Lords Sitting of 9 November 1921

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD GLENAVY.
The Right Honourable Sir James Henry Mussen Campbell, Bart., having been -created Baron GLENAVY of Milltown, in the County of Dublin—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

COLONEL RAWLINSON.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether his attention has been called to a letter in The Times of this morning from Admiral Sir Percy Scott with regard to the recent imprisonment of Colonel Rawlinson by Mustapha Kemal in Asia Minor, and whether there is any foundation for the charges which Sir Percy Scott brings against His Majesty's Government of having allowed this gallant officer to be treated in such a cruel and barbarous manner.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, I have read the letter of Admiral Sir Percy Scott to which he refers with the most profound astonishment and regret. It contains charges against His Majesty's Government for which there is not the least foundation, and it is written in evident ignorance of the facts. I will give these as briefly as possible to the House.
The distinguished officer referred to, Colonel Rawlinson, who was on a Mission from the War Office to Erzerum, is believed to have been first placed under restraint— we had no knowledge of confinement—by Mustapha Kemal in the early part of 1920, but neither the War Office nor the Foreign Office had any certain information on the subject. As soon as the Turkish Delegation came to London in March, 1921, one of the first subjects that came under discussion with the delegates from Angora was the release of the British prisoners who
218
were in Turkish hands. Of these there were believed to be twenty-two, including Colonel Rawlinson. So anxious were we to secure their speedy release that the Foreign Office concluded a special Agreement with Bekir Sami Bey, the principal Angora delegate, by which we engaged, in return for these twenty-two, to surrender all the Turkish prisoners in our hands at Malta, numbering sixty-four, excepting only certain Turks who were held for trial there for grave offences against the laws of war, or for participation in massacres.
As soon as the Turks had left England they began, in violation of the Agreement, to raise difficulties about the surrender of the Turkish remainder—about 60 in number—and to refuse the fulfilment of the bargain unless these, too, were returned. In our anxiety, however, to complete the transaction we commenced by the release of forty out of the sixty-four, who were handed over to the Turks at an Italian port, in the expectation that when Bekir Sami Bey returned to Angora the release of the British prisoners would begin and that the Agreement would be carried out in its entirety. No British prisoners were, however, released, and the Agreement concluded in London by Bekir Sami Bey was repudiated by the Angora Assembly.
In the month of June the Angora Government showed signs of relenting and released ten British prisoners, not, however, including Colonel Rawlinson, against the forty Turkish prisoners whom they had already recovered from us, and offered to exchange the remainder against the whole of the Turks remaining at Malta, including those held for trial. In our unabated desire to effect the release of our remaining prisoners, even on these extravagant terms, before the winter came on, we resumed negotiations at Constantinople, and decided to yield to the Turkish demand and to release the entire number of Turks for the sake of our men. The total exchange forced upon us by the mala fides of the Turks eventually turned out to be 118 Turkish prisoners returned in exchange for about thirty British prisoners. I wished the transaction could have been completed earlier, but the utmost energy on our part was for a time powerless against the bad faith of the Turks.
As regards the treatment of Colonel Rawlinson in the interval since March last —for we knew nothing at an earlier date—

219
we have had little information. The British prisoners who were released in June brought a message from him stating that he was not being well treated and that letters were not reaching him. From other sources we heard indirectly that he was well and was being treated with the consideration due to his rank. Colonel Rawlinson will himself give us more exact information on the subject when he returns.
I hope I have said enough, however, to show that the charges of negligence and inhumanity brought against the War Office and the Foreign Office by Sir Percy Scott are wholly without justification. I may add that knowing Colonel Rawlinson myself, I have interested myself greatly in extricating him from his cruel position and have been in constant communication with his brother, the Commander-in-Chief in India, who was aware of my solicitude in the matter. That is all, I think, that need be said at the present moment, but I hope it will be enough to convince your Lordships that the letter in The Times should never have been written.

PRECEDENCE FOR GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD) (on behalf of the MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON)THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD) (on behalf of the MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON) rose to move: "That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting, and that Government Business have precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House. The object of placing this Motion on the Paper is that the Bills standing in the name of Lord Onslow should be considered early, because I understand that Lord Onslow is going to accept an Amendment or two proposed by your Lordships, and our desire is that these Amendments should go down to the Commons at the earliest moment in order that they may consider them in turn. I have no reason to think that this course will involve any serious delay in reaching the Questions standing in the names of Lord Sydenham, Lord Southwark, and Lord Newton.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended
220
for this day's sitting, and that Government Business have precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day —(The Earl of Crawford.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I have not been able to follow the reason for this extraordinary haste in getting these Bills through. Why is this Standing Order suspended to-day?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Lord Onslow has been invited by one or two Peers to make an Amendment to his Bill, and he proposes to accept that Amendment. The Bill will have to go back to another place, and it will be a convenience to them and, I hope, not an inconvenience to your Lordships, that that should be done as early in the afternoon as possible.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Where does the inconvenience arise?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think Lord Chaplin was in the House of Commons for thirty-eight years, or rather longer.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Forty-seven.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And he is well aware that it is a great convenience in another place to have the Amendments of this House before them so that they can be circulated by the Clerk at the Table and shown to Members in order that a certain amount of notice may be given of the changes which your Lordships propose. There is no arrière pensée about this Motion. It is a very simple thing, and I do not think it will cause your Lordships any inconvenience.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PERTH CORPORATION (WATERWORKS, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (PRO LONGATION OF INSURANCE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY or HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I have now to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be Considered in order to its being dispensed with —(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee —(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power to appoint receiver where metropolitan borough council fails to meet precept.
2 —(1) Where in pursuance of a precept issued by an authority either before or after the passing of this Act any sum is payable, directly or indirectly, by the council of a metropolitan borough to that authority, and the Minister of Health is satisfied that the council have refused or neglected to raised, the amount by a rate, or that, having raised the amount by a rate, the council have refused or neglected to pay the amount due under the precept, the Minister may issue a certificate to that effect, and thereupon the authority shall have the like power of applying for the appointment of a receiver, and a receiver may upon such application be appointed in like manner and, when appointed, have the like power as if the authority were a secured creditor of the council for the stun due under the precept with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the date when the amount became payable under the precept, and that sum and interest were due under a security issued under the Local Loans Act, 1875, charging the same on the rates leviable by and on all other property of the council, and the conditions under which a receiver may in such a case be appointed under section twelve of that Act were fulfilled, and that section shall apply accordingly:
Provided that the application may he made by the Minister instead of by the authority if the Minister thinks fit.
(2) Where an authority have issued a precept to a board of guardians in the administrative county of London and the Minister is satisfied that the board of guardians have failed to include the amount of the precept in any precept issued by them to a metropolitan borough council, the Minister may, by order, cancel the precept to the guardians and authorise the authority to issue a precept to the council for the amount due under the precept to the guardians, and in that ease the amount specified in the precept to the council shall become payable to the authority in the same manner as it would have become payable to the guardians if the precept had been issued by them.
(3) The power of the receiver appointed under this section to levy a rate may be exercised, notwithstanding that the expenses of the authority, to meet which the rate is made were incurred in a period prior to that in which the rate is made, and notwithstanding that the council may have already made and levied a rate for such expenses.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
the expression "authority" means any body or person having power to issue a precept payable either directly or indirectly nut of the general rate leviable by a metropolitan borough council;
the expression "precept" includes a warrant or contribution order.
(5) The powers conferred by this section shall he in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers of enforcing compliance with a precept issued by an authority.
LORD HEMPHILL LORD HEMPHILL moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection:
" (4) Where in pursuance of a precept issued by an authority either before or after the passing of this Act, any sum is payable, directly or indirectly, by the council of a metropolitan borough to that authority, the authority may set off any sum payable to the council from the authority against the sum payable by the council in pursuance of the precept, without prejudice to proceedings for the recovery of the balance (if any) of the last-named sum under the provisions of this section."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said new sub-section —(Lord Hemphill.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I beg to accept this Amendment with one trifling modification; that is to say, that it shall read "the authority may set off any sum payable to the council by the authority" instead of "from the authority." Perhaps the noble Lord will accept that.
LORD HEMPHILL: Certainly.
On Question, Amendment, as altered, agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Relaxation of limit of borrowing powers of local authorities in certain cases.
6 —(1) Any money borrowed by a local authority before the first day of April nineteen hundred and twenty-three, if certified by the Minister of Health to have been borrowed for the purpose of any work undertaken by the authority with a view to the provision of employment for unemployed persons, and any money borrowed under the last foregoing section, shall not be reckoned as part of the debt of the local authority for the purposes of any enactment limiting the powers of borrowing by that authority.
(2) Until the first clay of April nineteen hundred and twenty-three, subsection (3) of section two hundred and thirty-four of the Public Health Act, 1875 (which probibits the Minister of Health from sanctioning a loan in certain cases until one of his inspectors has held a local inquiry and reported to the Minister), shall cease to have effect.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment on the Paper is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 19 and 20, leave out (" the last foregoing section ") and insert (" under the provisions of this Act for the purpose of providing temporarily for current expenses ") —(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Extent.
8 —(1) This Act shall not apply to Scotland. (2) This Act shall apply to Ireland, subject to the following modifications: —

(a) A reference to the Local Government Board for Ireland shall be substituted for any reference to the Minister of Health or the Minister;

(b) "Local authority" shall mean the council of any county, county borough or county district, and the board of guardians of any union;

(c) For the purposes of section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, this Act shall be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed day.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment to this clause which I have placed on the Paper is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, at end insert (" and a reference to section two hundred and thirty-eight of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, shall be
224
substituted for the reference to section two hundred and thirty-four of the Public Health Act, 1875 ") —(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name in regard to this Bill.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with —(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended); Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
TRADE FACILITIES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

EGYPT AND PALESTINE.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I beg to put the Question of which I have given Notice— namely, to ask His Majesty's Government whether the terms of the contemplated settlement in Egypt and of the British Mandate for Palestine, in both of which questions the vital interests of the Empire are involved, will be open for discussion in Parliament before they become operative.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, my noble friend may rest assured that no change will be made in the relation between this country and Egypt without adequate opportunities being given for discussion in Parliament.
LORD SYDENITAM: May I ask the noble Earl about the Mandate for Palestine?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the text of this Mandate, as submitted to the Council, has already been placed in the

225
possession of your Lordships. The draft, however, has not yet received the final approval of the Council of the League, and should there be any general wish on the part of the House to discuss the Draft Mandate at this stage I do not feel that any objection would be taken by His Majesty's Government.
LORD SYDENHAM: May I take it from the noble Earl that the Mandate will not become operative till next session, when an opportunity for this House to discuss it will arise?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not know how far the Question covers that point, but if Lord Sydenham is here, tomorrow, perhaps he would put that to me then and I will give him a special answer.

POSTA CHARGES.
LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK rose to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Postmaster-General has conferred with his Advisory Council of business men in relation to the immediate reduction of Postal rates; and whether they have made any recommendations; and if so, are they to be complied with immediately.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to refer to the urgent necessity of reverting to a cheaper postage. I desire to urge upon the Prime Minister and His Majesty's Government as a whole the vital importance of this question. It is not altogether a Postmaster-General's question; it ought to receive the prompt and serious attention of the Government as a whole. There is no doubt that industry is crippled and unemployment increased through the thoroughly unwise and disastrous policy of raising the postage rates. Last week the Postmaster-General is reported to have said that when he introduces his Estimates next year "he hoped to be able to take off the additional postage charges for which he had been responsible." It is against this delay that the whole commercial world protests vigorously.
Now is the time to act, and I hope the Government will have not only the courage but the common-sense to act at once. If you desire to stop unemployment and to get back to commercial prosperity there must be cheap postage. I ask the Government not to allow the losses on the telephones
226
to delay the development of the letter postage which would increase business, reduce unemployment; and result in making money. It would be better to pay for improving trade and bringing Income-Tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer than to destroy trade and bring about the payment of unemployment pay. I am not attempting this afternoon to enlarge upon the question in detail; I only want to impress upon your Lordships and upon His Majesty's Government its great importance.
With regard to the penny postage itself, I should like to refer to a speech delivered by Mr. Gladstone, who all his life was a staunch supporter of postal reform and other great social reforms. He said—
"I rank the introduction of cheap postage for letters, documents, patterns, and printed matter, and the abolition of taxes on all printed matter in the catalogue of … legislation … for promoting conditions of abundant employment. You should extend the area of trade by steadily removing restrictions. If you want to benefit the labouring classes and to do the maximum of good, it is not enough to operate on the articles consumed by them; you should rather operate on the articles that give them the maximum of employment."
That is what Mr. Gladstone said. If my noble friend, Lord Peel, had been here to-day I should have drawn his attention to the fact that his grandfather was opposed at one time to penny postage, but directly he came into Office, and they wanted to increase the rate of postage, he saw what a great benefit cheap postage had been and refused to allow it to be increased.
In the speech to which I have referred, delivered by the Postmaster-General, the speaker also said—
" The only sound way of reducing posta charges is by reduction in expenditure. The reduction is going on. The staff is being cut down wherever it could be done without loss of I efficiency."
I suggest to the Government that that is not a wise policy, and that a better policy is to take steps to double, or treble, or quadruple the business of the Post Office by cheapening the rate of postage. That is much better than to bring about more unemployment and distress by discharging Post Office servants. The trade of this country has been made successful, as business men know, by the cheap postage introduced by Sir Rowland Hill. For all commercial and social purposes the penny

227
post has been of the greatest possible advantage, and instead of making postage dear, in times of bad trade, the Government, I contend, should revert to cheap postage in order to stimulate trade.
I sympathise very much with the present Postmaster-General. As I said when I addressed your Lordships a little while ago, he was called in simply to make both ends meet. That is not a pleasant duty. It was not his policy that increased postal rates, nor was it the policy of my noble friend behind me (Lord Illingworth). I recollect that when he had to abolish the penny postage he said that he did so with regret, and his predecessor as Postmaster-General, Sir Herbert Samuel, rose in his place in the House of Commons and Protested against the increase in postage rates. Nevertheless, it was done, and what advantage was gained?
I am to-day asking a second Question which stands on the Order Paper in these terms —
"To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will state the amounts received from letter postage fur the quarters ending September 1913, September 1920, and September 1921; further, the cash value of receipts for the same periods from irk, ½ d., 1d., and 2d. stamps."
I want some return to show what has been the effect of this increase. I am asking what was the position in 1913 and in 1920 and 1921, to indicate the effect that the increased charges have had upon the returns of the Pest Office.
I am informed that my noble friend, Lord Stanmore, is to answer my Questions. It may be that he is going to dispel any notions that I have in my head as to the determination of the Government to persevere in their policy. I thought that probably, especially after the Question raised by my noble friend, Lord Chaplin, about the suspension of Standing Orders, the sittings of the House might come to a close almost immediately, and I rather hurried on this Question, because I did not want to wait until the Postmaster-General introduces his Estimates next year. He will probably have some other excuse then. I want to impress upon His Majesty's Government the importance of the Government itself seriously looking into this matter. I think they will find what a great advantage it would be not only to the Chancellor of the Exchequer but to the trade of the country if they were immediately to reduce the postage rates.
I am asking whether the Postmaster-General has conferred with the Advisory Council in relation to the immediate reduction of postal rates; whether the Council have made any recommendation; and, if so, whether that recommendation is to be carried out immediately? I should be very glad to hear that they have done so, and I think that before Parliament rises we ought to know whether any action has been taken by that Advisory Committee whether they have made any suggestions; and whether the Government propose to adopt those suggestions. These high rates of postage are doing the business of the country so much harm that the question is a very urgent one. Your Lordships have only to read your newspapers to find that people are now sending their letters to the Continent to have them posted there and delivered here. It is absurd that they should be able to do that at a cheaper rate than by posting them direct in this country. I hope that in putting this Question I am appealing to a Government which will take the matter up seriously. I am not abusing the Postmaster-General. We have a Postmaster-General who, no doubt, wishes to do as well as he possibly can for the trade of the country, but I do not think this matter ought to be left till Parliament meets again. I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I have been asked to answer these Questions by my noble friend, Viscount Peel, who is unable to be in his place to-day The increases which were imposed last year in the rates of postage had for their object the placing of Post Office finance on a paying footing. In 1920–21, the Post Office services were run at a loss of over £6,500,000. In the current year this loss will be materially reduced by a reduction of expenditure, and especially the automatic reduction of the war bonus consequent upon the fall in the cost of living; but this reduction would still leave a wide gap between the revenue and expenditure, and in view of the importance of securing that the Post Office services should pay their way and not remain a burden on general Taxes, the Government decided to make certain increases, principally in the rates for postcards, printed matter and foreign letters. The Postmaster-General stated at the time in the House of Commons that as soon as a surplus is assured on

229
the Post Office balance sheet reduction in rates would be brought into force, so that the user of the post should obtain the benefit.
Some discussion has taken place on the Post Office Advisory Council as to the possibility of reducing rates, but it has been common ground that the Post Office finances will not at present admit of the sacrifice of revenue involved, and the Council have not made any recommendation on the subject If the rates were reduced at once, as this Question suggests, it would merely mean transferring the burden of defraying a portion of the Post Office expenditure from those who use the post to the taxpayer, and the Post Office would continue to be a subsidised service. If the fall in costs continues, there is a reasonable prospect of the Post Office balance sheet showing a surplus in the next financial year, and the Postmaster-General hopes to be able then to reduce some of the charges.
As regards the second Question, the receipts from letter postage cannot be separated from those in respect of postcards, printed papers. parcels, etc. The total amounts collected in respect of postage, i.e., excluding receipts from telegrams, during the periods in question are as follows: — Quarter ending September 1913, £5,330,000; quarter ending September 1920, £9,880.000; quarter ending September 1921, £10,260,000. The receipts from particular denominations of stamps cannot be stated, and would not be of much value as stamps are used for telegrams and other purposes. It may be mentioned that the revenue during the quarter ending September, 1921, was adversely affected not only by the general industrial stagnation, but in the first month by the coal strike.

THE HAPSBURG DYNASTY
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice to ask if the Czecho-Slovak and Yugo-Slav Governments have insisted upon the complete exclusion of the Hapsburg dynasty from the Hungarian throne, and demanded the reimbursement of their mobilisation expenses by the Hungarian Government; and whether these demands have received the approval of the Great Powers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting the Question which appears upon the Paper, I desire not only to obtain an
230
answer from the Government with regard to the point mentioned in the Question, but also to take this opportunity of calling attention to the gross injustice which is being inflicted upon a small and helpless nation. Every one is familiar with the history of the recent adventure of the ex-Emperor, and is also aware that his criminal attempt has ignominously failed. I use the word "criminal" purposely, because I cannot think of any other adjective which sufficiently expresses the conduct of a luau who is prepared, literally, to run the risk of the complete obliteration of his own country in order to gratify his personal ambition. The surprising thing to me is that he should have found accomplices in his criminal endeavour. The ex-Emperor is now on his way to a health resort where, presumably, he will finish his days, and I do not know that we need waste any further sympathy upon him.
What I am anxious to do is to point out that the attempt., this dangerous attempt, failed owing to the prompt and decisive action which Was taken by the much-abused Government of Admiral Horthy. It is no exaggeration to say that the decisive and resolute action of Admiral Horthy and his Government saved Central Europe from a fresh conflagration. In ordinary circumstances we might have expected that such action would have been received with a certain amount of gratitude on the part of other Governments, but instead of that about ten days ago—the exact date is October 30—the Prime Minister of Czecho-Slovakia, Dr. Bones who enjoys a high reputation as a statesman, in conjunction with the Yugo-Slav Government, launched an ultimatum at the Hungarian Government in which he stated that orders had been given for the mobilisation of their armies; that they were on their way to the Hungarian frontier, and that unless the Hungarian Government, within about forty-eight hour., absolutely excluded the Hapsburg dynasty from the Hungarian Throne these troops would enter Hungary. He added that he would demand from Hungary the reimbursement of their mobilisation expenses.
An ultimatum of this kind reminds one of the sort of ultimatum which 2,000 years ago the Romans must have handed to the Carthaginians, and with regard to the demand for reimbursement of their mobilisation expenses the parallel which suggests itself is that of a burglar who, having

231
been foiled of his purpose, sends in a bill for the implements he bought in order to carry out his design. Even the Great Powers, who are prepared to stand a great deal from the so-called Little Entente, were staggered by this ultimatum. They seem to have suggested to Dr Benes that upon the whole he was rather unreasonable in asking for the expenses of mobilisation; but they appear to have acquiesced in the demand for the complete exclusion of the Hapsburg dynasty. To me this ultimatum came as a great surprise, because not long since I had a conversation with Dr. Benes, who assured me that his sentiments towards Hungary were of the most friendly description. He showed his friendliness in the ultimatum by stating that as he did not wish to ruin the country entirely he was prepared to accept his expenses partly in kind.
The demand relating to the exclusion of the Hapsburg family seems to have received the support of the Great Powers. In connection with this matter I do not think that the position of Hungary is properly understood in this country. It may sound strange to some people here, but the Hungarians undoubtedly desire a Monarchy. They want to have a King, and at the present moment they have not got one. In place of a King they have a substitute in the person of Admiral Horthy, who, far from being the ogre he is sometimes described in the Press of this country, is a high-minded, honourable man, who has no taste for public life and who retains his position from a strong sense of duty. Like all Hungarians I have met, he is a Legitimist and in favour of the restoration of the Monarchy.
The difficulty of the position is that Admiral Horthy is merely Regent and has no successor. Oddly enough, a few days before the attempt of the ex-Emperor, I was discussing with Admiral Horthy the question of the restoration of the Monarchy. I put this question to him. I said: "Suppose anything were to happen to you; suppose you were to disappear from public life, and suppose—it is a disagreeable supposition—you were unfortunately to be assassinated, what would then happen to the country? "His reply was:" I have not the smallest idea." The answer I got to this inquiry from all other persons was that in all probability there would be civil war because it would he impossible to agree upon his successor.
In the circumstances is it surprising that the Hungarian nation should desire a settled form of government? And naturally, they desire to select their future King from the existing dynasty. What, other nation would do otherwise? Supposing we had lost the war, and the demand had been made that we should exclude perpetually the House of Windsor because of some imaginary offence committed by some member of that family. What should we do? Should we not protest against any such decision and do our utmost to retain the existing dynasty? If you are not allowed to choose from the existing or reigning dynasty it is quite plain that in the case of Hungary they would be obliged to have recourse to a foreign nation to supply a ruler because there is no such thing as a Hungarian ruling dynasty.
But what precedent is there in history for any demand of this kind? If a dynasty is to be made to suffer for the acts of an individual then no human individual ever caused so much suffering in this world in recent times as the first Napoleon, but so far as I know no attempt was ever made to exclude the Bonaparte family from holding any public position in France or elsewhere. Take a more recent case. Not many years ago we deposed a Khedive of Egypt. We made no stipulation that his family should be excluded. We deposed another Khedive, and no stipulation of the kind was made in that case. Take a still more recent case. At this moment the ruler of Greece is King Constantine, who certainly was not considered to be a friend of the Entente during the war. He is, apparently, firmly re-established on his throne. But there is another far more striking case, that of Bulgaria. I have myself always doubted whether individuals were as much responsible for this war as is generally believed, but if there was one individual who was more responsible than another for the intervention of any country in the war, then clearly, to my mind, it was Ferdinand of Bulgaria. King Ferdinand is gone; he has retired into obscurity. But his son reigns in his stead, and I have not learnt that there is the smallest intention of interfering with him.
How long is it, I should like to know, since it was discovered that the members of the Hapsburg family are enemies of the human race? The late Emperor Francis

233
Joseph was never accused of grave offences against what I think was called the morality of the world, as was done in the case of the German Emperor. My own acquaintance with royal personages is comparatively limited, but I am acquainted with some members of the Hapsburg family, and I should describe them as being very much like anybody else, neither more dangerous nor more intelligent than other people, and, I should have imagined, thoroughly inoffensive. And what harm has this: family ever done to this country? To my mind it is absurd and grotesque to suppose that some obscure, or hitherto obscure, member of the Hapsburg family could not be selected without danger to European peace if he were placed upon the throne of Hungary,
The chief objection, so far as I am able to ascertain it, to the Hapsburg family is that they have acted as the tools of the Hohenzollern family. I cannot imagine any family which would bear less good will towards the Hohenzollern family than the Hapsburg because they have been ruined through following the lead of the Hohenzollerns, and if people in this country were acquainted, as I happen to be, with the circumstances of the Hohenzollern and the Hapsburg families and the miserable position which they occupy at the present moment, there would be very much less rubbish written about them than appears in the papers now.
The point, after all, is how on earth can you reconcile a demand of this nature with the principle about which we have heard so much, the principle of self-determination It seems to me—I do not know whether it would strike other noble Lords in the same way—to be a gross and almost intolerable interference with the interior government of a free nation. The whole idea underlying the fear that the return of a member of the Hapsburg family is a danger to Europe is constructed upon a well-prepared myth, a myth which is most carefully fostered by a portion of the Press here. That myth consists in endeavouring to persuade people that Hungary is a militarist and dangerous Power which is a permanent source of trouble to its neighbours As a matter of fact—I am tired of repeating it, but must say it once more— Hungary, not very long ago, was a prosperous and comparatively large nation, but at the present moment she is a small, bankrupt nation, consisting of about
234
6,000,000 people, the bulk of whom are agriculturists. They have an army of a sort, which amounts, I believe, or did amount a short time ago, to something like 30,000 men, hardly equipped at all, and this totally inadequate force is in process of being destroyed by one of those numerous International Commissions which batten upon these bankrupt countries. In a short time, if the recommendations of these Commissions are carried out, they will probably have no army at all.
And yet it is seriously contended that this bankrupt State, with its miserable nominal army of 30,000 unequipped men, is a danger to its neighbours. What are these neighbours? Hungary is practically surrounded by three Powers— Rumania, Czecho-Slovakia and Yugo-Slavia. Each of these nations is very nearly three times the size of Hungary, and each of these nations, in clear defiance of the immortal principles initiated by President Wilson, persists in devoting an enormous proportion of its expenditure to keeping up a large army. Each of these nations could, if necessary, put in the field something like a million men. And yet they have the audacity to pretend that Hungary is a danger to them. I venture to say that no more impudent fabrication has ever been circulated throughout Europe than this statement that Hungary is a danger to its neighbours. The plain truth is that Hungary is not a danger to its neighbours, but that Hungary's neighbours are a danger to Hungary. I am myself convinced that the failure of the ex-Emperor has been a profound disappointment to these nations, because they were going to make it an excuse to occupy, and further to divide and mutilate, that unhappy country.
We seem—or at least a certain proportion of persons seem—to have worked ourselves into a frame of mind in which we consider that an ex-Ally cannot possibly do any wrong, and that an ex-enemy cannot possibly be in the right. That is a doctrine to which I do not subscribe, and never intend to subscribe. In this case I contend that a profound injustice is contemplated, and that if injustice, or acts of tyranny, or oppression, or aggression are contemplated or acted upon by ex-Allies, we ought to dissociate ourselves from them. If we do not do so, if we do not insist upon justice between one nation and another being properly adhered to, then we are only preparing for fresh trouble in Europe.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I agree with every word my noble friend has said, except that I should not perhaps have condemned ex-Emperor Karl in quite such severe terms as he has done, because I cannot help feeling that he must have been grievously misled by some of his friends. I hope His Majesty's Government will take this opportunity of making perfectly clear their attitude in regard to this very grave matter. What are the simple facts that my noble friend so well explained? The ex-Emperor Karl made a sudden air-raid on the throne of Hungary. The Hungarian Government, acting with rare promptitude, arrested him and handed him over to our custody. I assume that. the Hungarian people cannot wish the ex-Emperor Karl to he their King, but if they did, I cannot see the slightest moral right on our part to object. If we do object, as my noble friend said, the dynamite-charged phrase which President Wilson adopted must by this time have exploded itself and be disregarded for ever more.
It was the Hungarian Government alone which was concerned with this putsch, and it acted exactly as the Entente Powers must always have expected and have desired. What followed the perfectly correct behaviour of the Hungarian Government? As my noble friend has said, the Little Entente, of which I am sure we shall hear more in the future, instantly began to get extremely excited. It light-heartedly issued an ultimatum and threatened an invasion, and it made demands, including reparations for the cost of its own mobilisation, which were to my mind unjustifiable and wholly improper. This action on the part of the Little Entente seems to me to he perfectly intolerable. If the ex-Emperor had ascended the throne and declared war, the Little Entente could not have done more than it did when the whole operation failed.
On Friday last Count Bethlen, the Premier of Hungary, said this—
" The attempt of the ex-Emperor was not the cause but the pretext for intervention on the part of her neighbours, who had endeavoured to put forward demands far beyond the question at issue."
That is absolutely true, and no one can contradict it. He added this—
" It must now at least be evident to the eyes of all Europe that it was not Hungary, whose only safeguard lay in strict adherence to the Trianon Treaty, who endangered the peace of Europe, but the ambitions of her neighbours."
236
Now, the Little Entente is largely built up out of the fragments of Hungary, distributed among its members by the Great Entente. Two of its members have kings of their own, and one of them objects to Hungary having a king if she wishes. This member is, of course, Serbia, which has succeeded in destroying the centuries-long independence of Montenegro, and is now busily engaged in attacking Albania.
It is interesting to note that both Serbia and Albania are members of the League of Nations, and this is the first case of one member of that body gratuitously attacking another; and I was very glad to see, today, that the Prime Minister had telegraphed to the League of Nations, drawing its attention to these most outrageous proceedings, and asking the League to do j something. We are informed by Reuter, if it is any satisfaction, that "the Secretariat is making the necessary arrangements." I only hope that these arrangements will succeed, and I am sure that we shall watch what happens with the greatest anxiety and interest.
The noble Lord most wisely made personal investigation on his own account of the conditions arising in the countries which have been torn away from Hungary, and he now knows what is happening in Transylvania and elsewhere. I should not, I think, be in order in discussing this question of Hungary, or that of the Burgenland, to-day, but I hope that these matters will be fully discussed by the House on a suitable occasion.
The work of the conference at Versailles was enormously difficult, but there was just one outstanding certainty which any member of the Conference ought to have been able to grasp. A strong Hungary was the best safeguard against any future aggressive ambition on the part of Germany, and it was also a great safeguard against Bolshevism, which is a much more immediate danger than any which can be expected from Germany. But the Conference decided to weaken Hungary as much as possible and to make her economic position doubtful. Since the Treaty was signed a most vicious propaganda has been carried on in this country against. Hungary, and the sources of that propaganda are perfectly evident. All news from Central Europe just now ought to be regarded with the greatest caution. Meanwhile, my impression is that the independence of Hungary is guaranteed by the Treaty of Trianon—

237
that is, the independence of the little left of Hungary—and I hope His Majesty's Government will rigidly adhere to that guarantee and in conjunction with all the other Entente Powers succeed in keeping the Little Entente in some sort of order.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I am very glad that the question of the exclusion of the House of Hapsburg from the throne of Hungary has been raised in this House, because I should be glad to know how His Majesty's Government can reconcile it with the principle of self-determination, about which we have heard so much of late. I am sorry that I could not agree entirely with Lord Newton. I must confess to a certain amount of sympathy with the Emperor Karl. From the time that he succeeded to the throne I believe he did his very best to come to terms with the Great Entente. It is common knowledge that he made advances to Monsieur Clemenceau, and, in addition to that, negotiations were carried on in the year 1917 when, I believe, it is a fact that the Entente Powers were quite willing to allow him to remain on the Throne if he separated from Germany. If the Emperor on that occasion, instead of acting as a. constitutional monarch and being guided by his responsible Ministers, had acted as an absolute monarch, he would probably have been on the throne of Austria-Hungary at the present time. What is chiefly urged against him is that on a recent occasion he broke his plighted word to Switzerland.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Quite.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: So far we have only heard one side of the question. We have heard what has been said by the Swiss Federal Government, and. we have hail no opportunity of hearing the Emperor's defence, but we know it was said by the Prime Minister, in the very eloquent speech he made last week, that in this country, at any rate, every subject of the King is supposed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. I think it is a very curious thing, in connection with the very short campaign of the Emperor Karl, that a boycott does exist with regard to what took place. I do not know if your Lordships have noticed it, but there were most meagre accounts of what happened from the time the Emperor landed in Hungary until he was taken therefrom.
LORD NEWTON: They stopped everything at Vienna.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: It is evident that there must have been Proclamations to the army and appeals to the people, and yet not one word has reached us here. On the occasion of his leaving the soil of Hungary he addressed a few words to those present, in which he said he had friendly feelings towards the Entente Powers, or at any rate, that he was not unfriendly towards them. We are told that part of the message has been censored by Austria. I should like to know what authority she has to censor a message from Hungary to the Press of the United Kingdom. I must confess that I regret very much that this country should have acted as gaoler to the ex-Emperor and ex-Empress on this occasion and that a British ship should now be taking them to their. St. Helena, because although it may be said that Madeira is a charming island, as I know it to be, yet I do not think that any one of your Lordships would wish to be interned there for the remainder of his life.
There is a much more important question raised than that of whether we behaved well or badly to the ex-Emperor of Austria, and that is whether we had any right to say that the Hapsburg dynasty shall be excluded from the throne of that Kingdom. We have some experience ourselves of deposing kings. We deposed James the Second, and we were careful to settle the proper grounds on which we could base our claim to depose him. So far as I remember, the claim was that by fleeing from the country he had abdicated the Throne. On the coronation of the King he enters into a contract with his people, as I suppose King Karl did when he was crowned. Since then he certainly has not fled the country with any free will, and so far as I know he has not broken the laws o that country. Therefore, it seemed very hard to ask that the Hungarian Parliament should pass a Bill deposing him from the throne of that Kingdom.
I hope your Lordships will remember that when we deposed a king we were careful to choose the nearest relation of that sovereign who was suitable to succeed to the throne of these Realms, because we realised that loyalty is connected with a special family; that it is only if a king belongs to a family which is part of the nation itself that feelings of loyalty, affection

239
and respect can exist. It is perfectly impossible that similar feelings should be aroused in the case of Admiral Korthy if he should be elected to the throne of Hungary, a position which I understand he has no desire to hold. It seems to me that we are dealing a very dangerous blow to the monarchic principle, and one which, as the noble Lord has pointed out, if circumstances had been reversed and we had lost the war, might have been applied with equal force to this country.
And I should like to know whether this veto applies only to the House of Hapsburg? Supposing that the people of Hungary, if they were obliged to go abroad for a sovereign, were to choose the Crown Prince of Bavaria, would he be accepted by us, or are we again to put on a veto, and say he is not a persona grata; or, supposing their choice fell upon Prince Eitel Fritz of Prussia. In fact, the whole of our contention is in absolute opposition to the principle of self-determination. I regret very much that we have taken up this position, and I hope that we shall act on the principles of self-determination, and allow Hungary, irrespective of the wishes of the neighbouring mushroom Republics which we have set up, to select her own Ruler.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I regard this matter as a very grave one— so grave that I regret that we do not see the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place; I have no doubt there is some very urgent public reason for it. I dare say preparations have been made for answering the Question and the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and no doubt that duty will be admirably discharged by the noble Earl (Lord Crawford) who will take the noble Marquess's place But I should have liked the noble Marquess to have heard what has fallen from the various members of your Lordships' House upon this subject.
I speak as an international lawyer, and I want to know what authority there is for either the Great Powers or the little Powers to tell Hungary whom she shall or shall not have for king, or whether she shall have a king or not. I thought I must be mistaken, and that there must be something in the Treaty of Trianon by which Hungary had bound herself—as, of course, she might —not to take the Emperor Karl, or not to take a Hapsburg as a Ruler.
LORD NEWTON: There is nothing in it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I may be mistaken—it is a very long Treaty—but I read through it as far as I could, and I cannot find anything in it to that effect. I am not aware that there in any protocol or any arrangement—certainly none which has been submitted to your Lordships' House—under which any bargain of that kind has ever been made with Hungary. I thought that we fought the war for the sake of self-determination and the protection of little countries, and we are now apparently ending the war by allowing a small country to be oppressed by its neighbours and, indeed, by putting the pistol to her head ourselves.
I thought there was such a thing as the League of Nations, and I thought that Czecho-Slovakia and Serbo-Croatia and Hungary all belonged to the League of Nations. And, having had occasion, as your Lordships may know, to make a profound study of that subject, I thought I remembered that one of the clauses most binding in the Covenant was that no two nations, members of the League, should go to war without first submitting the matter to the Council or to the Court; and here I hear of one of these States launching an ultimatum and threatening to invade Hungary. I remember also that every one of the nations who are Members of the League have guaranteed the territorial integrity of every other, but I hear of one of these nations threatening to invade Hungary, without attempting to put the matter either before the Council or before the Court.
I cannot conceive what business we or any nation have to tell Hungary whether she shall be a Kingdom or a Republic. There is no crime in being a king; there is no crime in having a Kingdom. After all, Italy, Belgium, and Great Britain, three Allied countries, all have kings. What should we say if the United States and France and Portugal were to say that there ought no longer to be a King of Great Britain? Or suppose—as they would be afraid to attack a powerful nation—that they were to say there should be no King of Belgium, like the King whom we know and so greatly admire? I think the strongest protest should be made against any attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of Hungary and a still further protest

241
should be made against the apparent intention. to violate the Covenant of the League of Nations.
I say nothing about the ex-Emperor Karl. As between himself and his people they have a right to say that they will not have him as Emperor, and it was foolish —and in such matters folly is criminal— for him to attempt to resume his Kingdom, unless he was quite certain that all his people, or the great majority of his people, demanded it, as apparently they did not. But why, if they had chosen to have him, we should interfere, or why we should say, if they hereafter choose to have him, that they should not, or why we should say that there should not be any member of the House of Hapsburg on the throne, I am at a loss to conceive.
And I would add, for your Lordships' information, one word more. I always thought, and I still think—I thought it at the time; it is no after-thought— that there was no more mistaken cry than the cry that the Hohenzollerns and the Hapsburgs should be removed. As regards the Hohenzollerns, the case is not so strong, though I believe we should be much better off with a chastened and a chastised Emperor on the throne of Germany, and the nation would be a much more steady nation, and we should be much more likely to get our money paid and the peace preserved if we had left him there. But I pass by the Hohenzollerns, and I come to the Hapsburgs. I feel quite certain that we should have had a much steadier position in Austria reduced, and Hungary doubly reduced, if we had allowed the Emperor to remain on the throne.
And, as for supposing that it is the natural iniquity of the Hapsburgs that will make Hungary unsettled, no one who has followed the groans of Hungary at the way in which she has been treated, and who knows how France resented being deprived of Alsace and Lorraine, and how the guerre de revanche was only put off until it could no longer be postponed, could believe that those evils would ensue from having Hapsburgs on the throne. We have allowed Hungary to be so stripped and so narrowed that we must expect unrest in that quarter, and I am very much afraid, unless the League of Nations interferes, that there will be war within a generation. But whether that be so or not, Hungary would not be in the least more likely to go to war if she had a Hapsburg on the throne than
242
if she remained under a Regency. I earnestly support all the observations made by the noble Lord who brought this matter to your Lordships' attention.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the Question on tire Paper is very precise and self-contained, and I certainly am not prepared to enter upon a number of very disputatious matters such as we have heard this afternoon. Neither need I follow my noble friend, Lord Newton, into the records, all too short, of Iris vivacious conversations with the princes and statesmen of Central Europe. I cannot really argue, I am not in a position to argue, with your Lordships whether it is the case that Hungary was a safeguard against German aggression—I should have thought a very controversial statement— or whether Hungary was a military nation or not—I should have thought a very controversial proposition. Still less am in a position to argue with Lord Oranmore and Browne whether he is right in inferring that the ex-Emperor did not break his parole on two occasions in appearing on Hungarian territory from his Swiss residence.
And, like Lord Phillimore, I, too, must pass by the Hohenzollerns. I really am not in a position to discuss that question, and I do not; suppose the Secretary of State, if he were here, would consent offhand to mike a statement upon the whole range of Central European policy which has been raised this afternoon, about the general rights of Monarchy, the League of Nations, self-determination, and very important considerations of that character. Therefore, I must ask your Lordships to allow me to reply in specific tennis to the two very simple and direct Questions which are on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newton.
The demands made of Hungary by the Czecho-Slovak and Yugo-Slav Governments were made known to the Conference of Ambassadors on October 29. These demands included the forfeiture of the crown by the whole Hapsburg family, and the payment by the Hungarian Government of the mobilisation expenses. The Conference of Ambassadors drew the attention of the Czecho-Slovak and Yugo-Slav Governments to the fact that the principal Allied Powers had themselves already endorsed the former demand in a declaration issued from Paris on behalf of the Allied Governments in February, 1920, which stated that "the

243
Powers cannot admit that the restoration of the Hapsburg dynasty can be considered merely as a matter interesting the Hungarian nation, and hereby declare that such a restoration would be at variance with the whole basis of the Peace settlement, and would be neither recognised nor tolerated by them." The text of this declaration was communicated at the time officially to the Hungarian as well as to the Czecho-Slovak and Yugo-Slav Governments, and published in the Press. It was repeated in April last, on the occasion of the King's former attempt to regain the throne.
As regards the demand for the payment by Hungary of mobilization expenses; the Allied Governments have intimated that they cannot admit that it; is justified in the circumstances.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, I may he permitted to say, perhaps, that I really think the Foreign Office treat this matter with much too little concern. We all have sufficient evidence of the extravagant way in which the Government time after time depart from those great principles enunciated by President Wilson in the celebrated Fourteen Points, the principal one of which was, perhaps, the assertion of the right of self-determination. I am not going to reflect on other Governments, who seem to have no principles at all to guide them, but I am ashamed to say that our Government set so little store by these solemn professions that time after time they have absolutely disregarded the whole principle of self-determination.
Self-determination surely means that the people of the country affected have the right to choose their own form of government. I am not a supporter of the Hapsburg dynasty. I really do not know whether it is one that is desirable in the interests of the people of the old Austrian Empire, or of Hungary, or of Austria. I am not going to discuss that matter, because it is one for those people, and for them alone. It is not a matter in which we have the smallest right, as it seems to me, to interfere without absolutely disregarding the principle of self-determination.
We do these things in the most haphazard fashion. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, rightly pointed out, there was no reference whatever to this matter in the original Treaty of Trianon This was an afterthought, suggested, I believe,
244
as most of these evil suggestions are, in the hopelessly imperialistic atmosphere of Paris, after which the declaration was made in February of last year, I think it was, that the Powers would not assent to the restoration of the Hapsburg dynasty under any consideration. Surely that was a new departure— a departure which, before it was promulgated, ought to have been properly considered by this country. Parliament ought to have been apprised of it, because it was a very vital inroad upon the principle of self-determination.
For all I know, the people of Hungary, had they been freely consulted and allowed full liberty, would have refused to restore the Hapsburg dynasty; I have no knowledge whatever on the subject. On the other hand, they might have consented to the restoration. But I protest most vehemently against this constant invasion of a principle which we, of all countries, ought carefully to protect. It is intolerable that there should be these announcements that certain things have been done by certain Powers—to which, unfortunately, we weakly assent—which are a derogation, as it seems to me, of our good faith and, far from confirming us in the good opinion of the civilised world. only go to show that the British people have no longer an independent judgment in these matters, and are no longer guided by those high principles which used to be their safeguard.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have no desire to make a further speech on this subject. I only wish to comment on the fact that it appears to be the view of my noble friend that because this particular demand was put forward something like a year ago, it is, therefore, justifiable and it is not right to protest against it now. To my mind the date makes no difference at all. What is the justification for it? I want to know what the reason for it is. Either the great Powers, in what I would almost venture to call their foolishness, put this proposal forward on their own account, or it must have been suggested to them by the Little Entente. There is not a word about it in the Treaty. If it were in the Treaty it would be a totally different matter. As it is, the proposal seems to me absolutely indefensible, and I adhere to the belief that it is part of a deliberate plot. I believe that this decision has been formulated at the prompting of the Little Entente in order to create an impossible situation in Hungary. If you are going to insist that

245
these people are not to be allowed freely to choose their own monarch, w hat will result? It will, of course, result in internal disturbance just as it would here or in any other country. And if there is internal disturbance in Hungary, that will be an opportunity for the hostile Powers to intervene and, as I said in the course of my previous speech, further to mutilate and destroy this unfortunate country.

FIXED EASTER PROPOSAL
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government he Question standing in my name on the Paper—namely, what has resulted from the communications of the Foreign Office and the Home Office with the Holy See with regard to securing a fixed date for Easter— and to move for Papers.
It will be in the recollection of the House that the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill to secure a fixed date for Easter was adjourned on the Motion of the most reverend Primate in order to give His Majesty's Government, and more especially the Home Office, an opportunity of entering into communication with the Vatican upon the subject. I do Dot know whether His Majesty's Government can tell us what the result of those communications has been. Long and elaborate statements have appeared in the newspapers as to the appointment by the Holy See of a Committee, under the chairmanship of Cardinal Mercier. The Committee appears to consist of most of the astronomers holding high positions in every country, and it is said that they are going to sit in April. Two of the supposed members of this alleged Committee have been interviewed at some length in the newspapers. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government, whether they could give any information on those points. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, in consequence of the debate in your Lordships' House enquiries were made by the Foreign Office through His Majesty's Minister at the Vatican, and His Majesty's High Commissioner at Constantinople, to ascertain the views held by the Vatican and by the Holy Synod respectively in regard to the proposal. In a Despatch dated September 15, Sir Horace Rumbold reported that the question had been discussed by the Holy Synod at Constantinople,
246
which had decided that it was not competent to deal with it. It could only be dealt with by an (Ecumenical Council which could not be held until a Patriarch had been elected in the place of His Holiness, Monsignor Germanos, who died some two years ago.
As regards the Vatican, in a Despatch of May 19, Count de Salis reported that he had addressed an enquiry to the Holy See, and that Monsignor Cerretti, in conversation, had stated that the question would receive careful attention. Subsequently Count de Salis informed the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that Monsignor Cerretti had just notified him that the question had been laid before the Pope, and had received His Holiness' careful attention, but that it was felt, in so far as the Catholic Church was concerned, that there was insufficient ground for changing the present system. As the Lord has said, allusions have been made in the Press to a Committee said to have been appointed by the Pope, to enquire into this question. Enquiries were made by telegram of His Majesty's. Minister at the Vatican. The reply just received from him is to the effect that nothing is known at the Vatican of any such Committee.
The noble Lord in his Question asked for Papers. I do not know whether anything further would be learnt from the Papers. I have given all the facts. There is no objection to supply the noble Lord with Papers if he wishes, but there is the question of expense, and if he does not think that anything further would he gained by Papers, perhaps he would not think it necessary to press his Motion.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Will my noble friend give me copies of the correspondence?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Certainly.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PROROGATION ARRANGEMENTS.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I desire to ask the Leader of the House whether he can give us any information as to when it is proposed to prorogue Parliament. I am given to understand that it is in the minds of His Majesty's Government that Parliament should be prorogued

247
to-morrow, and it does appear to me that at a time when very important. questions are being decided, and which are nearing their conclusion, Parliament should be sitting, or perhaps should be adjourned. I should be glad if the noble Earl can give me information on this point.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I was about to move that the House do adjourn until to-morrow, when it is hoped that the Prorogation may take place. I accordingly give Notice that to-morrow I propose to move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX in order, as is usual, to pass the Appropriation Bill through all its stages.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, when I rose quite early in the evening to ask a question the noble Earl might have said something regarding what he has told us just now. I asked what the reason was for hurrying through these Bills one after the other, and the noble Earl said nothing then to the effect that the Government contemplated an immediate Prorogation. I confess that I was surprised to hear his reply to my noble friend.
I cannot imagine a time when it was more important that Parliament should be sitting than the present moment. Until the extremely critical position in which we are placed with regard to Ireland is more or less cleared up, I do not think Parliament should be prorogued. What is being done has the appearance of the Government desiring, before making their decisions known, that Parliament should be out of the way, so that any of us who might have wished to ask for information, or to press our view with regard to the policy of the Government (which I suppose will have been finally decided before Parliament meets again) might not be able to do so. I think we ought, and I think the country will think that Parliament ought, to have the opportunity of hearing what has been done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, out of respect to the noble Viscount, I am unwilling that the complaint he has made should be passed over in silence. He was, I think, labouring under some misunderstanding in his complaint of the noble Earl who at this moment is leading the House, in relation to an answer given at an earlier period of our proceedings. The noble Viscount
248
asked a question as to why a certain step was taken, and received a perfectly complete answer. There was certainly no element of suppression, because the fact that Parliament, under one form or another of suspension, was reaching the end of its labours, was notorious. There is really no one, I believe, in the country who did not know that, either by way of Prorogation or by way of adjournment, the session in which we have just been engaged was about to reach its ordinary conclusion.
I would remind the noble Viscount that Parliament would have been prorogued months ago but, in circumstances which are still in your Lordships' minds, it was decided that it should be adjourned, and be called together either to deal with the Irish Question, if necessity required it, or any other purpose which might have arisen. The noble Viscount now complains that it is wrong to prorogue Parliament at a moment of such difficulty and crisis. But I would point out that if Parliament be prorogued, and if that crisis assumes proportions which require that Parliament should meet, it can meet, no doubt with a little more ceremony and formality than that with which it would meet if a mere adjournment were decided upon. But there is no real difficulty in these circumstances, and if the nature of the development of the anxious position which exists to-day required it, of course proper arrangements would be made enabling Parliament to meet, whether it be adjourned or whether it be prorogued.
I do not deal in any detail with the last few observations made by the noble Viscount, in which he intimated that in his opinion Parliament ought to sit whatever conference was proceeding. I do not adopt either a controversial or a dogmatic attitude in relation to the position. I do not know whether the noble Viscount thinks the object that most sensible men have in their minds at this moment has been more forwarded or impeded by Parliamentary discussion in the course of the last few weeks. Your Lordships have observed an extraordinary, and, I think, most sagacious reticence in regard to the events that have happened, and have not thought it wise to make any contribution at all to our labours, which are already considerable. If your Lordships adhere to that policy it is obvious that we should not lose very much by this House not sitting. When nothing has been clone the inability to do anything cannot be

249
felt as a serious deprivation. The activities in another place have been very persistent and continuous, and the noble Viscount may think that they have assisted a settlement; others may take a different view. I do not feel called upon to state a conclusion in a matter which can very evidently be made the subject of controversy.
The vital point is this—and it is not touched in the apprehensions of the noble Marquess or the noble Viscount—Either a settlement is reached or it is not. If it is not reached the resultant situation may easily require an early meeting of Parliament, and in that, case arrangements would be made for Parliament to meet at a suitably early date. If a settlement is reached it cannot be given effect to until it has been made the subject of the fullest and most searching debate in Parliament and has received the assent of both Houses of the Legislature. Where is the difficulty? Where is the inconvenience? Where is the attempt to interfere in ally way with the full control and power of both Houses of Parliament in this matter?
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: In rising again, may I say that I speak under difficulty as my hearing, as many of your Lordships are aware, has been greatly affected recently. If the proposal had been for the adjournment of this House I should not have thought it necessary to say anything. But the Lord Chancellor has told us that Prorogation is one thing and adjournment another, and that Parliament could not meet so easily as it might wish to meet if it is prorogued instead of adjourned. No one can deny, and the Lord Chancellor is the last person to do it, that we are at this moment, in regard to Ireland, at one of the most critical positions in which we have ever been in the whole history of the Irish controversy. I still adhere to my opinion that it is not at a moment like this that Parliament ought to be prorogued, and prorogued without further notice.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.