PROPERTY OF EX-ENEMY SUBJECTS.

HL Deb 09 June 1920 vol 40 cc551-69

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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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- 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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.