Lords Sitting of 9 June 1920

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH.
Frank Theodore, Lord Bishop of PETER-BOROUGH—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (LANDS) BILL.
Read 2a.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Connnittee.—(The Martivess of Londonderry).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to give effect to Convention.
1. His Majesty may make such Orders in Council and do such things as appear to him necessary for carrying out the Convention and for giving effect thereto or to any of the provisions thereof, or to any amendment which may be made under article thirty-four thereof.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had on the Paper an Amendment to omit the words "and do such things as appear to him necessary." The noble Lord said: I suggest that these words are unnecessary. I believe the noble Lord has considered the point and I shall be glad to know his decision.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): I am willing to accept the Amendment, but I suggest that the words should read: "His Majesty may make such Orders in Council as appear to him necessary for carrying out the Convention." The noble Lord is suggesting that some of these words are redundant, and I should be happy to move the Amendment in the form that I have suggested.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 25 and 29, leave out the words ("and do such things").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Special powers in case of emergency.
(3) Any person who suffers direct injury or loss, owing to the operation of an order of the Secretary of State under this section, shall be entitled to receive compensation from the Secretary of State, the amount thereof to be fixed, in default of agreement, by an official arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, the principles of that Act being applied, with the necessary modifications, where possession is taken of any land or premises.
(4) An order under this section may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order made by the Secretary of State.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (3), at the beginning, to leave out the word "direct." The noble Lord said: This is rather an important Amendment. We want to define more clearly what kind of injuries will entitle a person to receive compensation. The words run "any person who suffers direct injury or loss." I suggest that the words should rather be "indirect injury," because there may be loss or damage which would be the indirect result of aircraft. There is, for example, the case of a brood mare being frightened by aeroplanes. Then there have already been cases in which low-flying aircraft over flocks of sheep have caused a panic among them and serious damage has resulted. There are also instances where low-flying aircraft have caused considerable damage to cattle. In the New Forest, of which I have had considerable experience, on several occasions ponies have been driven into bogs or
536
injured. I suggest to the Government the omission of the word "direct," and a reliance simply on the common law, which would then operate. The words "any person who suffers injury or loss" would give the clause a rather wide interpretation, and I suggest to the Government that they should consider that point.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("direct").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think it necessary to retain the word "direct," because otherwise the door would be opened to many claims that it would be very undesirable to admit. I recognise the points that the noble Lord has made in regard to flocks of sheep and brood mares, but I think injuries of that kind, if there was a valid claim, could very easily be proved. On the other hand, if this word "direct" is not in the Bill, an outside person would be able to claim damages because an aerodrome had been commandeered by the Government, so preventing him from selling goods to the proprietor of the aerodrome. That would be a claim which the retention of the word "direct" would obviate. As regards the person who has suffered direct loss, he is not excluded from obtaining compensation, nor is any person prevented from obtaining compensation provided that the loss for which he sues is not under ordinary legal principles too remote.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: After what the noble Marquess has said I am prepared to accept his judgment on this point, but I think he should again consider it, and perhaps he will do so before the Report stage in order that the cases of brood mares and flocks may be covered, and compensation be paid in case of damage to them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "Nothing in this Act shall deprive any subject of a right of appeal to the Courts of the Realm." The noble Lord said: I put this Amendment down under the impression that this has some relation to D.O.R.A. Under D.O.R.A. some of us have had rather painful experience of the rights of the subject having been taken away or largely whittled down, and I think it is most important to preserve the right

537
of appeal to the ordinary Courts of the Realm. I am not in love with any form of legislation which deprives His Majesty's subjects of recourse to the Courts of Law. Therefore I suggest to the Government that the words I have put down would, if adopted, give confidence to the subjects of His Majesty. The Government need not fear anything from the Courts of Law if they have a good case. I invite the noble Marquess to consider this point.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, at end insert ("Nothing in this Act shall deprive any subject of a right of appeal to the Courts of the Realm ").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: To insert this Amendment would cut at the whole root of the clause as it is drafted. The decision of the arbitrator is now final in all cases where land is compulsorily acquired under the law, and I am sure the noble Lord realises that if an appeal is admitted in these cases it may lead to endless litigation. I am certain that is not the desire which is in his mind. The clause as it is drawn does not prevent any one who can allege that the Secretary of State is acting in excess of the powers given to him by the clause going to the Courts on that plea, but I feel it is necessary for us to follow the custom which is observed in the case of the acquisition of land by compulsory purchase, and I most resist this Amendment. I do not think that we are going beyond what is habitually done in the case of decisions by an arbitrator when land is acquired compulsorily, and I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "Provided that no compensation shall be payable by reason of the operation of a general order under this section prohibiting flying in the British Islands or any part thereof." The noble Marquess said: I think it will be understood that this Amendment is proposed in order to limit the cases in which compensation is payable only when there has been an interference with the claimant individually by requisitions of his property, or the prohibition of flying at his particular aerodrome. The point that will be in everybody's mind is the prohibition of flying by Mr. McKenna,
538
who was then Home Secretary, on August 2, 1914, two days before the outbreak of war. That was a general prohibition of flying, only of course no compensation could be claimed or paid. This Amendment is to safeguard that point.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Establishment of aerodromes by Air Council and local authorities.
8.—(1) The Air Council, and any local authority to which this section applies with the consent of the Air Council, and subject to such conditions as the Air Council may prescribe, shall have power to establish and maintain aerodromes (including power to provide and maintain roads and approaches, buildings and other accommodation and apparatus and equipment for such aerodromes) and to acquire land for that purpose, in the case of a local authority by agreement, and in the case of the Air Council either by agreement or in accordance with the provisions of this Act as to the acquisition of land by the Air Council.
(2) A local authority providing an aerodrome under this section shall have power to carry on in connection therewith any subsidiary business ordinarily carried on as incidental to the maintenance of an aerodrome.
(3) The local authorities to which this section applies are councils of counties and county boroughs, and urban district councils, and the expenses of those councils under this section shall he defrayed, in the case of a county council as expenses for general county purposes, and in the case of other council as expenses incurred in the administration of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908.
(4) A local authority, if a county council may borrow for the purposes of this section under section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888, as if those purposes were mentioned in that section, and, if the council of a county borough or urban district, shall have the same power of borrowing under this section as they have under the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908, for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred by them in the administration of those Acts.
(5) For the purpose of the purchase of land by agreement under this section by a local authority the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with this Act except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (1), after "purpose." to insert "by purchase or hire." The noble Marquess said: This is quite a simple Amendment. It is proposed in order to enable local authorities to rent land for aerodromes instead of being obliged to purchase.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, after ("purpose") insert ("by purchase or hire").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "Land may be acquired by a local authority under this section either within or without the area of the authority." The noble Marquess said: This additional power is desirable from the fact that some cities or towns may not have within their boundaries a site which would be suitable for the establishment of a municipal aerodrome. Already difficulties have been experienced both at Leeds and at Bradford, and there are large towns also in Lancashire which are similarly situated. I do not think that any danger need be anticipated in the granting of this power, because the Air Council's consent is required under the section before the local authorities can establish an aerodrome. The necessity of obtaining this consent will operate as a check upon any unreasonable proposals as regards distance, even if such proposals were made.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out from "business" to the end of the subsection, and insert "certified by the Air Council to be ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome." The noble Marquess said: This is an Amendment which follows out a suggestion made by the noble Lord (Lord Montagu of Beaulieu). It was his intention to add a schedule to the Bill in regard to subsidiary businesses which might be carried on. I think that if the words I have proposed are added this should meet the noble Lord's contention. It is highly undesirable that businesses should be carried on under the form of what we call "municipal trading." At the same time, it is necessary that the various undertakings should continue which, in the words of the Amendment, are "ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out from ("business") to the end of subsection (2), and insert ("certified
540
by the Air Council to be ancillary to the carrying on of an acrodrome").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for meeting me on this point, and I think that the words proposed will do very well. My object, like his, was simply to prevent local authorities from carrying on the general business of selling aircraft and motor cars, and generally engaging in business in which they would probably have little experience. I have every desire to assist local authorities in establishing aerodromes and generally in encouraging aviation, and I think it is most important that the authorities of big towns should be encouraged to give every facility towards that end.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (3), a number of Amendments of which the first was to insert, after "are," the words "the Common Council of the City of London, the." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment and the series which follows on the Order Paper are put down at the request of the Common Council of the City of London. The point of the Amendments is that the City of London should be placed in exactly the same position as the local authorities which are defined in subsection (3). The City Corporation is not at present included under the category either of county councils, county borough councils, or urban district councils, and it has specially asked to be included. The Common Council fully recognise, as we all do, that at this moment in the City of London those facilities for the establishment of an aerodrome do not exist. At the same time, they recognise that aviation is in its infancy. There may be very rapid developments in the future and they feel that it would be useful for them to know that they could acquire an aerodrome. Aeroplanes, of course, can already take off from the decks of ships. The Common Council desire, in view of possible developments, to enjoy the same advantages as the local authorities named in the subsection.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 20, after ("are") insert ("the Common Council of the City of London, the")
Page 5, line 23, after ("of") insert ("the Common Council of the City of London out of the general rate, in the case of")

541
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("if a county council").
Page 5, line 28, after the first ("section") insert ("in the case of the Common Council of the City of London under the City of London Sewers Acts, 1848 to 1897, and in the case of a county council ").
Page 5, line 30, leave out ("if") and insert ("in the case of").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert "but money so borrowed shall not be reckoned as part Of the debt of such local authority for the purposes of any enactment limiting the powers of borrowing by the authority." The noble Marquess said: The amount of indebtedness that may be incurred by a local authority at any time is limited by the Local Government Act, 1888, and the Public Health Act, 1875. The effect of this Amendment, which has been suggested by the Ministry of Health, is to exempt from those limiting provisions the amount which may be borrowed by a local authority under the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 31, at end, insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has an Amendment on the Paper on the ground of the redundancy of the words in the clause, but I suggest that the noble Lord would perhaps be satisfied if we omitted the words "by agreement" in line 35.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I think that would meet the point. It seems to me that the words "by agreement" and the words "except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement "would be rather redundant, and, in fact, confusing, and we run a danger of complicating an already rather confused clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, leave out ("by agreement").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Trespass, nuisance, and responsibility for damage.
9. No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance by reason only of the flight of aircraft over any property or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of this Act and any Order made thereunder and of the Convention are duly complied with; but where material damage or loss is caused by an aircraft in flight, taking off, or landing, or by any person in any such aircraft, or by any article falling from any such aircraft, to any person or property on land or water, damages shall be recoverable from the owner of the aircraft in respect of such damage or loss, without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action, as though the same had been caused by his wilful act, neglect or default, except where the damage or loss was contributed to by the negligence of the person by whom the same was suffered.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after "aircraft," where that word first occurs, to insert "at a height of not less than 2,000 feet or such height in excess of 2,000 feet as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to the noise made by aircraft, the amenities of the locality, and the enjoyment of houses or land by His Majesty's subjects." The noble Lord said: This is a very important clause, and I invite the Government to consider this Amendment rather seriously. At, the present moment the position stands thus. On the Civil Aerial Transport Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member, it was decided that it was difficult to fix the height at which an airman should fly. I recognise that, that having been more or less decided by the Committee after consideration, the Government, of course, may reply that they are only carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. Since that Committee sat there have been a good many evidences of damage done by low-flying aircraft.
Besides the cases of cattle or sheep, or the case of a valuable brood mare which was alluded to on a former clause by the noble Marquess and myself, there are also cases in which human life may be involved; for instance, cases such as that which occurred last year at Bournemouth when the beach was crowded with people, and a very injudicious and rash airman flew over the beach a few yards above the heads of the bathers. Had his controls gone wrong even in a very small degree he would have cut down dozens of women and children and others on the beach. He converted himself into an "air-hog," who can be a worse animal than even the "road-

543
hog." Then there is the case of nuisance arising through low flying over houses. We can assume that some day there may be a more or less defined track between London and Edinburgh, or between London and Manchester, or other large provincial centres. The noise of the exhaust of aircraft is still so great that in an ordinary aeroplane the pilot and observer cannot hear one another except with great difficulty, and the noise below, if aircraft fly below a certain height, may constitute a serious nuisance to people on the ground.
There is one alteration of the Amendment which I should be perfectly prepared to make in order to meet a legitimate point which escaped me when I first put it down—namely, there ought to be provision for aircraft ascending from or descending to an aerodrome or private grounds. Nevertheless, I think there is a case for insisting that aircraft shall not fly at a height which constitutes either a danger or a nuisance to human beings or endangers the lives of human beings or animals. On this point I have had several rather eloquent letters, and one gentleman writes that he took a house some years ago near a certain aerodrome, and during the war he was, of course, willing to put up with the nuisance that arose. Later the flying became troublesome; aeroplanes circled over the roads at low altitudes and made this gentleman's house
practically uninhabitable, particularly on Saturdays and Sundays when he needed rest. He eventually communicated with the Air Ministry who did their best to abate the nuisance. I have had many letters on this subject, and I suggest that there ought to be some power inserted in this Bill or given to the Secretary of State—to which I am perfectly willing to agree—whereby low flying should be prohibited, and the Secretary of State should have power to prohibit flying which is dangerous or constitutes a nuisance. I think the Amendment is an important one, and if the noble Marquess cannot see his way to meet me to-day he might between now and the Report Stage give it serious consideration. There is a strong feeling in the country on this point and the Government should try to meet us.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is impossible not to feel a certain amount
544
of sympathy with the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, and I am grateful to him for the temperate way in which he proposed it. The substance of the Amendment really is to draw an imaginary line at a height of 2,000 feet, and to restrict the protection of Clause 9 to aircraft above that height. I venture to say that this is an impossible provision to lay down. It is not possible to prove at exactly what height an aircraft is flying; and at the same time, in the climate of this country, there are many days in the year on which it is imposible to fly at a height of 2,000 feet. In fact, it is necessary on a great many occasions to fly lower than that.
The noble Lord recognises, of course, that in our attempt to regulate these matters we are faced with immense difficulties. The science of aviation is in its infancy. We have suddenly discovered a new high-road in the world, if I may use the expression—the high-road of the air—and it is obvious that any person or animal underneath that high-road is in a certain amount of varying danger, important and unimportant. It is to be hoped that, as the science of aviation progresses, this danger will he reduced to an absolute minimum. The difficulty in which we are at the present moment is in regard to our attempt to steer a middle course between the rights and amenities of private citizens on the one hand and the necessities of civil aviation on the other. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me when I say that it is unfair to draw any parallels from the amount and nature of Service flying in 1918. All those parallels are misleading for obvious reasons. It was a period of war, and care was not taken in the way in which, perhaps, it should have been taken and in which it will be taken by a commercial firm which is operating to satisfy the public, to eliminate risks and, above all things, not to arouse any undue prejudice which may hamper its efforts in that direction.
The noble Lord has given us one instance of an airman who flew low at the seaside. He knows that, under the existing Air Navigation Regulations of 1919, any person who carries out flying which, by reason of low altitude or proximity to persons or dwellings, is dangerous to public safety, is liable to be punished by a fine of £200 and six months imprisonment. This provision will be repeated in the Order in

545
Council to be issued under this Bill. The Civil Aerial Transport Committee, of which the noble Lord was a member, considered this point carefully, and in their Report they have given it as their opinion that it is impracticable to attempt to prescribe any altitude of this description. While I need hardly say that I fully sympathise with the point the noble Earl is trying to make, I feel that the limiting words which he proposes to insert in the Bill are really impossible, and I would. ask him to be good enough to withdraw this Amendment. I can assure him that between now and the Report stage I shall certainly make further inquiries, and leave no stone unturned to reduce to a minimum the danger and the nuisance, which is important from the point of view of the general public and the success of aviation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to support what my noble friend behind me has said, not that I desire to controvert in any way what has been put forward so courteously by the noble Marquess. I wish, however, to confirm the experience of the noble Lord as to the great nuisance and danger which some gentlemen who fly do involve to the public. When I was at a seaside town, a totally different. place from the one referred to, I saw a proceeding on several occasions which filled me with indignation. It was at Littichampton. The beach was absolutely full with large numbers of people and children digging. A flying gentleman came down and flew the whole length of the beach so low that, as I watched him from above, my eves were above the level at which he sat. Now that we have reached a time of peace there will be a strong feeling of indignation against flying of that kind, and it is very necessary regulations of some sort should he made. I am quite willing to take it from the noble Marquess that there is power already to stop what constitutes a danger; but something more than that is required. Anything which is obviously injurious to the health and convenience of the ordinary population ought not to be allowed to take place, and the noble Lord is quite right in calling attention to this point. His amendment may go a little too far, but I hope that between now and the Report stage the matter will be further considered in order to see whether the Bill cannot be strengthened so as to prevent such occurrences as we have both witnessed.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I say in answer to the noble Marquess that power already exists under the Air Navigation Regulations, 1919, under which a person guilty of an offence similar to those referred to is liable to a fine of £200 or 6 months' imprisonment. That is the existing law, and this provision will be repeated in the Order in Council to be issued under this Bill.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I quite recognise what the noble Lord has said about the necessity of flying lower than 2,000 feet when there is fog or under conditions in which the earth cannot be seen clearly, and if there is power already existing by which the Government, through the Air Ministry, can prosecute pilots who are so rash as to fly in the manner described I am satisfied, but I do invite the Government to consider this point more carefully before the Report stage in. order that. we may have a fuller explanation then. In the circumstances I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, after "was" ["damage or loss was contributed to "], to insert "caused by or". The noble Marquess said: We have been asked to put this Amendment into the Bill in order to give protection to the owner of an aircraft in cases where the damage or loss in question has been caused and not merely contributed to by the negligence of the person by whom the damage or loss is suffered.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, after ("was") insert ("caused by or").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, at the end of the Clause, to insert "Provided that, where any damages recoverable from the owner of an aircraft under this section arose from damage or loss caused by the wrongful or negligent action or omission of any person carried in the aircraft, nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect any right of the owner to recover from that person the amount of such damages. For the purpose of this section, the expression 'owner' in relation to aircraft includes any person to whom the aircraft is demised." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is obvious; other

547
wise, the owner of an aircraft would be responsible for any delinquencies which might be committed by passengers who were being carried in the aircraft. There might be instances where something was thrown out of an aeroplane and damage incurred by some one on the ground. The owner of the aeroplane should be entitled to recover from that person the amount of such damage. The expression "owner" includes any person to whom the aircraft is demised. If the aircraft is hired by another person that person incurs all the liabilities of the owner.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, at end insert the said words.— (The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I quite agree with what the noble Marquess has said. At the same time, if we look at it from the point of view of the public, it is very difficult to see how the public can be protected. Take an instance. A large machine goes up from one of the suburban aerodromes round London. The passengers take their lunch with them. Suppose they throw out half a dozen soda water bottles and one of the bottles catches one of your Lordships on the head as he is walking in the street—perhaps killing him or seriously injuring him—what remedy has he, or his executors? It is rather a serious question. In the case of a railway company it has been established that the company has no liability for any hurt that may happen to any one but its own servants. If you throw a soda water bottle out of a first-class railway carriage and you hit a platelayer, the platelayer, I believe, can claim; but if it kills an ordinary citizen I do not know what redress there is. It seems to me rather hard that there should be no means of recovering. I do not know what the law may be on this subject, but this is a point which will have to be considered very carefully, because it may be one of great importance in the future.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the noble Lord will see that the object of this Amendment is to enable the owner to recover from the passenger who may have committed the crime, which means that the owner is at this moment responsible for any damage which he may do.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Infringement of patents.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection the expression "owner" shall include the actual owner of an aircraft, and any person claiming through or under him, and the expression "passage" shall include all reasonable landings and stoppages in the course or the purpose of a passage.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment which I move in this clause is merely to correct a misprint.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Provisions as to Orders in Council.
16.—(1) An Order in Council under this Act may be made applicable to any aircraft in or over the British Islands or the territorial waters adjacent thereto, and to British aircraft wherever they may be.
(2) An Order in Council under this Act may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Order in Council.
(3) Any Order in Council made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the Order or any provision thereof may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or provision, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
(4) Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall not apply to any Order made under this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I move an Amendment to correct a verbal error in the drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 7, leave out ("regulation") and insert ("order").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to omit subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I should be very much obliged if the noble Lord would tell the House what

549
subsection (4) means. I think it is very desirable that there should be full publicity given to any rule made, and I think that everybody would be the better for knowing exactly what is going to be done or to be ordered. Perhaps the noble Marquess will tell us what is meant.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, lines 12 and 13, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not think it is a matter of very great importance. The original idea was that where urgency was present orders could be more readily promulgated, but it is of no great importance.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Savings.
17.—(1) This Act shall not (except where express provision is made to the contrary by this Act, or any Order or regulations thereunder) apply to aircraft belonging to or employed in the service of His Majesty.
(2) Nothing in this Act, or in any Orders or regulations thereunder, shall prejudice or affect the rights, powers, or privilege of any general lighthouse authority.
LORD GLENARTHUR LORD GLENARTHUR moved, in subsection (2), after "general," to insert "or local." The noble Lord said: The Amendment that stands in my name is submitted on behalf of the Dock and Harbour Authorities Committee, representing the large harbours in the country, including those of Liverpool, Newcastle, the Clyde, and Bristol. The object of it is to preserve the rights of those authorities. Clause 17 subsection (2) preserves the rights of any general lighthouse authority, but it is thought that it does not include the right of any particular harbour board that is also a lighthouse authority for the port. The two principal harbour authorities who are also lighthouse authorities are the Mersey Dock & Harbour Board (who have, under an Act of 1858, power to maintain and control the lighthouses in the port of Liverpool) and the Clyde Lighthouse Trust, whose special duties are to erect and maintain lighthouses on the Clyde. It is very important that the rights of these authorities should be protected, and I am glad to know that the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill is willing to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, after ("general") insert ("or local").—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Application to Scotland and Ireland.
18.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—
(b) a county council may borrow for the purposes of the said section on the security of the general purposes rate in the manner and subject to the conditions prescribed by the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1899, and a town council may borrow for the purposes of the said section on the security of the public health general assessment in like manner and subject to the like conditions as they may borrow for the purpose of the provision of hospitals.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The only Amendment to be moved in this clause is proposed for the purpose of correcting a misprint.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 32, leave out ("1899") and insert ("1889").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Schedule:

The Dominion of Canada.

The Dominion of New Zealand.

The Commonwealth of Australia (including Norfolk Island and Papua).

The Union of South Africa.

Newfoundland.

India.

THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY: I beg to move Amendments to give effect to the representations made by the Colonial Office that the correct order of precedence in regard to the self-governing Dominions should be followed in the Bill.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, leave out line 32.
Page 10, line 34, at end insert ("the Dominion of New Zealand").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new schedule:

AIR NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]

  SCHEDULED SUBSIDIARY BUSINESSES.
  1. Motor and garage proprietors.

  2. Owners or licensees of hotels, refreshment rooms.

  The noble Lord said: The point raised by this Amendment has already been met and, therefore, I do not move.

PROPERTY OF EX-ENEMY SUBJECTS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it has been brought to their notice that the proposal to confiscate the private property of the subjects of ex-Enemy Countries affects adversely the basis of International Security and the prospects of the British Carrying Trade.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this question, which I understand the noble Lord on the Woolsack is going to answer, raises the point of the confiscation of the private property of subjects of ex-enemy countries. It was raised and discussed when the Austrian and Bulgarian Treaties were before your Lordships' House. On that occasion, however, the noble Viscount who answered for the Government, Lord Milner, did not in any way deal with this Question nor did he answer the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, as to whether the treatment of British private property in Austria was on a more humane and correct basis than the treatment that we propose as regards Austrian subjects in this country.
The principle involved may be stated quite shortly, and in order to make my points as clear as I can I will quote what was said by such authorities as two ex-Lord Chancellors when this matter was before the House on the former occasion. The principle is that private property on land is not, according to modern practice, as regards international or municipal law, subject to confiscation, either during the war period or after the war period has finished. In fact the principle which has always hitherto been adopted in this country—there may be some interferences —has been this, that during the war time the private rights of enemy subjects are suspended because, of course, they have no
552
right of access to our Courts while the war is actually in progress. But, though they are suspended, they are put under proper guardianship in order that the interests of the owners may be properly protected, and when the war comes to an end any interference with their rights which has been caused during the war is removed, and they have the same rights as regards their private property as any other British subjects. That is a matter of great importance because it draws a distinction between the private property of ex-enemy nationals and what I may call national property belonging to an ex-enemy country. And I thought the principle had long been established in the cause of humanity and justice that there should be no confiscation of private property under those conditions.
After, or perhaps during, the Napoleonic Wars, the principle of protecting private enemy property merely by the institution of guardianship during the continuance of the war, was laid down several times, particularly in the well-known judgment of Lord Chancellor Erskine. I think, so far as the general principle is concerned, there can hardly be any question at all. What was said by my noble and learned friend, Lord Haldane, who was one of the ex-Lord Chancellors who spoke oil the last occasion—I am glad to see him here to-day —and what was said by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster? Their statement of general principle appeared to be so clear that really nothing need be added to it.
On that occasion Lord Haldane said this of tins principle. If the noble Lord on the Woolsack has the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find it at column 978—
"And now, by degrees, we appear to have glided into a state of things under which we have gone back, and in a very formidable way, upon what was a rooted principle of international law, and that was that war was a thing between States."
Of course, if you are going to confiscate private property, it is no longer war between States, but it becomes war between all nationals. The noble Viscount continued—
"Although in the natural operations of war the property of individual subjects of these States might be interfered with, still the property of the individual, as he possessed it in the country with which his Government was at war, was preserved intact and handed back to him when the war was over."
You will see at once that that is an extremely important principle, when

553
dealing with international relationships, and is of the utmost importance if we desire to get rid of the friction and trouble which war must always bring about, in order to enter again upon friendly international co-operation.
Then the noble Lord, Viscount Haldane also said this—and I shall have to call attention quite shortly to the terms of the Treaties presently—
"under the provisions of these Treaties their private property, instead of being respected as international law up to this Treaty had made such property respected, is now vested in the custodian, trustee or some other authority, and is liquidated."
I propose, quite shortly, after stating the principle, to call attention to the terms of the Treaty and the Order made under the Treaty, in order to show that that is its operation. Then the noble Viscount went on to say—
"It seems to me that this is a very grave departure from international law as it has been worked out. It amounts to what is virtually confiscation at the end of the war of the private property of the subjects of countries with which we have been at war, and with which we have made peace. According to the doctrines of international law that have prevailed in this country, and I think, all over the world, up to a year ago, it was imagined that the property of these private persons would come back to them."
I need not add a word to that very clear statement of principle by a noble Lord who has occupied the position of Lord Chancellor, and who speaks with that authority, but, so far as my opinion is of any value, I beg to state that the principles there stated are absolutely correct both with regard to international law and as regards the principles of Our municipal law.
Then I should like to read one word of what was said by Lord Buckmaster, who has also occupied the Woolsack in this House. He said—
"Finally, I wish to say a word on the confiscation of enemy property. It is a most amazing thing, when for centuries it has been declared that private property on land is safe during war and cannot ever be seized, that we should have appropriated within our territory every item of enemy property and have applied it in the first instance—there may be some justification for this—as a means of redeeming debts due to our own subjects in the enemy countries, and then have directed that the balance of private property is to be applied in payment of the German debt——"
I have the Austrian Treaty before me but, as the noble and learned Lord Chancellor
554
knows, there are similar provisions in all these Treaties—
"It is the most amazing thing I ever heard that you should compel private individuals to pay the debt for which the nation is responsible. I hope that steps will be taken to alter this."
I must say that it is an amazing thing, particularly at a time when I understand we are supporting the idea of the security of private property against somewhat adverse views held, for instance, in Russia at the present time, that we should have assented to the terms of these Peace Treaties which take away, after the war has ended, the security which for centuries has been given to the private property on land of ex-enemy nationals.
Of course, if you want to stop all international intercourse you could not go in a more direct way to do it, but I am sure that that would not be the desire of His Majesty's Government or of this House; and if there is one country which, historically, has benefitted by international co-operation and intercourse, it is our own country, It would be a common-place, and unnecessary, for me to deal with the fact that credit and security go hand in hand. Security is the only basis on which you can get credit, and never was it more necessary that you should have international credit than at the present time. I have been told by private banks and others that this principle of the confiscation of private property has been found to be a most deleterious matter, which they have been unable to get over. At any rate the first part of my Question is directed to that point, because you will see that the, Question asks how far the confiscation of private property of the subjects of ex-enemy countries affects adversely the basis of international security. I will go presently to the other point of the carrying trade.
Now, my Lords, what are the provisions in the Treaty? The Treaty in itself could not deal with a matter of this kind, but I have told the noble and learned Lord that I should raise this question, and of course in this case the Treaty has been confirmed by Act of Parliament, and an Order has been issued putting into force in this country the terms as regards the confiscation of the private property of ex-enemies which are included in the terms of the Peace Treaty. The terms of the Peace Treaty of which I wish to speak in this matter are two-fold, and it is important that attention

555
should be called to both classes. The first article is Article 248 in the Austrian Treaty, which does not deal with the rights or properties of ex-enemy nationals, but with debts owing to them; and the general principle is to establish what are called Clearing Offices on the clearing house principle.
As a matter of machinery I should find no fault with that, as a convenient way of dealing with property of this kind. Then it goes on to say—
"Each of the High Contracting Parties shall prohibit, as from the coming into force of the present Treaty, both the payment and the acceptance of payment of such debts, and also all communications between the interested parties with regard to the settlement of the said debts otherwise than through the Clearing Offices."
What does that mean? It puts a practical prohibition upon any man recovering a sum of money to which, under international and municipal law, he is properly entitled. He is not to recover it, although it is due to him. I have had numerous letters from poor people showing the way in which this matter has operated. I had one letter from 700 of these poor people who had collected together. After the war they were in possession, when they went back to Germany, of a very small fund indeed, perhaps only £100.
Another case I have in mind is where the total sum was about £400. What was their position? All the earnings or savings of their lives were confiscated practically, as I shall show, under this principle. They could not obtain the money. We know well that under the conditions of the countries to which they went back it was extremely difficult to live at all, and it is a mean thing, as it seems to me, that we, as a country, should attempt to confiscate the small earnings of these poor people. I dare say it has been the experience of some of your Lordships to have, as I have had, numerous representations from neutral countries saying that they wonder how a country like England should take up a mean attitude of this kind towards poor people, depriving them of their small savings which they obtained in a perfectly legitimate manner, and to which they were entitled under the ordinary principles of municipal or international law. I did not put down this particular matter in my Question on the Paper, but I gave notice to the Lord Chancellor (as one would do in a case of this kind) that it was one of the points I intended to raise.
Then there is a provision about what is called striking the balance between the Receiving Offices, but with this proviso, to which my noble friend, Lord Buckmaster, called attention on a former occasion, speaking in very strong terms regarding the Austrian position—
"Any credit or balance which may be due by one or more of the Allied and Associated Powers shall be retained until complete payment shall have been effected of the sums due to the Allied or Associated Powers or their nationals on account of the war."
That is to say, supposing on the balance of account there was a sum due to these poor people (although this puts them anyhow under a great disability), they are not to have the advantage of that sum until there has been a complete payment of the sums due, not to other private people in Germany or Austria but to the Allied or Associated Powers from the Enemy Powers themselves. Surely that is a monstrous provision to put in. It means that during the lifetime of these poor people they will never get their money back at all.
There is one point in this connection to which I would ask the Lord Chancellor's attention. If I read aright the Order under which these provisions of the Treaty are put in force as part of our municipal law, there appears to be some sort of dispensing power in the Public Trustee, to whom these matters are entrusted, and it has been very strongly urged to me—and I hope attention will be given to this point—that if there is something of a dispensing power it ought to be exercised in favour of these poor people who are practically reduced to starvation conditions because their savings are taken from them. I have an instance of a governess who had about £70 which she had saved during the course of her life here. That is confiscated from her, and she can never get it back.
I think that under the terms of the Order there is a power to make Rules, and the Lord Chancellor would be the authority to make the Rules providing for cases of this sort, but no such Rules, so far as I know, have been made. I am told there have been no dispensations granted, and therefore I want to urge, among other matters, that these poor people, who are deprived of the earnings made during their lives, little as they are, should have the debts paid over to them in order that they shall not be left in the state in which they are at the present moment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will find it convenient if I ask him now to direct my attention specifically to the part of the Order upon which he has founded the view that there is a dispensing power.
LORD PARMOOR: I regret that I have not the Order before me. It is a long one, and I will direct the Lord Chancellor's attention to it privately if I may. It appears to me that the Public Trustee has power to consider what I may call hardships in particular cases, and it seems to be laid down that there are to be some Rules to guide him in exercising a discretion of that kind. I cannot find that any Rules have been issued, and I am told by the poor people who come to see use that the solicitors they consult tell them they cannot get a remedy because there are no Rules laid down. Therefore, no stable advice can be given to them by their solicitor. I do not want to put this antagonistically to the Lord Chancellor, because I feel certain that he would desire, in a matter of this kind, to do what is right and equitable so far as it is possible. This is not a matter of what is called the revision of the Treaty. It is a matter merely of dealing with an Order. It is part of our own municipal law and it is not under the Treaty itself that this is done. It is because the Treaty terms have been put into the form of the Order that these Regulations are being enforced at the present moment.
I will give one other illustration which is rather striking. There was a German workman over here during the whole time of the war. He was a specially skilled craftsman who made a number of small mechanical inventions of great value to his master. Ultimately he worked for Vickers & Sons, who were instituting during the war new works in connection with sewing machines, and they spoke in the highest possible respect of his talents and powers. He had to be repatriated, not from any fault of his but under the general Repatriation Order. He had a debt owing to him here of £400, and property of the value of about £75 in addition. It is quite impossible that he can ever get that. The only thing that is left to him is that he can get the benefit of his life insurance under the terms of the Order in the Treaty, but he says that is no good to him because, having been deprived of all means of subsistence, he cannot keep up his life insurance premiums, so that the policy has to lapse
558
and become of no value. I give that illustration out of numerous cases which have been brought to my notice.
Consider also what the conditions are as regards property rights and interests. I have already dealt with the question of debts. The Lord Chancellor will find this dealt with under Article 249. I have now the Austrian Treaty, but it is the same, I think, in all of them. It reads that—
"Subject to any contrary stipulations which may be provided for in the present Treaty, the Allied and Associated Powers reserve the right to retain and liquidate all property, rights, and interests which belong at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty to nationals of the former Austrian Empire."
That is a complete confiscation for the purposes of liquidation of all the private property of Austrians, and the same applies to Germans and other ex-enemy nationals in this country. This principle of compensation is totally inapplicable and is really given in the wrong form. Austria undertakes to compensate her nationals in respect of the sale of property or of their interests in Allied or Associated States, but we know that Austria cannot do that, and we know that the machinery to put into operation a matter of that kind would take years, and probably would go quite outside the lives of any of these poor people who are reduced to the condition I have indicated.
I do not want to delay your Lordships unduly, but those are the provisions which have been introduced into this Treaty as regards debts and property, and I say they are entirely contrary to any principle which we have known hitherto. I do not say, as regards precedents, that you may not find some precedent which is more honoured in the breach than in the observance, but they are absolutely contrary to the general principles as laid down, in the terms which I have quoted, both by Lord Haldane and by Lord Buckmaster.
There is one other point I raise in my Question. and it refers to the prospects of the British carrying trade. This raises a very important point, and one with which the Lord Chancellor may be in a special way familiar. I am not prepared to quote the name in public, but I will give it to the noble and learned Lord if he desires, but what I may describe as one of the very first firms of shipowners in this country wrote to me, not on my solicitation, and brought before me these facts. They sent

559
me a correspondence between themselves and some old clients of theirs at Hamburg. The English shipowners desired, after the termination of the war, to reconstruct the business, which they were carrying on before, of taking goods from Hamburg to the East and to South America. The Hamburg merchants wrote a very civil letter—they form what is called a syndicate, or conference, of Hamburg merchants—and said they did not doubt the bona fides of the shipowners, but, so long as the principle of the confiscation of ex-enemy private property remains, they could not and would not send any goods by the English shipowners' vessels. I was asked to bring this correspondence forward, because I think the shipowners knew I had taken an interest in matters of this sort.
What is the result? At the present time there is great difficulty in getting sufficient freight for English ships. All this traffic, which used to go in English ships, as it recommences is now being carried in Japanese ships. What is the good of pinpricking legislation of this kind, which brings about results of that character? Why should we, a great commercial and industrial race, who have adopted an equitable attitude towards international matters, on this occasion introduce a principle of this kind, not only unjust and inequitable, but antagonistic to our own interests. I think every one will agree that if there is one interest which we ought to develop more than another, and of which we feel the special advantages in this country, it is the great carrying trade. I can assure the Lord Chancellor that I do not speak in any antagonistic sense, but. I feel most strongly that this principle of confiscation ought not to have been introduced. I feel it is a mean thing for a country like ours to throw disadvantages of this kind upon poor people, and that, as regards the wider aspect of international credit and the carrying trade of this country, instead of promoting restoration, we are creating difficulties which need not exist.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I rise because there is a practical point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Government. I am not so sure as my noble and learned friend was—although I do not know that he was quite sure, either—that there is the dispensing power in the Custodian Trustee to which he referred.
560
After all, the Act that has been passed is an Act which carries out the provisions of the Treaty, and I do not remember in the provisions of the Treaty any discretion given for exercising considerations which apply only to the case of individuals. There was a sweeping set of provisions introduced in practically identical terms into all the Treaties which have been made, according to which the property of private individuals is taken in liquidation of very sweeping claims which may be made by the Allied Governments against the Central Powers and their Allies. That is a new principle, a very great departure from what we have been familiar with as the tradition of international law in this country, which always respected the property of individuals.
I am, of course, aware of the difficulty which gave rise to the departure from that principle. The war which is now ended was a war of so sweeping a character, involving so much the resources, not only of the nations concerned in it, but of the individual citizens of those nations, that it was less easy than it used to be, in the days when war was exercised on a much more limited scale, to distinguish between national resources and private resources. And I dare say it seemed to those who projected the bases of the Peace Treaties a very convenient course to set up a sort of clearing house, and say, "We will take all the assets on both sides; we will discharge the liabilities, and, when that is done, we will return to those concerned what balances they may be individually entitled to." But in practice it works out., as my noble and learned friend has said, as virtual confiscation.
Now, it is not enough, I think, to remedy that case, even to amend the provisions of the law and the Treaty, by introducing a certain amount of discretion in the Custodian. My own feeling is very strong that we have to look ahead in this matter, and to look to a time when international trade will be replaced, so far as it can be replaced, on something like the footing on which it existed before the war. As my noble and learned friend has pointed out, that is very difficult, with the provisions of this Treaty standing as they are, and it may be possible at the forthcoming Conference, or in some other fashion, to reconsider what I am sure was introduced into the Peace Treaty more as a matter of machinery than for the purpose of asserting any harsh principle.

561
It may be desirable to reconsider that, at any rate to the extent of seeing whether, in the case of individual private property, some mitigating principle can be introduced that will avert hardships, which, I fear, if left intact, will present very great difficulties as time goes on in the resumption of ordinary trade relations.
But that is not the only point. The position of private individuals who have small properties is a very hard one. Whether the Custodian has any discretion or not, there are certainly no clear principles laid down on which he can exercise it and, as a consequence, he does not exercise it. There have been brought to my notice some extraordinarily hard cases. One is that of a German in this country who had been here a long time before the war and who had been repatriated. His books, his clothes, and his furniture are all over here. They are worth practically nothing except to him, to whom they would be worth a great deal if he had them in Germany. The Custodian would like very much to be able to release them to him, but he does not see his way; there is no direction on which he can act. Then there was another case which was brought to my notice of a man who for 30 years carried on a business in this country in the course of which he supplied certain valuable agricultural articles. He had branches in various parts of the country; he was much respected. He omitted to get himself naturalised, but for all practical purposes he was a British citizen. Not only is the goodwill of his business gone, but his house has gone, his office has gone, all his property has gone, and he is unable to resume a trade which he was exercising in a very valuable fashion for the benefit of people here and which involved supplies of such articles as nitrates from Germany, with which country he was in intimate trade relations from this country.
It is that class of case which, I feel, has not only created very justifiable soreness but has disturbed the equanimity of things by applying a principle which never ought to have been applied in a rigid fashion. This country certainly gets very little out of making use of the principle. What we shall draw in the shape of resources for the liquidation of our claims against Germany, or of any one else's claims, by using up the assets of these unfortunate people, will be very small indeed. Not only is it contrary to principle to exercise in a rigid
562
fashion the powers we possess, but it is neither profitable to ourselves nor likely to be anything but very unprofitable when it becomes a matter of restoring easier relations at a later stage.
What I wish to suggest to the Government is that it might be worth while to consider both the questions to which I have referred. There is the larger question as to whether it is not possible to introduce some mitigation into the machinery of the debit and credit provisions of the Treaties which will enable the liquidation to be carried out at any rate in a less sweeping fashion than it is at the present time; although, as I believe, it will prove to be without serious detriment to what any of us is likely to receive. But even apart from that, and if that could not be done, we should see whether, by an amendment of the law, or by an instruction—which will have to be made, of course, consistently with the Treaty or with the assent of the other Treaty Powers—it would not be practicable to give to the Custodian a clear discretion, so that in the case of small properties, below, say, a limited value, it would be possible to restore to their owners what they certainly were entitled to according to international law as it obtained before these Peace Treaties. I, for my part, think it would be very much in the interests of everyone concerned, ourselves as well as our late enemies, if we had adhered to that law upon the present occasion. My suggestion to the Lord Chancellor therefore is that the Government should consider whether the matter is a practicable one. This may require communication with the other Powers concerned.
They should also consider the question whether such a modification as I have suggested cannot be made in the more sweeping provisions of the Treaty. I believe those provisions were not introduced with any harsh desire to set aside international law as it had been up to this date, but merely under the mistaken view of carrying out a system of debit and credit account which is introduced as, on the face of it, likely to be a convenient thing. They should further consider whether they have not brought about a state of things which, in the end, will operate very much to the detriment not only of ourselves but of every other Power. I am not asking that this should be done upon the footing of consideration for our late enemies, although that is not a matter which I leave alto-

563
gether out of account. I am asking that it should be done in view of the restoration of that growing better feeling which is the indispensable basis of the restoration of trade relations, and which I think it is to the advantage of every one we should have. If the Central Powers are to be left in the state of semi-starvation, with regard to industry as well as nutriment, in which they are at the present time, then I cannot foresee any other prospect than a Central Europe which is virtually bankrupt for a long time to come and which will involve with it in its bankruptcy the rest of Europe.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the two noble and learned Lords have dealt with this difficult subject in an extremely moderate manner. No one has ever under-rated the complexity of the matter or the fact that there were alternative methods by which it might have been dealt with at the time of the Peace Conference. Those were discussed very carefully before the course which was ultimately adopted prevailed. But I cannot assent, and I do not assent, to the principal foundation of the arguments of the two speeches to which the House has just listened. In his Question the noble and learned Lord refers to the confiscation of the property of enemy nationals. I do not agree that in any proper sense of the word there has been any such confiscation. I will deal in some little detail, though I hope not excessively, with the main points of the noble and learned Lord. In my judgment to talk of confiscation in circumstances where the real arrangement made is that the German nation is to compensate its own nationals for such property as they lose in this country, is not a right use of language.
The noble and learned Lord deals with the matter in a very cavalier fashion. He says that Germany cannot compensate for this property. I am not in the least satisfied that the German nation, which has undertaken to make this compensation, is not in a position to do so; and the case put forward by both noble and learned Lords of hardships to poor people, where the assets and estates are very inconsiderable in amount, is one which could be dealt with by the German Government, if it wished to deal with it, with the utmost possible expedition and despatch. It could be dealt with as quickly and as easily by competent Courts in the way in
564
which workmen's compensation claims are dealt with in this country. The case of small persons is one which a Judge, or other person accustomed to deal with such matters, could hear and make awards upon at the rate of eight or nine in the course of a week. I must say plainly to the noble and learned Lord that when he attempts to work upon our feelings by talking of the unfortunate position of many of these people, those remarks ought to be addressed to the German Government, to the authorities of the nation who have involved by their deliberate policy almost the whole of the world in financial anxieties which seem likely to last as long as our lifetimes, and who have introduced financial conditions into the life of every one—even of those who are now listening to me—which are likely to endure as long as we live.
And when the noble and learned Lord said, or quotes the noble Viscount as having said, that war is, and has always been recognised as, a conflict not between individuals but between nations, the noble Lord would have been quite accurate had he been addressing your Lordships in the year 1913, or at the beginning of the year 1914. It was the deliberate choice, consistently inflexibly and cruelly pursued by our late enemies, to alter that state of things. They made this war; and it was a war which in many of its most malignant activities was waged against individuals. It was a war which, as it developed and developed more before our eves, very frequently destroyed the lives and property of civilians who had nothing whatever to do with the combatant forces of the Crown, and that principle, which I agree was organic and fundamental in the science of international law until August, 1914, was destroyed by the experience and the history of the last war, and humanity learned to face the conclusion that there was no man, woman, or child in this country who was not liable to be affected or destroyed by our enemies if the slightest consideration of policy suggested the adoption of that course.
In another way, and one more directly relevant to the contentions raised by the noble and learned Lord, it was a war which affected individuals. I have in mind its financial effect. I have in my mind the control which we ourselves found it necessary to establish over the property of our own countrymen. It will be within the recollection of the House that the Govern-

565
ment here compulsorily took control of foreign securities possessed by the citizens of this country. My recollection is that the German Empire found itself compelled to adopt a similar course. The position therefore was this: that while the war was in progress, and in order to deal with its financial problems, we, and our enemies, found it necessary to establish control temporarily over the property of our people, and when the Peace Conference commenced it was necessary to determine what course should be adopted in relation to the property in this country of German nationals, and the nationals of our other enemies.
What is the course that has been adopted? The noble and learned Lords have described it. It is the establishment of a clearing house of the kind referred to and the prohibition of the nationals of both sides to make private liquidation of their property. The liquidation will be made by public authority, and as a necessary step in this process it is provided that the German nation and the other enemy nations shall make compensation to its nationals for such property as they lose in this country. The German Government, in offering their observations upon the draft Treaty of Peace presented to them, acknowledged most plainly—and it was necessary they should—this primary obligation. They further admitted the necessity of applying private property abroad of German nationals towards meeting it.
I may refer in this connection to Part X of the Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the observations of the German Delegation on the conditions of Peace, in which the following statement by the German Peace Delegates is quoted textually—
"The German Peace Delegation is conscious of the fact that under the pressure of the burden arising from the Peace Treaty on the whole future of German economic life, German property in foreign countries cannot be maintained to its previous extent. On the contrary, Germany, in order to meet her pecuniary obligations, will have to sacrifice this property abroad in wide measure. She is prepared to do so."
The clauses which give effect to the agreement arrived at in this matter are contained in the Peace Treaty. An Act recently passed through both Houses of Parliament here gives power to snake such Orders as are necessary to give effect to the provisions
566
of the Treaty to which the noble and learned Lord has called attention.
Therefore, it is the law of the land that we are asked to sacrifice or modify. The case may be a good one or a bad one, but it cannot be founded, as I think the noble and learned Lord attempted to found it, upon any breach of the principles of international law. What, after all, is international law? International law is only the general body of rules which civilised communities, in their mutual intercourse, have agreed to treat as binding, and there have been many occasions on which meetings have taken place among the representatives of the civilised Powers with the express object of modifying or altering the doctrines of international law. Various successive Conferences at the Hague supply a familiar illustration. On an occasion of immense formality and ceremony in which the nations of the world were represented to an extraordinary degree, and in which all the victorious and all the defeated Powers agreed in a particular matter as between themselves to a particular course, it may or may not have been an undue and oppressive exercise of the superiority which we had asserted in the war that was made by the Powers, but it is entirely beside the point to speak as if any case can be made of the violation of international law. We have, by a familiar and historical process to which international law owes its birth, come to an Agreement with a number of other Powers to which statutory effect has been given by each of the signatory parties in the manner appropriate to its own constitution, and it is idle to talk of any breach of the doctrine of international law or remind your Lordships of the practice in previous wars.
The case, and the only case, which can be made here in my judgment is the case that we have in this particular made an oppressive use of the victory we have gained. I know of no other case that can be legitimately pressed upon the attention of the House. That is no doubt a matter which is arguable by both noble Lords who have spoken. But, while we ought not to be slow to give the rein to compassion in cases of individuals who have suffered, we ought, I think, to remember also that there are large numbers of individuals in this country who have suffered irreparably in their fortunes and to whom this war has brought bankruptcy and ruin. We ought not completely to exclude from our mind

567
that these subjects of whom I am speaking, our own countrymen, have nothing with which to reproach those who were in authority and directing the policy of this country for responsibility in the war.
Does the noble and learned Lord think that we should part with an asset which, though it is inconsiderable, is still an asset? Does he suggest that, a balance having been taken in our favour, it would be practicable to obtain on that hypothesis such liquidation as would become due in favour of this country? It is surely a matter winch must be looked upon in the light of common sense and of the actual circumstances under which this day of reckoning took place.
The issue is between those who say that we should restore all the property of enemy nationals in this country and those who, on the contrary, take the view that it was for the German Government to compensate its own nationals and that these assets should be made available for the satisfaction of the enormous sums of money which Germany owes to this country and which are almost totally unsecured. When he uses the words "the inhumanity of the decision that has been taken and of the course that has been adopted," he ought, I think, to remember that the representatives of the Allies, aided by the most prudent and sagacious expert advisers, considered these matters very deeply, and no one, I think, would say that those who considered them were specially inhumane persons or that they did not most carefully examine every course which presented itself to them. I had a little to do with it myself, though very little, because all these discussions took place, in circumstances with which this House is familiar, in Paris, amongst a very few exalted individuals, and to suppose that the matter was not most deeply considered would, of course, be absurd. I think that my noble and learned friend may be quite sure that every alternative course was explored with the very greatest care before a decision was taken.
Viscount Haldane made two suggestions. He suggested in the first place that the whole incidence of the clearing-house scheme might be re-examined without attempting to sweep it away altogether. I take the view that to undertake such an inquiry would probably be destructive of the Articles of the Peace themselves which are under consideration, and I do not
568
imagine that the nations concerned would be prepared to undertake that. He made a second suggestion that, in cases of peculiar individual hardship, it might be possible that the Custodians should be given some discretion, and Lord Parmoor was of opinion that under the Orders already made they enjoyed such discretion. I will ask him if he can refer me to that part of the Order, because I confess I was not aware of such a provision and I do not now recall it. If he will call Inv attention to it privately I shall be glad to have an opportunity of considering it, because if there is already in existence an Order which gives the Custodian discretion, that would be an Order made under statutory authority, indicating the intention of the Legislature that it should exercise its discretion in such cases. I think one must go on the hypothesis that there does not at present exist that discretion.
The noble Viscount has suggested that it might be possible, without impairing the fabric of the Treaty, or possibly re-opening negotiations with our Allies in a matter which principally concerns ourselves, to give the Custodian some discretion which could be exercised in very exceptional cases which might somewhat mitigate the hardship of those cases. My Lords, the suggestion of the noble Viscount is certainly one that should be most attentively examined, and I will myself undertake to see that it is so examined. If it is a course which can be adopted without impairing the main scheme and disturbing its efficiency, it will be agreeable to any humane person to assist in a case where the system has unhappily pressed with unusual weight.
I have not dealt with the precise order of my noble and learned friend's Question, although I think I have in fact covered all but the last two lines, which I can dismiss almost in a sentence. The noble Lord's question is," To ask His Majesty's Government whether it has been brought to their notice that the proposal to confiscate the private property of the subjects of ex-enemy countries affects adversely the basis of international security and the prospects of the British carrying trade." I do not accept the term "confiscate" as proper.
With reference to the suggestion that the methods adopted affect adversely the of international security and the prospects of the British carrying trade, I can only tell the noble and learned Lord that the Board of Trade, whom I consulted before

569
preparing these few observations, very vigorously repel the suggestion which is implied in the latter part of the noble and learned Lord's Question. They say that not only is there not the slightest indication that the German merchants are unwilling to trade with us as the result of the adoption of this rule, hut, on the contrary, there is, so far as the unusual and difficult position admits, a very great willingness on thepart of Gem an merchants to trade with us. He has referred to a case in which a certain syndicate has stated that it has been made the basis of a refusal to trade with this country that we possess the property of German nationals under the Peace Treaty.
I cannot, of course, deal with an individual case; no one could unless one saw the persons who put forward that statement and cross-examined them somewhat as to why they could not resume the pre-war business. But I may point out to the noble and learned Lord that there are quite other explanations than the grounds that present themselves to him and which seem to me to be much more capable of inspiring such a decision than the treatment of German individuals and property in this country. As the noble Lord knows perfectly well, the shipping community are and have been in a state of the liveliest indignation at the elect of other clauses of the Treaty which affect them far more closely and obviously than the matter which the noble and learned Lord has raised. I have attempted, so far as I can, to deal with the points made by the noble and learned Lord, which I agree raise a grave matter of international policy. I cannot say more than that on one of the most difficult points of all the victorious Powers gave their best efforts to an attempt to reach a solution, not, I hope, forgetting the obligations of humanity, but not forgetting either the suffering and ruin of the world, and remembering that they were dealing with the representatives of the country which was the author of that ruin and suffering.
LORD PARMOOR: I have no right to reply, but I should like to thank the Lord Chancellor for what he has said.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill
570
sent to the Commons has been starred with a view to its further progress. The noble and learned Lord said: The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will recollect that when the Bill passed through your Lordships' House he said that the Department to which he belonged was in favour of the further progress of the Bill, and that, so far as he was concerned, he would do what he could in order to promote its further progress in another place. Of course, the practical way of dealing with that in the first instance would be to star the Bill. I do not know whether it has now been starred, but the last time I inquired I found that it bad not been starred. Until it has been, under the conditions which prevail, no further progress can be made.
As noble Lords are aware, there are certain self-governing communities of an important kind who are extremely anxious that this Bill should be passed, in order that they may put its principle into operation in regard to their local elections. It is an optional Bill, and therefore cannot affect those communities who oppose it. Amongst the governing bodies of this important kind who have declared in its favour are the London County Council, and, as regards provincial bodies, I want to call attention to a letter written from Leeds. The noble Lord will he aware that in Leeds they desire the Bill to pass, in order that Proportional Representation may be put into force at their coming November elections. The letter is written by Alderman Farr, who deals with these matters in Leeds with great authority. He says:—
"We in Leeds are making an application to enlarge the city, and in arranging the new wards all parties have in mind the application of Proportional Representation to local elections and we hope to arrange for triennial elections With five members for each ward. The Committee that has this work in hand, of which I am a member, is working on these lines, and we are calculating on the Bill being passed this session so that we can avail ourselves of its machinery next year. If it is not on the Statute Book we shall have to recast our plans altogether and the chance of adopting it in Leeds may be lost. I am therefore very anxious that no chance should hr missed of getting Lord Parmoor's Bill through the Commons this session."
I think that letter has been brought to the notice of the noble Lord and his Department, and it certainly seems reasonable that these great local self-governing communities, who desire to adopt a principle of this kind, should be entitled to do so. The

571
opponents of the principle would not be affected, because the Bill can only be adopted by a three-fifths majority in any case.
Perhaps also I might quote an extract from a letter from the Lord Chancellor, who, as we know, has expressed views in favour of proportional representation. He says:—
"Experience, where the system has been put into operation, has consistently and convincingly refuted the criticisms which have been directed against it. and for one, feel unshaken confidence that within no distant period its acceptance as a theory will be universal, and that it will be put into practical application wherever in the civilised world representative institutions prevail."
I hope and believe that this forecast is a true forecast of the general adoption of the principle, but in the meantime why should local authorities in this country, who desire to adopt this system in their local elections, not be empowered to do so? I therefore beg to ask the noble Viscount the Question which I have put upon the Paper. I might perhaps also ask him to state at the same time what are the chances of the Bill's further progress.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VISCOUNT ASTOR): We are not now discussing the principle of the Bill or the attitude of the Department with which I am associated. My right hon. friend the Minister and I are, individually, in favour of the principle, just as certain of the large and important self-governing communities are so much in favour of the principle. There was a similar question to this asked in the House of Commons to-day, and I understand that the Leader of the House
572
replied that it was impossible, at this stage of the session, to say whether or not time would be available. To star the Bill would give the impression that the Government were undertaking to find time. In fact, the noble Lord, in his Question, asks whether the Bill "has been starred with a view to its further progress." Unfortunately —I say unfortunately as a supporter of this particular Bill—it has been opposed in another place. I do not say that the opposition is very numerous, but even a limited number of Members can retard and hold up measures, even where they are of considerable importance. To star the Bill might be misleading because it might seem to imply that the Government were undertaking to find time for it this Session. At the moment it looks as if the Government would find it difficult to meet their present commitments, and personally, I and the Minister for Health regret that nothing can be done at the moment to expedite the progress of this Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: I regret to hear what the noble Viscount has said. Perhaps he will remember that a similar Bill was sent down last year from this House, and that it was starred, although, as a matter of fact, no time was found for its further progress; but I will take his answer that he will do what he can, at any rate, and that his Department are sympathetic.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).
House adjourned at six o'clock.