§ LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to call attention to the recommendations contained in the Report recently issued by the Committee appointed to consider the release of the property of ex-enemy aliens in necessitous circumstances, and to move to resolve, That before carrying out, or further carrying out, these recommendations His Majesty's Government will take steps to submit that Report for the sanction of Parliament.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ought perhaps to apologise to your Lordships for reverting to this subject at so early a date after it was last discussed in this House on March 6. My excuse must be the very serious importance of this question to British creditors. If the recommendations of this Committee are carried out in full it will mean a loss to British creditors of £4,000,000, and a diminution in the dividends that they will receive of from 2s. to 2s. 6d. in the £. Let us remember that some of these creditors are very poor people who can ill afford to lose this amount off their claims. There is, so far as I know, no 898 fund whatever available for making good the loss of £4,000,000 which the release of this property will involve. While, doubtless, we should be careful not to inflict undue hardship upon German subjects, we should, I think, be at least as careful—possibly more so—to avoid inflicting undeserved hardships upon our own countrymen. I shall confine my remarks, and will compress them as much as I can, to the case of German property, and will not go into the question of ex-enemy countries generally.
§ Let me first of all dispose of a not unimportant aspect, of the question. It has been asserted in some quarters that to appropriate Germany property in order to pay British creditors is in the nature of a confiscation of private property. I shall show your Lordships in a very few words that that is an entire misapprehension. I am not at all sure that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Parmoor, in his moments of greater freedom, did not fall into this heresy.
§ LORD PARMOORI did.
§ LORD DANESFORTWe have the accused confessing his sins. I hope now that he is in a position of greater responsibility he will renounce that heresy, and admit at any rate that he was wrong. Perhaps I may be permitted in a few words to convince him that he is wrong. What are the real facts? On the conclusion of peace there was a very largo sum in the hands of the German Government, which represented property of British subjects in Germany that had been impounded by the Germans. There were also very large amounts of money due by Germans in Germany to British subjects. On the other hand, there was a considerable sum—I do not know the precise figure—in this country representing German property which had been impounded here, and there were also considerable debts due from British subjects to German creditors. What the Treaty of Versailles did, in Articles 296 and 297, was this. It said, in effect: "We will not transmit British money from Germany to this country to pay British creditors, nor will we transmit Gorman money from this country to pay German creditors." What it did was this. It set up a sort of clearing house, and the effect was that German money in this country was made available for 899 the payment of British creditors, and British money in Germany was made available for the payment of German creditors. A system of mutual credits and debits was set up, and that was a clear and reasonable arrangement, according with ordinary commercial practice when debtors in one country owe money to creditors in another country.
The next step was this. In order to carry out the arrangements contained in the Treaty of Versailles Orders in Council were issued in this country, the effect of which was to charge the property of Germans in this country with the payment of claims made by British creditors in this country, and also compensating British subjects fox the property which had been impounded in Germany. But there was a most important provision of the Treaty in Article 297. The effect of that was that Germany undertook to compensate its own nationals in respect of any property of theirs which was impounded in this country. The arrangement contained in the Treaty, as I have sought to describe it, was absolutely fair and reasonable. If I wanted additional proof of this I could not do better than refer your Lordships to the statement of a high authority on this subject, the former Lord Justice Younger, now Lord Blanesburgh. In a Report which he made on May 5, 1922, you will find his words as follow:
This principle is not really open to serious criticism even at the hands of a purist in international morality.He was referring to the principle in the Treaty which I have indicated. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, having heard that expression of opinion, will abandon his former heresy. If other proof were required, I should find it in the distinguished person of Mr. Justice Romer, who had a case before him which involved consideration of Austrian property that had been dealt with in precisely the same way under the Austrian Treaty that Germany property has been dealt with under the Treaty of Versailles. Mr. Justice Romer examined the whole working out of this system most carefully, and said that no confiscation of Austrian property was intended or effected.I pass from that preliminary to a very important consideration. I have shown, I hope, that the original arrangement was just, and I now ask your Lordships to 900 follow what happened upon that Treaty. It was felt that it was a hardship in certain cases to adhere to the literal terms of the Treaty and the Orders in Council, and that it would be proper, in cases of hardship, to release German property from the charge provided for in the Treaty. Let me give one illustration. Take the case of a woman who was a German only by virtue of having married a German. She is a poor woman living in this country, and is technically of German nationality. She might really have all her sympathies and interests in this country, and have had sons who fought on our side in the war. I think the charge would be a hardship in a case like that. Consequently the Board of Trade set up a Committee, of which the Chairman was the then Lord Justice. Younger. Power was given to the Committee, in proper cases, to release German property from this charge.
It is to be noted that the power of release given to that Committee originally was of a very limited character. It was limited by the express instructions of the Board of Trade; and those instructions were carried out quite properly by the Younger Committee, and are being carried out now. But the point I wish to urge at the moment is this. The amount of the German property that was released under those instructions of the Board of Trade was exceedingly small. I have the figures here. It was about £372,000 out of a total Gorman property of over £100,000,000, so that the proportion released was exceedingly small. Last year representations were made from various sources that the existing powers of release possessed by the Younger Committee were too small, and that there were other eases in which they ought to release property, but in which they had no power to do so. Accordingly, in August last year, the Board of Trade asked the Younger Committee to advise the Government in these terms—
What extension, if any, of the power to release ex-enemy property can be made in cases of special merit and with due regard to the claims thereon of British subjects.Your Lordships will notice the wordscases of special merit and with due regard to the claims thereon of British subjects.And it must be remembered that to whatever extent you release this property from German claims to that extent, 901 pound for pound, you diminish the rights of British creditors. If you release Gorman property of £4,000,000 you destroy the rights of British creditors to the extent of £4,000,000. Some of these British creditors were very poor men. May I call your attention to the case of British seamen who were in German ports on July 31, 1914? Although war had not been declared these men were most wrongfully and improperly interned by the German Government. They were deprived of their means of livelihood and they suffered great losses. Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles these sailors are, entitled to compensation, and they are entitled to compensation out, of this very fund which is now being released. Most unfortunately, the fund available for the payment of British creditors is already deficient by millions of pounds and there are British creditors who have received no more than 7s. 6d. in the £ of their claims.What happened in answer to this request of the Board of Trade? The Younger Committee brought out a Report in December last. Within a week, or at least within ten days, of the present Government coming into office they adopted every syllable of that Report without alteration. It is a very elaborate Report and requires great consideration, and I cannot believe—perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will tell me—that before this Report was adopted en bloc, by the Government they had time to consider all the recommendations in it and all the results which those recommendations involve. I wish to say at once that some of their recommendations are reasonable, but some of them are quite unreasonable. The general effect is that if the Report is carried out to the full, to the maxima of the releases recommended, it will cost British creditors £4,000,000. In other words, it will release eleven times as much German property as has been released in all the period up to the present.
What is the excuse given by the Committee for releasing this German property? They say that the Treaty of Versailles and the Orders in Council were originally quite reasonable, but that, owing to the default of the German Government in carrying out the obligations of the Treaty and compensating their nationals, it is unreasonable to keep 902 this German property for the payment of British creditors. If you want an answer to that argument I know of no place where it can be found more effectively than in the Third Annual Report of the Controller of the Clearing House an official who knows everything of what has happened. He deals with this point and says, in effect, that the reason, and the only reason, why Germans are suffering any hardships at all is that the German Government have wilfully and unjustifiably broken the conditions of the Treaty. By the Treaty of Versailles the German Government ought to have collected debts due from their own nationals in Germany to British creditors. They would then have had a fund available for compensating their own nationals for property which was seized in this country.
What did Germany do? They broke the Treaty. In some cases they did not attempt to collect the debts due from German creditors, and in many cases they did what appears to me a far more dishonest thing: they allowed their German creditors to pay debts due in sterling to British creditors in depreciated marks. The Controller of the Clearing House gives an instance in which a German debtor got £50,000 in British money to enable him to build a factory. That German debtor ought to have paid that £50,000 in sterling, but the German Government allowed him to repay his debt in depreciated marks; and the whole of them were worth about a halfpenny. In other words, he got rid of a debt of £50,000 by paying one half-penny, and to complete the extraordinary character of this transaction the German debtor was allowed to retain the factory which he had built with £50,000 of British money and keep it as his own. I think I have said enough to show that if there are hardships, and no doubt there are, it is due entirely to the wilful and unjustifiable action of the German Government. I wish that those who have sympathy, and there are many, with Germans who are suffering hardship would make a protest and appeal to the German Government to keep the provisions of the Treaty and thereby get rid of the hardships to their own nationals.
I am not going into the details of this Report. If your Lordships will allow me, I will call attention very shortly to one or two of what I conceive to be the more 903 unreasonable provisions of the Report. I have already said that some of its provisions are quite reasonable. If your Lordships will look at the cover of the Report you will find that this is the Report of the Committee appointed "to advise upon applications for the release of property of ex-enemy aliens in necessitous circumstances." But when I turn to the inside of the Report, I find, on page 9, that, although the. Committee recommend eleven different kinds of release, there are only two out of those eleven cases in which they say that necessitous circumstances are even to be taken into account at all. In other words, in nine out of eleven recommendations you are not to consider whether the man to be relieved is wealthy or poor. That appears to me to require some explanation, and perhaps my noble friend who is going to answer will explain why it is thought necessary to release the property of wealthy Germans to the detriment of poor British creditors.
May I give your Lordships one illustration of the recommendations which do not appear to me to be reasonable? Your Lordships will find it on page 10 of the Report, in paragraph 21. The Committee recommend, "in the case of British subjects who have become German nationals by marriage "—these of course are women—"but are not permanently resident in this country," a power of release of £5,000 of their capital and a power of release of the whole of their income. Just see how that would work out. A British woman marries a German living in Germany. By German law, as well as by English law, she becomes a German. She may never have come back to England, she may be entirely German in sympathy and interests, her sons and her husband may have been conscripted and may have fought against us in the war, and her husband may be a man of great riches, for you are not to consider necessitous circumstances at all. And yet you are to give her that £5,000 of capital and to release the whole of her income, to the prejudice of British creditors, who may be very poor. How is that to be justified? I think His Majesty's Government ought, at any rate, to have given some consideration to that recommendation before they adopted the whole thing en bloc. I shall be told that the Committee would not grant the release in a case like that. It 904 may be so, but if so, why do they ask for power to release in a case like that? I do not think it ought to be permitted.
There are other recommendations of the Report which appear to me to be just as wrong and just as unjustifiable, but I do not think I should be justified at this hour in troubling your Lordships with them. The only other point to which I wish to refer is with regard to the terms of the Motion which, having regard to the character of this Report, I desire to move, and the reason why I urge that, before carrying out these recommendations, His Majesty's Government should take steps to submit the Report for the sanction of Parliament. I venture to think that so great an inroad upon the Treaty rights of British creditors ought not to be made without some sanction of Parliament in some way obtained. Technically, no doubt, under the Order in Council which imposed the charge, the Board of Trade have the power to grant the releases, and it may be right that, where the amounts of the releases, as in a number of cases, were very small, the Department should not have thought it necessary to come to Parliament. But when you are going to have a wholesale release of this sort, a release of £4,000,000 of money, with effects which I have described, I do urge that this is a case in which the Department should not act upon its own authority. There are many eases where a Department has technically a right to do something where great issues are involved, but where Departments act wisely in getting the sanction of Parliament. To do otherwise would appear to me to be an abuse of bureaucratic power and contrary to our institutions.
If you were going to impose a tax of £4,000,000, which had to come out of the pockets of the taxpayers, you would, of course, both by law and by custom, have to get the sanction of Parliament. In the present case you are going to take £4,000,000 out of the pockets, not of the whole of the taxpayers of this country, but of a section of the taxpayers, and I say that in a case like that it is only reasonable that you should bring the matter before Parliament. If Parliament agrees, well and good. Parliament may think that in such a case as this it may be well to provide from some other source a fund to make good the £4,000,000 905 which are taken from British creditors. On the other hand, if Parliament thinks that in certain cases these recommendations are beyond what is right, beyond what is reasonable, beyond what is just to the British creditor, I venture to think that Parliament ought to be consulted in order that it may express its views upon a subject so deeply affecting a large section of our population.
Move to resolve, That before carrying out, or further carrying out, the recommendations contained in the. Report recently issued by the Committee appointed to consider the release of the property of ex-enemy aliens in necessitous circumstances, His Majesty's Government will take steps to submit that Report for the sanction of Parliament.—(Lord Danesfort.)
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, I think that the noble Lord has been under a misapprehension on one or two points, and probably he is not cognisant of the many times this matter has been discussed in your Lordships' House. Let me begin with the form in which he put his Resolution upon the Paper. It is to the effect that the matter which is dealt with in the Report of Lord Blanesburgh's Committee should be submitted to the sanction of Parliament. I do not know if the noble Lord is aware of the powers under which the Board of Trade acts in this case, and has acted twice already, in 1921 and 1922, without any question. I should like to read the words, because it is all-important that, in a matter of this kind, the power which has been given to the Board of Trade should be really understood. I do not think the noble Lord has quite given weight to the provision.
I dare say he knows that in 1919 these matters were reserved in the ordinary case for the Crown to deal with, which, of course, meant the Government for the time being. This arrangement was right as regards Treaty terms and under the Order which was made in connection with the Treaty Act, but it was slightly altered later, and the provision at present in force—I dare say the noble Lord is familiar with it—is this:—
Provided that any particular property rights or interests so charged—906 that is, the interests to which the noble Lord is referring—may at any time be released by the custodian, acting under the general direction of the Board of Trade, from the charge so created.That is the specific power given by Parliament to the Board of Trade.I will deal presently with the figures, because I think the noble Lord was inaccurate concerning them. I admit it is very difficult to get thorn accurately. What is his suggestion? Whereas a matter of Treaty right between the nationals of two countries has been specifically referred to the Board of Trade for direction and application, he seeks to alter this by substituting Parliament. It is a Treaty right between the nationals of two countries that these matters should be settled by the Board of Trade. That Treaty right has been twice exercised, because the appointment of Lord Justice Younger's Committee was made as long ago as 1920, and it has been practically in session ever since. Twice the powers given to it have been slightly altered and increased, and this is the third time in which a further recommendation was made by Lord Justice Younger's Committee, not on instructions from the present Government but on instructions from the late Government.
§ LORD DANESFORTMay I interrupt the noble and learned Lord for one moment. There is nothing whatever in the Treaty as to the Board of Trade, or as to the release of enemy property at all.
§ LORD PARMOORThe words are in the Order in Council made under the Treaty. The Treaty itself could not be operated without the Statute. It is because these powers were in the Treaty, dealing with property which otherwise could not have been dealt with, that the Treaty Act had to be passed When the Treaty Act was passed it was passed so that Orders in Council might be made, and those Orders, when made, dealing with this property, had the same force as an Act of Parliament. No one has questioned that. That has been twice done. Lord Justice Younger's Committee has been in operation throughout the whole time. If that is so, I would suggest to the noble Lord that to transfer to Parliament the powers which have been reserved by the Treaty Act, and the 907 Orders made under it, to the special jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, would be nothing more or less than a breach of faith. It is a thing which has never been suggested in any of the numerous discussions which we have had in this House. Of course, the two matters are entirely different. I am sure that if the noble Lord would bring his jurist's mind to bear he would see at once that his proposal is impossible, so long as you bear in mind what the terms of the Treaty really are.
Now let me deal with the other point. I think the noble Lord is under some misapprehension as regards figures. I am not now going into the question whether, not as a matter of international law but as a matter of municipal law, this was an unfortunate measure. I have expressed my opinion and I am not in the least likely to alter it. Let us take things as they stand. As the noble Lord knows, there are two headings—namely "Debts" and "Property, rights and interests." I think the Articles are 296 and 297. So far as debts are concerned it is a question between private individuals. At the present moment the amount of debts which have been paid to English claimants is £44,170,000. The outstanding amount is £l2,675,000. There is £18,500,000 cash in hand besides other assets and probabilities, and, as pointed out by Lord Justice Younger, now Lord Blanesburgh, who went into all these things in detail, there is no question whatever, under the head of debts, of any English claimant being deprived of a single farthing.
Now let us come to what were called proceeds of liquidation. £19,000,000 has already been paid, but the outstanding amount is £4,500,000, and there are certain claims for what is called compensation. It will be within the knowledge of many members of this House that claims for compensation, when you get, to close quarters, are generally very much scaled down. You are not dealing with an actual property or with an actual debt, but you are dealing with suggested damages, and what Lord Blanesburgh said is that the maximum possible to which compensation claims might be affected would be from 2s. to 2d. 6d. in the £ At the same time he indicates that in his view they are extremely unlikely to be affected at all. To begin with there is the strong fact 908 that these claims cannot be made for a very long time, and 50 per cent. of them cannot be brought forward at all. It is conceivably possible, if the whole of these compensation claims, without any deduction, have to be met, and every other possible supposition is made, compensation claims might suffer to the extent I have mentioned, but, as Lord Blanesburgh says, be considers that a negligible factor. He considers it a matter hardly worth consideration, whereas on the other hand his Committee have come to the conclusion that claims ought to be met, and should be met, under the heads referred to them.
These claims are contained under the heads submitted to him by Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, for His Majesty's late Government. They are with respect to claimants who are of British birth or origin; claimants resident in Great Britain before the war and permitted at its close either to remain or to return there; claimants who, although ex-enemy nationals, are also British subjects; and claimants to funds of British origin or which represent earnings or savings from earnings made in this country, who, though not themselves of British origin, can reasonably be considered, owing to exceptional circumstances, to be entitled to special consideration. In each case a discretion is left with the tribunal, and if the tribunal thinks that in any particular case that discretion ought not to be exercised it will not exercise it.
There is one other matter. When this matter was referred to this tribunal with its special expert knowledge, it was told that there had been added to its terms of reference the following reference:
To advise, with due regard to the claims thereon of British subjects under the Treaty of Peace.Therefore, the very matter of which the noble Lord complains was one of the things specially referred to the Committee and which the Committee had in mind when they made their recommendations. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with what I have said. I do not think the matter could possibly be determined in the way which he proposes in his Resolution, and I do not think the Board of Trade could have taken any other action than that of adopting the recommendations which Lord Blanesburgh and his Committee made after very careful consideration.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMMy Lords, I am not sure that I quite understand the answer given by the noble and learned Lord. I understood him first to say that the power exercised to the Board of Trade is given by the Treaty—
§ LORD PARMOORBy an Order made under the Treaty Act, which was to be equivalent to a Statute.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM—and that, that being so, it was not open to Parliament to criticise the action of the Board of Trade because they had already got that power. That is a new doctrine to me—that Parliament may not criticise an administrative act because the Department in question has got power to do that which it has done. If that is to be a new doctrine. I really do not quite see what is the use of either House of Parliament.
§ LORD PARMOORI say that it is a Treaty right, which is a different thing altogether.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMIf it is in accordance with the Treaty that is a different thing, but I understand my noble friend behind me (Lord Danesfort) to say it is not in accordance with the Treaty, and I understood the noble and learned Lord himself to say that it was not in the Treaty, or not in accordance with the Treaty, but that it arose under an Order in Council, which has nothing whatever to do with the Treaty. In these circumstanees I can only repeat that it seems to me that the chief function of Parliament, which I always though was to criticise the Government in its administration of the affairs of the country, might be done away with if we are to say that, because a Department has the power to do certain things, nothing is to be said about it. Then, am I right in believing that the noble Lord said it was impossible for any British creditor to he deprived of his right? Because, if that is so, if every British creditor is going to be paid, then I do not quite see—
§ LORD DANESFORTOh, no.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMThere, again, there seems to be some difference of opinion between my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord 910 opposite. Then the noble and learned Lord said that he did not think that more than 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the £ was likely to be paid.
§ LORD PARMOORLikely not, to be paid. That is to say, that the creditor would not be likely to suffer to the extent of more than 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the £. I do not know that he would suffer at all, but that is the maximum possible.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMIf he would not suffer I do not see what is the use of talking about 2s. in the £. He either would suffer or he would not. If he did suffer, if it was only 2s. 6d. in the £ I must say that I agree with my noble friend, and I really do not see why we should deprive an English creditor of any sum whatever in order to give it to Germans, who, in my opinion, do not deserve any consideration at all.
LORD GORELLMy Lords, I do not quite understand the object of the noble Lords, one of when has moved and the other supported this Resolution. Both noble Lords have, I think, come to your Lordships' House this year, and no reference has been made hitherto to the very numerous debates which have already taken place upon this subject. In fact, when I had the honour to speak on behalf of the Coalition Government in answer to a very similar proposition, I was pressed from all sides of the House to give a greater degree of consideration to the extraordinarily hard cases which were quoted in support. And it was not then sufficiently proved how hard the cases were, but the Coalition Government was so much pressed, and so many cases were proved against it, that it yielded in some degree, and the same thing happened last year with the Conservative Government. Now we have a very lengthy statement made rehearsing the whole of that past history as if all your Lordships were in ignorance of it, and no reference was made to the vote which your Lordships' House carried, against the wishes of the then Government, that large further releases should be made. I think if this Resolution is to be pressed to a Division, at any rate it should be within the recollection of your Lordships that you have already decided this principle, and decided it contrary to the spirit of this Resolution.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, it is only on a technical point that I wish to say a word. The terms of the Treaty I have distinctly within my recollection. Then there came a Statute for giving effect to the Treaty, and an Order in Council was made under the Statute. Under that Order in Council the Board of Trade were furnished with powers to deal with this matter in the way they have done—that is to say, by delegating it to a Committee, which was the Younger Committee. That was done by the late Government, and it has been entirely concurred in by the present Government. It is not a matter about which, so far as I can see, there is any legal question. It was an administrative act done within his statutory powers by the President of the Board of Trade under the late Administration, and followed up by the President of the Board of Trade under the present Administration.
Whatever you may say about the exercise of discretion on the part of the Minister, this is a matter about which there can be no question as to legality. They are all in the same position as regards this, and, speaking for myself, I am not prepared to censure any President of the Board of Trade for the action he has taken in putting his legal powers into force. I entirely agree with what was done by the President of the Board of Trade under the late, Government, who appointed the Younger Committee, and I am entirely in favour of the present President of the Board of Trade pursuing the same beneficent course. But, as to the legality, I can see nothing in the point. If it is desired to raise the question of the exercise of the discretion, it should be by a direct criticism of the action of the President of the Board of Trade in exercising the powers which Parliament conferred upon him.
§ THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy Lords, I am not qualified to enter into the legal aspect of the case, and I have no doubt that the exact state of the law has been correctly described by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I regard the matter rather from the point of view of policy and expediency. I think there has been some misunderstanding on both aspects of the case. Nor is that surprising when we observe the somewhat difficult and technical character of the whole matter 912 that we are discussing. As I understand, the object of my noble friend behind ma (Lord Danesfort)—and I think he was entirely justified in raising the matter—was to place before the House his views upon certain aspects of the Report, certain recommendations made in the Report, and the action that has been, or is likely to be, taken upon them In that I think he was entirely justified, and in some respects I think he will have obtained a certain amount of satisfaction, as I did, from the reply of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council.
I think my noble friend behind me (Lord Banbury of Southam) was not quite justified in saying that the reply giver by Lord Parmoor constituted any refusal on the part of the Government to admit the fullest right of criticism on this side of the House or in any part of the House—criticism either of the Report of the Committee or of the administrative action to be taken by the Government upon it. And, indeed, we have had the amplest and fullest measure of criticism from my noble friends to-night. The only question which concerns me, whether they be or be not satisfied with the discussion that has taken place, is whether it is desirable that your Lordships should pass the Motion with which the Notice given by Lord Danesfort concludes. I am disposed to think that it would be, on the whole, unwise to do so for two reasons. In the first place, the proposal is, in my view, a very novel one. I am not certain that either House of Parliament is in the habit of requiring His Majesty's Government to submit a Report for sanction to Parliament before it acts upon it. Reports are constantly submitted for the discussion of Parliament, but to say that Parliament by a formal vote must sanction the Report of the Committee before any action is taken upon it seems to me to go a good deal outside the functions which Governments ordinarily pursue.
The other point which I would submit to my noble friend is this. It is not a very wise thing for either House of Parliament to pass a Motion which it cannot carry into effect. If we were to carry the Motion of my noble friend the House of Commons would also have to be considered, and until the House of Commons passed a similar Motion the action of the Government would not be 913 suspended in the matter. Should not we place ourselves in really a ridiculous position if we passed a Motion here which the House of Commons then proceeded to ignore, with the only result that we should proclaim our impotence to the world? I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be satisfied with the explanation that has been given, and will not think it necessary to proceed to a Division on the Motion he has made.
§ LORD DANESFORTMy Lords, in view of what has been said by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.