Sitting of 15 June 1917

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Lanarkshire County Council (Water, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a second time; to be considered upon Monday next.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Rule, dated May 1917, made by the Secretary of Scotland under the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, and the Inebriates Act, 1898, relating to dietaries of prisoners and inmates of State Inebriate Reformatories in Scotland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 91.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911 (PART II.), ACCOUNT.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Account showing the nature and amount of the securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt at 31st March, 1917, as investments for moneys, forming part of the Unemployment Fund, paid over to them by the Board of Trade under Section 92 (3) of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 92.]

EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND BUDGET).
Address "for Return of the Indian Financial Statement and Budget for 1917–18, and discussions thereon in the Legislative Council of the Governor-General (incontinuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 80, of Session 1916)."— [Colonel Yate.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    QUESTIONS (FRIDAY SITTINGS).
    The first eight questions on the Paper were addressed to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am authorised by my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) to say that it is impossible for him to be here, and perhaps hon. Members who have questions down for to-day will not mind postponing them till Monday.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Are we to have no representative of the Foreign Office here to-day?
    Mr. HOPE: I speak subject to correction, but I understand that Members are not entitled to have questions answered on Friday.
    Mr. KING: Most important questions relating to foreign diplomacy arise on the Bill which is down for consideration today, and on the back of which the name of a Foreign Office Minister appears. Is nobody from the Foreign Office, or nobody authorised to speak on behalf of the Foreign Office, to be here?
    Mr. MOLTENO: In the previous discussion on the Bill attention was drawn to the fact that no representative of the Foreign Office was present.
    Mr. SPEAKER: What is the hon. Member's point of Order? He is now entering into a debate.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I am asking whether the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or someone representing the Foreign Office, will not be here for the succeeding proceedings?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No doubt someone will be here when the Bill is reached, though he may not be able to be here at Question Time.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is there no obligation on the representative of the Foreign Office to be here to answer questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Not on a Friday.
    Mr. LYNCH: I beg to postpone my questions. May I say that I have already a certain number of questions down for Monday, and if I postpone these questions I shall certainly exceed my usual limit. I

    1295
    do not know whether, in the circumstances I can still ask these questions on Monday together with the questions of which I have already given notice?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I dare say that there will be some of Monday's questions which will not be pressing, and which can be put off.
    Mr. MOLTENO: In postponing my question, may I call your attention to the fact that it affects the Bill to be discussed this afternoon, and that we ought to have an answer before we enter upon that discussion?

    INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONFERENCE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangement has been arrived at with the Governments of the self-governing Dominions with regard to their separate representation as distinct States at the International Peace Conference after the War; and whether the Resolution of the Australian Labour Conference claiming such right, and political independence for the Dominions and for Ireland, is in substantial agreement with the purpose of the Governments of those Dominions?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir A. Steel-Maitland): No such arrangement has been made or, as far as I know, suggested by any Government. I have no official knowledge of the Resolution referred to.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the hon. Gentleman any unofficial knowledge?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: None to be communicated by answer.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (WAR BONUS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the non-payment of the extra 5s. war bonus given to men in naval establishments at home and withheld from men who have gone out from this country to work in the dockyard at Gibraltar is causing considerable dissatisfaction; that the 21s. a week allowed for Colonial pay is insufficient to meet the extra outgoing expenses; and that an ordinary dockyardsman at Gibraltar has to pay 26s. a week for food without washing and other
    1296
    outgoings; and whether, in view of these facts as well as the further fact that, by the articles of agreement signed by workmen appointed to naval establishments abroad, which include Gibraltar, the Government undertake that the wages paid to their employés shall be their rate of pay plus any war increase, he will consider the possibility of granting the men at Gibraltar the extra 5s. a week war bonus?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The additional 5s. a week war increase in wages granted to workmen in the Home Dockyards on the 1st April has been approved to be paid, as from the same date, to the Home Dockyard workmen serving at Gibraltar.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MEAT.
    Major NEWMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his Department have effective control of the various cold storage establishments both for meat or other food products throughout the country; and, if so, can he account for the difference in price between meat in Australia or the Argentine and the same meat when sold to the public here at Home?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): The Government have not taken over the cold stores though a large amount of the space available is used for Government purposes. The difference between the purchase price of mutton in Australia and the sale price of such mutton in this country is due to the costs incidental to transport and distribution, of which cold storage is only one item. The importation of Argentine beef for civilian purposes is not controlled by the Government, and the prices are determined by market conditions here.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it not obvious that these cold storage establishments could hold up a large quantity of meat and keep it off the market, thereby forcing up the market price?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will represent what the hon. Gentleman says to the Ministry of Food.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether the Government have all the facilities for cold storage that they require, or whether further facilities will be required?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will also make that representation.

    CORN (STORAGE).
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Vice-president of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will consider the advisability of giving financial assistance to Irish farmers to enable them to provide proper storage for the corn which will be available after the harvest?
    Sir T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-president of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Department of Agriculture are not prepared to recommend the granting of financial assistance from State funds to farmers generally for the purpose mentioned. The Department are of opinion that farmers should make arrangements to have their corn stacked and thatched properly, and have so advised. The existing facilities as to storage in Ireland will, the Department believe, be adequate to deal with the forthcoming harvest.

  FOOD CONTROLLER.

    LORD RHONDDA APPOINTED.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Can the Leader of the House say whether he has any announcement to make in respect to an appointment to the vacant office of Food Controller.
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The Government have appointed Lord Rhondda to be Food Controller. They wish to recognise the spirit in which he has complied with the request. It must be evident to everyone that this office is no sinecure. It is of immense importance at the present time, but its holder is confronted with exceptional pitfalls and difficulties and is subject to the constant criticism of those with whom its operations inevitably interfere. Moreover, as head of the Local Government Board, Lord Rhondda has been actively engaged with proposals in regard to the public health—proposals which have already reached an advanced stage of maturity. He was therefore very reluctant to abandon his old office. But in response to the strong pressure on the part of the Prime Minister he has consented to do so.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who will be appointed President of the Local Government Board?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is only this morning that Lord Rhondda has consented, and we have not had time to come to any other decision.

  COAL.
  Captain BARNETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to provide against the probable shortage of fuel in London next winter, the Coal Mines Department will arrange to store large supplies of coal during the summer months in Regent's Park and other suitable open spaces, so that the same may be available for purchase at reasonable prices either by coal merchants or by consumers who are in a position to take delivery of the coal in large or small quantities?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the Board of Trade (Mr. G. Roberts): The Controller of Coal Mines is investigating the question of providing suitable sites for storing emergency supplies of house coal, but 'he does not think that public parks could be suitably utilised for this purpose.
  Captain BARNETT: Does the hon. Member know that last year this matter was discussed at a conference in September, and it was then found impossible to get large supplies in London.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware of the difficulties that arose last winter, but I have stated repeatedly that the Coal Controller has this matter under consideration, and the question of providing suitable storage is engaging his special attention.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. Friend say what steps the President is taking to have the coal transported? Is he aware that a great many of us who want to follow the advice of the Coal Controller and get coal in now cannot get it because there is not the transport?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Transport is one of the chief difficulties which confront the Coal Controller, but the point is engaging his attention, and I am hopeful that we shall be able to solve it.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of commandeering, without rent, any building sites in different parts of London?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be as well to put all these suggestions on the Paper.

  LABOUR UNREST (IRELAND).
  The following Question stood upon the Paper in the name of Mr. BYRNE:
  20. To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to avert a strike of the Almagamated Society of Engineers on railway work in Ireland?
  Mr. BYRNE: I will not ask this question to-day, because an attempt is being made to settle the matter.

  IRISH POLITICAL PRISONERS.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether the chains imposed upon the Irish political prisoners in England under sentences of secret courts-martial were made specially for them or are part of the ordinary equipment of prisons; if the latter, will he state when the chains were last used; of what offence the prisoners were convicted upon whom they were then imposed; and whether those prisoners had been convicted by civil or open Courts or by military and secret Courts?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): The light chains in question are part of the ordinary equipment of the prison and are in almost daily use when prisoners are transferred from one place to another. They form no part of the punishment of any class of prisoners, but are used only for safe custody when prisoners are travelling by railway or otherwise.
  Mr. LYNCH: Might I ask if photographs of these men in chains will be taken for propaganda work in Russia?
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether Mr. Colm O'Geary, one of the Irish political prisoners in England under sentences of secret courts-martial, has become blind under the prison treatment; on what grounds his request for a little dog to lead him about has been refused; and what justification is offered for chaining this blind man in addition to handcuffing him?
  Sir G. CAVE: Two ophthalmic surgeons have been consulted owing to complaints made by O'Geary about his vision. They both report that his vision is practically normal in both eyes. Nothing is known as to the alleged request for a dog.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether Countess Marckiewicz, a political prisoner in penal servitude at
  1300
  Aylesbury under sentence of a secret court-martial, being the wife of a Russian citizen, has been informed of the successful revolution in Russia, and that she is free to communicate the facts of her present position and treatment to the new Russian Government; does he undertake that such statement shall reach that Government; and whether he has considered the advisability of releasing this lady before the Russian Government intervenes on her behalf?
  Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. As to the third, I have no-statement to make.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if, in order to remove dissension and ill-feeling in Ireland, he will state the Government's proposals in reference to Irish prisoners?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I propose to make a statement on this subject upon the Adjournment.

  AIR RAIDS (WARNINGS).
  Captain BARNETTasked the Home Secretary why the approach of hostile aircraft is not made known in London, as elsewhere, by siren or fog-horn; and whether, in order to render air-warnings distinctive and unmistakable, steps will be taken to prohibit the use of sirens for other purposes throughout the metropolitan area until further order?
  Sir G. CAVE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement which I made in the House last night, in which I explained why it has not been thought desirable to give public warning by siren or foghorn in London.
  Captain BARNETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the size of London and the fact that some foolish people do rush into the streets provide any reason for depriving Londoners of that protection which is given to people outside?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member had been here last night he would have heard the answer.
  Captain BARNETT: I read the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether it is proposed to introduce any systematised

  1301
  form throughout the country, or whether it is proposed to allow the local organisations to make their own arrangements?
  Sir G. CAVE: The arrangements are made under the supreme direction of the military authorities. London being a special district, special arrangements are made, but this particular method of warning is not recommended as likely to save life.
  Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that no method of warning is to be introduced?
  Sir G. CAVE: There is a method of warning which is very effective, but this particular method is thought likely to result, not in the saving of life, but possibly in the loss of life.
  Mr. BILLING: Was the method which the right hon. Gentleman suggests is so effective, employed on the occasion of the recent raid in London?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes, so far as time permitted.
  Captain BARNETT: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the statement of Lord Knutsford of the London Hospital on the subject?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That also was discussed last night.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why no warning was given of the approach of hostile aeroplanes on the occasion of the raid last Wednesday?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have nothing to add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last night on the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If it is necessary to give warning in the provinces, why should it not be necessary to give warning in London?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That matter was discussed last night.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: That very matter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I beg your pardon, Sir.

  ARMY NURSES (RELIGIOUS SERVICES).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether it is
  1302
  a general rule in the nursing service that all nurses must join in Protestant prayers; whether Irish Catholic girls on entering for training are informed that such is the case; if there be no such rule and no authority for tampering with the religion of individuals, by what authority did a new superintendent of nurses recently in Harton Hospital, South Shields, command Catholic girls to attend Protestant prayers on pain of being reported for insubordination; and whether it will be made clear, there and in all military hospitals, that the religion of individuals must not be tampered with, and that record and promotion must in no way be affected by it?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for War (Mr. Macpherson): There is no rule of the kind suggested in military hospitals and every effort is made to enable Catholic nurses to perform their religious duties. The Harton Hospital, South Shields, is not a military hospital.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is it under the control of the War Office?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe not.

  AIR SERVICES.

    AEROPLANES (INITIAL TEST FLIGHTS).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether firms who deliver aeroplanes without having carried out the initial test flights are called upon to make any payment to the War Office for such relief; and, if so, what is the amount of such payment, who receives the sum, and who is responsible for taking the additional risk of putting these machines through their initial flight tests?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR BOARD (Major Baird): Departures from the contract conditions governing delivery by manufacturers are met by corresponding abatements on contract prices. Machines which have been delivered prior to the carrying out of their test flights are put through their tests by service pilots at the acceptance aerodrome. Owing to the thoroughness of inspection during manufacture it is not considered that any special risk is involved.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an exceptionally high price is charged by all private pilots to put these machines through their tests—it is about £10 a machine, which means a payment of

    1303
    about £10 an hour for this big risk—and is he aware that the Government at the present time are saving that £10 by taking it out of the manufacturer and subjecting the pilot to taking these risks without any additional compensation or insurance?
    Major BAIRD: All I can say is that no casualties have resulted.
    Mr. BILLING: In the event of casualties resulting, do you propose to take any action?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. BILLINGasked whether officers of the Royal Flying Corps who failed to qualify as pilots, but who wish to continue in the flying service, are allowed to qualify as observers, or whether, under such circumstances, they are asked to resign their commissions and, that being done, are subject to conscription as privates?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If an officer fails to qualify as a pilot, and wishes to become an observer, he is accepted for training as an observer, if recommended. If not recommended, an officer who belongs to another unit is returned to his unit as an officer. If not recommended as an observer, but recommended and approved as suitable for another branch of the service, he resigns his commission and joins a cadet unit. If not recommended either as an observer, or as an officer in another branch of the service, he resigns his commission and becomes liable to conscription.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that numerous officers at the present time are being relieved of their commissions in the Royal Flying Corps purely and simply through friction arising with their commanding officers in France, although they are capable pilots, and in these circumstances is he prepared to set up a small Court of inquiry, or some form of appeal for these officers, who at present have no form of appeal whatever?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot accept the statement made by my lion. Friend in the first part of his question.
    Mr. WATT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great difficulties that exist in getting out of the rank of observer into that of pilot?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand that is not true. I understand that observers very frequently become pilots.
    Mr. BILLINGasked if an officer of the Royal Flying Corps is permitted to engage the enemy on his own initiative if, being either flying or ready to take the air, he observes hostile aircraft operating over this country, and, if he is not permitted thus to engage the enemy, what action is he supposed to take?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This question must clearly be governed by the suitability of the aeroplane at the officer's disposal for the attack of hostile aircraft.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that a pilot has to make up his mind, while in the air, as to whether or not his machine is suitable to engage; and if he thinks it is suitable, is he entitled to engage the enemy; or, if he is standing by the machine with no senior officer near enough to give him orders, is he entitled to engage the enemy?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: A good deal is left to the discretion of the individual officer.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that officers have been court-martialled for doing that at Dover quite recently?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, it is not.

    FLYING OFFICERS' LEAVE.
    Mr. BILLINGasked what number of hours daily officers under instruction at aerodromes are expected to fly; whether the hours apply to Sundays as well as week-days; and what time, if any, is allowed to such officers and their instructors for recreative and recuperative purposes?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The number of hours flying per diem depends on the weather and the stage of training. Training in flying is carried out on Sundays as well as week-days. Leave is granted periodically both to instructors and to pupils.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand there is no regular leave allowed either for instructors or pupils, and that in the ordinary way they can be called upon to put in seven days a week training and instruction?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Leave, of course, depends upon military exigencies, which are the controlling and determining factor.

    ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the

    1305
    incompatibility which is once again becoming accentuated in the combined naval, military, and political administration of the Air Services; and whether, in view of the pending resignation of the chairman of the Air Board, he will consider the advisability of eliminating this friction and consequent official delays by vesting the supreme control of the naval and military aeronautical undertakings in the respective services in and reconstructing the Air Board under one Minister of initiative imagination and experience, with powers to organise from the surplus of the naval and military requirements an air fleet to carry the air war into the enemy's country independent of our ordinary naval and military undertakings, thus expanding our aeronautical operations and at the same time eliminating the present factions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. BILLING: Is any definite action at present under the consideration of the Government for instituting an offensive against the enemy in Germany from the air?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If it were, I do rot think it would be very likely that I should make it known
    Mr. BILLING: Is the policy of the Government going to be altered in view of the question of their refusal to take reprisals for the raids we have experienced?

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    ALIENS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether on 3rd and 4th June there were disturbances in Leeds, in the course of which several soldiers were injured and their homes attacked; whether above 200 Russian Jews have enlisted in the British Army from Leeds alone and that their families complain that the homes of these men have been violated and the businesses and work of their friends destroyed; and whether he will take some steps to restore confidence and create enthusiasm among the Allied alien population?
    Sir G. CAVE: My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have not had time to make inquiry, but am obtaining a report on the points mentioned.

    FARM BAILIFF.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he has made further inquiry into the case of Private A. C. Downes, for whose release from the Army request was made by the Board of Agriculture; whether he is aware that it is not correct to describe this man's father as the manager of his farm, seeing that he is the owner of it and that his son, A. C. Downes, is indispensable to the management of this farm of 1,140 acres; whether he is aware that Mr. Downes did apply for and obtained the services of soldiers and also of women to work on the land, but that this labour requires constant supervision and that for this purpose the services of A. C. Downes are indispensable; and whether he will now give immediate direction for the request of the Board of Agriculture to be complied with by the release of A. C. Downes from the Army for agriculture?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Further inquiries have been made with reference to the release asked for of Private A. C. Downes for the purpose of acting as bailiff on this farm under his father. These inquiries confirm the answer previously given, namely, that the management of the father is considered sufficient and that it is not necessary to release Private Downes to assist him. It is true that Mr. Downes applied for and obtained the services of soldiers last year to help him in the special seasons of hay time and harvest, but the present staff is considered sufficient for the ordinary work of the farm. In the event of any extra acreage being broken up as stated, military assistance could again no doubt be obtained by application being made to the agricultural company for this purpose. Private Downes is an "A" category soldier, and it is only in very special cases of urgency that the release of such soldiers is granted. This is not considered to be such a case, and the Army Council is not prepared to sanction the release asked for.
    Mr. McNEILL: May I take it that in regard to the sufficiency of management of this farm the Army Council consider themselves a better judge than the Board of Agriculture and the Kent Agricultural Committee?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not quite sure how the Army Council came to this conclusion, but I know that it was in com-

    1307
    munication with the local authority there. I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.
    Mr. McNEILL: I will refer to this matter on the Army Vote next week.

  OFFICERS ARRESTED.
  General CROFTasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the occasion of a recent air raid in Kent certain officers were placed under arrest; whether these officers are still under arrest; and, if so, on what charge were they arrested?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not been able to trace that any court-martial of officers of the Royal Flying Corps were held at Shorncliffe or elsewhere in connection with the Folkestone air raid. The fact appears to be that two officers, not of the Royal Flying Corps, were placed under open arrest and subsequently dealt with by their General for an offence against the Defence of the Realm Regulations by removing portions of bombs dropped from hostile aircraft. On an explanation being given, the General was satisfied, and they were released.
  General CROFT: How long was it be fore these officers were released, and has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that no primâ facie case was made out?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: There must have been a primâ facie case made out, because these officers were, on their own confession, in possession of these pieces of hostile bombs. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that that is an offence under military orders.
  General CROFT: Is it not quite likely that these officers never heard of that Order, and is it not a fact that the very moment they understood that this material was required they immediately brought it in of their own free will?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member ought to give notice of these new questions.
  Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that, despite the hon. Gentleman's answer, a certain officer of the Royal Flying Corps was
  1308
  called up before the Commanding Officer for taking the air because he could not get instructions?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no information whatever about that. I do not think it is the fact.
  Mr. BILLING: If I give the hon. Gentleman information will he act upon it?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: With regard to the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend (General Croft), I pointed out in my answer that the moment a reasonable explanation was given the men were released.
  General CROFT: Is it desirable that officers should be placed under arrest for trivial offences of this kind?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The charge against them was disobedience to orders. It is a well-known fact, which may not have been brought to the knowledge of these particular officers, that at all these aeroplane stations there is a definite order that no officer should be in possession of any piece of a hostile aeroplane.
  Mr. WATT: Are they to be kept in the Service?

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether dissatisfaction exists among the junior married officers of the new Army in connection with the administration of the special separation allowances; and, in view of the fact that this dissatisfaction may be largely attributed to ignorance of the circumstances and conditions which govern the allowances, whether he will say under what conditions an officer is entitled to claim this allowance, the amount of the allowance, and the procedure necessary to obtain it?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of the dissatisfaction to which the lion. Member refers. The conditions under which Grants may be made by the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee are fully stated in the Special Army Order which was issued on the 14th March, a copy of which I shall be happy to send to the hon. Member.
  Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that every junior officer has a copy of this given to him, or from where does he got the information?
  Mr. MACPHESON: I do not think that every individual officer has an individual copy sent to him, but he probably knows what the terms are.
  Mr. BILLING: What action is an officer to take if he wants to get full information-can he apply for it?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly. Very likely the adjutant of the regiment will be able to supply him.
  Mr. BILLING: In the event of there being any back allowance due to him, is he entitled to claim it?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that every officer of that rank can get that information by a specific application to Imperial House, Kingsway, the offices of the Civil Liabilities Committee?
  Mr. BILLING: They do not know it.
  Mr. T. WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service if men who signed National Service Volunteer forms are being transferred from their present employment to the Aircraft Manufacturing Company at Hendon, that they are being paid at a lower rate than they were receiving at the place they were transferred from, that the Aircraft Company refuse to comply with the agreement or recognise the promises made by the Director of National Service; and whether he" will take steps to compel this company to observe the conditions agreed to between himself and the National Service Volunteers?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. S. Walsh): No reports have reached the National Service Department of the cases alleged to have occurred in this question, but inquiries are being made, and in the meantime, perhaps, the hon. Member would supply me with any particulars he may have in his possession.
  Mr. WILSON: I will supply them.

  MUNITIONS.

    CLYDE DEPORTATIONS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether the workmen deported without trial from the Clyde are now free to return to Glasgow, and whether any conditions are attached to their return; whether the selection of the men to be deported was made on the strength of secret reports supplied to his Department; and, if so, whether the reports and the names attached to them will now be published; and, if no secret reports were supplied, will he explain on what principle these particular men were selected for deportation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The Order with respect to the men removed from the Clyde under Regulation 14 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations has now been withdrawn. No conditions were attached to the withdrawal of the Order. The deportation was determined upon evidence which was carefully considered by the competent military authority. It is not proposed to publish the evidence.

  RUBBER TYRES.
  Mr. KEATINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any rubber tyre? are being imported?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The only consignments of rubber tyres that are at present being imported are those which were en route to the consignees in this country at the date of the prohibition, i.e., 10th May.

  IRISH CONVENTION.
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt in Ireland at the fact that one-third of the places at the Irish Convention have been assigned to the chairmen of the various county and borough councils; whether this means that for three-quarters of Ireland these places will be filled entirely by the adherents of one political party, that no Unionist or Protestant will be represented, and that those who occupy the places have not had to seek election since the War and are

  1311
  largely out of touch with the trend of public feeling; and is he prepared to modify his scheme in this respect!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The allocation of representation upon the Convention of the various shades of Irish opinion was decided upon after the most careful consideration, and the Government is not prepared to make the modification suggested by the hon. and Gallant Member.
  Major NEWMAN: With how much greater authority will those county council chairmen be able to speak for Ireland if they come back after the elections?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: All these points have been carefully considered by us, and on the whole we think we have made the best possible arrangements.
  Mr. REDDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not be elected by any body, Unionist or otherwise?

  ALIEN SHOPKEEPERS.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the increasing activity of aliens, enemy and otherwise, to take advantage of the absence of our men on active service to capture the small-shop trade of this country; and whether, under these circumstances, he can see his way clear, by the introduction of some legislative measure or by action under the Defence of the Realm Act, to protect the future commercial existence of the British small shopkeepers who have fought in defence of their country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: One of the results which it is hoped will be obtained by the passage of the Military Service (Conventions with Allies) Bill, which will be considered in Committee this afternoon, will be to remove this grievance to which the hon. Member refers.

  STEAMSHIP "MAURETANIA."
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the "Mauretania" is and has been for over a year anchored in certain home waters; whether during that time it has been and still is hired by the Government, and, if so, what rate is being paid for such hire;
  1312
  and whether, in the interests of economy, steps will be taken either to determine the hiring or to put the vessel to greater use?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): It has been decided that the steamship "Mauretania" should be kept constantly available for use in emergency, and for this purpose an agreement has been arrived at with the owners by which she is held in this condition for payment of a very small sum, barely sufficient to cover the cost of the necessary care and maintenance. The terms, indeed, are exceedingly favourable to the Government.
  Mr. WATT: May we take it that she has been lying in that position for the last year?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: As a matter of fact she has not been in that position for a year, but for a much shorter period.

  PROHIBITED MEETING (DUBLIN).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland at whose instigation and on what evidence the Proclamation was issued prohibiting the holding of a public meeting in Dublin to protest against the ill-treatment of the Irish political prisoners chained in penal servitude in England under sentences of secret courts-martial; whether it was under the ordinary law, under martial law, or under the Defence of the Realm Act that that purpose has been deemed illegal and the proclamation issued; what reason there was, if any, for supposing that the meeting, if allowed, would have been disorderly; whether the police inspectors advised that the meeting ought not to be proclaimed; and whether the entire police force in Ireland is now under the command of the military authorities?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The meeting was prohibited under Regulation 9A of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, because there was obvious reason to apprehend that the holding of it would give rise to disorder. The apprehension was only too well founded, as was shown by the criminal acts, including one very terrible crime, which were committed by persons who sought to hold the meeting in defiance of the prohibition.
  Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first part of the question, at whose instigation and on what evidence it was proclaimed; nor has he answered the Clause asking whether the police inspectors advised the meeting not to be proclaimed.
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member, as I conceive it, is not entitled to ask, and certainly I am not to answer, those questions.

  PETROL.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what price they are now paying per gallon for high-grade petrol for aeroplane work, and what price per gallon they are paying for low-grade spirit?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think it desirable to publish contract prices.

  TELEGRAM TO POPE.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister why a prepaid telegram, accepted by the Postal Department in Dublin on 22nd May, 1917, and addressed to His Holiness Pope Benedict, Rome, with reference to the treatment of Irish prisoners in Lewes and Aylesbury Gaols, from the Irish Women's Council, 6, Harcourt Street, Dublin, has not been allowed through to its destination?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer the lion. Member to the notification issued by His Majesty's Government to the International Telegraph Bureau at Berne on the 3rd August, 1914, under which the public were warned that telegrams are only accepted at the sender's risk, and on the understanding that they may be stopped, delayed, or otherwise dealt with at the discretion of the authorities and without notice to the sender.
  Mr. GINNELL: When a telegram is accepted at a Post Office, and is not forwarded, will the money paid be refunded?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir.

  BRITISH ARMIES.

    PRISONERS, GUNS AND TERRITORY CAPTURED.
    General CROFTasked the Prime Minister what are the total captures of
    1314
    prisoners and guns by the British Armies since 1st July, 1916, on the Western Front, in Egypt, and Mesopotamia t
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The total number of guns captured on the Western Front since 1st June, 1916, by the British Armies is 434. Since the beginning of the War to the end of May the British Armies have captured, altogether, 76,067 prisoners on the Western Front, to which must be added at least 8,000 for the month of June, In Mesopotamia, approximately, 10,900 prisoners have been taken since 1st Juno, 1916. One hundred and thirty-two guns have been captured since the beginning of the War, exclusive of guns lost at Kut and recaptured by us. The captures re-ported by the G.O.C.-in-C, Egypt, since 1st July, 1916, are, approximately, 8,739 prisoners and 18 guns. If my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question in the same form in a fortnight's time I will give him exact figures up to the middle of June.
    General CROFT: If the Department recommends to the Leader of the House that the time is not inappropriate for some expression of opinion—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice of that. It does; not arise out of the question.
    General CROFTasked the Prime Minister what is the total area captured by British troops on the Western front since 1st July, 1916?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: About 600 square miles has been regained in this period. This figure must be taken as approximate only, as the boundary between the French and British armies has varied constantly.

  ENEMY AEROPLANES DESTROYED.
  General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the number of enemy aeroplanes known to be destroyed or driven down since 1st July, 1916, respectively?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Information on this subject is announced in the communiqués from the various fronts which are published in the Press. Compilation of the complete statement, for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks, would involve a good deal of work, and I trust that he will not press for it.
  Mr. BILLING: When two or three machines are shot down and fifteen or sixteen are seen to disappear and it is stated that eighteen enemy machines have been lost, are we to accept that Press statement as an accurate statement that eighteen aeroplanes and pilots belonging to the enemy have been killed, or is it purely to delude the public?
  Mr. HOGGE: Do we understand that the War Office, while it may not be able to give it now, is keeping an accurate account of this item as they are of the other items?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, we are, of course, keeping an accurate account and we are only too anxious to give it, but at present it involves a certain amount of inaccurate information because we are not quite certain whether, when we see an aeroplane going down, it has actually been destroyed or not, and we think it much better at present not to give any information at all rather than to give inaccurate information.
  Mr. BILLING: If you are not sure when the aeroplane is going down, how do you decide at some future date whether it is lost—by seeking information from the other side?

  GENERAL SMUTS' SPEECH.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by whose authority public money was expended on the publication of a recent speech by General Smuts; and whether an equal sum will be expended on, and equivalent means adopted to secure publicity in favour of, a speech in reply to the arguments of General Smuts by the hon. Member for West Clare in this House on Friday, 1st June?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: General Smuts' speech was printed on the authority of the Government, and, I believe, in accordance with the general desire of the House of Commons.
  Mr. LYNCH: How far will this principle be extended of spending public money on speeches, for instance, which simply bolster up the position of the Government, no matter how footling the arguments may be which they contain?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government must take responsibility for the money spent in propaganda. I wish all the money that has been spent had been equally useful.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. MOLTENO: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to arrange that someone from the Foreign Office can be present during the discussion on the Military-Service (Conventions with Allied States) Bill? On the Second Reading various questions were asked which could only be answered by the Foreign Office, and they will arise again to-day. Therefore, it would be for the convenience of the House if he could arrange for someone from the Foreign Office to be present?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That question has been answered by the arrival of my right hon. Friend Lord R. Cecil.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Will he remain here?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I may say that we propose to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule on Monday, not with the object of sitting late, but in order that we may be able to get through certain business.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say with regard to Monday's business whether the Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners will have precedent over the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, it is intended to take those Instructions first.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman move the Adjournment of the House at 3 o'clock this afternoon or at some earlier hour to enable this House to debate the question of the desirability of reprisals upon Germany to prevent further action on their part?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is the last thing I would do.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the feeling in this country at the present minute in regard to the absolute weakness and apathy on the part of both the naval and military authorities—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put down any further questions.
  Mr. BILLING: Am I not in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman a question when we have only taken forty minutes over questions and there are twenty minutes left.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has any questions to ask he must give notice of them in the usual way. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.

MILITARY SERVICE (CONVENTIONS WITH ALLIED STATES) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
[Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair.]
Mr. BILLING: In view of the fact that there is no one in the Chair, perhaps I may be able to address the Leader of the House. Before we proceed with business I would like to ask the Leader of the House—
[Mr. WHITLEY took the Chair.]
Mr. BILLING: Before we proceed I would like to ask—
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
Mr. BILLING: I would like to ask—
HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.
Mr. BILLING: Before we proceed with other business (Interruption)—
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! I call upon the hon. Member to resume his seat.
Mr. BILLING: I want to ask the Leader of the House—
HON. MEMBERS: Order, order! Sit down!
Mr. BILLING: In view of the action of the Chair, which makes it impossible for me to raise this question for the simple reason—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must resume his seat when the Chairman is standing.
Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. I was anxious to address a question to the Leader of the House at the moment Mr. Speaker vacated the chair to proceed with other business. In these circumstances I presume I am in order in addressing the Leader of the House now. If I am not in order in addressing the Leader of the House now, I must refuse to give way on this point.
The CHAIRMAN: The lion. Member is not in order. We are now in Committee on certain business.
Mr. BILLING: I protest against this House proceeding in Committee with other business until we have had an undertaking from the Leader of the House
HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member decline to respect the authority of the Chair?
Mr. BILLING: I protest to the House. The authority of the Chair has been abused so often in my case that I must refuse to respect it. [Interruption.] I protest against this House proceeding in Committee until we have had an undertaking from the Leader of the House that an early opportunity will be given to debate the question of aircraft reprisals.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must resume his seat. I call upon the hon. Member to resume his seat.
Mr. BILLING: May I have a reply from the Leader of the House?
The CHAIRMAN: I call upon the hon. Member to resume his seat.
Mr. BILLING: May I have a reply from the Leader of the House before this House proceeds with business?
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member declines to respect the authority of the Chair, then it is my duty to take other steps.
Mr. BILLING: I am sorry if the other steps have to be taken, but in view of the exigencies—
The CHAIRMAN: I call the attention of the Committee to the action of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire in declining to respect the authority of the Chair, and I call upon him to withdraw.
Mr. BILLING: I ask the Leader of the House whether he is prepared to make some statement so as to reassure—
HON. MEMBERS: Name, name! Sit down!
The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member persist in declining to respect the authority of the Chair?
Mr. BILLING: I must ask the Prime Minister; I must ask the Leader of the House—
HON. MEMBERS: Chair, chair! Withdraw!
Mr. BILLING: While I have the utmost respect for your ruling, Mr. Whitley, I
1324
feel that I am not doing my duty to my Constituents and to this House unless I press this question.
The CHAIRMAN: I call upon the hon. Member to withdraw from the Committee.
Mr. BILLING: If that is your ruling, I have done all that I can in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is obliged to withdraw immediately when called upon.
Mr. BILLINGrose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!" and "Name!"]
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Mr. BILLING: Am I entitled to ask the Leader of the House before I withdraw—[Interruption.]
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member still persists, it is my duty to take further and more extreme steps.
Mr. BILLING: That is up to you. [Interruption.]
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is ordered to withdraw from the Committee.
The hon. Member thereupon withdrew.
Bill considered in Committee.

CLAUSE 1.—(Carrying Out of Mutual Arrangements with Allied Countries as to Military Service Obligation.)
His Majesty may by Order in Council, signifying that he has made a convention with a foreign country allied or otherwise acting in co-operation with His Majesty in the present War (in this Act referred to as the contracting country) which imposes a mutual liability to military service on British subjects in that country and on subjects of that country in the United Kingdom, direct that this Act shall have effect with respect to the contracting country and the subjects of that country; and on any such Order in Council being made, this Act shall have effect accordingly.
The CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments are out of place. There is a question which might have been raised at line 10 of the Clause, but I think it is raised in better form in an Amendment of which notice has been given by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno). The next three Amendments are in order with a

1325
slight alteration. The proposal is to leave out the word "foreign" ["foreign country"] and insert instead thereof the word "Allied." It should be to leave out the words "a foreign" and to insert instead thereof the words "an Allied." I understand that the purpose of these three Amendments is to leave out the qualifying words in the Bill referring to the making of a convention with a foreign country.
Mr. W. WHITEHOUSE: I cannot see that there is any Amendment in the name of the hon. Member to whom you have referred relating to the ratification by Parliament of any convention.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of dealing with that point when we reach line 10.
Mr. R. LAMBERT: I beg to move to leave out the words "a foreign" ["a foreign country"], and to insert instead thereof the words "an Allied."
The object of my Amendment is simply this: While it may be very necessary, in the middle of this War, that we should have conventions with our Allies, it seems to me to be pushing the matter very far to include conventions with foreign countries which are in no sense allied to us. The point is a very simple one, and I hope that the Under-Secretary may be able to accept.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The effect of the Amendment would be to narrow the provisions of the Bill to conventions made with Allied States, whereas, as he will see from the short title of the Bill, it is intended that the Bill should apply not only to Allied States, but to other States, such as the United States of America.
Mr. LAMBERT: They are Allies.
Mr. MACPHERSON: At present, technically, they are not. They are engaged in active co-operation with us. In view of that particular fact, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's Amendment
Mr. SNOWDEN: I am surprised at the position of the Under-Secretary on this question. The instance he gave of America is entirely beyond the point. America now is just as much an Ally of this country as France or Russia, or any continental Ally. As I understand this proposal, it is that the Government will have power to make
1326
conventions with a country which is not an Ally and not in the War, and they will thus be able to make a convention with such a country expressly for the purpose of conscripting British subjects.
Mr. MACPHERSON: The Bill provides for doing so with an Allied State, or otherwise acting in co-operation with this country.
Mr. SNOWDEN: It is quite true there is a distinction between an Ally and a country co-operating, but the United States were co-operating with us in the sense that they were supplying money and munitions of war. Docs the hon. Gentleman mean to say that a convention can be made with a country which is not an Ally at present, but which co-operated with this country simply by giving financial support. As a matter of fact, every country is co-operating with this country in this War. They are sending us munitions or food, and in that way helping us to continue the War. Therefore, if the words stand as they are in the Bill they will enable the Government to make a convention for the purpose of conscription in any country in the world. It is that we object to. The purpose of the Amendment is that the powers of the Government in making conventions should be confined to an actual Ally. The words in the Bill at present acting in co-operation with His Majesty arc too wide. We must have the Government restricted in the extent to which they use this power in making conventions with other countries, and we want to confine the Government to using that power with Allies in this War.
Mr. KING: I do not think so far as I can see that either the Committee or the Under-Secretary for War realise how important is this Amendment, or what the facts are on which we base our support of it. At the present time we are in actual alliance with no less than fourteen other States—Russia, France, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, Japan, Portugal, Italy, Roumania, the United States, Cuba, and Panama—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hayti,"]—there are thirteen or fourteen, but it is immaterial. These places contain all the nations with which we are at all likely to have any conventions, and that will provide a field for recruiting. I should like to have the attention of the Under-Secretary for War. If the Amendment is to be granted it will save time, but of course if he will not accept this

1327
Amendment in any form, we must really beg leave to put the case. I have no wish, however, to spend the time of the Committee, but if we are compelled to do so on matters like this it is really not our fault but the fault of the Treasury bench. What are the other States, of which there are a number, that have actually severed diplomatic relations with Germany? There are. no less than nine of them, China, Brazil, Bolivia—
The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): May I state what our object is? There is no trap in these words that are in the Bill, and if there are any other words which would make the provision quite clear, we would be happy to consider them, but we do not want to be defeated by technicalities from making conventions with countries which are substantially acting with us as Allies. We are prepared to consider the matter on the Report stage for we are not quite satisfied that the word "Allied" would include such a country as the United States, though it is practically true that the United States is an Ally.
1.0 P.M.
Mr. KING: I welcome very much the intervention of the Noble Lord. I understand, of course, that alliances are of different kinds. For example there is the alliance on a definite treaty of war, and I suppose there is no treaty of any kind with the United States, but everybody recognises, of course, that there is really an alliance with that country. Such countries as Norway and Sweden evidently have definitely and finally determined that, if possible, they will keep out of this War altogether as neutrals. These neutral countries are absolutely, after three years, more determined than ever to remain neutral, and I conceive that if the Bill were passed in its present form it might be made a lever to obtain certain advantages, for example, in connection with blockades that might be undertaken. I want to guard against that, and I want to guard against any convention which has the purpose of mutual recruiting being entered into. The Noble Lord has been good enough to say that he will consider this point on the Report stage and will put in some words which will make good our common object. If on the Report stage he will let us have some words—of course the Report stage cannot be to-day
1328
—which the Foreign Office will approve in this direction, I shall certainly offer no more observations at present.
Mr. CHANCELLOR: I should like to know whether there is any legal meaning in the words "acting in co-operation." Is a country which has taken no part in the War co-operating with us? Our object in moving this Amendment is simply to prevent this Bill from being used as an instrument to enable the State to enter into an arrangement applying to English nationals domiciled in different parts of the world.
Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no legal meaning, so far as I know, in the actual use of the words "acting in co-operation," and they are simply an example of what we mean at the present moment.
Sir C. JOHNSTON: I would suggest that you might insert before "co-operation" the words "naval or military."
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I hope the suggestion of the Noble Lord will be accepted, and I understand that on the Report stage he will submit some word.
Mr. TREVELYAN: I want to be quite clear about this, as some of us are doubtful upon the matter. We are bound to accept the general principle of the Bill, and we wish to deal with the countries that are definitely allied with us, and will add the United States of America, even if that is not technically right. I imagine that what the Government have got in mind principally are the countries France, Italy, Russia, and the United States. But the Clause goes far beyond that, and would include, if not now, at any rate at some subsequent time, such places as the Republic of 'South America and other places which may or may not at this moment be acting in co-operation with us. Our point is that we do not want our home nationals in foreign countries to be conscripted by these Conventions, and I think the Government will probably agree that the House do not really want to look forward to conscripting British people in the Brazilian and other Republics. We want to protect nationals in smaller countries who may be drawn into alliance with us, and to confine the operation of this measure to what we may call our principal Allies.
Mr. LAMBERT: In view of the assurance of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I desire to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "otherwise" to insert the words "other than those foreign countries set out in Schedule 1 of this Act."
There are substantial reasons why certain countries should be excluded from the possible operations of this Bill. My case is based chiefly on the objection to sending men of our nationals into the army of a coloured State. We are in alliance now with Japan, and we have the very highest appreciation of the unique and valuable services which they have rendered, but we do not want to put our soldiers under Japanese officers. If you were to go to Australia at present and make the suggestion that British citizens in Japan were to be conscripted into the Japanese Army, you would find emphatic and unanimous disapproval of such a proposal. Then take the case of China. In various parts of the British Empire there are very large numbers of Chinese, and for the purposes of a naval battalion, especially to be used in tropical areas, nothing could be more desirable than to have a naval battalion of coolies. But though that might be done on a voluntary basis, I should have a very strong objection to any convention which' should make British subjects in China liable to serve in the Chinese Army under Chinese officers. That is another case which ought to be excluded from any possible application of this Bill. Then we are already in alliance with countries like Cuba and Panama, where the population is more black than white.
The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, for the information of the hon. Member, I should state that I have got handed in an Amendment to insert, after the words "acting in," the words "naval or military." That might affect the point which he now raises.
Mr. KING: It might cover the point, but I am not going to give way on the mere supposition that that might be accepted, because we have got many Allies with whom we cannot possibly be in co-operation of a naval character. Serbia and Montenegro have got no navy, and therefore we cannot be in naval cooperation with those countries.
Mr. MACPHERSON: The words are "military or naval."
Mr. KING: That would be a very good suggestion, but it does not cover the point of my Amendment, which I hope will be
1330
accepted, because I am equally against the sending of our men into the Chinese or the Japanese Army. We are in co-operation with Japan, and therefore that case would not be excluded. We may very shortly be in co-operation with China, and we may very soon be in co-operation with Liberia, Hayti, San Domingo, Honduras, and Guatemala. I do not think that the proposal to send our men into the armies of these nations is one that would be approved of. I move the Amendment and hope that it will be considered before the Report stage, and that there will be a Schedule. When we come to put the various countries into the Schedule, I am sure that we shall all be very reasonable: about it, but it is most desirable to have a Schedule attached to this Bill which would exclude certain countries set out therein.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment in view of the promise that we shall insert the words "naval or military" in this part of the Clause. May I point out that in the case of these other countries English nationals would be able to return home.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill was prepared to take up a reasonable and conciliatory attitude this afternoon, but I am afraid that he has not given any evidence of that. Whether the method by which my hon. Friend proposes to carry out his object is or is not the best I have some doubt, but with his object I have complete sympathy. The only reason which the hon. Gentleman could advance just now for not accepting my hon. Friend's proposal was that British subjects in foreign countries always have the option of coming home and serving. They have not.
Mr. MACPHERSON: There is an assurance given that in the case of every convention there will be the opportunity of British subjects in foreign countries coming home.
Mr. KING: Will there be a corresponding offer for other nationals in our country to go to their own country?
The CHAIRMAN: That is a substantive point on which I am reserving a particular Amendment.
Mr. TREVELYAN: I want to be clear on this. I admit that I am not satisfied with

1331
British subjects being in any circumstances forced into the Japanese Army, even if they remain in Japan. I am not opposing the principle which has now been adopted by the House with regard to European countries. I mean, I take it that the House has decided it, but I do not take it that the House has definitely decided that British subjects are in any circumstances to be forced into the Japanese, Brazilian, Chinese, and other Armies. It is not enough to say that they can come home. What the Government really want is not the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which excludes certain countries from the operation of this Act, but to include in a Schedule all those countries which we are all thinking about. I do not believe the Government want to force British subjects into the Brazilian or the Japanese Armies. I do not think that is their object. I cannot see why they cannot put down the principal countries, which are France, Italy, Russia, and the United States. We should, for instance, differ very likely about Roumania. There may be one or two countries about which we should have some difference of opinion. I do not, however, believe that the great mass of this House want either to enlist Japanese or Brazilians here, or want to have British subjects compulsorily enlisted in the Brazilian or the Japanese Armies. I think the reasonable thing is for us to have a Schedule of inclusion, the opposite to what my hon. Friend is proposing, leaving in the three or four countries in which we are really interested. I suggest that that is the real solution for this difficulty.
Mr. KING: This is just a point where, I think, the presence of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs would be very desirable. I know he is very busy. I do not like to bring him here, but I really do think that when we are talking about matters of this sort, and feeling a great deal more, perhaps, than we say about the relations between ourselves and our Allies, a few chosen words of common sense from the Noble Lord would carry us on or bring us together very much.
Mr. LEES SMITH: The Under-Secretary has given us an assurance on behalf of the War Office that British subjects resident abroad will be permitted to come home before being conscripted under any such convention as that proposed. If that is already determined, may I ask him why it should depend upon an assurance
1332
from the Foreign Office? Will he at the same time give us an undertaking that words to this effect will be embodied on the Report stage of the Bill?
The CHAIRMAN: That point had better not be raised at the present stage.
Mr. WATT: I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment, which has been proposed by my hon. Friend opposite. It is an Amendment of considerable importance. May I remark on the unsatisfactory manner in which the Under-Secretary is treating these Amendments. On both occasions he has given us a reply by no means of a conciliatory nature; brief, and of a type that simply cut off by the wrist the hon. Members who moved them. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that the speeches should be in inverse ratio to the courtesy of the Undersecretary. It seems to be his opinion that such brevity in answering will facilitate the passage of this measure; if I were they I should demonstrate to him clearly that it does not always occur as he seems to imagine. The hon. Member has made a promise on behalf of the War Office that men dealt with in this particular convention who are abroad shall have an opportunity of coming homo and joining the Army here. I would suggest to my hon. Friend opposite that such a promise should be put into the Bill. Such promises on behalf of the War Office are generally not worth the paper on which they are written.
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member will defeat his own object if he discusses that matter now. It will prevent me bringing the matter up later as I desire to do on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries.
Mr. MOLTENO: It is surely not out of Order on this Clause, Mr. Whitley? I think there is a little misunderstanding. My Amendment deals with subjects of this country, whereas the other is the converse and deals with British subjects in foreign countries. Unless we deal with this matter under this first Clause we shall, I would suggest, have no power to deal with it at all. The matter deals with a different class of subjects.
Mr. WATT: I should certainly insist upon the promise made on behalf of the War Office in some form or other being put into the Bill, namely, that men who are abroad and who are enlisted under this measure should have the choice to

1333
come here and join the British Army before they are sent into the ranks of foreign armies. The promise may be given in all good faith, but next week it may be worth nothing. We have found that from our past experience.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope I may be able to deal with hon. Members opposite with equal courtesy, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend behind me has just said. Perhaps it would assist discussion if I said that between now and the Report stage I shall endeavour to put something in the Bill itself to the effect stated.
Mr. KING: That does not quite meet the point. Supposing that a man is out in Japan. He has there his wife and family and a good business. Under this Bill there is a convention with Japan. You say the man can come home, but what has he to do with his wife and family and his business? You simply say that a man shall not be compelled to go into the Japanese Army but can return home. It is absurd. It is not worth anything. We should have a clean-cut solution of the difficulty.
Mr. MACPHERSON: May I point out to my hon. Friend that there is in the Bill as it stands an opportunity for any man who is in a large way of business in any foreign or Allied country to appeal to the British Consul and to bring forward before that official the whole of the facts and circumstances, so that he may see that no injustice is done?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: That is not in the Bill. I have listened with very great interest to the explanation given by my hon. Friend; but that is not in the Bill. It is very necessary that we should understand and that we should see that the Under-Secretary understands what is in the Bill. What is in the Bill is that an alien in this country shall have the right of appealing to his own Ambassador in this country and of obtaining a certificate of exemption.
Mr. TREVELYAN: It seems to me to be rather unsatisfactory to be discussing this point at this moment. The House fully realises the importance of the question of our own nationals abroad. Whether or not the Government can accept the Amendment I have on the second page of the Order Paper—"provided that no Order in Council shall be
1334
made" and so on, or that that or some other Amendment would really be the best time to discuss it—is a question, because there is a good deal to be said about the position of our nationals abroad. That they should have the opportunity of coming back home docs not really meet the position altogether. I suggest that we should have a discussion on this question either on my Amendment or on another. We will not settle it by merely asking questions.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The point raised is one of some substance. I do not think, speaking for myself alone, that the right way to meet the difficulty is to attempt to put in any Schedule which discriminates between particular countries. Such a Schedule would necessarily be invidious, and might be regarded as a reflection upon the methods or the Army administration of some or other of our Allies in whom we have the greatest confidence and for whom we have the highest respect. Therefore, I hope; that the Government will not attempt to make any discrimination by way of naming any particular countries either for exclusion or for inclusion in a Schedule. The Committee, if they are to consider the matter, must, when deciding this point, consider the possibility of alternatives. I do not think the alternative suggested by my hon. Friend behind me is practicable— that is, to attempt to apply our Military Service Acts within some foreign country, and to determine whether or not any person there would be liable under the Military Service Acts of this country if he had been in England. I doubt whether in practice such a scheme would be workable. The solution which the Government have in mind, but have not put into the Bill, is that it should be left to the British Minister to defend the right of the 'British subject in foreign countries. I think that the House feels confident that our diplomatic representatives abroad would adequately protect the right of any individual British subject. They always have done so, and I think they always will do so. The advantage of adopting that method is that it would carry out the principle at the basis of this Bill—namely, complete reciprocity. You give the. foreign subject who is resident here the right of appeal to his own Ambassador or Minister to secure exemption. Why not equally give the British subject resident abroad the right to appeal to his Ambassador or Minister? If that were

1335
done, not merely by way of promise across the floor of the House, but by putting it into the Bill, it ought to satisfy the reasonable demands of my hon. Friend. I hope that the Ministers in charge of the Bill will give an assurance that either at this stage or on Report it shall be made clear that what is already in the Bill with regard to foreign subjects in this country will be granted to British subjects abroad by statutory provision.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): As some reference has been made to the absence of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, perhaps I may be allowed to say that he has been called away on important business. With reference to the various points which have been raised, my right hon. Friend who has just sat down has stated to the Committee a view which, I think, is based equally on common sense and reasonableness. [An HON. MEMBER: "We cannot hear a word."] It is not unreasonable that it should be asked, in the first place, that the Bill should be so amended on Report as to make it clear that the Convention itself will give the option. It is recommended, in the second place, that there should be some means of dealing with exceptional cases—cases which obviously ought no more to be governed by general rule than is the case in this country. It is true that paragraph (b) of Clause 2 does not secure this, because a contracting country is denned in Clause 1. My right hon. Friend has made the suggestion that the drafting of paragraph (b) should be so amended as to make it reciprocal, and we shall be prepared to consider this.
Mr. KING: May I, on behalf of myself and others acting with me, thank the Attorney-General, not only for his promise, but for the whole tone of his speech and the way in which he has met us? I should, therefore, like to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. CHANCELLOR: I beg to move, after the word "in" ["acting in co-operation"] to insert the words "naval or military."
The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has expressed his willingness to accept this Amendment, and my hon. Friend has also promised that.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. MOLTENO: I beg to move, after the word "country" ["British subjects in that country and our subjects"], to insert the words ''who had proceeded from and been last resident in Great Britain and had not proceeded from and been last resident, in any other part of His Majesty's Dominions."
This Clause is a clause which is very compressed. It comprises a great many points, and it seems to me impossible to get what I want inserted except in the way I propose to do it. I should like to explain the difficulty which I desire to meet. The difficulty was alluded to on Second Reading, and it is that when, let us suppose, we have an arrangement with the United States to conscript British subjects, in the United States there may be British subjects from Ireland or the British Dominions, and therefore you will be placing under the Military Service Acts, or under similar Acts there, persons who would not be subject in the British Empire to those Acts. The Under-Secretary seemed to think that the point was provided for in this Bill, but it is not provided for. There is no provision whatever to secure, say, that those coming from South Africa would not be conscripted if they found themselves in America when a convention of this kind came into operation there. The Under-Secretary himself said he did not intend or desire that that should arise, and he' thought it was provided for in the Bill, but, when challenged to point it out, he was unable to do so, because on a very close study of the Bill I think it will be admitted that there is no provision there. But great confusion has arisen because in giving the power to foreign countries to conscript British subjects we have made no provision as to what shall be done, while when those British subjects come here we do make a distinction. Paragraph (c) of Clause 2 says "unless he shows that the part of His Majesty's Dominions in which he last resided was some part other than Great Britain," and the object of that is to provide that, should a person arrive from one of these places—an ordinary resident, we will say, in South Africa having been in America arriving here from America— he should not be conscripted. The distinction is drawn in the Clause, which we want to extend also for the protection of the same class of British subjects in foreign countries, and I have endeavoured to meet that case by my Amendment. If the

1337
Under-Secretary can see his way to accept that Amendment, I should feel very grateful. I regret very much the representative of the Foreign Office has been called away, because I myself feel in great trouble in this matter. We are by this Clause making an enormous change in the whole policy of this country for the last hundred years, that we ought to be extremely careful how we do it, and the course of this Debate has already shown how necessary it is to analyse what the implications are. Therefore, I would ask the Under-Secretary if he would either accept these words or some other words to make the position quite clear.
Mr. MACPHERSON: My own view is that this Amendment is not necessary, and probably rather undesirable. But I quite realise the point of view of my hon. Friend, and I think, in view of what my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General said with regard to instructions to our Ambassadors as to the treatment of our own subjects there—subjects who are British subjects in the narrow sense—that we should include in the same sense instructions on the lines my hon. Friend suggests. I am not satisfied with these words, but I will undertake to find words which, I trust, will carry out the object.
Mr. MOLTENO: Would the hon. Member just remember how impossible it would be for a British subject there to know of these instructions? We want it to be known, so that they can avail themselves of these rights.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I will see that it is done.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I wish to make a suggestion with a view to helping the Under-Secretary. The suggestion is that the words proposed to be added relating to certain responsibilities to be placed on our Ambassadors abroad shall include this point. I believe it will be impossible to adequately deal with so great a subject simply by an instruction to our Ambassadors abroad. Take, for example in this connection, America. How would it work there?
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am putting the words in the Bill.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: In putting the words in the Bill you forget to put them on a wider basis than merely requiring the Ambassador to do certain things. In
1338
the case of America, this is a matter of extreme importance affecting not hundreds or thousands, but tens of thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of people. If you limit this power to the Ambassador without any other machinery at all, in America I am sure the thing will break down of its own weight. The British Ambassador lives at Washington, and it is a week's journey from Washington to a great number of popular centres in the United States of America. Therefore, if you are simply going to give this authority to the Ambassador at Washington the whole sytem will break down, and it is a provision which you could not possibly carry out. I shall be content, however, if the right hon. Gentleman will consider the question with the example of America in his mind.
Mr. A. SAMUELS: I am afraid if this Amendment is carried out it will afford a great opportunity for shirkers coming to Ireland and residing for a short time and then proceeding to America.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: They would have to get passports.
Mr. SAMUELS: There are a large number of shirkers in Ireland. We have an institution in Ireland which we did not have before the War called whippet racing. This is indulged in mostly by people who slipped over to Ireland when the Conscription Bill was contemplated, and they have become resident in Ireland. You are now legislating for subjects of foreign countries and not for bonâ fide Irishmen. If this Amendment were adopted a man might stay in Ireland for a week, and then he would be able to elude the object of this Act. I may be told that care will be taken that such a thing does not occur. Whatever Amendment may be adopted, there is a danger of Ireland becoming a dumping ground for shirkers, and a place from which a man could slip away.
Major NEWMAN: I have a case in mind of a young fellow of eighteen years of age. His father was an Irishman and his mother an American, and his mother took this boy and another son across to America, where they now are. Under ordinary circumstances that man would be liable to serve in our Army. That is one definite case of a young fellow of eighteen being taken away from England to America, and he is now in America.
Mr. KING: In the case just mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, the father is an Irishman, and therefore he is outside Conscription. The boy was brought up along with his mother, who is an American, and no doubt she is an American in sympathy, and why she should not take her son off to America I do not know. If these are the cases upon which the two Irish Unionist Members who have spoken justify the charge of calling people shirkers and branding the few Britishers in Ireland as shirkers, then it is a very miserable and piteous exhibition. But why do we need to bring the question of shirkers into this thing? Let us look at this Amendment reasonably. There must be in the United States of America at the present time thousands of young men who were born in Ireland, or possibly born of Irish parents in Liverpool or Glasgow, and they have been taken out to America at a very early age. They will all be Irish in sympathy, and their real national ideal will be Irish rather than British at the present time, and a number of them are in danger of being Sinn Feiners. Anyone who has been over to America recently or has followed the American newspapers knows the sort of audiences which Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington is addressing every week by thousands throughout the whole length and breadth of the land. Therefore, when you are dealing with the Irish in America you have to be very careful indeed, and if you attempt to conscript them without a perfectly clear case, it is going to be a very unfortunate thing. Therefore, I hope the Amendment will be very carefully drafted and very generously considered.
Major NEWMAN: May I point out that there are 103 Irish Members in the House of Commons, and not a single one is here to claim protection for Irishmen?
Mr. SNOWDEN: May I also point out that there are nearly 300 Tory Members in the House of Commons, and there are only two present?
Mr. WATT: I wish to emphasise the desirability of having the gist of this Amendment put into the Bill, instead of being dealt with in the nebulous way of an Instruction to our Ambassadors abroad. If the point was going to be dealt with by some sort of an Instruction to our Ambassadors, it will not be a satisfactory way of dealing with the point, and there should be a clear statement in the Bill.
Mr. MOLTENO: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and I desire to thank the hon. Gentleman for accepting the principle. We are only asking for power to deal with those in this country, and what is going to be done in America we cannot control.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN: That covers, I think, the point in the next two Amendments.
Mr. KING: It does not quite cover the point of the next Amendment, for this reason: Let us take Russians, who are the people under immediate contemplation. Under this Bill as it is you conscript Russians in Ireland, though you are not conscripting British subjects there. That is the point. It is really quite a new point that is raised by this Amendment. There are certainly a few hundred Russian Jews in Dublin, and that is the only part of Ireland, I think, where there are these men. We will say there are a few score, and is it right to conscript Russian Jews in Dublin when you do not conscript British subjects in Dublin? That is the point of this Amendment, and I think I must move it and have an answer from the Treasury Bench to this question: You do not conscript your own nationalists in Dublin; do you intend to conscript foreigners?
I beg to move to leave out the words "United Kingdom," and insert instead thereof the words "Great Britain.''
Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. Friend is labouring under a misapprehension. The subjects of Allied contracting States can only be made liable to military service under the Military Service Acts of 1916 in the same way as ordinary British subjects, and a British subject is only liable to the Military Service Acts if he is ordinarily resident in Great Britain.
Major NEWMAN: The hon. Gentleman says, so far as I can make out, that the alien who ordinarily resides in London, and has since the commencement of the War gone over to Ireland, would not be caught by this particular Bill.
Mr. KING: If he is resident regularly there.
Major NEWMAN: If he is not resident regularly there, will he come under the Clauses of this particular Bill?
Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly.
Major NEWMAN: Here we have evidence given in one of the Police Courts in Dublin only the other day, in which William Kimber, described as a china merchant, of New Cut, London, and James Cope, dealer, of Pocock Street, London, were charged with frequenting public places for the purpose of picking pockets. The report says:
"A detective said he was aware that since racing was curtailed in England, a large number of slackers, thieves, welshers and the riff-raff of the race meetings in England had come across to Ireland. A number of well-to-do honest people had also come."
I want to know whether these cut-throats, thieves, and vagabonds will be caught by this Bill or whether they will not.
Mr. KING: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, after the words "United Kingdom," to insert the words "provided that such Convention is ratified by Parliament."
This is the Amendment which I had on the Paper earlier to be inserted after the word "Convention" ["has made a Convention"], but in a somewhat modified form. I am not attached to the form of the words, and I am quite sure that the President of the Board of Education will be a little troubled in his mind by the fact that the words do not run very easily and that the sentence is not quite satisfactory from the standpoint of English. I am not, as I say, attached to those words which, under your ruling, Mr. Whitley, I am moving here, but it is the principle to which they refer with which I am concerned I understand that you are willing that the general discussion on the subject should take place at this point. I regard it as of the utmost importance that each separate convention that is entered into with foreign countries under this Bill should be submitted to Parliament and should be ratified by Parliament. The matter is of the most complicated nature. We are now passing a Bill which will give the executive Government of the day the power to enter into conventions with foreign countries, where the conditions of life are so different and of which we know so little; conventions which will give the foreign countries complete control over the lives not, as I said before, of hundreds, but of thousands, or perhaps even of millions, of British subjects. It is, therefore, a matter of very great importance. It is a great mistake, if I may say so, for us to con-
1342
sider this Bill simply from the point of view of aliens who are living in this country. A great amount of prejudice has been created in connection with this Bill through it being persistently referred to as a Bill to prevent aliens in the East End from snatching the jobs of British people who go to the War. It is a Bill which has a far wider application than that, and which gives the Government of the day the power to make conventions with foreign countries under which those foreign countries will have complete power over our nationals resident in those countries. Before we consent to any such conventions being entered into, and above all being carried out, it is surely perfectly reasonable that the House of Commons should know of what these conventions consist, what arrangements are made to secure justice to British people living abroad, and the machinery by which the convention is to be carried out.
I would suggest to the Under-Secretary for War that if this Amendment is accepted it will not in any way defeat the Bill or even delay its being carried out. I suppose the ordinary form would be followed, that the convention would be laid on the Table of the House, and that an opportunity would be given for an address to be presented in that connection. No substantial delay, therefore, would take place. This is not an Amendment that is going to destroy the Bill, or even to impair it in any way. For my part I think it would make it a much more efficient Bill, and it would be a Bill that would enable these conventions to receive the consideration of Parliament. Parliament would be given an opportunity of remedying, or pointing out, any defects in the conventions that were arrived at. I want to give two instances which show the need for some Amendment on the measure in this connection. We have been informed that discussions were taking place with the Russian Government. These discussions, if they are still taking place, were begun with the old Russian Government. The convention which it was proposed to enter into with Russia was a convention which was suggested to the Government of the Czar, but it does not appear to have been agreed to before the Revolution took place in Russia. I think the House would have resented it if a convention had been concluded with the Government of the Czar the contents of which had not been communicated to the House, and when abuses

1343
and complaints were heard the House had been told that a secret convention had been entered into with that Government. I think the very fact that the convention was being negotiated with the Government of the Czar is in itself a reason why in any future convention that it is attempted to negotiate the House should have the fullest information, and should have the power of ratifying any such convention. It is perfectly obvious that had we entered into a convention with the late Russian Government we should have required to make all kinds of provisions for the protection of our own subjects in Russia. I do not think there is a single Member of this House who would have been disposed to allow an Englishman to be conscripted by the late Government of Russia.
An HON. MEMBER: What has happened?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I hope I am a little more optimistic than my hon. Friends, but I am sure there is no Member who would have willingly assented to such an arrangement. What may happen in Russia may happen in any country. We should be reluctant for a secret convention to be entered into with China and Japan, and many other countries, and I do not think there is anything unreasonable in asking that the convention should be a public convention and communicated to the House, and that the House should have an opportunity of ratifying it or otherwise. The other example is one of the most important that could be submitted to the Government of the day—that is the United States of America, which have within their borders a far greater number of Englishmen than any other foreign country in the world. It is a great problem. We are in the habit of thinking of America as a compact place, something like our own country, and we do not realise that we are not dealing with one country, but with fifty States, many of them larger than England, and all with their own rights as States, and existing, subject to the Government of the Commonwealth, as independent States. It is essential that we should know whether there is any convention in America—what the terms are; and we should require to know with regard to America whether those hundreds of thousands of Englishmen are going to have adequate machinery established under a convention by which claims for
1344
exemption could be decided. An hon. Member has pointed out the hardship which will fall upon many Englishmen in America who are perhaps engaged in important enterprises, have their wives and families there, and may have lived there for decades, who may be suddenly required under an arbitrary convention to join the American Army or return to this country.
Such a convention should be accompanied by adequate machinery for the hearing of claims, and we should be entitled to know before the convention was ratified by Parliament what machinery had been set up to deal with these genuine cases of hardship which may occur in many thousands of cases in the United States. I trust the Government and the Undersecretary for War will realise that this Amendment is not proposed in any hostile spirit. It is an Amendment which is based on a serious deficiency in the Bill, and I am quite sure, if He looks into this question, he will see the reasonableness of the proposal that Parliament should see such a convention before it is ratified, and should have an opportunity of amending that convention and making it satisfactory.
The CHAIRMAN: Before putting this Amendment, I ask Members to bear in mind that I said at the beginning that the place, and perhaps also the form, would be better as proposed by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire at a later point in the Clause; but if taken here, it cannot be debated again there.
2.0 P.M.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I may say that I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because it has never been the case in the whole constitutional history of the country that Parliament should be given power or the right to ratify any such convention. It may be done by Order in Council, and I have no doubt that the House will have the opportunity, if it so pleased, of having them placed upon the Table, and will have the opportunity of discussing and assisting the Government in respect of the convention.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is the proposal that the Under-Secretary for War is making a proposal to give us by right the opportunity of criticising the convention before it takes effect?
Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say that; that is a matter for the Leader of the House. All that I can promise is that

1345
a Convention may be entered into, and if entered into will be laid on the Table of the House. I do not think my hon. Friend should ask me to go any further. We have no wish to keep anything back. I cannot do anything else, because we have no power to make any such arrangements in a Bill of this kind. We cannot discuss the Convention before it is made, and ratification is the prerogative of the Crown. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark has suggested difficulties which might arise in America. But I would remind the House that a convention is the medium, the bond, between two countries or between representatives of two countries, and, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, our Ambassadors have always looked after the interests of our country where there happens to be some difficulty. I hope my hon. Friend will not insist upon the Amendment and that, in view of what I have said, he will withdraw.
Mr. MOLTENO: I ask to be allowed to say a few words with regard to my own Amendment. I understood the Undersecretary that he would not be adverse to accepting an Amendment of the character I put down. I merely made this ordinary provision that it should be allowed to lie on the Table for a convenient time, and then acted upon, if no objection were taken to it. That put the thing in proper legal form, and it would also do what has been pointed out, that the House would not be giving an absolutely blank cheque to the Government and assenting to a convention it had not considered. If the Government would agree to accept an Amendment similar to the one I have put on the Paper, I think that it would reasonably meet the case.
I would again remind the Under-Secretary that even in much smaller matters an Order-in-Council is laid upon the Table of the House for a certain time, and it would be more in accordance with the dignity of the House that in a matter of this importance the undertaking should be given. Of course, a very much longer time would be necessary if you wanted it to be made known, but this is not an unreasonable time, and it really would give the House an opportunity, if it had any grave objection, of saying so. I would ask the Under-Secretary if he cannot see his way to put into the Bill in due legal form exactly what he has told us, that he is going to give us an opportunity, if we
1346
consider that there is anything bad in it, of moving for an Address to the Crown. Why should not that be definitely put into the Bill? I would ask him, if my hon. Friend is willing to withdraw his Amendment, whether he would accept mine. It is very desirable that the House should ratify this sort of thing before action is taken upon it. I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to depart from precedent or to make a new precedent, but merely to conform with what is done in very much less important matters.
Mr. SNOWDEN: The difficulty m the way of accepting this Amendment, as stated by the Under-Secretary, is that it is the prerogative of the Crown to make conventions. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the published diplomatic correspondence relating to the War it was very often stated in the conversations that took place between this country and France that any understanding, arrangement, or convention that might provisionally be entered into was subject to the ratification of Parliament. Those were the very words. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) has taken the form of his Amendment from the words in those papers, but they constantly occur there, and, though the constitutional practice to which the hon. Gentleman referred may be the usual thing, still, when it suits the purpose of the Government not to conform with it, they themselves have put into their diplomatic dispatches the provision, "subject to the ratification of Parliament." We are very anxious that the policy of secret diplomatic arrangements should no longer be the policy of this and other nations. There can be no doubt, if the various treaties and understandings which existed at the time of the outbreak of the European War had been known by Parliament and had been subject to the ratification of Parliament, that we should not be at war to-day. We are anxious to abolish secrecy in these matters. We are anxious to control, or rather to curtail, the power of diplomats and of Governments in making understandings and arrangements and conventions with other nations.
I do not think that the concession—if concession it can be called—at all meets the case. As I understand, it is another promise. It is a promise that the convention shall be laid upon the Table of the House. It is a fact that before an Order-

1347
in-Council laid upon the Table of this House can become operative forty days must elapse, but during the years that I have been a Member of this House I have never but once known a case where an attempt was made by any Member to get a discussion, and, curiously enough, that Member was the present Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord R. Cecil). On that occasion, I believe, he was given the half-hour between the time of the ordinary transaction of business and the close of the sitting. The hon. Member knows how difficult it is for a Member of Parliament or a group of Members objecting to an Order-in-Council to get the matter raised and to have a Debate in this House. I do not, therefore, think that the concession which he has offered is of any practical value. It is most important that there should be some statutory power of restraint upon Governments in making these conventions. If there is nothing at all in the Act of Parliament which says that Parliament shall have some power to override the decision which has been arrived at and embodied in a convention, then those who make the conventions will do pretty much as they like, because they know very well, as we do, that there is little likelihood of anyone challenging the Order-in-Council embodying the terms of the convention. I have not had an opportunity of consulting my hon. Friends, but I think I am expressing their views when I say that we cannot therefore accept the offer which has been made by the hon. Gentleman. We think it is of very little value.
This is really a most important question. Practically all the conditions under which British subjects in foreign countries may be called upon to undergo military service are involved in it. We have had eighteen months experience in this country of the operation of the Military Service Acts, and those of us who have followed this thing closely know that the regulations have been violated and ignored by the statutory bodies that were set up for the carrying of them out. We know that a great many of the tribunals have violated the provisions of the Act itself. We therefore want something stronger even than the powers we have under the Military Service Acts if conscription is going to be imposed upon British subjects 3,000, 4,000, 5,000, or even 6,000 miles away. I take it that regulations analogous to the regulations issued by the Local Govern-
1348
ment Board will be embodied in this convention. I suppose that there will be conditions laid down and rules and regulations inserted, and we want to know what they are going to be. We must therefore insist upon Parliament having the right to see the terms of any convention entered into between this Government and another State before it is embodied in an Order-in-Council and becomes operative.
Mr. CARADOC REES: If I thought that Britishers abroad would be treated differently from Britishers at home I should vote for this Amendment or some similar Amendment. Everyone in the House wants the Britishers abroad treated on an equal footing with the Britisher at home. They have had the advantage of being away for three years. If they had been at home they might be in the Army now. I cannot understand the objection to this Bill. I take it that on the other side the other country will have to pass some Act similar to this. That is clearly the intention, because in this Act we say that the Ambassador of the other country here can set up a tribunal for that country. Clearly the intention is, and the Government will see to it; that when we enter into a convention with any other country, some tribunal will be set up in that other country by our Ambassador there in order to protect and exempt British subjects in that country. If I did not believe that I should feel anxious, to some extent, as hon. Members opposite do. I take it that that is the intention of the Government.
Mr. SNOWDEN: You have got hold of the wrong Amendment.
Mr. REES: The next point is with regard to ratification. What is there to be gained by asking that the convention shall be subject to the ratification of Parliament? There is nothing secret. Everything is open. This Bill says what we intend to do. I take it that other countries will do to this country exactly what we intend to do to them. What need is there for any ratification, for any delay in time or for any suspicion. I therefore hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am rather surprised to hear the contention put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. C. Rees), because, although I have not heard him speak recently in the House and have

1349
only known his views in the past when he was a very active opponent of conscription for this country—
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The fact that an hon. Member has not spoken recently in the House is a very good reason for calling on him.
Mr. KING: On a point of Order. I did not understand my hon. Friend to challenge your ruling or to resent in any way that we had the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member. Although I oppose him on this matter, speaking not only for myself but for all my hon. Friends, I can assure him we heard him with the greatest pleasure and respect, even though we recognise that he has occasionally changed his views.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: I would thank my hon. Friend (Mr. King) for having come to my support and saying what I might have said myself, although I know that every opportunity is taken for calling me up when I am speaking. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. C. Rees) seems to have greatly changed his views. He was formerly a violent opponent of Conscription even in this country, but he has little concern now with any conditions which may be imposed upon a British conscript in a foreign army. The suggestion made by the Under-Secretary shows that he realises that our proposal is justified, and I am very sorry to find him, owing to the constitutional practice, unable to satisfy us entirely. That he cannot satisfy us by his pledge is not his fault, but we have had a long experience of pledges given from the Treasury Bench in connection with Conscription; consequently to-day no pledge has any value to us except one which finds itself embodied in the Bill. The reason the Under-Secretary gave will not carry much weight with us—certaly not with myself. We desire to have the suggestion embodied in the Bill. He says it cannot be done because the making of a convention, whatever Parliament may desire or determine, is the prerogative of the Crown. That is an argument raked up from the prehistoric days before the War, the days when conventions were made and the prerogative of the Crown kept them seorpt—conventions which have landed us in this War and which are the main cause of the tragedy of the War.
If this Amendment raises the question of the prerogative of the Crown, it is an
1350
excellent reason why we should discuss it and insist, so far as we can, upon our point. This matter is essentially one in which Parliament should have a say and it should secure an opportunity for discussion. It affects the liberties and conditions of living under military life of British subjects in foreign countries. Are we to understand that the prerogative of the Crown is to barter away or determine the conditions of living of British subjects in foreign countries? It is all very well to imagine that a British subject conscripted into the French Army will be well treated and dealt with on the same footing as if he were conscripted into the British Army. It may be so. But the condition of a British subject conscripted into the Army of Japan, owing to the entirely different conditions of life and the general outlook, might be one which would be a violation of all that man's former condition of life. If we enter into conventions of this kind with certain nations who are to-day our Allies, if any other Ally requests us to make such a convention we shall, of course, have to accede to its desire, so that I suppose we shall have British subjects conscripted into the army of Hayti, which has now declared war upon Germany. I suppose that British subjects will be conscripted into the armies of the South American States. The conditions under which they will be forced to obey foreign Governments under military law, which is the most rigorous of all laws, is certainly a matter which should be discussed in this House. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will stand by his Amendment.
Mr. SNOWDEN: May I put a question to the Under-Secretary for War, which may facilitate the progress of this Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) just now referred to an Amendment standing in his name, and I understood the Under-Secretary practically gave a promise that that would be carried out. Has he any objection to putting it into the Bill? If he will accept that, we may withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope I was not understood to say that I agreed to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, which says:
"But no such Order in Council shall be made until such convention has lain upon the Table of the House for thirty days and no Address has been pre-

1351
sented by the House praying that such convention shall not be carried into effect."
I expressed no opinion whatever upon that.
Mr. SNOWDEN: What did you offer us then?
Mr. MACPHERSON: What I said was— and I think the Committee will agree— that the moment the convention was entered into I would see that it was placed on the Table of the House. It is for the House, if it wishes it, to ask for the discussion, but it is not for me to say whether an opportunity for discussion should be given. That is a matter entirely for the Leader of the House.
Mr. TREVELYAN: I want to clear up the matter, because we may come to an understanding, although I am not quite sure. There arc two questions involved— first, the question of ratification. The Under-Secretary said quite clearly that it would be quite wrong for the House in this case, which is an unquestionably minor issues as compared with the greater treaties, to depart from the usual custom of the Constitution and provide that it should be definitely ratified by Parliament. My hon. Friends might insist upon challenging the principle here and now, dividing on that question and making this an opportunity for fighting the question whether this House ought or ought not to ratify treaties. The other is a simpler question and is one of publicity: whether or not, before these conventions come into operation under the Bill, this House, and through this House the public, shall really know what the Government has done in the name of the nation. The Under-Secretary may regret it, but "we have seen a good many Government pledges neglected as time goes on, and unless we have it down in black and white that the thing is going to be done by the Government a certain amount of uncertainty remains in our minds as to whether we are going to get security. I do not want to say that in this case the Government will not give publicity to their conventions, but, at any rate, a certain suspicion remains in the minds of part of the population with regard to their policy. We want to know whether in regard to publicity the Government is ready to put in the Bill that it will lay these conventions on the Table. It is
1352
quite true that my hon. Friend, in his Amendment, speaks of an Address being presented by the House. I have an Amendment of a simpler kind, to provide that no Order in Council shall be made unless the convention out of which it arises shall have been published and laid on the Table of the House of Commons for thirty days. That is publicity pure and simple. I should like to know whether the Government is ready to grant, not by a mere promise of the War Office but in the Bill, publicity pure and simple, because if they are ready to do that matters may be simplified.
Sir F. SMITH: I do not really see that there ought to be any difficulty in arriving at a conclusion. The matter has been very fully discussed, and my hon. Friend has indicated his readiness to go as far as our view of the circumstances renders it possible. What we are prepared to do is to agree to put in the Bill that the convention shall lie on the Table of the House. That will give the hon. Member the publicity for which he asks. Further than that we are not willing to go. The matter has been discussed now for a considerable time. Hon. Members have made their point very clearly and distinctly, and my hon. Friend has indicated quite clearly how far he will go.
Mr. R. LAMBERT: Will the Order in Council be published simultaneously?
Sir F. SMITH: Certainly not.
Mr. LAMBERT: How long is the interval to be?
Sir F. SMITH: My hon. Friend was quite clear. He said he would accept the first part of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Molteno), but beyond that he would not accept it. I think hon. Members understand the position of the Government now and we understand theirs.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman has just said something wholly different from what the Under-Secretary for War said. The Under-Secretary for War stated in clear terms that he could agree to no words being added to the Bill.
Sir F. SMITH: I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend, and if that is the impression left on the hon. Member's mind he may accept it from me that that is an erroneous impression. My hon. Friend has agreed that the first two lines of the Amendment shall be accepted.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: In view of that concession by the right hon. Gentleman, for which I desire to thank him, I should like to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. MARTIN: I object.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I gathered the sense of the House.
Mr. LEES SMITH: I beg to move, after the word "country" ["and the subjects of that country"], to insert the words "provided that no British subject in a contracting country shall be brought under the operation of such a convention without being allowed the option of offering to return to his country."
I do not move this for the purpose of arguing it, but a statement made by the Under-Secretary was interrupted as at the moment it was out of order and we had not had an opportunity of discussing it. I understand the Under-Secretary then gave us an undertaking that he will introduce words to make it clear that no British subject shall be conscripted in a foreign country without first of all being able to return to his country, and that no difficulty will stand in the way. Difficulties with regard to shipping, for instance, shall not be held to make it justifiable to conscript him in a foreign country. I merely move the Amendment for the purpose of getting that definite undertaking.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I accept this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. MOLTENO: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "But no such Order in Council shall be made until such convention has lain upon the Table of the House for thirty days."
Mr. H. SAMUEL: On a point of Order. What House? The Table of the House is a term of art.
Mr. KING: May I move to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "of Commons" after the word "House."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will move it in that form.
Mr. MOLTENO: I beg to move it in that form.
Words "But no such Order in Council shall be made until such convention has lain upon the Table of the House of Commons for thirty days '' there inserted.
Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words:
"Provided that no Order-in-Council shall be made where the convention with the contracting country does not secure that every British subject made liable to enlistment in the contracting country shall have the same right to claim exemption, and for the same reasons as he would have in Great Britain under the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, and the right of appealing in respect of such claims for exemption to a court composed to the extent of at least one-half of its members of British subjects appointed by the British Government."
I am not wedded to the form of words of this Amendment, but I move it. It concerns the interests of our nationals in foreign countries, who may be conscripted under the convention. All that the Government have said is that they will take measures to enable a British subject to return to this country if he does not want to be enlisted and that they will insert words which will enable the British Ambassador in whatever the foreign country may be to ask for exemption for any British subjects that he thinks ought to be exempted. My view is that that does not go far enough. What I propose is that there shall be some kind of machinery by which subjects of our country who ought to be exempted may claim exemption before some sort of tribunal. What is going to be the position of large numbers of our fellow subjects, supposing there was a convention with the United States of America? British subjects are scattered over a vast area of the United States. Is it possible for British subjects living in Arizona, Idaho and California to effectively appeal to the British Ambassador for exemption? The thing simply cannot be done. Some sort of larger machinery is wanted than that which the Government propose, and it ought to be given to our fellow subjects as a matter of right. I would like to ask the Government if they cannot give some better security than the intervention of the British Ambassador. A very large number of people are too humble and too small to be writing to Washington, or wherever the place may be, in order to get the intervention of the Ambassador. There may be large numbers of people in France or in the United States, or elsewhere, who have just as much right to exemption as large numbers of people who have been exempted here for all sorts of reasons, and

1355
yet they will not find that there is any available machinery for obtaining the exemption which is their right, and they will have less chance than people here, because they will have a population around them which is jealous of them, and is wanting to get them into the National Army for trade reasons. This is not a thing which has merely arisen out of my own mind. I have seen letters in a good many papers on the subject. One published to-day Bays, "It is scarcely necessary to point out that British residents abroad have greater risks and responsibilities than their compatriots at home. The breaking up of a home or business abroad entails obviously far-reaching consequences. If it is considered necessary to impose compulsory service on Britishers abroad they should be given facilities similar to the facilities enjoyed by those at home. Separation allowances should be granted with due regard to all the circumstances, and exemption should be allowed to heads of businesses and chiefs of departments. Furthermore, opportunity should be given to them to return to the country of their birth." The latter point has been met, but I do think that the mere proposal that the one chance of exempion British subjects can have is an appeal to the Ambassador, is not a sufficient safeguard to our nationals, if they are to be taken under the laws of any country.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, particularly in view of the two concessions which I have already said I am prepared to make and put into the Bill. Further than that, this proposal is obviously unworkable. The best proposal that can be made is the proposal that His Majesty's Ambassador in the contracting country should have complete power to use his own discretion. I am perfectly certain that that really meets the case put forward by the hon. Member.
Mr. KING: I quite understand the hon. Member saying that this proposal is going to be difficult to work. The whole Bill is going to be difficult to work, and the concessions that the hon. Gentleman has made, and for which we thank him, are also going to be very difficult to work. Take the case of a Britisher in California who is liable to be conscripted into the United States Army. He has to get from Washington—a place thousands of miles
1356
away, where it takes a week for a letter to go and a fortnight for a letter to return—an exemption from our Ambassador, or he is to have the opportunity of coming from California to this country, a journey which at the least will cost him £50 or £60. He may be leaving in California, not only business, but wife, family, and everything else. Obviously it is not merely this proposal that will be hard to work, it is the whole Pill. The whole thing is extraordinarily difficult, unless you are going to have a great deal of injustice, or, what is equally certain, a great number of people slipping through. That is much more likely. A great deal of the fish for which this net is laid will slip through its meshes. The question of tribunals will come up again a little later on another Amendment. That is not a question that is going to be put off easily. The question of tribunals to which the alien must appeal is a very difficult question. I am very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Samuel) in his place, because a year ago, when he had proposals on this matter, he definitely saw that a special tribunal must be set up for these aliens. That is a question which the Under-Secretary for War has got to face, namely, what tribunals in every land are going to be instituted, or what authority are you giving to them? This proposal to give a man the alternative of returning home or appealing to the Ambassador is, I think, quite ineffective to deal with the real cases of hardship which will often occur to our nationals in America. I have called when in foreign capitals at Embassies, and I have observed that a great number of callers come there, poor Britishers stranded in other lands. Perhaps they are sent on to the Consul, but they are always treated at the Embassies and at the Consulates, too, as an uncommon nuisance, and they are an uncommon nuisance. Very often they are very poor men, men who have fled from justice, or who for some-other reason have fled from their own country which did not want them, and these men, if they appealed to the Embassies or Consulates in foreign lands, would get very little patience. Very often they are ignorant of the forms they would have to go through, and I am quite sure that the alternative to the Amendment which is now proposed by the Government is not at all sufficient to meet their case.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Gentle man, in his speech a few moments ago: said that he had already undertaken to put words into the Bill which would have the effect of making our Ambassador in s foreign country practically the tribunal himself. I want to remind my hon. Friend that his undertaking went much further than that. He promised also to consider what kind of machinery ought to be set up to assist our Ambassadors in foreign countries in discharging duties practically analogous to those discharged by tribunals in this country. I want to emphasise that very much, because otherwise the concession would be quite valueless and the whole thing would break down.
Mr. CROOKS: That is just what you want—the whole thing to break down.
Mr. KING: On a point of Order. The discussion has proceeded in a conciliatory manner on both sides. Is it in order for an hon. Member, who has not attended at this Debate, to come in and cast an accusation against us that we want the whole thing to break down? Is not that observation disorderly and calculated to stop orderly procedure?
Mr. CROOKS: On a point of personal explanation. I was here when the Debate on the Committee stage began; I have been in the House ever since, and I did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am at a loss to understand the interruption. I am addressing myself to the Bill; my remarks are perfectly relevant. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite has any observations to offer to the Committee, I have not the slightest doubt that an opportunity will be given to him to offer them. In the meantime, may I ask him to restrain himself, and to listen, if not with respect, at least with silence, to my observations.
Mr. CROOKS: I shall do exactly what the Rules of Parliament allow me to do.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I shall be entirely content if the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. CROOKS: I have just come from an inquest on two little darling children—
An HON. MEMBER: What has that got to do with it?
Mr. CROOKS: It has everything to do with it.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I greatly deplore that this interruption has occurred. I desire to address myself to the Amendment before the Committee and to show how necessary it is. Consider for a moment what has happened in our own country. We know very well that the alien in our midst has been the subject of popular passion. There are certain newspapers in this country that have increased that popular passion against the alien who is to be conscripted by this Bill. I believe that most right-minded people deplore the passion and prejudice caused by this question. I greatly deplore the reply that was given by the Leader of the House to-day that job-snatching by aliens would be prevented by this Bill, because I think that that introduces a note of prejudice and passion into our discussion.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not relate to this Amendment.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: If such be the prejudice and passion caused by the War in this country, consider the state of our own country people in foreign countries. That is directly relevant to this Amendment. It is because our own people in foreign countries may be subject to passion and prejudice and may be treated unfairly and unjustly that we require this Amendment or an Amendment in this spirit in this Bill, which is providing that many hundreds and thousands of British subjects in the United States, Russia, Italy, and other countries, with which conventions may be made, shall have the same rights with regard to the grounds upon which they can appeal for exemption as though they lived in this country. I do not think that there is anything unreasonable in that, and I do hope that the Attorney-General, who has listened to our criticism with care, will deal with this subject from the same broad standpoint that he has shown in the early stages of the Debate.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I am glad that the Government are not going to give way in this Amendment. I cannot quite understand why there should be so much resentment at the expression used by my right hon. Friend that many of the hon. Gentlemen who were criticising this Bill wished to destroy it.
Mr. KING: That is not the position.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Anyone who votes against the Second Beading of a Bill must

1359
wish to kill it. The Amendment before the Committee at the present moment suggests that tribunals, similar to those in this country, should be set up in foreign countries, and that every Britisher there should have the right to appeal the same as he would have in this country; and we are, therefore, to extend the postponement of the operation of this Act from thirty days for probably another six or eight months before these men can be brought to do their duty to this country. When I see men being sent back to the front who have been wounded five times, men of thirty-five or forty, with half a dozen little children, I confess that I cannot understand the enthusiasm of hon. Members for those shirkers who left our country in the early stages of the War, men of twenty-one to twenty-five, who went to America, France, and Italy, and who are hiding there to-day, and I do not know why there should be this anxiety to prevent these men being brought back to do their duty to their country. Why have they not come back before? They have seen our country in trouble for three years. If they had a spark of patriotism left they would not require the machinery of this Bill to bring them back. Many hon. Members who oppose this Bill have announced their intention of not standing for re-election. I am not surprised. I do not think that there is a constituency in this country which would sanction their action in opposing the Government in the hour of trial, when every man is required. Men are ruined every day because they have to join the Colours, and it is said that we are to see aliens getting their business.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to this Amendment.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I have already said what I have to say on this matter, and I submit, on a point of Order, it is really important as to whether we should give these men further facilities abroad as those who are actually serving here. I really hope that the Government will stand firm in their position in regard to this matter. The country is already sick at heart at the delay, and I hope that they will make no further concession.
Sir F. SMITH: I think it is desirable that the Committee should realise that we have approached the point at which it should be made clear on the part of the Government that they have made every reasonable concession. My hon. Friend
1360
has already made it clear that this is not an Amendment that can be accepted by the Government, and we must invite the Committee to accept that decision. Whatever the facilities or the opportunities this Amendment proposes in respect of British subjects abroad, we have to consider, on the other hand, the cruel sacrifices which we have been driven, much against our will, to impose upon the soldiers who have already done service at the front, and who have returned there after recovering from wounds, and it is clear what our decision should be as between the two classes of men. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is one which we are not prepared to accept.
Mr. TREVELYAN: I made it quite clear when I moved my Amendment that we on these benches recognise that the Government are making considerable concessions, but this is a matter in which a very large number of people are taking a good deal of interest. It is that the interests of our fellow subjects in foreign countries must be looked after if they are conscripted in any of those countries. I have said that the safeguards are inadequate, and will the Government give any further safeguards? I am not going to press the Amendment, but I hope the Government will bear the matter in mind. It is not so easy to get justice for our fellow countrymen by the action of the Ambassador. I am very sorry for the heat which has been imparted into the discussion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkaldy, who has not been here during the whole of the Debate.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I have been sitting here during most of the Debate.
Mr. TREVELYAN: There has been no obstruction on our side, and I think we have discussed the questions which have been raised, on the whole, with generally good results, that, in the main, satisfy both of us. I am sorry the Government will not give way further on other points, and, therefore, I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words,
"Provided that no such Order-in-Council shall be made unless the convention with the contracting country contains a clause terminating the convention in the event of either of the

1361
contracting parties concluding peace before the other and securing that in that event their subjects shall at once be released from military service."
It is a contingency which none of us want or hope for, and perhaps none of us expect, that any of the contracting countries will retire from the War before" the others. But it is a possibility. At the present moment the country with which the Government are trying to make a convention under this measure is Russia. I sincerely hope, as will everybody in this House, that Russia will not make a separate peace, but nobody in his senses can ignore its possibility. I think that any convention with Russia should contain a clause in defence of our fellow-subjects that if, in the first instance, they are conscripted into the Russian Army, and then Russia makes a separate peace, they shall be entitled to leave the Russian Army at once. I think, in the interests of our fellow-subjects, that should be insisted upon.
3.0 P.M.
Sir F. SMITH: I would suggest to the Committee that this is an Amendment which is very unlikely to receive their acceptance. It is one which would affect seriously the operation of the measure, and I do not think that in practice it would be found to be workable. If one of tin? contracting countries concluded peace before the other there would have to be a large number of readjustments in our relations with the contracting country, and if such a provision as this were put into the Bill it would certainly be a great obstacle to the making of these conventions We are trying to deal in a business way with the kind of problems which may reasonably be expected to arise. The hon. Gentleman says that, supposing Russia concluded a separate peace, the position of British subjects in the Russian Army would become a difficult one. I put it to the House that we cannot guard against everything, and I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that what is immediately vital is that the Government should have this matter determined by this House of Commons at the earliest possible moment, and this Amendment, if it were introduced into the measure, would really add to the difficulties and complications, and there is no justification for its acceptance.
Mr. KING: I do not think the Attorney-General has dealt with this Amendment
1362
with his usual comprehensiveness and cogency. The matter is really a very important one. The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the position of America. The United States of America is in alliance with us in the War, but the United States refuses to come into the Pact of London. The Foreign Secretary has been over there and has returned, and there is no move whatever for the United States to come into the Pact of London. If there had been, it would have already been before the American Senate. Therefore the possibility, I hope not the probability, of a separate peace in the case of America is there. There are certain facts in the American position—I do not want to go into them or emphasise them—which requires consideration. You have only to read President Wilson's speech in this morning's paper to see that he makes certain references to Germany which are quite different from what we should expect from our Minister. Therefore, I say the possibility of a separate peace both with Russia and the United States is there. I hope it will not come about. I hope there will be much less need for many things than some people anticipate. I am sorry the Government will not accept the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. MOLTENO: I am sorry the Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office is not now present.
Sir F. SMITH: My right hon. Friend was called away.
Mr. MOLTENO: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very much engaged. At the same time, this Clause deals with foreign Governments, and is reversing a policy which we have pursued for about a hundred years. Under those circumstances it does seem to me to be desirable to know what is the position of the negotiations. We now learn, because we did not know when the Bill was introduced, that there is a definite treaty not only with Russia, but with twenty-one other countries, that we shall do this. That being the case, it is very important that the House of Commons should have some knowledge of what the negotiations are and as to how far they are likely to be carried through. Let me read to the Committee the Clause of the Treaty with

1363
Russia which it would be necessary to do away with or modify if it is to be possible to carry out this Act. Article 14 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Russia is as follows:
"The subjects of either of the Two High Contracting Parties in the dominions and possessions of the other shall be exempted from all compulsory military service whatever, whether in the army, navy, or national guard or militia. They shall be equally exempted from all judicial and municipal charges and functions whatever, as well as from all contributions, whether pecuniary or in kind, imposed as a compensation for personal service; and, finally, from forced loans and military exactions or requisitions."
Mr. CROOKS: What is the date of that?
Mr. MOLTENO: It is dated 1859. That is a treaty now in force. We have appealed to the Russian Government many times to allow us to abrogate that clause. The late Russian Government made no reply, although repeated requests were made for an answer to our request. If the late Russian Government was unwilling or unable to agree to the abrogation of that treaty, is it probable that the existing Russian Government will be ready to go further than the late Russian Government and agree to that request? We ought to have some information in regard to the position of these negotiations, and on a matter which so vitally affects the carrying into effect of this Bill. I do not propose to divide against the Clause.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to put a question to the Attorney-General. This Clause gives power to enter into conventions with other countries. The argument was put that such conventions should be subject to the definite approval of the House of Commons, and in reply to that the Under-Secretary for War expressed a view as to our constitutional usage which I should be sorry -should go unchallenged. If I understood the Under-Secretary aright, he said that it was the prerogative of the Crown alone to enter into conventions with other countries. The inference which I had to draw from that was that the House of Commons had nothing to do with the ratification of such conventions. I suggest that that is an incorrect or, at least, an incomplete statement. I would remind the Under-Secretary that we have frequently entered into arrangements with other countries of a tentative character, but only on the understanding that the policy embodied in the convention was ratified by Parliament. The whole policy
1364
which was embodied in what was known as the Declaration of London was subject to ratification by Parliament, which was not completely given. I should be sorry an important point of this kind should go by without some observation from His Majesty's Government.
Sir F. SMITH: The constitutional question presents no difficulty either in theory or in practice. It has long been the settled law of our Constitution that the Sovereign has the power of making treaties. That must be read subject to the well understood constitutional practice. The Sovereign in such matters acts on the advice of his Ministers. When the hon. Gentleman expresses apprehension lest the House of Commons should cease to maintain control of the making of treaties, I need hardly remind him that the Sovereign acts, and must act, on the advice of Ministers, and the House of Commons has the most complete control over Ministers. On the general points I think the Government have recognised that it is their duty to listen to the point of view of minority, and that they have shown great patience in this matter. We, of course, have received representations as a Government on these points. I can assure hon. Gentlemen if they knew the weight of public opinion which lay behind this Bill, with British subjects abroad, as has been pointed out, of twenty-two or twenty-three years of age who are not serving, and with no intention of serving, while men of thirty-five and forty, thrice wounded, have gone back to the front; and, still more, if they knew the other side of the case, and that we have here citizens of Allied countries, men of military age, men enjoying the protection of the civilisation of this country, and who for three years have been evading military service and taking the place of Englishmen called to the Colours—I am sure if hon. Gentlemen knew the weight of public opinion on this matter they would not challenge a Division.
Mr. KING: With the first part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman I am in great agreement, and I listened to it with real gratitude. I should like at once, as one of the Members who have taken an interest in this Bill, to recognise we have been met extremely fairly by the Government. We may be a minority, but we have been listened to, and we have also received very, very con-

1365
siderable concessions, which I myself consider so valuable that if they had been in the Bill when it was originally introduced, I very much doubt if I should have gone into the Lobby against it. The concessions are very, very considerable. They will be very much appreciated by persons of our own nationality and also those of alien nationality that come under the Bill. To my mind, they will very largely take away the bitterness and the objection that I have felt for the Bill. What are the concessions? First of all, I hope I shall not be complained of if I take the opportunity, seeing the number of Members now in the Committee who have not attended all through, if I briefly point out what are the concessions. The first concession we have received is that the conventions are to be published and laid upon the Table of this House, and that is to be put into the Bill. We pressed for this again and again both before the Bill was introduced and on Second Reading, but we got no offer in connection with our request. We have had that concession this afternoon quickly; the result is that there has been no obstruction in Committee, and we have made rapid progress. The second concession relates to our own nationals abroad, who will have the opportunity of coming back here before they are actually conscripted into a foreign army. I welcome that, and I welcome, of course, the corresponding offer that aliens here who would be conscripted will have the opportunity of going to their own country. That is going to be put into the Bill. These things are fair, and we are grateful for them. I am sorry that the Attorney-General introduced the passage about shirkers. It is so very easy to cry out that others are shirkers, especially for elder men like ourselves who are not asked to go to war; and especially for young men who in one way or another have got exemption, and are perhaps on the Treasury Bench. But I altogether repudiate this introduction of animus and the superfluity of introducing the shirker issue into our discussion. I will not have anything more: to do with it.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Application of Military Service Acts.)
(1) Where this Act is so applied with respect to any country, the subjects of that country shall be liable to military service under the Military Service Acts, 1916, in
1366
the same manner as British subjects; and those Acts shall apply accordingly, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) The appointed date shall, as respects subjects of the contracting country who come within the operation of the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, on the application of this Act in respect of that country, be the thirtieth day after the date of the Order-in-Council applying the Act, and as respects subjects of the contracting country who come within the operation of the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, after that date, be the thirtieth day after the date on which they so come within the operation of those Acts:

(b) A subject of the contracting country shall be deemed to be within the exceptions under the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, if he is the holder of a certificate of exemption for the time being in force granted under those Acts or by the Ambassador or a duly authorised public Minister of that country in the United Kingdom but not otherwise:

(c) Any British subject arriving in Great Britain from the contracting country after the date of an Order-in-Council applying this Act to the subjects of that contracting country shall, if not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, be deemed for the purposes of the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, to be ordinarily resident in Great Britain as from the date of his arrival, unless he shows that the part of His Majesty's Dominions in which he last resided was some part other than Great Britain.

(2) For the purposes of the limitation on the number of aliens who may serve together at any one time in any corps of the Regular Forces imposed by Section ninety-five of the Army Act, subjects of a contracting country who become liable to military service by virtue of the application of this Act in respect of their country shall not be reckoned in that number.
Mr. MOLTENO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "subjects" ["in the same manner as British subjects"], to insert the words,
"unless any subject of such country has elected within thirty days of the

1367
coming into operation of the Act to return to the country of his origin and does so return within six months of the passing of the Act, in which case he shall not be subject to the Act."
The Under-Secretary, on the Second Reading of the Bill, stated that opportunity would be given for the return of men to their respective countries. In all fairness, the same opportunity should be given to Russians. Just for a moment consider what is the decision? These Russians found themselves in this country after the War broke out. The Clause to which I have alluded in the Russian treaty provides that neither side shall conscript the nationals of the other. Now, if you are going to make a change, it is surely fair to give these persons who happen to be here at the outbreak of the War an opportunity of reconsidering the situation. We are fighting, as I understand, for democratic principles. Every day we are reminded that this is democracy against tyranny and against autocracy; and surely it is not right for Governments, over the heads of their nationals who have been relying on the arrangements between the countries, and on methods which have been in force for 100 years or more—for the Governments over the heads of those nationals suddenly to say, "We are going to change the whole basis of residence in each country." On the ground of fairness, on the ground of democratic sentiment and feeling, on the ground of democratic right, it is only fair that the men of these countries to which you are going to apply the measure should have the opportunity of returning for service in the armies of these countries.
Sir F. SMITH: We accept that view, and we propose to give the opportunity in both cases reciprocally. The exact terms of the Amendment will be decided between now and later. We entirely endorse the idea that such persons should have a reasonable opportunity of exercising the suggested option.
Mr. MOLTENO: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for making that statement. I may explain that when the Under-Secretary gave us this undertaking on the Second Reading I did not place an Amendment on the Paper to carry it out. Therefore we were compelled to put something down to carry out the proposal. If the right hon. and
1368
learned Gentleman says he accepts the principle of this Amendment and will put words in—
Sir F. SMITH: Yes!
Mr. MOLTENO: On Report, that will embody what we are aiming at as nearly as possible, and I shall be quite satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN: At this stage it would be advisable to bring in the Government Amendment, leaving out the words "of the Order-in-Council," paragraph (a), in order to insert the word "proposed."
Sir F. SMITH: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "of the Order-in-Council," and insert instead thereof the words "on which the convention is laid on the Table of the House."
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May we know the meaning of the Amendment, it appears to me to be a very substantial Amendment indeed, in respect of the concessions that have been made that the convention shall be placed upon the Table of the House and shall remain there for thirty days. It now appears from this Amendment that the Government are going to count from the date of the Order being laid upon the Table the thirty days which make aliens in the country liable under the Bill. That is a very substantial alteration. What we desire is that there should be thirty days during which the House of Commons may raise any question in regard to this matter with the Government of the day. We desire promise of the possibility of discussion and decision in this House. Therefore, this is an Amendment of substance, and I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put this down for the Report stage.
Mr. MOLTENO: Really it is not consequential in any radical sense, but an entirely new idea. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to put it down for the Report stage, so that we may really have time to consider it.
Mr. KING: I should like to appeal in the same sense, and so endeavour to save the time of the House. Then we need have no more to say about the matter till the Report stage, when we can see how the thing really works out.
Sir F. SMITH: I am not sure that there has not been some confusion. Suppose the

1369
convention were passed on 1st January. It is the intention of the Government that thirty days after the passing of this convention has been allowed that the convention shall become operative.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The learned Attorney-General does not intend for a moment not to give us the fullest information, and if what he has said is the whole information he can give us, it is because he has not considered this point. Surely if the convention is to be laid for thirty days, it means that until the end of the thirty days, during which the convention is on the Table of this House and subject to amendment and criticism by this House, no Order in Council will be made applying the Act. As the Bill now stands, it provides that the date shall be the thirtieth day after the Order in Council. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to press his Amendment, it is a fundamental alteration in the Bill, because it means that he will begin to reckon from the day when the convention is upon the Table of the House, instead of thirty days after the date of the Order in Council applying the Act. He will see, I think, that that is a substantial point.
Sir F. SMITH: I really do not think there is substance in the point. I have said quite plainly that there should be thirty days after the Order in Council, and I think this Amendment as moved by me secures this result. If it does not secure that result, I will make it absolutely plain by the Report stage.
Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think there is any further Amendment on this Clause.
Mr. KING: Is not the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones) in order?
The CHAIRMAN: I think not. Paragraph (b) deals with modifications of previous Acts in the application to this Act, and the hon. Member proposes to leave out one of the modifications and put in something which would not be a modification.
Mr. GLYN-JONES: On a point of Order. Do I understand your ruling to be that the object of the Amendment, which is to provide that persons coming within the scope of this Bill should have the same exceptions as those under the Military Service Acts, is already provided in the Bill?
The CHAIRMAN: I am only questioning whether the Amendment on the Paper is a modification of the Acts. If it is so, the hon. Member is entitled to move.
Mr. GLYN-JONES: I should have thought that, as the Acts do not provide for aliens at all, this is the place to provide that they shall in this respect apply to them. I only want it somewhere in the Bill.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: With reference to my Amendment which follows the hon. Member's, and which raises the same question, the point I wish to submit is that the effect of paragraph (b) is to remove from aliens in this country the right to appeal to tribunals on the same ground that a British subject appeals, and the object of the Amendment is to secure that aliens in this country should not be placed on a worse footing than our own subjects, and this is a subject on which I understand that the Government had an announcement to make.
Sir F. SMITH: Is it not the fact that under paragraph (b) a subject of the contracting country is in a better position, as he has the alternative under the Bill, as at present drafted, that either he can show that he has obtained a certificate of exemption under our Military Service Acts or that the Ambassador or public Minister has granted a certificate?
Mr. H. SAMUEL: Is it not the case that a British subject is excepted—not exempted—from the Military Service Acts, if he is a minister of religion, and this Bill as drafted would deprive an alien of that right of exception? Consequently there is a distinction, as I pointed out on Second Reading, between the law as it now stands and the Bill—a distinction which is unfavourable to the subject.
Sir F. SMITH: I think my right hon. Friend is right. He has called attention to a point which I had overlooked, but it is our intention to make that clear.
The CHAIRMAN: I take it this is not an Amendment which raises that point. It does not seem to me that to leave out paragraph (b) would raise the point desired. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. White-housie) raises the point better.
Mr. WHITBHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), after the word "shall" ["a subject of the contracting country shall be deemed "], to insert

1371
the words "have the same rights with regard to exemptions and exceptions conferred by the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, as he would have if he were a British subject and shall."
The object of this Amendment has been already stated in points of Order which have been raised. I need not say more than a word to the Committee.
Sir F. SMITH: I will accept that.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. MOLTENO: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to make paragraph (b) reciprocal so far as British subjects in foreign countries are concerned. Will he give the same rights as are given in this country?
Sir F. SMITH: That is so. I think I ought to make it clear with respect to the last Amendment accepted by the Government that what I said a moment ago must be taken subject to this: we shall have to introduce words to show that aliens of military age within this country are not to be permitted to claim that they are ordinary residents abroad, and are only resident in this country for special purposes. It is quite clear that no one wants points of that kind raised, and I accept the Amendment subject to that.
Mr. H. SAMUEL: Will it not be necessary to have some consequential Amendment to make this paragraph read? The latter part appears to be inconsistent with what the Committee has just put in. The paragraph will read:
"A subject of the contracting party shall have the same rights with regard to exemptions and exceptions conferred by the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, as he would have if he were a British subject and shall be deemed to be within the exceptions under the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, if he is the holder of a certificate of exemption for the time being in force granted under those Acts or by the Ambassador or a duly authorised public Minister of that country in the United Kingdom but not otherwise."
If the words "under those Acts or" were to be left out you would then save the right of exemption by the certificate of the Ambassador.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I should like to support what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. The idea of my Amend-
1372
ment, which was accepted, was to secure the same tribunal rights to aliens as to our own subjects, with the additional right of being able to apply for the certificate from their Ambassador.
Sir F. SMITH: This shows the difficulty of dealing with this subject by manuscript Amendments. It appears to me that we all want to do the same thing, and we all understand what we want; but what the hon. Member has referred to clearly is in the Bill.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), leave out the words "under those Acts or."—[Mr. H. Samuel.]
Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the words "but not otherwise."
Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Might we be informed whether the words to be put in on Report will make it quite clear that the machinery dealing with the certificate to be given by the Ambassador will include the giving of the same powers to the Consuls? I think that would be a practical way by which the difficulty alluded to might be very largely met in other countries.
Sir F. SMITH: That really is not necessary. In the past disputes have arisen, and we have never found our Ministers unwilling to take the personal responsibility.
The CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise on this Amendment.
Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I think in this matter there ought to be some consideration given to our own people, and those foreigners who have had the benefit of residing here should not have the double advantage of going before the tribunals in the same way as the English and then, if they fail to get exemption before our tribunals, of having the additional privilege of going to their Ambassadors.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (c).
I do not think it is necessary to have these words in at all, because these subjects would become liable under the Military Service Act. I think they should have some opportunity of going back, and then if there is any reason why he should not go back, the Government will not give him a permit.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I should have thought that the lion. Member (Mr. King) would have been the first to agree with this proposal, because these subjects are not deemed to be enlisted in the Reserve until thirty days after their arrival, by reason of Section I of the Military Service Act.
Mr. KING: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. LEES SMITH: I should like to make certain that these aliens will be given the right to go back to their own country before being conscripted. Will the Government also take into account the question of providing facilities? Since the revolution a great number of Russians want to go back to their country, but they are unable to do so through lack of shipping. I suppose these subjects will not be conscripted merely because there are no facilities for taking them to their own country.
Mr. MACPHERSON: The Attorney-General has already given a pledge to that effect, and negotiations are going on upon this question.
Mr. SNOWDEN: Is there any provision to prevent these men being forced into the British Army if facilities are not available for them to go back to Russia? Are they to be conscripted into the British Army? I would like to know if on this matter we are to rely simply upon a verbal pledge of the Government.
Mr. H. SAMUEL: I do not think this case is adequately met simply by providing for an interval of time. I do not think it is the desire either of the Committee or of the Government that a man who is told that he has the right to go back to Russia, or an Englishman in Russia who is told that he has the right to come back to England, should find themselves conscripted into the army in the country in which they happen to be living. I think we should secure that some effective opportunity is afforded to these men. What we want to provide is that any person who has had provided for him an effective opportunity of returning to his country and has not availed himself of it should then become liable to this provision.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: There is one course which could be taken by the Government in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. H. Samuel) initiated negotiations with the old Government of Russia with regard to the arrangement under which the Russians in this country should be returned to Russia or should be dealt with. These negotiations are being continued by the Government with the Revolutionary Government of Russia, and we understand from questions that have been answered recently that these negotiations have reached some kind of an agreement. If that is so, perhaps the Under-Secretary for War will tell the Committee now what the arrangement is that has been tentatively agreed to by the present Russian Government, because I understand that the arrangement does deal with the question of the manner in which Russian subjects are to be allowed to leave this country to return to their own country.
Mr. MACPHERSON: The House will not expect me, I am sure, at the present state of the negotiations to say what they are, but I can assure my lion. Friend that the Departments concerned, namely, the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Foreign Office, have been considering the best possible steps for securing, in the event of Russian subjects wishing to return to Russia, their return as soon as possible. I cannot very well go further than that. With regard to the point of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Samuel), I think it is reasonable to say that we ought, seeing that we have said we would put something into the Bill about it, to see that effective opportunity is given to these people. We all know that at the present time there is a very great difficulty in getting transport from one part of the world to another, but I do not think it would be in accord with fairness and justice to give a man an opportunity of returning within a certain time and not at the same time to see that an effective opportunity to return was granted.
Mr. SNOWDEN: What do the Government propose to do to give effect to that desire? So far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill to do that, and the hon. Gentleman has said nothing definite. He mentions the difficulty of getting back to Russia. We were told on the introduction of this Bill that there were from 20,000 to 30,000 Russians in the East End of London who would come under this measure. The

1375
great majority will want to go back to Russia, and at the present time, although I believe there are hundreds and thousands of applications to return to Russia, it is only possible to send them back at the rate of about thirty a week. I understand that there are only four ships available, and therefore it is going to take months and months to return these people. What is going to happen? It seems to me that it would be perfectly reasonable and easy to put into the Bill a provision that a foreigner should not be conscripted into the British Army under this Act as long as he has a reasonable excuse for not having returned to the country to which he wishes to return. Before we can allow this Clause to be passed we must have a much more definite undertaking from the Government than that which has been given. Are they willing on the Report stage to put in words to this effect: that a foreigner now in this country shall not be taken into the British Army if he be willing to return to the country of his nationality and if there are reasons beyond his own control for his not having hitherto carried out that desire? Unless the Government can give a definite assurance that this will be done before the Report stage is concluded, we shall oppose this Clause. It is a perfectly rotten Clause. I do not know whether by any Amendment we can make it a little sounder, but if the hon. Gentleman can give me that assurance perhaps we will admit it.
Mr. GOLDSTONE: I heard the words of the Under-Secretary for War, and I anticipate with some confidence that he will give effect to them in the words he introduces for our consideration on the Report stage. It may be that if a Division were taken now we should possibly vitiate the pledge he has given.
Mr. SNOWDEN: He has given no pledge.
Mr. GOLDSTONE: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has, and that it is very clear, namely, that words will be put into the Bill on the Report stage which will give an effective opportunity—I think I quote the exact words that were used from the Treasury Bench—to aliens who desire to go back to their country to join their army there.
Mr. CROOKS: Will that be after they are conscripted?
Mr. GOLDSTONE: Before.
Mr. CROOKS: Then there is nothing in it.
Mr. GOLDSTONE: I think there is something in it, and I think the Government mean to meet what is the real difficulty. I want the hon. Gentleman to remember the numbers that we anticipate will wish to return. I think we ought to anticipate that they will desire to return now that revolution has come, but having regard to the number that may desire to go and to the very small number of transports available I think the length of time that should be put into the Bill should be a considerable period, otherwise the pledge given will not constitute an effective opportunity within the meaning of those words. There are so few transports and so many men, but I have no doubt that the Government will carefully consider this matter with the view to including such words in the Bill as will secure that a reasonable period will elapse between the operation of this Bill and the conscription of these people, so that they will really have an opportunity to get home to their own country.
Mr. CHANCELLOR: Could not this point be met by providing that these men should not be conscripted when they had applied for a berth, and had received permission to return as soon as space was available?
Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think that will quite meet the whole case, because it would not seem to me to be a very good test. A man might produce a copy of an application which really was not a well-intentioned application, and I do not think that would be a very good test. I have given a pledge to my right hon. Friend to see whether I cannot introduce into the Bill before the Report stage something which will satisfy all parts of the House, and, if I cannot do that, then my hon. Friends will have an opportunity of taking me to task.
Sir C. WARNER: We have just been told that there are something like 26,000 of these gentlemen who apparently have shown no desire to serve in any army up to the present, and no doubt the great majority of these 26,000, as soon as they found that they could remain out for an indefinite period, would say that they wanted to return to their own country. I would suggest that they should not be exempt from Conscription, but that they should be conscripted, with the understanding that they were to be sent to

1377
Russia or their own country, whatever that might be, at the very first opportunity, if they so desired. They could not be injured very materially by having a week or two's, or even a month or so, training while they were waiting to go, and they would be paid and kept in the interval. At the earliest possible moment they would have their desire fulfilled to get back to the country to which they wish to return.
Major NEWMAN: It is perfectly obvious that if there are anything like 26,000 of these aliens in the East End and you are only going to get them back in batches of twenty or thirty at a time, it will take many months before we get them all returned. The decision the Committee has arrived at will give very great disappointment to the British-born population in the East End, because of the fact that they will have these neighbours of theirs not for a few weeks or months, but for the whole course of the War. That is so, because by what we are doing now we are killing the Bill. I suggest that where an Alien says he wishes to go back to his own country and not to enlist in the British Army he should, until such time as we can secure him accommodation in some ship to return, be employed on work of national importance. He should not be allowed to carry on his job, but should be at the disposal of some authority to be employed on some work of national importance. And then when the ship is ready his berth is there, and he is put on board and sent to Russia to do his fighting.
Captain AMERY: I should like to submit a suggestion for the consideration of the Government. The distinction is not serving in the British Army or going to Russia, but whether a man wishes to do his service in the British Army or the Russian Army. The Russian Forces in the field are much more accessible from the transport point of view than Russia itself, and the difficulties might be met if you put to the men the alternative, "Do you wish to go and serve in the Russian Forces?"—leaving it to the discretion of the Government whether they would like them back in Russia or send them into training with the forces in France or Salonika—or "Do you wish to serve in the British Forces?" In the latter case they take their training in this country.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: But objection may be made to that suggestion because the
1378
Government has already given an assurance, which was welcomed by the whole Committee.. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening, but it was stated that our own subjects abroad, in whatever country affected by conventions made under this Act, will be given the opportunity of returning to this country instead of serving with foreign armies. As we have claimed that arrangements should be given to our own subjects, surely we must give foreign subjects within our own borders the choice of serving in the British Army or of returning to their own country.
Mr. C. REES: There are to be thirty days in which to choose whether to serve in the British Army or go back to Russia. With reference to the thirty days, if a man says, "I will go back," and he intends to do so, and if he exercises his choice to go back to Russia, is it not the business of the country to take him back? The Government ought to arrange for these men to go back as quickly and promptly as possible, and not leave it to individual men, who may have a difficulty in making arrangements.
Major HAMILTON: It seems to me clear that this difficulty, as agreed by the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government, deserves further consideration. I look upon it so seriously that I ask him to reconsider it, because it, as he states, there are some 20,000, at the rate of transportation now, it would take months and months before they could go—twenty years, someone has said. A very large number of them will be tired of waiting for the ship. I suggest you get over that. Everyone who did not come under Subsection (b) or who is exempted should be put under reserve and posted to some corps or unit where they will do work for the country and will be got rid of as fast as they can be sent out. This seems to me a simple thing to do.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I hope there will not be any undue delicacy in regard to how these subjects of foreign countries are going to be treated under this Bill. It is to be remembered that for many years these men have been accepting the hospitality of this country, and many of them have been making a great deal of money. They have seen the country which protected them struggling for its existence for three years. They have held aloof, and they have seen Britishers being called

1379
up day after day. These men have shirked the responsibility of protecting their adopted country. Why should we be devoting the time of the House of Commons to consider whether we may not offend the susceptibilities of these gentlemen? I say it is a public scandal this Bill was not passed a year ago. I think that is the opinion of people outside. I will not refer to what was said earlier in the Debate, that men have been sent back who have been wounded two, three, four, or five times, while these gentlemen have fattened on the fact that they have not been called to the defence of their country. I have great sympathy with political refugees, men who have left their country because of their political opinions, and I should take them into consideration to the fullest extent. But there is no person in that category I am speaking of.
4.0 P.M.
I am speaking of Russia, but I think it is a mistake to limit our consideration to Russians alone. If an enumeration were taken it would be astounding to find how many men belonging to our Allies are shirking service. Until the Bill passes they have the right to take their freedom and decline to defend their country. As soon as the Bill passes there should not be any delay in putting it into operation. We have a Russian Army in France. Why cannot these men be trained in the country or France? I hope the Government will set their face against anyone taking up work. If there is any extraordinary delay it will be possible for six and nine months to elapse before the services of these gentlemen will be able to be taken advantage of. This has been far too long delayed, and I hope the Government will not make any further concession in regard to what has been a scandal for a long time. I know from my own knowledge that men are making practically fortunes for people of their position through our own people, and this is a time when the sooner the Bill is brought into operation the better for all concerned.
Mr. CROOKS: If I was a political refugee in this country, I should thank the small minority for the way they have championed my cause. These people have enjoyed their hospitality, and that has been our weakness. It is like going into a man's house and enjoying his protection, and when a fire breaks out and he is asked to carry a bucket of water say-
1380
ing, "Not me." I cannot understand why so much time of the House has been wasted in defence of men who have enjoyed the hospitality of our homes, and will not lift a finger to protect what we are fighting for. Life has been sacrified by our own people to protect whom? To protect them. Why all this bother about this Bill? Why this opposition to it just to sow the seeds of belief in Germany that we are a disunited people? The country was never more solid than at this moment to finish the War, and to finish it victoriously too, I have had a painful experience. This very day I have attended a coroner's inquiry on seventeen little children, fifteen of whom were less than five years old. Is that war? Did we begin to wage war on children and on women? Who has encouraged them to go on? Why the opposition in this House. Every word that they have uttered against the War has been translated to mean that we are weak, whereas we were never stronger. Many a woman taking her allotment money, many a father and mother taking their allowance for sons who are serving the country say, "Why should my poor boy go back the third time? Look at that alien there enjoying our hospitality and doing nothing." Talk of justice and patriotism in the same breath as we talk of the annihilation of seventeen little children! Call it war? I call it murder, and these people who are opposed to this Bill are encouraging it. You may smile, but it is true, every word of it. "Keep on a little longer, and we have the British beaten. Mark what the member for so and so says. There is disunion in the country. They are not united." What a mistake to make! On Wednesday of this week, just recovering from the shock, I faced hundreds of mothers, and grandmothers who were brought up with me, crying, "My God, what shall we do?" Never a word said about peace, not by one of them. And the fathers when they came along in the meal hour said, "We shall get level with-the murderers yet." So we shall, and the sooner we are united the better. Who lets these telegrams go abroad? Who talks of starvation? Who talks of the want of courage? It is the members of the debating society who let off their opportunities in this House. England can stand a good deal more than what she has stood before she cries, "All over.'' The word of the mothers of this country, when they know what has happened, is, "Perish.

1381
Britain rather than surrender to the Germans." What of the brave boys who have left homes hardly worth calling homes'? With a stiff lip sometimes a mother says "My poor boy has gone down, but he was a good lad. He loved his father. He loved his children as his life. We talk about him many a time." In the days to come, when they realise what the Germans have done, how they have murdered women and children, how they have outraged them beyond description— I have heard Members on that side say that we have done the same. Perish the thought!
Mr. GINNELL: Quite true!
Mr. CROOKS: We never have. In the days to come women will teach their little children the glories of this age, and the names of the men who scorn our efforts to save the world, its purity, and its liberty will go down to obliquy and scorn—at least I hope so.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 3 (Short Title) added to the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN: We now come to the new Clauses. Does the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) wish to move the first new Clause in his name (Date of Commencement)?
Mr. KING: I do not wish to move that one.
The CHAIRMAN: The second (Exclusion of Certain States) has already been disposed of. The third one (Saving) should be brought in as an Amendment to Clause 1. The next one (Naturalisation) is outside the scope of the Bill.
Mr. KING: May I say something on that Clause? Is it really outside the scope of the Bill in view of the repeated assurances we have had within the last twelve months from Ministers that if aliens were to be brought into the Army, they ought to be offered the rights of citizenship under proper conditions? It has always been said in discussing this question that if a man is ready to give his life for this country, he is worthy to be a citizen of it.
The CHAIRMAN: That is a point on the merits. It may be a very good point, but I have nothing to do with it. It is quite clear that it does not come within the scope of this Bill. The same applies to the hon. Member's next new Clause (Organisation), and the last in that batch (Tribunals) should have been moved as an
1382
Amendment to Clause 2, so far as not already dealt with. The first Clause (Date of Commencement) standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Cricklade Division of Wilts (Mr. R. Lambert)—
Mr. R. LAMBERT: I do not move that one.
The CHAIRMAN: The next one (Exclusion of States) has been disposed of. The third one (Tribunals) should have been moved as an Amendment to Clause 2 The fourth (Duration) is outside the scope of the Bill. Then we come to the hon. Member for North Somerset's new Clause (Notice to Foreigners). That does not come in as a new Clause, and in an altered form it should have been an Amendment to Clause 2. The next new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for the Cricklade Division (Notice to Foreigners) I have already dealt with. The second one (Officers) is outside the scope of the Bill. The third one (Conventions to he Published) should be moved as an Amendment to one of the Clauses, and I believe that point has been dealt with on one of the Clauses. The next one (Naturalisation of Soldiers), as I have already said, is outside the scope of the Bill. The next one (Repatriation of Subjects of Contracting Country) has been partly dealt with, and, if there is any other point in it, it ought to have been dealt with on the Clause. The next new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Conventions to be Published) has already been settled, and the second (Naturalisation of Soldiers) is outside the scope of the Bill. I come next to the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse). The first Clause in his name (Repatriation of Subjects of Contracting Country) is one which should have been moved as an Amendment to a Clause, and the same applies to the second one (Publication in Gazette).
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: They are both covered.
The CHAIRMAN: I think all three are covered. The third (Interpretation) is really unnecessary, as we have discussed and settled that on the Clause. The next new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Respect for Religious Faith), is outside the scope of the Bill, and the next one in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Conventions to be Ratified by Parliament) should have been dealt with on the Clause. The

1383
next one in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Certificates of Exemption) should, so far as it is appropriate, have been dealt with on Clause 2, which deals with these matters. The Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Naturalisation of Soldiers) is outside the scope of the Bill. The Amendments proposed to the Schedule have been dealt with.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as Amended, to the House."
Mr. KING: On a point of Order. Ought not the words "and other" to come out of the title after the alterations which have been made? I will not press it now, but I hope it will be accepted on Report.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed [Bill 67.]

CORN PRODUCTION [EXPENSES].
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under any Act of the present Session for encouraging the production of corn, and for purposes connected therewith, and by any other Department or body to which any powers or duties are entrusted in pursuance of such Act."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. KING: I hope the Government will defer this. It is not on the Whip, and I understand quite a number of hon. Members who were unable to speak in Committee would like to speak on Report.
Sir F. SMITH: It may well be the case that on the last occasion there were many Members in different parts of the House who desired to speak and had not the opportunity, but the afternoon is young, and they could use the period that remains.
Mr. KING: The Government itself moved the Closure at three o'clock three weeks ago and at four o'clock last week, as quite a number of Members now like to get away by train for the week-end before five o'clock. I had some remarks to offer, but the Irish prisoners at the moment
1384
are more upon my mind and their fate is much more important, but I do not think the Government ought to try to put this through.
Sir F. SMITH: I shall be very anxious to meet the views of my hon. Friend. There is time to deal with it now, but, as far as I can observe, there is no one except him who desires to debate the Resolution. If there is no one anxious to speak, it would be futile and a waste of time to postpone it.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The business for to-day was announced, and this business relating to the Report stage of the Corn Production [Expenses] was not announced as going to be taken or even contemplated for to-day. Therefore, is it not reasonable for us to say that many right lion, and hon. Gentlemen who wished to take part in the discussion are absent to-day in ignorance that it was going to be called?
Question put, and agreed to.

IRISH POLITICAL PRISONERS.

  GENERAL AMNESTY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. James Hope.]
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The Adjournment of the House has just been moved for the purpose which I indicated at Question Time to-day—in order that I might have an opportunity of reading the following statement to the House:
  His Majesty's Government, after giving long and anxious consideration to the position of the Irish political prisoners, have arrived at the decision which it is now my duty to announce. They have felt that the governing consideration in the matter is the approaching session of a Convention, in which Irishmen themselves will meet to settle the difficult problem of the future administration of their country. This great experiment will mark a new era in the relations of Ireland with the United Kingdom and the Empire, and it is beyond measure desirable that the Convention should meet in an atmosphere of harmony and good will in which all parties can unreservedly join, and nothing would be more regrettable than that the work of the Convention should be prejudiced at the outset by embittered associations, which might even hinder the settlement to which we all look forward with hope. In

  1385
  these circumstances, His Majesty's Government have decided that they cannot give a better earnest of the spirit in which they approach this great experiment than by removing one of the main causes of serious misunderstanding with which it is in their power at this stage to deal. They have decided, therefore, upon the release, without reservation, of the prisoners now in confinement in connection with the rebellion of 1916. They have not, however, arrived at this decision without giving careful consideration to two aspects of the case which it is impossible to ignore. They have satisfied themselves, in the first place, that the public security will not be endangered by such an act of grace; and, secondly, that in none of the cases concerned is there evidence that participation in the rebellion was accompanied by individual acts which would render such a display of clemency impossible. In recommending to His Majesty the grant of a general amnesty to the persons in question, the Government are inspired by a sanguine hope that their action will be welcomed in a spirit of magnanimity, and that the Convention will enter upon its arduous undertaking in circumstances that will constitute a good augury for the reconciliation which is the desire of all parties in every part of the United Kingdom and the Empire.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I am sure that the House has listened with the deepest interest, as we have listened with the most profound gratification, to the statement which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. My only regret is that the Government did not take an earlier opportunity of deciding on the course which they have now adopted, as in my judgment that would have created at an earlier period that good temper and freedom from internal rancour which are now so eminently desired, and which might have been secured at an earlier stage. Nevertheless, I am quite prepared to express a feeling of deep satisfaction that the Government have seen their way not only to grant a general amnesty to the Irish political prisoners, but to do it without the slightest reservation. I am well aware that there was in the mind of the Government, and I believe in that of many of their advisers, the feeling that there ought to be a discrimination made between these imprisoned men. We have pointed out repeatedly to the Government, in the representations which we have made to them, that any discrimination whatever
  1386
  would be regarded as a hostile act upon the part of the Government, and that it would be better to take no action at all if they were prepared to release some and not to release all. The Government have recognised the wisdom of the advice which the Irish party have given them, and they have now decided upon a complete release without any exception being made. To have retained any of them in prison would, in my judgment, have been a blunder of the greatest magnitude, and I am delighted that the Government have decided not to add that to the many other blunders that have been made. It is, I think, an earnest upon the part of the Government that they were prepared to deal with this problem in a sincere and full-hearted fashion, and we recognise the spirit in which they have acted.
  For my part, I am just as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman or any Member of this House to see that this great Convention will be a success. We are anxious that it should be a success for many reasons. We want to see Irishmen, assembled on Irish soil, endeavouring, by the application of those high qualities which have enabled them to contribute so largely in other parts of the world, to create institutions of liberty; we want to see them apply themselves in a wholehearted and patriotic spirit to the great task of bringing peace and union and liberty to their country. We are anxious also that the Convention may evolve a Constitution which will bring satisfaction and contentment and peace to all Ireland, so that Ireland may work in a spirit of good will and partnership with this country. It was for that purpose that many of us have laboured for nearly twenty years in this House, in the English constituencies, and in Ireland. We want to sue good relationship, kindly feeling, mutual democratic operation between Great Britain and Ireland, and we are anxious to see that in the future and to destroy the rancours that have sprung up out of the incidents of the last twelve months, and to obliterate the bitter racial feelings that have been created by the unfortunate and tragic incidents, and that, instead of those feelings of racial hatred, we may have a spirit of understanding and good will and evolve a spirit that will make Ireland not a black mark upon a British Imperial system, but a great and bright example of good government and of successful democracy. That is the purpose which we hope to achieve by the

  1387
  holding of this Convention in Ireland, and that purpose will largely be served—it could be served in no higher manner than by the complete and unreserved way in which the Government has acted in this matter, and by their action in releasing these prisoners from British gaols and enabling them to return to their own country to do, what I trust they will do, lend a hand in the softening of racial acerbities and the creation of that better feeling which will bring peace and blessings to Ireland.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I may say that the whole House has heard with the deepest satisfaction that the Government, after a careful review of the whole situation, have come to the conclusion that it is consistent with order and security in Ireland to accept this measure of liberation, and I may say, also, that we all agree with the action they have taken as wise and politic action. We shall concur with the Government also in the opinion that if any are to be released, then it is right to release all, particularly since the review of individual sentences leads to the conclusion that none of the prisoners has individually committed offences which would make discrimination inevitable. The release will, I hope, be received in Ireland, as it is intended in this country, as an earnest of good will, and that it will strengthen the hope which prevails throughout this House, as it is the earnest desire of the whole House, that the Convention which is now set up may lead to some effective result—may have the result of ending this long and unhappy quarrel between the two peoples.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: As one of those who welcomed the action of the Government in calling an Irish Convention, I desire to say a word in support of the decision which they have announced. I think, if I may say so, that the Government have acted wisely in what they have done, and I do not think that there will be one dissentient voice in any part of the House. It is not only the consideration of the Irish Convention, at which we hope all sections of the Irish community will be represented, which is the consideration in the decision at which they have arrived. I think the House ought to keep in mind that the men who are to be released are men who have been in prison for the greater part of the year without trial. I confess that my view of British justice always has been, no matter how serious
  1388
  the crime alleged against any man, that he ought always to have the right of placing his case before those appointed by the State to try him. We know that in this case there were considerations which made it advisable that probably that course should not be adopted; nevertheless, the fact remains that these men have never had an opportunity of replying to the charges made against them, and I think that fact ought to be kept in mind by some who are disposed to judge them harshly, and especially by the British public. There is another thing which we ought to keep in mind, and that is that there was really no criminal intention, so far as those men were concerned. I believe every one of them thought in what they did they were acting on behalf of the country which they loved. I have always thought that a distinction should be drawn between the deliberately criminal act and the act, however criminal, which was carried out from the point of view of patriotism, however ill-advised or unjust.
  I think that everyone who understands the history of Ireland will understand the action of these men at the time of the rebellion. They had been brought up to believe that England was the enemy of Ireland, and, Heaven knows, they have had reasons during the last few years to refuse to have confidence in British administration. They had seen the great Irish party coming here year after year for ten years and supporting a Government which had promised to give them self-government for Ireland. But for the support of the Irish party the Liberal Government could not have existed a single day or a single hour. They saw their representatives keeping that Government in office, and after all those long weary years they saw they were disappointed in their expectations. I would say with regard to the offences for which these men were tried the late Liberal Government had a great responsibility. They allowed all this training to go on, they allowed them to have firearms, and they allowed them to prepare for the revolution under their very eyes. With all their secret service, with all their constabulary, and with all their representatives at Dublin Castle, when the revolution broke out they expressed surprise that it had taken place. I say that the late Government in allowing this condition of things to prevail, without taking any protection against them, were as responsible for the revolution as any man who has been in prison

  1389
  in Lewes or elsewhere. [HON. MEMBEES: "Oh, oh!"] Therefore, the responsibility is to be divided in this case. I am glad that the Government have announced their decision. I agree with ray hon. Friend who has just spoken that the Act comes a little late and lacks some of the graciousness which would otherwise have been associated with it. I could have hoped that this announcement would have been made at least two weeks or a month ago. I believe its effect would have been even more far-reaching in its character than it can be at the present time. It is a case of better late than never. I rejoice that the Government have come to the decision which they have announced. I rejoice particularly that in deciding on this policy they have done it in no half-hearted fashion and that there is a general amnesty which will apply to all prisoners of war. I say, personally, I do not believe that any great country ever loses anything by being generous. We have seen in South Africa what the result of the policy was there. I do not believe that in the action we are taking to-day there is any danger, and I believe there is much reason for hope. I thank the Government for their announcement, and I hope it may give us even more solid reason than we had before that the Irish Convention will be successful.
  Mr. WARDLE: I am sorry not to have been present when this very interesting announcement was made, but I do not think there is any necessity for me to apologise to the House for my absence, because I have been working on Government business elsewhere and I have had to leave it for the purpose of coming here. I think the announcement which has been made now, and made so generously, is one that brings once more a new ray of hope in regard to the situation in Ireland. So far as the party with which I am associated is concerned, we have always from the very beginning expressed our sympathy with the Irish party, and, though I cannot go quite so far as the last speaker in attributing blame equally between the late Government and those who took part in this rebellion, I do feel that the circumstances of the time in which that rebellion broke out do mitigate to some extent the criminal nature of their offence. I would like to add that their sympathies and their aspirations for freedom with the desire to bring about a real settlement between this country and Ireland must be taken
  1390
  into account in judging of the facts. I am, however, much more concerned about the future than I am about the past. I wish more than ever to-day that it were possible that bygones should be bygones. I know we cannot wipe out the past entirely. Surely, however, this act of clemency on the part of the Government, in face of the proposals for the Convention, should, at any rate, do something to demonstrate that there is a large mass of opinion in this country favourable, and that even the Government of the country itself is desirous of seeing this Convention begin with a fair chance of success, with the past obliterated and wiped oat so far as it can be wiped out, and that a real opportunity for reconciliation between the two peoples is afforded. So far as I am concerned, my whole heart's desire is that this Parliament, this Convention, and this Government may see this problem, which has been baffling us for so long, brought to a settlement. I am quite sure of this, that the action of the Government to-day will take us a long stride forward in that direction. My uttermost sympathies are with the Irish people in this matter, and I am glad the Government have taken the action they have taken.
  Mr. E. WASON: I have only risen to say how heartily glad I am that the Government have taken this course. I feel, in speaking here this afternoon, that I am not only speaking for myself, but as Chairman of the Scottish Liberal Members, every one of whom would, I believe, endorse what I am saying. Perhaps it may be of interest to the House to know that I do not think there is a single Member in the House now here, as I was in 1885–6, when I supported Mr. Gladstone in his first endeavour to do justice to Ireland. From that time to the present I have laboured in season and out of season to try to get a settlement of this question. I was privileged to accompany the Prime Minister to Dublin when we had that great meeting. I shall never forget the magnificent reception he got when he spoke there, and we all hoped and believed that at last, after long, we were going to have a settlement of this question. People talk about Home Rule for Scotland, for Wales, and for other parts of the country. In Scotland we have practically got Home Rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no !" and "Yes!"] We have got our own laws—
  Colonel J. CRAIG: What about the Treasury?
  Mr. WASON: Our laws are Scottish laws, our jury system is different to that in England—everything is different. Hon. Friends round me dissent, and I know there are things that need remedy; but one thing at a time. We in Scotland feel deeply the injuries which have been inflicted upon Ireland. With all my heart and soul I hope that the action of the Government will lead to us all seeing at last a happy and a contented Ireland.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: As Chairman of the Welsh party, perhaps I may be allowed a word or two. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken into controversial matters of Scottish history, but I am sure, on behalf of my Welsh colleagues, who represent a Celtic people, that I may be allowed to say how glad I am that the Government has found itself able to come to this decision. Naturally I do not wish to strike anything but a concordant note, but we must all recognise that the Executive of the day has a very grave responsibility in this matter. We know perfectly well what happened in the Rebellion, and, however anxious the Government might be to show mercy, yet they had other duties to consider and other obligations and considerations of law and order. No doubt the Leader of the House has taken all these matters into consideration and I am quite sure my Irish friends on the benches below the Gangway will recognise the spirit in which this has been done. It really does give this Convention a chance. After this sign and symbol of goodwill from Great Britain, it cannot be said that this Convention is not beginning under the very happiest auspices. Without saying there will be any responsibility in the future on anyone, I think we can say the House of Commons and the Government have done there full share to make this Convention a success, and, in thanking the Government for what they have done, we can all hope for good results in Ireland.
  Mr. GINNELL: The Government are to be congratulated on their prudence in this matter. They acknowledge quite candidly that it is for their own purpose of holding a Contention, rigged by themselves, and thereby placating American opinion that they have released these men. I repeat that they are to be congratulated on their rather belated wisdom. The Leader of the House did not omit to seize the opportunity to limit the scope of the Convention to the administration of Ire-
  1392
  land. The Irish people will carefully mark that the purpose of the Convention is limited to—
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Very foolish!
  An HON. MEMBER: What a mean thing!
  Mr. KING: May I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his request for a count? There are only a few moments left. It has been allowed on previous occasions.
  Mr. GINNELL: This is English fair play!
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that I am bound by the Rule to take notice that forty Members are not present.
  Mr. GINNELL: I have only to put a few practical questions to the Leader of the House, and if you allow me to do that, the forty Members need not be troubled, because I know the party Whips will take care not to let them enter.
  Mr. KING: I was appealed to just now out in the Lobby, and was told that a count had been arranged; and you can see behind the Chair a score of Members.
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is quite disorderly. I am bound by the Rules.
  Mr. GINNELL: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in order for Members to accost and solicit other Members of this House so as to prevent fellow Members from speaking?
  Mr. KING: Might I enforce that? Is it in order when we are here to do the business of the country for Whips and others to implore Members not to come into the House, so that there may be a count, and is it not altogether outside the usual courtesies, even if strictly in order?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no point of Order arising there. Hon. Members of all parties have at times interested themselves in this matter.
  Mr. GINNELL: May I ask your permission to address—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order ! I am about to count.
  House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at Ten minutes before Five o'clock, till Monday next.

WAR.
  SPIRITS.
  SPIRITS.
  BANK HOLIDAY (2nd JULY).
  BANK HOLIDAY (2nd JULY).
  COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOL.
  COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOL.
  HOME-BREWED BEER (MALT).
  HOME-BREWED BEER (MALT).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FRUIT TRAFFIC.
  FRUIT TRAFFIC.
  GAS (CALORIFIC POWER).
  GAS (CALORIFIC POWER).
  AMERICAN CITIZENS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  AMERICAN CITIZENS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Clonmel Asylnm.
  Clonmel Asylnm.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.