power given for purely military purposes to compass an end which is in no conceivable sense military. It is impossible to believe that Mr. Russell's lectures in themselves could have been prejudicial to any military object. If graver suspicions are entertained against him, the course pursued was even more manifestly foolish and unjust. In that case, evidence should have been procured of the charges against him, and he should have been arrested and put on his trial. Instead the Government have preferred to treat an Englishman of distinction as though he were an alien of suspicious antecedents, presuming apparently on the unpopularity of his views to protect their conduct from inconvenient criticism. It is a most alarming culmination to a process which has been becoming for long increasingly unmistakable."
"Manchester Guardian," September 2, 1916
"The order issued forbidding the Hon. Bertrand Russell from going into any 'prohibited area' would be a little laughable if it were not also decidedly humiliating. What object it can be supposed to serve we have not the remotest idea . . . . . . If only Providence would favour the War Office in dealing with such matters with a touch of humour, or if it cannot spare it, a modicum of common sense!"
September 5, 1916, H. W. Massingham in a letter to the "Times"
"It is a gross libel, and an advertisement to the world that the administration of the Defence of the Realm Regulations is in the hands of men who do not understand their business. Incidentally, their action deprives Mr. Russell, already debarred from entering
