the police authority when added to the amount payable from such funds as aforesaid shall not in any case exceed the maximum amount which could have been granted under the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1883, as amended by any subsequent enactment, if the death or disablement had been occasioned by an injury received by the constable, without his own default, in the execution of his duty as a constable and not accidentally.
    (3) If, with the consent of the police authority, any officer or constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary or any constable of the Dublin Metropolitan Police for the purposes of the present War enters, re-enters, enlists, re-enlists, or receives a commission in any of His Majesty's Naval or Military Forces, Sub-section (2) of Section five of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1883, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section one of the Irish Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, and the foregoing provisions of this Section shall, subject to the necessary adaptations, apply to him in like manner as they apply to a constable belonging to the Naval Reserves or Army Reserve who has been called out for service during war or any emergency or on permanent service, as the case may be, with the modification that in the application of the foregoing provisions of this Section to an officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1874, shall be substituted for the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1883, and a sum fixed by the Treasury shall be substituted for eight shillings.
    (4) This Section applies in the case of officers and constables called out entering, re-entering, enlisting, re-enlisting, or receiving commissions, whether before or after the passing of this Act, and any pension, allowance, or gratuity granted, with the approval of the Treasury, to or in respect of any such officer or constable, in anticipation of the passing of this Act is hereby confirmed and shall be deemed to have been granted under or in pursuance of this Act.
    (5) Any pensions, allowances, or gratuities, granted under or in pursuance of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
    (6) In this Section the expression "police authority" means as respects the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Inspector-General, and as respects the Dublin Metropolitan Police, the Chief Commissioner.
    (7) Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Irish Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, is hereby repealed.
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "shall," to insert the words, "subject to the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1914."
    Some comment was made on my absence from the Second Reading of this Bill, but

    921
    I beg to assure the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) and the House that my absence was unavoidable. On the outbreak of War there were a certain number of Reservists in the Royal Irish Constabulary and in the Dublin Metropolitan Police who were called and went to the front. No question, of course, arises with regard to those men who had certain rights. Shortly after that, some 200 of the Royal Irish Constabulary and 130 of the Dublin Metropolitan Police volunteered for service in the Irish Guards. Those men were, so to speak, ready-made soldiers, and it was considered a very great matter at the time to obtain the services of such a competent body of men. The Government promised and indicated to those men that they thought they ought not to be in a worse position than the Reservists who had their pensions and separation allowances, and that such privileges, to call them so, should be conceded to the men who volunteered.
    I can only regret that even the semblance of difference should arise as to the pensions and allowances in the case of men belonging to such a distinguished force. This Bill is for the purpose of providing pensions and separation allowances in the case of those 330 men. Separation allowances are really a very small matter, as I think there are not more than twenty of the volunteers who are married, and therefore separation allowance does not arise to any great extent, although some of them may have other dependants. We had to provide that these pensions should be paid out of some fund, and in the ordinary way, in the common form sanctioned by the Treasury in these cases we provided that they should be paid by money voted by Parliament. It so happens that last year a Bill was passed in this House dealing with the English police who volunteered for the front, who were accepted, and who claimed separation allowances. Those are dealt with in the same way as these men. The English police authorities will pay the pensions and separation allowances out of the police fund, and subsequently there will be a Parliamentary Vote, and the matter will be treated exactly as we are treating it. But the English police fund, out of which these moneys will be first of all paid, is a local fund.
    Members of this House, whether they are old or whether they are young, know perfectly well that the police force in England and the police force in Ireland are very different things. The one—the
    922
    English force—is a local force under local control, that is to say, the control is between the county council and the Standing Joint Committee. We have nothing of that kind in Ireland. Both the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police are practically Imperial forces, and the Corporation of Dublin, and nobody in fact in Dublin, has any more control of the Dublin Metropolitan Police than they have over the Brigade of Guards at Wellington Barracks. If I wished to illustrate that, I could not give a better illustration than what happened some little time ago. The House will remember the disturbance which occurred in connection with the arrival of rifles at Howth, when there were very sad results. The police were called out, but the police officer never dreamed of going to the Lord Mayor or to any local authority, but went straight to the Castle. Thus, in Ireland the police force is an Imperial force and in England a local force, but in the case of England the pensions are first taken from a local fund, though they will come under the Parliamentary Vote ultimately. The only point of difficulty in the case of Ireland is that out of the Dublin rates a certain amount is paid as a subvention from the corporation to the Imperial funds. I think that sum so contributed by the corporation is £56,000, out of £167,000.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman conveniently say how the pensions, allowances, and gratuities of the Reservists are calculated and what fund they come from?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Those men are in the Service. They are Reservists, and are simply compelled to go.
    Lord R. CECIL: I should have thought the two things were exactly the same.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I think, in effect, they are the same, and the volunteers in asking for the same terms were right. The question is not a very large one. Where we are now is this: The hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), whose very sharp eye on finance we all know, referred to this matter on the Second Reading. From a long experience I have always tried to arrange matters with him, and have always found him very fair. The real point of difficulty does not, I think it will be agreed, arise in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which is admitted to be an Imperial force, and which will remain after the Home Rule

    923
    Act comes into operation for many years an Imperial force. The difficulty arises with regard to the subvention of £56,000 paid by the Dublin Corporation in aid of the Imperial contribution.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is that in the form of a police rate?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Yes; the hon. Baronet says "pensions by all means, for these are gallant men performing a difficult and serious duty; but let them be paid by Ireland." My reply to that is this: It is quite true that Dublin pays a portion of the police tax. But that does not make the Dublin Police a local force—far from it. Although we pay, we have no control. The real question in this matter is whether the payment by the city of Dublin of that comparatively small sum is to make it right for this Committee to say to these men, "You cannot get your pensions or separation allowances although you are serving the Empire, and not merely Ireland, unless Ireland pays for them." I think that is wholly indefensible. I do not complain personally about it, but I am extremely sorry for the sake of things in Ireland, where there are elements of difficulty, that this matter should have been raised.
    Those of us who look forward to a better and brighter Ireland cannot help feeling that it looks somewhat ungrateful to put the matter in that way to these gallant men in the trenches. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has on the Paper an Amendment by which he makes this charge a purely Irish charge. I submit, however, that it is not an Irish service at all, as these men are doing work for the Empire. But in order to meet the hon. Baronet, I say let the matter be decided according to the provisions of the Home Rule Act. If, after that Act comes into operation, any difficulty or question of dispute arises between the Imperial and the Irish Parliaments, there is a Court expressly tat up to settle it—the Joint Exchequer Board. If this is an Irish charge, the Exchequer Board will so decide; if it is an Imperial charge, the verdict will go in that direction. I only make that proposal because I wish to be perfectly fair. I think it is due to the machinery set up by this House for the express purpose of settling points of difference on financial matters between the Imperial and the Irish authorities, and I am willing to carry that Amendment if the hon. Baronet will accept it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The question at issue is not whether pensions shall or shall not be paid to any policeman, whether in the Dublin Metropolitan Police or in the Royal Irish Constabulary. We are all agreed that these men should have their pensions in the same way as the English police have theirs. But let me point out the effect of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has unintentionally mislead the Committee. There is no question of the whole of the pensions being paid by the Imperial Parliament.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I expressly said so.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. When policemen, whether Reservists or Volunteers, in England or in Ireland, went into the New Army, they said that if anything happened to them they would get only the same pension or allowance that any other person entering the Army would get, whereas if they had remained in the police they would have got a larger pension. Therefore an Act was passed last year to put both the Irish and the English police upon the same footing as regards pensions as if they had remained in the police. In England that pension is made up in this way: The State pays the amount that a man who had not been a policeman would get, and the difference between that amount and the larger pension which the man would have got if he had remained in the police force is made up out of the ordinary fund allocated for the payment of police pensions. For instance, if a man would receive 15s. from the State as a soldier, while he would have received 20s. as a policeman, 15s. is paid by the State and the other 5s. is paid out of the fund allocated to police pensions. All we say in this case is, not that the Irish police should not be paid out of Imperial funds the 15s. which they would have received if they had enlisted in the ordinary way, but that the difference between the 15s. and the sum they would have received if they had remained in the police should be paid out of the fund provided for the payment of police pensions—that is, that they should be put in exactly the same position as the English police.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is there a pension fund in Ireland similar to our pension fund?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was just coming to that. The Dublin Metropolitan Police are

    925
    paid in a different way from the Royal Irish Constabulary. They are paid partly by a rate levied in Dublin and partly from Imperial funds. But the rate levied in Dublin must not exceed 8d. in the £, so that there might possibly be some difficulty in paying the pensions out of it. Therefore I do not press that, but I propose to put the Dublin Metropolitan Police upon exactly the same footing as the Royal Irish Constabulary. Is there a fund out of which the Royal Irish Constabulary pensions are paid? There is. It was specially enacted in Section 37 of the Home Rule Act that there should be a fund of that description, that it should be provided by the Imperial Parliament, but that the Imperial Parliament should recoup itself out of the Transferred Sum.
    The effect of the Amendment of which I have given notice is that that shall be the fund from which the difference to which I have referred shall be taken. I do not know what that difference is, but probably it is 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. My Amendment is that that sum, whatever it may be, shall be paid out of the Transferred Sum. I hope I have made it clear that there is a fund out of which this money can be paid. All I ask is that the English and the Irish police shall be put on exactly the same footing, and that the difference in the pensions for the Irish police shall be made up out of the fund allocated for pensions for the police, just in the same way as a fund is allocated for police pensions in England. The Committee must bear in mind that this fund was made by the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends when they passed the Home Rule Act last year. What the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to alter the Home Rule Act, and instead of providing that in this case the funds necessary for the pensions should come out of the Transferred Sum, wants to arrange that it should come out of the pockets of the English taxpayers. To that I object.
    I have a grievance upon this matter. I am going to make an attack upon the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Russell)—or at any rate I am going to draw his attention to an aspect of this matter. When this question was raised last week, I rose to a point of Order, and said that I objected to it being taken because the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I had had some previous conversation, was not here. The right hon. Gentleman told me that we should have a proper discussion when the Second Reading came on. I did not raise
    926
    the question upon the Resolution in Committee of Supply for that reason. When the Bill was moved the right hon. Gentleman was in Ireland. I therefore suggested that it should not be taken, but the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney) rose and said that he was quite competent—which I never doubted for a moment—to deal with the matter, because he had spent four years in the office of the Chief Secretary.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Four happy years!
    Sir F. BANBURY: Four happy years. During that time he had devoted a great deal of attention to this matter. Therefore, as I supposed that it had been arranged that the hon. Baronet should take charge of the Bill I withdrew my opposition. What did the hon. Baronet say? He said:—
    "The simple suggestion is that as in the past they have been provided by Parliament, so they shall be in future. There is no desire to make any change. I think I am right in saving that that has always been so, and that is the reason this Sub-section has been put in."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1915, col. 349.]
    I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) to say that he was under the impression that when the hon. Baronet said he desired to make no change, that the meaning of that was that the funds should be found in the way originally considered, which, when the Home Rule Act is first put into operation, will be out of the Transferred Sum, and that, therefore, he had practically met our objections. I have a letter from the hon. Baronet, dated 27th February, which I handed to the right hon. Gentleman, and in which these words occur:—
    "The Bill in its present form has been approved by the Irish police authorities, and by the prison authorities; further, if you still wish it, we shall be ready to accept an Amendment on this or any other point. Our sole object is to provide pensions and separation allowances for the Volunteers and their dependants."
    I thought that after the speech of the hon. Baronet, who spoke with full authority, and after this letter, there would be no further trouble with my Amendment, the object of which is only to ensure that this small extra percentage should be met in the way in which pensions are to be provided for under the Home Rule Act, and that that Amendment would at once be accepted. But the right hon. Gentleman comes back from Ireland and refuses to accept it. He puts in an Amendment which my Noble Friend behind me will

    927
    inform the House has no effect at all, and he might just as well leave it out. He says that this Act is to be subject to the provisions of the Home Rule Act. But this Act is passed after the Home Rule Act, and hon. and learned Friends of mine point out that the result will be either to raise an enormous crop of litigation, or for the Government to say, "Oh, well, the Home Rule Act was passed before this, and this Act over-rides the Home Rule Act." That is, I think, what the effect of his words are. I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand Division is not present. He has authorised me to say that both he and myself think that we have been very badly treated by the Government. We endeavoured to meet them by at once acquiescing when they desired to take the Bill with the hon. Baronet in charge. As soon as we had explained our position to the hon. Baronet, and he had made certain statements in reply, which are recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and which he afterwards confirmed in writing by the letter which I have here, the right hon. Gentleman comes from Ireland, takes the matter out of his hands, and absolutely refuses to carry out that part of the bargain made by the hon. Baronet across the floor of the House, and confirmed by letter.
    If we are to carry on a truce in that kind of way there will be some difficulty in doing it. I should be the last person to desire to interfere with an arrangement. Everybody in the Committee knows that in ordinary times I am a strong party man. I have never concealed it; but I have always endeavoured to be fair and straightforward in all my dealings, and as soon as there has been a truce, I have—as everybody will admit—instead of Mr. Whitley occasionally catching your eye, sat quietly here and said nothing. I wanted loyally to assist in carrying out the arrangements we have come to for the good of the country. But both sides must do the same. Because the hon. Baronet happens to be in the majority he must not take advantage of us, and come down and make statements, and then afterwards run away from them. Further, there must be no alteration to Acts of Parliament which are already passed. The Home Rule Act was not one of our Acts.
    It is not right for the Government to attempt to amend the Home Rule Act by some of the small Bills which they bring
    928
    forward under the guise of emergency. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee any longer. I know perfectly well we are helpless—for two reasons. The first is that were we to divide we should break the truce, which we do not want to do, and the second reason is that if we were to divide there are very few of our men here. If, however, a majority were here I would not divide on this present question. But I repeat in the strongest words I can that we have been extremely badly used by the Government, and the only possibility, the only alternative which remains to them is to admit, that, by—I daresay—some little accident, or other, not having considered the matter, they have made a mistake. The hon. Baronet shakes his head. I really do not understand him. He says what is here in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He writes this letter. He shakes his head. The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot accept my Amendment. I do not understand him either. He was not here. The hon. Baronet was. I say his duty is to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he has committed himself, and that the right hon. Gentleman must abide by what he has said.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: There is one point in his speech which the hon. Baronet has really not explained. He does not explain who finds the money in Ireland now for the existing and future pensions. I understand that he realy takes exception to Sub-section (5) of this Bill, where it states that, "Any pensions, allowances, or gratuities, granted under, or in pursuance of, this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament." Now I am given to understand—he may correct me if I am wrong—that the pensions which are now paid are really paid out of moneys provided by Parliament in Ireland. The Dublin Corporation, I am given to understand, from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman sitting below me, have no control over the police. They pay £50,000 a year towards the maintenance of the police, and it is limited to a halfpenny rate. There is a great and striking difference between that and the English system.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Member is not a member of a local authority.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am a magistrate.
    Mr. SAMUEL: But a magistrate has nothing to do with the police.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Oh, yes.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Not in cities. In the counties the police are managed by the joint committee, and the standing joint committee are persons who decide who shall have pensions, or whether or not the officer is entitled to a pension, and they have a pension fund set aside. If there is any deficiency in the pension fund, it comes upon the local rates. They have full control of the police, although Parliament, I think, maintains half the cost of the police. Still, the local authority is the controlling body, and they have the deciding votes as to whether a policeman or sergeant, whatever the case may be, is entitled to a pension and how much he is to receive. That is quite different from the Irish law, and if, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, the moneys already provided for the payment of these pensions are provided by Parliament, what objection can there be if these allowances and these pensions, or the difference as pointed out by the hon. Baronet, are to be charged upon some fund which is provided by Parliament?
    Sir F. BANBURY: The question entirely turns upon the Home Rule Act. The Home Rule Act lays down how these pensions are to be provided. All I want to do is to carry out the intention of the hon. Gentleman's Government, and see that they are paid according to the provisions of the Home Rule Act.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Not war pensions.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not talking about war pensions. I do not want to pay war pensions out of anything except by the imperial Parliament. This Act does not touch war pensions. It only touches the additional sum which has got to be paid. It does not matter in the least who has got the control. The largest body of police is in London; but here, the Government have the control of the police, and the Bill which deals with the London police provides that this extra money shall be paid by the ratepayers in London.
    Mr. SAMUEL: But the ratepayers in London will only pay a proportion of it, and not the whole of the pension.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The whole in London.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think, if the hon. Baronet will look into it, there have been
    930
    discussions in this House when London Members have—
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is a different point.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think the suggestion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is a proper one.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: These words do not carry out the suggestion.
    Mr. SAMUEL: If any question arises hereafter with regard to these war pensions, cannot it be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the Home Rule Act?
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is exactly what we want; we do not want any more.
    Mr. SAMUEL: He says he is prepared to give you that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: But he has not done it.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I understood the hon. Baronet's point was that the extra amount he recommended would come out of the pension fund in England which is maintained by the ratepayers, who have control over the police.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Excuse me, in the provinces they have; but in Ireland it will come out of moneys voted by Parliament. The existing fund is provided out of money voted by Parliament, and, therefore, I cannot see why the hon. Baronet should press his point.
    Mr. RUSSELL: Will the hon. Baronet allow me to correct a point? He has referred to Sub-section (5) of Clause 37, the spirit of which he says ought to be carried out. Now what does that Subsection say?—
    "Any pensions and other allowances and gratuities which may become payable to officers and constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police after the appointed day, or to officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary after the day of transfer under the existing enactments applicable to them, and any compensation payable to any of those persons under the provisions of this Act, shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom; but any sum so paid shall be made good by means of deduction from the Transferred Sum under

    931
    this Act in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury."
    What I want to point, out is that this is not an Act of Parliament yet, and cannot come under the "existing enactments." We are dealing with war pensions and not with police pensions.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do very much regret this discussion has been allowed to be raised in Committee at this time at all, and I cannot help feeling that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture was much better advised than the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland, when he made what I think was not only a perfectly fair offer, but an offer in accordance with the spirit in which we have so far been conducting our proceedings in Parliament, that, if the Opposition really felt they had a grievance in this matter, the Government were not going to stand on the strictly technical position they might take, but that they would concede a point, as we have conceded points without number to the Government. We have granted them over and over again things they could not possibly have obtained except by leave of the Opposition, and I must say my hon. Friend has been treated extremely badly in this matter, and in a way I do not think any other occupant of the Treasury Bench would have treated him, except the Vice-President. As to the merits of the thing we are discussing, they are quite simple. My hon. Friend only wishes the matter to be left exactly as it was left by the Home Rule Act. That is all we are asking. The hon. Member opposite, who, I am sure, does not want to do anything unfair, does not appear to have realised quite the difference of opinion between the Vice-President and us. We do not wish to interfere in any way with the terms of the Home Rule Act. The right hon. Gentleman pretends that this provision will bring these pensions under the provisions of the Home Rule Act, but he must know that it will have no such effect. He says that these pensions which are granted do not come under the wording of the Home Rule Act.
    Mr. RUSSELL: Not under that Section.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Nor under any other Section. Which Section does the right hon. Gentleman mean?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Section 14.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Section 14 is the one which deals with Irish Revenue and Expenditure, and under Sub-section (3) it provides as follows:—
    "(3) Provision shall be made by the Irish Parliament for the cost of Irish services within the meaning of this Act, and except as provided by this Act, any charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for those services, including any charge for the benefit of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, or any Grant or contribution out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, so far as made for those services, shall cease, and money for loans in Ireland shall cease to be advanced either by the Public Works Loans Commissioners or out of the Local Loans Fund."
    That entirely applies to the Grants and contributions which were then in existence. This Grant was not in existence, and the insertion of the words "subject to the provisions of the Home Rule Act" mean, and were intended to mean, absolutely nothing. We are quite content to adopt any form of words which honestly and really will carry out the avowed purpose of the right hon. Gentleman. If he does not like the words proposed by my hon. Friend, I suggest an alternative form, which I think by no possibility could be thought to have any kind of effect except to put these funds under the Act. I suggest the leaving of Sub-section (5) as it is, and to add the words,
    "And shall be deemed to be pensions, allowances, or gratuities within the meaning of Section 37 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1914."
    That carries out the avowed purpose of the right hon. Gentleman, and carries it out fully. That would make these pensions payable out of the funds under the Home Rule Act, and subject to all those conditions. I agree that the amount of money involved is small; in fact, the whole dispute is small, and ought never to have been allowed to come into public discussion. I venture to say that it would have been settled by any other Minister on that bench except the right hon. Gentleman. The proposal he made is a perfectly fair and just one. It is that so far as these pensions are police pensions they shall be dealt with as police pensions under the Home Rule Act, and so far as they are military pensions, then they come out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. None of us grudge a farthing of

    933
    that money, and that is a perfectly just proposal. I ask the right hon. Gentleman even at this moment to try and he just for once.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): The hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord opposite have said some very strong things, no doubt because they feel very deeply on this matter and think the Government have not dealt fairly with them. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on this question, because it was my privilege to be connected with the Debate on the Second Heading of the Bill. From the point of view of the hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord, nothing could seem more miserable than for the Government to make a promise through one Minister and refuse to fulfil that promise through another Minister. Really there is no disagreement between my right hon. Friend and myself. As the hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord both know, we have the same advisers at the Irish Office, and there really is not any disagreement. The, hon. Baronet opposite has read a letter which I wrote in consequence of a talk we had together at the Bar. What I wanted to convey was that, for my part, I believed, and still believe, that there was no reason to have any Amendment at all, but I went on to say that if the hon. Baronet still wishes it we are prepared to put in an Amendment on this or on any other subject. The hon. Baronet's complaint is not that we do not put in an Amendment, but that we do not put in his Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Baronet did not quite read the whole of what he said in his letter. His words were:—
    "We should be ready to accept an Amendment upon this or any other point, our sole object being to provide pensions and separation allowances for Reservists and their dependants."
    Sir H. VERNEY: The hon. Baronet's complaint was that I would not accept his Amendment There is a difference between accepting any Amendment and accepting an Amendment with the advice of the Irish Office in order to make a point more clear which I think was perfectly clear before.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We had a discussion on the Second Reading and the point was made perfectly clear.
    Sir H. VERNEY: It was to make the point perfectly clear that I said I would accept an Amendment. I did not mean to convey that we should accept any Amendment
    934
    which the hon. Baronet put down. My words were not intended to convey that at all. Now it comes to a question of what Amendment meets this point. The Noble Lord wants the matter left as it is in the Home Rule Act. The mere fact that the Noble Lord and I hold different views on that Act rather tends to strengthen my argument on this point. It is open to argument whether these pensions ought to be considered as an Irish service. Would the Noble Lord agree with me in that?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It seems clearly open to argument.
    Sir H. VERNEY: This is an Irish service, and what does the Home Rule Act provide? It provides that, supposing there is a doubt as to whether it is an Irish service or not, there is a body set up to decide it. But the Noble Lord and the hon. Baronet opposite say, "No, we want to decide the point here and now."
    Sir F. BANBURY: No.
    Sir H. VERNEY: The hon. Baronet says "I want to prejudge this question." and the Noble Lord says it is open to argument.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not agree that it is open to rational argument.
    Sir H. VERNEY: I am inclined to think that it is not an Irish service, but the Joint Exchequer Board will decide it. If they decide that it is not an Irish service under the Home Rule Act it will be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. If it is an Irish service, provision will be made by the Irish Parliament for the cost, and any charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom shall cease. If it is an Irish service any such charge will cease and it will be provided by the moneys of the Irish Parliament. I hope that I have made my point clear.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The point I dealt with was whether the words proposed by the Vice-President would bring them under that special Clause. I myself think that you are bound first to put it under Clause 37 in order to make the other part operate.
    Sir H. VERNEY: Clause 37, Sub-section (5) only applies to pensions under existing enactments. It does not apply to this at all, but only to those existing at the time of the passing of the Act. I think it is a very simple matter and that

    935
    it is left very fairly between the two parties. We do not say whether it will be provided by Parliament or whether it will come out of the transferred sum. We leave it open. We say that it is open to discussion whether it is or is not an Irish service. If it is an Irish service, then under the Government of Ireland Act it will become payable out of the transferred sum, and if it is not an Irish service it will be paid out of monies provided by Parliament. That is the only point, and I said if it was not clear that we would accept an Amendment on the subject. The hon. Baronet's complaint was that this would be contrary to the Home Rule Act. He was afraid, according to my interpretation of his remarks, that there might be some question of it being prejudged owing to it being said that it was to be money provided by Parliament. In order to make it clear that it should not be contrary to the Home Rule Act we propose to put in these specific words: "Subject to the Government of Ireland Act, 1914," so that when it comes to be decided on its merits it has to be decided on Section 14, Sub-section (3) of the Government of Ireland Act.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Gentleman says that the Amendment he proposes will really effect the purpose. I venture to suggest that it will not do so. An Amendment of that Amendment would make it perfectly clear. It would be done by putting in the words, "Subject to this being an Irish charge under the provisions of Section so-and-so of the Government of Ireland Act," but the mere putting in of the words "subject to the Government of Ireland Act" has no more benefit than putting in the words "subject to the Magna Charta." Of course, it is subject to the Home Rule Act because it is a Bill affecting Ireland after the Home Rule Act comes into force. The mere insertion of those words "subject to the Government of Ireland Act" will not, I am perfectly certain, effect the purpose. It could be quite easily done by expanding the words, as I am quite sure the draughtsman will tell the Under-Secretary, and inserting some such words as I have suggested. If the hon. Gentleman really means, as I take it he does, to keep the arrangement made between himself and my hon. Friend, I suggest to him that he should adopt those words and then everybody would be satisfied.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Yesterday I consulted three hon. Members learned in the Law, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher), and my hon. Friend the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), and everyone of them agreed that the insertion of these words would not bring this particular Clause under the operations of the Home Rule Act, and that is all we want to do. We do not want to do anything more; but we want to be certain that we are going to do that. In face of the fact that three hon. Members, learned in the law, have stated that these words will not have that effect, I really think the hon. Baronet, if he cannot accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend has proposed, might consider whether he cannot accept some other Amendment which would carry out what he himself desires. We are only being played with now, because these words do not mean anything at all. I really think the hon. Baronet might agree to words which carry out what he has just said himself and bring it under the provisions of the Home Rule Act. I venture to suggest that he might see his way tomorrow to bring in words which would meet the point. If to-morrow he says he has really tried and cannot do it, I suppose that we must accept the inevitable.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: We will do it for him, it is quite easy.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do think that something of that sort ought to be done. There is no hurry about this. We keep on giving way in every way, and we really ought to be met on this occasion. Therefore I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Sir H. VERNEY: I am very anxious, and so is my right hon. Friend, to meet this point, but I do not think anything can be gained by an adjournment. A great many of us have been discussing this matter in different parts of the House, and I still think, as I said before, that it is perfectly clear.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Why not accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks)?
    Sir H. VERNEY: No, we cannot do that. It is perfectly clear, without any words at

    937
    all, that this will be subject to the Home Rule Act. The Treasury have no doubt about it, the Irish Office have no doubt about it, and we have no doubt about it. If the hon. Baronet thinks that there is no use in putting these words in, we are prepared to leave them out. The Treasury and the Irish Office, who are primarily concerned, assure us that no words are necessary, and we merely put these in in order to emphasise the fact that it will be subject to Sub-section (3) of Clause 14. It is really unnecessary to accept any Amendment of that kind, but we are prepared to put in those words if hon. Members think them better, and if they do not we do not press them. We do not gain anything, however, by adjourning, and I hope that we shall go on with the discussion.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I have come to this matter perfectly fresh, and have listened to the whole Debate with the greatest possible interest. I understand that there are two points—the first point is, whether the Home Rule Act applies to this measure at all.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are now on the merits of the case. We must get rid of the Motion to report Progress first.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I do not want to speak on the merits of the case at all. The second point is this: The hon. Baronet says that we want to make it perfectly clear that the Home Rule Act will be applicable. It seems to me the words suggested are absolutely useless, and that we might adjourn this matter until to-morrow to see if we cannot agree upon a form of words which will be accepted.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I hope that this Motion will not be pressed. The Treasury, the Irish Office, and the War Office—this Bill has been through each of these offices—all agree that the thing is perfectly clear, and that any Amendment is unnecessary. The Noble Lord said that I knew this Amendment would not bring it under the provisions of the Home Rule Act. I do not think he was justified in saying that.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is clear that the Motion to report Progress is liable to develop into a Debate on the merits. If it were withdrawn, it could be renewed later if necessary.
    Mr. RUSSELL: The kernel of this thing is whether this is Irish or not.
    The CHAIRMAN: That again is dealing with the merits.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Perhaps I might be allowed to say one word. If I said anything which the right hon. Gentleman thinks was unduly severe, I withdraw it.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I do not think that you ought to have said it.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am quite ready to withdraw it. I do not wish to bring unnecessary heat into this discussion. The only reason that I suggest it would be well to adjourn is this: This particular point of the effect of Section 14 of the Government of Ireland Act has been raised in Debate to-day for the first time. I am still of the opinion that the words suggested by the Government are not adequate to make it quite clear that this provision would fall to be dealt with under the joint provisions of Section 14 and Section 37. I should have thought it quite possible to devise words which would make it clear that this new Grant from Imperial taxation was to be dealt with on exactly the same footing as Grants which existed at the time of the passing of the Home Rule Act. I am not now on the question whether it should be treated as pensions existing at the time of the passing of the Act or as a charge on Imperial funds. I feel very strongly that the words proposed are not appropriate to that purpose, and, for that reason, I should have thought that a short adjournment would have been desirable in order that we might arrive at an agreement.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I repeat that the Bill, without these words, would be adequate, and it would come under the Home Rule Act. I was anxious to make that perfectly clear, and so were my advisers. Section 14 has been referred to. What does it propose? It proposes that the Irish Government shall meet the Irish services for the year, and a Joint Exchequer Court is set up by the Home Rule Act for the purpose of deciding what are Imperial and what are Irish services. What could be more fair than to put in words to that effect, and send the whole thing to the Home Rule Act as the constituted authority? I hope the Motion will be withdrawn, for the reason that I do not think it would be good, either for Ireland or for this country, that these particular pensions to Irishmen should be the subject of a discussion like this.
    Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Really there is no hurry for twenty-four hours. I think the request for an adjournment of one day might well be granted.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has been legally advised that the proposed Amendment covers the point raised by the other side. We have been told by the hon. Baronet (the Member for the City of London) that three eminent lawyers on his side have advised him that it is essential to amend the Bill. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted his legal advisers, and whether they say that this Amendment would carry out the object which the hon. Baronet has in view?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Yes. The Amendment was, in fact, drawn by the legal advisers of the Irish Department.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is why I want to report Progress. We have no one here representing the legal branch of the Irish Department to answer our arguments. The representatives of the Government simply tell us that we are not right. That is the only way in which they meet our arguments. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture that he was assured by the Irish officials that this Amendment would meet our arguments, but we have a body of opinion on this side of the House which is dealing with the matter from a legal point of view, and I am convinced that they are right when they say that these words which are proposed to be inserted have no meaning at all. We have no Law Officer of the Crown here to reply to our argument. We are simply told that somebody under the Gallery, a permanent official who is not a Member of this House, says we are wrong. That is not a proper way in which to treat the House of Commons. We ought to have one of the Law Officers here, and for this reason I think Progress should be reported.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I hope my hon. Friends opposite, and I trust I may call them hon. Friends, seeing we are now under a truce, will not press this Motion. The hon. Member for the Brentford Division does not seem to have paid sufficient attention to what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. My hon. Friend did not state that he had consulted someone under the Gallery. What he said was that the matter had been before the Treasury, the Irish Office, and the War Office, and all were agreed as to the source from which this money ought to be taken. I have very great sympathy indeed with the hon.
    940
    Baronet for this reason: This is not a question whether or not these men should have the pension, but it is a question whether a system of finance which has been arranged between the two countries should be broken into, and whether we shall begin nibbling at and passing over an Imperial Act.
    It is quite proper that the question should have been raised, but I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree to insert the Amendment now. In the meantime, before the Report stage, we can consider whether the words can be made stronger, and put in such a form as will remove the objections of the Noble Lord. It appears to me that the two sides are agreed in principle, and that what is wanted is a form of words which will make more sure that which, in our opinion, is already sure. I have no objection to that being done. But apparently we are not able to settle the difficulty across the floor of this House at the moment, and it would therefore, perhaps, be better agree to put the words in now, and see if some settlement cannot be come to before the Report stage.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): Perhaps I may be allowed to make an appeal to the Committee, although I probably have no knowledge of the particular dispute which has arisen other than perhaps what any Member may have picked up by listening to the arguments, pro and con. I think it began with an honest misunderstanding on both sides, but I hope that that misunderstanding as to intentions has been removed. The dispute turns upon whether the words proposed by the Vice-President are sufficient to carry out a purpose which is common to both sides. I am very anxious, as I am sure the hon. Baronet opposite is, that there shall be nothing in dispute between the two sides upon a question of principle on which they are agreed. I understand, if this Amendment is put in now, an opportunity will arise on Monday—on the Report stage—for seing whether or not the words which we now propose to use are adequate for the purpose which the hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord and my hon. Friends have in view. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite, under these circumstances, will accommodate themselves to our wishes for the moment, and I will undertake, on the part of the Government, that they shall have an opportunity of reconsidering the position on Monday. I hope what I have said may find favour

    941
    on that side of the House. If it does, I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to allow the Bill to proceed.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the very conciliatory tone he has adopted. I entirely agree with what he says. The difficult I feel is this: I do not want to have another discussion in this House on this subject. That would be a very unfortunate thing. We have got now much nearer to an agreement than we have ever been before, because we now see exactly what I frankly admit I did not understand fully—it may have been my fault or my stupidity—the point the Government take. The idea of the Government is a reasonable one. It would be a reasonable compromise, but I am not quite satisfied about their wording. I do not like it at present, because it does not appear to be too certain. It would be much more satisfactory if the subject were never heard of again in Parliament. If we adjourn now that would almost certainly be the result. The only object I had was to see that the Amendment carried out what the Government wanted, and was such that reasonable men could arrive at a conclusion without any difficulty. If the Government would adjourn, I am confident the chances are at least nine to one that the subject will never be heard of again.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would suggest to the Noble Lord that if we were to leave the words out now, and if by Monday we are convinced that the words must be put in, we shall still hear of them here; but if, on the other hand, he will agree with us and allow the matter to go through as it stands at the present moment, and if by Monday he and the hon. Baronet agree that our view is substantially right, then we shall not hear of the thing again. It is very difficult, I agree.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: There is not very much in it.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I agree there is very little in it. The Amendment having been moved with a desire to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they were to allow us to proceed with the Bill with the Amendment that would not be an unreasonable proposition. Remember that we ourselves do not think the Amendment is necessary.
    942
    We put in the words in order to try to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they think we have not met them, then we can debate it again on Monday, but if they think we have, the matter ends.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I quite recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has been very pleasant in his manner, but may I point out to him that what he suggests is not a concession, because we must have a Report stage, therefore the concession comes from us. However, I do not want to press the matter, and therefore ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next (8th March).
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

  INJURIES IN WAR (COMPENSA TION) (No. 2) (MONEY).
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Pensions and other Allowances to certain persons in respect of disablement due to causes arising out of the operations of the present War whilst they are employed afloat in connection with the telegraphic and postal services, and to their dependants, under any Act of the present Session to provide for the grant of such Pensions and Allowances (King's recommendation signified) To-morrow.—[Mr. Walter Rea.]
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes after Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  BELGIAN REFUGEES (STAMP DUTY).
  BELGIAN REFUGEES (STAMP DUTY).
  FOREIGN CROPS.
  FOREIGN CROPS.
  CURRENCY NOTES.
  CURRENCY NOTES.
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  COMMANDEERED MARES.
  COMMANDEERED MARES.
  NATIONAL RESERVE.
  NATIONAL RESERVE.
  APPLICANTS FOR COMMISSIONS.
  APPLICANTS FOR COMMISSIONS.
  MEDICAL CORPS.
  MEDICAL CORPS.
  BRITISH SOLDIERS IN INDIA (PARCELS).
  BRITISH SOLDIERS IN INDIA (PARCELS).
  POLICE-PROTECTION POST DUTIES.
  POLICE-PROTECTION POST DUTIES.
  BADGES FOR POLICE.
  BADGES FOR POLICE.
  CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL.
  CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL.
  POLICE HOLIDAYS.
  POLICE HOLIDAYS.
  Unexpended Irish Grants.
  Unexpended Irish Grants.
  Gold Reserves.
  Gold Reserves.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  CHEMISTS' CLAIMS.
  CHEMISTS' CLAIMS.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  DRUG ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE (REGULATIONS).
  DRUG ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE (REGULATIONS).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Registration of Titles.
  Registration of Titles.
  Rhum Mail Service.
  Rhum Mail Service.
  Agricultural Labour (Wages).
  Agricultural Labour (Wages).
  Gooseberry Bushes (American Mildew).
  Gooseberry Bushes (American Mildew).

MULLINGAR AND KELLS RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
WORKSOP AND BAWTRY RAILWAY BILL.
The order of yesterday referring the Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next discharged.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 23) BILL.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 10th of February last discharged, and Bill committed for To-morrow.
NEATH CANAL NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

THE BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Royal Commission on Food Supply in Time of War has considered the advisability of encouraging the beet-sugar industry in the British Isles, and whether any Report has been presented in connection therewith; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will lay that Report on the Table, or will state its general tenor.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas, who is unavoidably absent to-day, I have been asked to reply to the noble Earl's inquiry. The question of the encouragement of the beet-sugar industry in the United Kingdom was not considered by the Royal Commission on Food Supply in Time of War.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Has there been no Report issued by the Royal Commission?
LORD ISLINGTON: I understand that the particular question of the production of beet-sugar in this country was not considered by the Royal Commission, and therefore was not reported upon.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: The other day when I raised this question the noble Lord who has just spoken made some remarks in reference to the Brussels Convention, and to the necessity of our giving six months notice if we wished to withdraw from the provisions of that Convention. May I ask whether the Government will be prepared to take into consideration the advisability of giving early notice with regard to our possible withdrawal from that Convention so as to have a free hand in reference to this question if it comes to anything practical?
LORD ISLINGTON: The noble Earl raises at rather short notice a question of policy of considerable importance, and I am not in a position to-day to give him an answer. If he desires to elicit information in regard to future policy in this connection, I would ask him to put a further Question on the Paper.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFRESHMENT ROOMS.
Moved to resolve, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and regulate the arrangements for the Refreshment Rooms in the Department of the Clerk of the Parliaments (The Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore)); agreed to: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

D. Rutland.

M. Lincolnshire.

E. St. Aldwyn.

V. Churchill.

L. Sanderson.

L. Desart (E. Desart).

L. Strachie.

L. Parmoor.

The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at a quarter before Four o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

BRITISH SHIPS (TRANSFER RESTRICTION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Islington). (No. 33.)
NAVAL MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE FUND BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Emmott). (No. 34.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered on Tuesday next in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the week.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday next, March 9.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.