PROPERTY OF EX-ENEMY NATIONALS.

HL Deb 24 July 1923 vol 54 cc1321-42

LORD PARMOOR had given notice to call attention to certain cases in which the property of ex-enemy nationals has been impounded; and to ask whether further powers cannot now be granted to the Committee presided over by Lord Justice Younger. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have used the word "impounded" because it is a neutral term. I think I might have used a harsher term, but I do not wish to enter into any field of controversy that I can possibly avoid. As regards the suggested remedy and my inquiry whether further powers cannot now be granted to the Committee, I may say two things: First of all, that there is no interference with Treaty obligations in the suggestion to grant these further powers, and consequently no difficulty arises under that head; and secondly, that though considerable powers have already been granted to Lord Justice Younger's Committee it has been found in practice that there are left outstanding some cases of extreme hardship, cases which everybody would regret, and which, I believe, everybody does regret who knows the circumstances. I desire, therefore, to give full powers of discretion to Lord Justice Younger's Committee in order that it may deal with the very hard and harsh cases which undoubtedly arise under this principle of impounding the property of ex-enemy nationals.

I do not propose to trouble your Lordships to-night with historical considerations. It is sufficient to say that this impounding of the property of ex-enemy nationals is an entirely new departure and is contrary to all the traditions of this country since the year 1215. It could not have been carried out without special legislation. In other words, the Treaty-making power of the Crown would not, in itself, have been sufficient in this country to justify interference with private proprietary rights. We know, however, that as a matter of fact the necessary Act of Parliament was passed. I am not: asking to-night that this Act of Parliament should be repealed but merely that, within the powers of that Act the remedy should be given for which I intend to ask.

My task is shortened in two ways. I can quote quite shortly from two authorities who will undoubtedly carry weight, and on former occasions I have given my own views at sufficient length. Yesterday morning there appeared in The Times a letter signed by Mr. Spenser Wilkinson. I do not think that Mr. Spenser Wilkinson need have troubled himself with pointing out that he could not be regarded as a pro-German, because we all know that in many ways his bias and tendency are in the opposite direction, although I think that here as I am sure Mr. Spenser Wilkinson would be the first to admit—we are not dealing with a question of bias hut with a question of what ought, in justice, to he done. Mr. Spenser Wilkinson points out in that letter that the original intention was an exchange of property, and if the only effect had been an exchange of property I should not be here making this complaint and your Lordships would not have heard the complaints which I have made on former occasions. My complaint is of the manner in which this principle has, in fact, operated.

Let me quote Mr. Spenser Wilkinson on this point. He writes:— Thus it has come about that the property in England of German subjects has been taken from them. I am one of those who think that this transaction, honourable enough in its original intention, has in practice so turned out as to be unworthy of the name of England. Surely that is so, for of all countries in the world we represent the principle of justice and security of property, and if an intention, good in itself, has in fact operated as robbery—and I do not think that this is too strong a word—then everyone would desire to put the matter right if possible. Mr. Wilkinson goes on to make this very important point:— By the irony of fate the persons who suffer most from the process which I have described are our own flesh and blood—the Englishwomen who in the years of peace long before the war married German husbands, many of them settled in England, some of them even naturalised British subjects who eventually returned to live in Germany. This is not, of course, the only instance in which by the irony of fate injustice has operated so that we are the chief sufferers, hut I am sure that when I have given the illustrations which I propose to give, your Lordships will agree that the provision as it stands has by the irony of fate, to use Mr. Spenser Wilkinson's language, brought suffering mainly upon our own flesh and blood.

Before I come to the illustrations, of which I have given examples to the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade in order that he might have time to inquire into them, let me refer in confirmation of the general outlook to one or two passages from the Interim Report of Lord Justice Younger's Committee, which was issued in 1922. And here I want to ask the noble Earl (Lord Clarendon) one question, because I desire to be entirely accurate. I have inquired at the Paper Office, and elsewhere, whether any Report has been issued since that date, and I have not been able to obtain one. If one has been issued, I should like to know where it is to be obtained. From the information which I have derived, however, the Report from which I am going to give one or two extracts is the last Report which the Committee has made. Let me refer to one or two passages from the Report of that Committee. I may say, first of all, that that Committee was appointed by the present Prime Minister when he was President of the Board of Trade. It was appointed for the very purpose of dealing with unfair and harsh cases under the provisions applicable in the Treaty of Versailles to ex-enemy property and ex-enemy debts. Indeed, it was for the very purpose of introducing fairness in those harsh cases that the Committee was appointed.

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

The Committee has issued no other Report.

LORD PARMOOR

Therefore this is the latest Report, which gives information from the very skilled body, presided over by Lord Justice Younger, which deals with these matters. First of all—the Committee is showing an injustice as regards the position of Englishwomen, and I think the words they use are very apt—the Committee says: The property here of a German woman married to an Englishman on the 9th of January, 1920, is exempt, although she may only have been permitted to land in this country a few days before. What is the contrast which they give? The property here of an Englishwoman married to a German on the same day is retained, although she may never in her life have been out of this country. Is that desirable, or do your Lordships feel that the Committee who dealt with these cases are fully justified in calling attention to what I regard as a gross anomaly of this character—an anomaly which, under their existing powers, they are not able to put right?

Let me read another passage:— The Treaties have not in this respect functioned according to their terms:"— In other words, they are pointing out that whatever the intention was the effect has been robbery and confiscation— the German Treaty has so functioned only most imperfectly: the others not at all. The result—reflected in the recent discussion in the House of Lords—has been a growing suspicion and dislike of these clauses in their actual operation, accentuated by the fact, which now seems certain, that in the final result they will operate with the greatest degree of harshness in the cases in which it would be either the desire or to the interest of this country that they should not operate at all. Surely it is a terrible tragedy, after recommendations of that kind, not to give the wider discretion for which the Committee were asking.

Having regard to the lateness of the hour, I would call attention only to one or two more passages. The Committee are speaking here of the result of the present concessions, and they say:— That only a fraction of the total amount credited on the account of any national is received by him, is not, however, doubtful. I take it that the mark for the purposes of the ex-enemy property treatment was to be at 75 to the £, and the mark at this date was something like 1,000 to the £, whereas now the mark has substantially disappeared as being of any value for the purpose of exchange. Therefore, whatever harshness there was a year, or a year and a half, ago, when this Interim Report was published, it has been enormously increased by the present time. So much so, that in one of the complaints to which I wish to draw-attention, I think the sum of 50,000 marks paid under this system only brought 1s. 6d. to the recipient. It shows how extremely unjust the present conditions have operated.

Then there is one other passage to which I should like to call attention, because it is very important. It says that "This state of things"—which I have indicated—"is highly injurious to" the "international financial reputation" of this country. I cannot understand why in matters of this kind we seem deliberately to interfere injuriously with the international financial reputation of our country. If there is one thing more than another which it is desirable to maintain in this country it is a reputation for international financial security. I am at a loss to understand why we should go on destroying that sense of security, which in old days induced foreigners of various kinds to invest in this country in preference to any other, relying on the security which since 1215 had always been granted to them even in times of war. It is an extremely curious thing. I saw regret expressed the other day that since the war we have spent £400,000,000 on unemployment. I wonder whether your Lordships appreciate how much of that might have been saved if the security of international property had been safeguarded in this country as in old days. If there is one country more interested than any other in international friendship and security it is our own country, and we ought to stand in the fore-front as pioneers of security for international investments, when made here on the understanding that whatever else happened they would be secure and safe.

There is only one other matter to which I wish to call attention before coming to the three cases of which I have given notice to the noble Earl. It is this. Other countries have already made very large concessions—I do not say all other countries, that would be too wide a statement, so far as I know. You may say that this law is not in force in America because she was not a party to the Treaty. That may be true, but it will not alter the fact that, whereas we are sacrificing our principle of international financial security, they are strengthening theirs and getting advantage over us. I do not wish to say that against America, but it is a very serious matter when you come to commercial and financial considerations. In the same way we know that more generous terms are given in South Africa, and, I think, in our Colonies, but I do not wish to dwell too much upon that, except to say that so far as Treaty obligations are concerned we have a perfectly free hand, and that if we think the present method of impounding ex-enemy property acts harshly, we have full power and liberty to amend it and to give further powers to Lord Justice Younger's Committee. That is what I am asking you to agree to on the present occasion.

Let me give three instances only—I do not know how many hundreds of them I have had—which will express the sense of harshness to which I have referred. I have selected thorn because they apply in different ways—in one case to a German, in one case to an Englishwoman, and in a third case to a Czecho-Slovakian. This is a letter which was recently written to me by an ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland— A young German lady came to live 30 or 40 years ago with Sir John Banks, the Queen's Physician in Ireland, as a companion to his daughter, who afterwards married—— I do not give any other names— After the marriage she continued to reside with Sir John Banks, and nursed him in his old age when he became blind. Of course, we know that Sir John Banks did become blind in his old age— He died shortly before the war, and she went back to Germany, leaving her entire earnings, amounting to about £8,000 with the Bank of Ireland, who invested the money in various securities. When war broke out all her securities were seized. Lately it was found that she was in Germany in the direst poverty. Sir John Banks's friends, of whom I was one, subscribed enough to relieve her immediate distress. On hearing of it, I went on several occasions to the secretary of Lord Justice Younger's Committee, and succeeded in getting £100 paid to her out of her income. The letter concludes:— There is no reason why she should not get all her property back. There could not be a more loyal or faithful woman. She was devoted to the English. She is now old and in Feeble health. I ask your Lordships, do you desire a thing of that kind to go on?

It is a human tragedy of the deepest kind. But it is only an illustration; I am sure your lordships will credit me when I tell you that hundreds of similar cases have come to my notice. Such cases are a disgrace to us—I must use that term—at any rate as soon as we know the facts. And the matter could be remedied by-giving to Lord Justice Younger's Committee a wider discretion than they possess at the present time. The noble Earl opposite knows perfectly well that the discretion is only given within comparatively narrow limits. In this case it was exercised to the extent that Lord Justice Younger's Committee could exercise it, and yet this woman, who had given her life to nursing this blind man, and who had this property, sufficient in ordinary cases to provide for old age, is found starving, except for a dole which her friends collected in her behalf. She is in feeble health, and still in the direst poverty. Yet we boast ourselves to be a country reasonable and fair in matters of this kind. I am an idealist in nationalism to this extent, that I feel most deeply that we do not deal with matters of this kind and act fairly and honestly in order to relieve distress, which ought never to have been caused. To suggest, that this poor old lady, who nursed this blind doctor, was rightly deprived of her property is unthinkable.

Let me take the next case: It is the case of an English lady, so that we have an illustration from either side. This lady is the daughter of an Englishman, and in 1889 she married a German merchant settled in Manchester, at that time a naturalised British subject. In 1892 he retired from business, and went hack to Germany. In 1903 the father of the lady died, leaving his estate in trust for his widow, and afterwards for his daughter. The widow died in the spring of 1922, and the daughter immediately became entitled to a sum of £5,000 under her father's will. This money was at once claimed by the Public Trustee, who was, of course, bound to claim it as things stand. There was also a further sum of £6,000 owing to this Englishwoman by a firm in Manchester. That was also claimed by the Public Trustee. Your Lordships know that not only property is claimed, but debts are claimed. And nothing is more harsh than this; sums due from savings banks, for instance, cannot be claimed by their owners, as matters stand. A great many people want to be honest and to pay their debts, but they are prohibited from doing so.

The daughter has applied to Lord Justice Younger's Committee, which has released £500, the maximum they are allowed to release, to enable her to pay off a debt which she owed in this country. As the daughter's income in Germany has, by the collapse of the mark, become a negligible quantity she has real difficulty to contend with, and the practical confiscation of her inheritance and of the debts owing to her is a hardship for which the English law offers no remedy. I may add that the daughter's income before the collapse of the mark was somewhere about 50,000 marks. That sum is now worth 1s. 6d. Surely it is the irony of fate (to quote Mr. Spenser Wilkinson's word") to impose conditions which so affect an English lady and reduce her to this poverty and distress.

Let me now give a last illustration Last time I spoke Lord Gorell represented the Government. I gave a well authenticated case, which came from a very high official abroad—there could be no question about it—the ease of a poor governess, who had invested her savings in United Steel shares, but is now in a condition of starvation. She was a Czecho-Slovakian subject. On that occasion the Government promised redress, and I thought that the redress had been given, but a fortnight ago I had a letter from Madrid, from the same high official, saying it, had been a deep disappointment to him, after reading what passed in the House of Lords, that this lady had never been able to get any redress at all, and that the conditions which I then brought to the notice of the House, and which the House said should be redressed, as Lord Gorell knows very well, have never been redressed at all. I do not know why it is. It may well he that the explanation is that the poor woman abroad has great difficulty in bringing a claim before an official body in this country. Take the ease of a poor cottager in England who has to make a claim in Constantinople or in some distant place: how is she to do it? What advice can she get? How does she know to whom to apply?

I will not go further at this time. I think I have shown enough to convince your Lordships and the noble Marquess, who, I hope, is going to reply, that there, are heartrending hardships in existence at the present time which all of us would equally regret and deplore. It is not a question of one nationality or another. In the cause of justice and humanity we regret the injury which has been done in these cases. Mr. Spencer Wilkinson spoke of getting an Act of Parliament passed. That is not a very probable immediate remedy, I am afraid. But it is possible—and this is what I want to urge upon His Majesty's Government—to give Lord Justice Younger's Committee, which can be perfectly trusted, full discretion so that in cases of hardship such as those I have mentioned we might do justice, and right and not allow these plague spots of injustice to continue as blots upon our escutcheon.

LORD GORELL

My Lords, I had no knowledge that the noble and learned Lord who has asked this Question was going to refer to the specific case that he raised last year. I am not at this date, therefore, fully familiar with all the details of that case, but I remember well that the facts as he put them forward then showed quite clearly that the particular lady was entitled to receive her money and, speaking on behalf of the then Government, I said (hat she should undoubtedly receive it. That is all that I have heard of that case. If, as the noble, and learned Lord has just said, she has not yet received it, I think that is definitely a matter to which the pressing attention of His Majesty's Government should be drawn. There was no legal difficulty at all in the way of her receiving it. It must have been due, as the noble and learned Lord has said, to the difficulties of an ignorant person as to the manner in which she should proceed.

In regard to the general question, on which, I think, there were no fewer than three debates last year, I am glad to know that the noble and learned Lord has not, as was done last year, impugned the main principle on which this impounding rests, in the first debate on the subject an attack was made directly on the provision in the Versailles Treaty. The Report of Lord Justice Younger's Committee, to which reference has been made, definitely stated that in their opinion the principle embodied in Article 207 of the Treaty was "not open to serious criticism," and one is glad to notice that the attack on the principle has been abandoned because it was a direct reflection upon the honour of this country in agreeing to that provision. There have been two principles in question, both admitted. The one was the actual legal interpretation of the Article, and the other the principle that where hardship had been clearly shown every effort should be made by this country to alleviate and palliate that hardship.

It was hoped, I remember well, that after the full review of the situation embodied in the Report of Lord Justice Younger's Committee, most of the hardships would be relieved. I think that nearly all of the recommendations in that Report were adopted; but it is clear that the difficulties and hardships still remain, and have grown in some, cases considerably worse owing to the change of conditions, both economic and financial, on the Continent. There is no difficulty whatever in alleviating the hardship if the will of the Government is directed towards that end. There is no necessity whatever for the passage of an Act of Parliament. It is perfectly within the power of His Majesty's Government to give a much wider discretion to the Committee, and I venture to hope, in view of the continuance of the hardship even after the alleviation which has been attempted, His Majesty's Government will now see their way to giving a much wider discretion to the Committee.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has congratulated himself upon the fact that the principle embodied in the Treaty under which this procedure takes place has not been contested. I hope he will not include me among the persons who approve the principle embodied in the Treaty, because I am most firmly opposed to it and I look upon it as being as disastrous and unfair as any principle may well be. This is the third or fourth occasion upon which we have debated this question. One debate has been more unsatisfactory than the other, and I have not the smallest expectation that we shall receive a more satisfactory answer from the representative of the Government than we have had on previous occasions.

I particularly desire to draw your Lordships' attention to one point. Whenever this question has been previously debated in the House the Government, and especially the noble Lord who has just sat down, have contended that there is no confiscation attaching to this procedure. I should like to show, oddly enough from a letter which I also observed in The Times not long ago, how it actually works out. I observed, and I kept as a curiosity, a letter which appeared in The Times in December last from a certain Dr. Acland. This gentleman had a son who was being educated in Berlin and was removed from there in 1914. Dr. Acland owed this young man's landlady a sum of £23. Apparently, being an honest man, he made every effort to repay this woman that £23, but without success. At last he received through the clearing office an imperative note stating that if he did not pay immediately the sum of £32 9s, which represented the £23 plus the accrued interest, he would be proceeded against. Dr. Acland paid the money. He then made inquiries and he found that the woman to whom the £23 was due had received rather less than 1s. and, at the present rate of exchange, she would have received, of course, far less. He was informed that if he, was not satisfied there would be no objection to his now sending her the £23 which he originally owed her. Therefore, by paying an amount of £55 9s, he would have been able to clear himself of a debt of £23. That. I think, speaks for itself. And what does it show? It shows that which we all know perfectly well—that money is taken from A and is given to B, that money is seized from one person and devoted to some totally different purpose, as in this particular instance.

Now, who had all this money? That is exactly what none of us know. I do not want to delay the House, especially as I have frequently expressed myself upon this matter: but for the life of me I cannot see why we should not imitate the example of other countries and show a certain amount of generosity, even if it be a very small amount, in this matter. Why cannot we act as generously as, for instance, the United States, or Italy, or Japan, or some of our Dominions, such as South Africa, or as France? Even in France the ex-enemy subjects are more fairly treated than they are in this country. I believe it to be a very unfortunate circumstance—if I am not mistaken—that the gentleman who is responsible for the enforcement of the law here is a gentleman who was partly responsible for the insertion of this particular provision in the Treaties. That being so, we can hardly expect him to alter his mind.

I would like, although I know it will be no good, to make one further appeal to His Majesty's Government, and to my noble friend the Leader of the House, in particular. What real reason is there why the request put forward by my noble and learned friend opposite cannot be complied with? It is a perfectly simple matter. All you have to do is to give Lord Justice Younger's Commission rather fuller powers. Then, at all events, you will have done something to rehabilitate our good name and our credit at the same time.

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

My Lords, in reply to the noble and learned Lord who raised this Question, I am afraid that after he has heard what I have to state, he will not be altogether satisfied. In regard to the cases which he specifically mentioned I propose, after I have dealt with the larger questions, to mention those seriatim. From the memorandum which has been placed in my hand, I am afraid that it is not considered possible that the powers of release of the Younger Committee should be enlarged.

LORD PARMOOR

Why not?

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

I will come to that later on. The merits of the question under consideration have, I think, been overlaid by mistaken sentiment, and in the endeavour to mitigate the hardships of ex-enemy nationals resulting from the war, the miseries of our own people attributable to the same cause have been somewhat overlooked

LORD PARMOOR

Oh! no.

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

In considering whether the property of ex-enemy nationals in this country should be released, it is material to bear in mind that the property of our nationals in ex-enemy countries has been liquidated and retained by the ex-enemy Governments. The settlement of the claims of this character on both sides is regulated by the clearing procedure, which is identical with that by which the obligations of banks inter se are settled through the bankers' clearing house. By this process credits and debits are set off one against the other, and the resultant balance in favour of one or the other alone remains for settlement. A credit, therefore, received from an opposing clearing office is set off against an equivalent amount in the hands of the British clearing office, and the latter sum becomes at once available for settlement of the claims of British nationals represented by the credit received. In order to secure the rights of ex-enemy nationals whose property has been liquidated in this country, an obligation was imposed upon all the ex-enemy Governments to compensate their nationals up to the value of the property liquidated on this side. Germany, alone of all the ex-enemy countries, has made default in meeting this obligation.

LORD NEWTON

That is not in the Report.

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

That is my information.

LORD NEWTON

It is contrary to Lord Justice Younger's Report.

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

That is the information supplied to me by the Board of Trade. While Germany does undoubtedly make payments to her nationals on account of their claims for compensation, such payments fall far short of the sums credited, and therefore paid, to her Government by the British clearing office. It has been explained by the German officials who were responsible for settling the terms of the German clearing house that they were induced to take this course by reason of the fact that, by the same measure, they had relieved their nationals of the obligation to valorise their debts. One breach of the Treaty, therefore, led to another, and whilst German nationals suffer by reason of the fact that they receive inadequate compensation, British nationals suffer no less through the failure of the Government to collect and account for the debts owing to them. If the value of the German property in this country were sufficient to meet the obligations with which it is charged, the position would not have been so serious, and sentiment might have been indulged in without prejudicing our people, but in fact there is a very serious deficiency of assets to meet liabilities, and up to the present, and after an interval of nearly nine years, it has only been found possible to pay dividends on claims for compensation to the extent of twenty-five per cent. of their value.

In the case of Austria there is even less justification for releasing property on this side which has been subjected to a charge in favour of British creditors and claimants. The Austrian administration in this country is hopelessly insolvent, and the available assets have only enabled the administrator to pay a dividend of 2s. in the £, and to gazette the intention to make a further small payment on account. On the other hand, under the Austrian clearing office law, an Austrian national whose property has been liquidated, is entitled, immediately his Government has been credited by the administrator with the proceeds of the liquidation, to receive Austrian Government sterling bonds for the full amount of such proceeds. Such bonds carry interest at the rate of 5 per cent. and are redeemable within ten years of the date of their issue. These bonds, which are transferable by delivery, are made legal tender for payment of the obligations of Austrian nationals to their Government, and are readily saleable. Six months ago they fetched from 45 per cent to 50 per cent of their face value, but owing to the recent favourable turn in Austrian finances, they have considerably appreciated in value.

The Hungarian clearing office law contains similar provisions, but, owing to the present stale of Hungarian finances, these bonds are doubtless less valuable than is the case with the Austrian obligations, but assuming that the Reparation Commission raises its lien upon Hungarian assets and revenues, and that Government is thereby enabled to obtain a foreign loan, it is probable that these bonds will rapidly increase in value.

In the case of Bulgaria, it is understood that that Government has recognised the obligation to compensate its nationals, but the matter is of comparatively little importance, for outside the property of the ex-Czar Ferdinand and his children, the Bulgarian assets in this country are insignificant.

The cases of hardship which are principally adduced in support of the charge of heartlessness which is from time to time brought against the administration, are those of the British born wives of ex-enemy nationals. The fact, however, seems to be overlooked that the act of marriage was a voluntary one on the part of the lady, and by such act she identified herself with her husband, and obtained all the rights and privileges to which, as the subject of a new State, she thereby became entitled. To accept the contention of the complainant" would be to admit that she is entitled to the best of both worlds; to obtain all the benefits to which she may be entitled by reason of her new nationality whilst retaining those which she has voluntarily relinquished.

Special consideration has now been shown to German nationals who were resident in this country during the war, and who have been permitted to continue to reside here. Their property in this country, which is valued at £2,400,000, is subject to the charge, but except in certain very exceptional cases or where such property formed part of the assets of a business liquidated during the war, it has not been interfered with, and the German national is permitted to continue in the enjoyment of the full amount of the income derived from it.

I do not think I need refer to the terms of reference to Lord Justice Younger's Committee as the noble Lord who asked the Question referred to them. That they stretch their powers to the utmost in favour of ex-enemy nationals is undoubted, and as instances of the attitude which they adopt the cases of Baroness von Merkl and Mrs. Wessenberg, particulars of which I have here, may be quoted. In both cases the applicants are Austrian nationals, and would have received substantial compensation from their Government had they applied to it. In lieu, however, of doing so, they addressed themselves to the Committee, and the indulgences granted to them at the expense of British nationals have relieved their Government of an obligation which it was willing to perform and capable of performing.

In considering the cases of hardship of ex-enemy nationals which come before them, the Committee, I think, are apt to overlook the sufferings of our own people. Take the seamen's cases, which are numerous. These men were illegally detained in German ports prior to the outbreak of war, and thereafter were interned and subjected to every conceivable hardship and insult. Many of them died in prison, and under the Treaty their widows are entitled to compensation. Many of these poor people are in dire distress, but even when they have obtained awards in their favour—and every obstacle is placed in the way of their so doing by the German authorities—the funds available will not permit of claims being met anything like in full. The releases recommended by Lord Justice Younger's Committee come directly out of the fund charged in favour, inter alia, of this class of persons, and to extend the scope of reference to that Committee would further jeopardise their position.

With regard to the three cases to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, and of which he gave no names, in the first, that of the Irish lady, I understand that that case is now before the Committee and that a sum of £500 will be granted to that lady, and, in addition, income to a reasonable amount.

LORD PARMOOR

May I correct that? The matter has been before the Committee, and the Committee have done all they can. But it is practically very little indeed.

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

May I supplement that by a further statement? A further £2,000 will not be credited to Germany at present and will be released later if there is a surplus after satisfying British claims. That is subject to the concurrence of the Irish Free State Government.

With regard to the second case, this particular lady, who was married, I think, to a German national, prefers to reside in Germany as she possesses in that country considerable estates. I would point out, however, that my noble friend Lord Wolmer, in reply to a Question addressed to him in another place by Captain Wedgwood Benn, on July 2, 1923, pointed out that: It is the practice to release the property of British-born women, formerly married to ex-enemy nationals, who as widows or divorcees have been renaturalised as British subjects. In this ease, if this particular lady re-naturalises herself as a British subject, she is entitled to have her case met.

LORD PARMOOR

Do you mean that as a divorcee she would receive money which she cannot now have?

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

I am quoting from the reply given in another place. I think it is quite clear— British-born women, formerly married to ex-enemy nationals, who as widows or divorcees have been renaturalised as British subjects.

LORD PARMOOR

That is to say, if I may interrupt the noble Earl again, that if a woman has been divorced she is to get money on conditions which if she was not divorced she cannot get?

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

The whole thing is dependent upon the question of renaturalisation, whether of a widow or a divorcee. With regard to the third case which the noble and learned Lord mentioned, after inquiries it has been ascertained that she is a Czecho-slovak, and her property in consequence is not subject to the charge, but it is not yet possible to identify any property as belonging to her. It seems probable, however, that no distinctive numbers from among the numbers of the shares held in the depot, were allotted to her.

LORD GORELL

May I interrupt the noble Earl? As far as my memory goes there was no difficulty in regard to that. Will the noble Earl say what difficulty bus arisen since?

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

She claims to be the owner of 50 shares in a depot of 120 held by a firm in London for the Mayenee branch of the General Alsatian Banking Company, but the only evidence of ownership she has produced is a statement from the bank that they had purchased 50 Steel Common shares for her and that these are included in the depot; and a request to the bank for further evidence to identify any shares as hers has not received a reply, although originally made in December last and renewed since. It seems probable, however, that no distinctive numbers from among the numbers of the shares held in the depot, were alloted to this lady before the war, and that the decision whether we can take any of the shares in the depot and hand them over to her, or must account to the Alsatian Bank for the whole depot, must await the receipt of the opinion of the Law Officers on the general question of allocation. That is the only information I have on the subject, and I hope that the noble and learned. Lord will be satisfied, in part, if not in whole.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, the noble Earl can hardly expect that we shall be at all satisfied with the statement he has made. May I say that this is the second lecture we have listened to this evening from the noble Earl; and, perhaps, he will further allow me to say that the skill he showed when speaking more freely and departing from the memorandum with which be has been supplied encourages me to hope that in the future your Lordships' House may be favoured with more original remarks from the noble Earl. I am sure the whole House will welcome more original remarks from him on future occasions, if he will be good enough to favour us with them, rather than read a statement with which he has been supplied. Further, let me remind him that such a course on his part will be more in accordance with the usual custom in your Lordships' House.

I have said that he can hardly expect those of us who take an interest in this question to be satisfied with the information he has given. It is no doubt, perfectly true that there are a number of British subjects who have been badly treated by the Germans. There may even be more cases of people worse treated than of Germans badly treated in this country. That may be so; I do not wish to pass any opinion on that subject because I have no information. But I have yet to learn that two wrongs make a right. Because other people have been badly treated in Germany is no reason why we should treat people badly in this country. None of us can feel comfortable when we hear eases mentioned by noble Lords on this side of the House. I do not wish to contest the principle in the Treaty of Versailles. I am not one of those who approve of the cases quoted by the noble and learned Lord. No doubt there are these hard cases, and in a time of war hatred it is only natural people should go very far. They went far indeed in this country. If I may digress for a moment, your Lordships will perhaps allow me to mention a case in which so great was public feeling against conscientious objectors that a conscientious objector who came within my own knowledge was in prison serving a sentence for being a conscientious objector at the very moment when he was presented with a Mons medal for two years' active service at the front. Hard cases of this kind naturally occur, especially at a moment when war hatred is in the air.

But surely the time has now come when we should recur to the normal principles of justice. Whatever other countries may do, it must be our duty to do the right and the proper thing. The case which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, and again by my noble friend behind me, Lord Gorell, of the lady from Czecho-Slovakia, hardly seemed to me to be the same case as that which was quoted by the noble Earl. The circumstances seemed to be so different. I cannot help thinking that there must be some misunderstanding with regard to this particular case, and that when it is referred again to the Board of Trade it may be found that they are alluding to a different case. I hope that this may be so, because, to judge from what was said by the noble Lord who formerly represented His Majesty's Government, it seems to be perfectly clear that this lady ought to have received some time ago the money which he then thought would be paid over to her very soon after he had made his speech in this House.

In view of the evidence which has been brought before us I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not be satisfied with the position in which we find ourselves at the present moment. I do not intend to pursue the matter at this stage, but I hope that when we meet again in the autumn, at a moment when it is probable that we shall have plenty of spare time, the noble and learned Lord will bring the matter forward once again at an earlier hour in the evening, so that we may have a longer discussion on the subject and enter more fully into the details. In conclusion, I venture to repeat that which was said by the noble and learned Lord below the gangway, and express the hope that our representatives, not only in the Government, but also on the Committee, will go as far as they possibly can in the direction of justice—I say nothing of mercy—and will do all that is possible to relieve these unfortunate hard cases.

THE EARL OF DESART

My Lords, may I say two words upon this subject to supplement what has fallen from Lord Beauchamp? I sincerely hope that this matter may be discussed at a later stage when there is time to consider it in all its aspects. To-night, the debate has naturally been in the main limited to the consideration of specific cases of hardship, and my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor has made an appeal to the Government to give a wider authority to the Younger Committee to deal with them. But to my mind no aspect of this subject can be altogether satisfactory which puts aside without any discussion the policy and the propriety of the Article of the Treaty which has led to this condition of affairs. This raises a very much wider, and to my mind, a very much more important question than that of any individual case, however great the hardship involved. It may be that, in form, no breach of the hitherto accepted rules of International Law has been committed, but when I consider this procedure and its consequences, it occurs to me that the time will come when it will be very desirable that some responsible Government here should make it clear that the principle of International Law that private property on land is not confiscable may be reasserted in the clearest possible terms. Here I think I can speak for everybody who has had anything to do with International Law, and whether I accept—as I do not accept at present—the statement of my noble friend, Lord Gorell, that there has been no confiscation——

LORD GORELL

May I interrupt the noble Earl for one second? I was only quoting the Report of Lord Justice Younger's Committee.

THE EARL OF DESART

I should like it, to be made clear that this most important principle, as it appears to me, of International Law—a principle perhaps more important to us than to anybody else—shall not be tampered with and has not been affected in any way by that which has been done. I sincerely hope, therefore, that this Question may be discussed in its widest aspects at a future date.

LORD PARMOOR

I rise, with your Lordship's permission, merely to say that I entirely agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down. I never for a moment suggested that the question raised by the noble Earl was not the greater question. It was only in order to secure that these particular hardships should be put right in the shortest possible time that I confined my remarks to that aspect of the matter.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, perhaps your Lordships may expect one word from myself, as representing the Government, before this debate closes. This matter is not very familiar to me, and I do not think your Lordships will expect me to go into it in any detail, the less so since my noble and learned friend who sits behind me and the noble and learned Lord opposite have indicated that your Lordships will be asked to resume this discussion at a future date. Probably it would be convenient to leave more detailed discussion until that time. My noble and learned friend behind me, Lord Desart, has called into question the principle upon which this Article of the Treaty of Versailles proceeded. I need not say that this opens a very wide field. I am not in any way responsible for the Treaty of Versailles, and I do not pretend to be familiar with the particular provisions in question, but I would remark that to open up the policy of the Treaty of Versailles itself would lead us very far indeed, and I prefer to abstain altogether from any comment upon that side of the matter.

I need not tell your Lordships, however, that no man can hear of the cases which have been detailed by noble Lords of people who have suffered under these provisions without feeling the most profound sympathy. Of course, we feel it. Your Lordships will, however, realise the position. I am not defending the policy of the Treaty, but I take it to be this, that every pound that is remitted in the case of a German means a pound less given to an Englishman.

LORD PARMOOR

Not necessarily.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But I understand that to be the principle upon which it works. I am not defending that principle; I am merely stating it. As the matter stands, therefore, there is no doubt that the quality of mercy must be administered with great discretion lest hardship be inflicted on the other side. Whether we ought to have been placed in that dilemma or not is a question which would bring me back again to the larger consideration which I am abstaining from discussing, but that appears to be the dilemma that the noble Lord opposite puts to the House. I agree that these matters appeal to us, and I can only tell noble Lords that if I can reassure them by saying that I will myself try to make inquiries into the working of this procedure, I will give them that assurance. I will do all that I can. I cannot promise more. These things are very pathetic, and I wish that they had never occurred.

House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.