Sitting of 4 November 1919

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

  STANDING ORDERS
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): The Amendments which the House is asked to make to Standing Orders are necessitated by recent legislation. The first group are consequential on the Transport Bill passed earlier in the Session, and the remainder are consequential on the passing of the London County Council (Finance Consolidation) Act, 1912. Apart from these, the Amendments raise no other considerations.
  Standing Order 25 a read, and amended, in line 9, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof).
  Standing Order 27 read, and amended, in line 2, after the word "Bills," by inserting the words "and Bills relating to waterways, inland navigations, roads, bridges, ferries, harbours, docks, and piers"; and, in line 11, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof).
  Standing Order 33 read, and amended, in line 14, by leaving out the words "railways, tramways, trolley vehicles, canals"; and, in line 18, after the words "Board of Trade," by inserting the words "and of every Bill relating to railways, light railways, tramways, canals, waterways, inland navigations, roads, bridges, ferries, or the vehicles and traffic thereon, harbours, docks, and piers at the office of the Ministry of Transport."
  Ordered (Estimates of Expenses to be deposited at Ministry of Transport), That,—
  On or before the 31st December a printed copy of the estimate of expense of the works proposed to be sanctioned by any Bill relating to railways, light railways, tramways, canals, waterways, inland navigations, roads, bridges,
  1284
  ferries or the vehicles and traffic thereon, harbours, docks, and piers shall. be deposited at the office of the Ministry of Transport.
  Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of this House.
  Standing Order 145 a read, and amended, in line 8, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof); and, in line 13, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof).
  Standing Order 154 read, and amended, in line 9, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof).
  Standing Order 155 read, and amended, in line 8, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof).
  Standing Order 158 read, and amended, in line 51, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof).
  Standing Order 158 a read, and amended, in line 66, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof); in line 79, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof); and, in line 81, by leaving out the word "Board," and inserting the word "Ministry" (instead 'thereof).
  Standing Order 158 b read, and amended, in line 6, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof); and, in line 11, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof).
  Standing Order 163 read, and amended, in line 10, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport "(instead thereof); and, in line 19, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof).
  Standing Order 166 a read, and amended, in line 38, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof); and, in line 40, by leaving out

  1285
  the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof).
  Standing Order 167 read, and amended, in line 24, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof).
  Standing Order 171 read, and amended, in line 19, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof); and, in line 36, by leaving out the words "Board of Trade," and inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof).
  Standing Order 172 read, and amended, in line 6, after the words "Board of Trade," by inserting the words "Ministry of Transport" (instead thereof); and, in line 11, by leaving out the word "respective," and after the word "Board," by inserting the words "or Ministry."
  Standing Order 194 read, and repealed.
  Standing Order 194 a read, and amended, in line 3, by leaving out the words "after the then current financial period"; in line 6, after the word "any," by inserting the words "annual money," and after the word "Bill," by inserting the words "of the London County Council"; and, in line 8, by leaving out the words "during a subsequent financial period."
  Standing Order 194 b read, and amended, by leaving out from the beginning of the Standing Order, to the word "shall," in line 7, and inserting the words "Every annual Money Bill of the London County Council promoted in accordance with the London County Council (Finance Consolidation) Act, 1912, or any Act amending the same, shall contain only powers or provisions relating to the borrowing, lending, and expenditure of money, and" (instead thereof); in line 24, by leaving out the words "and the Local Government Board"; in line 42, by leaving out the words "and the Ministry of Health"; in line 45, by leaving out the words "12 of the Metropolitan Board of Works Loans Act, 1875," and inserting the words "6 of the London County Council (Finance Consolidation) Act, 1912" (instead thereof); and, in line 52, by leaving out the words "and the Ministry of Health."
  Standing Order 194 d read, and amended, in line 5, by leaving out the words "Ministry of Health or."
  Standing Order 194 e read, and repealed.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
  Fraserburgh Harbour (New Works) Order Confirmation Bill,
  Read the third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MILK SHORTAGE (FRANCE AND BELGIUM).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is an acute shortage of milk for children and invalids in the devastated areas of France and Belgium; and, if so, whether this country is taking steps to relieve the shortage in these districts?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that, while no measures have been taken by His Majesty's Government to relieve the milk shortage in France and Belgium out of relief credits, since the matter is one which solely concerns the French and Belgian Governments, nevertheless the Agricultural Relief of the Allies Committee have supplied from this country a certain quantity of live stock to the areas of the Somme, the Marne, and the Meuse in France, and to the Yser valley in Belgium. The action taken by His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with their Allies, is contained in Annex 4 to Part VIII. of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. I may mention that strong representations have been made to us by the French Government as to the serious nature of their losses of cows and other live stock.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the French Government and their local authorities quite satisfied with the measures we have taken to save infant mortality by rushing supplies to them? Are they satisfied with what we have done?
    Sir J. D. REES: What obligation rests on the people of this country to provide

    1287
    milk for sick and ailing in other countries at a time when it is only available at almost prohibitive prices for our own people?
    Colonel GREIG: Will the Government use their best efforts to secure that Germany shall return the milch cows taken from France and Belgium?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: In regard to the last question, my hon. and gallant Friend may be aware that the Supreme Council at Paris has this matter in hand. I do not think I can answer the question of the hon. Member opposite (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) without notice.

    WHEAT SUBSIDY.
    Captain R. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government had considered or would consider the policy of subsidising the poor wheat lands of the country when it could be shown that the farmer or the agricultural labourer, despite high cultivation, had not been able to make a wheat crop pay at the current market price for corn?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The matter is at the present moment under the consideration of the Royal Commission.

  RUSSIA.

    GERMAN AGGRESSION.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any promises or offers of aid, military, diplomatic, or otherwise, have been made to the Governments of Esthonia, Livonia, Poland, Finland, and Lithuania, or any of them, with the object of defending them against the semi-Germans of Von der Goltz?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: In view of the German attack on Riga, His Majesty's Government decided that small arms and ammunition to the value of £16,000 should be sent to the Provisional Government of Latvia. At the same time a strongly-worded Note was addressed by the Peace Conference to the German Government. insisting on the immediate fulfilment of the Allied demand for the evacuation of all German troops from the Baltic States, and it has been decided to dispatch an
    1288
    Allied Representative Commission, under a French General, to control the execution of the necessary measures on the spot.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the British Admiral in the Baltic had orders to protect these small States as much from German aggression as from the Bolsheviks? Have they been co-operating in the defence of Riga against these German troops?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is a question for the Admiralty.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But the answer was that we had sent small-arms ammunition. Are we going to have the British Fleet used to protect these small States against the German adventurers?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have as much as I can do to answer questions relating to my own Department. Will the hon. and gallant Member address his question to the Admiralty?

    Mr. GOODE'S ARREST.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a British subject, Mr. W. T. Goode, correspondent for the "Manchester Guardian," was recently imprisoned by the Esthonian authorities on his return from Moscow; what were the circumstances of the arrest; why Mr. Goode was afterwards detained for several days aboard a British man-of-war; and why Mr. Goode was afterwards set at liberty?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, Mr. Goode was arrested by the Esthonian authorities as he had come direct from the Bolshevists, with whom the Provisional Government of Esthonia is at war. As regards the third and fourth parts, he was subsequently detained on board one of His Majesty's ships by the orders of the Senior Naval Officer in the Baltic, whilst reference was made for instructions from home, on the receipt of which Mr. Goode was at once enabled to return to this country.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has Mr. Goode received any formal explanation or apology?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not sure that any apology is needed.
    Sir S. HOARE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Goode has been examined as to his knowledge of the whereabouts of Mr. Keeley, and his connection with Mr. Keeley's arrest?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of that question.

    BLOCKADE (SOVIET RUSSIA).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any replies have been received from the neutral Governments to the Allied Notes requesting their co-operation in a, form of blockade of Soviet Russia; if so, what these replies are; and whether the Government of the United States of North America is cooperating actively in this form of blockade?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No replies have yet been received from the neutral Governments to the Note addressed to them by the Allied and Associated Governments asking them to co-operate in the exercise of economic pressure on Soviet Russia. The text of what purports to be the reply of the German Government was published in the Press on Friday, 31st October. I have no information as to whether this text is accurate or not. Such measures of economic pressure as are being applied are being enforced uniformly by all the principal Allied and Associated Powers, including the United States.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer was drafted before yesterday, because in the papers yesterday we noticed that Switzerland has also given a reply, which was published?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: My attention has not been drawn to that.
    Mr. SWANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Russian Soviet Government had declared that the blockade of Soviet Russia by any country would be deemed to be an act of war on the part of that country, it was the policy of the Allies to bring pressure to bear on Germany and neutrals to cooperate in a Russian war?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The exercise of economic pressure on the Soviet Government does not imply a state of war, whatever declaration that Government may make. The question therefore does not arise.

    MUNITIONS, RIGA.
    Mr. SWANasked the Secretary of State for War whether shipments of munitions are now being made to Riga; for whose use these munitions are intended; and whether the cost falls on the British taxpayer?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): A small amount of captured German ammunition represents the only munitions which are being sent to Riga. This ammunition is destined for the Letts, who are struggling to maintain the integrity of their country against reactionary Russian forces subsidised and assisted by reactionary German elements. The expense involved is that of shipping only, which is very small.

    BRITISH TROOPS, BATOUM.
    Mr. SWANasked the Secretary of State for War whether British troops remain at Baku or at Batoum; whether it is at the wish or request of or on an understanding with the Allied Council or any Russian government that British troops remain at or were withdrawn from these places; what expenditure is being incurred weekly in this connection; and whether any assurance can be given as to the date when British troops in Russia will be withdrawn and returned home?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No British troops are at Baku or in any other part of the Caucasus except Batoum on the Black Sea. A brigade of British and Indian troops is temporarily remaining at Batoum at the request of the Foreign Office to prevent serious local disorders occurring at this particular moment.

    OFFICER PRISONERS.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Secretary of State for War what had been done with those Russian officers who were imprisoned at Newmarket for insubordination; whether these men and their wives were still in prison in this country, or whether they were forcibly sent to Russia to fight in armies with whose policy they did not agree; whether any Russian officers were still being trained at Newmarket or elsewhere; how many drafts had been sent to Russia; and the total number of persons in same, and the cost up to date of this undertaking?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All the Russian officers lately training at Newmarket

    1291
    have been sent back to Russia or will be dispatched thither by the first available ship. None is pressed to join the anti-Bolshevik armies against his will. The total number concerned is approximately 1,200.
    Mr. EDWARDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what became of those who were imprisoned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They have gone back to Russia.

    PASSPORTS (PROCEDURE).
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, before granting a passport to females proceeding to employment abroad, any guarantees as to salary and condition of employment are required of a similar nature to those required by the military passport office during the War?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is the practice in such cases to make inquiries as to the bonâ fides of the contract entered into by the applicant, and, as far as possible, every care is taken to see that the conditions of employment are satisfactory.

    CONSUL-GENERAL, NEW YORK.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Oversea Trade Department whether a Consul-General for New York has yet been appointed; and, if not, whether he will consider the importance of selecting a commercially-trained and commercially-successful business man for that post?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The greatest difficulty has been experienced in finding a man possessing the requisite commercial training knowledge of America, business capacity and experience for so important a post. I hope, however, to be able to announce the appointment in a few days.

    BASE HEADQUARTERS, BOULOGNE.
    Captain R. TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War if he has investigated the allegations of waste of money and waste of effort at Boulogne in connection with the base commandant's establishment; whether he will inform the
    1292
    House what steps have been taken to confine expenditure to the lowest possible proportions; how many officers and other ranks are employed by the base commandant; and the total annual cost of this establishment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As my hon. and gallant Friend will remember, I dealt with this subject at some length in my speech in the House on the 29th October. It is not possible to give calculations of the annual cost of the staff, as the reduction is rapidly and continuously going on.
    Captain TERRELL: Is the base commandant at Boulogne still occupying one of the largest hotels in the town for office purposes?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know.
    Mr. RAPER: How many motor-cars are attached to the base headquarters?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider dealing with the subject at some length when he addresses the House in the next few days on Army Estimates?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No; I referred to it when I last addressed the House.
    Captain TERRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any investigation at all in order to reply to my question?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes; I have a great quantity of information.
    Captain TERRELL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know if he occupies a hotel or not?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No. Nothing in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question refers to hotels. If he wishes to ask for information about hotels he should put a notice on the Paper referring to hotels.
    Dr. MURRAY: In view of the fact that these hon. Gentlemen on Thursday acquitted the right hon. Gentleman and the Government generally, of waste and extravagance in any shape or form, will he consider the advisability of refusing to answer these questions in future and so avoid waste of money and energy?

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Brigadier-General Sir HILL CHILDasked the Secretary of State for War if he

    1293
    is now in a position to state definitely whether there is going to be a Territorial Force in the future or not; and, if the answer is in the affirmative, how soon will he be able to inform the House what the organisation of the force is going to be?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the organisation of the Force, unavoidable delays have arisen by reason of the present financial situation, but I hope to be in a position to make an announcement at an early date.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for War what sums for the Territorial Force were included in the revised Army Estimates for the year 1919–20; and what sums for the above force are included in the £75,000,000 shown as being the Army and Air Force expenditure in a normal year?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): As has been already announced, the preparation of the Army Estimates for 1919–1920 in detail will not be completed for some little time. Meanwhile, provision for soldiers of the Territorial Force is included with that for other soldiers. The second question cannot be answered until the Estimates of the normal year have been definitely framed.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us some particulars to-morrow on the Army Debate as to the Government's intentions as to the Territorial Force?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not know.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    EAST KENT REGIMENT (PRIVATE ASHLEY).
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private A. Ashley, No. 204337, 1/4th Battalion, East Kent Regiment, is retained in India, although forty years of age; seeing that men of a younger age are being demobilised, will he state why Private Ashley should be kept; and is he aware that on 21st May last notice was issued that he would be demobilised on compassionate grounds and since then has been sent further up country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As the hon. Member has already been informed by letter from
    1294
    the War Office, this soldier will be sent home for dispersal as soon as transport and shipping facilities permit.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man, since the order for demobilisation was issued on compassionate grounds, has been sent further North, and can he say why has he been sent further North, considering the right hon. Gentleman's letter of 21st May?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No; I cannot.
    Mr. WATERSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish me to assume that no transport has been sent from India since 21st May?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Ships are leaving constantly. There are other men in the same position. I will inquire why there has been any special delay in this case if the hon. Member will give me full particulars.

    MACHINE GUN CORPS (PRIVATE CRICK).
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private 0. Crick, No. 97434, 238th Company, Machine Gun Corps, Third Section, Mesopotamia Expeditionary Force, Mesopotamia, attested in February, 1916, under Lord Derby's scheme, and was called up in January, 1917; if he is aware that many of these troops have been away more than two and a half years without leave; if he can state if the pledge given to Lord Derby's men, relative to attestation, is to be kept; if so, when may we expect Private Crick home; and, if not, whether he is aware of the gravity and seriousness of this pledge-breaking, and what results may accrue from it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Orders are now in force which provide for the dispatch to the United Kingdom of all men who joined the Colours for continuous service prior to 1st July, 1917, and are eligible for demobilisation by 1st March, 1920, subject to the necessary transport being available.

    REJECTED DERBY RECRUITS.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for War whether men rejected under the Derby scheme in 1915 on medical grounds, and who were able to produce papers to this effect, but who were subsequently called up, are entitled to be regarded for demobilisation purposes as if they had enlisted at the earlier date on which they came forward?
    Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider his decision regarding men who volunteered under the Derby scheme, but were rejected on medical examination and subsequently called up, and who are now considered as conscripts; if he is aware of the feeling amongst the soldiers at being treated as conscripts; and if he will place all soldiers who volunteered for service under the Derby scheme on an equality?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wrexham on the 27th ultimo.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (OFFICERS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers of the Royal Engineers compulsorily detained in India are to be demobilised under the same orders as the men, or whether the orders regarding the demobilisation of officers differ from those regarding the men; and, if so, what is the difference?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Officers are not demobilised under the same orders as men, but are demobilised as and when they can be spared.

    ARMY BANDS (ENGAGEMENTS).
    Mr. JESSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Eastbourne Corporation have discharged their civilian musicians and are now employing Army bands in their places; that these civilian musicians are mostly demobilised men and old soldiers who have served their country; that most of them are now drawing the Government's out-of-work donation through being deprived of their means of livelihood by the employment of Army bands; and whether he will consider the desirability of so altering the regulations under which Army bands may be employed as to prevent undue competition with civilian musicians?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Nothing is known at the War Office as to what arrangements the Eastbourne Corporation have made regarding civilian musicians. It is not proposed to alter the regulations under which Army bands may accept engagements. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that paragraph 1119A of the King's Regulations provides that engagements are not to
    1296
    be accepted on terms which are lower than those which would, in the same circumstances, be offered to a civilian band.

    DEPTFORD WHARVES (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
    Captain O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that no general embargo on the importation of live cattle and sheep into this country now exists he can state when the wharves at Deptford now occupied for military purposes will be vacated; and, if total vacation of the wharves is impossible at the moment, will sufficient space be released to accommodate the landing of Canadian cattle and sheep for slaughter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The War Department depot at Deptford is held under a definite agreement which has still some years to run, and while its use as a Supply Reserve Depot is becoming more and more restricted, the space thus made available is being used for other military purposes.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    WAR GRATUITY.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Secretary of State for War why the war gratuity due in respect of a deceased soldier who has left a widow and child should not be paid over to the widow for the benefit of the child; and why it should be deposited in the orphans' savings bank at 2 per cent. interest when, if invested in the War Loan, it would earn double that amount?
    Mr. FORSTER: The estate, including war gratuity of a deceased soldier, who has died intestate leaving a, widow and child, is distributed under the law of intestacy, and the child's share is paid to the widow for the benefit of the child unless the amount is large enough to be worth investing. If in any case it is desired that such investment should not be made in the orphan's savings bank the War Office is prepared to consider any recommendations made by a minister-magistrate, or other person of like responsible position, who knows the case and will undertake to see that this investment is made in War Loan or similar securities.

    78TH LABOUR COMPANY, RHINE (PRIVATE GOLDSWORTHY).
    Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private Fred Goldsworthy, No. 46356, 78th Labour Company, Rhine, is now considered a conscript; if he is aware that Private Goldsworthy volunteered on 19th October, 1915, under the Derby scheme, but was medically rejected and was given khaki armlet No. 41365, issued by the Army Council, to prove he had volunteered, and that he was later called up under Army Form 3194, which was a notice to attested men, and passed B 1; and, in these circumstances, if he will have Private Goldsworthy treated as a volunteer?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not acquainted with the individual case of Private Fred Goldsworthy, but I will make inquiries. It would seem from the details supplied by my hon. Friend that this soldier is situated similarly to those men referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham in his question on the 27th October. Under these circumstances the only difference involved in the latest date fixed for demobilisation is a matter of one month for men called up before 1st July, 1917, and six weeks for men called up before the 1st July, 1918.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (PAY OF DIVISIONAL COMMANDERS).
    Brigadier-General WIGANasked the Secretary for War what the cost to the public up to date in the pay and allowances of the fourteen divisional commanders and their staffs appointed to command Territorial divisions which have not yet materialised amounts to; and if it is intended to continue to pay them whilst they have no divisions to command?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The cost of the fourteen divisional generals up to the 31st October, 1919, is £11,000. No other staff has been appointed up to the present. The generals are engaged on duties in connection with the reconstruction of the Territorial force and the War Office is acting in close consultation with them on all questions connected therewith.
    Major NALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is necessary to employ all these officers in the manner in which they have been employed since last April?
    An HON. MEMBER: Are we to understand that these fourteen generals are carrying on, with staff, and drawing their pay?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: These officers were appointed at a time when it was thought the Territorial force would be brought into existence more rapidly. They are doing most important work in regard to shaping the policy of creating the Territorial force.
    Sir F. HALL: Are you not a long time in getting this important information together?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There has been delay in bringing the Territorial force into existence, and the fact that it has been delayed has led to substantial saving of public money. I have not been able to get a final decision in regard to the finance, and that makes it difficult to issue the Regulations, but I hope they may shortly be issued.
    Major NALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman put these general officers on half-pay?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We have reached a point in the constitution of the force when these officers can be very usefully employed, and I do not recommend that.
    Major E. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for what period of time he proposes to employ these officers in this way, and what further delay there will be?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We hope to begin the definite reconstitution of the Territorial force at the end of the month.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will their unemployment donation be stopped at the same time as that of the ordinary workman?

    TANK CORPS, WOOL (PERSONNEL OF STAFF).
    Brigadier-General WIGANasked the Secretary for War why it is considered necessary to continue to maintain a staff of one brigadier-general, two lieutenant-colonels, and ten other staff officers to administer and train personnel of the Tank Corps at Wool, whose strength is under 5,000 all ranks, in view of the fact that a brigade staff in peace time is only about one-fourth of that now em-

    1299
    ployed at Wool and that such staff frequently has to administer other details in addition?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Tank Corps cannot properly be compared with an Infantry Brigade. The general officer commanding the corps, besides his normal duties of command and administration of the personnel at Wool, and his responsibility for a considerable amount of valuable equipment, is concerned with the administration of a number of units and detachments in Great Britain and Ireland, the work in connection with which must in the present circumstances of the corps to a great extent be centralised. As regards the staff, apart from the necessity of having specialist general staff officers to superintend the training of all personnel in this entirely new arm, additional officers attached to headquarters are required in connection with demobilisation and for duties relating to the care and maintenance of tanks and other equipment held on charge. A reduction of three staff officers is, however, to be made in the near future, and probably further reductions will be possible when all Army of Occupation personnel has been dispersed.

    MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITION (TROOPS DETAINED IN INDIA).
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that troops from Mesopotamia, en route for England, are still being compulsorily detained in India; whether this is in accord with the assurances previously given in the House; and, if not, whether he will take steps to ensure their adequate and prompt fulfilment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; the troops referred to are only conveyed to Bombay or Karachi for transhipment and are not being detained in India.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these men have been transferred North to some of the fighting forces and have been there for many months?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Strict orders have been given that men temporarily delayed on account of an emergency in India when on their way home from Mesopotamia are to have absolute priority over all other shipments of men from the East to England.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is he aware that many of these men are already detained there, and for no purpose?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Orders have been given that they are to come home.
    Mr. IRVING: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that his orders are carried out?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have every reason to believe that the orders are carried out.
    Mr. WATERSON: No.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am awaiting information of the circumstances in which they have not been carried out.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have sent him several lists with reference to individual soldiers, which he has not challenged?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is quite true that there may be individual cases, but that would not in the least prove that the general order was not being carried out.
    Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a cable to see that these men are promptly sent home, and that they have priority?
    Major N ALL: Is it not a fact that the promises to these men have been substantially redeemed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. I believe that is the case.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are men in Mesopotamia in the Royal Army Medical Corps who have been there since the beginning of the War, and have not been released? His right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) can tell him so.

    Captain SIR DERRICK J. WERNHER (COURT-MARTIAL).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary for War whether he can state the nature of the charges upon which Captain Sir Derrick Julius Wernher was recently convicted by court-martial and sentenced to be cashiered from the Army, and the reasons which led the Army Council to advise His Majesty to commute such sentence to one of simple dismissal from the Service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir Derrick Julius Wernher was convicted by court-martial

    1301
    upon two charges under Section 40 of the Army Act of conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline in allowing Government lorries to be used for the transport of private goods of a Greek from Salonika to Sofia and Samakov, and in making an untrue statement in relation to the matter. With regard to the second part of the question the reasons for the advice that the sentence should be commuted from cashiering to dismissal from His Majesty's Service, were, because the conviction on another charge of conspiring to allow the same goods to be carried on Government lorries to be sold for the profit of himself and a civilian was quashed on legal grounds raised in a petition, presented by Sir Derrick Julius Wernher, and because the sentence had been passed in respect of the charge which was quashed as well as the other two charges. In view of statements which have appeared in the Press I desire to take this opportunity of adding that no communication whatever, either written or verbal in relation to the matter, other than the petition which Sir Derrick Julius Wernher was lawfully entitled to present, was received from any member of the Wernher family or any other person.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, especially in view of the fact that a more serious charge was quashed on purely legal grounds, that there is not an atom of foundation for the suggestion which has appeared in the Press, to the effect that there was some social influence and some petticoat influence interfering in this matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have gone most carefully into this matter, and there is no atom of foundation for suggestions of that kind.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    LEAVE OF OFFICERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary for War if a considerable number of officers of the Royal Air Force who volunteered for service in Russia were sent out at short notice and without even the usual embarkation leave; if it, was understood that they would be given leave privileges when opportunity occurred to make up for this; and if now on their return these officers, who in many cases have served
    1302
    long periods in the trying Russian campaign without any leave, are being demobilised and struck off the pay-sheets on their arrival back in this country?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to take this question. The reply to the first part is that owing to the urgency of the demands many officers were sent out at short notice. Very few, if any, went without a few days' leave. To the second part, that no communication to the effect mentioned was made by the authority of the Air Ministry. The answer to the third part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is that all officers returning from Russia who had not been recommended for permanent or short-service commissions were informed that their demobilisation must be carried out as soon as they returned to this country; that the question of leave for service in Russia was being dealt with; and that if it was decided they were eligible for leave their demobilisation would be post-dated for the period sanctioned in order to enable them to draw pay for that period. Since then it has been decided to grant fourteen days' leave for each six months' service in Russia, and action is being taken to post-date the demobilisation of officers entitled to leave under this ruling. No leave is admissible for service of less than six months in Russia.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask the Secretary of State for the Air Department whether he is aware that in. reply to a supplementary question a few days ago he informed me that these officers had not been summarily discharged, and that leave had been granted; and can he say whether if any of these officers have been discharged on their arrival in this country and have not had proper leave, he will take steps to see that in lieu of leave, since they are demobilised, they are paid for that period?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will inquire into the matter. Certainly they should have their proper leave.
    Sir F. HALL: Or pay in lieu of leave.
    Colonel YATE: What is their proper leave? Is it not fair that an officer on demobilisation should be given twenty-eight days' grace the same as the men?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will not say. I should like to refresh my memory.

    PERSIA
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War how many members of His Majesty's Army and the Royal Air Force, approximately, are at present in Persian territory; how many members of His Majesty's Indian Army are in Persian territory; for what purpose are they there; and when it is expected that they will be withdrawn?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The total number of troops in Persia is approximately 11,175, of whom 10,100 are natives of India. The second and third parts of the hon. and gallant Member's question should be referred to the Foreign Office.

    COURTS-MARTIAL (PROCEDURE).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to lay upon the Table the Report of the Committee' on Courts-martial Procedure?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will see that the Report is published during the course of the present month.

  VOLUNTEERS.

    CERTIFICATES FROM DATE OF JOINING.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state why the certificates issued to the Volunteers do not date from their joining the Volunteer Corps; is he aware of the fact that thousands of men who joined the Volunteers in 1914 have received certificates which only show that they volunteered in 1916; and can he explain the reason for this omission?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the written reply given on the 28th October to a similar question put by the right hon. Member for South Hammersmith, where it was explained that until the Volunteers were organised under the Act of 1863 in May, 1916, they were not under any legal obligation as soldiers, and the War Office holds no records of their services prior to May, 1916. The letters of thanks to which my hon. Friend alludes must consequently be limited to enrolments under the Volunteer Act, by which the Volunteers became a definite part of the Home Defence organisation.
    An HON. MEMBER: Is no recognition to be given to the men who joined the Volunteer Training Corps before the formation of the Volunteer Force, in spite of the fact that the head of the Volunteer Training Corps, Lord Desborough, had a room in the War Office and did his work in conjunction with the War Office?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If we have no records there is great difficulty in giving any recognition.
    Mr. HIGHAM: The men who were over thirty-five years of age and joined the Volunteers in 1914 and afterwards joined the Regular Army have no recognition of the fact that they trained to be soldiers before joining the Regular Army?
    Mr. CHURCH ILL: I should be very glad to mete out to everyone what he deserves for services rendered during the War, but the fact is that there are no records, and without records it would be impossible to proceed in the matter. I would remind the House that every step of this kind that is taken involves the employment of additional staff and added expenditure.
    Mr. HIGHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Volunteer Training Corps have records of all these cases which they would furnish cost free to the Government?

    LONDON FIRE BRIGADE.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Secretary of State for War if members of the Volunteer Forces who performed valuable service to the London Fire Brigade during the air raids will receive any special decoration or recognition; and, if not, will he explain why?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of recognition of valuable services rendered during air raids is receiving consideration, but it must not be inferred from this answer that the consideration will be of a favourable character.

    WAR MEDALS AND DECORATIONS.
    Mr. J. JONESasked the Secretary of State for War if he can recommend the granting of some recognition for the men who first went to France in 1916 and, through no fault of their own, have not been recognised in the issuing of medals and decorations?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All military personnel who entered a theatre of war on duty are eligible to receive the British War Medal, and, if they actually served on the establishment of a unit in a theatre of war, within specified periods, the Victory Medal also.
    Mr. JON ES: Is there not a large number of these men who are old soldiers who rejoined, and who, because they were behind the lines got no recognition?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Everybody who left either this country or any of the Dominions for any theatre of war, India being included for that purpose as a theatre of war, will receive a War Medal.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not possible that many of these men who joined up at the beginning of the War as instructors and otherwise, and who never were called upon to leave the country, have never received any recognition at all, and is it not possible to recognise them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a matter which has not yet been finally decided, but I would point out that giving a War Medal to people who did not go to the War in any shape or form depreciates the value of the honour. I am advised that it would cost approximately £480,000, and involve the employment of a large clerical staff for many months.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Were decorations given in some cases to officers who did not go to the War?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That may be so, but the question is as to whether the War Medal should be confined to those who actually went to the War.
    Mr. JONESasked the Secretary of State for War if he can see his way clear to recommend that all ex-Service men who were re-attested and served from 1914 to 1919 be given permission to wear the General Service Ribbon?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no riband officially termed "the General Service Riband." The riband of the British War Medal and of the Victory Medal may be worn by all those eligible to receive those medals. I will send the hon. Member copies of the relevant Army Orders.
    Viscount CURZON: Does that answer apply to the Naval Division?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that the answer to question 35 can possibly
    1306
    apply to the Naval Division. The War Office has considered the matter, and the Royal Naval Division is entitled to the same medals as are given to any other division of the British Army serving In the same way

    DEMOBILISATION (SALONIKA).
    Mr. J. JONESasked the Secretary of State for War whether Private H. Alderton, No. 120013, 201st Labour Company, Salonika Forces, formerly with the 2nd Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment, is eligible for demobilisation, seeing that this man enlisted under the Derby scheme on the 25th June, 1916, has teen in Salonika three years and three months, has not had any leave during that period, has a wife and three children dependent upon him, and employment assured by the Anglo-American Oil Company immediately he is demobilised?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If the facts are as stated by the hon. Member, this man is eligible for demobilisation under current instructions, and will have left for home by 1st November, 1919, if transport is available.

    MILITARY OFFENCES.
    Mr LUNNasked what is the number of men of all ranks now serving sentences of more than three months' duration for military offences?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: To provide this information would necessitate obtaining returns from all military commands at home and abroad. It would take a considerable time, and, in view of the amount of labour involved and the reductions which are being made in the staff of the Department, I am afraid I cannot undertake to have the Return prepared. Moreover, before it could be completed the information would be out of date, as sentences are being constantly reviewed and remitted.
    Mr. LUNN: Are the Government considering the advisability of releasing these men in celebration of the Armistice?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government have considered that and have arrived at the conclusion that there was no case for a general amnesty on the conclusion of the War. The numbers of men serving penal servitude are very small. The offences

    1307
    for which they have been sentenced are mostly of a very grave character and of a non-military character, but all these sentences have been subjected to a very careful review and a very great reduction in the aggregate number of years of penal servitude has been granted. So far as detention barracks are concerned, they are only a part of the ordinary discipline of the Army, and I am not aware that the population in the detention barracks at present is excessive.
    Mr. HODGE: Have not some of the so-called reductions in sentences been of a brutal character—for instance, penal servitude for seven years reduced to two years' imprisonment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that the House will agree with that. I have heard it said that three years' penal servitude is less severe than two years' imprisonment, but a change from seven years' penal servitude to two years' imprisonment is a great reduction.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Have some of these cases been already sympathetically considered by the War Office?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A large number.
    Mr. WATERSON: Has the review of sentences been closed, or will it continue?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The review is going on continually.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to release Driver C. Newell, No. 01680, Royal Army Service Corps, who was sentenced on 2nd February, 1918, to a term of imprisonment for insubordination, but after being released for active service was again imprisoned to finish his term of imprisonment after the Armistice was declared; and if he will order all similar cases to be released?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am making inquiry in this case, and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    GUARDS (TREATMENT OF RECRUITS).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the charges of brutality and bribery in connection with the treatment
    1308
    of recruits in the Guards; and, in view of the prejudicial effect of such statements on recruiting and the reputation of the Army, if he will order an inquiry to be made as to the truth of the allegations?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot undertake to order an inquiry into allegations of the vague and general dharacter of those to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. BRIANT: Are not some of these cases given categorically with the names of the persons concerned and all the evidence connected therewith?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not read the book in question myself, but I do not believe that I should be justified in ordering an inquiry of this character because a book has been published by an individual containing a number of accusations.
    Captain TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman flatly contradict these statements?
    Sir C. WARNER: Is there any means by which false statements may be corrected, and the injury to the Navy and the Army which this book and the consequent article in the "Times" will bring about can be stopped?
    Sir J. D. REES: Had not the system which produced the best Infantry in the world better be left alone?
    Mr. BRIANT: Should I be in order in raising this question on the Army Estimates this week?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is for the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War what was the total staff of the War Office, established and unestablished, respectively, before the War, and the number of women included in such figures; and the corresponding figures at the date of the Armistice and now?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate a detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the statement referred to:
    Staff of War Office (including Audit Offices), Chelsea Hospital (Secretary's

    Date.

    Military

    Civilian.

    Total.

    Male.

    Female.

    Established.

    Unestablished.

    Total.

    Established.

    Unestablished.

    Total.

    1st Aug., 1914

    …

    298

    391

    1,104

    1,495

    59

    101

    160

    1,953

    11th Nov., 1918

    …

    3,525

    335

    5,359

    5,664

    48

    13,042

    13,090

    22,279

    1st Nov., 1919

    …

    1,307

    375

    4,995

    5,370

    44

    4,265

    4,309

    10,986

    Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the smallness of the reduction from 11th November, 1918, to 1st November, 1919 in the male staff, and will he say whether it is necessary to keep so many deputy-directors as there are at the War Office now, and whether they were necesary in pre-war times?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I have pointed out, there has been a great reduction in the staff, but the correspondence in September from the public was 52 per cent. greater than at the height of the War.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the present staff is capable of dealing adequately with the correspondence and the applications which it receives from Members of the House and from the public?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I inquired into the hours of work of the staff. No greater amount of overtime can be admitted. I think the public must accept the principle of a slightly less prompt service, and that that is one of the inevitable consequences of a policy of redaction. I think that some of the correspondence, which is of an unnecessary character, might easily be dispensed with. Every effort will be made by the War Office staff, large or small, to serve the public to the best of their ability.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Prime Minister when the Ministry of National Service would vacate the Hotel Windsor; whether he was aware that the regional headquarters were still occupying large premises; and whether these premises could now be vacated, seeing that the areas which they controlled were closed down in February last?
    Department), Royal Army Clothing Department (Clerical Establishment), and Prisoners of War Information Bureau:
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The staff of forty-three in the Hotel Windsor who are engaged on winding-up the affairs of the Ministry of National Service hope to complete their work by the end of the financial year (March, 1920). They will probably have to be removed shortly from the Hotel Windsor to make room for the Coal Mines Department. The Ministry of National Service have now no regional headquarters staff, as these have all been transferred to the Ministry of Pensions.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the Ministry of National service, which we thought was long ago dead and buried, is going to take another five months to wind up its affairs?
    Sir A. MOND: I think there is a small staff winding-up accounts.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to refuse to give them any more accommodation?
    Dr. MURRAY: Are all these small Ministries being reduced on the Ca' canny principle by officials?

  TREATY OF PEACE.

    UNITED STATES AND TURKEY.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the fact that the United States of America had never been at war with Turkey, the presentation of the Peace Terms by the Allies who were at war with Turkey could be made without further delay and other admittedly temporary arrangements made in regard to the administration of those

    1311
    non-Turkish parts of the Ottoman Empire in which it was hoped that the United States of America would undertake the duties of mandatory of the League of Nations;
    (2) Whether, in view of the growing unrest in the Near and Middle East resulting from the delay in publishing the Peace terms to be imposed by the Allies upon Turkey, he will state what steps were being taken to urge the American Government to give a definite reply as to whether they would undertake the responsibility of mandatory of the League of Nations in regard to Armenia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Government fully realise all the evils resulting from the delay in settling the peace terms with Turkey, and are doing everything in their power to hasten a settlement.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why we have to await American consent in this matter, considering that America has not been at war with Turkey?
    Mr. BON AR LAW: I do not think that is quite conclusive in the matter. After all, it was one war, and I am sure the House would not desire to do anything which seemed to undervalue the assistance that America might give in the general settlement' of this question.
    Major Earl WINTERTON: In view of the vastly important British commercial, financial, and political interests in the Near East, and in view of the fact that this question has been debated in open House in the French Chamber of Deputies and the United States Congress, will the right hon. Gentleman afford an opportunity for this House to express an opinion on the extraordinary condition of affairs in the Near East at the present time?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware that it had been debated in the French Chamber. It may be so. I do not think it would be desirable—to express my own conviction—that we should have a discussion at this stage as to the terms of the Treaty to be imposed on Turkey. Of course, the Government must be in the hands of the House in a matter of this kind.

    ARMENIA (MASSACRES).
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister what steps had been taken by the Allied Powers in Paris to ensure against further massacres of Armenians in Armenia pending the decision of the American Government as to the future part they might or might not play in protecting the remnants of the Armenian nation; and who was bearing the present cost of the naval and military protection now given?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Consett on 29th October. There is a British force at Batoum, and certain of His Majesty's ships are available for use in these waters if required. The protection of the Armenians is, however, only one of several objects served by these dispositions, the cost of which is borne by His Majesty's Government.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Do we understand that none of the Allies contributed in any way to the protection of the Armenians, either financially or in a military or naval sense?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should not like my hon. Friend to assume that.
    Earl WINTERTON: Can the hon. Gentleman give any kind of estimate of the cost to this country of the protection of the Armenians?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I could by consultation with the Departments concerned, but not offhand.

    CIVIL SERVICE AND EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that, although there were now available ex-Service permanent Civil servants, willing and able to perform higher duties, many officials of Government offices were still retaining temporary women clerks as private secretaries and heads of branches; and whether he would have inquiries made into the matter?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will communicate directly with the Ministers in charge of the Departments to which he refers, but if he does not wish to take

    1313
    this course and prefers to send me full particulars I will take the duty of inquiry upon myself.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that in some Government offices permanent Civil servants who volunteered at the outbreak of war had returned to find that, in their absence, junior men who remained behind had been promoted above them, or had been granted allowances for duties which the returned man was required to perform without extra remuneration; whether he was aware that great dissatisfaction existed among the returned men because of this injustice; and whether he would cause inquiries to be made with a view to giving the men who volunteered equal treatment to that accorded to the men who remained?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The allocation of promotions and acting promotions in any Department rests with the head of the Department, and any representations on the subject which the hon. Member wishes to make should be addressed to the Minister concerned.

    COAL CONTROLLER (COLLIERY DEVELOPMENTS).
    Sir WILLIAM SEAGERasked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that many new colliery developments were being held up because of the attitude of the Coal Controller towards the proprietors in regard to the cost of this new work, which would not be remunerative for a great number of years; and, seeing that this action meant considerable unemployment, did he propose to take action to stabilise the position?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the position with regard to colliery developments and is at present giving it careful consideration in consultation with the interests concerned.
    Sir W. SEAGER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several millions of money are waiting to develop existing collieries and to sink new shafts, which would mean the employment of thousands of men, if these difficulties could be overcome quickly?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That statement has been made to my right hon. Friend.

    MILITARY PRISONERS (AMNESTY).
    Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Prime Minister whether on the occasion of the anniversary of the Armistice be was prepared to recommend the granting of a general amnesty for all military prisoners convicted for minor offences and of all civilian prisoners convicted for political offences against the stringent War-time Regulations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to an unstarred question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 5th June.

    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (QUESTIONS).
    Captain R. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether he would arrange for questions relating to the Board of Agriculture to be taken, either first or second, on one day of the week and not relegated to places low down on the list?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that questions to the Board of Agriculture are always placed before those to the Prime Minister on Monday.

    HOUSING (MANCHESTER).
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a Resolution, passed by the Manchester and Salford Trades and Labour Council, expressing indignation at profiteering in houses, protesting against tenants being evicted, and drawing his attention to hardships resulting in cases where houses have been bought and tenants with families rendered homeless through being turned out of them; and whether, in view of conditions created in Manchester, he can take steps at once to alter the law and prevent ejectments which are threatened?
    The PAYMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Tudor Walters): I have been asked to answer this question. A Resolution has been received from the Manchester and Salford Trades and Labour Council, and I have also received a letter from the Manchester, Salford and Counties Property Owners' Association asking for an opportunity to be heard in reply to this Resolution. Inquiries are being made, and

    1315
    I will communicate with my right hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so. All tenants who come within the provisions of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Restriction Act are protected, even at the hands of a purchaser of a house. If a man buys a house to live in himself or to put one of his workpeople in he cannot obtain an ejectment order except by application to a Court, and it is the duty of the Court to examine all the circumstances of the case, including the alternative accommodation that can be provided for the tenant.
    Mr. CLYNES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is alleged in the case of the Court in Manchester that the discretion is exercised usually in favour of the owner and not the tenant?
    Sir T. WALTERS: I have not received any information of that kind, and I should require evidence to believe that a Court of Law would deal unfairly.
    Mr. CLYNES: In view of the situation in Manchester may I ask the hon. Gentleman to represent to the head of the Department the necessity for taking steps immediately?
    Sir T. WALTERS: My right hon. Friend is fully advised of the matter and is now prosecuting inquiries to ascertain what are the actual facts.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

    BREAD SUBSIDY.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his announcement on the 29th ultimo that it is not at present intended to discontinue the bread subsidy, he will consider the proposal contained in paragraph 35 (b) of the Report issued by the Select Committee on National Expenditure dealing with the Wheat Commission, which indicated the possibility of a saving of £14,500,000 yearly by the restriction of the bread subsidy to flour actually used for bread?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; this question is being considered, but I doubt whether the Select Committee on National Expenditure at all appreciated the practical difficulties and the amount of new Government control involved in their recommendation.

    REVENUE.
    Mr. PENRY WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he expects to bring the national expenditure within or below the national revenue of £2,000,000 per day?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on Wednesday last.

    FEEDING-STUFFS.
    Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the question of imposing an import duty on foreign flour and also an export duty on feeding-stuffs, with the object of inducing the foreigner to send us wheat instead of flour, and thereby enable farmers in this country to secure a larger supply of millers' offal?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The Government are not prepared to adopt this suggestion.

    SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES.
    Mr. P. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War what stock of blankets is now held by the War Office, and why is the stock not put on the market in order to increase the supply of blankets available during the coming winter?
    Mr. FORSTER: The present stock of new blankets is about 31 millions, and our requirements approximate to that amount.. Stocks are at present being sorted and as the Army is further reduced all blankets in excess of requirements are being disposed of.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman can take steps to make these blankets available for working women at the price the Government arc getting for them without any intermediate profit?
    Mr. HAYDAY: May I ask whether the local authorities may send in a requisition in order that they may open markets for the purpose of bringing the blankets within reach of the people?
    Mr. FORSTER: As the House is aware, all the arrangements for the actual sale of surplus material are conducted by the

    1317
    Disposal Board of the Ministry of Munitions, and perhaps hon. Members would communicate with the Ministry of Munitions on the subject.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these blankets are being sold in lots of fifty at 8s. 6d. each and when they reach working people they are very much more?
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Only certain classes of people get them.

    WAR GRATUITY (MASSAGE STAFFS).
    Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the military masseuses have been refused a war gratuity though it has been granted to all other hospital workers and by the Red Cross to their masseuses; and whether, owing to the good work done by these masseuses for the wounded, the Financial Secretary will see fit to reconsider his decision?
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War if the military masseuses have applied for and been refused a war gratuity, although it has been granted to other hospital workers and by the Red Cross Society to their masseuses; and, if so, will he reconsider his decision?
    Mr. FORSTER: As I said in answer to a question last week, I am looking into this matter, and I have not yet come to a decision.

    REGULAR ARMY (COMMISSIONS).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to grant commissions in the Regular Army to those Special Reserve officers who have been recommended for this honour, or whether they will be demobilised this month and their war experience thus lost to the nation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As was stated yesterday in a written reply to the hon. Member for Devonport, the demobilisation of an officer of the Special Reserve will not affect his being considered for a commission in the Regular Army. As regards the grant of permanent commissions generally to Special Reserve and other officers, I would refer my hon. Friend to the full statement which 1 made on the 27th
    1318
    October in reply to a written question by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon.

    ARMY HORSES.
    Captain COOTEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that early in the year county council agricultural executive committees were approached by the Army Remount Department with a view to finding suitable custodians for Army horses; that these committees thereupon advertised for custodians among smallholders and ex-Service men; that all horses have been allocated to contractors instead of to such men; and whether, in view of the suitability of such men as custodians and the national advantage to be derived from entrusting horses to their care, he will arrange for a further supply of horses be allocated to county agricultural executive committees for distribution as they think fit?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The scheme for boarding-out Army horses was introduced to enable a reserve of horses to be maintained in the hands of approved custodians, available for the annual training of the Territorial force, and in the event of a national emergency. The scheme is not designed to benefit any particular portion of the community, but to place the horses where they will be best cared for.
    The number now placed is 15,000, a figure which it is not intended to exceed, and, though accurate numbers cannot be given with reference to commands, it is estimated that at least 50 per cent. of the horses are in the hands of farmers.
    Captain COOTE: Is it not in the national interest, apart from the necessity that those horses should be boarded out, that they should be engaged in food production and suitable labour?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.

    MILITARY FUNERALS.
    Mr. THOMAS LEWISasked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office is able to grant free of charge supplies of blank ammunition to associations of discharged, sailors and soldiers for the use of firing parties at military funerals?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Regulations already authorise military firing parties, equipped with the necessary arms and ammunition, being furnished on application to the nearest military headquarters. In the circumstances, it is not considered desirable to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

    POSTAL CENSORSHIP MUSEUM.
    Mr. MURCHISONasked the Secretary of State for War if all the articles of interest contained in the Postal Censorship Museum, at Strand House, have been kept together; and, if so, whether he could take steps to ensure that they be handed over in their entirety to the War Museum should that Department be willing to receive them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and Western on 1st April last. All articles of interest contained in the Postal Censorship Museum have been handed over either to the War Museum or to the British Museum, with the exception of those disposed of by the authorities of the Prize Court.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what business it is proposed to take on Thursday?
Mr. BONAR LAW: The Industrial Courts Bill, Second Reading.
Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Agriculture and Fisheries (Councils, etc.) Bill is not reached to-day, when it is proposed to take it, and will he, in view of its importance, put it down as first Order?
Mr. BILLING: Is it proposed to take the Third Reading of the Aliens Restriction Bill to-night, in the event of the Report stage being concluded by eight o'clock?
Mr. BONAR LAW: With regard to the first question (Mr. Lambert's), we do recognise the importance of the Agriculture and Fisheries (Councils, etc.) Bill. I cannot say anything definite as to when we shall take it, but we shall try to get
1320
a suitable opportunity. As to the second question (Mr. Billing's), I hope that may be so, but my hopes have often been disappointed.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the House should have the opportunity of seeing this Bill in its final printed form before we commit ourselves irrevocably?
Mr. BONAR LAW: We will see what happens to-day. I should not like to commit myself.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Major Edward Wood; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Samuel Scott.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had added the following Member to the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Colonel Sir John Hope.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Deputation of Former Enemy Aliens.)
    (1) Every former enemy alien who is now in the United Kingdom shall be deported forthwith unless he shall within one month after the passing of this Act make an application to the Secretary of State in the prescribed form to be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom, stating the special grounds on which such application is based, and unless the Secretary of State after duo inquiry shall grant him a licence to remain.
    (2) The applicant shall advertise notice of his application in some paper circulating in the district in which he resides or in which, if he is interned, he was residing previously to his internment.
    (3) The Secretary of State may, not less than one calendar month after the date of such advertisement, if he is satisfied that there is no adverse report on the applicant by the military or by the police authorities, grant such licence, subject to such terms and conditions (if any) as he shall think fit, on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:

    (a) That the applicant, although a former enemy alien, is in fact a member of a nation or a race hostile to the states recently at war with His Majesty and is well disposed to His Majesty and his Government;

    (b) That the applicant is seventy years of age or upwards and has been at least fifteen years resident in the United Kingdom;

    (c) That the applicant is suffering from serious illness or infirmity of a permanent nature;

    (d) That the applicant has one or more sons who voluntarily enlisted and served in the British Navy or Army or the Navy or Army of one of the Allied Powers;

    (e) That the applicant has lived for at least thirty-five years in this country and married a British-born wife;

    (f) That the applicant, although her husband is a former enemy alien living abroad or deported, was at the time of her marriage a British subject or citizen of an allied state.

    (4) If the application for a licence is made on any ground other than one or more of those above specified, the Secretary of State either shall refuse the application or may. if he is satisfied that owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case deportation would involve serious hardship of a personal nature on the applicant, grant him a licence under this Section.
    (5) In granting a licence under this Section, the Secretary of State may include in the licence the wife of the applicant and any child or children of his under the age of eighteen.
    (6) A list of the persons to whom such licence is granted together with a statement of the special grounds on which it is granted and of the exceptional circumstances (if any) under
    1350
    which it is granted shall, as soon as may be after the granting of the licence, be published in the Gazette.
    (7) Any licence so granted may be at any time revoked by the Secretary of State.
    (8) If such licence is not granted or if, having been granted, it shall be revoked, the Secretary of State shall make an Order (in this Act referred to as a Deportation Order) requiring the alien to leave the United Kingdom and thereafter to remain out of the United Kingdom for a period of seven years after the passing of this Act. The Secretary of State may, by a Deportation Order, require the alien to return to the country of which he is a subject or citizen.
    Adjourned Debate resumed on Amendment [3rd November], to leave out Clause 8.—[Colonel Wedgwood.]
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'one' ["within one month"], stand part of the. Bill."
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: At the Adjournment last night I was pointing out that the proposed Amendments to which the Home Secretary alluded as the justification for his change of front in no way affected the fundamental objection which he had urged to Clause 8 in its original form, as passed by the Committee. In the Clause as introduced by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) there always was a discretion to the Home Office to go outside the categories where, owing to exceptional circumstances, deportation would involve serious hardship of a personal nature upon the man. As to the other point which the Home Secretary laboured, that of the great assistance he would have from the Advisory Committee, there was nothing in the Clause, as passed upstairs, which would have prevented him appointing Advisory Committees without any further reference to this House.
    Therefore the cogent arguments which were adduced by the Home Secretary in Standing Committee A against the category system were in no way affected by the Amendments which he had put down on the details of these particular categories. Last night we were assured that there was no bargain between the Government and a certain group in this House that they would accept Clause 8, and as the Clause remains essentially in the form to which they objected in Standing Committee, we can only assume that the change of attitude is due, not to any conviction on the part of the Government, but to a perfectly proper desire on their part to meet the wishes of the majority

    1351
    of the House of Commons. I do not think the decision of this House on the pilotage question has got any bearing whatever on this entirely separate problem of the repatriation of aliens; and with the best will in the world no one in this House can say what the general feeling about Clause 8 may be, and if the Government really want to get the wish of the House do not let them go by a hole-and-corner discussion with a few Members last week, but let them take off the Government Whips and see what the House really wants. Yesterday the hon. and learned Member for York based his plea for this Clause very largely on his own election pledges and on those of the Government, but, as is sometimes the case with a very able advocate, he proved rather too much, because he quoted the declared policy of the Government to send back to Germany every Boche in this country. The Clause does nothing of the kind, and if there is anything in my hon. and learned Friend's contention he ought to withdraw this Clause and bring in a much shorter Clause to say that every German, whether or not he has been in this country thirty-five years, whether or not lie has got a British wife, whether or not he has served in the British Army, or whatever he may have done in the War, shall be deported out of hand. But, of course, the Clause does nothing of the kind, and my hon. and learned Friend knows that such an extreme measure is absolutely out of the question.
    The real issue, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, is one of method, and it is probable that the method favoured by the hon. and learned Member would, in fact, allow more exemptions, owing to the cast-iron category system, than by leaving the responsibility on the Home Secretary to try every case on its merits, acting through an Advisory Committee. But we have got to remember that on this particular question in the War there were a great many people who found that violent language about unarmed aliens, interned or otherwise, in this country was far easier and far safer than going out and killing the dangerous alien enemies on the Western Front, and now that they have no longer got this convenient and popular cry in which to indulge, to have left the Home Office to proceed by the tried and safe methods of Mr. Justice Younger's Committee would not have allowed these super-patriots to pose as having again saved the country from
    1352
    the dangers of a pro-German sentiment. But in this House surely we ought to get away from all this election claptrap. I object to this Clause because I think it unfair. Whatever may be the intention of the hon. and learned Member for York to exempt those cases which have already been tried by the Committee on which he sat or by the Committee of Mr. Justice Younger, as the Clause stands all these cases would have to come up for a fresh decision, and I object to the Clause because it throws over all the careful work which has been done by those Committees who have gone at great length and in great detail into these individual cases. Two of these Committees sat in the War, when the danger from aliens was greater, and certainly the strength of feeling against aliens in this country was no less than it is at the present time. If there is any fresh evidence against the alien today, there is ample power for the Home Office to deal with him under the present law, and, failing fresh evidence against individuals, surely there must be some limit to the number of times that these cases are to be re-tried. At the time of the Armistice there were 21,000 uninterned enemy aliens in this country. They were all dealt with, as was mentioned last night, by Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee of 115.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my hon. Friend excuse me? I said last night, expressly, that of the 21,000 enemy aliens in this country in 1918 only, I think. 3,250 had their cases reviewed by Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The second Committee of Mr. Justice Sankey?
    Sir J. BUTCHER: In 1918, yes.
    4.0 P.M.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: We are quite in agreement. I say that those 21,000 had all been tried by a Committee which sat in 1915, the early days of the War, and the hon. and learned Member last night made a point that though some of these cases were reconsidered in 1918 a large number, in fact the bulk, of those cases were never again considered, but he did not mention, and I do not think anyone mentioned last night, that in those cases which escaped the attention of the Committee on which he sat the police have carefully been watching them, and in hundreds of cases where there was any doubt whatever they have been brought up since before Mr. Justice Younger's Committee. I

    1353
    think that is a far safer method, to put the onus on the police rather than to have a hard and fast rule that all these 21,000 cases are to be gone into again. Of the aliens who were interned, a large number of them were interned not because they were dangerous, but for their own protection and because it was impossible for them to support themselves outside those areas which were prohibited for alien habitation. Surely it is ridiculous that those people who have just gone through the mesh of Mr. Justice Younger's Committee should again be hauled up for further proceedings. Apart from the objection to trying all these people over again, it does seem to me very unjust to proceed by the method of categories. The fate of many of these people is of urgent importance, not only to themselves, but to British wives and to children born in this country, and, as is pointed out by Mr. Justice Younger in the Report which was circulated two days ago, these aliens by their attempted adhesion to this country in time of war committed themselves to an act of treason against Germany while the legend of German invincibility was still current. What is going to be the fate of these people if they are kicked out of this country and sent back to Germany? Quite apart from the injustice in the individual cases, I feel that the Clause adopts the wrong method. I believe we are all agreed on the object. The hon. and learned Member opposite does not want to turn out all the aliens in this country any more than I do. He only wants to turn out, as we all want to turn out, the dangerous aliens. He recognises, I have no doubt, that in in the interests of British industry and in the interests of British-born women and children it would be inadvisable, impracticable and harsh to turn out all enemy aliens, and, in the words he quoted:
    "send back to Germany every Boche."
    Therefore the hon. and learned Gentleman would leave discretion to the Home Office, but he would largely take away the value of that discretion by tying their hands. The fact that that discretion is left at all gives away the whole case for this Clause and shows that the Clause is mere eye-wash for electioneering purposes. We have the evidence of those best qualified to judge from practical experience that you cannot work on a hard and fast rule. Mr. Justice Younger in his Report-
    1354
    a Report no doubt framed after reading this Bill—said that his Committee
    "soon reached the conclusion that if their representations were to be justified in some instances on grounds of humanity, in others on those of fairness—to say nothing of the national welfare and good name of this country—it was essential to examine every case on its merits. No generalisation was possible."
    Surely the House does not know enough about the matter to set its own opinion above that of the Committee which dealt with thousands of cases, and to lay down in a few lines of an Act of Parliament this generalisation which Mr. Justice Younger found was impossible. If you lay down a rule at all, even if it is far better drafted than any of the rules which have been put forward, it will be very difficult for the Home Office in practice to deport. The Home Office officials will very naturally say, "If Parliament thinks it is all right as a general principle for a resident of thirty-five years in this country with a British wife to stay here, we need not worry about making any further inquiries." We must in these matters avoid the tendency to fly to extremes. There is no doubt whatever that we were culpably negligent during and before the War, but let us see that in the reaction against our pre-war carelessness we do not fall into a danger of another kind. I hope the House will reject this Clause on the one hand, because I believe that it will not stop the dangerous alien, who will easily be able to drive a coach and four through your precious categories; and, on the other hand, because many of those who will be caught in its net will be the very cases who, in the interests of our British industries, not to speak of humanity and fairness, should be allowed to remain in this country.
    Sir ERNEST WILD: I listened to the whole of the Debate with interest last evening and again to-day to the remnant of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down. There are two currents of thought running through the Debate—first, the question of principle and, second, the question of method. With regard to the question of principle, that was laid down from his point of view by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not present, because I wanted to say a word or two about his speech. He laid down the principle from his point of view in these words:
    "We ought not to keep open a wound which ought to be healed."

    1355
    He gave us an admirable discourse on class hatred, of which, of course, he is in a peculiar position to be an exponent. That does represent many of the speeches we have heard on this Clause. There is a feeling among some Members that the sooner we make friends with the Germans the better, and that we want to forget and forgive. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the deletion of the Clause talked about
    "a country with which we are now at peace."
    That drew sympathetic cheers from some hon. Members who were here. We had a very pathetic allusion to "women's tears." Women's tears were the tears of women who had married Germans, and who cried if their husbands were deported. It really is remarkable. Any stranger who, coming to this country for the first time since the Armistice, on entering this House would be astounded to find that within less than a year from the Armistice there was all this invertebrate sentimentality with regard 10 our enemies. It reminds me of the lines in the "Mikado"—
    "The idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone every century but this and every country but his own."
    There is a feeling among some people in this country that they have always to think of the alien and of everybody but their own people. Women's tears‡ What about the Hun who caused millions of our women to shed tears? Those are the people I care about; those are the people for whom I should have expected to elicit sympathetic cheers from my hon. Friends opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby told us about "a young lady of Gloucester." Nobody could quite follow what happened to her. Apparently she went to Germany, and married a German. I have read the report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I do not know where the "young lady of Gloucester" is at the present moment. As I had the privilege of saying in my maiden speech in this House, if it is the point of view of any of my hon. Friends that we ought to consider the feelings of our enemy aliens or their dependants, then I do not think it is any use arguing with them; we are on entirely different planes.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Thank God for that!
    Sir E. WILD: As I am vociferously and ironically applauded by the hon. and gal-
    1356
    lant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), I pray heaven that I may always be on a different plane from him. That is the position with regard to the people of this country. I am not going to indulge in any rhodomantade or any sort of rhetoric on this matter, because we want to consider it calmly and dispassionately. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness), whose speech I listened to with unfailing regret, talked about "eye-wash,'' "election claptrap," and matters of that kind. I understand it is the province of a Member of Parliament to represent his constituents. There is no doubt that the general feeling among the people of this country, men and women, is one of hatred against all Germans, although there may be, and I trust there are, exceptions. This Clause makes provision for them. That is what the people think, and that is what we, as representatives of the people, are here to interpret. That feeling has been well expressed in the lines—
    "It was not part of their blood,
    It came to them very late,
    With long arrears to make good
    When the English began to hate."
    That is the feeling. Some of my hon. Friends may deplore it. It will be the truth at all events for this generation. I need not recapitulate the facts—the general adulation by the German people of the "Lusitania" massacres, the horrible brutality committed by the Huns and applauded by the whole of the German people almost without exception. That feeling cannot die simply because we have signed an Armistice or even because we have signed a Peace. That being the fact, it is quite idle for the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds to talk about the "stunt Press" and "electioneering claptrap." It was what was said at the Election. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear !"] Those cheers admit my point. My hon. Friends opposite have the candour to admit that it helped to win the Election. Having helped to win the Election, it is quite unnecessary to elaborate the point that we are here to redeem our pledges.
    Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: This Clause does not turn the Germans out.
    Sir E. WILD: If my hon. and gallant Friend will contain himself for a moment —I am not so accustomed to address the House as he is—perhaps lie will allow me

    1357
    to come to the matter point by point. I am cooling to the point to which he referred, but, if he will allow me, I will do it in my own way. The point he makes is the ordinary dialectical point that if you do not like a Clause you say it does not go far enough. Because this Clause does not say they are to turn out every Boche, they say it is some dereliction from principle. The Clause says that, primâ facie, every alien is to be deported. But as the Clause will be amended if the Home Secretary's Amendments are accepted it will provide that he, assisted by an expert Committee, shall be enabled to consider exemptions. Then certain exemptions are put into the Clause and others are upon the Order Paper. In order that there shall be no hardship at all these words will appear that
    "Owing to the special—"
    I understand the right hon. Gentleman is to move the word "special" instead of the word "exceptional"—
    "circumstances of the case if deportation would involve serious hardship—"
    I understand the words "of a personal nature" are to come out—
    "on the applicant "
    then a licence may be granted. Therefore, not only are we going to put in every specific exception, but we leave in that general provision under which many of the cases that have almost drawn tears from my hon. Friends will be considered and in proper cases exemptions will be granted. On the question of principle those who feel that the hatred for Germans cannot die out, at all events for some years to come and ought not to die out, are most diametrically opposed to those who would forgive, forget, and make friends with them.
    May I deal with the other point with regard to method? A good deal of chaff, some of it good-humoured, has been hurled at the Home Secretary and the Government for what is called a change of front. It has been alleged again and again that there has been some sort of bargain made with some of their supporters. Although that has been denied by the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General, that denial has not been accepted as I think it ought to be accepted in Parliament. I wish to bear my humble testimony that there was no sort of bargain. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was it discussed?"] What has happened is this, This Bill was debated on the first day of
    1358
    the Autumn Session. It was perfectly obvious to the Government, I imagine—I speak as a humble supporter of them—that the general feeling of the Rouse was not with the Government in the attitude they then adopted. There were two Divisions on the Wednesday, and in those Divisions, although the Government Whips were on, a great number of their supporters, in fact, the majority of their supporters, went into the Lobby against them. I am not talking about the Pilots Division, which was more or less a misunderstanding, but the Division about employment and the Division about another subject which escapes me at the moment. It was obvious, although the Government Whips were on—and my hon. and gallant Friend vigorously asked the Government to take the Whips off in this instance—that there was a large section of the normal supporters of the Coalition Ministry, those who want to support them if they can, who did not approve of the attitude that the Government at that moment were adopting. Is it a bargain for the Government to recognise facts? Is it a bargain because the Government see that the line that was taken at a particular moment was not the line that recommended itself to the majority of their supporters? The next point is one that ought to appeal to all. We had a, Grand Committee upstairs on this subject, and we discussed this matter for eight days. This is the Clause that that Committee, after due consideration, recommended, and it certainly behoves the Government, I imagine, to pay some attention to the labours of a Committee that they themselves have appointed.
    There is this further point to be made in favour of the Home Secretary: Under this Clause, by the Amendments which he will recommend to the House, he will get an Advisory Committee and he will get general directions to that Advisory Committee, with an added discretion for himself. He therefore gets all that he has been contending for in all the discussions on this Bill. Really, a good deal of the criticism that has been directed against this Bill has proceeded from certain Members on certain Committees who think that their labours have been wasted. Let me respectfully assure them that their labours have not been wasted. If this matter goes before another Committee, and if a man can prove that he comes within any of these categories, all that he has to do is to bring that fact

    1359
    before the Committee and satisfy them. It would not take one minute. Under this special proviso, there is protection in proper cases against any hardship to the enemy alien with a British wife. I do not say for a moment that because a British woman has been shortsighted enough to marry a German that German is to be allowed to remain in this country for all time. I do not suppose that any hon. Member will advance that proposition. On the other hand, it is quite reasonable, if a British woman has married a German and they have lived here for a great many years and the German is perfectly innocuous, to suppose that will be a special circumstance which the Committee will consider, and which the Home Secretary will very properly take into account. There is one other point I would like to see in the Bill rather than left to Orders in Council. It would prevent any suspicion in the country—and there is suspicion in the country—regarding what is called "the hidden hand" protecting any highly placed alien. My hon. and gallant Friend talked about a highly placed alien being able to drive a coach-and-four through these provisions. It would be much more difficult for him to do it if this were done by Act of Parliament than it would be if he could bring influence, real or imaginary, to bear upon any public Department.
    The last point on which I wish to defend the consistency of my right hon. Friend is this. The whole question between him and those who took a different view on the Committee is whether this ought to be done by Order in Council or by positive legislation. There is no question of principle between my right hon. Friend and myself and those who agree with me. One gladly recognises that the administration of my right hon. Friend with regard to aliens has been firm, and that he is just as desirous that they should be excluded as any Member of this House. But there was a time—and this is the whole secret of the question, if secret there be—when he thought that an Order in Council was a more convenient method. The House, however, by its action last week, has convinced the Government that procedure by Order in Council is not very popular with a democratic House of Commons. The real reason that we want to see this in black and white in a Bill, and not left dependent upon Home Secretaries, is that
    1360
    we do not want to see a repetition—someone may succeed my right hon. Friend—of that appalling piece of departmental management on the part of Lord Gladstone, when, the Aliens Act having passed the House in 1905, he drove a coach and four through it. Therefore, the real point that the House is asked to determine is whether or not a policy upon which all lovers of their country are agreed is better done by Order in Council or by Act of Parliament, and in my humble judgment the latter is the best course.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: There was one sentence in the speech of the hon. and learned Member (Sir E. Wild) with which we on these benches wholly agreed. He said that he found himself on an entirely different plane from us. We feel that we are on a different plane, and we desire to remain on a different plane from the hon. and learned Member. There is one other curious thing to which I will draw attention. This Clause was moved by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), and it was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, and the hon. and learned Member for West Ham (Sir E. Wild). Its rejection was moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), seconded by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Mid-Antrim (Major O'Neill), whose brother, a distinguished member of this assembly, was the first to give his life in our cause. The rejection of the Clause has been supported by soldiers, and opposed wholly by attorneys. If it be a question of selection which is the patriotic side, then on the whole I would rather be with the soldiers. But I do not wish to give the impression that we are unreasonable in our point of view. We are prepared to accept the proposition which was made by the Government, namely, that the Home Secretary should have the power to consider cases and make Orders, and when Orders were made, that they should be laid before this House and this House should have the power of saying whether or no the Orders were properly made. That was proposed by the Government, and that is the course which appears to us to meet all the needs of the case and to allow for amply dealing with any ease that may necessarily have to be dealt with.

    1361
    What is the history of this Clause? This Clause was moved by the hon. and learned Member for York in Committee, and the Home Secretary poured ridicule upon it. He said that it was quite the wrong way to go to work. The hon. and learned Gentleman persisted, and he got his way. He carried the Clause in Committee, and we are now discussing whether or not it is a reasonable Clause. I would ask hon. Members to read some of the Sub-sections in it. Take the first paragraph. An enemy alien is defined as being an alien, a members of any country with which we were at war in the year 1918. Are the Russians to be considered as enemy aliens? We were at war with Russia during a great part of 1918, after the Armistice. Are they to be considered enemy aliens under this Bill? It appears to me, as the Clause is introduced, that it would certainly apply to Russian subjects in this country. I would ask hon. Gentlemen to read the second Sub-section. It forces a man who is going to apply for an exemption, and whose affections and interests are probably all bound up with this country, to advertise the fact in his local paper in order, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said in Committee, that anyone in the district who has a grudge against him may give secret information to the police or military. Sub-section (3) says that a man shall not come under this Clause, though a former enemy alien, if in fact he is a member of a nation or race hostile to the States recently at war with His Majesty. I have never heard anybody define what that means. I suppose it is intended to cover cases like the Czechs. What about the Balkan States? This is supposed to be a legislative proposal by an hon. and learned Gentleman. Are members of the Balkan States described in this Sub-section as being of a race hostile to the States recently at war with His Majesty? What about the Hungarians? Is Hungary included in the Sub-section? Is that the proposal solemnly brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has convinced the Standing Committee that it is the right course to pursue?
    Paragraph (b) is a savage proposal—that anybody under the age of seventy years should not be permitted to remain. If an enemy alien came here five years ago at the age of sixty-five for some illicit purpose and he is now over seventy years of age he is to be permitted to stay, but if a man was brought over here in 1850 as a baby and is now sixty-nine, he
    1362
    must be deported according to the hon. and learned Member. Then, according to paragraph (c), if the applicant is suffering from a serious illness or an infirmity, of a permanent nature he is to be allowed to remain. If a man is a spy and has only one eye or a wooden leg he is to be permitted to stay. That is certainly so, because it is an infirmity of a permanent nature to have only one eye. I would really draw the attention of the House to paragraph (d). It is drawn by an hon. and learned Member who professes to be able to guide this House in legislation. It is an exemption for a man whose son has served in the Army or Navy. The hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten the Air Force. Paragraph (f), I venture to say, is an infamous provision. Under it no provision is made for the wives of enemy aliens to remain in this country. Sub-section (5) provides for children under the age of eighteen. Supposing a man came here with a family, and is now over seventy, and he has a young family, the eldest of whom is over eighteen, and is the breadwinner. All the other children, the old man, and probably the old woman, who are helpless, are to be permitted to remain; and the young fellow who is over eighteen, and is the breadwinner is to be compulsorily deported by Act of Parliament. I will not say anything about Clause 8, which gives the Home Secretary power to send people back to the country to which they are supposed to belong—sending back, perhaps, a sympathiser with a monarchist regime to a Bolshevik Russia—the sort of thing which is a national outrage on the traditions of this country. Let us consider the history of this. It is proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee. The Home Secretary very properly resists: He says the proper way to do it is by Order in Council. He resists it, and comes to the House of Commons and puts on the Paper an Amendment to reject the Clause. Then the Government is defeated, and a conference takes place at Downing Street. No bargain was made, it is said, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: Was Clause 8 discussed at the conference?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)was understood to indicate assent.
    Captain BEN N: We may take it then that Clause 8 was discussed. No bargain was made, but, after the conference, the Home Secretary takes off his own Motion

    1363
    to reject the Clause. That is not a bargain. I ask Members of the Coalition who are supposed to be Liberals what they think? After all, this is not a matter which concerns the Whole House, but concerns many Members of this House who were returned to support the Liberal tradition. What do they think of a so-called Liberal Minister being made a puppet of the party below the Gangway? Of course this is a domestic affair of our own, but, at the same time, is there any wonder that some of us feel somewhat bitterly about it? There is one phase of the whole matter that has not been discussed at all, and that is the question of reprisals. Does anyone deny that if we deport all persons of enemy countries, those enemy countries have not the right to do the same with regard to us? Then what is going to be the effect of an Order for the deportation of all British people from Germany, Bulgaria, Austria, and Turkey? [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Russia?"] We do not know; Russia has not been explained. Take the case of our great Eastern trade. Everyone knows that business in Constantinople, which is carried on by Englishmen is very large and very profitable. Does anyone deny that in the event of the passage of this Clause it would be open to the Turkish Government to send about his business every Englishman in Constantinople? And Bulgaria—are we to leave the exploitation of the Balkans entirely to the Americans? Supposing Bulgaria turns out every Englishman who is attempting to reconstruct the trade in those prosperous parts of the world. Really, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting, in deference to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, that we are to destroy our trade in these countries because of the fatuous policy of the Government? No one has attempted to deal with this matter, or to say what will be the result of this Clause in the direction to which I have referred. It is not really in a material spirit that we oppose this Clause at all. We oppose it for other reasons altogether. The hon. and learned Member for the Upton Division of West Ham (Sir E. Wild) thought fit to ridicule women's tears. That is the sort of sentiment that is expressed in this House.
    Sir E. WILD: I did not ridicule any women's tears.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Sit down!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is the last person to object to an explanation.
    Sir E. WILD: May I be allowed to explain? I have been misrepresented. I did not ridicule any women's tears, but the only tears I cared about were the tears of our own people.
    Captain BEN N: I have no desire to misrepresent the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he does not understand that the tears of the women of the world have welded the women of the world together in a determination to put a stop to all this sort of hatred and suspicion, and he does not understand that the people who suffer in war get a sympathy with one another. It is said that this is based on the principle of 1816. We do not want the principle of 1816. We believe this country is now to enter into the Council of the League of Nations with Germany and the other enemy Powers. We want to go into that Council able to say, "We have beaten Germany; she deserved to be beaten; and now that she is beaten we desire to see friendship established in the world." That, at any rate, is in accordance with the high traditions of this country and of this House, and if the Government is really bound by some agreement to the Titus Oates party, all that I say is, that if they have only got their coupon on condition that they pass this Clause, let the Government take off their Whips and let the House have an opportunity of vindicating its honour.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I listened almost with pleasure to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I should like to congratulate him on his very energetic speech, but I think the energy was a little out of proportion to the subject we are discussing. I should like. to make one or two remarks on his speech before I deal with the subject. He said that Germany might retaliate by turning out all Englishmen. That assumes, to begin with, that we are going to turn out all Germans. That is neither the proposal in the Clause nor the proposal in the Amendment, and I would like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether his proposal is that all Germans should be allowed to stay here?
    Captain BENN: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman. My proposal is that where the safety of the country requires the removal of an alien, let him be removed.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: And that is the sole ground of our proposal. I think all this talk about different planes is a little exaggerated. At bottom I do not think there is so much difference between the moral plane of one section of the House and another, as one would gather from this Debate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says we are proposing to send all the Germans away. We are not sending all of them away. Might I remind the House that the whole of this energetic speech was in favour of one method, namely, by Order in Council instead of the Bill? Does he mean to imply that the Turks will not retaliate if we use an Order in Council, but that they will if we use the Bill? My hon. and gallant Friend made some other interesting remarks. He told us that those in favour of his view were all soldiers and those against it were all lawyers. I think the Division list will show that that is not so. About the only thing that struck me about that remark was that it was rather hard on one branch of the legal profession, the only branch represented in the Discussion, with one exception. I think they belong to what is called, erroneously no doubt, the higher branch of the profession. Then my hon. and gallant Friend made another very interesting remark. He appealed to those who call themselves Liberals and who support the Government. Well, after his experience and that of my right hon. Friend a. few days ago, I should have thought he had enough to do in dealing with his own Liberals, and that he might leave ours to look after themselves. I admit I have not followed this as closely as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I may, perhaps, not thoroughly understand all the intricacies of this question, but I have tried to, and, as far as I. do understand it, I think all this discussion is entirely wide of the mark, and that there is very little difference in practical results between the two methods which are under discussion.
    I must first say a word or two about two aspects of the discussion, though not of the question, which have greatly interested the House. They are amazed that the Government should put down an Amendment and then a week afterwards should themselves be supporting the Clause which they wished to remove. I would remind the House that Governments very frequently change the Amendments in the course of a Bill going through the House of Commons. One would think that
    1366
    such a thing had never happened before. It happens constantly. I would say this, further: The idea that the Government is not to consult particular sections of the House in regard to particular Amendments is contrary not only to the whole experience of government in the House of Commons, but is contrary to common sense. I have had a good deal longer experience in Opposition than as a member of the Government, but I have myself piloted one Bill through this House—the Military Service Bill. I say to the House that any Minister who is worth anything —I do not pretend that I am worth a great deal—looks at the Order Paper every day before he comes down to the House. He sees what Amendments are down and what amount of support is behind them. Before he comes to the House he goes into the Amendments, and he regularly gets into contact with people who are going to move the Amendments, and when he can meet them on the Amendments he tells them so, and over and over again hours of the time of the House are saved. I will instance the Case of the Bill to which I have just referred. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was assisting. He is a very old hand at this sort of thing, and he adopted a very astute method in regard to particular Amendments, It depended upon whether the person moving the Amendment was more likely to be influenced by the glory of making a speech or the glory of getting his Amendment. I saw it succeed many times. He said to the Gentleman who was to move the Amendment, "If you make a speech I will not give it to you, but if you move it without a speech we will accept it." There is no crime in that.
    Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: And not much principle either.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is good tactics in it, at, any rate, and nobody would have said anything about it had it not been for the meeting in Downing Street the other day. The only difference is that we asked these Gentlemen who had been identified with this Amendment to come to Downing Street and to talk about it. It was done a little more openly than these. arrangements are generally done, but I say, so far as I am concerned, that, so long as I am a member of the Government and responsible to this House, I shall not only claim the right to meet hon. Members, but I shall think I am very foolish if I cannot come to an agreement so far as possible.

    1367
    As regards a bargain, that is a more serious matter. If the suggestion is that the Government, under the fear of being defeated, made a bargain with hon. Gentlemen whom we met the other day, and under that bargain agreed to do something to avoid an adverse Vote in this House, which we thought unjust, then I say that would be a very serious charge, and we should be very much ashamed of ourselves if we had done it. There is nothing of the kind. What really happened was this. Before we ever met or consulted —I believe it was the night after we were defeated. And does the House expect me to assume that an incident of that kind takes place without our paying any attention to it? It does not. It is a little like what Dr. Johnson said of the clergyman ministering to a condemned man: "Nothing will concentrate your mind so much as the knowledge you are going to be hanged to-morrow." It did make us pay closer attention than we had done before to the particular point. Do not let the House suppose that my right bon. Friend had gone on with this alone; the Cabinet shared in the responsibility. He told us what he proposed to do, and we approved of it. When I discussed it with him before we came down to the House I said, "I see the Committee has carried through this Clause. Can you not get what you want by an Amendment of the Clause, instead of going right against the decision of the Committee upstairs, and deleting it altogether?" The House may say that I should have thought of that before. Very likely I should have done so; but it is of the highest degree important that if these Grand Committees are to be quite successful that their decisions should not be thrown aside by this House, if it possibly can be avoided. That is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take. We met—there is no mystery about it—the hon. Gentlemen to whom reference has been made. We said to them: "Let us hear your point of view, and we will consider to what extent, without going back on what we think is right, we can meet you." That is the bargain! Nothing more nor less. Is there anything, I ask the House, in that bargain which the Government is not only entitled to make, but wise to make? So much for that.
    Let us come to the point in dispute. I myself believe that in the result there is nothing to choose between the two methods. It is all very well to say that my right hon. Friend to-day is supporting what a week ago he opposed. That is not
    1368
    so. Anyone who looks at the Clause which stands in the Bill and compares it with the Clause as it will be after amendment in accordance with our Amendment, will see that the proposals are not by any means the same, but radically different. That has been admitted, I think, by hon. Members in the House yesterday, and it has been admitted by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Wild) to-day. The difference really is a very great one. As the Clause came from Committee it had no Advisory Committee in it, and it seemed to me that the wording of it gave the impression of which my right hon. Friend spoke—that nobody would be exempt except those who were specially down in the category. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] That is not the meaning, not in the least; on the contrary, the Clause as it will stand, if these Amendments are accepted, means this: that there will be a wide discretion—as wide as my right hon. and learned Friend would exercise in any case—to deal with every case of hardship, and that tins Statute will be there with this advantage, that everyone who comes within it will automatically escape the need for deportation. Suppose this Clause were not adopted, the result would simply be that my right hon. Friend would be allowed to deal with the subject in his own way. He would deal with it, I believe, in precisely the same way as it will be dealt with under this Clause. He would have to appoint a Committee to carry out the work, whereas this Clause decides the Committee by which this work will be done. It is a great mistake to suppose that the people who take the view which was largely held in the country at the time of the election—and I think it is largely held now—that now that peace has come we do not want to stir up hatred or anything of the kind, do not feel very strongly. I confess I share that view. We cannot immediately forget all these things. But I say that those who take the other view and who think that they are helping on the cause of getting rid of this hatred by pressing their point of view—I am sure they are wrong—are creating in the country a feeling that there is a large body of people at the head of affairs who are very tender to these aliens—who entertain and support the idea that they have not been good citizens and that they will be better in their Own country—if they give that impression I am convinced that the result will be that the Germans who are left will have a much worse time than if

    1369
    the country is satisfied that their cases are all being looked into, and that those only are being allowed to stay who can stay without danger to the country.
    Before I met this criminal conspiracy in Downing Street, and when 1 discussed the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend, I was, I confess, under the illusion that seems to exist in the case of many hon. Members who have been making speeches, that these people had gone through two Committees, and, therefore, I at once agreed to the deletion of the Clause. I said to myself—and I believe I will be supported by the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who are not so inhuman towards the Germans as hon. Members opposite seem to imagine: If the people who have gone through the mill of these two Committees and, after doing it, have not been interned, even when the country was in danger—if these people who have stood that are now to be sent out of the country whatever their position, I think that is utterly unreasonable, and I hope the House of Commons will take the same view. That is not the position. A certain number were examined in 1915; others in 1918 and 1919. In regard to those who were only examined in 1915 I do say that after three and a half years of war that the position is quite changed. It is not unreasonable that there should be another examination before we allow these people to become permanent citizens in this country. It is unfair to take single utterances in a speech without looking up the context. For instance, I noted a reference to one of the speeches of the Prime Minister. I have read more of the speech; but never for a moment did he say that every German, without exception, was to be bundled out of the country. What I myself have said was that those people who have been so dangerous during the War and who for our safety were interned—
    An HON. MEMBER: And for their sake, too!
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I say for ourselves —I may be allowed to put it in my own way—where these people, for our safety, were interned, then they were not good citizens, and I should like to see them sent back. That is perfectly plain. It is not the extreme view that large-minded people have to condemn. We have got to deal with human beings as human beings. We cannot imagine that the country at once
    1370
    should be in the same condition as before all these terrible things happened, but I say this, if the position were as put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Antrim, it really means that we were going to disregard altogether the work which has been done by the Committee of which he is a member, and of which Sir Robert Younger was chairman, or the later work of Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee. It means we were to disregard all that. I say that would not only be unjust but absurd.
    Major O'NEILL: Would the Government accept Amendments to this Clause excluding from the purview of the proposed Committee those people who had successfully gone through the 1918 Committee or the 1919?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as I am concerned, I think that is fair. That is my view. I do not believe there is this difference. The suggestion of the discussion is that the Government were making the most of the situation; and it had been driven into this against our better thought. If it had not been for that, the whole difference would have been as to method and what was best. What is the difference in method? In my belief, if this Clause is carried my right hon. and. learned Friend will act in precisely the same way as if it were not there at all. The difference is this: As at first proposed, the matter would have been accomplished by an Order in Council, but it is possible that there may be a. change in the office of Home Secretary before it is carried out, and that there may be some occupant who may come there and who did not want to carry out the distinct will of the House. That is the difference between these methods, an Order in Council or an Instruction being put in the Bill itself. If you look at it in this way, I myself am in favour of putting what the House of Commons wishes into the Bill, and not proceeding by Order in Council. That is really the whole subject we have been debating so long, and I venture to suggest to the House that whatever difference of opinion there may be the House should now come to a decision.
    The point was raised whether or not we should put on the Whips. I am quite indifferent about it. My right hon. Friend expressed the opinion that it is only a question of method. Suppose we put on the Whips, after a statement of that kind

    1371
    it would be ridiculous to regard it as a question of a vote of confidence in the Government. I have no objection whatever to leaving this to the free vote of the House. If I leave it, I leave with it—for what it is worth—my own strong expression of opinion as to the method in the Bill, and on the question of working, and still more from the point of view of treating the Grand Committees with the utmost respect we can. I am convinced that this is a better method, and I am ready to leave it there. But if we do it in this case we must also do it in the other Amendments which I have said I am ready to accept. We cannot pick and choose. Therefore I say that to those who believe that they have a majority, and who have a desire to come to a decision. They wish the Whips to be taken off. If so, I am ready to take them off, and I hope the House will now come to a decision on the issue.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I would not have intervened in this discussion except on the declaration of my right hon. Friend that he is going to take the Whips off. I intervene for a few moments because I may get some votes in favour of this Clause being omitted. I want to approach this question entirely from the point of view of a dispassionate observer who has had a very considerable amount of experience in the investigation of this matter. I was a member of Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee which was set up in 1915, and we worked for twelve or eighteen months, and covered a large number of cases, and I was also a member of the second Committee set up under Mr. Justice Sankey with a considerable amount of fresh personnel, including the Member for the City of York (Sir J. Butcher). Therefore, I may claim that I approach this question with a considerable amount of personal experience. What is the real position? Do the Government and the House of Commons approach this question from the point of view of public safety or of prejudice? If it is from the point of view of public safety then I must ask what is the new position?
    All the interned enemy aliens have been subjected to the sifting process to which I have referred by the Committee of 1915. We dealt with them first in the mass and then in detail, and after all that had been done we had the advantage of a police
    1372
    report and a military report on every separate individual case, and following on that there was the general review of 1918 when again each of these cases was subjected to separate consideration. Finally we had the Report of Mr. Justice Younger, which is now in our hands, and his Committee after considering the question generally, came to the conclusion, as we did on each previous occasion, that the only safe way was to examine each case on its merits.
    With regard to the whole of the enemy interned aliens at the Armistice date nearly 84 per cent. of them have been repatriated and only 16 per cent. remain to be dealt with, and the whole of that in per cent. have been subjected to the careful examination of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents a division of Kilmarnock and also the hon. and gallant Member for Reigate (Brigadier-General Cockerill), and what was his position during the War? He was the head of the Military Secret Service specially charged with investigations of this kind. Therefore the whole question of the advisability of these enemy aliens who have been interned as to their being allowed to remain in this country has been subjected to a close and searching investigation. As to the others who have not been interned surely we are not going to deal more unfairly with them than we do with those who have been interned. Those who have not been subjected to this process are now to come within the scope of this Bill. Those who have been interned under circumstances of suspicion and those against no suspicion could be alleged and who have been exempted and allowed the ordinary amenities of British subjects with certain regulations as to their movements are now going to be brought within the ambit of this Bill. Surely my right hon. Friends opposite cannot possibly mean that. Those who have been left out because there was nothing against them to justify their internment are being brought within this Bill.
    With regard to those very few enemy aliens in our midst who have been expressly exempted from internment after the War they are to be pilloried in the local Press. Under the Government Amendment in regard to these cases every applicant has to advertise notice of his application in some paper in the district in which he resides, or in which he resided previously to his internment. Was

    1373
    there ever a more impossible or a less justifiable label and stigma put upon men and women who have been found harmless showing the extraordinary arid good results of the course already taken. Almost alone amongst the Allied nations this country was free from any outrage during the War which could be traced to enemy aliens. We had no attempts made by them at the destruction of bridges or railways, and the whole internal safety was assured in the most remarkable and extraordinary fashion. Is it public safety or prejudice? I think I have demonstrated with such information as I possess that it is not public safety. I admit that I joined those Committees with very different views to those I had three months after I had worked on those Committees. I took a very strict line, and it is with that knowledge and experience that I beg the House not to degrade its ancient traditions in dealing with the stranger within our gates.
    We get very little response in this House to that kind of feeling, but in spite of that I make this appeal: What has differentiated this country from all other European nations in its dealings with foreigners? On the whole we stood for generosity and for thinking the best of people, and for taking risks which, on the whole, have been thoroughly justified. We have brought within the ambit of our nationality men and women of every nation in the world who have enriched our citizenship in art, literature, and in every range of those subjects which contribute to the well-being and amenities of life, and after the War, when let us hope passion and prejudice have shown some signs of dying down, we call upon them to advertise themselves in the local Press. Many hon. Members of this House who have adorned it have sprung from alien races, such as Disraeli and Goschen. Any one of those ancestors of ours might have been alien enemies under such a proposal. The whole wide range of the Jewish nation might easily have been brought within this measure.
    I beg the House not to go back upon those traditions. Is there to be no response to the nobler ideals for which we fought in the War? Is it public safety or this low-grade prejudice which we legislate for? I cannot be charged with prejudice in favour of the enemy after my experience on those Committees, but is it any use to appeal to both my right hon. Friends opposite to take a wider and a more generous
    1374
    view? I thank the Government for taking the. Whips off, and I appeal to the House to give a response to the call which is felt amongst us, the call of tradition, the glorious and noble traditions of the past. I believe that call will find an echo, if not in a majority of hon. Members in the Lobbies, in the wise and generous common sense of the British people.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I only want to say one or two words to show why in the Division I shall vote for the exclusion of this Clause. I listened with great admiration to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and I thought he was quite right in saying that every Government, quite rightly, endeavoured to meet the views of their critics in the House of Commons from whatever point of view. I do not in the least complain that the Government should have endeavoured to meet the views of a particular section of this House, but. I think there is another observation which the right hon. Gentleman will agree with, and it is that the Government, while they are perfectly entitled to try and meet one section of opinion to a reasonable extent, other sections which do not agree with that section are not precluded from supporting their opinion because of an arrangement which the Government have made. I think on this particular occasion the arrangement made by the Government is open to criticism. In general it is the Government's business, as the executive, to ask for whatever powers they consider necessary in derogation of individual liberty in the public interest and the security of the State, and it is the business of the House of Commons to act in the interests of liberty and to see that the Government do not get more powers in derogation of individual liberty than the public safety requires. In this particular instance the Government have not adhered to that attitude. They are taking more powers than they themselves in the first instance thought necessary. They are allowing the House to impose upon them by Act of Parliament certain powers which they thought it sufficient to have by Order in Council. My right hon. Friend minimised the matter very much indeed; but I confess I prefer the first thoughts of the Government to their second thoughts. My right hon. Friend the other night told the story of Balaam as a, striking example of the error of preferring second thoughts to first,

    1375
    and once I remember a powerful sermon was preached by Cardinal Newman on the wickedness of second thoughts. I at any rate prefer first thoughts of the Government to their second. If it be true that the Home Office will administer this Clause in such a fashion as has been suggested it will amount to precisely the same thing as if the Clause did not exist at all and we shall have played a rather silly farce. I do not see the advantage of that. My right hon. Friend said it would gratify the feelings of the people who continue to hate the Germans. That seems to be true. There are a great many people who hate the Germans vehemently, and the Government by the insertion of this Clause, however it may be administered, are saying legislatively, "Damn the Germans," much in the same way as people on the Continent cry, "Damn the Golf Clubs."
    My hon. Friend, the Member for one of the Divisions of West Ham, was anxious to have the Clause because he wished to express his discontent and his fear of the Hidden Hand. I cannot understand why lie should be so afraid of the Hidden Hand. As I understand it, one of the characteristics of the Hidden Hand is that it can do anything with the Home Secretary. I always thought that that was the Hidden Hand's strong point, and in that case the Clause would be no protection for this country. Again we have been told of women's tears. We ought not to be restrained by anybody's tears from doing a judicious act. Two tears do not make a smile. It is no use thinking to compensate those whom the Germans made martyrs by making a number of English wives of German citizens shed a new lot of tears. Let us start in a more sober and tranquil vein, since veins are in fashion, and consider what really is in the public interest and what are the strict realities of fact. I cordially agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says you do not want a sentimental solution. Hatred is a sentiment. Let us get rid of all sentiment, of hatred, love and fear, and look straight at the simple facts. What are those facts? The Government did not want this Clause and they only put it in in order to please certain sections—the sections they wished to please being those who defeated them in the Division Lobby—a sort of kissing the rod, a graceful ceremony when performed with due humility.
    1376
    But that does not seem to me an adequate-reason for the Government action. They tell us there are dangers, and they want to take precautions against them. Of course they do. But nobody would seriously think the difference between an Act of Parliament and an Order in Council, or the process of examining those persons who have not been examined by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee, but who were examined by Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee represents all that is in the public interest.
    What is the purpose, then, of this Clause? It is merely to put into your Act of Parliament the phrase "enemy aliens "and to put a stigma, as it were, upon them. I believe this to be both foolish and mischievous—foolish because it cannot do any good to any human being and mischievous because it tends to keep up an attitude towards Germany and the Allies of Germany which it is essential for the prosperity of our country should be modified. I do not like the Germans. I do not trust the Germans. I do not propose ever to forget the crimes and perfidies of which some of them have been guilty. But let us-look at the facts of the case. We cannot kill the Germans all off. We have to put up with the knowledge that they are therein the middle of Europe, some 70,000,000. of them. We have to get on with them somehow or other. If it were a case of taking effective precautions against some dangerous tendency in Germany, I agree some action should be taken; but it appears to me that this is a wholly valueless precaution. We must try and get on with Germany. We have to trade with Germany and we must make the best of Germany, not because we forget how bad the Germans have been, but because they are a fact, and we must be loyal to facts. Putting aside all sentiments of love or hatred, the real truth of the matter is that there are 70,000,000 Germans in the world with whom we have to get on somehow. They may be perfidious, they may still be totally impenitent, and we must, therefore, take all precautions we think necesary against them. But do not viciously and foolishly try to put a stigma upon them which, if it produces any effect at all, will only make them worse and more hostile to this country and more disposed to revive the quarrels of the past. Look at it from a matter-of-fact point of view. We have to trade with Germany; we want a prosperous Germany, because that means a prosperous

    1377
    England. But do not let us have these foolish expedients in an Act of Parliament. Let us take proper precautions, whatever the confidential advisers of the Government deem to be necessary. Let us make the best of the situation, hoping that in process of time good will come out of a position which hitherto has produced nothing but evil.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I am one of those who spent three or four months inquiring into hundreds and thousands of these cases, and I, therefore, hope the House will not think it improper for me to express my opinions in temperate language as I trust, avoiding imputing motives to anybody. The view I very respectfully put before the House is this, that we are not concerned, as has been said by more than one speaker, with the enjoyment of appropriate hate or with allowing ourselves to be drawn into inappropriate affection; we are really merely concerned with justice. Justice is never needed for people who are popular or who are good; justice is only required and only appealed to when you are dealing with the bad, when you are dealing with those with whom you have no sympathy. All the House is really asked to do in this Division is to decide which is the better method and which is the more likely to promote justice in dealing with a large number of persons of alien race. I trust that no one here has any real sympathy with men whom it is to be hoped everyone in this House will be ready at a moment's notice to turn out of the country if they are satisfied that the country's peace demands it, but they are entitled to be treated with scrupulous justice and they surely are secure in this country of England against anything approaching torture. Some of the arguments used in this Debate would lead logically to the conclusion that if we were fighting a cannibal country, and the people of that country might have killed and eaten some of the prisoners they have taken, therefore, the same process should be applied by us to them—a policy of tit for tat—a policy extremely easy and extraordinarily attractive for the moment, but one which leads us into difficulties quite as great as any more careful and less obvious method.
    If this Clause is rejected it will result that under Clause 1 the Home Secretary will have the power for twelve months of dealing with enemy aliens as he has done
    1378
    during the War. But if Clause 9 is kept in the Bill, and I for one am not going to vote for its exclusion, the Home Secretary will also have power to put greater restrictions on fresh aliens coming here, men who may have been the crews of submarines or who may have given orders or carried out orders for some of the worst crimes committed in the War. This Clause deals only with those who have been in this country during the War, who have had their cases investigated in 1915, everyone of whom has been under police supervision, everyone of whom has been under the authority of that Department of State over which the hon. and gallant Member for Reigate presided, and 7,000 or 8,000 of whom have been before two Committees, and of all those who have not appeared before two Committees, if my information is correct, the majority are women, who in most cases are easy to supervise. In view of these facts, which is the more just course? Is it to leave to the Home Secretary power for another year under Clause 1? Surely after all the elaborate processes going on throughout the whole of the War it is incredible there should be anybody left who is a danger to this country and who could not be dealt with in the twelve months after the War under the authority possessed by the Secretary of State. That would not in the least prejudice our dealing with the question of fresh aliens coming here. On the other hand, if we maintain this Clause we are maintaining a Clause, the phrasing of which and the intention expressed in which will give an impression to the people of this country that you are excluding nearly all aliens, whereas everybody who has gone into the matter knows that, in the interests of the British people and in the interests of British-born women, and of children who are becoming British, you cannot, even if you wish, you cannot in practice, exclude the greater number of the comparatively small minority now here. I yield to no Member of this House in my desire to get out of this country any dangerous enemy at once, but I would never be a party to anything which appeared to me to have the effect, under the guise of excluding Germans, in practice, sending women and children to wilt under the inferior civilization of our enemy. I am convinced that there is the gravest danger of that if this Clause remains—less, of course, with the Amendments of

    1379
    the Government, but even real if they are made. Merely in the interests of justice and acting on the experience which I have now had of Mr. Justice Younger's Committee, knowing that case after case has been sent to Germany, for no fault, after all, but because he was better there than here, and knowing also case after case where the police, military authorities, and others said, "There is nothing against this man; he is not interfering with British labour, but is a person of perfectly good character, but he may be naturally in these times unpopular in the neighbourhood," and then we are asked, forsooth, that this poor wretch, who has been, perhaps, before two Committees, is to make a new application and advertise it in the local papers. That is not justice. That is torture. We have no right to torture our enemies, even if they have
    done it to us. Consequently, I am confident that I am doing right, as far as my own conscience is concerned, and I support, out of no sympathy for the Germans and abating no jot of the desire to keep one's country free from evil influences, that cause which is the cause of our country, the cause of justice, and I ask the House to reject this Clause.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Might I make an appeal to the House to come to a decision? I do not put this as any ground on which I can press it, but it was really in the hope of an immediate decision that I said I would take off the Government Whips.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'one' ["within one month"], stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 116.

    Division No. 122.]

    AYES.

    [5.36 P.M.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Archdale, Edward M.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.

    Denison-Pender, John C.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Atkey, A. R.

    Dennis, J. W.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Dixon, Captain H.

    Hurd, P. A.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Dockrell, Sir M.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Donald, T.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London)

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Elveden, Viscount

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    King, Commander Douglas

    Barnston, Major H.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Forrest, W.

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Bennett, T. J.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Bigland, Alfred

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Billing, Noel Pemberton

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Birchen, Major J. D.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Gilmour. Lieut.-Colonel John

    Lorden, John William

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Glyn, Major R.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

    Gaff, Sir R. Park

    Lowe, Sir F. W.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Gould, J. C.

    Lowther, Col. C. (Lonsdale, Lancs.)

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Greame, Major P. Lloyd

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)

    Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

    Green J. F. (Leicester)

    Lynn, R. J.

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

    Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

    M'Donald, Dr. B. F.P (Wallassy)

    Butcher, Sir J. G.

    Greer, Harry

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)

    Campion, Colonel W. R.

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Macleod, John Mackintosh

    Carr, W. T.

    Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Casey, T. W.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James Ian

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hamilton. Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Hanna, G. B.

    Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

    Chadwick, R. Burton

    Hanson, Sir Charles

    Manville, Edward

    Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Martin. A. E.

    Clough, R.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Matthews, David

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Mitchell, William Lane-

    Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Moles, Thomas

    Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Holmes, J Stanley

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Hood, Joseph

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)

    Hope, Harry (Stirling)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

    Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough W.)

    Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(M'yhl)

    Oman, C. W. C.

    Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

    Thorpe, J. H.

    Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

    Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Palmer, Brig.-General G. (Westbury)

    Samuel, Right Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Pearce, Sir William

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Seager, Sir William

    Waddington, R.

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Seddon, James

    Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Wardle, George J.

    Percy, Charles

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Whitia, Sir William

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Stanley, Col. H. G. F. (Preston)

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Preston, W. R.

    Starkey, Capt. John Ralph

    Williams, Lt-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Sturrock, J. Lang-

    Woolcock, W. J. U.

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chichester)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Rees, Captain J. Tudor

    Terrell, G. (Chlppenham, Wilts)

    Remer, J. B.

    Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Remnant, Colonel Sir James

    Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

    Herbert Nield and Mr. Bottomley.

    Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hayday, A.

    Robertson, J.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wisbech)

    Robinson S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Rodger, A. K.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hinds, John

    Rowlands, James

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Bentinck, Lt Col. Lard H. Cavendish

    Hodge, J. M.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hurst, Major G. B.

    Sitch, C. H.

    Bramsden, Sir T.

    Irving, Dan

    Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Briant, F.

    Jameson, Major J. G.

    Spencer, George A.

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Johnstone, J.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Janes, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Clynes, Right Han. John R.

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    Tootill, Robert

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Wallace, J.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Kidd, James

    Waterson, A. E.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

    Edge, Captain William

    Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Lunn, William

    Wignall, James

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Finney, Samuel

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

    Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Neal, Arthur

    Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Newbould, A. E.

    Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)

    Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York.)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

    Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E.(B. St. E.)

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Younger, Sir George

    Hallas, E.

    O'Grady, James

    Hancock, John George

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major

    Hartshorn, V.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    O'Neill and Mr. A. Shaw.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Reid, D. D.

    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "one month" ["within one month"], and to insert instead thereof the words "two months."
    I do not think one month is sufficient time for the police to lay the necessary
    1382
    documents that have to be considered. It is only for convenience that I ask the House to change the period from one month to two months.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to move to leave out the word "special" ["stating the special grounds"].

    1383
    We have already been told by the Government that in the case of those, and they number several thousands, who have already been examined by two Committees, the intention of the Government shall not apply to them. We are, therefore, now back to the people who were examined by the first Sankey Committee in 1915, whom it is now thought right to be examined again by the Advisory Committee. H you put in the word "special" you are tending to mislead these people and to make them think that it is only certain kinds of reasons which they are asked to give. Three or four years have passed since they were acquitted, if I may use the phrase, in 1915, and it is desirable in the interests of justice that the wording of the Section should not mislead them, and that they should not be excluded from giving any reasons that occur to them. Some of those reasons might appear "special" to the Home Secretary or the Committee, but they might not appear "special" to these persons, many of whom are poor, illiterate people who do not understand the meaning of language as hon. Members of this House do. Therefore, in fairness to these people, I ask the House to leave out the word "special." If people are to show cause why they should not be turned out of the country it is common elementary justice that you should hear anything they have to say. If you leave out the word "special" you are asking them to tell anything they have to say, and you are not confusing them.
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not think the fears of ray hon. and learned Friend are really well grounded, but at the same time I do not think it really matters whether the word "special" is in or not. The Committee will act upon special grounds. However, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move to leave out the words "after due inquiry."
    This is a consequential Amendment on a subsequent Amendment setting up the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee being set up, these words become unnecessary.
    Amendment, agreed to.
    Major O'NEILL: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "Provided that this Sub-section not apply to such former enemy aliens as were exempted from internment or repatriation on
    1384
    the recommendation of any advisory committee appointed after 1st January, 1918, and before the passing of this Act."
    This is the Amendment as to which the Leader of the House signified his intention of taking off the Whips. It is intended to exclude from the purview of the new Advisory Committee to be set up those people who successfully passed through the Committee which was appointed in 1918, and those who passed through Mr. Justice Younger's Committee, which has just reported. In other words, it will mean that the new Committee to be set up will deal only with those enemy aliens who were never interned during the War and whose cases have been reviewed by one Committee only—the Committee of 1915. After the Debate which took place on the Clause it is unnecessary to go into the work of these Committees again in detail. I think it was universally recognised by the House—in fact, it was conceded by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher)—that it would be unnecessary and undesirable, and would lead to large extra expense and to a great deal of unnecessary clerical labour, if you were once again to review the cases of those men who had been exempted by Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee in 1918, and again by Lord Justice Younger's Committee this year.
    Mr. A. SHAW: I beg to second this reasonable proposal, which carries out a. promise given by the Leader of the House. It would be most unfair to hon. Members if their time were wasted by a mere duplication of Committees. I have had the honour, like my hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Neill), to serve upon one of the Committees to which this Amendment refers. That Committee was appointed after time Armistice, in May of this year. When I was asked to serve upon it-I asked for what reasons the Committee existed, and the reasons given to me on behalf of the Home Office were exactly the reasons which were given to-day by, the Government for setting up the new Committee, namely, that the War was over, and that we must have a strong Committee to consider what aliens it would be safe to allow to reside permanently in this country. No British workman likes to see good work which he has done done over again, and I think I may say, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of my colleagues and of the learned judge who presided, we do not like to see our good work

    1385
    done over again. No one likes to see good work torn up and destroyed, and no one likes to be put to do the same work all over again. That is the whole point of this Amendment. Its object is to save duplication. What about the personnel of the Committee on which I served? I was somewhat horrified when I was first told who sonic of my colleagues would be. As a humble Scottish Radical I was told that a distinguished general from the War Office, the hon. Member for Reigate, was to serve on the Committee. I was told that he had been at the head of a great organisation at the War Office, and that he was the greatest expert in this country, and perhaps one of the greatest experts in the world, in tracking down enemy aliens. I said to myself, "Can any good thing come out of the War Office? Is it possible that this Tory militarist and a Scottish Radical can see eyeto eye?" We did see eye to eye on practically every case. Then 1 was told that the hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Antrim (Major O'Neill) would be on the Committee. I said to myself, "Look here, this is growing worse and worse. I am a Scottish Radical, and I am asked to work alongside a violent Ulsterman of the most stern and unbending type." [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed !"] No doubt it is agreed, but my hon. Friends must allow me, after months of labour, to place before the House my considerations. Three out of five members of that Committee had fought in the War. I do not want to rub that in, but, at any rate, they had no soft feeling towards the Germans who had tried to wipe them off the map. When it 'is proposed, as it is proposed in this Bill as it stands now, to scrap all the work which Lord Justice Younger's Committee have done, there is no reason in it. There has been no word of reasonable complaint made against that Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If my hon. Friends opposite will give me an undertaking that they will support this Amendment, I will sit down.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I said last night that I wished to maintain the decisions of Mr. Justice Younger's Committee this year and Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee of last year. I do not think the words of the Amendment are quite happy, but I shall be prepared to accept them, subject to anything the Home Secretary may have to say.
    Mr. SHAW: Under these circumstances I do not desire to flog a dead donkey, and I will say no more.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I have never had any other idea than that the work of these two Committees should be respected, and, subject to anything the Home Secretary says, I cordially support the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    I hope to carry the House with me in this Amendment, and if there are any cries of "Agreed!" from below the Gangway I will at once sit down. To whom does this apply? Not to the aliens who have been exempted by any Committee set up after January, 1918. Those were cases which were specially brought up for re-examination, and they have been exempted after careful examination. There must have been a primâ facie case for re-examining them. What about the others which were not brought up because there was no primâ facie case against them for any examination, or those cases who were not interned at all because there was no primâ facie case for interning them? How was it found out there was no ease for interning them? First of all, by a very careful report by the police. I have read hundreds if not thousands of these reports of the police, night after night after leaving this House. I have taken the cases home and have read them, as all members of the Committee did. In addition to that there was the report from the War Office. Every one of these cases has been examined at least twice if not thrice. It has been under careful observation the whole time, and yet these people have been exempt from internment. Although they are not naturalised citizens, yet these people are citizens in every other respect. They are ratepayers and taxpayers, and carry on some useful employment of some kind or another. There are a few, I dare, say, who do not require to earn their living, but all these cases have been most carefully investigated, and in the vast majority of cases these people are respected by their neighbours, because in every case where there is a complaint by neighbours or any person who knew anything about the district it was taken up at once and carefully examined by the police and the military authorities and effectively disposed of in

    1387
    one direction or another. If there was any reasonable ground of suspicion the case at once came up before the Commission. And after all those investigations those people were allowed to remain at liberty, and yet it is proposed that these people shall advertise in the local papers, giving certain information and notice of an appeal against being deported from the United Kingdom. I would urge on my right hon. Friend, from his knowledge of these matters to which he has given consideration, that so far as the Safety of the Realm is concerned—and that is the only consideration—he will advise that there is no reason at all why this stigma should be placed on these carefully certificated aliens. All these people have been twice or thrice certificated by the military or the police as being citizens of real respectability. There is no shade of suspicion that they are anything like a public danger, and they should therefore be free from the stigma which this Clause proposes.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This seems to me to be one of the most important parts of the Clause, and it does introduce in practice an element of petty persecution. There is no getting away from it. I may mention the only case of which I have personal knowledge, the case of a German governess who came to this country and got her livelihood teaching music. During the War she passed through all the meshes and acted as a perfectly loyal citizen. She kept in the background, and she never wishes to have anything more to do with Germany, but to live here her whole life. She will be forced under this provision to go out into the open in a provincial town and make a parade of her existence at a moment when, I believe, all her neighbours are only too anxious to recognise that she has behaved loyally to this country and, therefore, should be free from petty persecution of this kind. I cannot see what anybody gains by this. If it was a question of the defence or the security of this country it would be different. I absolutely agree that our efforts before the War to keep out spies and enemy aliens were quite inadequate. We have got to be more careful in future and to see that those who were unfriendly to this country are deported and not allowed back. But when you have had five years of war and
    1388
    found that individuals have been respected, have been citizens of this country and have not been a danger, then such individuals should not be exposed to this form of special publicity. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary in the interests of the defence of this country and to be adding a sort, of sting, a vindictive element to this machinery. r hope that the House will delete this provision.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I hope that the House will administer the same kind of answer to this sentimental suggestion as it did to the one that preceded it a short time ago. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) the leader of the Liberal rump, spoke of casting a stigma upon these people. It is the very opposite. It is enabling them to make known to all their friends and neighbours that although they are Germans, or whatever they may be, they have been so very good that they arc now going to claim all the benefits under this Bill. Personally, I confess that if I lived in a district where one of these persons resided, such as this governess, if she were as charming as my hon. Friend has pointed out, I would be very glad to know that she was prepared to face all inquiry, and I should be the first to congratulate her on her decision to remain here and to partake of the hospitality of the British nation. It is provided that the advertisement is to be in some paper circulating in the district, which usually means a local paper. Who ever reads local papers? The only people I know who ever read local papers are the Members of Parliament who look there for the reports of their speeches which they have furnished to them.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Then what is the use of the advertisement?
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: The use of the advertisement is that anybody who knows about the existence of the person, and has reason to think that he or she is not a desirable person to remain here would watch the local paper for that purpose. Personally, I do not think that there is very much in it, but we have got to do something to make the thing go. When this Bill first came to the House it was a wretched one-Clause measure, but we have got it to assume a more important form. This is a concession to public opinion, which is not so sentimental as some hon. Members think. It is an indication abroad that we are in earnest in this matter. Of course, if the advertisement were in some well-known journal

    1389
    which circulates everywhere it would be a different matter, but we must not be led away by sentimental statements which would have meant any public speaker being hooted off the platform if they had been uttered eighteen months or two years ago. During my election, in view of what the Prime Minister said and the Lord Chancellor said, I told my Constituents that we were going to get rid of these people once for all. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that what I promise to my Constituents I ought to perform. I know that that is an unorthodox doctrine now. It has not episcopal sanction. An archbishop told us the other day that we must not trouble too much about our election pledges. But there is a great deal of feeling en this point. We have this Bill here now, and do not let us make it a milk and water measure. Let us have every provision which can be of assistance. Though I do not think this is a great provision, it cannot do any harm and may do a little good.
    Mr. SHORTT: I quite agree with the hon. Member who sat down, that this is not a very important Clause in the Bill. So far as I am concerned I have no very strong views about it, and I would be guided entirely by what is the view of the House. But may I remind my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) that the mere fact that people were not interned during the War is no evidence that they passed the second Committee, the 1918 Committee? The 1918 Committee was set up to review the cases that had been exempted in 1915. Of course a very substantial number of those—
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I was a member of it.
    Mr. SHORTT: It is not the case that every single person coming under this will have been challenged twice. He may have been challenged only once.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: A great number of the persons concerned here are persons who have never been interned at all. Those persons have been subjected, and rightly subjected, at least twice to inquiry by the police and the military authorities. They have been on the list of the police and the military authorities, and they have been subjected the whole time to very careful supervision.
    Mr. SHORTT: I agree that the police and military authorities have done their duty in maintaining supervision over these people. What I was pointing out was that only a number, and not a very large number, of those exempted by the 1915 Committee have had their cases reviewed by the 1918 Committee. With regard to this particular Clause I would only say this: There can be only one reason for it, that which my hon. Friend explained, namely, that if anyone in the neighbourhood knows anything about an alien he or she will come forward and say it. I assure the House it is highly important that anyone in any district should tell us, the Home Office, or tell the police anything about any alien which we do not know already. I leave the matter entirely to the House.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I am quite satisfied that everything that can be known is known to the police. I would leave the matter in the hands of the police.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Might I be allowed, as a member of Mr. Justice Younger's Committee, to refer to an experience on that Committee, an experience which to my mind illustrates strikingly the valve of this. We had a case before us of a gentleman of high education and position. He had never been interned and there was no police report against him. He had a perfectly clean sheet. When his case came before us he had numbers of testimonials from people who were, I think, quite sincere. They said they thought he was an admirable person, of strong English sympathies, who ought to remain here. What happened? If lie had resided here he would have remained uninterned till now, posing as a faithful British citizen. Fortunately some relative of his who knew him intimately, more intimately even than the police or any of his neighbours, wrote a private letter to the Committee informing them that although on the surface this gentleman was a warm British sympathiser, he was in fact a dangerous German, who ought to be shut up. On the strength of that information we interned him, and I cordially hope he is back in Germany in his spiritual home. That is exactly the sort of case which this advertisement would prevent arising, namely, the case of the person who, the police say, is all right, who gets testimonials from all sorts of respectable people acting per-

    1391
    fectiy bonâ fide, and who has not been found out. What is the hardship? The advertisement will cost perhaps 2s. 6d. to 5s. The man or woman asking for exemption is asking for a favour. Is there any hardshinp in the advertisement itself? If the person is perfectly innocent there is not the remotest harm. Take the case of a lady in whom my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is interested. An attractive lady, beloved by her neighbours, recognised as a thorough British sympathiser. What harm would it be to her to say that she desires to remain here, to put in an advertisement to something like this effect, "I, So and So, desire to remain hero and not go back to Germany."? All her friends, including my hon. and gallant Friend, would be delighted, and would say that this was a consummation of her hopes and theirs. That is the case of a worthy person. How about the guilty person? How about the person who has evaded the investigation of the police like this individual whom I have mentioned, who deceived all his neighbours, or rather all except one All we say is that the advertisement should be issued so that anyone who may know something about this presumably dangerous person may have noticed that he has applied to remain in this country, and would thereby be able to inform the authorities. In any case will it do any harm to the applicant? In some cases it would be a real protection, which I am sure Members desire to accord to people in this country who do not desire to harbour German spies.
    Major O'NEILL: There is one argument which is conclusive in favour of this Amendment, and it is this: that the House has just agreed to put into this Bill a provision that those who have successfully passed through the 1918 Committee and Mr. Justice Younger's Committee are not again to have their cases reviewed. In neither of those cases was it necessary to put any advertisement in any journal. Now that we have admitted that the work of these two Committees has been good work, that those who have passed those Committees are deserving of final exemption, is it not fair that those who remain should have their cases examined under similar conditions
    Mr. SPENCER: The reason above all others why I am going to support this Amendment is the illustration given by
    1392
    the hon. and learned Member for York. He has given an illustration which, to my mind, will cause most of us to pause, at least, before we give assent to this Subsection. Ho has stated to the House that on the receipt of a letter relating to the conduct and character of a man in a certain district, where he passed as an honourable citizen, without any further investigation—[Cries of "No, no!"]—
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I say that we did what we could to verify. We were satisfied that it was proved, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Sir D. Maclean) was satisfied that it was a good and valid letter, and upon the strength of that we interned him.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: A letter from a relative. You do not want a public advertisement.
    Mr. SPENCER: On the strength of that letter, arid without the gentleman in question having to appear before you, you sought to verify that letter. [Some dissent.] If you give an illustration, it would be better to give a full illustration, rather than misguide the House in this way. The Home Secretary has told us today that the police have a full record of most of the enemy aliens in this country, and that if it, were desirable that any of them should be deported they have the essential evidence; but at the present time they have not any knowledge whatever which would lead them to take action against any of the enemy aliens in this country now. To have a Clause of this character, which would make it imperative for all the enemy aliens who desire to stay in this country to advertise in the local papers, which we are told is not of any use whatever, is putting them to unnecessary trouble and giving certain persons, evilly disposed to a single individual, a free opportunity to damage that individual's character, whether it is blameworthy or not. It is establishing a form of provocation which is both undesirable and unnecessary, and if there is the feeling in the country which certain Members below the Gangway state there is, I think they are the only persons who are able to discern it. I think the greatest feeling belongs to those two or three Members who are creating most of the disturbance on this Bill. Most of the Labour Members and the great labour populations are pleased to let the knowledge of this thing pass away as soon as possible. Every man who is a peaceful citizen, who

    1393
    is not au enemy to the country, they are anxious to leave alone. For that reason I shall support the Amendment.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I hope the hon. and learned Member for York will not press his opposition. I need not appeal to the bon. Member for Hackney because he took a very light hand indeed in the matter, and, while he was speaking nominally in favour of a certain point of view, he could hardly restrain a smile. We have beard from the Government that they believe they have all information. May I say that an advertisement in an obscure provincial paper is not the smallest guarantee that we have any accurate or useful information which will not be obtained otherwise? It would be an opportunity for anybody with a grudge to use it; it is an opportunity in certain cases, which are not always well-founded cases, to provide materials for public disorder. It does not materially advance the Act. Those who were anxious that this should be struck out are not consciously moved by sentiment. We merely want absolute justice dons On Mr. Justice Younger's committee we read many anonymous letters. I cannot remember one that had a real grain of independent truth in it. Such letters are nearly always expressions of feeling and not relations of fact. It is what I am certain would happen in response to a tiny advertisement in a small local newspaper.
    Mr. DENISON-PENDER: I had not intended to speak on this particular Clause, and though considering that this was not a very important matter, I have listened with a very open mind. An hon. Member who rose from the benches opposite has entirely altered the opinion I held. I cannot help thinking now that this is a very important matter. I listened most carefully to his remarks, and I rather thought I heard words which indicated that he imagined the people of this country were going to forgive and forget a little more rapidly than many of us anticipate they will do. I do not mean by that that I wish this Bill to be any harsher than is necessary, but I cannot help thinking that the people outside this House are trusting us to tighten rather than to weaken this Bill. I shall give my vote in support of retaining this Section, and I hope that Members will realise that we are here to express the opinions we expressed outside and that everyone will support this Clause.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I hope that the Government and the House will insist on this Sub-section. The first essential of the Bill is to so enact legislation that instead of the benefit of the doubt being given to the alien it shall be given to the safety of the citizens of this country. That seems to me to be the whole object of this Bill. Under this particular Sub-section you have some chance that the people in the district in which the applicant is living may have some say in the matter from their knowledge of the man's antecedents. There is no question of harassing, but you enable the citizens of the country and of a district to see that the interests of the nation in that district are kept clear of any possible spying. What has amused me rather more than anything else in the Debate has been the position taken up with regard to this Sub-section by a few of the ex-Liberals who sit on the Front Opposition Bench, I mean the outcasts from the Liberal party who sit below me. They seem to be rather amused on the subject. I suppose they think because they have got the money bags that they have got the opinions, but the nation I believe thinks rather differently. What I would wish to point out is the extreme reluctance of those hon. Members to in any way let the people know what is being done. I have always advocated a strong Bill of this kind, and I believe that the country would like to see a strong measure, and I think any powers which show that we are looking after the interests of the nation rather than that of individuals we should take, and that is why I hope this particular Subsection will be retained.
    Major HILLS: I do not wish to join in the quarrel between the last speaker and his late friends.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: They are not my friends.
    Major HILLS: I do hope that the Government will not insist on carrying this Sub-section. I have not heard a single argument which goes to prove that this Sub-section will prevent the staying here of dangerous aliens. The only effect of it will be that some people will have to go through a rather unpleasant ordeal. I would ask hon. Members opposite, do they not think that this Sub-section could very well be dropped? I agree that we were absurdly lax on this subject before the War and that we required to strengthen our powers, but this machinery will not

    1395
    help and will not really protect our country against spies. To compel harmless aliens to advertise seems to me to be no protection.
    Captain CRAIG: I shall certainly vote for the retention of the Sub-section. If I were drafting a Bill to prevent undesirable aliens remaining in this country and to get rid of them I would make every man who desired to be exempted advertise the fact that he was claiming that exemption. The hon. Member who spoke last talked about harmless aliens. We want to get at the harmful aliens. Even if hardship should be done to a few harmless aliens, and I see no hardship whatever in this, that is an unfortunate fact, but we have been at war with Germany, and we want to get rid of the bad ones, and those people will have to suffer from the fact that they belong to that nation. It is absurd to say there can be no good from the advertisement. It is obvious from the cases of which we heard that there may be cases which have escaped the notice of the police, and where notification should be given to the public. I maintain if you are going to make this Clause fully satisfactory and workable you must retain this Sub-section.
    Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: I have nearly always agreed with my hon. and gallant Friend on this side who spoke a few minutes ago, but on this occasion I cannot agree with him. There is, as has been said, possibly very little in this Clause one way or the other. I have been abroad a good deal myself, and I have constantly had the fact advertised in the local papers, and not always in complimentary
    references. That never hurt me, and I do not think it is going to hurt aliens a great deal in this country. These advertisements will only appear in the local papers. The aliens have been here probably for a considerable time, and I think it will give a certain amount of satisfaction to the people in this country to know who are aliens. Therefore, on those grounds I shall support the Subsection.
    Major LANE-FOX: I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member who said that this is the only way of keeping out harmful aliens. It seems to me a most inefficient way of doing so, and it might be the cause of very great hardship to a number of inoffensive people. A good deal has been said about election pledges. I am inclined to agree with what one hon. Member remarked that some very odd things were said at the election. This can hardly have been the subject of an election pledge, and, therefore, I think that those hon. Members who are so anxious to keep strictly to their pledges need not bring forward that argument in support of this Sub-section. Surely the object ought to be to make the procedure against aliens as little disagreeable as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] To harmless people I think it must be obvious that it is most necessary that your procedure should be as little disagreeable to all parties concerned as possible so long as it is efficient.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 157.

    Division No. 123.]

    AYES

    [6.45 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral

    Campion, Colonel W. R.

    Forrest, W.

    Archdale, Edward M.

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Foxcrott, Captain C.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Casey, T. W.

    Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Glyn, Major R.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Chadwick, R. Burton

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill

    Greame, Major P. Lloyd

    Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Clough, R.

    Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

    Betterton, H. B.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Bigland, Alfred

    Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Billing, Noel Pemberton

    Cory, Sir lames Herbert (Cardiff)

    Hanson, Sir Charles

    Birchall, Major J. D.

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Bird, Alfred

    Crack, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Herbert, col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Croft, Brig. General Henry Page

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Dixon, Captain H.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Dockrell, Sir M.

    Hood, Joseph

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Burn, T. H. (Ballast)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Campbell, J. G. D

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

    Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis

    Matthews, David

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Moles, Thomas

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Hurd, P. A.

    Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Jameson, Major J. G.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Starkey, Capt. John Ralph

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Murchison, C. K..

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Stewart, Gershom

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Oman, C. W. C.

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead).

    Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

    Palmer, Brig.-General G. (Westbury)

    Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)

    King, Commander Douglas

    Pearce, Sir William

    Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Percy, Charles

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (M'yhl).

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Perring, William George

    Thorpe, J. H.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Lorden, John William

    Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Waddington, R.

    Lowe, Sir F. W.

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-I'pon-Hull)

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Whitla, Sir William

    M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

    Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

    Williams, Lt-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Macleod, John Mackintosh

    Reid, D. D.

    Maddocks, Henry

    Remnant, Colonel Sir James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

    Mallaby Deeley, Harry

    Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

    C. Craig and Mr. Denison Pender.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hartshorn, V.

    Purchase, H. G.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Heyday, A.

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wisbech)

    Richardson, Sir Albion (Peckham)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

    Robertson, J.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hinds, John

    Robinson S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Rodger, A. K.

    Bann, Capt. W. (Leith)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

    Rowlands, James

    Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hogge, J. M.

    Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hope, Harry (Stirling)

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Bramsdon, Sir T.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Briant, F.

    Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

    Seager, Sir William

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Hurst, Major G. B.

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Irving, Dan

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston manor)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Sitch, C. H.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)

    Johnstone, J.

    Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Spencer, George A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Spoor, B. G.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

    Kidd, James

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Tootill, Robert

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

    Wallace, J

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Lunn, William

    Waring, Major Walter

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Finney, Samuel

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

    Manville, Edward

    Wignall, James

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Mount, William Arthur

    Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

    Grant, James Augustus

    Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Newbould, A. E.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Grundy, T. W.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York.)

    O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E.(B. St. E.)

    Ormsby'-Gore, Hon. William

    Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

    Hallas, E.

    Parker, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hancock, John George

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    A. Shaw and Maj. McKenzie Wood.

    Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

    Pratt, John William

    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "not less than one calendar month after the date of such advertisement."
    The whole Sub-clause will read: "The Secretary of State may, if he is satisfied that there is no reason to the contrary, grant such licence." It is quite clear that if you are going to set up an Advisory Committee to go into the cases you cannot limit it to the period of one month.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, after the word "satisfied'' ["if he is satisfied"], to insert the words "on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee hereinafter mentioned."
    That is the Advisory Committee which is mentioned in an Amendment later on which I shall ask the House to accept, and which will be set up for the purpose of deciding these cases.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, to leave out the words "adverse report on the applicant by the military or by the police authorities," and to insert instead thereof the words, "reason to the contrary."
    It is on the advice of the Advisory Committee that the Secretary of State would act and not on that of the police.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, to leave out the words
    "on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:
    (a) That the applicant, although a former enemy alien, is in fact a member of a nation or a rave hostile to the States recently at war with His Majesty and is well disposed to His Majesty and his Government."
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "(4) The committee may, unless satisfied by reports from the naval, military, Air Force, or police authorities that there is good reason to the contrary recommend the exemption from deportation of a former enemy alien on any one or more of the following grounds, namely."
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will this Amendment cut out an Amendment next on the Paper to leave out the whole of these categories altogether and to leave full discretion to the Home Office? I am afraid that as the Home Secretary's Amendment says the Committee must
    1400
    work on one or more of the following grounds, it would preclude us leaving out those grounds altogether.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must oppose the Amendment.
    Question, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Sir J. BUTCHER:I beg to move, as an Amendment to tile proposed Amendment, after the word "authorities'' to insert the words "or otherwise."
    My reason is that the Committee might very well, as in the somewhat notorious instance I gave the House a little while ago, get reports from people who are not Naval, Military, Air Force, or police authorities. Therefore I think the Home Secretary will agree that the words "or otherwise" ought to be inserted so as to leave it open to the Committee to get information from any source that may be available
    Mr. SHORTT: I agree.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "on any one or more of the following grounds, namely."
    7.0 P.M.
    My object in moving this is to leave full discretion to the Home Office acting through its Advisory Committee to frame their own grounds of exemption or to inquire if they think fit, according to the view of Mr. Justice Younger's Committee, into each case separately on its merits. I think the House has discussed the matter o fully this afternoon that it is fairly well acquainted with the issue, but I believe that we shall get a more efficient inquiry into these cases if we leave full freedom to the Home Office. We all wish the dangerous aliens excluded, but to secure that we must give the greatest possible elasticity to those police authorities and Advisory Committee who are responsible for the administration of this Clause. This Clause will put an onus on the Home Office to try all cases which have not been specially exempted, and provided we do not tie our hands in this way I do not

    1401
    think the Clause will do anything but good. Mr. Justice Younger's Committee have reported that no generalisation on grounds of exemption is possible. If the new Committee which is to be appointed disagree with the view of Mr. Justice Younger's Committee there will be nothing in this Clause to prevent them setting up their own categories. As we have been told this afternoon by the hon. Member for West Ham, who is a very strong supporter of this Clause, that he in no way suspects the Home Secretary of undue leniency to enemy aliens, I feel that it is quite safe to leave to his discretion the exact details as to the procedure of this Committee. After all, this is only a transitory provision. It is only the people who are now in the country who are going to be affected. It is probable that the Committee now to be set up by the present Home Secretary will deal with all these cases in a short time, and in the interests of efficiency I hope the. Home Secretary will regain complete freedom and cut out these categories. I also feel that it may be worth the Government's while to accept this, because I am quite certain that if they do so they will go far to meet the misgivings of those of us who have been fighting certain details of this Clause because we believe that, as the Clause now stands, it will tend not to greater efficiency in the control of dangerous aliens, but to greater danger of laxity.
    Major HILLS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not want to repeat arguments that have already been used in this House, but I do appeal with some confidence to hon. Members to ask themselves whether the Clause is stronger with these categories in it. Are you not legislating for a future that you cannot foresee? You give here certain classes who may claim exemption. On those categories certain decisions will be come to, and it seems to me that there is a danger that anybody who comes inside these categories may by that fact be regarded as entitled to exemption. I believe that that is the ultimate effect of setting up these categories. We do not know what is going to happen in the future. We give to the Home Office very great powers of a similar character with regard to people who disturb the peace inside the country, and I do not think it is asking a great deal to extend those powers to aliens. I think the Home Office is
    1402
    really the proper authority to interpret this Act. I agree entirely that we want to keep out all dangerous aliens, but we cannot at this moment foresee exactly who may be dangerous ten, twenty, or thirty years hence. Do let us leave this-matter to the Home Office, and trust to the great protection of criticism of the Minister in this House. I am sure that if he or any future Home Secretary did not do his duty he would be very soon brought to book.
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope the House will not accept this Amendment. The House has already voted upon the whole Clause as it stands, and the Whips were taken off, and the House expressed its absolutely free and unfettered opinion. I feel bound, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, to accept the decision of the House, and I look upon that decision as involving essentially this system of categories. It is an essential part of the Clause, and the decision of the House was that what is an essential part of the Clause should remain part of it. Therefore, I must ask the House to reject this Amendment and keep the Clause as it stood. With regard to the rest of the wards Which I propose to leave out, namely, category (a), the reason why, that is left out is that it is provided for is the proposed new definition of "enemy alien."
    Captain W. BENN: I do not think the Home Secretary's speech really covers the point. The substantial part of the Clause which the House decided to accept was Sub-section (1). The Home Secretary 'himself has said that we are now discussing the question of method. We are agreed as to What we desire to do, namely, to send out of this country all dangerous enemy aliens. The question is, what is the most efficient way in which that end can be achieved? The Home Secretary was very frank. He said that the whole question is a question of method, and that there is no question of principle involved. I have no hesitation in saying that everyone who has had any work to do in connection with Committees on aliens will agree that discretion is the wiser course. That is the opinion of the Home Secretary. That is his considered opinion given to a Committee of this House. When we examine the Amendments that have been put down to this category system we see that it is really unworkable. As a matter

    1403
    of fact, what it would do would be to exonerate the Home Secretary from what should be his duty, namely, to give a firm and just decision in each case that comes before him. He would be able to shelter himself behind one of these Sub-sections, drawn up now, in a state of experience which cannot fit us to decide what may happen in the future. If hon. Members will look at the categories they will see how everything suggested by the ingenuity of the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir John Butcher) has been modified and changed. The necessity for fifteen years' residence is taken away, although what is the sanctity of the age of seventy years no one can say. Then the provision as to serious illness or permanent infirmity is altered. Then there is an alteration in the provision as to service in the Army or Navy, and paragraph (f) is taken out altogether and other details are introduced. I submit that experience has shown that a system of categories is not an efficient way of going to work, and for that reason I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
    Major O'NEILL: I feel that I cannot allow this Amendment to pass without a word upon it, although I have already endeavoured to deal with the question of categories. As the House knows, I entirely disapprove of a system of categories such as is set up by this Clause. I realise, and I think the House realises, that although the Home Secretary accepts this principle of categories, he only does so because of the saving Clause which is contained in Sub-section (4). He knows perfectly well, after his experience of administration in the Home Office with regard to aliens, that if these categories had to be rigidly adhered to a state of absurdity would result. If I thought it worth while to suggest Amendments to these particular categories I could do so ad infinitum. For instance, one thing I could suggest would be that there should be added at the end of each of these different Sections the words "and has nothing material against him."
    Sir J. BUTCHER: That is there already.
    Major O'NEILL: I have not seen it, but it seems to be very relevant. As matters stand, it seems to me that you would let
    1404
    off a man simply because he is seventy years of age, even though he might be a criminal.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: According to the Home Secretary's Amendment, unless the Committee is satisfied by reports from the naval, military, Air Force, or police authorities, the man is not exempt even though he may be seventy years of age.
    Major O'NEILL: At the same time I should have thought that the addition of those words would be desirable, in order to make it perfectly clear that all these things are subject to a man's having nothing material against him. I think, however, that these categories cannot really be of very great importance, owing to the saving Clause in Sub-section (4), so that I do not think it really makes very much difference whether they are passed or not. The hon. and learned Member for York told us yesterday that these particular categories are the ones which the 1918 Committee acted upon in their deliberations. On that I would merely observe that we were then in a state of war, whereas now we are at peace, and I do not think it reasonable to suggest that categories which were no doubt perfectly suitable for the deliberations of that Committee are suitable for the deliberations of the Committee which is to be set up under this Bill. However, I need not labour the point, having registered my protest.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend, who, I gather, will not support this Amendment, but will act upon the advice given by the Home Secretary. I am very glad that the Home Secretary has taken up a strong stand in this matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) attributed these categories to my ingenuity. They are not, however, my invention. I wish they had been. They were the product of the experience of some thousands of cases considered by Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee. Mr. Justice Younger was a member of that Committee, and entirely acquiesced in those categories. The reason for having them was this: We had an immense number of cases, and we came to the conclusion that, if we could say that a man came within category (a), (b), (c), or whatever it was, then primâ facie he should be exempted, unless there was some adverse report against him. We reserved to ourselves,

    1405
    however, a discretion, such as is reserved in this Bill to the new Advisory Committee, in cases where, although a man did not come within any of the categories laid down, there was some special reason for exempting him. The Committee found it to be of the greatest possible help to have those categories and that general power of exemption; they could not have gone on otherwise. For that reason I attach great importance to the giving by this House of directions to any future Advisory Committee that may be set up to consider these matters, and, to giving such Committee the benefit of the experience gained by the Committee over which Mr. Justice Sankey presided with such distinction and ability.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The Home Secretary has told us that the reason for leaving out paragraph (a) is that the provision contained in that paragraph is covered by a new definition of "enemy alien."
    Mr. SPEAKER: That part has gone. We are now discussing an Amendment to the words proposed to be inserted.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Am I not in order in arguing that the Amendment ought to contain some words safeguarding these people who have been left out? It does not do so, and is therefore objection-able.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise at this point. We are discussing whether there shall be categories in the Bill or not.
    Sir H. NIELD: We have been discussing this question now for the best part of three hours, and a decision has been arrived at after very long speeches, though I frankly confess that I should very much have liked to have been able to take part in that discussion before the Division was taken. The House has come to an emphatic conclusion upon these very categories which form the basis of the objection to the Clause. Are we to have no finality? Have we gone back to the old days of party government, when the desire for office was so keen that it led to the invention of all kinds of ingenuity whereby a Clause might be opposed? My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) may keep quiet. He knew nothing about those days, though I think he is trying to bring them back
    1406
    again. I think, when the House has come to a decision so emphatically, after a Debate which has turned so conclusively upon whether we are to have an Order in Council or to have the categories set forth in the Statute, it might be accepted as final within an hour of its having been given. I protest against this Bill being made the cover of offensive attacks upon those Members who have thought it their duty to take a strong line. I resent the speech of the hon. Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) with all the force of my being, when he talks about some men going out to fight. One hon. Member, an old colleague of mine, with whom I have fought shoulder to shoulder in this House, was kind enough to inform us that the place for us super-patriots was on the Western Front. Does he stop to realise that while young men like himself had the opportunity of going back to their regiments with which they had been associated in their young manhood, and of taking up commissions and, incidentally and quite properly, taking their military pay, we older super-patriots stayed to give our services to the State from morning to night all during those years of war, and that we have lost those far dearer to us than our own lives? I wish it had never been possible in the Debates in this House to have poured scorn on those who feel deeply on this subject and who have suffered loss as the result of the iniquities of the enemy. Yesterday the Solicitor-General compared 1916 with this time.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is getting rather far away from the purely technical Amendment.
    Sir H. NIELD: I will not pursue that line of argument, although there is much to be said. When the House has come to a decision after long debate, I do ask that it will not go back upon its decision within an hour of having recorded it. I fail to understand why this aliens' question should arouse all this bitterness. I do sincerely hope that those of us who have suffered as we have suffered may at any rate have the right of expressing our opinions.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended."
    The House divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 63.

    Division No. 124.]

    AYES.

    [7.19 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Ainsworth, Captain C.

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Archdale, Edward M.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Hacking, Colonel D. H.

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Hancock, John George

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hanson, Sir Charles

    Oman, C. W. C.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

    Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

    Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood

    Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

    Palmer, Brig.-General G. (Westbury).

    Barnston, Major H.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Parker, James

    Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.

    Percy, Charles

    Betterton, H. B.

    Hinds, John

    Perring, William George

    Birchall, Major J. D.

    Hood, Joseph

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Bird, Alfred

    Hope, Harry (Stirling)

    Pratt, John William

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Rankin, Capt. James S.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis

    Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

    Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

    Hurd, P. A.

    Richardson, Sir Albion (Peekham)

    Butcher, Sir J. G.

    Hurst, Major G. B.

    Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

    Campion, Colonel W. R.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Robinson S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

    Casey, T. W.

    Jameson, Major J. G.

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Jophcott, A. R.

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Chadwick, R. Burton

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Seeger, Sir William

    Clough, R.

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

    Stonier, Captain Sir Beville

    Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

    Kidd, James

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)

    King, Commander Douglas

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Starkey, Capt. John Ralph

    Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Croft, Brig.-General Henry Page

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Glasgow)

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Dawes. J. A.

    Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Denison-Fender, John C.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)

    Dixon, Captain H.

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Dockrell, Sir M.

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Lorden, John William

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yl)

    Edge, Captain William

    Lowe, Sir F. W.

    Thorpe, J. H.

    Eyres-Monseil, Commander

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    M`Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

    Townley, Maximilian G

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

    Tryon, Major George Clement.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Wallace, J.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Waring, Major Walter

    Forrest, W.

    Maddocks, Henry

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

    Manville, Edward

    Whitla, Sir William

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavletock)

    Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

    Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Woolcock, W. J. U.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Goff, Sit R. Park

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir

    Gould, J. C.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Greame, Major P. Lloyd

    Mount, William Arthur

    Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

    Grelg, Colonel James William

    Murchison, C. K.

    Talbot and Captain F. Guest.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Guinness. Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E.(B St.E)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Hallas, E.

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Hartshorn, V.

    Benn. Capt. W. (Leith)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Heyday, A.

    Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

    Finney, Samuel

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wisbech)

    Bramsdon, Sir T.

    Glanville. Harold James

    Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

    Briant, F.

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Brown. J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Johnstone, J.

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York.)

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    1408

    1409

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    Royce, William Stapleton

    White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

    Wignall, James

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Sitch, C. H.

    Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and colne)

    Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Spencer, George A.

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

    Spoor, B. G.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Midlothian)

    Thomas, Big.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Tootill Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major

    Robertson, J.

    Waterson, A. E.

    Mckenzie wood and Mr. Newbould.

    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), paragraph (b), to leave out the word "seventy," and to insert instead thereof the word "sixty."
    According to the categories on which we have just voted, if an applicant is seventy years of age and has been at least fifteen years resident in the United Kingdom, and if he is not otherwise criminal or objectionable, he is not to be deported. I understand that safety is the ground for this Bill. It is excused on the ground of safety of the realm. If a man of seventy is presumably too old to do us any harm, what about the man of sixty-nine? Then we come down to the man of sixty-five. Surely we are not going to have a war with Germany, Bulgaria, or Turkey for five years. Surely we can let off a man of sixty-five. Cannot we go on to the sixties in the same way? After all, a man of sixty is not of fighting age. Those hon. Members who were round the age of sixty said, quite rightly, that they were too old for fighting, though we know that had they been younger they would have fought in the War and remained in the front line for four years, no matter how many times they were gassed and buried in the trenches. Surely the same applies to the alien who is otherwise not objectionable, a friend of this country, and against whom nothing is known. We have won this War. We do not want to make ourselves the laughing-stock of the whole world. Are we afraid of old men of sixty? What will the world think of it? Is it to be said that the British Empire, standing victorious, is afraid of old men of sixty years of age, against whom nothing is known, for fear that they might possibly come and blow up the House of Commons? I do not propose to press this to a Division, but I do think the right hon. Gentleman might accept this small concession. There has been too much talking of planes. I have not used the expression myself. An hon. and learned Member
    1410
    below the Gangway twitted me yesterday with being one who really loves the Germans. He really does me too much honour. I do not love them; I dislike them intensely. I wish I did love them, because, after all, that was what was taught us at our mothers' knees.
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this. Everything that was said in favour of sixty years could have been said in favour of fifty.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Subsection (3, b), to leave out the words "and has been at least fifteen years resident in the United Kingdom."
    It will thus not be necessary for a man of seventy to have been at least fifteen years resident in the United Kingdom. If a man of seventy is harmless, he is probably just as harmless if he has lived here five years as fifteen years. It is really the age that matters.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Subsection (3, c), after the word "serious," to insert the words "and permanent."
    This is purely a drafting Amendment.
    Captain BENN: Suppose a man be suffering Iron; serious illness which is not permanent, is he protected in any way from deportation?
    Mr. SHORTT: Certainly, if the illness be serious.
    Captain BENN: In what sense?
    Mr. SHORTT: In the ordinary sense.
    Captain BENN: We are working in categories.
    Mr. SHORTT: But we are working in categories, I hope, so long as I am at the Home Office, with common sense and common humanity. The thing is done every day when a deportation Order is made. In that case of serious illness which, I have no doubt, the hon. and

    1411
    gallant Gentleman has in mind, about which a relative sent a letter, the man has not been deported, although the Order has been made, because he is still in bed, owing to his being unable to move.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3, c) leave out the words "of a permanent nature."—[Mr. Shoat.]
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, d), to leave out the words "voluntarily enlisted and."
    This category provides that where an applicant has one or more sons who voluntarily enlisted in the forces he shall have a licence granted. When the Draft was put into operation in the United States of America, directly the United States came into the War, everyone was made compulsorily to serve, and whole regiments were raised, one of them composed entirely of Germans. When I say Germans, they either went there or were born there, but spoke no English. These men did excellent service, and I am told were as keen and wanted to get on with the War as much as any of the others who fought so gallantly. In our country, as we know, a great many of these aliens have sons who desired to enlist, and voluntarily enlisted, and served, and many were killed and received decorations. But there were others who did not voluntarily enlist, but waited until they were fetched. The young Englishman who waited until he was fetched is not stigmatised. He receives the same decorations and pension, or his widow receives the same pension as others. Why should we make the distinction here? Some might have come of military age after the Military Service Act was passed, because they were too young voluntarily to enlist. Really, I think, this is a case where the parent—probably an aged parent—of a lad who was called up and served, and risked his life fighting for the country he has made his home, might be let off. I am sure if this were put to the people of this country they would say so. If I might appeal to chivalry—and I think this is a case where one might legitimately appeal to chivalry —I say these men should be put in that category.
    Major McKENZIE WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment. I object to this paragraph altogether on principle, be-
    1412
    cause I think anyone who has served in His Majesty's Forces ought to get the same treatment as those who have served voluntarily. I do not think this paragraph achieves the object which it sets out to achieve. Its object, as I take it, is to give special treatment to those who have served in the forces, but not against their will. We have had the same test applied in the matter of demobilisation in the last few weeks. It was said in the new Regulations for demobilisation that there was to be separate treatment meted out to those who voluntarily enlisted and those who had enlisted against their will, and we find that has resulted in Derby men, for instance, who tried to enlist a long time ago but were rejected as being unfit, and were later on roped into the forces as conscripts, not getting the benefit that is given to voluntarily enlisted men, although they served in the forces in every way voluntarily and with their own consent. The same can be said of those boys who did not come into the forces until they reached the age of eighteen. Many of them tried to enlist when they were seventeen, and were rejected because they were too young. When they became eighteen they were roped in automatically, but technically they are not voluntarily enlisted men, and as a result their fathers do not get the benefit of their having enlisted voluntarily. A father might have two sons in this category who, although not voluntarily enlisted, had striven to enter the forces and do their bit with the rest. I oppose this paragraph, therefore, because I say it does not effect the object it sets out to achieve, and I hope at any rate the Home Secretary will give a sympathetic hearing to the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: I think both of my hon. Friends opposite have rather missed the object of this category. It is, that where you are considering the case of a man whose son or sons came forward voluntarily and enlisted, you are justified in saying that that man has given sufficient proof that he is net a dangerous alien and ought not to be deported. The whole point of it is that where you get a voluntary enlistment you get the necessary proof, but the mere coercion involved in the Conscription is no proof of the father's frame of mind at all. Therefore, what we are dealing with in this category is means of proof to satisfy the Secretary of State.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (3, d), leave out the words "the British Navy or Army or the Navy or Army," and insert instead thereof the words "His Majesty's Forces or the forces."
    After the word "Allied," insert the words "or Associated."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, e), to leave out the words "lived for at least thirty-five years in this country and."
    Where anything is not known against the individual in this case, or he has gone through the test of the two Committees, and has married a British-born wife, is he going to be deported simply because of his nationality? That is the point. He has not been in any way suspected of communication with the enemy. He has passed through the meshes of the Committees, has lived for thirty-five years here, and has married an English girl. There may be cases, as one hon. Gentleman had the temerity to suggest, where a man came here as a spy and deliberately married some girl of a particular character in order to protect himself. But he is got at under the Act already. This suspected man can be dealt with under the Orders in Council, or the Home Secretary has the power to deport him—and he is quite right in doing so. I think, however, where a man is just an ordinary German here, perhaps without any hostile intent at all, and married, as I suggest, on the mere ground of nationality I think he might be left. Are you, simply because of his nationality, going to insist on such a man going back to Germany? If so, you will have many cases such as referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Mid-Antrim yesterday. If we could have had a Division after the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend with the Members present in the House then we undoubtedly would have carried his proposal. Here is a question not of the safety of the country. I have had letters, and I have them in my pocket, I will not harrow the feelings of the House. I got one letter this morning and another yesterday from these unfortunate British women who have been mentioned, asking me to try to do something for their husbands, who had no stain on their character. Of course, there may be another side to this. I do not know I It is not as if these men were in any way dangerous, or if the most careful investigation had not been made, and their full records deposited at the Home Office. We
    1414
    have been told that they had married English girls, who themselves do not want to go to Germany and who do not want to lose their husbands. They say—Germans, Turks, or Bulgarians—they are good husbands. "He is a good father to my children," says the woman; "let me keep him here." I do not think the Home Secretary can resist this Amendment if he is to live up to the pledges he gave to me in the Grand Committee that on the mere ground of nationality you would not break up a home. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman means to keep to that pledge. I do not think pressure will have been put upon him in a contrary sense. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) would not wish that to be done in this case. He would not wish to break some woman's heart.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I hope the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment. Let me give an illustration to the Home Secretary to show the effect that this may have upon some people. I know of a German who came to this country. He has three boys. These were brought here when young. They went into a Welsh district to live. The boys were taught the Welsh language, and subsequently they married three Welsh women. The children of these three sons attend church and Non-conformist Sunday Schools. Why should we penalise these children by this Act? Personally, I ought not to support this Amendment, because the family supported the Coalition candidate at the last Election against the Labour candidate. From a political standpoint, therefore, seeing that these people opposed the Labour candidate, I ought not to support this. From the standpoint of justice, however, and from the ordinary traditions of this country I think the Home Secretary ought to accept this Amendment. I want to express my own feelings in this matter. We are receiving invitations to speak in the country on the League of Nations. It ought not to be on the League of Nations, but on the League of Haters if we do not accept this Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment. I am proposing to ask the House to change these words by adding "unless there is something serious against them proved to the satisfaction of the authorities." The Bill

    1415
    does not prevent cases like these put forward being approved by the Committee and the Committee exempting them. The hard cases mentioned by hon. Members are provided for in a subsequent part of the Clause.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (3, e) leave out the word "thirty-five" ["thirty-five years"], and insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Leave out paragraph (f), and insert instead
    "(f) that the applicant came to reside in the United Kingdom when he was under the age of twelve years;
    (g) that the applicant has served in His Majesty's Forces during the War or resided in the United Kingdom for not less than twenty years, and has rendered valuable personal services to this country during the War;
    (h) that the applicant is a minister of religion."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the word "If" ["(4) If the application"], and insert instead thereof the words "the Committee may also where."
    I propose to read how this Clause will run if the House accepts the Amendments I am proposing at present—
    "The Committee may also, where the application for a licence is made on any ground other than one or more of those above specified, if satisfied that owing to the special circumstances of the case, deportation would involve serious hardship to the applicant, or to his wife or children, or injury to any British interest, recommend his exemption as aforesaid."
    The Amendments with which I follow the present one will, if they are adopted, leave the Clause that I have just read out. I think it covers the whole cases we have heard mentioned of the wife, the children, and the applicant himself, and gives the Committee full power.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if this proposed amended Clause will meet the cases of hardship which otherwise would be caused by the withdrawal of the original paragraph (a)? There are many aliens in this country who are nominally subjects of Turkey. They may be Greeks from Smyrna or Armenians from Van or elsewhere. They are intensely anti-Turkish and intensely pro-Ally. Paragraph (a) covered their case, but it has been struck out. The definition put down in the name of the hon. and learned Member for York
    1416
    is to be accepted, as I understand, by the Government. The aliens will, therefore, have to rely for exemption upon Sub-section (4), with which we are now dealing. I think the words "exceptional circumstances" would not cover the cases I am alluding to, because those concerned are a class and not single cases. So far as my judgment goes the word "special" would cover their case. If the Home Secretary will tell me that that is his view of the matter I shall be quite content, and I am sure a great many earnest friends of this country who have had the misfortune to be born subjects of Turkey will be very much relieved and very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. SHORTT: My view is that the word "special" would cover the cases mentioned. I will consider, and if there is any chance that their cases are not covered, I will see that some term is used to cover them. Personally my impression is that these cases are covered by the word "special" and that was one reason for the change which I will propose.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (4) leave out the words "the Secretary of State either shall refuse the application or may if he is," and insert instead thereof the word "if."
    Leave out the word "exceptional" ["exceptional circumstances"], and insert instead thereof the word "special."
    Leave out the words "of a personal nature on," and insert instead thereof the word "to."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, to leave out the words "grant him a licence under this Section," and to insert instead thereof the words "or to his wife, or children, or injury to any British interest, recommend his exemption as aforesaid."
    I propose this Amendment in place of the one down on the Paper in consequence of the promise I gave to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "or," to insert the words "owing to the special technical knowledge the skill of the applicant would involve."
    8.0 P.M.
    With regard to the insertion of the words "injury to the wife or children," I thought that provision was already included in the words of the Clause, but if the Home Secretary thinks they are necessary I have no objection. When, however, we come to the word "injury to any British interest" I should like an explanation. Take, for example, some skilled workers employed in chemical works who have special knowledge or aptitude, and it may be very important that the British manufacturers should retain such men in their service, I think it would be only reasonable to retain them under those circumstances. I object to the wideness of this Clause. I know some hon. Members have said that it would involve great injury to British interests to deport any enemy aliens, and the hon. Member for Oxford University said "the more the better, because these Germans are engaged in production," and he asserted even if it throws Britishers out of employment it does not matter. I do not want this Clause to be enlarged in that way, and that is why I have proposed the addition of these words.
    Mr. SHORTT: I know the hon. and learned Gentleman did mention those words to me, but I have not had an opportunity of really considering them, and if I accept them I hope it will be clearly understood if I afterwards find they are injurious that I shall be at liberty to strike them out in another place.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "under the age of eighteen."
    This Amendment is proposed in order to make the incidence of this Bill less harsh and troublesome. I do not know that that will commend itself to certain Friends of mine, but I think we should bear in mind what we are doing. I do not think that this Bill has been properly
    1418
    considered, and I hope there will be a few days allowed to pass before we take the Third Reading. I am providing that the licence may be given to the children, even if they are nineteen or twenty years of age. I do not know whether the idea is to punish these Germans by breaking up their families. Are we afraid of these children? Apparently we were afraid of the old men, and now we seem to be afraid of the children. I think in the case of these children we might allow the legal age of twenty-one.
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not think it is any hardship in these cases for them to go back to Germany under these circumstances. If a child of eighteen has spent most of his life in Germany, and has come over here because he has seen a good job, it is no hardship to send him back to Germany; but if he has lived here all his life, and has ceased really to be a German, then the Committee would grant him exemption, and all that would be necessary would be for him to make an application for himself. That is all the proposal means.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (6) leave out the words "together with a statement of the special grounds on which it is granted and of the exceptional circumstances (if any) under which it is granted."
    At the end of Sub-section (8) insert
    "(10) The provisions of this Section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other provisions of the principal Act or this Act, or any Order in Council made thereunder providing for the deportation of aliens.
    (11) The Secretary of State shall appoint an advisory committee for the purpose of this Section consisting of a chairman and such other persons, including Members of both Houses of Parliament, as the Secretary of State thinks fit."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add "(12) This Section shall not apply to a woman who was at the time of her marriage a British subject."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask with reference to this Amendment a question in order to relieve the anxiety of certain people who have been frightened by the threats of certain newspapers, or the speeches of hon. Members, to the effect that their children are going to be shipped off to Germany because the mother has married a German. I hope this proposal will have an explanation

    1419
    from the Home Secretary as to what this Section means, and an to whether these women are going to be separated from their husbands simply because their husbands happen to have been born in Germany. They are British women and their husbands are quite harmless and well-disposed towards this country, but simply through the accident of birth they have been born in Germany. [Laughter.] I notice that the President of the Board of Trade smiles. Perhaps I may be putting my case badly, but I do not see why it should be taken to be a laughing matter. These people are frightened, and they think that their little families are going to be broken up. For these reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman for some assurance on this point.
    Mr. SHORTT: I am not quite sure what it is my hon. and gallant Friend wishes me to explain. I do not think we could have anything clearer than the Amendment itself, which says, "This Section shall not apply to a woman who was at the time of her marriage a British subject." I cannot make it any plainer than that. Of course, if she is married to a German who is considered to be a dangerous person, then she must suffer with him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Ordered, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned." —[Colonel Son ders]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

  COAL CONTROLLER (APPOINTMENT).
  Motion made, and Question -proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.."—[Colonel Sanders.]
  Mr. BRACE: As arranged with the Leader of the House, I am raising a question of national importance in regard to the appointment of the new Coal Controller and I shall deal incidentally with the Coal Control Department. It is common ground that coal production is of vital importance—in fact, it is the spindle on which the commerce of this nation must turn. It is of more value than gold to-day, and any Department that deals with the question of coal is
  1420
  one that stands out for consideration of the most careful character. Why should so important Department as the Coal Control Department be a kind of annexe of the Board of Trade? One would have thought that if the Government had recognised the importance of coal as the nation recognises it, they would have been prepared to have created a special Mining Department, staffed by men with special knowledge of the technical requirements of an industry which means so much to this nation and to this Empire. The Government do not seem to realise that the miners have a peculiar kind of mentality of their own. It is most difficult to understand the mining community unless you have a close acquaintance with it—and in speaking of the mining community I include not only the workmen but coal-owners and the managerial staffs. They have their own special viewpoint which it is difficult for anybody to understand, and the Government have not made it their special business to understand it. I suppose it is because of the peculiarity of their calling and the circumstances of their occupation. The House will be aware that miners work in large bodies and live in communities by themselves, with the result that the point of view of the miner is a particular and special point of view.
  Many times during the War has the Government felt it was very desirable to get into close touch with the mining population. The Prime Minister on more than one occasion felt called upon in the interests of the State to approach the mining community, both employers and workmen. It is a fact that the Prime Minister and other representatives of the Government have gone into conference with members of other important trades in this country, but the miners could never be prevailed upon to go into conference jointly with other trades. That is a peculiarity which the Government really must have regard to if they want the best results from the mining population. When the Prime Minister met the mining community and made an appeal for men, and, later on, an appeal for production, he was given a response which was remarkable in its character. Men flocked to the Colours by their scores of thousands, and yet, despite the great reduction in the mining community, the men increased their output because they were appealed to to do so. What has come over the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the President of

  1421
  the Board of Trade in regard to the question of co-operation with the mining population? The President of the Board of Trade clearly prefers to do without cooperation. He acts as a law unto himself. I do not know whether this is a trait of the so-called super-man, but, at any rate, it is a trait for which the nation is paying a pretty heavy price.
  May I inform the House that in the early days of the War there was an advisory committee appointed attached to the Coal Control Department for the purpose of co-operating with the Government in bringing about the best results from the mining industry? What is the personnel of this Committee? The workmen have eight representatives on it, and the coal owners an equal number. On the workmen's side there is Mr. Robert Smillie, the President of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, a man with a great knowledge of the mining industry and the mining community. Then there is the right hon. Thomas Ashton, the General Secretary of the Mining Federation of Great Britain, a man who commands the respect both of coal-owners and the workmen, and who has a great reservoir of information and knowledge which he would place at the disposal of the State if asked to do so by the State. Then there is the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Stephen Walsh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maesteg (Mr. Harthorn)—two men who would gladly, if asked, place on the altar of the State all they possess in order to help it in these days. Then there is Mr. Herbert Smith, President of the Yorkshire Miners' Association; Mr. W. Straker and Mr. Robson (of the Durham Miners' Association), President of the Durham Association. There you have a schedule of names which commands respect in the coal-mining industry, whether it be on the part of coal-owners or of workmen. Now I come to the other side. There are eight coal-owners. Sir T. Ratcliff Ellis, who is not only a great lawyer but a great mining expert, a man who has, I think, as much knowledge of the legal technicalities of the mining industry as any man in the world; there is Mr. Pease, a brother of Lord Gainsford, a distinguished coal-owner, a man of great capacity; Mr. Charles Rhodes, of Yorkshire; Sir Adam Nimmo, from Scotland; and Mr. Hugh Bramwell, a great mining engineer from South Wales, with whom I have acted as a colleague, a man of great capacity, great knowledge and a great sense of fairness. Then you
  1422
  have Sir Francis Brain and Mr. W. Jones, another Yorkshire colliery owner. The mining industry in this list of names has a tremendous driving power, but the President of the Board of Trade does not think it worth his while to use it.
  I remember some time ago when the President of the Board of Trade came down to this House and startled it with a demand that 6s. a ton should be added to the price of coal for British consumers. On that very day this important Committee was meeting, and what did it consider? Was it the adding of 6s. a ton to the price of coal? Were they asked to advise the President of the Board of Trade and the Government what ought to be done in connection with that problem? Not at all. They were considering the price of horse-feed, and my right hon. Friend never thought it worth his while to inquire of them their opinion about putting 6s. on the price of coal! I shall want an answer from the President of the Board of Trade to the question why he has beers treating this advisory committee in this cavalier fashion. The country is dying for the need of coal; the world is starving for the want of coal, and one would have thought that the President of the Board of Trade would have exhausted every resource at his command to have secured from the mining industry the very largest output possible. You have this important committee brought into being, but it is not allowed to work. I say it is a serious and grave reflection on the Government and on the President of the Board of Trade that this joint committee of experts have not been called in to advise and help in these days of serious coal shortage.
  Why did not the right hon. Gentleman think it worth his while to have a word with this Committee about the new Coal Controller? What is there wrong about consulting a joint committee representing on one side the workmen and on the other the colliery owners? What is there wrong in taking their view as to the new Coal Controller? In setting up our conciliation boards we have always endeavoured to agree mutually upon a man who will hold the important position of independent chairman of the board. We have thought it a very acceptable and desirable principle that if both parties in the industry could agree upon an independent person who will play so important a part it was infinitely better to have an agreed independent chairman than a nominated

  1423
  independent chairman. It is true that we have had a proviso that where we did not agree we appealed to either Mr. Speaker of this House, or to the Lord Chief Justice, or to some other high authority, to nominate the chairman, but we have found in practice that it is a very good rule to have an agreed chairman. Would it not be an immense gain if we could have had an agreed Coal Controller? I am not unmindful of the fact that a Coal Controller has functions rather different from those of an independent chairman. What is it the nation wants from a Coal Controller? First, coal, of course. The nation wants the Coal Controller to get coal. But you cannot get coal unless you have peace in the industry, and therefore the first essential in a Coal Controller, if he is to be successful, is to keep peace in the industry. If disputes arise—and they often do—miners and coal-owners are rather inclined to disputations, and upon occasions it is necessary for someone to interpose to pacify and to negotiate a settlement. Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the chief functions of the Coal Controller is to deal with this phase of industrial life? Should the officials of the Coal Control Department fail to arrange a settlement, the procedure is for the Coal Controller himself to interpose. When my hon. Friend (Sir E. Jones) was Coal Controller it was my privilege to meet him upon more than one occasion to endeavour to settle disputes, and it is well for the mining industry to feel, rather than indulge in a stoppage of work, by way of strike or lock-out, that as a last resort there is the Coal Controller to appeal to who will sit there not as an arbitrator but as a conciliator, having both parties before him, endeavouring to reconcile the differences between them and thereby bring about a peaceful settlement of a dispute.
  The third part of the functions of a Coal Controller is to encourage production, and to keep down costs. A Coal Controller, to be successful, must operate largely upon these points. First he must endeavour to reconcile the differences between capital and labour or between employers and workmen, secondly he must get a larger output of coal, and thirdly he must keep down costs. I really question whether the President of the Board of Trade understands the real functions of the Coal Controller. Last week when my hon. Friend Mr. Hartshorn put his question and the
  1424
  right hon. Gentleman gave his reply, I interposed and put this question to the President of the Board of Trade:
  "Has the right hon. Gentleman either directly or indirectly attempted to get the views of either the coalowners or miners as to the appointment of this gentleman as Coal Controller?"
  This is the right hon. Gentleman's reply:
  "No, Sir. The position of Coal Controller is now becoming one which it is eminently desirable that a man of legal training should occupy. As the House is aware, the Government have announced their intention of proceeding to nationalise the mineral rights. That involves most intricate and very difficult operations from a legal point of view, and it is in order that we may have at the Coal Control Office a man with legal training that this gentleman has been appointed on a temporary basis as a civil servant"
  Would the right hon. Gentleman like to correct that answer? If that is his view of the functions of a Coal Controller, he really does not appreciate the real business and duties of the Coal Controller. I then interposed again—
  "May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the responsible head of the administrative Department for dealing with output, what special qualifications a solicitor has for securing that output which the country must have? "
  This is the right hon. Gentleman's reply:
  "The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery is surely wrong in saying that the Coal Controller is responsible for output."
  The President of the Board of Trade does not view the functions of the Coal Controller as we in the industry do. If his view is that the Coal Controller's great function is to have a legal mind, so that he may help to bring in a Bill for nationalisation of mineral rights, I am not surprised that he has appointed a solicitor as Coal Controller. But it is not solicitors who are appointed by landowners for valuing mineral rights. It is a mineral engineer. In the person of Sir Richard Redmayne we had at the Coal Control Department one of the most capable mining authorities for this very purpose. For some years of his life the valuation of mineral rights was part of his duties. I simply take him as a case because the President of the Board of Trade would know him. The real authority on valuing estates with mineral deposits is not a lawyer but a mining engineer. Therefore, when the President of the Board of Trade puts forward the claim that he must have a lawyer as Coal Controller so that he will have an expert for valuing mineral rights, it is not in accordance with the information I have been able to glean.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): Will the right hon. Gentleman show me where I suggested that a lawyer could value mineral rights?
  Mr. BRACE: What is the use for which you require the Coal Controller? If you want pure legal advice then you must go to a Law Officer of the Crown. If it is law you want, you do not go to the lawyer of any Department. As President of the Board of Trade and as a Cabinet Minister you would go to a Law Officer of the Crown —the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General.
  Sir A. GEDDES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when I said that a lawyer would value mineral rights?
  Mr. BRACE: What is the real inference that one can draw? I must come back to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave. I was so amazed at the answer that I pressed the point. He said:
  "The position of the Coal Controller is now becoming one which it is eminently desirable that a man of legal training should occupy. As the House is aware, the Government have announced the intention of proceeding to nationalise the mineral rights."
  If it is a question of law the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are the authorities.
  Sir A. GEDDES: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent anything I have said. Will he tell me whenever, in any place, at any time, I suggested that a lawyer might have to value the mineral rights? If he cannot, then I hope he will take the usual steps and withdraw.
  Mr. BRACE: It is only by inference from the answer which was given to my question.
  Sir A. GEDDES: Then I may take it that my right hon. Friend has never heard me suggest on any occasion, and he knows of no record when I suggested, that a person of legal training would be a suitable person to value mineral rights.
  Mr. BRACE: If it is any comfort to the right hon. Gentleman I make the concession at once—
  Sir A. GEDDES: It is not a question of concession; it is a question of a definite statement. My right hon. Friend made a point that I had selected a lawyer to value mineral rights. I ask when that happened, and I now await his explanation as to when it did happen.
  Mr. BRACE: I hope I am not only a sufficiently old Parliamentarian, but that I am a sufficiently fair controversialist to frankly admit at once that I have no information other than the reply to the question which the right hon. Gentleman gave, and upon that I am bound to ask what inference could I draw. If the right hon. Gentleman says: "No, I have not appointed Mr. Andrew Rae Duncan because of his legal skill in dealing with the mineral rights question," then I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has appointed him because he wanted a lawyer at this stage. If he says he wants a lawyer then I say at once that the proper people to deal wth the law in connection with the nationalisation of mineral rights is not a lawyer of his Department but the two Law Officers of the Crown.
  Sir A. GEDDES: I did not say it. That is the point.
  Mr. BRACE: I hope I did not lead the House to think that the right hon. Gentleman had said it, because I cited the question and answer, and upon that I based my argument. It is well within the recollection of the House what I was arguing. If my right hon. Friend takes the point that he has never said in set language that he appointed Mr. Andrew Rae Duncan because of his knowledge of milling questions, then I accept that and declare at once that I have not known him, either in answer to a question or at any other time, to make that declaration.
  Sir A. GEDDES: Surely that was not the point. The point was as to the valuation of mineral rights, and not knowledge of the answer that I had given. On the question of the valuation of mineral rights he made his suggestion. It is upon that I should like some information. When did I say what the right hon. Gentleman suggests I said?
  Mr. BRACE: The right hon. Gentleman did not, in answer to a question, and has not to my knowledge in explicit terms declared that he appointed Mr. Andrew Rae Duncan because of his knowledge of mineral rights, but what other inference did the right hon. Gentleman want the House to draw? To assist output? "The Coal Controller has nothing to do with output. That is not his business. I want a man there who will have sufficient knowledge and skill to help me to draft a Bill for the nationalisation of mineral rights. "All I can say is that that is a peculiar

  1427
  view of the Coal Controller's duty. I was surprised to learn the other day that Mr. Andrew Rae Duncan is not the third Coal Controller since the Department was established, but the fourth. Therefore, I want to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. The first Coal Controller was the late lamented Sir Guy Calthrop, general manager of the London and North-Western Railway, a man of great energy and distinction. He was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Sir Evan Jones); but I gather that another Member of this House was appointed. The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong.
  Sir A. GEDDES: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to be corrected now?
  Mr. BRACE: Yes.
  Sir A. GEDDES: There has been no one else appointed.
  Mr. BRACE: Then will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what special position in the Department was it intended that the hon. Member for Hackney Central (Mr. Woodcock) should occupy?
  Sir A. GEDDES: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to answer now, I can say that the hon. Member for Hackney Central was thought of among various other gentlemen for the position of Coal Controller. There were various reasons, which it is quite unnecesary to enter into now, which made the choice fall in the place in which it did, when we appointed the late Coal Controller.
  Mr. BRACE: That is sufficient for my argument. The whole point upon which I am addressing the House is that the President of the Board of Trade really fails to appreciate the functions of the Department and the mentality of the industry which he is called upon to control. He says that the hon. Member for Central Hackney was thought of as a suitable Coal Controller. What are his qualifications? I find that he was the secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society and Registrar of the Pharmacy Acts. The point I am making is this, that the Board of Trade is failing lamentably to understand how to do the business in connection with this industry, and as a consequence of all this failure the nation is suffering for want of its very life blood. In proof of this I cite the admission by the President of the Board of Trade that at
  1428
  one time they thought that a gentleman who was secretary to the Pharmaceutical Society and Registrar of the Pharmacy Acts is a suitable and proper person to be Coal Controller. I very naturally wanted to know something about the history of the new Coal Controller. I am prepared to accept a statement that as a lawyer he is the greatest lawyer in the land. l know nothing at all about the gentleman. He may be one of the most brilliant intellects. in the country. My complaint is, that the nation will make a profound mistake if it allows a man to be appointed as Coal Controller who has no knowledge of the mentality and psychology of the mining industry. If the Coal Controller is to succeed, he must have the confidence of the coal-owners and the workmen. If my colleague and myself have no confidence in the Coal Controller, how can we be expected in a time of industrial stress to go to him and submit our case? It is asking for trouble. The Government really are going out of their way to seek trouble, and I am convinced that unless you get a Coal Controller acceptable to the nation we shall have a repetition of this thing. It is time this House of Commons should interfere in the matter. Executive government is all very well, but this is a House of Commons question. Coal is the life blood of the nation, the one thing that can correct the exchanges that are against us. A sufficient supply of coal is the one thing necessary to reduce the cost of living. If we are to send our vessels across the seas in ballast instead of with cargoes of coal, then, as a result, we must have higher cost of living.
  I am going to ask this House to demand a Select Committee, and that the Committee be appointed forthwith, to investigate and report (1) upon the suitability or otherwise of Mr. Andrew Rae Duncan as Coal Controller; (2) the working of the Coal Control Department as a branch of the Board of Trade as to whether it should be abolished or reconstituted and, if so, in what form; (3) to inquire into and report upon the imposition of 6s. per ton upon coal prices in all its aspects, and whether it should be continued, reduced, or cancelled; (4) to inquire into the methods adopted by the Coal Controller's Department for compensating capital invested in the coal industry both upon coal exported and consumed at home and the amount; (5) to investigate and report as to the amount of money which the Government has received

  1429
  through the Excess Profits Tax from the coal industry; (6) to inquire and report as to the causes of the decline in output and the remedy for the same, and that the Committee be clothed with full authority to call for witness or documents upon any or all these questions. I make no apology for bringing this matter before the House. Fuel for the nation is a House of Commons question. If the Coal Controller's Department is all that it ought to be then the Government need fear no inquiry. If the Coal Controller's Department is not what it ought to be then the Government ought to welcome an inquiry. In this matter there ought to be no division between the Government and the House of Commons and the people, and it is because my colleagues and myself are profoundly anxious as to the future of this country unless we can have not only-a full quantum of coal but have it at a reasonable price that we have ventured to raise this Debate. I am not in order in moving the Motion, but I raise the question without any apology and without reservation.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWNARDS: Without endorsing particularly the detailed arguments which have been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, I desire cordially to support the broad claim which he has put forward. For ten months my colleagues and myself have been loyal supporters of the Coalition Government, but I have had very considerable misgivings, and a great deal of mental disquiet. [An HON. MEMBER: "You deserve it."] If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen occupying the benches opposite had manifested the usual sanity which has been expressed by one or two of them it would be different. But they have allowed themselves to be run by the wild cat element and the extremists.
  Mr. J. JONES: On Saturday?
  Mr. EDWARDS: Not only on Saturday, as has been said by the hon. Member for Silvertown, but on a good many other Saturdays, and they have not even recovered from it on the following Monday. But I desire to pursue my arguments without being drawn away by any interruptions that may be made. From the beginning I have had grave misgivings and a great deal of mental disquiet as to the coal control. I have gone carefully into things, and I desire to say that the coal control by the Government has been a gross and outrageous scandal upon this nation. Financially, I do not believe—
  1430
  and have not believed from the first—that there has been the slightest foundation in the actual figures to justify the increase of Cs. that was put upon the country. I have pursued this thing much more closely than many Members may think, and: neither this House nor the country has been supplied with the right figures with regard to the coal output either to justify or not justify the increase of 6s. I may recall the discussion that took place in this House when the White Paper was produced proposing the 6s increase and seeking to justify it. On that occasion I put two or three questions. I put a very searching question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. lie in accord with Parliamentary ethics, evaded the question. I then definitely put a question to the hon. Member who was at that time Coal Controller. I followed this up subsequently by putting a further simple question. I asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of money sanctioned by the Treasury and the Coal Controller by way of return out of excess profits to the mine owners, under the heading of "development expenditure." He said he would look into it. Subsequently he wrote-me a letter in which he said that the details—I never asked for details—were of a confidential nature that had been supplied by the individual coalowners under a particular Act, and that he could not disclose them. I ask him here and now, on the floor of the House, not for details, but to tell the House in common frankness what is the amount of money that he allows to the coalowners of this country as expenditure for developments. What has been the. policy of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and the Coal Controller, the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire, and his predecessor? The policy has been a policy of sheer and absolute deception of this House and of the country. I am speaking advisedly.
  9.0 P.M.
  We were supplied in the early part of July with a White Paper, which sought to supply justification for the increase of 6s. per ton. We were not supplied with the actual finance a this Department—not a bit of it—but we were given, as though we had been school children, the figures of output prior to a certain date, with the number of men employed, and then we were supplied with the output, together with the number of men employed for a subsequent period; and the total output was divided by the total number of

  1431
  men employed. We were asked to argue from the fact that there was a lesser product per man employed, that therefore there would be a general total diminution in output for the whole year, and that, that being so, there must be an increase of so much per ton. What were the facts? There were two salient facts which then existed. The first is this, that following upon the Armistice there was a priority in demobilisation for those men who had been enlisted from the mining areas; and, secondly, that the mine owners were then in a position to employ men for the development of roads, retimbering and reparation in the mines, following upon the necessary negligence of the War period. These men were so employed. I can take mine after mine. For seven or eight years I represented in this House the greatest mining constituency in the United Kingdom, and I know something about the subject, though I am neither a coal owner nor a practical miner. I say unhestitatingly that to divide the total number of men then employed into the total production of coal was entirely misleading. Men were employed on the reparation of roads that had not been retimbered during the whole period of the War; they were employed in cutting hard headings that had never been thought of before, for the purpose of getting the maximum production during the War period. We were given a perfectly horrible picture of how extraordinarily the men had gone ca'-canny, and had neglected their work, and how the product of coal had diminished in this way. I say unhesitatingly that either the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade knew that he was misleading the House, and the Coal Controller knew he was misleading the House, or they were so incompetent as to be incapable for the jobs they then occupied.
  They are now putting in a new Coal Controller. What is the position? The Government have declared in favour of a policy of nationalisation of mineral rights. With that I agree entirely. They have also declared in favour of a policy of setting up joint councils on the lines of the Whitley Report for the mining industry. With that I entirely agree. Thirdly, they have declared against the policy of nationalisation of the coal mines. With that policy I agree. I agree, because I believe the right and ultimate policy for this country is the nationalisation of mines, and as a profound
  1432
  believer in the policy of ultimate nationalisation I am a profound disbeliever in those whom they are going to put in charge or would put in charge of nationalisation here and now, for being opposed to nationalisation they would use the interim of two or three years to show that the policy was impossible for the country. Thereby they would smash the ultimate idea of nationalisation. What do they do? I say frankly that I have not been enamoured of the capacity of either of the Coal Controllers who have hitherto occupied the position. Now they come along with a new Coal Controller. Who is he? He is a Scottish solicitor. To begin with, that to my mind would be an entire disqualification for any man to deal with collieries in Wales and England, whatever his capacity may be for Scotland.
  That is not all. This gentleman has been brought up in the office of a Scottish solicitor who has attained, and I believe rightly, a very wonderful reputation as the most successful strike-breaker in the United Kingdom. I know the gentleman. I had to deal with him when I acted as mediator in the great engineering dispute of 1897. I had to deal both with the gentleman who is the present Coal Controller's superior and with this individual, who was then a very active youth in his office. I know something about him. I say that a gentleman who has been identified on the aggressive side with the Engineering and Shipbuilding Employers' Federation is not at this moment the right kind of individual to place in this position. This gentleman has got a knowledge of Scottish law, but with regard to mines that knowledge has to be entirely unlearned when he comes to the law of mines in Wales and England. The second point is this: The Government will have a heavy enough burden to carry in this great controversy without this appointment. They have declared in favour of a measure to nationalise the coal rights of this country and to give effect to their idea of the creation of a joint council of control in the coal industry. They are going to get opposition from the representatives of the Miners' Federation on one side, and from the representatives of the Miners' Association on the other side. If, following upon all that, they are going to put into the supreme position, for the purpose of this controversy, a gentleman who cannot claim any particular knowledge of the law in England and Wales

  1433
  and who cannot claim any particular attitude in either England or Wales or Scotland with regard to the practical administration of mines, but who does bring to the controversy the supreme disadvantage, for this purpose, that he has been identified for twenty-three or twenty-four years with people who have attained a reputation, rightly or wrongly, of strike breakers in this country and of opponents of trade unionism, then I say that the Government are taking upon themselves with a supreme degree of folly an extra burden, which, when the people of this country come to understand it, they will not be able to discharge. I was elected frankly as a supporter of the Coalition Government. My colleagues and myself have consistently supported the Coalition Government through thick and thin up till to-day, but we are not going to—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"]—I have no doubt that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite realise it, for they watched us carefully.
  Mr. J. JONES: We are watching you now!
  Mr. EDWARDS: They watched us so carefully that often they have absorbed themselves in watching us instead of discharging their own duties to their own constituents according to their consciences. I say this in all sincerity to the Government. My colleagues and myself have from the beginning of this Parliament supported the Coalition Government and given them thick-and-thin support. We have carefully considered this matter. We think they are committing a profound and egregious blunder, and my appeal to them is to reconsider the position and put somebody in control of the Coal Department who understands the thing and the practical side in England and Wales, instead of bringing this import from Scotland, whatever his other qualifications may be.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: As this Debate results from a question which I put down on Wednesday last, I would like to say that in asking that question and in taking part in this discussion I am not in the remotest degree influenced by any personal consideration. To the best of my knowledge I have never seen the gentleman whose appointment is under discussion and I certainly would not know him, and it is not on personal grounds at all
  1434
  that this matter is being raised. I am opposed to the appointment because it represents a Board of Trade policy, with which I am in entire disagreement. It is a policy which has already resulted in very serious consequences, and which, if pursued, will, I feel convinced, lead direct to disaster. It is because I regard this appointment as part and parcel of that policy that I am opposed to it, and it is with that policy rather than with personnel I propose to deal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) made reference to the questions and answers on this subject last Wednesday. On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. T. Richards), who is general secretary of the South Wales Miners' Federation, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery and myself asked questions, and it is very remarkable that all our questions dealt with the subject of production. In considering the question of the appointment of a Coal Controller, our first consideration had reference to production. Strange to say, the Government regard this question as outside the necessary qualifications altogether. I want to say if the functions enumerated by the President of the Board of Trade of a Coal Controller were such that all that was required was a man of legal training to deal with the Bill to nationalise mineral rights and to administer the Regulations under the Control Act —if that is a proper conception of the. functions to be. performed by the Controller, then, as far as I am concerned, I have no objection to the appointment that has been made. For performing those duties I have no doubt the gentleman appointed is thoroughly competent. But we do not in any sense accept that view of things, because we hold that not only is the question of output a matter in which the Coal Controller should interest himself, but we hold that the first business of a Coal Controller is to see that the mining industry is so carried on and that materials of transit and facilities are provided, and that in a general way the industry is so productive as to enable the industry to yield to the nation the largest possible output at the lowest possible cost, consistent with a reasonable standard of living for the men employed in the industry, and as long as we have got private ownership a fair return on the capital invested in the industry.
  I am very concerned about the attitude of the present President of the Board of

  1435
  Trade, because there is no question about it that he has adopted an entirely different attitude in relation to the control of coal from that which was adopted prior to his appointment. From the very commencement of the War the Government realised the importance of taking this industry in hand, and they set up in the Home Office a Committee consisting of an equal number of miners' representatives and owners' representatives with the Mines Inspector, independent of both, to act as chairman. Under the control and guidance and work of that Committee, as everybody knows who has followed the statistics of this industry, we were able to maintain during 1914, 1915, and 1916 the pre-war output per man employed, and it was not done without effort. It was done because that Committee concentrated chiefly upon the question of output, but under that Committee nobody controlled the thing at all except men who had a thorough knowledge of the mining industry. The workmen's representatives kept in touch with the miners of the Kingdom; what ever decisions were come to by that Committee were made known to the miners, and by the influence of the leaders were accepted and adopted by the men generally. The coal-owners viewed questions relating to mining purely from a national point of view. It was in consequence of a recommendation made by that Committee that we had the Limitation of Prices Act. The miners stood to lose everything by limiting the prices. Our wages were fixed on the price of coal, and the higher the price of coal went up the better we should be off in the matter of wages. The coal-owners stood to lose everything by keeping prices down, because their profits largely depended on prices going up, but miners and mine-owners, viewing the situation from a national point of view, recommended this House to introduce a Limitation of Prices Act for the purpose of keeping prices down, and we concentrated on the question of output. From beginning to end of that Committee we were never interfered with by anybody outside, but our advice was taken from beginning to end.
  Then we had a Coal Control Board established. We had as Controller a railwayman, and a very able man he was, a man who has placed this country under a big obligation or debt of gratitude to 'him, a man who, I believe, gave his life,
  1436
  having attended to his duties when he ought really to have been in bed. But he, great man as he was, was big enough to know that he did not understand mining, and that if he wanted to do the best in the interests of the nation he must take guidance from the men who did understand it, and so he added to the Committee that had been set up in the Home Office a certain number of others, and we became a very representative Committee. During the whole of his period of office he brought almost everything of importance to the notice of that Committee, and under his rule again we maintained a very substantial output from the mines. What is the position to-day? The moment the President of the Board of Trade came into office he did not scrap this machinery, but on two occasions only since the Armistice has that Committee been called together, and on both occasions it was to consider a question affecting the amount of insurance that the colliery owners ought to pay to insurance companies, or something of that kind. As to the industry, the question of output, or prices, or anything generally affecting the output, we have never been consulted. I say that that has become the Policy of the President of the Board of Trade, and his answers to questions last Wednesday revealed his mentality. "Surely," he said, "my right hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery is wrong in suggesting that a Coal Controller is responsible for output." We want to know, if the Coal Controller is not, who is?
  I desire to refer to just two incidents of recent date to indicate the very serious consequences that accrue to this country through not having mining intelligence and mining knowledge at the head of the Coal Control Department. First of all, I would refer to an incident which arose out of Justice Sankey's interim Report, a Report which the Government said they were going to accept in letter and spirit. Part of the agreement under that Report was that there should be a revision of piece rates to enable the miners to earn as much wages under the shorter day as they formerly earned under the longer working day. Justice Sankey estimated that the reduction in output due to a reduction in the working day would be 10 per cent., and to cover that reduction we were to have a revision of rates. The Miners' National Executive knew that this was a very complicated business, we

  1437
  knew it was not a general reduction of one hour all over the country, we knew that in some coal fields there would be no reduction at all and no revision of piece rates, and that in other places there would be a reduction of fifty minutes, in others of forty minutes, or thirty minutes, or sixty minutes. A piece revision that would suit one coal field would not suit another, and it was only men with a knowledge of that industry who could possibly know the kind of solution to meet that situation. The President of the Board of Trade or the Coal Controller issued instructions that not more than 10 per cent. was to be paid anywhere. Some of the coalfields had negotiated a settlement already. When we took the matter in hand as an executive they were bound to admit they had made a mistake, and they changed it from 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. We proved to them again that they had made a mistake, and they changed it from 12 per cent. to 13.3 per cent. We proved they were still wrong, and they changed it from 13.3 per cent. to 14.2 per cent., but in the meantime what had happened? The men who had negotiated their settlements in the coalfields became resentful about the instructions that were being issued from the Coal Control Board, and we had the Yorkshire strike, we had the men out in Nottinghamshire, in Derbyshire, in Staffordshire, in Monmouthshire, and we lost over that bit of blundering between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 tons of coal during that period. Now, I say if there had been a mining man at the head of this movement he would have said, "This thing has to be fixed up. It is a difficult and complicated proposition, and I had better get a meeting of the representatives of both sides. We had better get down to this thing and get it discussed and settled." If that had been done we should not have had the Yorkshire strike, and we should not have had these coalfields idle, but simply because we have got men in charge of this industry who do not understand anything about it we are faced with these disastrous and deplorable consequences. Unless we get a different man from a lawyer at the head of this business, that kind of thing is going to be. repeated. We cannot afford the repetition of that sort of thing, and there is no necessity for indulging in it.
  The other matter to which I would refer is the imposition of the 6s. a ton. The President of the Board of Trade came
  1438
  down to the House and said, "I estimate that the output from the mines of Britain from July, 1919, to July, 1920, will be 217,000,000 tons, and because of that we must increase the price of coal by 6s. a ton." He said that 163,000 additional men had come into the industry, that they were not ready to do anything, that we must find them wages for a year, and that we must put 3s. 2d. a ton on the coal for that. He also said that we were going to have 11,000,000 tons reduction in our export trade, and that we must put another 1s. 4d. a ton on the coal for that. That is the sort of nonsense which is put to this House, and that is the kind of case upon which the 6s. was built up. Is there a man in the House to-day who does not realise that at that time it was a mistake and that to-day it is a national scandal? What does 217,000,000 tons a year mean in weekly average? It is 4,173,000 tons. You are getting the weekly records of the output from the collieries. What does it amount to? Included in the estimate of 4,173,000 tons is 700,000 tons of coal from Yorkshire. In making that estimate the President expected to see 700,000 tons from that coalfield. If it had not been for the blundering which resulted in the stoppage of these coalfields there would not have been a single week from the time that the 6s. was imposed until to-day—except the August Bank Holiday week, when only half a week is worked generally—in which his estimate would have proved right. Take the weeks since the Yorkshire coal strike was settled. For seven of the last eight weeks you have an average output—excluding the week of the railway strike — at the rate of 231,000,000 tons per annum. In that seven weeks we had three weeks which were adversely affected by strikes, because, although the Yorkshire strike came to an end, the normal output was not reached until some time afterwards, and although we only had one week's railway strike, the next week was considerably affected in consequence of all the trucks being full. Taking all that into account, the average for these seven weeks is 14,000,000 tons a year above the right hon. Gentleman's estimate. If you take the last week, they are now producing 500,000 tons a week more than his estimate. That is the last record. That is going to be continued. It is going to be increased, and as the weeks go by that estimate is going to be more and more falsified. Although till now we have lost 6,000,000 or 7,000,000

  1439
  tons on account of strikes in the industry and 2,000,000 tons on account of the railway strike, the estimate upon which this 6s. is based will be exceeded by many millions, and, notwithstanding that, there are millions less in wages to pay, on account of the time the men have been idle.
  Had there been a mining man at the head of affairs he would have said, "It is true that in the early days of the year the men have not been turning out very big outputs, but that is due to the fact that when they left the Army there were bad faces in their district that required "filling in." They had to come back to repair work, and instead of filling coal they had to fill rubbish. They had to wait until the quarries opened out again before they could get to their faces and begin to get coal. Every mining man knew the estimate was wrong, and a mining man ought to have been advising the Government. What more disastrous thing could happen than to be putting 6s. a ton on coal at a time when everybody ought to be doing all they possibly could to bring prices down to the lowest possible point? But suppose the estimate had been all right and had worked out right, ought we to have allowed it to remain at that? The President of the Board of Trade, instead of trying to remedy the evil, says, let us put some more on the price. The lowest output on record in this country from the mining industry was in 1912, when we had a six weeks' national strike. That year the men produced 245 tons per man. What has happened from then till now? All that has happened has been that we have had forty-seven minutes a day knocked off the working day. That is what the Seven Hours Act has brought about. We lost more time through the national strike than we are losing through the Seven Hours Act. There is no reason why we should not have 245 tons per man to-day as well as in 1912. With about 1,150,000 men in the industry, as we have, we should be averaging 280,000,000 tons a year. Yet we had 6s. a ton put on because we were told there could not be more than 217,000,000 tons. The right hon. Gentleman may say that we are not getting the 280,000,000 tons. That is what we are complaining about. We do riot want to say it is the coal-owners' fault, or the Government's fault or the miners' fault, but we do say it ought to have been the business of some-
  1440
  body to find out the fault, to find the cause and to apply a remedy. We think we know the cause or the causes. Every man in the mining industry knows the causes, but we cannot organise the remedy, simply because, although the machinery exists—there is no industry in the country so completely organised on both sides as the mining industry—yet that machinery will not be used by the Government in this matter.
  The Leader of the House, when it was suggested that the Coal Controller had some sort of responsibility in this matter, said, "Well, yes; in a sense he has, but it is the head of the Department who is responsible to this House." I think the head of the Department is a professor of anatomy. We had some description given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery of somebody whom they had thought of putting in as Coal Controller, but I cannot twist my tongue round that name. Nobody ever believes that the President of the Board of Trade has the requisite knowledge to tackle this question. I sincerely hope that as a result of this discussion the allowing things to drift will come to an end and that a really genuine effort will be made to put this industry on a different footing. If we were only producing what we produced during the submarine warfare we should have over 270,000,000 tons. Why cannot that be done? My right hon. Friend has asked for a special Committee to find out the cause and ascertain what is exactly the reason for this position. We do not want to shirk it; we want to solve it, but you are not going to solve it by putting a lawyer at the head of this Department, and I sincerely hope that the House will show its disapproval of the appointment and that it will be remedied.
  Mr. GOULD: I am not in the least bit interested from the colliery owner's point of view in this discussion; in fact I do not personally hold any share or interest in any colliery, but from the point of view of the constituency which I represent this matter is a very serious and important one. A number of those actively engaged in the Colliery business on the managing side are diametrically opposed to the appointment of any man as Controller who knows nothing at all about the industry. No claim is made that this gentleman is not thoroughly capable of occupying some position of responsibility, but it is claimed that he is a man who cannot face the

  1441
  seriousness of the position and deal with it from the point of view of the employers and miners, and, more especially, from the point of view of production and price. We have to take into consideration the cost of the coal produced in other countries and the effect of that competition as far as we are concerned. In going over the recorded prices for this year and in dealing with this 6s. per ton increase, for which I, personally, think that there was absolutely no justification whatever, I have found that the average export price per ton was 36s. f.o.b. throughout the country. I think the actual figures for last month were 2,670,000 tons of the value, as declared for export, of £7,733,000, or practically £3 per ton. I can tell the House that the colliery owner is not getting that profit; it is going somewhere, and it is restricting our trade very much when it comes to doing business abroad. I have recently travelled through the coalfields in America, and, notwithstanding the fact that they are there faced with a very big and momentous strike, they are producing coal for export at seaport towns at 25s. per ton, which is a serious menace to the trade of this country. When we come to consider that the average pit head price in this country is 26s. per ton, we would like to know something about the difference and where it goes.
  Personally, I view this matter with the gravest concern. It is strangling our trade. This year we shall probably export something like 18,000,000 tons, valued at £50,000,000, as against the pre-war export of 73,500,000 tons, which, if produced at the prices prevailing to-day, or at even two-thirds, would be sufficient to bring to this country something like £295,000,000, or the amount of the balance of trade against us. In this matter, the Government have to take into consideration not so much the ability of the individual who may be selected for the post from the point of view of his legal knowledge as his ability from the point of view of his knowledge of the trade. When all is said and done, it is the trade of the country that we have to protect. This particular gentleman must of necessity by his appointment be regarded as antagonistic from the miners' point of view. One cannot expect otherwise. His great experience in commercial life has been on the employers' side, and he must be regarded with suspicion. I know that a great many of the coal-owners are extremely desirous for peace, and they want a man at the head of the coal control
  1442
  who can authorise and dictate the expenditure of money on development, because if we do not spend money on development we cannot increase the output. If we do not have a man who has the sympathy of the miners and the confidence of the mine-owners, and who knows when to authorise necessary expenditure, we shall certainly not be doing anything towards increasing the output of coal in this country.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been that my constituents and friends in Liverpool desire me to bring before the House the state of affairs in that port. I shall limit myself to three points. There is a Committee of experts acquainted with all the circumstances of the port of Liverpool which was set up by the right hon. Gentleman himself. That Committee is consulted, but that is all that happens. It advises, but apparently its advice is not always accepted. The administration is to a large extent centralised in London, with the result that there is great delay in listening to complaints, answering complaints, and in accepting the recommendations. I plead that that local committee should have more power. We are now prevented in Liverpool from getting what we call the local supply of coal from Lancashire and Yorkshire. We get it mainly from South Wales, with the extraordinary result that, while the price of South Wales coal, ship bunkers, during August was 95s. and in September 110s., the coal drawn from the local coal fields was 50s., less than one-half, and the price of coal supplied to inland consumers and domestic industries was 35s. The Board of Trade has recently allowed us to take 25 per cent. of our coal from the local coal fields, and we press him to allow us to take a larger supply. I think that covers all the points that I wish to bring before him at this moment, and, as to the general question, I prefer to leave it to men much more entitled to speak.
  Mr. GILBERT: I do not rise with any special knowledge of the coal industry, but I do rise as a London Member to speak on behalf of the coal consumers in London. I would point out to the President of the Board of Trade and the Leader of the House that there is a great and growing dissatisfaction among consumers in London against the increase in the price of the ordinary commodities of life. I have tried to study the reasons which were

  1443
  given by the President of the Board of Trade for this 6s. increase in the price of coal, made in July last, but I find it extremely difficult to explain to the ordinary consumer who buys ½cwt: or 1 cwt. of coal and who has to pay-considerably more than he paid in July for it. I do not wish to make any complaint against the coal contractors who deliver the coal, because when they are charged 6s, per ton extra for the coal, naturally they must charge it to their consumers. That means, roughly, 4d. per cwt., and in constituencies such as I represent where everybody is a consumer of coal, and many of them very small consumers, the increase varies, I am told, from 6d. to 1s. per cwt; That means a very great deal to the poor person who has to buy and use coal to-day. It is in the recollection of the House that we have had some very wonderful elections last Saturday in London, and I know that my hon. Friends who sit on the Labour Benches are quite cheerful at the result of those elections. But may I say that I believe one factor which had a good deal to do with the result of those elections—and I speak with some knowledge of London—was that prices of ordinary commodities are gradually increasing day by day. In July it was coal, recently milk, and this week it is sugar. I believe the results on Saturday last express the opinion of the consumers of London against the gradual increase of prices lately. As I was returned as a supporter of the Coalition Government, I would specially and urgently draw the attention of the Government to the fact that this gradual increase of prices is having a very bad effect outside, and is making the consumer very greatly dissatisfied.
  There is one other point that I also wish to raise on this coal debate. Before the Recess I asked the President of the Board of Trade some questions as to the price of bunker coal. I am a member of the Port of London Authority, who are very large consumers of coal. Since this 6s. was put on we have found that, contractors of all kinds who use coal have greatly increased the price of all articles where coal is used in the manufacture of those articles, such as cement, steel-plates and iron-plates, and goods of that description, because of this 6s. increase. One of the most remarkable increases is that on bunker coal. We buy coal both for bunker purposes and for ordinary land purposes, and while the ordinary coal has increased since July 6s.,
  1444
  some of the bunker coal, which we buy from Durham, has been increased as much as 20s. a ton, and some of the large Welsh coal, which we use for another purpose, has been increased by 35s. 6d. a ton. I have been trying to find out who gets this difference of price on bunker coal, and I have not yet been able to find out. I should be very glad, and I think people who are in the same position as the Port of London Authority would be very glad, if the President of the Board of trade could give some information as to why this bunker coal has increased in the way it has. If I may give the House one other example, we do buy a certain kind of Welsh coal both for bunker purposes and for land purposes for use in boilers and bunkers. Although we buy the same quality coal from the same people, we have to pay for bunker coal at 70s. to 85s. per ton at the pit mouth, and for land purposes we only pay 39s. 9d. for the same coal, or a difference of from 30s. to 45s. a ton. I appeal to business men in this country whether that is not an extra-ordinary position for the Coal Department to take up? We may be told, as the President of the Board of Trade told us in answer to some questions before the Recess, that the reason for the large increase in the price of bunker coal is because the Department in some way average the whole price of the coal in order to make up the loss on cheap coal, but I venture to suggest that a Department which carries on its business in the way I have just described does seem to want the ordinary elements of ordinary common-sense business. To charge an authority—and I presume the same rule applies to any other public authority or user of coal in the asme way—for exactly the same coal for land use one price, and for bunker use a considerably higher price, seems to me to want a lot of explanation, and I, therefore, speaking purely as a London Member interested purely in London questions, where we are large consumers of coal, do again repeat that this kind of increase of price is having a very serious and grave effect outside, and I do hope the President of the Board of Trade and the Leader of the House will look at it from that point of view.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Probably enough has already been said to convince Members of this House of the necessity for the inquiry that has been proposed. But, coming from another part of the British

  1445
  coalfields—not an unimportant part—I would like to give the House the impression that we are united on this question. Like a previous speaker, I do not know the Coal Controller. I would not know him if I met him. I have no animus against him. There has emerged during the discussion the fact that he is a lawyer, and it has been argued that because he is a lawyer it is not a qualification to be Coal Controller. Then it has also been mentioned that he is a Scotsman. Probably if there is any qualification for a Coal Controller, it is the fact that he is a Scotsman, after the excellent character Scotsmen got here in this House a few nights ago. This is the third Coal Controller. First we had an English Coal Controller, then we had a Welsh, and now we have a; Scottish, and after this Coal Controller passes away we may have an Irish Coal Controller. I sincerely hope that in till's question we will rise above that of labour and capital. This is a great national question. We have had dinned into our ears everywhere production and more production from the coal mines. The Members of this House are charged with carrying on the business of the nation, and we, as representing the coal-mining industry, ask for this inquiry, because we want the nation to get the greatest possible production of coal consistent with good conditions underground for the miners.
  Hon. Members are business men, and I wonder if anyone in this House running such an industry as a mining industry would appoint a lawyer even if he were a Scotsman, to run his industry if that man had no knowledge of the industry ! There are l,000,000 men employed in the industry, and to get the best possible out of a man you have sometimes to know something about the environment, the upbringing and conditions under which that, man lives. We sometimes have disputes in the coal-mining industry—I do not know where there are not disputes. We go to the Coal Controller about them, and I want to tell the House at this stage that, as a practical miner, when we go to see the Coal Controller to discuss these questions he knows very little about the practical side of mining. There is the other question—the question of production. We want peace in the industry. The miner does not like to strike merely for the fun of the thing. The miner is just as patriotic as any man in this House. We want peace. We want production. We want to know why in the mining industry the mines are standing
  1446
  idle for lack of transport; why sometimes a man goes to the mine only to get half a day's work; and why the mines are not in a condition they might be in order to obtain the greatest possible production?
  The Coal Controller, it has been pointed out, is not a practical man. I think we ought to know the reason why. This House and the country ought to be told why these sixteen practical men—it is not a question of employer and employed!— on the one hand there are eight men representing the miners, and on the other eight representing the employers, all practical men—we have a right to know why these sixteen practical men who did such good service during the War in maintaining production are not being called into existence at the present time to insist on a given production? Every Member of this House who loves his country and who wants to see his country prosper should unite with those who have brought up this question. Let us have the fullest possible inquiry as to why we are not getting the greatest possible production. No harm can come from inquiry. As one who is in the mining industry and views it from the miners' point of view; and from the point of view of one who knows the necessity for increased production of coal, I would urge the House to give the inquiry asked for, and I believe it will have the result of getting the production of coal necessary for the fulfilment of all needs.
  Captain COOTE: I am not a specialist at nationality like the last speaker, but I have the very greatest sympathy and accord with his remarks; and I should just like this evening to make a few remarks upon the question generally of the Coal Control. It appears to me that all controls are undesirable in this country. Control is the most clumsy and expensive way of running an industry, and can only be justified by some extreme national danger. In the case of coal the danger is of course a danger to the consumer. That danger partakes of a two-fold character—one of too high prices, arid of unequal distribution. As regards the question of too high prices that is guarded against, in my opinion, by the Price of Coal Limitation Act and by the Wholesale and Retail Prices Orders. These two Orders are the steps taken to safeguard the interests of the consumer for which the Coal Controller can take no credit. They are steps obviously to be taken whether or not the coal control exists.

  1447
  10.0 P.M.
  The last speaker mentioned the obvious inadequacy of the coal control in the country over the industry which it is supposed to govern. Upon that point I should like to say that the figures which were provided, presumably by the Department of the Coal Controller, to justify the rise of 6s. in the case of coal are so obviously inaccurate as to be absurd. The estimates upon which the rise of 6s. per ton was based were formed upon the supposition that the price of export coal was, for example, to be 35s. per ton when at this date we find it to be 57s. 9d. There must be something seriously wrong with the Department that provides those figures. Upon that record as regards prices I say that the coal control should go.
  I come to the second point—that of distribution. This again involves two sides—the question of tonnage and the question of transport. Coal, as the hon. Member opposite remarked, is an assential commodity and the main fact that emerges from the situation is that there is a shortage of coal; there is not enough coal to meet even the rationing which was established by law and that every houshold is entitled to. What is the fact which follows from that? It is that every household in this country ought to be short of coal. The real fact of the matter is that some householders are short and some receive a very full ration. I maintain that what coal is available to distribute ought to be distributed evenly, instead of which we find an unequal distribution. The reason for that is perfectly obvious. Anybody who has any association in the distribution portion of the trade knows the reason is that the inhabitants of the big towns get a preference of the expense of the remote and rural districts, and because the merchants who supply the former can frighten the Coal Controller into giving them supplies. Again, in this matter of distribution the same thing happens in the case of any individual firm of merchants. They naturally supply those of their customers nearest to them instead of those more remote. This happens in the country districts every day. The small country towns get served with such supplies as are available, while the more remote districts get practically nothing at all.
  How is the Coal Controller endeavouring to solve the problem? A firm goes to
  1448
  the Coal Controller and tells him they are short of supplies. He issues an order to a colliery, telling that colliery to divert supplies in order to enable this particular firm to get what they require. What happens? The colliery gets the order. They have not got any surplus to supply the requisition, and they merely divert the coal from one firm to another, with the result that supplies are diverted, and one consumer is supplied at the expense and robbery, so to speak, of another. As regards transport, I admit it is essential in the interests of distribution that the wagons should be controlled. I hope in the few suggestions I am about to make I shall make some attempt to deal with the problem adequately. Vague denunciations of the Coal Controller are absolutely useless. Concrete suggestions are wanted. I hope those I shall make will receive consideration even if they do not attain success.
  As regards the point of prices, it seems to me perfectly feasible and possible to enforce the already existing laws and regulations by establishing local committees. I suggest these should be composed of the members of the magisterial benches, in order to enforce these prices, rather than the existing Profiteering Committees, because obviously, on the latter are men who are interested in the trade, and therefore who are not capable of sitting in judgment upon the cases arising out of the disregard of existing regulations. Excessive prices and unequal distribution would come before them, and such committees would be given the power to seize the stock of any merchant who did not comply with the regulations, issue tenders for delivery, and charge the merchant with the cost of delivery. The merchant would hate them —and if I may digress for a moment into a personal matter, I am afraid I shall be very unpopular in making that suggestion, because my own father is a merchant, and when I get home he will possibly have something to say to me on the point. If the coal control was taken off distribution, there would be a great danger of an almost unholy scramble for tonnage. Every firm would be out to get as many wagons as it could; the result would be that those firms which owned private wagons would have an enormous pull. They would get all the supplies, and therefore the big profits. I think the arrangements which was suggested a long time ago, when the Ministry

  1449
  of Transport Bill was first mooted, that railway wagons should be taken over by the State, should be carried out. I believe it would be feasible for the right hon. Gentleman to go to the firms engaged in production and take over the wagons, and I am sure this would lead to economy, because everybody in the industry knows that the running of railway wagons is an exceedingly profitable enterprise.
  The next point I would suggest with regard to distribution is that you would have to fix the ration of those who buy direct from the collieries, that is all wholesale and retail merchants and factors who buy direct, and you could fix that ration by allowing them a percentage of the amount they received during the year ending the 30th June, 1917. In that year supplies were fairly good, and since that time very few, if any, new collieries have been opened from whence supplies have been drawn. There is another point about the price and amount of export coal. You would have to take measures to fix that amount and fix the price with a better regard to the actual figures and costs of the industry generally than has been done in the past. You would have to take powers to vary the prices charged for inland coal different to those prices made under the Orders I have mentioned. You would have to take powers to negotiate the acquisition of mineral rights to which the Government is committed, and which has been given as the excuse for the appointment of the present Coal Controller. All this involves the setting up of a central body, and I suggest that a committee should be set up to take over from the Coal Controller's Dpeartment those duties which it has discharged inefficiently. As to the composition of that committee, I would suggest the present Coal Controller should be the chairman—it will be observed that I am giving him a job—and it should also consist of fifteen members, three from the Coal Control Department, three from the wholesale merchants, three from the retail merchants and factors, three from the Mine-owners' Association, and, this is important, three from the Miners' Federation. That would give those who are actually engaged in the production of coal a real interest in the control of their industry.
  I recognise it would be impossible to wind up such a big business as the coal
  1450
  control in a very short time, and I would not propose that the committee I have suggested should come into operation tomorrow, but it might be established with a clear prospect of success, say, in three or four months' time. I am not going to urge any personalities or put forward arguments in the interests of this section of the trade or that, but I want to consider as far as I may what are the best interests of the industry as a whole, and to secure to the consumer not only his coal at a cheaper price, but the full amount which he can arid should obtain in accordance with the total output of coal in this country.
  Sir A. GEDDES: A large number of points have been raised and a large number of suggestions have been put forward, but before I deal with them there is one thing I am sure every hon. Member would like me to say, and that is to express in the House our recognition of the extraordinary good work done by the late Coal Controller who has recently resigned. I have never known any man devote himself more whole-heartedly, without thinking of himself, to carry out voluntarily the duties of this extraordinary and difficult job as a national duty.
  The points which have been raised fall under three main heads. First of all, there is the question of the personality of the new Coal Controller, his qualification, his training, and suitability to the office. Next, there is the general question of the coal control, and then there is the question of prices. Outside those three heads there are certain minor questions which I will deal with before I sit down, if time permits. In the first place, I will deal with the personality, training, and suitability of the new Coal Controller. I would preface my remarks by saying that the appointment of the Coal Controller is not a matter which comes altogether in my Department. It is true that the Coal Controller works under the President of the Board of Trade, but the actual appointment is not one made by the President of the Board of Trade.
  Why has the Government selected this gentleman for the office? We had before us a very large number of men who might have been chosen. In the first place, it was quite obvious when we came to pick out the most suitable man for the post that it was undesirable, and we thought it impossible, to contemplate the appointment of a coal-owner. We thought it quite impossible, and indeed undesirable, to

  1451
  appoint a coal manager or a manager of coal mines. We thought it undesirable, and in fact impossible, to appoint a representative of the Miners' Federation as Coal Controller. Consequently, we were driven outside the industry to look for a man to fill this post. I do not think anyone will dispute that this was inevitable in the present state of affairs inside the coal industry with the difficulties which may arise in the future. I have no hesitation in saying that, great as is the criticism made on this point, I believe if there had been an appointment made within the coal industry itself, the criticism would have been far greater than anything which has been said to-night.
  What sort of a man were we to look for? Clearly we required a man of great personal gifts, and we required a man who had a wide knowledge of the industries of the country. Besides this, we required a man of good physique, with powers of endurance, for, believe me, no man unless he be of good physique could carry on this job without breaking down. Therefore good physique was an essential part of the qualification of the individual for whom we were looking. It was also desirable that he should, if possible, have a wide knowledge of the other industries, because although you can equip your Coal Controller with expert advisers in every aspect of the coal industry you cannot equip him with expert advisers in other industries, and he must therefore be a man who knows where to go to get expert knowledge, because the Coal Controller stands between the coal industry and the other industries of this country; and it is only necessary to have listened to this evening's Debate to realise that the action of the Coal Controller is mainly outwards from the coal industry into other industries and it is the experts who work under him who must work inwards to the coal industry. In Mr. Duncan, after a long search, after considering many names, we found a man who came as near meeting our requirements as any man in the country. He is a man of great experience and knowledge in other industries. The hon. Member for South East Ham said he knew him in 1897. But his experience is not quite so long as that. The hon. Member said he knew him as a strike breaker in 1897. But Mr. Duncan was at school in that year.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I said I saw him in 1897 and since then I had known him as a strike breaker in connection with the Engineering Shipbuilding Employers' Association, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to deny that fact.
  Sir A. GEDDES: My hon. Friend will find what he said in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. He said that the strike was in 1897 and he knew Mr. Duncan as the strike breaker.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I beg pardon. In 1897 the Secretary of the Engineering Shipbuilding Employers' Association was Mr. Biggart, and if the right hon. Gentleman will inquire he will find that Mr. Duncan was associated with Mr. Biggart subsequently, and he has since then become notorious as a strike breaker and a very skilful strike breaker. I think Mr. Biggart at that time represented the employers on one side and the right hon. George Barnes, a Cabinet associate of the right hon. Gentleman, was on the other side. Between them I acted as mediator and brought that dispute to a conclusion.
  Sir A. GEDDES: Of course, but Mr. Biggart it not Mr. Duncan, nor has the hon. Member, so far as I can understand, explained in the very least what he meant if he did not mean that Mr. Duncan in 1897 was associated with Mr. Biggart as a strike breaker, whereas at that time Mr. Duncan was at school.
  Mr. EDWARDS: What I said—
  Sir A. GEDDES: No, I will not give way again. The statement was definitely made. It was a most unfair and most cruel statement, deliberately made in this House.
  Mr. EDWARDS: On a point of Order. I did not say—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): That is not a point of Order.
  Sir A. GEDDES: Mr. Duncan's record throughout is the very opposite of being a strike breaker. He has been on the most excellent terms with Labour when he has been brought into contact with it. On that side Mr. Duncan's qualifications are, I am sure, such as entitle him to the confidence of the Miners' Federation. I hope they will give him a chance, that they will not assume that he is not a thoroughly suitable man for the post simply because they do not know him. I am absolutely

  1453
  certain that in a few months' time, when they do know Mr. Duncan, they will look back upon some of the things which have been said to-night with regret. I would appeal to them, and I am sure I shall not appeal in vain, to give him a fair chance in this office which lie has taken up at what I might fairly say is a considerable personal sacrifice. It is at the request of the Government, to carry out a national duty, that he has accepted the post. It is true that immediately, at the moment, there is an increase in salary over that which he was receiving before he came to this post.
  An HON. MEMBER: What is his salary?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Two thousand pounds a year, with. £300 war bonus. He was offered that amount to stay where he was, and his prospects were extremely good, but he selected temporary Government service. He is not serving for a pension. He has come in out of a patriotic desire to help the country at a lower rate of pay than he could have got, with worse prospects. [An HON. MEMBER: "Pretty good pay!"] It may be pretty good pay, but it is less than he would have got outside.
  Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where he gets his information?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I have made very careful inquiries, naturally, before any appointment of this sort was made. I know exactly what his position and his prospects were, and what his mental attitude has been with regard to taking the post.
  Mr. JONES: As a member of one of the affiliated unions, we were very much surprised to hear that Mr. Duncan ever received the salary the right hon. Gentleman says he is receiving.
  Sir A. GEDDES: I have not said what salary he was receiving. I said he was receiving a slightly smaller salary, and that he was offered the same amount to stay on, with much better prospects. There was nothing in it for him except hard work and a very difficult job. I believe in making this selection and this appointment we have made the best selection and best appointment which could have been made in the circumstances and with the men who were available. It really has to be a whole-time appointment if it is to be successful.
  1454
  Leaving aside the personality of Mr. Duncan, I would like to speak of the coal control. I have already said what I think of the work of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Sir Evan Jones), but the time has come when there must be a big reorganisation of the coal control. The conditions which were suitable in the War period, the powers which were available during the War period, and the direct interference which was tolerated dieting the War period can no longer continue. We have to get some modification of the system of coal control. That is what we are now working at, and I am hopeful that we shall find a solution of the difficulty. At the present time we have a control which exists over the whole of Great Britain, and over the coal within Great Britain and Ireland, but coal control ends, if I may use the phrase, at the beach, and any coal which crosses the beach, even if it is for the use of bunkers, passes out of the area of coal control and becomes liable to the world play of economic forces, and is sold practically at world prices, just exactly as the exported coal is sold at the world price. Inside the line of the beach, in the island, the coal is controlled, and its price is controlled, and a large stock of money is required at the present time to subsidise the coal sold internally in order that it may be sold at the present low prices, which seem so high. We heard a great deal from the hon. Member for the Ogmore Division (Mr. Hartshorn) about the great increase in the output of coal. I would remind him of some figures. Speaking here in July, I think it was, I said that we estimated that the output of coal would be at the rate of 216,000,000 tons per annum. Since then—I admit all the difficulties—the ascertained rate of output has been under 200,000,000 tons per annum. It is true that you can take up good weeks. It is true that last week was an extremely good week, but the fact remains that if it were not that the prices we were getting for the export coal and for the bunker coal was higher than we estimated, we should have required to add another 2s. to the price of coal per ton in order to pay the cost of production. The extra price would have been 8s. if it were not for the increased profits on export and bunker coal. It may be all right to talk about the uselessness of having put on the 6s. and the unjustifiability of it. Do you think that any Government with any sort of sense—and I do not think that

  1455
  anybody, not even his worst enemy, would accuse the Prime Minister of not having considered a question of this sort—
  Mr. HARTSHORN: Submit it to the arbitration of any impartial body.
  Sir A. GEDDES: Do you think any Government would put 6s. a ton on coal for fun?
  An HON. MEMBER: You did it for the election.
  Sir A. GEDDES: What election? The 6s. per ton is only adequate just now because we are able to reinforce it by 3s. 4d. per ton from export and bunkers. When I spoke in the House in July I said that the 6s. would only be possible if we were able to reinforce it by is. 4d. We are now subsidising at the rate of 3s. 4d. a ton all the internally consumed coal. That position comes about from the fact that the obtained output of coal, for one reason or another, is only at the rate of 198,000,000, as against the 216,000,000 tons. I quite agree, and I agreed in July, that there was no reason which was insurmountable why the rate of output should be so low as 216,000,000. If any hon. Members who are interested will look back at the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date they will see that I said that as the output of coal rose we should be able to take off the increase of price, and we would be willing to do it by 6d. steps, in order to get the price of coal down. That we are still willing and anxious to do, and I believe that we shall soon be able to do it. The first thing to be done is to get down the price of bunker coal. That is more important for the moment, from the point of view of prices in this country, even than the high price of internal coal. Among the reasons why the output of coal is improving is that transport is improving. It is not good yet, but it is better than it was. Supplies from the pits are improving. They are better than they were. The pits which were not in full working order are now in better working order. It is also true that the miners in some districts are settling down and working much better than they were earlier in the year. Those reasons are all contributing to the increased output of coal which I think is coming. There is a general indication that it is coming, and it is very interesting to notice that the Coal Controller, when discussing the percentage increase in the piece-rate wages
  1456
  that should be allowed to compensate for the decreased time was right, and that the men's representative overstated the reduction which would come about.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: The calculations were not based on the statements of the workmen's representatives. All the calculations were based on the estimate of Mr. Justice Sankey's 10 per cent. We had nothing to do with it.
  Sir A. GEDDES: My hon. Friend knows quite well that there are records of meetings which show exactly what was said, not by him, I admit, or by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr Brace), but by others who were there to speak on behalf of the miners, who pointed out that the increase would be greater than 10 per cent., and that you could not be expected to give as little as 10 per cent. because the year's reduction would be far more, and so on.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: My contention was that Mr. Justice Sankey said that the rate of reduction would be 10 per cent. You were making arrangements for a revision of rates to cover that. You were four times wrong in your calculations. You cannot deny that.
  Sir A. GEDDES: I most emphatically deny that I was ever wrong on a single thing.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: You started with 10 per cent., then went to 12, then to 13.3, and then to 14.2.
  Sir A. GEDDES: We slatted off with 10 per cent. That was right, and that is where we should have stuck, but because of the arguments that were brought forward, because of the great knowledge which various speakers on behalf of the miners had of the underground work, because of a whole lot of other circumstances of that sort, we allowed ourselves to be over-persuaded, and accepted the calculations of the miners' representatives. They were wrong, and I believe they always knew they were wrong.
  Mr. J. JONES: Where were the supermen?
  Sir A. GEDDES: It is not the case that the series of misunderstandings which led to the Yorkshire strike were based on an error by the Coal Controller. The facts are now definitely provable by anyone who takes the trouble to look into the matter. The Coal Controller was correct, and the

  1457
  other people were not, on appreciation of what the effect would be. The loss of tonnage which resulted from that strike and from other strikes about that time in the industry, and the loss of tonnage from the upheaval on the railways, are responsible for the fact that we have fallen so far clown in the estimated rate of production of coal. My hon. Friend says, "Look at the output for last week." Does he seriously believe that we are not going to get other abnormal weeks in the future?
  Mr. HARTSHORN: You did not estimate that.
  Sir A. GEDDES: The whole of the estimate is based on an average sort of working year, with its ups and downs; it takes in what we may expect the rate to be. I agree we are wrong. We have over-estimated. It is not, as the hon. Gentleman stated, that we have hopelessly underestimated. It is true that we level out. I am sure we shall not get such big upheavals in the next few weeks. Then who knows what is going to happen in regard to coal output. We have to expect that there will be oscillations; we have to deal with facts as they are in this world. I would remind the hon. Gentleman, as I told the House the other night, that now, far from profit being made by the Government out of coal, the Treasury has had to contribute—it is not contributing now, the subsidy having stopped—in round figures, £26,000,000 to the coal industry.
  Mr. GOULD: What was paid by the Admiralty for coal?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I cannot answer, but I will get the figures. That is not a sum of money owing for Admiralty coal, but a sum which the Treasury has had to advance direct to keep the industry going during the period that coal was being subsidised. Approximately it was £26,000,000. There is a very long way to go before that can be paid off, and I do not suppose it will ever be paid off by the industry. So that we have at the present time to face this deficit, andunless we getup the output of coal and unless we can maintain the price we are getting for export coal or export more coal, the price of internal coal will have to be raised. I do not believe we will have to do so, but if those two "ifs" came about it would. I do not think it will be, but there is quite the possibility. The price of export coal at South Wales has fallen 15s. per ton in the last fortnight.
  Mr. GOULD: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly quote the figures?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Certainly. The average has fallen from 50s. to 36s. in the South Wales coalfield during the last fortnight.
  Mr. GOULD: Then how is it that the price of bunker coals in South Wales has not fallen, and is still about 72s. 6d. per ton?
  Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. Member has got to remember the price of coal at the pit. The average was 50s. according to the figures in the possession of the Coal Control Department, and there is no possible question as to the accuracy of those figures as returned to the Department. If that fall goes on—and had it not been for the American coal strike it would have gone on—and if we do not get an increased output, and therefore increase the amount available for export, then the price of internal coal will have to go up. The first thing we propose to do is, if we can, to cut down the price of bunker coal. Bunker coal has been varying in price equally from quarter to quarter very largely. A very large element in the price of bunker coal is the actual carriage to the port, which is heavy, but overseas foreign-going ships have been bunkering with the actual price for coal, not transport, at 75s. per ton. It is proposed that we should extend the area of control as soon as we can see a satisfactory method of doing it to include the bunkers and to equalise out as far as we can the price of bunker coal, using any profits we can get on the export coal to keep down the present retail price of the home-consumed coal, and to lower the price of bunker coal to British ships and ships of other nationalities calling at our ports. How soon exactly we will be able to do that depends on output, depends on peace in the coal-mining industry, depends, in some measure, upon the development and improvement on the transportation side, which, I think, already visible, and certainly I hope will be marked before long. There are great difficulties to be met in connection with clearances. We have had one bit of luck from the money point of view in connection with coal, and one bit of bad luck in connection with the home consumption of coal, and that is that as a result of the difficulties of distribution and of the fact that the disturbances of production or output have been greatest inland, and that we have not been able to move coal from the seaboard collieries

  1459
  inland in sufficient quantities, we' have had a larger amount of coal actually exported, and internal coal users had to go somewhat shorter either than we desired or hoped. The actual reduction on the internal coal user has been from a rate of 181,000,000 tons per year to a rate of 153,000,000 tons per year, and the export has benefited accordingly It is that benefit on the export that has helped us through. I do not know that we can expect to keep up the volume of export that we so far have been maintaining since July. While I am speaking on this point in connection with the price of coal and the price of bunker coal, and the fact that we have had a sort of windfall on the financial side, partly as a result of the disturbance of distribution, I would like to speak of the difficulties we have had to meet at Liverpool. One of the most difficult problems we have had has been the problem of bunkering ships at Liverpool. As the result of the Yorkshire strike there was a great shortage of coal in the Midlands, and we had to use some Welsh coal in that area with a certain amount of Durham and Yorkshire coal. The Welsh coal was required in such great quantities that it was not possible for arrangements for railing it to be made, and a good deal had to be sent by sea. Liverpool is equipped for bunkering with rail-borne coal, and the equipment and the appliances are not suitable for bunkering with sea-borne coal, and it has been a very real difficulty. The committee of shipowners in Liverpool has been of very great assistance and help in that matter, and I hope that soon we shall be able to allow a considerable amount of coal to be borne to the port by rail for bunkering purposes.
  I think that covers the series of points to Which I wished to refer about price and arrangements for bunkering. There remains the procedure with regard to the future stimulation and encouragement of the industry. It has been suggested that for some obscure reason I have been unwilling to consult the Advisory Committee which was appointed during the War to work with the Coal Controller. Nothing really could be further from the fact. The position has been this: A decision was arrived at long before I had anything to do with the Board of Trade that during the sittings of the Coal Commission, and until the arrangements with regard to the decision to be taken on the
  1460
  findings of the Commission should be settled, the Committee would not meet, and I think if my hon. and right hon. Friends would look back over the records they would see that there has been no regularity. There have been two or three occasions since the Sankey Commission was set up. That may have been right or it may have been wrong. It was certainly not done out of any desire to slight or ignore the Committee. It was done as a direct and deliberate step in policy with regard to the proper relations to be maintained at the time the Sankey Commission was sitting. It is true that r carried on that practice after I went to the Board of Trade in consultation with the Home Office. Therefore, if there has been any misunderstanding on this point I would remove it. I welcome and have always welcomed the assistance of the industries with which whatever work I am doing is directly associated.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: What is the price of coal paid by the Admiralty as compared with the 75s. for bunker coal?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Admiralty coal is charged six or seven shillings above home price.
  Mr. SPENCER: What is the average profit of the coal-owners?
  Sir A. GEDDES: The profit to be allowed the coal-owners, as has been announced in this House on five or six separate occasions, first by the Leader of the House, and at other times by me, is for this year at the rate recommended by the Sankey Commission in their Interim Report, namely, 1s. 2d. per ton raised.
  Mr. SPENCER: Does that include export coal and all coals?
  Sir A. GEDDES: When coal is raised it is raised to the surface. It is the amount raised. It has nothing to do with export. It is 1s. 2d. per ton raised. The profit in the export is a national profit. In so far as it exists as a profit at the moment it is carried over to equalise prices, to make good losses, and keep down the price. There is no individual person making great sums out of this export of bunker coal. In addition to this point of the Committee which has been made, the Prime Minister intimated last summer the setting up of a public Inquiry into reasons for the declining output. That Committee of Inquiry has had a strange and somewhat irregular his-

  1461
  tory. We have made great efforts to find some person suitable to act as chairman of that Inquiry, and it was decided that the Government should appoint the chairman and then consult the three big interests in the mining industry: the owners, the managerial staff, and tile men, about the composition of the Committee of Inquiry and the exact procedure. After much hunting we have, I believe, found a suitable independent man to-day. I hope to to be able to be in a position to announce his name in the course of the next day or two. That, I think, covers all the points which I wish to specially debate at this time. In summary, I may say that we believe we have got in Mr. Duncan a man who is peculiarly suitable to take on this difficult job of organising the Coal Control Office and co-ordinating its activities with the other industries of the country. We believe that in a comparatively short time he will be able to reorganise the Office and control in a way which will be helpful to the country as a whole. In conclusion, I appeal to the representatives of the miners that they will help him to carry out his difficult task. Without their help —with their opposition it would be impossible—he cannot succeed.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I have no intention at this late hour of attempting to reply to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade other than to say that as far as we are concerned his reply is of a very unsatisfactory character. We have asked for a committee of inquiry, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) has given a list of the points we want inquired into. These questions are of vital importance not only to the coal trade of the country but to the country itself, and if the position of the coal trade be such as has been outlined in the speech to which the House has just listened, then there is great need for inquiry. I am not sure that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade has not furnished quite as many reasons for an inquiry as the speech of my right hon. Friends who have already spoken. It is quite true that he has spoken about some Committee that he is about to set up. The Committee, as far as I could gather, is of far too limited a character, and we have had no information as to the reference to be submitted to that Committee. This is one of the vital industries of the nation, and, according to the President of the Board of Trade himself, it is not in a
  1462
  healthy condition. We want the fullest inquiry, so as to get this industry at the earliest possible moment put upon a sound footing, and I suggest to the Leader of the House that we should have further time granted to us to discuss this very important matter. It is not possible to discuss this question in all its bearings from a quarter-past eight to eleven o'clock. The time is too short; and I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Leader of the House that we shall be granted a full day in the near future to discuss this very important matter.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am rather disappointed at that request for this reason, that it would be really very difficult to get through our Parliamentary business if we were to have a preliminary canter before every discussion. I cannot at this moment make any promise in that respect, but again I say, what I have always said in these matters, that, if time be available, we shall try to meet the general wishes of the House. Hon. Gentlemen have talked about Committees, and they want a Committee to inquire into the appointment of Mr. Duncan. That is impossible. The Government of the day must take the responsibility of choosing its servants. We could not have an inquiry into that, and I would really appeal to hon. Members to give this new gentleman a chance. We have had no motive in choosing him—and I was partly responsible—except to get the best man, and I think that we should let him have a chance, and see whether we were right in appointing him. It really is absurd of hon. Gentlemen in various parts of the House to say that these figures of cost are wrong. It is simply a case of addition and subtraction, and if hon. Gentlemen on the Miners' Federation wish to appoint an accountant of their own to go into these figures we are quite ready.
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed;
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such sums as may be necessary to

  1463
  make good losses incurred in respect of loans by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, so far as such losses relate to expenditure under any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the acquisition of land for the purposes of small holdings, reclamation, and drainage, and other purposes relating to agriculture in Scotland, to amend the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, and the enactments relating to allotments, and otherwise to facilitate land settlement in Scotland; and to authorise the issue to the Public Works Loan Commissioners out of the Consolidated Fund of sums not exceeding two million seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds for the purposes of such Act."—[Mr. Munro.]
  Mr. HOGGE: I object.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his objection. He desires as much as we do to get this Bill through as quickly as possible, and I am sure if he reflects he will withdraw his objection.
  Mr. HOGGE: The course which the Scottish Bill has run in Committee has been such as to alter the nature of the Bill. The Amendment put into the Bill this morning makes it impossible in the opinion of a large number of Scotsmen to create small holdings easily, and I must persist in my objection.
  It being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  1464
  Committee. report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  RAILWAY STRIKE.
  Whereupon MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. HOGGE: I gave notice yesterday that I would raise the question of the Railway Strike on the Adjournment, and I now propose to raise it, though neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the House apparently have the courtesy to attend in the House.
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  The House was Adjourned at Six minutes after Eleven o'clock till Tomorrow.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
COAL PRODUCTION.
  INCREASED PRICE.
  INCREASED PRICE.
  ANTHRACITE.
  ANTHRACITE.
  ROAD BOARD (ANNUAL REPORT).
  ROAD BOARD (ANNUAL REPORT).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  BACON.
  BACON.
  POTATO CROP, 1918.
  POTATO CROP, 1918.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  CEREALS (PRODUCTION ABROAD).
  CEREALS (PRODUCTION ABROAD).
ROYAL NAVY.
  NAVAL OFFENCES (MEN UNDER SENTENCE).
  NAVAL OFFENCES (MEN UNDER SENTENCE).
  H. M. S. "EAGLE."
  H. M. S. "EAGLE."
  YEOMANRY CAVALRY.
  YEOMANRY CAVALRY.
DEMOBILISATION.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  SOLDIERS IN THE EAST.
  SOLDIERS IN THE EAST.
  9TH HANTS REGIMENT.
  9TH HANTS REGIMENT.
RUSSIA.
  BRITISH TROOPS.
  BRITISH TROOPS.
  BALTIC STATES (GERMAN TROOPS).
  BALTIC STATES (GERMAN TROOPS).
  HOME SERVICE (MEDAL).
  HOME SERVICE (MEDAL).
  ARMY (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE).
  ARMY (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE).
  OFFICERS' UNIFORMS (PRICE).
  OFFICERS' UNIFORMS (PRICE).
  NAVAL OFFICERS, MERSEY DEFENCE (BONUS).
  NAVAL OFFICERS, MERSEY DEFENCE (BONUS).
  NURSING SERVICES (MESOPOTAMIA (PAY).
  NURSING SERVICES (MESOPOTAMIA (PAY).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  SENIOR OFFICERS.
  SENIOR OFFICERS.
  TRAINING AND STAFF, EGYPT.
  TRAINING AND STAFF, EGYPT.
  ARRODROMES (SHERBURN-IN-ELMET AND TADCASTER).
  ARRODROMES (SHERBURN-IN-ELMET AND TADCASTER).
  MILITARY OFFENCES (MEN UNDER SENTENCE).
  MILITARY OFFENCES (MEN UNDER SENTENCE).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PARENTS' PENSION.
  PARENTS' PENSION.
  YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE SWALES).
  YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE SWALES).
  YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE D. CLOUGH).
  YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE D. CLOUGH).
  APPEAL TRIBUNALS (OFFICIALS).
  APPEAL TRIBUNALS (OFFICIALS).
  WARRANT AND NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (DISABLEMENT PENSIONS).
  WARRANT AND NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (DISABLEMENT PENSIONS).
  PREVIOUS WAR PENSIONERS.
  PREVIOUS WAR PENSIONERS.
  MERITORIOUS SERVICE ANNUITIES.
  MERITORIOUS SERVICE ANNUITIES.
  WAR GRATUITY (MASSEUSES AND FIELD CASHIERS).
  WAR GRATUITY (MASSEUSES AND FIELD CASHIERS).
INDIA.
  INDIAN SERVICES GENERAL PROVIDENT FUND.
  INDIAN SERVICES GENERAL PROVIDENT FUND.
  LAND SETTLEMENT (INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS).
  LAND SETTLEMENT (INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS).
  CYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).
  CYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).
  POLICE FORCE (DISMISSALS).
  POLICE FORCE (DISMISSALS).
  METHYLATED SPIRITS.
  METHYLATED SPIRITS.
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  NATITRALISED GERMAN, PENZANCE.
  NATITRALISED GERMAN, PENZANCE.
HOUSING.
  WOODEN HOUSES.
  WOODEN HOUSES.
  AGRICUITURAL LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  AGRICUITURAL LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  BUILDING TRADE WORKERS (DEMOBILISATION).
  BUILDING TRADE WORKERS (DEMOBILISATION).
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  WOODS DEPARTMENT (DAMAGE CLAIM).
  WOODS DEPARTMENT (DAMAGE CLAIM).
  PROFITEERING ACT (INSPECTORS).
  PROFITEERING ACT (INSPECTORS).
  TINPLATES (PRICE).
  TINPLATES (PRICE).
RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  POTTERY CLAY (TRANSPORT).
  POTTERY CLAY (TRANSPORT).
  BLANDFORD CAMP.
  BLANDFORD CAMP.
  FOOTBALL CLUBS (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  FOOTBALL CLUBS (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE COMMITTEES (ALLOWANCES).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE COMMITTEES (ALLOWANCES).
  GERMAN SAILING VESSELS (CHILI).
  GERMAN SAILING VESSELS (CHILI).
  CANADIAN HAY (FREIGHTS).
  CANADIAN HAY (FREIGHTS).
SCOTLAND.
  EDUCATION GRANT (SCHOOL BOARDS).
  EDUCATION GRANT (SCHOOL BOARDS).
  ELGIN (CHANGE OF NAME).
  ELGIN (CHANGE OF NAME).
  EDUCATION RATES.
  EDUCATION RATES.
  DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEES (OFFICERS' SALARIES).
  DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEES (OFFICERS' SALARIES).
  HEATHER BURNING AND GAME DAMAGE.
  HEATHER BURNING AND GAME DAMAGE.
  HOUSING (PLANS).
  HOUSING (PLANS).
  EPIZOOTIC ABORTION (INOCULATION).
  EPIZOOTIC ABORTION (INOCULATION).
  MORPHIA (EXPORT).
  MORPHIA (EXPORT).
ALLOTMENTS.
  BUSHEY PARK AND PRIMROSE HILL.
  BUSHEY PARK AND PRIMROSE HILL.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

HOUSE OF COMMONS AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (QUALIFICATION OF CLERGYMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, in my opinion the part of this Bill to which any large practical importance attaches is Clause 2. This clause proposes to remove the disqualification by which at present ministers of religion generally are debarred from serving on the councils of ordinary boroughs, though they are allowed to serve on the councils of county boroughs, metropolitan boroughs, and a number of other local government bodies. On that part of the Bill I am not without hope that your Lordships will unanimously agree with me.
But I have thought it right to include in Clause 1 of this Bill the removal of the disqualification which now debars persons in Holy Orders, whether in England or Ireland, and ministers of the Established Church of Scotland, from sitting in the House of Commons. That is a matter which would not be likely to affect a very large number of individuals; nevertheless, it raises a far more difficult point than that which arises with regard to the municipalities. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to state what is the actual position of the law in this matter and its history, so far as I understand it. The original disqualification of clergymen from being members of the House of Commons did not rest, it is evident, upon any idea that that position was incompatible with their spiritual functions. That is evident, because Bishops are and always have been members of your Lordships' House; and not only that, but there are other members of this House who happen to be in Holy Orders and sit here.
The reason why the clergy were not allowed to sit in the House of Commons was simply that the House of Commons was not their taxing assembly. The
130
clergy taxed themselves through their own assembly of Convocation. At the time of the Restoration that arrangement lapsed—I am not precisely aware how, because there was no Statute on the subject—but from the time of the Restoration owards, Convocation has not taxed the clergy and Parliament has done so. It does not seem to have occurred to any one at the time that with that change the reason for disqualifying clergymen for seats in the House of Commons fell to the ground; and though I am told that in the course of the eighteenth century one or two clergymen did sit in the House of Commons without objection being made, yet it would be conceivable from the law that they were debarred from doing so.
Eventually in 1801 the matter was settled by Parliament when the Rev. John Horne Tooke, a learned but turbulent person, was returned for the celebrated borough of Old Sarum. Objections were raised to his taking his seat, and after several discussions an Act was passed declaring that it was the existing law that clerks in Holy Orders were disqualified, and providing means by which the law could be enforced. The discussions on that occasion were not very important. There was no consideration of whether it was a desirable thing in itself that clergymen should be excluded from the House of Commons. The ground was simply taken that the existing Constitution ought not at that time to be tampered with, and Mr. Horne Tooke did not take any very wide ground of principle in opposing this measure against himself. His case was that for practical purposes he had long ceased to be a clergyman. He had obeyed his father in taking Orders, and since then had obeyed nobody else. And, in his own phrase, he pleaded that thirty years of quarantine were a sufficient guard against the infection of his original character as a clergyman. He proceeded further in the debate to give various illustrations, as I take them to have been, of the efficacy of the way in which he had been disinfected of that taint, as I think he would have regarded it. And he concluded his last speech on the subject by drawing the attention of the House of Commons (with what relevancy I cannot conceive) to the interesting question of the celebrated swine of Gadara, entering at some length On a computation, derived from some divine, as to the probable number of devils which had entered into each individual swine,

131
the resulting number, I think, being between 1½ and 1¾ devils per pig. So the discussion on his part of the case against the Bill was one of mere frivolity and amusement.
I shall not say a word further about those discussions or the origin of the matter, because I do not think that the considerations which appealed to Parliament then would appeal to us very forcibly now. And were it simply a question of general principle I should rather expect your Lordships to agree with me that a clerk in Holy Orders or a minister of the Church of Scotland should not, as such, be debarred from entering the house of Commons if he could find a constituency, any more than any other class of British citizen. But there is, of course, this practical difficulty. A great number of clergymen have, of course, benefices with duties attached, but they are not in a position comparable to officers in the Army who on active service are debarred, I suppose, from sitting and voting here—at least some are—because their position is something like that of a freehold with duties annexed to it, and there is under the present system, I suppose, no ecclesiastical authority (I speak under correction) which can adequately compel a beneficed clergyman to attend to the duties of his cure. That is a practical difficulty in this matter. I will return to it in a moment.
I would first remind your Lordships that there are a good many clergymen who do not come under any such category, who, in fact, are not engaged in parochial work at all, whether as beneficed clergy or as curates. There are, to begin with, the clergy of the now disestablished Church of Ireland who remain under this disqualification. There are also a good many clergymen of distinction who, through ill-health or some other accidental cause, at some period of their lives have been led to relinquish their parochial duties for some years, with the result of not returning to them, who still desire—and why should they not?—to exercise the office of a clergyman in public worship and in preaching, and who, are debarred from entering Parliament should they wish to, unless they first take the, to my mind, most repugnant step of divesting themselves of Holy Orders. There are also men like secretaries, often in Holy Orders, of important religious and philanthropic societies; and, finally, there is that extremely large class of clergyman
132
whose ordinary professional duties are not parochial at all, but are those of schoolmasters or teachers of some sort. There are, in short, a great many clergymen to whom the objection to which I have referred does not apply.
I understand that a certain number of these gentlemen feel that it is an unfair inequality cast upon their profession that they should as such be debarred from being Members of Parliament; and in principle, without putting the importance of the matter too high, I must say my sympathies go very heartily with them. To my mind there is something repugnant in anything which in principle unnecessarily marks off the clergyman as a man apart. There is a sentence in a letter of Wordsworth's in which he protests that it is a very mistaken idea that, in order to spiritualise the clergy, you should in some way dehumanise them. I object very much, simply as a matter of principle and of sentiment, to anything which in any way might seem to mark the clergyman as being in some way less than a man. Therefore on grounds of general principle the proposal that Holy Orders should not in themselves be a bar to election appeals to me strongly, and I had no hesitation, at the request of a number of clergymen, in including the first Clause in this Bill.
Now briefly as to the position of the beneficed clergy. When I introduced the Bill in the form in which it stands I must say I was inclined to think that the question would not arise. I do not think that a man who forsook his parish duties to become a candidate for Parliament would stand the remotest chance of being elected by any British constituency whatsoever. I understand, however, that the most rev. Primate, who will follow me, takes a different view, and thinks the point is one of some practical importance, and I need hardly say that I bow altogether to his authority. At this time, when we are all anxious to do everything possible to remove hindrances to the work of the Church of England and to remove even apparent scandals, I think it would hardly be right to put on the Statute Book legislation by which there would be the possibility that a man drawing his stipend and neglecting the spiritual interests of his parishioners should obtain a further stipend of £400 a year by mismanaging their temporal interests. That would be a scandal, and

133
I should be willing to accept any Amendment which would shut out the actual holder of a benefice. At the same time I am not perfectly sure what the terms of such an Amendment would have to be. Therefore I would conclude this subject merely by saying that I hope your Lordships will allow this Bill to go into Committee, and I will undertake not to put it down till sufficiently late to allow the matter to be well considered by the most rev. Primate and other right rev. Prelates. I myself should hope that the Bill will emerge from the Committee retaining at any rate the principle that Holy Orders themselves should not be a bar to election.
By the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, not only Clerks in Holy Orders but the regular ministers of all dissenting congregations were debarred from serving as mayors or members of borough and city councils. I have not looked into the grounds for that legislation, nor do I think it matters; because, whatever the principle was, it has long since been abandoned. As I said, on ordinary county councils, on the London County Council, on county borough councils, on urban district councils, on rural district councils, on parish councils, on boards of guardians, and so forth, clergymen are free to serve, and are often very valuable members of those bodies. The right rev. prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, who had hoped to be here this afternoon but who I understand is delayed, was, as some of your Lordships remember, the mayor of a metropolitan borough; and instances occur to me of other distinguished clergymen who have served in that capacity in municipal work in London, or in county boroughs in the north, and who have now become deans, for example, of cathedral cities which are not county boroughs, and who consequently find themselves barred from putting their municipal experience at the service of their present local authorities.
These two or three cases may not sound a very great matter, but I want to remind your Lordships that there are in this country numbers of urban district councils which tend in the course of time to become, municipalities, and I think it is a matter of some importance that whenever those councils become incorporated any clergyman who happens to be on the municipality becomes excluded from it. Certainly in my part of the world there are
134
a number of little boroughs and urban district councils in which it is of really practical importance to sound local government that the clergy should be eligible. In a great many of the towns to which I allude the only persons with a wide knowledge of the world—with the sort of knowledge that your Lordships, for instance, would bring to bear on local government—the only educated and disinterested gentlemen in point of fact concerned with sound municipal government, very often are the parsons of the places. In a large number of cases it is a distinct handicap to local government that these gentlemen are excluded from borough councils. On that point I shall expect the sympathy of your Lordships. As to the other matter I myself have a very open mind as to what should be done in Committee, and I do not desire the Committee stage to be taken unduly soon. In these circumstances I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Charnwood.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, we are all grateful, I am sure, to the noble Lord for the extremely clear and lucid way in which he has stated what are the facts with reference to both of the branches of the proposal he makes—namely, his suggestion that the clergy should no longer be debarred from sitting in the House of Commons, and that where they are now debarred from sitting on local authorities the bar should be removed. The noble Lord feels—I admire, respect, and agree with all that he says upon the subject—that there are strong reasons why the knowledge which the clergy inevitably and happily possess on a great mass of public affairs in this country should be made available as widely as possible with regard to the work of the Legislature and of local bodies. In that I entirely agree with him, though I myself do not feel that the proposal that he makes is one which would best conduce to that end.
There is a remarkable passage in the Life of Cardinal Manning. Towards the end of his life he made memoranda, subsequently published, as to the contrast or likeness between the position of the clergy of the Church of England and the position of the clergy of the Church of Rome in this country, and he draws an interesting

135
distinction between them on this point. He says that the clergy of the Church of England are throughout their lives and from the nature of their work constantly abreast of public affairs and take an interest in them in a way which is not attempted or accomplished by the clergy of the Church of Rome. He adds, "It is to our disadvantage, and to the clear advantage and gain and credit of the clergy of the Church of England." That corresponds with what a totally different witness, Mr. Charles Booth, told us—namely, that there was no set of men from whom he obtained so much information, and who were able to give that information so readily and on so large a scale, as the clergy of the Church of England. Throughout my ecclesiastical public life I have endeavoured on every side to press on the clergy, and on the public too, the duty of the clergy to be thus abreast of what is happening in our public life, to bear their full share in it, and to keep themselves in every way in touch with the social and educational movements, and so on, going on in our parishes.
I mention this only lest it should be thought that when I criticise (as I do criticise) the proposal to remove the bar which keeps the clergy from the House of Commons, it is because I doubt whether their knowledge or their competence would be useful in many respects if they were actually in the House of Commons. I believe that no small part of the gain which the public gets from the knowledge that the clergy have of these affairs, no small part of the influence which the clergy can exercise in regard to social matters of this kind, is due to the fact that they are outside the ordinary rut of partisan controversy and political strife. If we once say that, with a view to entering the House of Commons, the parish priest is to become a candidate under this or that Party, to be a member of the organisation which is promoting this or that political partisanship, and, if elected, to find himself the victim of Party organisation, Party Whips, and the rest, he is finding himself also of necessity—supposing the duties of Parliament and of his Party to be physically compatible—placed in contradistinction with the side taken by some of his parishioners. I believe that the strength of the clergy lies in their interest in these matters being independent of the partisan organisation and arrangements which are essential for the due
136
discharge of membership of the House of Commons.
The noble Lord has referred to two of the occasions upon which this subject has been discussed in Parliament during the last 120 years. He mentioned the debates which took place on what is called the Home Tooke matter in 1801, when this gentleman's case was discussed fully in Parliament, and an Act passed which for the first time as a specific Statute debarred the clergy from sitting in the House of Commons. I think that my noble friend did rather less than justice to the importance and interest of those debates. They are reported at quite exceptional length. The debates of that period and the speeches delivered by Lord Thurlow and others are extremely interesting. They are not the least interesting because of the extraordinary view that is expressed as compared with what people think to-day about people being in Orders at all. It was gravely argued at one time that what was called being ordained put a man in a peculiar position; that ordination was a mere ceremony and the man ordained stood in no different position from that of the man not ordained, in any respect whatever. There was a bluntness and straightforwardness in this attitude which reads curiously, not only in the light of what we think, but in the light of the debates which took place long afterwards.
Seventy years passed, and in 1870 the Bill (to which the noble Lord has alluded) was passed, by which clergy who no longer desired to continue to discharge the duties of their office could withdraw from that office altogether, and retire from the ministry. I am not saying at all what bearing that Act has ecclesiastically or canonically, or how far it is necessary that I should touch now on the view that could be fairly taken in Church law and canon law as to the ineffectiveness of such a withdrawal from Orders on the part of individuals. But, as regards the law of the land, it is clear that a man can, if he choose, set himself free from any of the obligations or disqualifications which lie upon him in consequence of his having been ordained. Not a few of those who have taken advantage of the Act did so because they had ceased altogether to hold the opinions which they held when they were ordained, because they had come to regard themselves as in no way qualified

137
for the ministerial work which they desired to lay down—a work which some of them even treated with some scorn in the laying of it down. Men who have taken advantage, either on this ground or on others, of that Act have, of course, many times sat in the House of Commons. There has been, at any rate, one member of His Majesty's Government who was originally ordained. There are many other men, including Mr. Thorold Rogers, prominent in the House of Commons, who have been in Holy Orders to start with and who have taken advantage of the Act.
The debates which then took place are as different as possible from those of 1801, because then everybody admitted that to be in Holy Orders meant something quite different; that it was not a mere ceremony or outward form, but that it marked for the man ordained responsibilities and obligations which lay upon him in the most solemn sense and from which certainly he could not free himself without the very great care that the Act lays down. Ten years later an attempt was made to pass just such a Bill, as regards the House of Commons, as is now submitted by the noble Lord, and another debate took place in the House of Commons in 1881, in which Sir William Harcourt was prominent, and other speakers bore their part in it. To contrast the view then taken with that which had been taken eighty years before about the manner and character of ordination to the ministry is an instructive comment, and it is worth any one's while to look at it. This is not an appropriate place to dwell in detail on the subject.
I venture to think that the real answer to the proposal now made—and that proposal, of course, is that a man, while retaining the full obligations of the ministry to which he was ordained, shall be also able to sit in the House of Commons—is this. Let a man read the ordination service of the priests; let him see what is said there about the devotion of the man's life to the particular purpose for which he is set apart, the nature of the devotion, the way in which the thoughts of the whole man are to be given up to that man's work, what the work is to consist of, and how he is to carry it through; and then compare that with the position which lays upon him the ordinary obligation to sit day by day in the House of Commons, dealing with matters which I will not say are outside the very high moral responsibility, even the
138
religious responsibility, that lies upon any man there, but are wholly outside a number of the characteristics to which at his ordination he devoted his life.
I cannot myself be a party to a measure which should invite and encourage clergymen to regard it as compatible with the purpose for which they had been originally ordained—a purpose which, presumably, they desire still to carry on—to accept a position in the House of Commons with its emoluments and the obligations which are there laid upon one. That is the view I take. While, as I shall show in a moment, I am entirely in favour of the second part of the Bill, I would go so far as to suggest that the whole of the first clause should be left out. I do not say that there is anything terrible in the thought of such a thing being made law. If it had been the law already, I am not prepared to say that I should have striven to get it removed now, but for us to take the step to-day to remove the disability which now lies on a man who is ordained, would to my mind be only justified if you could show that it was in response to a strong, persistent, legitimate and widespread demand.
When this kind of subject comes up I am generally the recipient of a very large correspondence from one side or the other from all parts of the kingdom. On this subject I have received one postcard. That is the sole communication which has reached me with regard to this Bill, except from my noble friend himself, who, with his accustomed courtesy, has kept me informed of all he wants to do. Only one postcard have I received, and I confess I should require to have some indication of a wider interest than that in the subject before I felt justified in doing something which, while its result would, I believe, be very small, would have the effect and the appearance of a sort of demonstration of a specific kind which I should feel to be unfortunate and contrary to the principles that I hold.
It may be said, either in this House or outside, "If you think that the clergy should not sit in the House of Commons or be elected thereto, what about the Bishops in the House of Lords?" That is a very easy argument to use. The two positions do not seem to me to be in the least degree parallel. I have spoken of reasons why I should specially object to plunge the clergy of our parishes into the controversial disputations which precede,

139
accompany, and follow election to Parliament, or into positions in which they would find themselves if they were in Parliament. A Bishop does not submit himself to a constituency with an election address, taking one side or the other in the Parliamentary controversies of the day. Happily, he does not find himself tied to a party organisation of any kind, and, while it is an open question whether Bishops should sit in the House of Lords, it at all events does not really connect itself clearly—my noble friend did not in the least endeavour to connect it—with what he desires to bring about in the House of Commons. I am quite aware that it is an open question whether Bishops should sit here at all. If the question were ever discussed, I should have something to say about it, and I think I could show that there are some advantages in the Bishops having the seats which they have held even for a longer time than the predecessors of most of those who are temporal Peers in this House. But that is not in question to-day. All I am anxious to make clear is that I am not in the least blind to the possibility of raising that point, as a debating argument, outside the House rather than in it probably, about the proposal which the noble Lord has made, and that I am perfectly prepared to meet it by showing that the two things do not run on all fours in any degree at all.
On the whole, then, I am distinctly against the first clause of the Bill. I see no real demand for it. Looking at the matter historically I do not find that there has been any period when it has been really widely desired, and I believe that at this moment there is even less wish for it on the part of the clergy at large than there might have been a good many years ago. It is true to say that there are plenty of clergymen who have not their time fully occupied and that they might spend it much better in Parliament. That is an argument, however, for uniting our parishes (a policy I am in favour of) but it is not an argument for suggesting that they should join one Party or another in a candidature for the House of Commons and give up their time entirely to that duty. Presumably, if they were honest men, they would have to give up most of their time, to the detriment undoubtedly of their work in the smallest parishes— work to which they have been definitely and with great solemnity assigned.
140
If the Bill is read a second time with my consent it will be because I hope that Clause 1 may be afterwards wholly omitted. As to Clause 2, I do not desire to see that omitted. It is by a kind of accident that persons in Holy Orders or regular ministers of dissenting congregations are disqualified from some municipal bodies. If you will go back to the debates on this question you will find that it is hardly possible to say there was any deliberate intention that they should be permanently barred; only in a kind of haphazard wav were they barred. There are certain offices which they can hold. They can sit as mayors of boroughs, and the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham was for some years mayor of one of the London boroughs. The Principal of St. Mark's College, Chelsea, is Mayor of Chelsea. But there are some offices they cannot hold, and it is often a real loss that men possessing peculiar qualifications cannot at this moment take part in some of our local work. It is a disqualification which I believe arose accidentally, and which I think ought certainly to be removed. The objections I have spoken of in regard to Parliament do not apply in the least. They would be engaged in the local life and work of the parish and borough; would not be obliged to give up any of their parish work or belong to any political organisation. The objections, therefore, which stand across an efficient discharge of his parochial duties if he were a member of the House of Commons do not apply when a clerk in Holy Orders is a member of a municipal corporation, district council, or the rest. The second clause of the Bill seems to me to be of real value, while the first clause would be rather insignificant in its consequences. Not many clergymen would be elected. I do not think the best men would desire to stand, and we should not find a great accession of gain to the House of Commons by the few men who might possibly be elected.
If the noble Lord goes to a Second Reading I should be prepared to support the Motion on the clear understanding that Clause I will be deleted in Committee. I desire to thank the noble Lord again for the clear and considerate way in which he has put the whole matter before the House, and the readiness that he expressed to accept large modifications after he has heard what your Lordships may have to say on the Bill.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL):My Lords, the object of Clause 1 of this Bill is to enable persons who have been ordained to the office of priest or deacon or are ministers of the Church of Scotland to be eligible to sit in the House of Commons. It repeals the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801, which now disqualifies them for being so elected. The argument of the most rev. Primate applied only to the Church of England. We have not heard any views yet as to the ministers of the Church of Scotland; and if this first clause is entirely deleted, obviously both Churches would be affected. My noble friend has reminded us that by the Clerical Disability Act, 1870, the disqualification imposed by the Act of 1801 ceased to apply when a person had relinquished in due form his office of priest or deacon in the Church of England.
The second clause of the Bill seeks to remove the disqualification now attaching to clerks in Holy Orders, and for this purpose it repeals Section 12 (1) (b) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. That particular section provides that a person shall be disqualified for being elected to, or for being a councillor of, a municipal borough by reason of being in Holy Orders or a regular minister of a dissenting congregation. This applies also to aldermen. It is rather curious that there is no such similar disqualification for county councils, metropolitan borough councils, urban and rural district councils, boards of guardians, and parish councils. By subsection 2 of the Local Government Act, 1888, it is expressly provided that clerks in Holy Orders and other ministers of dissenting congregations shall not be disqualified for being elected as councillors. You really have three classes of persons—first, those who are deliberately disqualified from sitting on county councils; secondly, the other bodies as to which there is no disqualification; and, thirdly, there is the borough council disqualification which the noble Lord seeks, by this Bill, to remove.
The most rev. Primate has drawn a great distinction between the Party action which a man might have to take if he were in Parliament as against local councils. I suggest that he has taken rather too picturesque a view of the entire absence of Party feeling on many of the county and borough councils. If he will consider how keenly the last election in London has been
142
fought for the borough councils he will hardly contend that a man could get on these councils and not necessarily belong to a Party. I have had a good deal of experience on the London County Council, and I am speaking with full knowledge of the extent to which ministers of religion have been on that body and have taken sometimes extreme Party action. As regards the attitude of the Government on this Bill, they leave the matter entirely open to the House. I may add that, as far as I know, the Government have not received even a single postcard on the subject.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AFGHANISTAN.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to call attention to the Papers regarding hostilities with Afghanistan, 1919, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether the text or the purport of the letter "handed to the Afghan delegate" by Sir H. Grant on the 9th August had been previously seen and approved by the Government of India and by His Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I fully deserved the correction which the noble Earl the Leader of the House administered to me last week, because I neglected to ascertain whether any Papers in connection with the Afghanistan question had already been laid on the Table of the House. I have since had an opportunity of studying the Papers which have been laid, and I find the information in them distinctly inadequate, and in some respects very disturbing. The Proclamation of the Viceroy to the Afghan people is not included, nor is there any hint of what actually passed at the Rawal Pindi Conference, although the Indian newspapers were able to publish the opening address of our representative and the very insolent reply of the Afghan delegate. Among the sixty-seven documents there are only four communications from the Secretary of State to the Viceroy, and only two are of importance. Of these, there is one which approves the selection of our representatives at the Conference, and most wisely makes the suggestion that a military officer should be added as adviser. I do not know whether that suggestion was ever carried out, though I think it was most excellent. The other

143
conveys the approval of the letter written by the Viceroy to the Amir in connection with the Conference, and again there is wisely appended the addition of the words "His Majesty's Government will not allow any modification of the Armistice terms."
I can find no indication that His Majesty's Government transmitted any expression of their wishes in regard to the terms of peace, or even that the terms of peace were submitted to them before being finally agreed, and that is my reason for raising this question to-day. No one can be more opposed than I am to undue interference with the Government of India, but in such a vital matter as the Treaty with Afghanistan it is clear that the view of His Majesty's Government must prevail. This is not only a question for the India Office; it is also quite as much a question for the Foreign Office. In these Papers I find much interesting and illuminating information, and there are one or two points which I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention. In the first place there was full warning that the Amir intended, as soon as he could, to get rid of all supervision over his foreign relations. In a most flamboyant Proclamation which he issued to his people the Amir said this—
"It is the eternal will of the unchangeable Creator—exalted be His glory—that all hardships and oppression may be removed from the heads of your nation, and that Afghanistan may be protected from the mischief of enemies of the faith and of this country. O Nation with a nice sense of honour. O brave Army."
He then declared that it was his intention that—
"the Government of Afghanistan should be internally and externally free—that is to say, that all rights of government that are possessed by other independent Powers of the world should be possessed in their entirety by Afghanistan."
Further than that, the Secretary of State received on April 25 the following telegram from the Viceroy—
"British Agent at Kabul reports: 'In Durbar held 13th April Amir made speech in which he declared Afghanistan free internally and externally, and he personally made this fact known to me particularly. He has appointed a certain Muhammed Wali Khan as Afghan Safir to Bokara; latter is about to leave. Am informed by reliable sources that question of appointment of Safir to Persia is under consideration.'"
When, in May, it became quite clear that the Amir meant wantonly to attack us there was strong reason to believe that his action was inspired from enemy sources,
144
and that his object was directed to shaking himself free from the obligations imposed upon his father.
Your Lordships will remember that the imposition of the restrictions upon the foreign affairs of Afghanistan was enforced after the war of 1879–80 and the deposition of Shere Ali, which was caused by his reception of a Russian mission at Kabul. I think I am right in saying that the subsidy was not connected with this condition, but was granted in order that Abdur Rahman might be able to consolidate his position as Ruler. That subsidy has been going on ever since, and was increased in 1893, but latterly it has not been drawn by Habibulla Khan, because he wished it to be understood probably that he could draw on the Government of India whenever he liked and was not therefore the recipient of a dole; or it may be he thought he would like to have a reserve fund, in case he found himself in difficulties and was obliged to quit his kingdom.
Now I come to the Treaty which was signed at Rawal Pindi, more than 100 miles inside the frontier of India. There were good reasons why the Treaty with Germany should not be signed on German territory, but it is not easy to see why the Afghan Treaty should not have been negotiated and signed on Afghan territory, say, at Jallalabad. In the East such things never pass unnoticed. But that is not the whole of the story, as previous to the negotiation of the Treaty the Afghans had violated the terms of the Armistice; and from information published this morning it appears that during the negotiations at Rawal Pindi and since the Afghans were actually occupying Wane, well within our border. I sincerely hope that that information is false, because it will be remembered that in the Papers it is stated that the Viceroy expressly declared that no negotiations would take place while a single Afghan soldier remained on British territory.
On August 9 the Viceroy repeated to the Secretary of State a telegram in which Sir Hamilton Grant reported the full text of the Treaty. There are five articles ill that Treaty, the substance of which was lucidly explained by the noble Earl last week. He also said at that time that "only the first stage in these proceedings had so far been enacted." Article 4 lays down that—
"The British Government is desirous of the re-establishment of the old friendship that has so

145
long existed between Afghanistan and Great Britain, provided they have guarantees that the Afghan Government are, on their part, sincerely anxious to regain the friendship of the British Government. The British Government are prepared, therefore, provided the Afghan Government prove this by their acts and conduct, to receive another Afghan Mission after six months for the discussion and amicable settlement of matters of common interest to the two Governments and the re-establishment of the old friendship on a satisfactory basis."
I am afraid that the recent actions of the Amir do not hold out much hope of that happy state of things being brought about.
As early as May 23 the Viceroy reported that the Amir had sent a "subservient" letter to "the honoured President of the Russian Republic," saying that in raising the Standard of Bolshevism Russia had earned the gratitude of the whole world. There is also an ominous request for a pamphlet on Bolshevism in the Koran promised by Barakatullah, a notorious Indian conspirator, at one time professor at the University at Tokio and subsequently a prominent member of the very dangerous Ghadr Party in San Francisco. This man accompanied a party of Germans and Austrians who arrived at Kabul in 1916, and I believe has been there ever since. From this Paper it appears that 100,000 copies of his pamphlet, translated into Persian and Hindustani, were ordered for distribution. It was also stated at the same time that the Amir had written, but not then sent, letters to Japan, Turkey, France, and the United States; and in less than three months since the signing of the Treaty the Amir has sent an embassy to the Bolshevist Government at Moscow, and emissaries to stir up trouble in Turkestan. Therefore it looks as if Afghanistan might become a dangerous focus of Bolshevist propaganda in the East, and that will add to our troubles in India.
The North-west frontier was never so disturbed as it is at this moment since the great tribal war of 1897. As we heard lately the Mahsud Waziris are on the warpath, and it is certainly open to belief that the Amir has deliberately stirred them up to action; but I ought, in justice to the Amir, to point out that the Treaty lays no obligation whatever upon him not to tamper with the tribes, although such a provision was inserted in the terms of the Armistice. As the noble Earl stated the other day, Article 2 withdraws the permission to import arms through India into Afghanistan, but as there are now manufactories
146
of small arms and machine guns in Kabul itself, and as there must be a large quantity of arms available from other sources, I do not think that this Article is of much value to us.
The Treaty having been signed on August 8, and communicated to the Secretary of State on August 9, a second telegram was sent to the Viceroy on the same day. I am afraid that I must read that telegram because it is really of first-class importance. The telegram is as follows:—
"My telegram of to-day. Sir H. Grant reports that after signature of Peace Treaty he handed Afghan delegate following letter: 'You asked me for some further assurance that the Treaty of Peace now offered by the British Government contains nothing that interferes with the complete liberty of Afghanistan in external or internal matters. My friend, if you will read the Treaty of Peace with care you will see that there is in it no such interference with the liberty of Afghanistan. You have informed me that the Government of Afghanistan is unwilling to renew the arrangement under which the late Amir, Habibulla Khan, agreed to follow the advice of the Government of Great Britain in matters affecting the external relations of Afghanistan—without reserve. I have therefore, refrained from pressing this matter of which the Treaty of Peace contains no mention. By the said Treaty and this letter, therefore, Afghanistan is left officially free and independent in its affairs, both internal and external. Furthermore, all previous treaties have been cancelled by this war.'"
At that point, my Lords, the White Paper stops abruptly. I think that your Lordships will feel that some further information is required. You will also note that the telegram which I have quoted is merely a repetition from the Viceroy of a report from Sir Hamilton Grant, and there is really nothing to show the authorship of this most important letter, or whether the terms received the previous sanction either of the Government of India or of His Majesty's Government.
It may be that this concession which was demanded by the Amir three months earlier was inevitable. I do not know whether that is the case or not, but it is surely very unfortunate from the point of view of our whole position in the East; and as unfortunate in my humble opinion is the fact that we took no guarantees, such as the occupation of Dakka or Jellalabad, for the execution of the terms of this Treaty. I fear it is now clear that the Afghans are widely proclaiming that they were victorious in the campaign which they forced upon us after a peace of nearly forty years. From what I hear from India,

147
it seems that they are also boasting that they have obtained an amnesty for the tribesmen on our frontier. From this White Paper it may well be inferred that the fateful letter which I have quoted was drafted by Sir Hamilton Grant alone, and that seems to me quite impossible. Therefore I think it would be very undesirable that such an impression should ever prevail. On February 16, 1908, the noble Earl the Leader of this House made a most powerful speech in condemnation of the five Afghan articles in the Anglo-Russian Convention. From that speech I am encouraged to think that he will not entirely disagree with what I have attempted to say this evening, and I hope that your Lordships will think that the grave importance of these matters justifies me in raising them again to-day with the knowledge I now possess and the knowledge that I ought to have possessed last week.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I would like to ask the indulgence of your Lordships' House while I make a few observations in connection with the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Sydenham, with which I desire closely to associate myself. I feel that Lord Sydenham is fully justified in raising a second debate on this matter; indeed, I think it is one of such vital importance that in doing so he is rendering a great public service. Last week he spoke under the disadvantage of not having had the opportunity of perusing the White Paper. I must myself plead guilty to a similar omission. But having now read this Paper I share with him curiosity mingled with apprehension both in regard to the contents of that Paper and in regard to some of those points which were not fully dealt with last week by the noble Earl who leads the House, and also in regard to the information that I, along with your Lordships, have been able to derive from the public Press.
No one conversant to any degree with the Indian frontier and its ever-present dangers to the security of India can regard a vital change in the Treaty arrangement between Great Britain and Afghanistan with anything other than the deepest possible concern. No one who has read carefully the White Paper can do so, I think, without entertaining in his mind a certain sense of humiliation coupled with deep apprehension for the future of that Territory. By a series of treaties in the
148
past with former Rulers of Afghanistan, whilst we have instituted and ensured for Afghanistan its integrity and internal independence, we have at the same time necessarily for our own security claimed certain specified conditions which control the external policy of that country with foreign Powers. This proviso originated when we placed Abdur Rahman on the Throne close on forty years ago. This undertaking was loyally complied with by him during his reign, and equally loyally complied with by his successor, Habibulla, during his reign until his unfortunate assassination last year. The British Government was obliged to enter into this undertaking, and it did so in no arbitrary or tyrannical spirit, but solely in the cause of Indian defence and security. This was recognised and accepted by those two great Rulers of Afghanistan all through the period of their reign. The geographical position of Afghanistan, the peculiar condition of its people, the condition also of temperament and character of the varying and diverse frontier tribes which lie between Afghanistan and our frontier of India, one and all constitute an imperative necessity on our part to make sure, as far as a Treaty could do so, not only that Afghanistan should remain quiescent and peacefully inclined to us, but also that outside and hostile Powers should be precluded from entering into alliance with that country with the object of stirring up aggression with Afghanistan and the frontier tribes against our borders and so threatening the security of India. It was for these reasons that this Treaty was instituted, and, as I say, loyally abided by. No one, I think, has been a more prominent or consistent advocate of that policy than my noble friend who leads this House. No one knows the dangers that may arise by a weakening of that policy better than he does. It has been a settled policy, accepted and loyally adhered to for a period—and a very crucial period—of upwards of thirty-five years, and owing to its existence it has been instrumental in evading a great war with Russia in the past and has maintained for us in their entirety during that period our borders free from outside aggression.
What do we find now by a perusal of the White Paper? First, we read in a serial story of the unwarranted attack and invasion of our territory by the new Ruler of Afghanistan—a war entered into by him unprovoked, without the slightest excuse of

149
premeditated or aggressive action on our part. And we go on in that Paper to read how with promptitude this invasion was dealt with by our troops—dealt with in such a way that it resulted in a very few weeks in the Amir suing to the Viceroy and the Government of India for an armistice. The White Paper then goes on to describe in a series of letters from Amanulla, the present Amir, to the Viceroy—letters which may be characterised as both offensive and impudent in the extreme—how the Amir attempted to haggle over the terms laid down for the armistice.
Those letters are replete in every line with a tissue of misrepresentations to baulk and to evade compliance with the terms of the armistice. To read those letters, without knowing the facts of the case, one might almost believe that we had been the offenders and that the Amir and Afghanistan had been the victors. The replies by the Viceroy exhibit a tolerance and forbearance which, I think, are hardly compatible with the circumstances under which the Amir sued to the British Government for an armistice. And, finally, we read the agreement which is come to, that delegates from the respective countries should meet to consider the terms of peace at Rawal Pindi, and of the meeting of these delegates at that place resulting, as it does, in the Treaty described by my noble friend and appearing in the White Paper in Paragraph 66, consisting of five articles. I agree with my noble friend that Article 2, which withdraws the privilege enjoyed by the Amir of importing arms, ammunition, and warlike munitions through India to Afghanistan will, in view of the subsequent part of the Treaty which I will allude to in a moment, be of very little avail.
I will not delay your Lordships by dealing with these Articles in the Treaty. I will come to Paragraph 67 in the White Paper which appears at the end as a kind of afterthought, and is the letter which has been read by my noble friend by Sir Hamilton Grant, and handed to the Afghan delegates. In this letter clear information is given to the Amir of Afghanistan that the abrogation of all former treaties is to be undertaken on the part of the British Government, and emphasis is laid on the complete liberty in external policy for that country which is to be granted by the British Government in the future. There is nothing in the White Paper to indicate that this very important decision is a
150
definite decision by His Majesty's Government. One is almost led to suppose that it cannot be so because, if your Lordships will read on page 34, you will see that the arrangements for the armistice were referred home and were assented to by the Government, coupled with an important amendment which was embodied in those terms.
What my noble friend asks in his Question is—Was this Peace Treaty, and more especially this addendum to the Peace Treaty by Sir Hamilton Grant, the considered decision of the Cabinet and a definite instruction from home, or was it a decision come to in India without the sanction of His Majesty's Government? A matter of this extreme gravity fraught with potential trouble in the future deserves, I think, an explicit reply and explanation by His Majesty's Government. If our arms had suffered serious reverse in this war, or even defeat, I can hardly imagine terms entered into or extracted of a more subversive character to our interests and security in India in the future, especially in the times in which we are living now, than those which have been laid down in this addendum under No. 66 of the White Paper. I think, indeed, that a strong case must be made by His Majesty's Government for having come to such a decision and for having cancelled so settled an undertaking between Afghanistan and Great Britain as that which is indicated in this addendum.
It was said by my noble friend last week that freedom for external relations must now be established to comply with the doctrine of self-determination. How can the cancellation of an undertaking of this character coincide with the principles which underlie the League of Nations? The principles of the League of Nations are, by the common assent of all countries, to use every endeavour and to take all possible steps to ensure peace throughout the world. How can you expect peace with a Ruler of this temperament as he has shown himself in these past months, free to ally himself with any and all of those various exasperated enemies of Great Britain that are to be found throughout the Far East to-day? How can you hope for centres on our borders such as Kabul, Guzni, and Kandahar to remain peaceful influences with the western gate of Afghanistan open to the intrusion of all those enemies who will be only too glad to take advantage of the temperament of a hostile Ruler to

151
introduce intrigue and conflict on our borders?
At least I should like to hear from my noble friend when he replies to this Question that some provision has been made which has not been indicated in this Paper to secure our position against these possible and probable hostile elements finding their way to those strategic centres upon our borders, some provision to ensure at any rate warning and preparation for our people who are guarding that most vulnerable and important border of India. I will not say more except to repeat that this Treaty with the addendum is to my mind one of very grave importance; it is one in regard to which I cannot help feeling the deepest apprehension, and I think my noble friend has been fully justified in raising the question and in asking His Majesty's Government to tell him and the public the reasons which led them to conceive this most important undertaking in regard to our relations with Afghanistan.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KKDLESTON): My Lords, under cover of a Question which is in itself confined to a definite and a narrow issue, my noble friend Lord Sydenham has favoured your Lordships' House with his views upon the case in its more general aspect, and has told us what he thinks about the arrangement that has been come to between the Government of India and Afghanistan. I do not for one moment complain of my noble friend for doing so, partly because it is the immemorial custom in this House to make a Question on a narrow issue the peg upon which to hang a speech of a larger and more important character; and partly because, owing to the mischance that happened the other day, we did not then have the advantage of hearing the views of my noble friend upon a point on which he is so well qualified to advise us. He has stated those views this afternoon with the moderation and the force which we always associate with his deliveries in this House. He has been followed by my noble friend Lord Islington who also has dealt with the larger rather than with the narrower issue, and whose language about the agreement I think I do not exaggerate if I say has indicated a spirit of almost unbroken condemnation. The noble Lord is entitled to hold and to express those opinions; I only regret that he has not found a more favourable opportunity
152
for doing so. A House which consists of certainly not more than twelve persons is hardly the place in which to arraign, even with the authority of my noble friend, the policy of His Majesty's Government; nor, again, does it provide a fitting opportunity for the spokesman of the Government to reply. As a matter of fact I did make a speech of considerable, perhaps undue, length upon the matter a week ago, and it was not my fault that the two noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion had unfortunately not seen the Papers upon which they were anxious to comment. I saw that I was on that occasion, perhaps deservedly, censured in the newspapers for taking the matter with undue seriousness and for occupying too much of your Lordships' time. I really cannot consent, therefore, having made a speech of some length upon the subject last week, either to repeat it or to make another now. If at any time any noble Lord—the noble Lord, for instance, who has just sat down—desires on a serious occasion and in a House better qualified by its numbers to listen to him, to raise the question, I shall be happy to meet him. All I can attempt to do to-night is to answer the Question on the Paper and to deal with one or two points which were mentioned incidentally by the two noble Lords who have preceded me.
The noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, asked why the Viceroy's Proclamation was not included in the Papers. There was no reason whatever why it should not have been. Had the importance been attached to it here which the noble Lord has done, it certainly would have been included. Perhaps it ought to have been included, but it was not a matter to which we at this end attached any particular moment. The next point he made was this—I think I dealt with it last week—that the Papers as circulated did not contain any account of what passed at Rawal Pindi between the delegates of the Government of India and the Afghan representatives. Quite true; and no one knows better than my noble friend how undesirable, and indeed impossible, it would be in the East any more than in the West (because the same conditions prevail here) to relate stage by stage what passes in a discussion between two parties who are desiring to come to a peace agreement. I certainly could not subscribe to the doctrine that either now or at any time in the future should we

153
hold ourselves bound to disclose to the public the details from day to day of those negotiations as they went along. Similarly my noble friend pointed out—again with truth—that the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy's Government has, with rare exceptions, not been included. I think I gave the answer to that a week ago, and it is this—that we regard this matter, so far as it has at present gone, as only the first stage in a business that is not yet completed. The matter has to be resumed at a later date. In what form it will be resumed, whether at the end of the six months or later, it is as yet too early to predict; but I think it is most undesirable, and will probably have a most deleterious effect upon the negotiations when they are resumed, if at this stage we lay correspondence upon the Table between the Government here and the Government of India dealing with all the shades of opinion expressed—possibly differences of opinion—which will be fastened upon by the Amir and the Afghan Government for reasons of their own.
Another point was made by Lord Sydenham. He asked why was the Treaty signed at Rawal Pindi; why did not we go to Jellalabad or to Dacca and sign it there? To go to Jellalabad would have involved military operations of a very serious character; and they would have had consequences that would not have been confined to the signature of this Treaty alone, but might have compelled us to take over the Government of Afghanistan. Be it remembered that it was the Amir who sued for the cessation of hostilities and the conclusion of terms, and it was his proposal that the meeting should take place at Landi Kotal or at Peshawar. The Viceroy replied—I think with justice—that he must insist on the negotiations taking place at Rawal Pindi; and if you ask why I say "with justice," I reply that I use the words for two reasons. In the first place, I think it marked the position assumed and the victory claimed by the Government of India much more strongly to insist on your opponent coming to you and receiving the terms that you laid down to him in your own territory than that you should go to his territory. Secondly, speaking from my own experience I recall so well in my last year in India the extreme difficulty and inconvenience that arose from supervising the operations of a Mission in Afghanistan itself. The Dane Mission went to Kabul to conclude the last
154
Treaty with Amir Habibulla Khan, and I remember the many delays which resulted from the effort to communicate with our representative, very often days elapsing before we could get a reply. At Pindi, where the negotiations took place in immediate telegraphic contact with the Government of India and therefore with the Government at home, the inconveniences were reduced to a minimum. I think my noble friend is wrong, if he will allow me to say so, in attributing to the selection of that place the particular character that he did.
My noble friend Lord Islington made a point which, I think, is historically not quite accurate. He was pointing a contrast between the present position under which, by virtue of the concluding document in this White Paper, we have ceased to exercise control over the external relations of Afghanistan, for reasons and in circumstances which I explained a week ago, and he said, "What a contradiction of the old system when you had Sovereigns (Amir Habibulla Khan, and Amir Abdur Rahman Khan) perfectly loyal to their obligations, faithfully observing the terms of their engagements." Surely the noble Lord, from his connection with the India Office, knows that that was not altogether the case as to what has passed in days gone by in the external relations of the Amir. Do remember this—that that control was acquired, and was retained, by us in the main as a protection against Russia. No one will dispute that that was the menace that was feared, and it was the fact that Russia—a powerful, aggressive, and imperialistic force on the other side—threatened Afghanistan that compelled us to assume the conduct of the external relations of that country. Now, equally, no one can deny that that danger has, at any rate for the present, disappeared, and that, even if Russia be revived, it is not likely to be revived in a form, at any rate not within the lifetime of any of us, that is likely to be as menacing to India or its safety as was the former Russian menace.
As regards the loyal adherence to their obligations of the two previous Amirs, is not my noble friend aware that our engagements did not prevent the Amirs Abdur Rahman Khan and Habibulla Khan from being in constant communication with Russian officials? Is he not aware that during the recent war deputations

155
both from Germany and from Turkey arrived at Kabul and were entertained by the late Amir, whose loyalty he eulogised not undeservedly? Is he not aware that Amir Habibulla Khan concluded a Treaty with the Germans?—very likely with his tongue in his cheek (I am quite prepared to believe that) but he did conclude a Treaty with them. Therefore it comes to this—in the first place, that your engagements, to which we are told the Sovereigns remained so loyal, did not prevent subterranean communications from going on; and, in the second place, that your safety lay, not in the terms of your Treaty nor even in the actual technical fidelity with which they were or were not observed, but lay in your confidence in the loyalty of the man. That was our strength with Habibulla Khan, and when he received the Germans and the Turks no one was less disturbed that my noble friend because in the last resort he believed that Habibulla Khan was on the right side, as he was. Believe me, it is the personal equation, much more than the written word, that counts in these cases. Do not let my noble friend be too ready to assume that we have gone from a good state of affairs to a bad state of affairs before these negotiations reach a further stage and we are told what is to succeed the status quo ante.
The only other point which remains for me to deal with is the Question on the Paper. That I can answer in a sentence. The letter of Sir Hamilton Grant, which is printed last in the Paper, and which no doubt was composed by him in the first place, was previously seen and approved by the Government of India and was telegraphed by them to the Secretary of State in this country for sanction. His Majesty's Government, deferring to the urgent representation of the Government of India that an assurance to the Afghans such as that contained in the letter was essential to the conclusion of Peace negotiations, and having regard to the conditions of the Treaty itself, explained by me last week, decided not to withhold their assent.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Earl who leads the House I have no desire to enter at any length into this important subject. He has not exactly complained, but he has explained how it has come about that the debate on this subject has assumed a curious and piecemeal character, owing
156
to the fact that my noble friend on the cross benches, Lord Sydenham, had not, on the occasion when he raised the matter before, seen the White Paper which has been the main subject of discussion to-day. I so far sympathise with the noble Lord that I was in the same position. I also had not seen that White Paper, and I cannot help observing this—that in view of the fact (as I think I am correct in saying) that the Paper appeared on the pink document which reached us with the Parliamentary Papers just about the time of the adjournment of the House for the summer holidays, I think it is somewhat unfortunate that this particular Paper was not rather more seriously treated and circulated as a matter of course to your Lordships, instead of being only placed on the list of those which can be procured if desired—placed in the same category, in fact, as some of the minor Papers regarding food production and kindred subjects.
As regards the character of the debate, the noble Earl has suggested that at some future time it may be desirable to have a discussion of a more full dress character, to be, we hope, attended by more than a dozen members of your Lordships' House in view of the gravity of the subject. I have no doubt that my noble friend on the cross benches will consider at some future time whether it will be wise to raise a discussion in a more formal way, or some other member of the House may desire to do so. It is, therefore, I think perhaps slightly unfortunate that the whole business has not been more categorically considered than has been possible in this two days discussion, in view of the important individual speeches which have been made.
The main point of the noble Earl's contention, as I understand, is that it is undesirable, if not impossible, to enter into close detail regarding these negotiations, because the negotiations can only be regarded as the first stage in a series which is to be continued and concluded later on. Even agreeing or admitting that that is so, the noble Lords who have raised this question have, I think, the right to ask whether, up to the point which has already been reached, anything has been done to compromise those further discussions so as to place India and this country in a disadvantageous position when the future negotiations proceed. I gather from the noble Earl that he does not think that is so, and that at any rate no harm has been done. But Lord

157
Sydenham and Lord Islington take the view that British interests have been somewhat seriously compromised already by the concessions that have been made in the letter of Sir Hamilton Grant which has been read.
On the particular point of the place where the first negotiations were held, I think the noble Earl made a good defence for the selection of Rawal Pindi for that purpose. It seemed to me that the arguments he used—facility of communication as compared with any place within the Afghan border which could have been chosen—carry weight, and that the Viceroy was presumably right in making the selection he did. The matter is, of course, one of convenience on the one hand and prestige on the other; and if the Government of India think that their prestige in no way suffered by the selection of an important military post like Rawal Pindi for that purpose, I should not be prepared to dispute their opinion.
On the matter of external relations, regarding which I think it must be admitted that the announcement that they are to be no longer regarded as a special concern of the British Empire came as something of a cold douche to a great many people, the noble Earl again put up a bold defence. I take it that it comes to this, that control over those relations is not worth maintaining, for two reasons. In the first place, because the "Russian thunder cloud," which used to hang so threateningly over the North-West Frontier may be said to have entirely dissipated so far as any one can foresee, owing to the change of Government in Russia and presumed changes of policy; and, in the second place, because really, in fact, you could not maintain the alleged control, and it was not possible to prevent active negotiations taking place and agreements being arrived at between the Rulers of Afghanistan and foreign, and possible hostile, countries.
I confess that this does not seem to me to be a complete answer. I do not think it necessarily follows that a rule or law ought to be abrogated because in some cases it may be evaded or disobeyed. When this matter is discussed again we shall expect some further reasons from His Majesty's Government, and in particular from the Government of India, as to why it has been thought wise or necessary to depart from a practice which cannot, I conceive,
158
be considered, during the last two reigns of friendly Afghan Sovereigns, to have conferred any disability or serious deprivation of power upon Afghanistan. There may be further reasons in addition to those which the noble Earl has mentioned, and we should all desire, I am sure, to suspend our judgment on the subject pending further discussion; but I cannot pretend that my mind is entirely satisfied by the explanation of the noble Earl. I hope therefore, with him, that the whole subject will be more fully and formally discussed at some future and not very distant date.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, may I say, in defence of my suggestion that Dakka should have been the place of negotiating, that there is now a good motor road to Landi Kotal, and that Dakka is not so inaccessible as it used to be.

CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of October 30.]
GOSPORT AND ALVERSTOKE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
AMMANFORD GAS BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Swinton and Mexborough Gas Board Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Gosport and Alverstoke Urban District Council Bill and the Arainanford Gas Bill; read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at six o'clock.