I beg to move, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the Address the words,

"But humbly regrets that the Gracious Speech contains no reference to the public danger arising from the presence in the Kingdom of aliens who may be in possible communication with the enemy, and of limited companies consisting almost entirely of alien shareholders."

I understand from what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition that the Amendment which is down on the Paper will not be pushed to a Division. If the hon. Member continues the discussion upon this subject of aliens, I would like to know if that will prevent a great number of us raising other questions with regard to the War Office, which have not yet been exhausted? I would like to know if the moving of this Amendment means that we shall be ruled out altogether from discussing other matters?

The hon. Member will have the opportunity of raising other matters when this Amendment has been disposed of.

How shall we know that the matter is disposed of?

When the Amendment is withdrawn.

I do not move my Amendment with any hostility to the Germans in our midst. For many years England has been the home of foreigners, but I think they should be the first to realise that our first duty is to protect ourselves, and I would rather that irreparable damage should be done to any individual or individuals rather than our country should be placed in danger even for a moment. There are a very large number of aliens registered in this country at the present time. On the 9th September the Home Secretary gave us some figures, and he told us that there were 50,633 alien Germans registered in this country, and 16,014 Austrians. If we were to add 10 per cent. for non-registration up to that date, then we should get a total of over 73,000 alien enemies. I know it is a very difficult matter to say that A or B is a spy, nor could the German or the French say that A or B was a spy before they found him out. I think we are entitled to consider here what happened in the case of France and Belgium. There they have found a complete system of espionage. Soldiers, sailors, policemen, telephonists, tram drivers, professional men of every kind, and men of every class in the working life of France and, Belgium have turned out to be spies. Any officer or soldier who has returned from the front will tell you that those countries have been infested with spies. Now England is a greater enemy to Germany than either France or Belgium. The enmity of Germany is more directed against us at the present time and has been for some years past, than against Belgium or France.

On the other hand, England has been the easiest country to enter, and therefore it is fair to assume that as we are considered the greatest enemy of Germany and as ours is the easiest country to enter, we have a larger number of spies than either Belgium or France. You may say that this does not matter unless Germany invades us, but we must prepare for eventualities. Personally, I am not one of those who think that we shall be invaded, but we must prepare for eventualities. If there is no possibility of invasion, why is the Government providing against it? Why are trenches, wire entanglements and other reasonable precautions which sane men would take to protect us being prepared by our military advisers? I think those who are responsible for dealing with the spy question should take the same steps to protect the country against the possibility of trouble from spies as the military authorities are doing. I do not think I could do better than read to the House a quotation from the speech made in another place by the Earl of Crawford, who gave case after case of spying which occurred in one part of England.

Not in England?

I am dealing with the whole country, and England is a shorter term than Great Britain and Ireland.

It is not right.

The Noble Lord gave instances in a country which is as dear to me as it is to the hon. Member opposite who interrupts me, and I am just as much concerned to see that there are no spies on the East Coast of Scotland as upon the East Coast of England. Those facts were given by Lord Crawford, and I am bound to say that the Lord Chancellor in dealing with that speech last night dealt with it, if not in a tone of levity, at least in a tone of indifference which I trust the Home Secretary will not adopt to-night. It is a very remarkable fact that our alien friends seemed to inhabit not the great industrial centres of our country, but mostly the, agricultural counties. I have a return here, not of Germans who are registered to-day, but of Germans who were registered in the Census returns three years ago, and it shows a very small proportion of people registered then as Germans compared with the number of Germans we now find to be in the country. I think I am right in saying that in England and Wales alone there were only about 13,800 as given in the Census returns, whereas now we know that there are something like 56,000. Of that number an enormous proportion were in Kent, Sussex, Essex particularly, and Yorkshire—all those counties along the East Coast of England. Hon. Members may laugh, but why did those men go and settle there, unless it was with some intention of being useful to their own friends if and when the day came, possibly even of an invasion of Great Britain. The Home Secretary has always been an optimist. He dealt with this matter last Session in the most optimistic spirit. He told us that nobody had been shot.

Are you complaining of that?

No, I am not complaining of the fact that nobody has been shot, but I am complaining that no body has been caught who ought to have been shot. That, perhaps, is a different matter. I am quite prepared to say that I believe there are, and that there have been all the time the right hon. Gentleman has been making those optimistic speeches, men who for the interests of the country would have been very much better shot than left where they were. I say that without the slightest hesitation.

Can the hon. Gentleman give me the names of any of these people?

Of course, I cannot. Could the French Government, before the War began, have given the names of all the people they have had to shoot since? Of course, they could not have done! It was when the War began, that France and Belgium found that there were people in their midst whom it would have been very much better if they had shot before the War began. Of course, I cannot give the names, but everybody knows that there are spies in our midst, and it is futile for the right hon. Gentleman to make these optimistic speeches. He did not know when he made that speech of Lieutenant Lody. I will give his name as one who might have been shot. I should like incidentally to ask why the execution of that spy was kept secret for five days?

For military reasons.

There were no military reasons at all. If a spy is convicted, and rightly convicted and executed by the laws of our land, there is no reason why it should be kept secret. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he wants to know, that there are two more spies going to be tried by court-martial before many days are over. Let him contradict that if he can! He cannot contradict it. I cannot give him the names, but I will ask him whether it is not a fact. The Prime Minister himself has admitted, not once but twice, that there has been for years an organised system of espionage in England. Many men have been known and have been shadowed not for months, but for years. All the known ones were locked up when the War began. Does the right hon. Gentleman ask us to believe that there were no unknown spies?

No, I never suggested that.

I am suggesting that as there were spies known, shadowed, and locked up, so there are bound to be a large number who were not known, who were not shadowed, and who were not locked up. The Home Office has not merely been optimistic but also vacillating. Under the Aliens Restriction Order aliens were not permitted to move 5 miles without a permit, and then they could only move under that Order for 24 hours unless they got a special permit, in which case they could go for four days, but they were required to report themselves day by day wherever they went. I should like to know how many permits of that nature have been given, and in how many cases the conditions with regard to reporting day by day have been complied with. The information I have been able to obtain from special constables—I do not mean the rank and file of special constables, but men higher up in the service of the special constabulary—is that the Order is very rarely complied with by those who have got a four days' permit. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman particularly with regard to one case of a gentleman who has been reported to the Government as a spy. I have a letter in my possession dealing with this case. It is from a sub-commandant of the special constabulary in the South-Western District of London. I declined to use it until I had seen the gentleman, and I not only saw him, but I also saw the head commandant of the district himself about it, and they fully confirmed what is in this letter with regard to this gentleman. He is a German, a director or agent of Krupp's, and his brother is a well-known German statesman. Six months ago he went round with Krupp's representative to all our shipyards and arsenals. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that Herr Krupp came over and this gentleman went round with him to our shipyards and arsenals. He was here during the South African War, and he was then suspected of being a spy. He was reported upon as a spy and his house searched, but, as the statement says, he was too clever to be caught. He is now on parole, and he frequently comes into the police station with a smile for a permit. The police in the division openly say that they can do nothing.

What is the district?

I will give the right hon. Gentleman his name, the names particulars. The police say that they can do nothing as they think he is protected in high quarters. I do not want to put it higher than that, but that is the information which comes to me. That gentleman was arrested earlier in the War, and he was then let out after three days' incarceration. He is a German and admittedly a man who is in touch with German statesmen and with Krupp's firm. I venture to suggest, however estimable and good he may be, that it would be far better that he should be under lock and key than living in the South West of London. Amongst the right hon. Gentleman's special constables were two young men with names so German that I should have thought any policeman would have been suspicious of them when they came to be enrolled. They were sons of the London agent of Krupp's. Word came to me about them, and I communicated to the head department. I am bound to confess that inquiries were made, and, the statement I made with regard to them being found to be true, they were removed from the list of special constables. It ought not, however, to be left to a private Member of this House to turn two young Germans off the list of special constables. I do not want to brand their names in public. They may be estimable, but they were sons of the agent of Krupp's, and one of them was engaged in the business itself. Obviously, they clearly ought not to have been allowed to be enrolled among our own special constables. During the first five weeks of the War 1,680 aliens were arrested. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Fred Hall) and myself began to ask questions, and quite coincidently there was some agitation in the Press. The result was—I am giving the right hon. Gentleman's own figures which he gave me before the House rose—that within the next week 1,001 aliens were arrested, or three times as many as he had arrested in any previous week.

Would the hon. Gentleman give the date of the Order on which they were arrested?

No, I am afraid I cannot do that.

7th September. The hon. Gentleman's agitation in this House was on 9th September.

I asked the right hon. Gentleman how many aliens had been interned up to 8th September and how many during the following week. The figures were, 1,680 for the first five weeks, and 1,001—they are the right hon. Gentleman's own figures—during the next week. I was saying it was coincidently not merely with the questions I asked in the House and the agitation in the public Press, but also with the Order he issued. I venture to suggest the coincidence is clear. He issued the Order because of the agitation outside. When the agitation died down the right hon. Gentleman also died down, or, at all events, his activities died down, and when the agitation arose again a month ago with regard to those unfortunate waiters all over London, the right hon. Gentleman sprang up again and men were taken right and left. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to rise and fall in accordance with the barometer of agitation outside. He is responsible for the safety of the realm. Either these men should have been put under lock and key or they should not; but the Home Secretary is the official responsible, and he should not blow hot one day and cold the next day. That is what I suggest to the House he has been doing, largely in consequence of newspaper agitation. What is going to be done with them? The Prime Minister said they would be passed through a sieve of inquiry. What is going to be done with them afterwards? Are they going to be let out again, embittered, as undoubtedly they will be embittered, by having been incarcerated? It would be far better that some arrangement should be made by which they should be sent back to Germany. We have here some 70,000 enemy aliens. Are we going to keep all those at our expense for one year, eighteen months, two years, or as long as the War lasts? It would be very much better, although some of them may be of military age—I would give Germany the benefit of that—that they should be sent freely into their own country, rather than they should be incarcerated here behind wire entanglements or in any other way at the expense of this country.

There is one other question with regard to the East Coast. There is widespread anxiety with regard to spying on the East Coast. There is widespread anxiety with regard to the naval disasters we have had on the East Coast. There is a widespread feeling that signals have been given from the East Coast to the German Navy by which disasters have taken place. How about the loss of those three cruisers? There is a widespread belief that there were signals either by wireless or somehow that enabled the submarine to get in, and that there were also some means by which the mine chart off the East Coast was known to the German flotilla that came over to Yarmouth ten days ago. How was it they could get over so easily? The right hon. Gentleman will not believe anything of the kind. He may say that I am spy mad, but he is spy mad in the other direction. He will not believe that what has been done in every village in Belgium and France may be done in this country. The Noble Lord in the other House last night vouched, for instance, of signalling taking place on the East Coast of Scotland by flash signals and otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman does not get up and deny that.

Is not that a matter for the Scottish Office?

The Scottish Office is represented in this House, and no doubt is acquainted with the Noble Lord's speech; let its representative get up and deny the statement in that speech if he can. No denial was attempted in the other House last night.

No case has been brought to our notice of any suspicion of that kind which has not been promptly investigated.

My point is this: The Government seem to think the authorities who are responsible for the safety of the realm are those who sit on this side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] What did the right hon. Gentleman say? That every case which had been brought to his notice had been investigated. Is the safety of the realm dependent on somebody bringing cases to his notice?

The hon. Member must be reasonable and fair. I did not say no case had been investigated that was not brought by him and his Friends to my notice. That is a very different thing. But I would rather leave this matter to the reply which is to be made to the Amendment. The hon. Member does not seem to understand where the responsibility really lies.

The right hon. Gentleman did not say that any cases had been investigated, and neither did the Lord Chancellor in the other House last night. I am not making an attack, and I am not going to press this Amendment to a Division. I am making my statement in order to relieve the anxiety of the public mind, and to enable right hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell us what they are doing in regard to this question. If they have been investigating a large number of cases on the East Coast of Scotland, let them say so. If the Home Secretary has investigated any such cases, let him say so. We have not known what has been done in this direction. I want to ask with regard to the regulations relating to the right hon. Gentleman's last roundup in London. Is it the fact that he issued a regulation that no more than 200 were to be rounded up in any police district, and that no German minister of religion, or German doctor, or anybody who employed English labour, was to be arrested? Does it not seem likely—indeed I am certain—that any German who intended to act as a spy would be sure to cover himself by employing in some business or other, two or three English labourers, because he would then be less likely to be suspected. I am told—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that the order was that no German doctors—and these are men who are most likely to be in a position to get information—no German minister of religion, and no German employing English labour was to be arrested under the right hon. Gentleman's Order. Finally, I want to ask him why the sentences that have been passed on those men who have contravened the Defence of the Realm Act have been so extraordinarily light.

. That is not for me to say.

I know the right hon. Gentleman says it is not for him, but we know the power he possesses in moulding the opinions of magistrates.

I must repudiate that. The hon. Gentleman has no grounds for saying that any Member of this Government has ever interfered in the slightest way with the exercise of the discretion of the judiciary.

The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Home Office, from time to time, issues circulars to magistrates, and I am quite sure that if he issued a circular to magistrates with regard to the Defence of the Realm Act, pointing out the dangers against which that Act was passed, and urging the importance of its being thoroughly and efficiently administered, no one would blame him.

That has been done.

I am glad to hear it has been done. There is something else which it is in his power to do. What action does he take in regard to men who have contravened the Act after they have served these absurdly light sentences? Are they allowed to go back and keep their pigeons; are they permitted to go back to the houses full of arms for the keeping of which they have been convicted? Surely when, in these times, a man has been convicted of a definite offence under the Act—an Act which we passed in this House three months ago—the Home Office should take good care, after the sentence has been served, that the offence is not repeated. I should also like to ask—but perhaps somebody else is responsible—as to the action taken in regard to the German spy found on the mine-sweeper in the North Sea? How was it, when the man was discovered, he was not handed over to the naval authorities and tried by court martial, with the possibility of a sentence being pronounced on him much more adequate than the one actually passed by the Civil Court of three months' hard labour? This man was prosecuted for not having registered himself as an alien, and he was given three months' hard labour. If he had been handed over to the naval authorities I venture to suggest that, if he had been convicted of being a spy on a mine-sweeper in the North Sea, he would have received a much more adequate sentence.

I do not know whether there is now present any representative of the Board of Trade, but I want to say something in regard to trading companies. I see the Solicitor-General in his place. I would suggest that this is a question of equal importance with the other that I have raised. The question is, how far trading companies nominally English, but in reality purely German, are to be allowed to carry on business in this country, in communication as it is quite possible for them to be through neutral countries with their German headquarters. We raised this question a few months ago, and were then promised by the Attorney-General and by the President of the Board of Trade that a statement would be made on the subject. I have searched the OFFICIAL REPORT—indeed, I was present at most of the sittings of the House—and, so far as I know, no such statement was made at any time. We had the trading with the Enemy Act, but on the admission of the Attorney-General himself that did not deal with the point I am now raising in regard to alien companies. I mentioned a case which is very well known, a big firm which had contracts with the Admiralty and the War Office, and an enormous proportion of whose share capital is held in Germany, the directors being Germans also. There is another case which has been brought before the Board of Trade and the Treasury Committee. It is the case of a company registered in England, the whole of the shareholders of which are German, every single one of the directors being also German. I see no reason why I should not name the company; it is the Continental Tyre Company. I have myself used Continental tyres in times past. That company is neither more nor less than a branch of a German concern. It is a pure branch. It is registered here because they have taken advantage of the law to register themselves as a limited company, but every single share is held in Germany, and every single director, except one, lives in Germany, while the one who lived in England is now fighting for Germany, having left this country at the outbreak of war.

This company is pressing its debtors in England so as to get as much money in as possible. I do not say it should not get its money, but I do say that the Board of Trade ought to do, in regard to that company and other companies, what is being done in Germany. It ought to appoint receivers, controllers and managers, as is being done in Germany, where they have a large and elaborate system of receivers and controllers of English companies. That system has been instituted in Germany since the House rose. Why should we not follow their example? We asked the Government to do it; we pleaded to it to do it before the House rose. I do not want to stop British industry for one moment—indeed, I think it much more likely, if English administrators were appointed, that such companies would be able to carry on their businesses and keep their workmen employed. What I do want is to stop the money going to our enemy. Thousands of pounds have been collected by this and other firms. Requests have been made from various parts of the country to the Board of Trade for guidance in this matter, and, in reply to one, relating to this very company, the Board of Trade answered:—

"There is nothing to prevent you from trading with companies, whatever their constitution, duly incorporated in this country."

If that is so, the sooner we alter the law the better. The sooner we make arrangements to stop these limited companies of German shareholders trading here, and transmitting money to their own country, for the benefit of our enemy, the better it will be. The Treasury Committee wrote to another correspondent in regard to this company, under date 13th October:—

"There is nothing in the Proclamation to prohibit the payment of any sum properly due by you to any company incorporated and carrying on business in this country, whatever the nationality or residence of its shareholders."

The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General and the President of the Board of Trade promised that a statement should be made in the House in regard to this matter. It was not made, and I now beg to ask what they are doing in regard to alien companies. I also ask that there should be a system established here of controllership, so that money which has been paid by English debtors to German-owned companies should be prevented being sent abroad to a neutral country for the benefit of our enemy. It is not nice to have to do this thing. But the question is, Are we at war with Germany or are we not? If we are at war, we have to strain every nerve to win. The Prime Minister said, only yesterday, the War must be fought economically as well as by military means. This is one of the economic ways of fighting it, and I venture to suggest to the House we should fight the enemy in this House as well as on the Continent. I want to make one apology to the right hon. Gentleman in case I should have to leave before he replies. Like other hon. Members I have to speak at recruiting meetings, and if I leave the House shortly it will not be through any lack of courtesy on my part, but simply to fulfil my engagement. I beg to move my Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment. I have one on the Paper which to a certain extent covered the same ground, and I will therefore speak a few words in support of my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is not intended, of course, to press it to a Division. I regard this question of trading companies as almost as important as the military operations now being conducted in France. Everybody must recognise we are now engaged with an unscrupulous foe who has shown himself devoid of all standards of honour, and who is ready to take advantage of any deception. Hon. Members will remember, no doubt, what was the state of affairs when the War broke out. I was told on good authority that an amount of German Bills had been floated in this country which were, at all events for the time being, quite worthless, but which were sufficient to finance Germany for something like the first five or six weeks of the War! If you are dealing with an enemy capable of doing a thing of that kind are you to suppose he will not try it on again? In my opinion the matter goes a good deal further than has been suggested by my hon. Friend. It is not only a question of dealing with companies which are in reality German, but which appear to be British; it is not only a question of dealing with branches of companies of alien enemies which may transmit money from this country to Germany to be utilised for the purpose, perhaps, of providing ammunition and guns to be used against their countrymen. But it is a much bigger question we have to face, and we must face it boldly. How much of our financial system in this country is controlled at the present moment by alien enemies? It is a tremendous matter which we have to inquire into. I do not intend to go into it in detail at the present moment, because I had an opportunity of speaking with the Attorney-General a few minutes ago, and he informed me that the first business of this House to be taken, at the conclusion of the Debate on the Address, will be a Bill to amend the Proclamation which deals with trading with the enemy. Therefore many of the remarks which I intended to have made upon this occasion I shall certainly not make, because I understand from the Attorney-General that we shall have an opportunity of dealing with this matter fully as soon as the Debate on the Address is disposed of. I shall content myself with saying no more on this occasion, except to formally second the Amendment.

I understand it to be the expressed intention of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment not to press it to a Division, and that that is intended to convey the meaning that it is not moved in any hostile spirit, but merely to give opportunity of discussing the subject which has much disturbed the public mind. I am grateful to them, although if the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this matter will allow me to say so, he greatly exceeded the limits of a wholly impartial statement in the form of some of his observations. What does the hon. Member really complain of? Does he mean to say that we, being at war with Germany, are to treat every individual German in this country now as we should treat an enemy on the battlefield? Does he really mean that?

I never said anything of the kind.

I do not think he does. But the whole tone of his language would convey the idea that every German is to be treated under grave suspicion, that he is to be interned, and that apparently no matter what the evidence may be on his trial, and however much the evidence may satisfy the jury or the magistrate, he is to be given the severest punishment, and if that punishment is not given the Home Secretary is to intervene and tell the magistrates that they are to give a more severe punishment. I must say that if that is the hon. Gentleman's point of view, I join issue with him at once. I am entirely in sympathy with him in saying that our first duty in this War is to win the War, and that we must run no risk which we can avoid. But I will not go so far as he goes on to say, that in endeavouring to avoid risks we are to do injustice. That is where I part company with him, and I am bound to act, and I hope I always shall act upon such evidence as will satisfy a reasonable man, always, as I said at first, taking no risks. The hon. Gentleman, like a great many hon. Members of this House, in his own action in connection with Germans whom he knows, acts upon that principle. The hon. Member knows many Germans. He thinks well of them, he respects them, he thinks them suitable candidates to become British citizens, and he thinks I ought to naturalise them at the present time.

The case that I wrote to the hon. Gentleman about—[Interruption.] He has challenged me, and perhaps the House will allow me to say this: I wrote to him in August last with regard to a German who had been carrying on big works and employing a large amount of labour in my district, and I submitted that it was a suitable case for naturalisation. I believe I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with me and granted naturalisation papers. That was the case of Mr. Poppe. There was another case of Mr. Palm, who married an English lady and had applied for leave to go to America. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and said that I thought it was a case where he might be given leave. That coincides with the expression of my opinion. I think it would have been better if large numbers of these aliens were allowed to leave the country—a very large number. I say at once that I do know Germans, many of them. I respect them, many of them. If they want to go to neutral countries, by all means I would let them go.

The hon. Gentleman must not suppose that I referred to these cases by way of reproach. On the contrary, I only did it to remind the hon. Gentleman that in the case of Germans whom he knows he does not apply the principles of his speech. One of his points in the course of his speech was that a man because he employs labour is more likely to be a spy, and that that is exactly what a spy would do in order to avert suspicion. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the names of Mr. Poppe and Mr. Palm. There was a third one quite recently, on 14th September. That was another Mr. Poppe.

Of the same firm.

There was Mr. Fitz Poppe and Mr. A. L. Poppe. I think the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in saying that certificates have been granted. Papers may have been sent, but a certificate has not been granted so far as I am aware. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that he knows Germans, that he has known them for years, that they have married English wives, brought up their children as English children, and associated themselves with English social life in every respect, and that it is not only cruel but ridiculous to treat them as enemies and as spies. I agree with the hon. Member, and make no reproach against him for sending me three recommendations to naturalise Germans. I begin with that because, throughout the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in every other particular there was hardly a single matter in which I am responsible—hardly a single point. He seems to be quite unaware that the civil authority has no initial responsibility, either in the internment or the release of any aliens. It is purely a military matter and the Home Office interned Germans, released Germans, stopped interning them, renewed interning them, ceased again from interning them in accordance with recommendations of the Naval and Military authorities. All my function, when I get that recommendation, is to arrest and hand over the person for internment to the Naval or Military authority. When the hon. Gentleman, therefore, makes a violent attack upon me for my vacillation, and says that on 7th September, anticipating a question from him on 9th September, I issued—

You had notice of it.

Therefore not I, but my Noble Friend Lord Kitchener had, anticipating the hon. Gentleman's question before 7th September, and in consultation with me, thinking that the time had come when for various reasons, on which I need not enlarge now, that further arrests should be made, and the arrests were made—the hon. Gentleman speaks of that as my succumbing to newspaper pressure. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman and to the House in all fairness to say, Has there ever been a Minister within any of our memories more persistently attacked and abused in the public Press than I have been? I think it is a modest claim to make. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Chancellor of the Exchequer?"] My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the abuse for a longer period, but during the last six weeks or two months I do not suppose there has ever been such a torrent of abuse poured on the head of a single Minister, and not once have I by voice or speech, or letter to the Press, ever remonstrated in the least degree in respect of the charge that I had not interned prisoners, or had ceased to intern prisoners, for I had not the smallest power in the matter. After that I do not think the hon. Gentleman will suppose that the Home Office acted in consequence of public attacks. I tell the hon. Gentleman, speaking for myself for the moment—it may be purely a constitutional matter—that attacks in the Press of that kind, the scurrilous attacks, do not move me in the slightest degree, not the slightest! I have one advantage over the Press in that matter; I do not read them. When I find a newspaper is devoting itself to personal attacks, I have put it on one side. I know I have been attacked because of the anonymous letters sent to me, because of the cuttings sent to me, and because of the vast volume of them, but I have not read them beyond a line or two, and have put them on one side at once. [An HON. MEMBER: "We all suffer."] We all suffer.

Therefore what does the hon. Gentleman suppose are the reasons that have actuated the public authorities, who have a very heavy burden imposed upon them at the present time, quite apart from the interning of Germans? What reasons does the hon. Gentleman consider might possibly have actuated the military or naval authorities or the Home Office in the conduct they have pursued? It was thought in the early days unnecessary to intern more than those people who were suspected. There was no question then of invasion; there was no danger of an outbreak of Germans concentrating together on a sudden invasion causing a panic here. The arrests in the earlier days were limited to suspected persons. Then a number of Germans began to be thrown out of employment, young waiters and others losing their employment, who were likely to be dangerous from the fact that they were starving. We then increased the number of internments on the recommendation of the military authority, and again on the recommendation of the military authority we have arrested, or not arrested, according to the situation as it appeared to the military authorities at the time necessary or unnecessary in the interests of the State. The hon. Gentleman thinks the military authorities are wrong, perhaps, in their opinion as to whether a larger number should be interned or not. He thinks they are wrong.

All this comes to me as a surprise. I understood that while, of course, suspicious cases were dealt with by the military authorities, it was the Home Office, with the police, who took precautions as to finding who were or were not likely to be suspicious. But as far as I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech now, he has no responsibility at all except to obey military authority.

I am very sorry to have been so obscure. I was dealing at the moment with the question of interning all Germans and Austrians. The point I am dealing with is the charge of vacillation against the Home Office, and I think the right hon. Gentleman himself made the same point in the course of his speech. We have at some points arrested Germans and Austrians at the military age, and then have ceased to arrest them. Was not that the vacillation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers?

Perhaps it was. It all depends upon who the authority is how it is dealt with. So far as I could judge there was no fixed system in what they were doing, and apparently their policy was influenced by public opinion.

The conditions do not allow of any fixed system. Unless we say that we will here and now arrest all Germans and Austrians of military age, and keep them interned, we cannot have any fixed system. The military authorities in recommending internment, unless they are to adopt that fixed system, must be guided by the degree of danger. For instance, it is quite obvious that a general internment which might be desirable and even necessary if a hostile invasion were expected would not become urgent or necessary if the invasion were regarded as out of the question for the time being. Or, again, if a Zeppelin raid were anticipated, a class of people might properly be interned who would be perfectly harmless if there was no opportunity of creating a panic. There are considerations of that kind. I conceive, in my humble way, that the military and naval authorities are far and away the best advisers as to what precautions are necessary in safeguarding us either against espionage or against panic. Of course, no one would suggest that the internment of 50,000 or 60,000 Germans and Austrians of all ages and both sexes could be necessary in order to guard against espionage. An examination of the individuals would show that large numbers of them could not be guilty of spying, but it is conceivable that they all might be guilty, in a moment of panic, of rushing together, under the sense that blood was thicker than water, to assist their friends if they were here in London or if they were in the country. It is conceivable that you might intern on a large scale in order to avoid anything of that kind happening, but it is not conceivable that you would intern all Germans and Austrians of all ages and both sexes merely to avoid the possibility of spying.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the principle on which certain numbers of aliens were incarcerated and others were not? That is the kind of principle I want to know.

That is precisely what I was endeavouring to do. I will begin again. In the early days, under the advice of the military authorities, who alone are responsible—

That is not the point. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that it is for the military authorities to decide when the people should be interned. We all know that recently a great number of Germans and Austrians were interned, and a great many others were not. I want to know the principle on which the selection was made.

That is precisely what I am endeavouring to do. I am trying to show the right hon. Gentleman how the numbers grew, and on what principle they were selected. In the early days they were selected on the ground of personal suspicion. I am speaking now of the police who act under my orders in London. Later they were selected on the ground of being out of employment and consequently likely to become dangerous, and because they had no homes, and were starving. Numbers of them were thrown out of employment and it was really a kindness to intern them. They would really have become dangerous for the reason that they were suffering and friendless, and they were interned. When we had disposed of the great mass of them, the military authorities considered that it was not necessary to intern further, and they did not therefore divert from the housing of the recruits, and the other matters which were imposed upon them at the time, such labour and material as would have been necessary to find room for further interned Germans and Austrians. We still continue to intern on suspicion, and numbers of suspected persons were brought to the military authorities every day from all over the country. But we did not go on interning on the general principle of rounding up.

I come now to last month, when the military situation began to wear a different aspect for a time, and it was then considered that we were getting within measurable distance of when it might be necessary, owing to the possibility of a Zeppelin raid in force, to intern a much greater number. Again, acting upon the recommendations and at the wish of the military authorities, we arrested more, but that step was not pro ceded with because we found it was not considered necessary, as developments grew, to go on with it, and consequently the military authorities once more declined to devote the energies and the housing accommodation which could be given to recruits to German prisoners. It was no longer considered necessary in the circumstances.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly the Statute or regulations under which these Germans and Austrians were arrested and kept in captivity?

The detention in custody of the subjects of an enemy State is a power which is exercised by all States in case of war, the right of the military authorities to hold them as prisoners of war never having been denied. It does not depend upon Statute at all. It is a prerogative. In modern times it has generally been held that this right applies only (1) to active or reserve officers of the hostile country, and (2) to all persons whose presence or conduct appear dangerous to the safety of the country. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Manual of Military Law, page 236, paragraphs 11, 12 and 13. The internment of enemy aliens, therefore, is a military measure, the decision to take this step rests with the military authorities, and when interned they remain in military custody. Their detention in prison is expressly provided under The Hague Rules, No. 5. Manual of Military Law, page 249, paragraph 9:—

"While detained they are subject to the laws and regulations in force in the army of the State in the power of which they are."

Have any of these gentlemen been arrested and detained under No. 13 of the Consolidated Defence of the Realm Regulations?

No, these have not been interned. I think we should have power to arrest and detain them under these powers, but even if they were arrested and interned under these powers they would still be handed over to the naval and military authorities.

Not necessarily.

Yes. The Hague Rules would still apply. I do not know if I have sufficiently answered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The subject is one which should be dealt with rather by the naval and military authorities than by me, because in this matter I only act on their instruction in arresting.

On suspicion?

No, on suspicion I act on my own authority in certain cases, but in the general arrest of classes of persons on the ground that they might become dangerous, or are suspected, I act, and that has been the great ground of the charge, only upon the recommendations of the naval and military authorities. Now we come to cases of suspicion, mainly upon the East Coast. We have recently passed two Acts of Parliament, the Aliens Restriction Act, and the Defence of the Realm Act. Under the Aliens Restriction Act we have power to enforce the registration of every enemy alien, and we have placed them under restrictions as to residence and moveability. I am not aware that any complaint has been made as to the administration of that Act. No, as far as I know, the registration of the enemy alien has been quite complete, and such cases where registration has been evaded, as far as I can judge, have been promptly detected, and the delinquents brought before a magistrate. In addition to the registration of aliens this Act provides also for dealing with aliens in prohibited areas. The authority to determine what is a prohibited area is the Home Office, but the Home Office has acted upon the advice of the naval and military authorities in every case. As regards the exercise of the powers under the Aliens Restriction Act, that exercise is exclusively in the hands of the local chief constable. I can neither appoint nor dismiss chief constables outside the Metropolitan area. They are quite independent of me. The duty laid upon me under the Act is to issue to the chief constable the instructions under which they are to work, and there my real powers end. These are the instructions which are issued to chief constables: 1. That they are to exercise the greatest care in the issue of permits. Permits would be permissions given to aliens to remain in prohibited areas. 2. They are to consult the responsible military authorities of the district in any doubtful case. 3. They are to supply full particulars to any enemy alien permitted to reside within a prohibited area to the War Office.

It has not been brought to my notice that in any case any chief constable has disobeyed those instructions. How does the case present itself to me? When the hon. Member tells me that enemy aliens are allowed to reside in prohibited areas on the East Coast, that they are notorious spies, that signalling goes on at night, and that information is conveyed to the enemy, he must be satisfied that the chief constable in the district knows all this, or is ignorant of it and allows it to go on, and that the War Office, to whom the presence of these enemy aliens must have been reported, are indifferent to the fact, and that he and other people who think these events are occurring are more careful of the safety of the country than the chief constable and the military authorities directly concerned. I find it difficult to believe. I can say that I have no individual responsibility in the matter. The Home Office does not come into this transaction at all. What evidence have we got that these malpractices occurred? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) stated that information was given to the enemy by spies which ended in the sinking of the three cruisers.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to misinterpret what I said. I did not say that. I said it was commonly believed that it was possible that it was done by spies. How can I be made responsible for the individual case?

I have not the slightest desire to misinterpret what the hon. Gentleman has said. I congratulate him on being far more cautious than the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford), who asserted, in regard to these three cruisers, that they were lost on account of information given from this country to the German Admiralty.

I should not have said it if I did not believe it.

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) is more cautious, and he tells us that it is commonly believed to have been possible. Everything is possible. The Noble Lord goes further and says they were lost—he knows it—by information given to the German Admiralty from this country. The Noble Lord spoke with great feeling of how terrible it was that the sailors were lost, many of whom he knew, and he referred to the sorrow of the wives and families. I thought it was really a terrible charge that anybody had been neglectful of duty, and that, on account of the neglect, there are thousands of widows in the country. It is one of the most terrible charges that could be made. The Noble Lord brought that charge against the Home Office.

Will the right hon. Gentleman quote my words?

Yes, I will. The Noble Lord said:—

"That is a monstrous thing, and it should be stopped."

He went on to say that he would invite public meetings all over the country to compel the Home Office to do its duty and prevent such a thing happening again. I have already explained that, so far as the East Coast is concerned, direct responsibility of the Homo Office does not exist. By Act of Parliament it has been placed in the discretion of the military authorities and chief constables. But when this particular point was brought to our attention, I immediately communicated with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I asked him to write to the Noble Lord to let him know what information he had got when he stated that the cruisers were lost through information given from this country to the German Admiralty. It became of the utmost importance that we should prosecute instantly any persons against whom there could be shown to be the slightest foundation of suspicion of having conveyed information so disastrous to our sailors. The Noble Lord's reply was that he had no information.

Read what I said.

The Noble Lord wrote as follows:—

"In regard to the statement made by me in Aberdeen on 2nd October to which you refer, I am satisfied that it was correct. There were certain aspects of the occurrence of which I spoke which conclusively appeared to me to justify my remarks."

We invited the Noble Lord again by a further letter to state the aspects of the occurrence which justified him in making the remarks. We asked him to communicate these aspects, and he replied:—

"I have been so busy since I received your letter that I have not had an opportunity of answering it. The action now taken by the Home Office appears to me to be one in the right direction, as numbers of alien enemies have been arrested without that proof or evidence which up to now has been the means of so many of these dangerous persons being at large."

If the Noble Lord thinks I was in error in endeavouring to seek information which would justify me in proceeding further against all possible spies who gave information to the German Admiralty, and in seeking the information upon which the Noble Lord founded himself when he made the statement that these cruisers were lost through information conveyed by spies—if the hon. Gentleman thinks I am wrong I am sorry for it, but it appeared to me to be my duty to pursue any clue at the time. Letters have been written by Lord Leith of Fyvie of the danger of spies in that quarter of the country. Although it did not come under my jurisdiction at all, I have never failed to write and follow a clue. One case has occupied me in correspondence—I do not know how many letters have been written about it.

made a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

That has nothing to do with me. That was the action of the military authorities. I do not really know that much advantage is obtained by following up these particular cases. I have a number of cases which would show the House that infinite care is exercised. In every case of suspicion we have made every possible inquiry, and we have endeavoured to track down any case that comes before us of espionage or wrongdoing. In some cases we succeeded, but in the vast majority of cases we found that there was no evidence upon which we could act. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there were not a large number of spies who were not known, not shadowed, and not locked up. I should have thought myself that the very form of that question necessitates but one answer. How can I say that there is not what I do not know? If spies are not known, how can they be shadowed or locked up? All we can do is to endeavour to discover them, and the only charge that can be fairly put—if any charge is brought against the Home Office—is that the police in London have been neglectful in not following up clues for the detection of spies. Those cases are not brought to my notice. The charge against me is of neglect in Scotland because a young German was on a mine-sweeper. If he was on a mine-sweeper that was a matter under the control of the Admiralty, and it has nothing to do with me if the Admiralty did not court-martial him, or send him to the civil authority. If the Admiralty came to the conclusion that he should not be handed over to the civil authority I am sure they came to that conclusion on proper evidence, and that they were right in not handing him over to the civil authority. It is not proper to assume in every case because a man has a German name that necessarily he is a spy.

There is only one other matter to which I must refer, and that is the charge against me by the hon. Gentleman of making optimistic speeches on this subject. He endeavoured to justify his reference to optimistic speeches by referring to my statement that no spy had been shot. It is usually stated in the Press that I proudly boasted in the House of Commons that no spy had been shot. It is stated that I issued to the public a complacent statement as to what had been done. "Proud boasting" and "complacent statement" are the two stock-in-trade charges made in the Press against me. If the House will allow me, I will state what happened. An hon. Member, at the end of last Session, asked the Prime Minister if any spies had been shot in the United Kingdom since the War began, and, if so, on what authority, and I replied:—

"The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the negative, and the second does not arise."

That was the "proud boast." Any more moderate statement of the case I cannot imagine. Then we come to the "complacent statement" which a Noble Lord referred to in such complimentary terms as giving ground for great public uneasiness. I have never before heard of a mere question of style giving ground of uneasiness. If a statement contained matter giving ground for uneasiness, I could understand the charge, but to say that a statement is complacent in form does not seem to me a sufficient reason. If I were to judge by his outward appearance he struck me, when he was in this House, as being extremely self-sufficient, but those who know him well know what an able and admirable man he is. We should, consequently, be most unwilling to judge by appearances. We ought always to be very careful in judging of persons or documents merely on account of their style. With regard to the style of this particular document, I can speak of it without fear or favour, as I was not the author—we are always more willing perhaps to criticise the report of somebody else's production than of our own—but, of course, I am responsible for its issue.

I looked to-day at what was described yesterday by the Noble Lord as this complacent document. I read it through to see what was the substance of the charge, and I noticed that at the beginning the document states:—

"It may be well to state briefly the steps which the Home Office, acting on behalf of the Admiralty and the War Office, has taken to deal with the matter in this country."

That is the preliminary start of this complacent document, in which we plant all the responsibility for what has been done, not upon the Home Office, but upon the Admiralty and the War Office upon whose behalf we were acting. Then I observe, indeed, that there is a certain degree of eulogy in one part of the document, but it is eulogy not of complacency on the part of the Home Office but of the Intelligence Department created in the War Office—a department which, in my judgment today, deserves the greatest eulogy for its activity before the War in detecting and bringing to boot the spy system which existed in this country. We have not praised ourselves in this document, but we have given—and justly given—to the Intelligence Department of the War Office the eulogy to which they are fairly entitled. I would remind the House that when this statement was issued it was received not with condemnation as a complacent document, but with entire satisfaction by the whole Press. When the document itself was forgotten—and no man who condemns has read it since—and this particular Press wished to revive the spy danger they invented the charge against me that it was complacent, and one after another all the critics have each of them used that same phrase—"complacent document"—though in nine cases out of ten they have never even seen it. In this House, at any rate, we shall have no unfair repetition of these charges. If charges are to be made against the administration of the Home Office for neglect, for supine-ness, or for incapacity, and even by one Noble Lord for treachery, I trust that they will be made giving chapter and verse and the grounds of belief which the hon. Member thinks justify the charge. It is not enough for him to say that he believes the charge, he must give the grounds on which he forms his belief, and he must bring home the responsibility to the Department concerned.

indicated dissent.

Attack the Government by all means if you wish, but if the charge is to be brought against the Home Office you must show where the Home Office is concerned. Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with that doctrine?

I disagree profoundly. Rightly or wrongly, there is great suspicion about the spy danger. It is the business of the Government to do their best to prevent that danger being really injurious. It is not the business of the critics of the danger to say which Department is concerned.

The right hon. Gentleman and I are absolutely at one. It is not the business of the critics to say which Department is responsible, but do not then let them say that the Home Office is responsible. I think that we are entirely agreed on this. Let them say that the Government is responsible.

There is someone responsible.

In this House we shall all know which is the Department responsible. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a very simple case: What is the use of attacking me for something done in Scotland? Why say that the Home Office has done this, that, and the other, when if you begin to examine the case you find that it is in relation to something that happened in Scotland? If the right hon. Gentleman will say that the Government is responsible then the responsible Minister will answer. The right hon. Gentleman is too fair not to see the point and not to appreciate that a campaign has been conducted against a particular Department and a particular Minister which may be grossly unfair, and if any Member who has got any complaint to make immediately selects the Home Office, and says that that is the responsible Office though, I am quite willing, as I have said, to bear outside criticism and make no complaint on that score, yet in this House that must not be done. In this House the attack must not be made against a particular Minister unless it is supported by chapter and verse giving the grounds on which the attack is made. I thank the House for having listened to me with such patience.

The right hon. Gentleman began by rather finding fault with my hon. Friend behind me, and saying that although my hon. Friend professed to deal with this subject in a non-controversial way he had not entirely succeeded. I think that I may say, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that he, who has more reason as a responsible Minister for avoiding all controversy, has erred to some extent in the same direction. Let me say at the outset with regard to this matter that I consider—and I was very sorry to see the levity with which it was treated in some quarters—that this is one of the most serious criticisms with which the Government has to deal. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was very happy in his reference to my Noble Friend Lord Crawford. He said that style and that sort of thing were no evidence to offer. He says that my Noble Friend—and nothing I think could be more untrue—had the appearance of self-sufficiency. That was not the impression which he made on me. But the real truth is that in a question of this kind the way in which a Minister deals with the subject, the amount of seriousness which he puts into it, and the extent to which he treats it is as a case of tu quoque, all that is in itself evidence of the amount of seriousness which he attaches to the whole question. I did not intend to speak now, but I feel that something ought to be said as to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I said yesterday that this is a very difficult question. Nobody realises it more than I do. But I say also that with the knowledge which we have, the knowledge which, in spite of the limited amount of information which we get from the seat of war, we have of the assistance that has been afforded to Germany in Belgium and France by Germans who were living in those countries before the War, with that knowledge before us surely the man must be absolutely blind who does not realise that there is a probability that the same danger is facing us, and is facing us, from citizens who are dwelling among us.

I think that the point, on which he dwelt at some length, as to which Member of the Government is responsible, is very trivial. It may be that a particular Minister has been too much referred to in connection with this, but after all the public only refer to one Department and that Department has a great deal to do with it, and to say that they ought to blame the Government and not a Minister for any charge of not fulfilling a particular duty is very trivial. My own feeling I am bound to says is this: I do not say as these newspapers which the right hon. Gentleman never reads are constantly telling us—so he informed us just now—that it is due to the complacency of the right hon. Gentleman, but he certainly does give the impression that he does not realise quite adequately the seriousness of this matter and that he had the idea at the outset of the War that because the Government had had traces of organised espionage, to the bottom of which they had got, and they had safely put under lock and key all those who were shown to be guilty, that that covered the whole of the danger.

No, that is precisely the charge that is made against me. Is the right hon. Gentleman justified in repeating that charge unless he gives chapter and verse? Can he quote anything which I have said to justify it?

I really think that the right hon. Gentleman is a little too critical of a speech of the kind.

No.

I am not going to be unfair to him I hope. Certainly I do not want to. What I said was that the way in which he had dealt with this had given me the impression that he thought that the back of the trouble had been broken when he had got rid of those who were known to be spies before the War broke out. I cannot give proof of that, but that is the impression which I have received.

indicated dissent.

If that is not so, all the better. I may point out this, and I think that it explains a great deal of the feeling which exists on the other side of the House against taking action in regard to these matters: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Germans who have been living amongst us, men whom he knew and who are not to be treated as espies when we know what good fellows they are. But in my view the better a man is, if he is of German birth, the more likely he is to take risks to help his country when that country is at war with us. I am perfectly certain of this: If he or I had lived in Germany for twenty years of his life and if this war had broken out, not only would our sympathies have been entirely on the side of Britain, but if we thought we could render our country a great service we would be prepared to do things which the Germans would consider dishonourable in order to help our country. That is my view at all events. Take the case of the man who was shot the other day as a spy in London. I say nothing about the offence, except that conventionally spying is considered to be a dishonourable business; but that man seemed to me to be really a patriot, who died for his country as much as any soldier who fell on the field. There was no evidence that he was paid for what he was doing; he may have been, or he may not have been; there was no evidence. I say that it is right to shoot spies, and if an Englishman did the same thing it would be right to shoot him. But I say that the fact that a man is a good fellow, and has proved himself to be a good fellow, is no reason why we should not suspect him of injuring us if he has the power to do an injury to us in this War.

I was nonplussed at first by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because I gathered that he referred to himself as if the Home Office had no responsibility in the matter at all. But take the way in which we are to deal with the question. On what principle are you to act? On one or two principles, or perhaps three, if I may put it in that way. You are only to deal with those in regard to whom you have some ground of suspicion; or you are to intern the whole lot of your alien enemies; or to intern all such alien enemies in particular districts where you think they are likely to have the power of doing damage to this country. Those are the alternatives. Those are intelligible principles, but I cannot see that any of them have been adopted by the Government. Take the case for which the right hon. Gentleman himself is responsible—the case of suspicion. He said that his responsibility is only confined to London, and that it is left to the chief constables in all the other districts. Really, we are at war. The sort of rule applying in ordinary times does not apply now. Some Minister—I do not care who—ought to make it his business to see that all over the country the precautions which the Government think necessary are carried out.

The naval and military authorities are responsible over all the proclaimed areas, which cover a great part of the country.

Is there no Minister?

The competent authorities are the naval and military authorities—the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty. They use as their officers, for the purpose of carrying out their orders, the local police, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that the local police are not under me. Consequently, the Ministers who are responsible are the Naval and Military Ministers.

Again it is not a question of which Minister is responsible. Really, we want to see the thing properly done. What I mean is that, in particular districts, whether in Scotland or the East Coast of England, or wherever they may be, I do not care, the Government have decided that all alien enemies should be removed from a part of the coast where they might give information that would be dangerous to our Fleet. I understand it to be the duty of the chief constable to give to the authorities a list of all the alien enemies. Surely the first thing the Home Secretary, or someone, has got to do, is to see that a complete list is given, and, if the Government think it right, as a general principle, that these alien enemies should be removed from particular districts, it is somebody's duty to see that it is done in every case, and that not one of them is left within the radius.

That is not done; it is not done in Scotland.

That is what we complain of.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have the point quite clear. That is the rule. The chief constable has power to make exceptions, but, under our instructions, he is not to make any exception before communicating the fact of the exception to the War Office, and no exception is made without the Secretary of State confirming it before it is allowed.

It is not an easy thing to get a complete list of all those aliens. How does the right hon. Gentleman know that the chief constable is really giving him the entire list, or has he made arrangements to give assistance, or made arrangements for extra assistance, to see that this is done. If the right hon. Gentleman will tell me now that what the Government thought necessary in those prohibited areas has been carried out, and that no alien enemy is there, I am satisfied. If less than that is done, I am not satisfied, and something more ought to be done until we are satisfied. Take another case, and this is the kind of thing in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that makes me still feel anxiety. I asked him a question with regard to this rounding up. The Government did not adopt the principle, which I say is quite intelligible, of taking all alien enemies in an area which was thought to be dangerous, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman on what principle he did that, and I was amazed by his answer. He said he did it for the good of these German aliens.

I did not; it is an outrageous misrepresentation.

State what you did say.

Because he thought there might be some danger in it.

I am trying to give as far as I can the exact words.

Attack the right man.

Who is the right man? [HON. MEMBERS: "Lord Kitchener!"] No; Lord Kitchener is not concerned in this case: it is more a matter for the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman did say that he took these people up because they were out of employment—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is in London!"]—and that, because they were out of employment they were likely to become dangerous. He went on to say that it was really a kindness to these people who were starving, and that, later on, for other reasons, he did not continue this process, although the reasons he gave still remain.

I did not say that.

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman did; he said he stopped doing it.

No, I did not.

The right hon. Gentleman did. I am sorry he thinks I am making a personal attack; I do not mean that. I want to be satisfied that the thing is being dealt with. Take another case. My right hon. Friend behind me said—and the right hon. Gentleman did not contradict it—that the Department for which I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, sent out a notice as to particular people who ought to be arrested, and that no men of particular professions were to be included in the list—doctors, ministers, and so on. Is that accurate?

That is quite accurate. Under an arrangement between Germany and ourselves all medical men and ministers may leave the country, and, consequently, it is a mutual arrangement that ministers and doctors in this country are not interned here, and British ministers and doctors in Germany are not interned there.

That is not true.

If they would leave the country I have nothing to say against it. But when you are arresting people who are likely to be dangerous, and if you adopt what I think to be the correct principle, do you not think that the men who are most likely to be helping their own country are precisely those who are the best educated and the best off? All I wish to impress on the House is—and I hope that what I may say will not increase the panic outside, if there is one, or the animosity, if there be any—that I really think it is more likely to be increased if the public get the impression that there is any lukewarmness on the part of the Government. All I wish to impress on the Government is that every German in this country is almost certain, whether he is naturalised or not, to have his sympathies with his own country, just as I would have them with my country if I were in Germany, and, therefore, for that reason he is suspect, and a tremendous effort should be made to keep a careful watch on every enemy of that kind who by any possibility can do injury to us in the great War in which we are now engaged.

I am sorry to trouble the House, but as reference has been made to Scotland here and outside, and in many places, and as we all appreciate the extreme importance of the safety of the East Coast of Scotland from a national point of view, I think the House will have to bear with me if I say a few words, which I promise will be as little controversial as possible. I shall not enter into the question which was dealt with by my right hon. Friend, as to the jurisdiction of the various Ministers representing Departments in dealing with this question. I suppose that, strictly speaking, my technical responsibility is very small in this matter; but, as a matter of fact, in dealing with the East Coast of Scotland no technical question has arisen. From beginning to end the naval and military authorities, the police authorities and my Department, have worked in most complete and perfect harmony. The military and naval authorities have known that we were ready to give them assistance, even though we have no direct authority. We were able to give assistance through the chief constables, and we were always ready to do it. The one complaint I have to make is that a great many general statements are made, and general conclusions are drawn from those statements which, if they are based upon facts, should have been treated in an entirely different way. I cannot understand for the life of me the state of mind of a man who in a great national emergency has knowledge affecting the safety of the country and writes a letter to the newspapers. What is that man's plain and manifest duty? Not to publish the facts so as to put people on their guard; it is to go to the authorities, the naval or military authorities, or whatever may be the proper authority in the country.

I have received innumerable letters, and I could not understand for the life of me why a man should write to me a letter full of statements of a general character, evidently based on hearsay; but when he made a specific statement, I found, on its being investigated, that there was nothing in it. We must recognise, the fact that there have been many cases of grave suspicion requiring to be investigated, but which it was found had no basis of fact for them. There is a type of man who the moment somebody tells him that he has a suspicion in some case immediately adds up all the cases he has probably heard of and writes a letter to the "Scotsman" or the "Times," as the case may be. I can give one case, a very suspicious one of signalling. There has been a great deal of signalling on the East Coast, and the police authorities have investigated a great many cases, though sometimes they have not been able to get to the bottom of them. Sometimes, in the most suspicious case, there was a perfectly natural explanation. In one case there was a man with a bicycle working signalling lamps in a somewhat erratic way, and in another case the signal was found to be proceeding from a house. Immediately the military authorities communicated with the police, they surrounded the house, which they found to be empty, and there was no appearance of material for signalling. We came to the conclusion that the signalling was proceeding from another house, and a constable suggested that it might be the reflection from a window. He went to the house and asked the woman whether she was up at three o'clock on a particular morning, and she replied that she had been up and that she had been attending to a sick child. It happened that the shutter of the room had a circular aperture and that the light from that passed on to the other window which had been watched, and as the woman passed backward and forward to Kelp her child there were intermittent flashes of light which were very suspicious. There is a type of mind which takes a case of that kind and says it is a case of signalling. What they ought to do is go to the authorities and say, "That is a very suspicious thing; will you investigate it?" I have never known of any case like that where the police have not been most anxious to make investigations. I may say that no specific case has ever been brought up to my notice which I have not investigated. Let me give one case brought up to ray notice. Some people objected to a neighbour of German birth who was naturalised, and who was supposed to be in a position which gave him the opportunity to signal to an enemy at sea. What was the fact in that case? The fact was that the military authorities interned that man. He was suspected of having tampered with telegraph wires, or having tapped the telegraph wires. They took possession of the man, and on inquiry the commander came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the case, and the man was allowed to return to his home. The military authorities were satisfied in that case, but the police authorities were not satisfied, and we were not very well satisfied, and we made representations to the police authority, and he has been removed to a safer place.

7.0 P.M.

I want to point out to the House this fact, that wherever you have got a prohibited area the military and naval authorities have power to deport from within that area, not merely a German, not merely a naturalised German, but you or me if we are suspected. That is a power which I do not possess, but which the military and naval authorities do possess, and which gives them complete control over any case of suspicion. I do think that the House may be reassured. I know parts of the East Coast of Scotland fairly well, and I see a number of hon. Members of this House who know it very well indeed. My impression about the East Coast is this, that the Scottish people are so keenly patriotic and really so suspicious on these matters that it would be a very dangerous thing for anybody to try and ply the trade of a spy there. I do not think there is very much chance of a spy escaping on the East Coast of Scotland. We are not leaving anything to chance. I never take the view that it is an improbable thing, and should not be investigated. I had very improbable things brought to my notice, and I found, when I investigated them, and had them investigated by the police in Scotland, that I was right in my first impression, that they were improbable, but I never considered that a reason for not investigating them. I think the representatives of the naval and military authorities will agree that they have found us willing to work with them in every possible way, and willing to give them every assistance that we can through our influence, and such power of direction as we have, and it is, of course, rather direction and influence than authority of the police, and that we have never treated lightly any case which was brought before us, and I think, as far as human effort on the part of the police and the military and naval authorities is concerned on the East Coast of Scotland, the country may feel that nothing is being left undone to protect us against any danger of espionage or any other danger from alien enemies.

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in cases of this sort there is an enormous amount of panic, and an enormous amount of false information, but that does not relieve the danger. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give us cases in which there was nothing, but there are also cases in which there is a great deal. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary referred to me at the end of his speech. I have nothing whatever to retract off what I said or wrote. I will explain exactly my position. There were three cruisers lost with 1,400 men; they were my own comrades, the men I had the honour to command. I made inquiries and I found out there was a good deal of suspicion, and many proved cases on the East Coast. The aspect of the situation, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, was this. There was a three days' gale, and there were no torpedo-boat destroyers to carry out their duties with regard to the cruisers on patrol. That being so, I was perfectly justified in saying that the aspect of the situation showed, in my opinion, and though it may have beeen wrong I still stick to my opinion, that there were spies, or that spies' influence had something to do with those cruisers being put down. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] An hon. Gentleman laughs. I have had something to do with the sea in my life, and that is my opinion. I give it for what it is worth. I made a strong speech. I retract nothing of what I said in that speech. The curious thing is that after that speech was delivered, and for which I take no credit whatever, there were thousands of aliens locked up. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary smiles, and possibly what I said or what I did not say had nothing to do with it, but that is a fact. The danger exists, and my point is this: we are at war, and when we are at war circumstances are different from when we are at peace. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, is it a time to ask for evidence when you have an enemy at your back? The cruiser had been put down. Take the case of the ship that was lost yesterday. There was a- Dutch cruiser in there, and probably it was not Dutch at all, but German. Do you want this evidence before you act? It is a most serious thing when we have got our men, not too many of them, laying down their lives for this country that any state of circumstances should occur, or should be allowed to occur, when through having alien enemies in this country you might lose the lives of those men who are fighting for you. That is my point. I do not ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with it. But I do ask them to agree with me in this: that war is war, and that the situation is perfectly different in war from what it is in peace.

The right hon. Gentleman found fault with my letters. I think the House will bear with me when I say that the inference which he drew from my letters was totally different from what the letters conveyed when read. I have nothing whatever to say by way of apology for what I have said. My earnest and honest belief is this: that you should lock up your alien enemies during this war and not persecute them in any way, and not in any way be ungenerous to them. We have the enemy at our rear, and in the country's protection you should use precaution, not persecution. If I had my will, I would feed them very well, but I would lock them up behind barbed wire fences, the whole lot of them, and particularly those in high social positions. You are locking up waiters and poor men, probably who have done nothing, or have nothing whatever to do with it. I do not say there may not be some injustice, but the safety of the country is far more necessary than that there should be some little interference with some persons in higher positions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition very truly made two remarks. One was that the good German or the good Englishman always remains a German or an Englishman, whether naturalised or not. If he is worth anything, his sympathy is with his country and you cannot alter it. Those in high positions have more influence than those who are not, and they ought all to be secured. We talk of spies. A spy is supposed to be, in ordinary language, something contemptible. He is the pluckiest man in the world because he goes forward to work which he considers right for his country, and he knows that it is certain death if he is found out. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that a spy here should be shot. I go further, and I say that a spy of our own country when he is caught spying should be shot. You upset a whole plan of campaign, and you lose thousands of your men and officers, no matter how I good your plan may be, if you have a spy who reveals it. Therefore I say that this question is far too serious to make frivolous speeches over, and far too serious for us to pass by without debate. Do not let us be ungenerous; do not let us be vindictive, but do let us look after the officers and men fighting for us in the Navy and who may be absolutely undermined if the spy system goes on without proper supervision, and far more strict supervision than the right hon. Gentleman has put in force up to the present.

Is it really any use to debate what Department of the State is responsible? I believe I said the Home Office in my speech. If I made a mistake, I wish I had said the Government. I said the authority, and that was what I really said. I do not think I said the Home Office. After all, it is a very fine point, and do let us look at it in a very serious way. I assure the right hon. Gentleman I am not at all wishing to take it up in a controversial way. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman all we want is inquiry, and all we want is to support authority. I am not making a party or personal point of the matter, but I do impress on the House that the thing is most serious and that proper steps have not been taken to face this danger yet. I only hope that the authority will take far stronger steps than they are doing at present.

I do not desire to prolong the Debate, but I do think, holding the views that I do with regard to this matter, that I ought to intervene before the discussion closes. There is no party question about the matter. Everyone is anxious, as far as possible, to assist the Government, and more especially in a delicate matter of this kind; but I think it would be wrong to suppose that there is not outside a great deal of strong public opinion about this matter. It may have been largely aided, and perhaps it is, by a certain portion of what I may term an ill-informed Press, but that there is solid ground for anxiety I believe, and before I sit down I hope to justify that statement. I think it is a good thing that this subject was raised to-day. It is good for the sake of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and I think it is very chivalrous of him that he has waited until to-day to explain where the responsibility—the real responsibility—in this matter rests. Whatever hard things may be said about the Home Secretary, no one who has been brought into contact with him will deny that we have no more vigorous or better administrator in the Government to-day. That is my experience for a good long time, and therefore I say it is a good thing for him that he has had the opportunity of telling the House and the country that he is in this matter acting, as it were, under the supervision, and at the suggestion, of other Departments. I do not think that that is a good arrangement. I do not think it is right that the Navy and the Army should have complete power in an important matter of this kind. Why? Because they have not the local organisation which is absolutely necessary in order to deal with the matter properly. How can the heads of the Army at the present time give proper attention to matters which, in a sense, must be purely local? Their minds are full of much more important and larger things. In my opinion it would be wrong to trouble the Secretary of State for War, or even the Under-Secretary, in a matter of this kind. I think that, at the very beginning of the War, there ought to have been appointed a central influential Committee, composed of representatives of every Department, to have this matter as their special charge throughout the progress of the War.

There is something approaching chaos in this matter because the responsibility is too much divided. I put it to the Home Secretary whether even now he will not consider the question of appointing a Spies Supervision Committee—some body including representatives of the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Home Office. That would give confidence to the public, because there is no denying the fact that the public are very much alarmed with regard to this matter. I speak especially of the East of Scotland. What the Earl of Crawford said yesterday is not half so strong as what people are saying everywhere, as far as I know, on the East of Scotland. There is a feeling—I think I mentioned this to my right hon. Friend privately—that this spy question is not being managed as it ought to be. I will give one of the reasons for that feeling. Some weeks ago the Germans resident there were compelled to report themselves twice a week. The right hon. Gentleman sent them a letter cancelling that order. Why was that? When the position was getting more extreme, the police throughout Scotland were told that it was no longer necessary for the Germans of these particular parts to report themselves at all. That is very important. It gave the idea to the chief constable that matters were not so serious as he had imagined them to be, and therefore there was not the pressure that there ought to be to deal with the matter.

Here is another fact. The chief constable had certain people under suspicion. They knew them far better than the military authorities could possibly do. Certain men were sent as prisoners under suspicion to the military headquarters. They were sent by the action of the chief constable, who was convinced that he had grounds for his action. What happened? They came back in two or three days. The military authorities sent them back on the ground that it was not necessary to detain them. In this case the chief constable's opinion in regard to men whom he had watched for years is more important than that of any general or admiral. I argue, therefore, that there is something wrong. There is a clashing of authority, which is not to the benefit of the public. These men were dismissed by the military authorities without a word of explanation. Since then these very men have been rearrested and taken back. In the meantime they were free to do exactly as they pleased, not having even to report themselves. It is not surprising that people living on the coast there get alarmed and think that there is not the vigour that there ought to be in the administration of an important matter of this kind.

I will take another incident. Every town on the East Coast is compelled to put out its lights at a certain hour. It is a great inconvenience, but the people complied with the order gladly. They shaded their lights, and so forth. But until a week ago you had, night after night, a blaze of light which was a guiding star to the shipping community. For weeks and weeks that went on all night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Principally, I believe, supplying oal to neutral countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] At Methyl Docks. Who is the responsible authority that puts private people to this great inconvenience, while, within a few miles, at Methyl, there is this great blaze of light allowed to go on night after night? Private people cannot understand why there is this difference of action. There is, as I say, a clashing of authority. I admit that Methyl Docks have since been dealt with, but so far as the light at night is concerned, no action was taken for some time. It was allowed to go on for weeks after the War started. Further, it will not be denied that petrol has been supplied from the East of Scotland to the enemy's submarines. There is no doubt whatever about that. It will not be denied that petrol has been supplied, or that it is illegal to supply petrol.

Have you any evidence?

Am I not giving evidence? Let the Minister who knows deny what I am saying if it is not true. [Interruption.] I will make no statement that cannot be proved up to the hilt. Everything I have stated up till now is true, as the documents at the Scottish Office will prove. I am not in the habit of making statements that I cannot prove to the hilt. Petrol was supplied from a port on the East of Scotland to a Danish ship, which, there is no doubt, was to supply a submarine. I believe a second supply of petrol was sent. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact. The Customs may have been to blame in that case. All the facts go to prove that the public are right in having this anxiety. I will take another case. Months—shall I say two months—after the War started, a German had authority from a representative of the State to carry a camera in the neighbourhood of Rosyth. Day after day he took photographs. He was free, living openly, and had the authority in his pocket. I believe that that has since been stopped. The people know all these things, and they begin to ask whether matters are going as they ought to go.

When anyone offers suggestions or criticism on matters of this kind, the Government must regard them as willing to be helpful. It is not a pleasant job. The best guided people may make mistakes. There is undoubtedly a desire to assist the Government as far as possible. I am sorry to say it, but I do not believe that all the spies belong to Germany. I do not know whether the Government have any information on that point. The most dangerous and difficult to find are not Germans or Austrians. I believe that I am speaking on behalf of every voter in my Constituency in mentioning their anxiety about this matter. As I have said, I think there ought to have been set up at the commencement of the War a central Board to deal with this matter—a strong Committee representing all the departments concerned in Scotland, Ireland, and England, and until something of that kind is done, I do not believe the public will have complete confidence in reference to this matter.

I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but I desire to corroborate from my own knowledge some of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Dalziel). I have been in communication with the Scottish Office regarding one of the cases to which the right hon. Gentleman himself referred, and I have to thank the Department for making inquiries, and taking steps in that case. But it was very difficult indeed to get that particular individual removed from the position of great prominence—and very useful prominence for the purposes of spying—which he occupied. Why was that? Because, as I understand, the important and prominent officials in the county who went to the chief constable, and did their best to get him to act in the matter, were told that he really had no competent authority to do so. I see now precisely how that was. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the chief constable has to report to the naval authorities about such matters, and that they, and they alone, are the people who have the authority to act. Therefore the chief constable was quite in his proper province in saying that he did not possess that authority. I want to ask this question: What means or machinery have the naval or military authorities for dealing with these cases when they do act? Are they in a position to intern these people? Have they any means of putting them into some lock-up, prison, or whatever it may be? If they nave not that machinery, it is almost putting a premium on their being very lax in their administration of this particular duty.

They certainly have the machinery. The police have always acted under their authority in dealing with cases of that sort. In the district referred to the military and naval authorities have absolute power to remove any person against whom they have suspicion. In case of a provable offence, the police would have authority to deal with it; but the military authorities need have no provable case against a man. If they consider him dangerous in the neighbourhood, they have full power to remove him.

I quite understood that from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I did not quite understand whether they had any place under their care where they could put them.

Bedford.

You cannot send everybody to Redford. Redford is pretty full now, I believe.

No.

Then I shall be glad to know that some of these people in East Fife are sent there promptly, because I believe there are still some left who ought to go. We all know that on the East Coast of Scotland this question is giving great uneasiness. We have constant patrolling of the coast. The duties of the Military, the Territorials, and the Yeomanry in this district are very heavy and arduous in connection with the question of spying and signalling generally. There has been signalling observed from the hills, but I do not believe that up to the present they have succeeded in catching anybody. All I have to say is this, that I am sure it has been a surprise to many Members of this House to-day to be told that the Secretary for Scotland has no real authority in this matter, and no real responsibility—just as the Home Secretary has said that he has not. For my part I should not have troubled him with the case in question had I known that, but should have gone to the proper quarter. There is no doubt that the local brigadier in that part of the county of Fifeshire in command of the Territorial troops is very very fully occupied with other matters, and I really do not think—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—that the responsibility ought to be removed, as it has been, from the civil authorities. It would be a very good thing if it could be restored to the right hon. Gentleman.

Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell me who is responsible for Aberdeenshire being placed: half of the city in the prohibited area, and the other half in the registered area?

The thing has been done on the advice of the military authorities. The point about Aberdeenshire—which has been put right—was the omission to include Torry. The reason for that was that the Proclamation as originally suggested by the authorities went by counties, and Torry happened to be in a different county from Aberdeenshire. The matter was put right subsequently.

May I ask if it is the case that the military and naval authorities have the power to remove a man and the chief constable has not that power? If that is the case, why is it so?

As a matter of fact the chief constable has the power to deal with anybody suspected of offence. He also acts upon what the military authority says. If they say, "We want this area cleared of Germans of a military age"—or Austrians now—the police act and deal with the matter, as they have authority to do.

Why then did the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary put the blame on the military officers?

Because the responsibility of saying that particular cases shall be interned or not interned rests with the War Office. If they say that they are to be interned, then all the resources of the police are placed at the disposal of the War Office, in order to effect the arrests.

Then why say that the police—?

Is the hon. Member making a speech or asking a question?

Asking a question, Sir.

Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman must do it at Question time.

Would it be in order on this Amendment to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question concerning the granting of licences for private installations of wireless telegraphy?

Does it deal with the alien question?

I beg to move, as an Amendment, to add, at the end of the Address, the words:—

"But humbly regrets that the Gracious Speech contains no reference to the censorship of the Press and the lack of information on matters of public interest of past events supplied to the Press."

I move the Amendment standing in my name for the purpose of bringing under review what has taken place since the censorship was established. Like my predecessors, I have brought the matter forward in no party spirit, and I do not speak on behalf of the Press so much as on behalf of the public. There are certain questions which I think it is right should be ventilated in this House in the Debate on the Address. I cannot help feeling that there was a considerable amount of irritation at the start. The Press censorship started badly. I do not know how it was. I think there was an undignified quarrel as to whether the Press should go in at the front or at the back door. I will not go into that. But I cannot help thinking that any friction was largely due to the fact that in the Press Censorship Office there were very few persons who understood anything about journalism. With the exception of Sir George Armstrong the Press censorship staff was singularly devoid of experience in matters of journalism. That may seem to be a small thing in the management of a Press censorship, but I am myself convinced that matters would have worked very much more smoothly if the Government had incorporated into that staff some men who understood how the papers are worked. In my speech I am not going into any particular instance of things which I do not consider were rightly done I am merely going to touch briefly upon where I think things have failed. But I will here and there mention where I think the Press censorship has failed for want of that knowledge of professional journalism which was so necessary for smooth working. Let me take one case.

In the issue of news there does not seem to be the slightest consideration given to the Press as to the time of the issue. Last night, for instance, the Press, as a whole, knew of the sinking in the Downs of the "Niger" by a torpedo. I believe they received the news at 11.30 o'clock yesterday morning. The news went to the Censorship Office and was not published till 12.30, midnight. What was the result? In technical language the whole of the morning papers had gone to bed, having finished their mechanical operations preparatory to printing the paper. I should like to know from the Press Censor why that news could not have been given out to the public an hour earlier? It would have been invaluable for the morning papers to have had it an hour before they did. It was given out after midnight, just at that aggravating moment when the whole of the papers had gone to press. It was then, I say, that the Press Censor, in the language of the office, "released" that particular piece of information. There may, of course, have been grave reasons why it should not have been released till then, but it is very difficult for the ordinary public to understand why the present condition of things should be. There have been denunciations of the spy danger; we have heard of cases where this has been rigorously censured. I am glad to note the Press Censor in his place, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman examples of what I am speaking of privately, for in the public interest I do not think it is desirable to relate matters in detail. But the Press has been censured in its denunciations of the spy danger; in its criticism of the transport of the wounded, and of the Paymaster's Department in the delay in paying out money to the wives and dependants of soldiers, and the soldiers themselves; and there has also been the question of foreign policy where it dealt with neutral countries.

I suspect very much that the Press Censor will hide himself behind the military authorities, exactly as the Home Secretary has stated that he has no authority, or very little, outside what the military and naval authorities allow. I expect that, but I would humbly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that as Press Censor it surely is within his own personal jurisdiction to say why these subjects which I have named have really anything to do with the conduct of the war, or would be likely to affect it in any way. The Press censorship is really in danger of becoming an autocratic authority which will stifle all criticism—and nothing surely could be worse for a Government, even whilst carrying on a war, that there should be no criticism of its actions! I am told by one authority in the Lobby that the Press is practically terrorised in a very large number of cases by the Press Censor's Department. I know of news that the newspapers have been frightened to send up to the Press Office, whether it should be censored or not. I could give chapter and verse, and will do so later on, if necessary, and privately. Again, I should like to ask how it is that the French official reports, Governmental reports, are censored over here when they are published all over the world? It cannot help the Germans, yet the official report of the French Government is censored over here for the English newspapers. That also applies to the papers in Rome and Holland. Reports come from these papers. They are published broadcast over the world. Yet when they get here the blue pencil of the Press Censor is put through them. Enormous and inexplicable delay takes place on such an occasion in relation to the news from the Press Censor's office. Why news is held up for such a time is a puzzle! Let me quote a speech that Sir John French made some time in August. Sir John met the remnants of the Sussex Regiment during a halt in the retreat from Mons and he addressed them as follows:

"I want to tell you how pleased I am with your work on the 29th inst. You cannot realise how valuable it was. In two or three days England will know of it—"

Mark that!

"The Empire will know of it, and will ring with your glory. I knew you in South Africa, and knew what you would do, and knew that you would distinguish yourselves. I am proud of you, and hope very soon to be able to give you a rest."

That is a splendid speech to a very gallant regiment. Sir John French, did not think the report of such doings would help the enemy. That is plain, or he would not have said what he did. The Germans have 400 prisoners of this regiment in their hands, and they must have known all about the regiment that had opposed them. Instead of three days—would the House believe it!—it was absolutely two months before England heard of that event. I venture most humbly to submit that by keeping facts like these quiet the Press Censor is doing enormous harm to recruiting. During the last two or three months I have been busy recruiting night after night in the open air, in cinemas, in theatres, and music halls, speaking to the men, and doing all I could. But the dreary lists of dead and wounded, and no accounts of the battles that have taken place, is bad. I am not speaking for one moment of any prognostication of what is likely to take place on the battlefield, but of what has taken place. These events do not receive that intelligent attention at the hands of the Press Department which they ought to receive. Of course, I am not blaming the Censor personally. One knows that it is impossible for him to supervise the office in person. I think the faults are largely due to the fact that his immediate subordinates do not work on a settled plan. Each seems to have a plan of his own, and in some cases they are most arbitrary in the stuff they censor and in the stuff that they leave alone. I have an article in my hand which I do not propose to read out, but I would like to hand it to the hon. Gentleman, and I would like to ask him to point out the reason why the Press Censor in his wisdom has blue pencilled certain sentences.

Reference has been made to the execution of the spy Lody on Friday last. The news was not allowed to leak out until Wednesday midday, and it is difficult to conceive the reason why the news that Lody had been shot should not have been immediately telegraphed over the Empire. There are a great many spies who never believed we should shoot anybody. The Home Secretary said that up to a certain date no spies had been shot, and I think those spies in the country would be at any rate encouraged between Friday last and Wednesday to think that Lody had not been shot. I should like to have the opinion of the Press Censor, if he thinks fit and is able and willing to give me the information, as to why that particular fact was kept back? Of course I do not pretend that the Press are infallible; the Press have made and will make mistakes. The Prime Minister himself made a mistake on one occasion when speaking at Penarth. The Prime Minister, as Chairman of the National Defence Committee, when speaking at Penarth, told us of the arrival of the Indian troops at Marseilles. The notice went over the world from the Press Censor that whatever the Press were to do with the Prime Minister's speech they should please delete the fact that the Indians arrived at Marseilles. I think that was an exercise of power by the Press Bureau over the Prime Minister which was hardly right or necessary. What I hoped and believed was that we should have had a Committee of experienced journalists and war correspondents skilled in war who might have been trusted, I think, to deal with these matters. I cannot imagine William Howard Russell, the "Times" correspondent, or Kingley, or some of these men of the past making mistakes in this direction. If the broad lines were given by the military authorities as to exactly what they wanted known or not wanted known, I am perfectly certain you could have left these skilled men to deal with the Press, instead of these amateurs who are not and cannot be used to the methods of modern journalism. Now and then newspapers send to the Press Bureau and ask as to whether a matter should or should not be known. The general attitude of the Press Bureau seems to be that of the nursery maid who said, "Whatever the baby is doing, tell it not," with the result that the Press has got very much discouraged and run risks they need not run if they had more confidence in the Bureau.

Finally, I should like to know this: What are the pains and penalties attaching to the disobedience of the orders of the Press Bureau? Vague and varied threats are held over some of the newspapers if they dare do this or that, and I think the Press Censor will acknowledge that without these threats the Press have very loyally done their best under very difficult circumstances, to obey the orders of the Press Censor. I am sure the Solicitor-General will agree that splendid silence was kept whilst our troops were going across from Southampton to the ports upon the French coast at the commencement of this War. It was known to hundreds of people and probably to thousands of people, yet not in a single instance did the British Press give away the secret in any way. I could bring other instances where the same loyalty is observed through weeks and months, and the Press Censor must be aware of facts at the present time known to the Press which they can be absolutely relied upon not to disclose. All that makes it all the more important that we should take this opportunity to have some little explanation from the Press Censor as to the way the Press censorship is managed and as to what he thinks of it at the present time. I do assure him that there is a great deal of public annoyance, if I may use the word, with the Press censorship. I cannot feel that the work is done with intelligent sympathy. I do not think the majority of the people in the Press Bureau understand the difficulties which journalism works under, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will pardon me for this very frank criticism of the methods of the Press Department.

I beg to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend and I should especially like to say how entirely I agree with what he has said as to the enormous amount of harm done to recruiting by the reticence caused by the censorship of the Press. Take one case. The records of the deeds and doings of our gallant men and their brave acts are suppressed, and I do hope and pray that the time has now come to put an end to the keeping back of all the details that come home from day to day. I trust that the Censor who is now here present will be able to give us an assurance upon that point, and that greater freedom will be allowed in this respect, and that we shall have full details of the gallant actions done at the front.

I myself cannot help wishing that this Debate might have been conducted under conditions that would have enabled me to give a fuller and more lengthy exposition of the objects and methods of the working of the Press Bureau than the somewhat short Debate raised upon the Gracious Speech from the Throne permits.

You never gave us a chance.

Surely it is open to anybody to speak when I have finished, and I think the hon. Member might allow me to continue. The history of the Bureau is not a little useful in considering what are the functions it discharges. I think myself it would be well if its functions were fairly defined, if its powers were clearly indicated, and if there were some more general knowledge as to the way in which it works than it is obvious exists at the present moment from the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. It has always been my view that the real rule by which this office which I now hold should be guided is the consideration as to whether the matter that it is proposed for publication should be allowed to see the light tested by whether its publication could afford any assistance to the enemy, whether it could unduly depress our people, whether it could disclose movements and operations of our troops, or of our Fleet, or by any other means whatever, directly or indirectly, imperil the national safety. I also think that subject to one limitation, which I will mention in a moment, that this office ought not to stop criticism. In one sense I do not regard this office as a Government office at all, because I think if an office of this description were assumed to be the creature of any Government, bound to act under its direction in stopping any matter that the Government did not want published, that instead of being, as I think it is, an extremely useful and beneficent office it would become a very great danger to the State.

Therefore criticism of the Government, or of Members of the Government, is not that which I have ever stopped, except where such criticism is of such a character as that it might destroy public confidence in the Government which at this moment is charged with the conduct of the War, or might in any way weaken the confidence of the people in the administration of affairs, or otherwise cause distress or disturbance amongst people in thinking their affairs were in a really serious state. I know that that means the criticism passed must be strictly limited, and within certain limitations that is true, but nothing could better illustrate what I mean than the article put forward by the hon. Member of which he made complaint. This is an article of criticism. It contains I think eighty lines, and out of these eighty lines only eleven have been struck out, and these eleven have been struck out simply because on the face of them it is plain that to allow these eleven lines to go through would enable our enemies, if they desired, to make quotations from English papers in their Press, and to use these as statements of fact with regard to matters now existing. It is quite obvious that cannot be permitted. You cannot allow English newspapers to publish matters which could be reproduced in Germany on the authority of the English Press and enable them to be circulated in neutral countries, or in their own country, as statements detrimental to ours.

The next complaint that I understood the hon. Gentleman to make was a complaint as to the delay that ensued in the publication of news. I say quite frankly my interest is and always has been to expedite, as far as I can, the publication of news at the earliest possible moment, and I say without any fear of contradiction that, as far as my office is concerned, apart from necessary delay that must be occasioned by censorship in transit, which is reduced to the minimum, there is no delay at all, and news is published at the very earliest possible moment. The illustration given was that of the "Nigel." It must be remembered that before any news is to be published with regard to the sinking of any one of our vessels it is absolutely essential it should be confirmed. The object of this office is to prevent the publication of unauthorised news, whether with regard to defeats or victories which would have the most deplorable and lamentable effect upon the community. It has got to be confirmed, and the only source of confirmation is the Admiralty, and a communication is made at once from our Office to the Admiralty immediately news of this kind comes through, and we cannot allow it until the Admiralty says in the circumstances it can be published, and this complaint of us is something for which we have no more responsibility than the hon. Member himself.

I only pointed out that where five or six newspapers got information that this ship was sunk in the presence of five or six hundred people in the morning, it is not allowed to be published until 12.30 at night—thirteen hours afterwards.

I will give the reason. As far as I can gather, the hon. Member seems to think that if the news is received by four or five newspapers it becomes true. May I point out that we have had news sent into us from every corner of the Kingdom, exact in detail, agreeing in particulars of time and place, recording the complete destruction of our Fleet and the annihilation of a number of our capital vessels. If we had acted on the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, we should have published that news to the world, every word of which was a lie. The hon. Member will no doubt recollect the midnight hordes of phantoms dim which wandered through this country from Archangel to France, and then vanished into the mist. It is said that we have struck out denunciations of spy cases. It is no use asking me to defend such a circumstance unless you place the case before me. I am unaware that any denunciations of spy cases have been struck out, or any criticisms of the wounded. As to foreign policy, I have a word to say about that. Whenever a criticism is brought to my knowledge which deals fairly and temperately with any complaint relating to any one of our systems, either naval, military, or civil, it is not struck out. The people who have charge of the Press, and the people who read it, ought to know that what I am saying is true. With regard to foreign policy, I am absolutely amazed that the hon. Member opposite should think-that foreign policy is a matter, the discussion of which is not to be subject to censorship. Can the hon. Member be aware that time and again during these disputes articles have been published by papers without our authority which have grievously impaired our foreign relations with neutral Powers, and rendered most difficult the delicate task which has to be discharged by the Foreign Secretary.

I wonder sometimes whether the hon. Member has the faintest realisation of the fact that we are at war, and that what we have to do is to strive by all the means in our power to prevent the Press being used as an organ for attack instead of defence. It is my deep and sincere regret that I have not been able to exercise a more severe and searching censorship over the criticisms of some newspapers which have dealt with foreign policy, and I make no apology for what has been done in that respect. With regard to frightening the Press, I should like to know what the hon. Member means. I believe there is no Government office, apart from ours, where complaints are heard hour after hour all through the day by letter, by telephone, or verbally, and which are as far as possible answered within twenty-four hours of their being received. The Press certainly have no fear of me any more than I have the least fear of them. The next complaint is that we have censored the reports of the French official communications. Will the hon. Member tell me when?

I have not got the details.

Then it is impossible for me to deal with the matter in this way.

I should have been doing harm if I had mentioned absolute details, and that is why I abstained from doing so.

If the mentioning of the matter that was cut out would do harm, it is obvious that I was right in cutting it out. The French official communication alleged to have been censored could have been brought down here, and it could have been handed over to me. I know one occasion when this was done, and my only regret is that it was not done more completely. A statement was made in one of the French official communications disclosing a most critical and important movement of our troops, and I greatly grieve to say that I was too late to effectively strike it out. I tried to do it, but I only partially succeeded. The consequence was that the matter slipped through, and one newspaper after another caught hold of this piece of information, enlarged it, inflamed and explained it, and this at the very moment when it was essential for the safety of our troops that it should not be disclosed. It had, however, been published, and I was powerless in the matter. I do not care what document it is, or from what authority it comes, if once it contains matter which, according to tire best of my judgment will imperil in the slightest degree the safety of our troops or our Fleet, I shall strike it out. The next complaint is with regard to something which General French said on 20th October, which did not come over here until 28th October. It was not submitted to me, and I do not suppose that it was received here until 28th October. That is not a matter that I had anything to do with.

Surely the hon. Member cannot be aware of the way in which this Office works. Does he suppose that I sit there and form a military or a naval judgment and express my own views upon the delicate negotiations with foreign nations conducted by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? As a matter of fact, as soon as a question of difficulty arises it is referred to the proper authority, and they are asked whether for military or naval reasons this matter should not be allowed to go through. If they say it should not be allowed to go through, that is enough. It is no good appointing people to conduct a war if, when they give their judgment, you are not going to act upon it. The idea that I exercise an independent judgment is the most profound mistake that ever entered the mind of man. I do nothing of the kind. I sit there and to the very best of my power I try to execute the orders given by the Admiralty and the War Office, given in the belief that they are required for the proper conduct of our operations at sea and on land. The next complaint is that I censored the speech of the Prime Minister in regard to his reference to the landing of the Indian troops at Marseilles. The answer is quite obvious. I do not know whether hon. Members in the position of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment have the faintest idea of the risks our troops run at sea. Does the hon. Member opposite wish to disclose, so that it will be in the possession of the Germans, exactly where our transports are, and where they are going to?

I only used that as an illustration.

It was put forward in the shape of a complaint of the way I was doing my duty. The Prime Minister did make the statement that the Indian troops had landed at Marseilles when it was not accurate, because they had not landed. To have published that statement would have been to tell the Germans that our troops were in course of disembarkation at Marseilles. I could not stop that news completely, and it made no difference the news going out to Amercia. But so far as I could I stopped it all over Europe, and so far from regretting what I did, I regret that it was not within my power to expunge that passage from every newspaper. I do not know on what hon Members' eyes are fixed. Are they fixed on newspapers or newsboys selling news, or the people who are reading newspapers by their own fireside. Mine are not. My eyes, from first to last, are fixed upon our soldiers in the trenches and our sailors at sea, and if in the exercise of my discretion, used for their protection time and again, I interfere with the conduct of a newspaper, or strike out something which some other person might think ought to be left in, I comfort myself by thinking that when such interests are at stake it makes but little difference that now and then I may err on the side of safety. It is suggested that there should be someone to supervise the Censor, and that my other duties prevent me from carrying out this work. I am there on an average thirteen hours a day. I come about ten in the morning and leave at any time from eleven to twelve o'clock at night. Someone suggested that we want constant supervision all the time, but the idea that this supervision is exercised in a slack manner, and that I only bestow upon the work the scanty remnants of time which I am able to take away from my duties as Law Officer is a profound mistake.

With the generous assistance of the Attorney-General I have been able to leave the execution of our legal work to him, and I devote myself solely and unremittingly to this work. The hon. Member said that we had not got the right staff, and that we wanted trained journalists. Does he know that we have got them? In our military room we have two highly expert journalists, and in our cable censor room we have more of them. The idea that our censorship is exercised by ignorant people is a mistake which obsesses the minds of people who think they can express their patriotism by finding fault with the Press Bureau. I am asked what are the penalties. They are perfectly plain. If orders which are given for the safety of the State are broken the punishment is punishment by court-martial, and if the offence is one committed in complete ignorance without knowledge of the order, without any intent to disobey, the punishment is three months' imprisonment, and if committed with knowledge it may be imprisonment for life. These are the penalties, and they are sufficient authority for what I do, and I have sufficient power behind my hand to enable me to do my duty. I have never denied that the Press have helped in many ways to enable me to carry out my duty, and I do not deny that it might be serious if they disobeyed. But none the less, without their loyalty, it would be impossible that our work could be carried out as efficiently as it is. I confess that I do get a little impatient when I hear complaints of our office of such a trivial character as those which have been raised here this afternoon.

I know that we are regarded as the enemy of the Press and the enemy of the public. We are neither. We are the only institution that stands between the Press and the untempered severity of Martial Law. If it were not for the office I hold, and if any newspaper published any matter that in the minds of the naval and military authorities in the slightest degree imperilled what they believed to be the safety of our forces on land or sea, they would have no defence. It is only in their interest that this office exists for the purpose of enabling them, when they have submitted their matter to us, to obtain from us a critical examination, and a sanction which will save them from the consequences of mistake. I say that the Press—notably that section represented by the pink coloured proof that was produced by the hon. Member for Hammersmith—when they criticise our work and complain of what we have done, failed to realise what is the true position. I say, further, that we have deserved well of the public. We have saved them from being depressed by the circulation of untrue statements with regard to disasters on land and sea. We have saved them from the sick reaction that would have followed on the news of victories published and proclaimed from one end of this country to the other that had no foundation in fact. And, even if we had not, as I believe we have, deserved well both of the Press and of the public, I believe that every single member of the staff that works with considerable devotion and diligence in that office would find their reward and satisfaction in this, that they have been able more than once to afford some protection to our great-hearted soldiers in their long thin wavering line of fight, and to our gallant sailors whose ceaseless vigilance keeps our shores inviolate.

The warning which the learned Solicitor-General gave in one of the closing paragraphs of his speech has thrown a significance on this discussion, and has given an importance to the necessity of debate upon this Press censorship which I myself had not suspected belonged to it before. He made that very significant and most impressive statement. It was never suggested to us by any responsible Minister on that Bench that by consenting to the establishment of the Press Bureau we were forfeiting the rights of freedom of publication in the Press which had belonged to us from time immemorial, and which I venture to tell the learned Solicitor-General is one of the privileges and possessions which even a Liberal Government at a time of national crisis cannot lightly filch from the Press or the nation of this country. If the Solicitor-General tells us to-night that by consenting to the establishment and appointment of the Press censorship, the Press of this country rendered themselves liable to penalties on the arbitrary or capricious statement of the naval or military authorities—

If the hon. Member would like to know the true position I will tell him. It is not that. It is that by the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, and the Order in Council, the Press becomes subject to martial law, and not by virtue of the constitution of my office at all.

I am glad to have that explanation, although I think there is still room for comment on the prerogative that applies to the naval and military authorities under the Defence of the Realm Act. The very fact that this question has been raised to-night and that the Press of this country has been reminded that they are liable to penalties and risks that have never been so frankly stated before at least justifies a brief Debate tonight. Any debate on this question suffers always from two great disadvantages and disabilities. When we press home particular cases which want justifying, explaining and defending, we are always told by the representative of the Press Bureau, with the head of which I have always expressed my profound sympathy—I cannot conceive a more onerous or a more thankless task than that which the Solicitor-General has taken up in connection with ibis matter—that the Press Bureau itself is not responsible, but that the responsibility lies at the door either of the military or naval authorities. We in this House find ourselves helpless, because we can never get any proper justification of acts which in our judgment and thought require very strong justification or explanation. That is one of the disadvantages. The second disability under which we lie is that which gives a general cover or cloak to the action, justifiable or unjustifiable, of the Press Bureau by saying the whole of the action of the Press Bureau is dependent upon a general principle or upon several general principles.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the exercise of the censorship was entirely subject to and dependent upon military considerations. The learned Solicitor-General to-night in his speech has gone a little beyond that and he has suggested other categories, such as "information calculated to depress the mind of the people"—all of which are governing considerations in the exercise of the activities of the Press Bureau. I hope that last category will not be pressed too seriously in the exercise of the censorship, because I think I may remind the Solicitor-General that he may much more seriously depress the people of this country if they have a suspicion that disquieting news is being kept from them lest they should be depressed or disquieted. I do not think the temper and spirit of this country and the realisation by the people of the gravity of the issues that are at stake will lead them to take an unduly depressed view of any reverses so long as they feel that the Government are dealing with them fairly and squarely in this matter. Let me take one principle which both the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General referred to, and said must be the determining and governing principle in the exercise of any Press censorship. Everything published must be subordinate to military considerations. If we could be assured that from the beginning or even in the most recent past in the exercise of this censorship publication had been prohibited owing wholly to military considerations, there would almost be an end of the Debate. But may I take a comparatively trivial illustration of a very recent date? Last week the Belgian headquarters report which had been published broadcast on the Continent was censored before being allowed publication in this country. I put it to the learned Solicitor-General: Can it be suggested for a single moment that a Belgian headquarters official military report which had already been published broadcast through France and Belgium required for military considerations the suppression of any part in this country? That is only one illustration, and a comparatively unimportant one, which shows that the general cover or cloak of military considerations does not explain or fully justify what sometimes seems capricious action on the part of the Press Censors in this country.

May I take another point? There is a very considerable feeling of disappointment in the country, and it is a matter which I think has affected our recruiting efforts, that we have not had sufficient information or news given to us of the heroic conduct of our troops since the beginning of the War. I want to ask this question quite frankly and plainly: Can it be suggested that a narrative of events which took place weeks ago could possibly prejudice any military interest at the present time? The other day the country was thrilled by a report of the action of the London Scottish. No one appraises the value of their action and valour more than I do, but that was only one solitary incident in a long series of most valorous and heroic actions during the last three months, and it is not fair to troops that have been passing through perfectly incalculable dangers and risks for three months to have their action and their heroism slurred over and ignored, while information of comparative recent date which does not stretch back more than a few days may be published broadcast through the length and breadth of this country for the benefit of those interested in the London Scottish. No representative of the Bench opposite, since these discussions were first raised in this House, has attempted to give any explanation to show how the publication days afterwards of a narrative of heroic efforts in the conduct of the War can supply information to the enemy. To suggest that to publish the names of places where a fight has taken place a few days ago would involve giving information to the enemy seems to me one of the most puerile defences that could be put forward. I grant that the learned Solicitor-General has not attempted a flimsy defence of that kind to-night.

I wish to mention one other point. We have heard it lamented that the military and naval authorities of the country have not thought it well to allow certain accredited Press representatives to be at least within such contact with the conduct of the War as to allow them to publish in this country a more vivid appreciation of the facts of the War than unfortunately is now provided. It so happens that within the last few weeks one paper in this country—I will not mention its name, but it is a paper to which we are under a very great debt for the information it gives us from time to time—it so happens that one paper in this country has published intensely interesting narratives from the personal observation of its representative possessing, so it is claimed by the newspaper itself, a very important position in the Army. One paper has been allowed facilities at the front—unlimited facilities as is claimed. Why, I would ask, should there be any discrimination in this matter? Why should one journal or individual receive facilities which are denied to other reresentatives of the Press? You should make your rule absolute and universal.

So it is.

In this particular instance the statements printed at the head of the narrative itself are such as I have indicated, and the paper carefully explains to its readers that its Special Correspondent has received' exceptional facilities, while he, too, states that he has passports which have carried him everywhere on the field of battle. There is a very strong feeling—and I do not think it is altogether a surprising feeling on the part of many influential representatives of the Press—that there should not be this unfair discrimination in the interests of particular papers. I only want to close with the comment with which I began my speech. I think the Government may, or ought to, realise that the country is getting a little impatient of the arbitrariness—the powers of arbitrary action that are increasingly claimed by individual Members of the Government. I do not quarrel with the tone and emphasis of the learned Solicitor-General to-night, but I think that he and his colleagues will find out that if the country have a suspicion we are to have certain minor modern Napoleons claiming arbitrary powers, without consulting either this House or the people, they may find that they have sadly miscalculated the temper, spirit, and traditions of their own countrymen.