Lords Sitting of 11 July 1927

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PEERAGES IN ABEYANCE.

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  His Majesty's reply to the Address of Thursday last reported by the Earl of Shaftesbury as follows:—
  "I have received your Address submitting certain recommendations with a view to some limitation being placed on claims to Peerages in abeyance. I will comply with your advice and will issue directions in accordance therewith."

SMALL AND COTTAGE HOLDINGS REGULATIONS.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, it will be within your recollection that a short time ago I raised the question of certain Regulations that were laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House not being available to Peers, because there was only one copy of the Regulations and that was upon the Table. I pointed out then that fourteen days had already elapsed and there were only seven days in which the Regulations could be dealt with before they would come into force, and that in these circumstances there was no proper opportunity for dealing with them. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House informed me that he would look into the question himself and make some statement later on. I therefore desire to ask him now whether he has any statement to make in regard to the matter.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for mentioning this matter. In accordance with my promise I have taken a great deal of trouble about it. I think it is very important that the right of your Lordships to object to Regulations which have been laid on the Table should be safeguarded. The facts are very much as the noble Lord has stated them. These particular Regulations were only laid in manuscript
288
and there were no copies available to Peers who wanted to have them. That, I think—and your Lordships will think—was not a real compliance with the Statute. I believe it was done by inadvertence. No attention having been called on previous occasions to these Regulations, the practice had slipped into an irregular one, but I am able to assure the House that it shall never occur again. The Department desire me to express their apologies to your Lordships that it has occurred and to say that in future printed copies will be available for Peers the moment the Paper is laid.
There remains to deal with this particular case. There are now printed copies available, but, as the noble Lord has very properly said, the time has largely expired during which these Regulations have to be laid before they become law. In those circumstances I have to consider what can be done. I hope your Lordships will not insist upon the Papers being relaid, because if that occurs, and if the time were to begin to run again, it might be that we should not be able to conclude the business before the Recess and that would throw the whole thing over till the autumn. But I am able to give this assurance to the noble Lord, that if he moves—I hope he will not—that your Lordships should not agree with the Regulations, no technical point will be taken; so far as the Department are concerned they will treat it exactly as if the objection had been taken during the currency of the time. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied that I have done all in my power to put the matter right.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, may I say that I have heard with complete satisfaction what has been done in this matter.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMA- TION (No. 12) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
S. 1. of 9 & 10 Geo. 5 c. 92. to be permanent.
1. So much of Section one of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, or any Act extending the duration of that section, as limits the duration of that section shall cease to have effect; and, accordingly, the enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert "Section one of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, shall be continued in force for a period of two years from the date of the passing of this Act, and." The noble and learned Lord said: The intention and what would be the result of my Amendment is to limit the permanency of this Bill to a period of two years. I selected the period of two years because I think it met, and adequately met, any possible complaint as regards time which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, on the occasion of the Second Reading. Your Lordships are aware that the Second Reading of this Bill took place some time ago—rather more than two months ago—and therefore I think it necessary to say a word or two in general explanation in order that your Lordships may appreciate what my Amendment really means. Your Lordships know that in 1914—I am only going to give those dates in history which are necessary—an Emergency Bill was passed with everyone's assent. It was said to be a Bill suitable for a time of war or of imminent national danger or of great emergency. No one questions the necessity of a Bill of the kind at such a time.
Then, in 1919, what I may call the special emergency conditions were taken out of the Act, but it was provided that the Act itself could only remain in force
290
for one year. I do not care to discuss antiquarian matters of former opinions. I think everyone ought to be able to change his opinions when conditions change. But the opinion of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, were quoted last time by Lord Phillimore, and their opinion at any rate at that moment—I do not care, and I think it would be unjust, to go beyond that—was that the Act should be temporary in its character, and not permanent. As a matter of fact the Act was to endure for one year. Then, from time to time under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, it has been re-enacted for the last eight years or so, and now it is proposed to make it permanent. I noticed that when the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, was dealing with this matter, he seemed to think it was more or less a small matter of official routine. That was what I gathered from his speech and I read it again the other day to make sure that I was accurate. Whether that is so or not, however, this Bill really raises a question of very important principle and in considering it we cannot put that out of sight. That is one of the main reasons why I am asking your Lordships not to make it permanent, but to re-enact it for two years only. Then, when the time comes, all the difficulties which were suggested can be considered anti it can be determined whether the Act shall be retained or not.
There are two classes of Regulations—I am taking the last issue of the Regulations, in 1920—to which I should take exception if they were to be of a permanent character. The first class refers to the immigration of aliens. There is not what is called the right of asylum in this country—we are all agreed about that if by right of asylum you mean legal right of asylum—but as a matter of fact, for a great number of years right of asylum has been customarily allowed and encouraged, both from a general point of view and also as regards religious and racial persecution. I need not go into that because my noble friend Lord Gainford—I do not think he is here this evening—in his speech on the last occasion quoted a passage from Magna Charta, which was of importance not only as indicating the view held in 1215 but the view which has been followed consistently

291
ever since, with very few variations, if any at all. A more important matter, which was pointed out by Lord Phillimore, is the question of deportation. I want to be very certain how this matter stands. I am not now referring to what are called undesirable aliens. If you want—perhaps I should not agree to it—to enlarge the definition of "undesirable alien" there is plenty of time to do anything of that kind during the two years for which I think the Bill might be re-enacted.
I should take up far too much of your Lordships' time if I tried to state the number of times this matter has been brought to my notice as regards the evil of deportation, the hardship of deportation, the harshness of it and also the unfairness of men of really unblemished character who have been carrying on their businesses here for a very large number of years being subjected to the constant possibility of deportation under the conditions of the Regulations. Under the Regulations it is provided that the Home Secretary for the time being shall have full discretionary power. There has been a series of cases in which it has been attempted to get the Courts to intervene, as they would do under conditions of habeas corpus and conditions of that kind, but it has always been held—and I think rightly as the Act now stands—that this is an absolute discretionary power in the hands of the Executive which no one and no Court has any right either to question or to interfere with. It is exactly that sort of power which, if we look back at the history of the gradual evolution of what we call our rights and liberties, we have consistently refused to give to any executive officer in this country, and quite rightly, because it embodies a right of the executive power to which we have always been opposed.
I should like in one or two sentences to ask your Lordships to consider what this means. A man may be condemned to what is often social ostracism, to being turned out of his home or business, without any right of being heard at all. That is contrary to the whole spirit of our Common Law. He can be turned out without knowing who has made the accusation, or what its nature is. That is inequitable by every test that we can apply, and it is particularly bad at a time when we know that, although the War
292
has ended, the spy system has not yet come to an end. He is not allowed to be heard and he has no right to call any evidence from friends who might vouch for him. Having been condemned in that way, he is imprisoned right off and deported, perhaps to some country of which he may be nominally a national, but in which he has never lived and of which he does not adequately know the language. This effects a very serious break up of family life in which many British men, women and children are immediately implicated. Can that sort of procedure be really justified when all question of emergency has passed away? It was never known in the past, and is quite novel. I will not repeat the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane on that point. If we look back through our history at the international intercourse and international trade that have been of enormous benefit to us, both on the scientific side and practically, as in the introduction of weaving and matters of that kind, we see the importance of encouraging international intercourse and its effect on trade conditions.
What is the right principle to apply? What is the principle of the Common Law? I am glad to see that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, is here. I wish to refer to a well-known decision that he gave when a full Court of Appeal was brought together to consider this matter. I refer to the Freudenberg case. I should like everyone to read that decision. It pointed out perfectly accurately that the principle that has always been followed, apart from special provisions or regulations of this kind, in regard to an alien against whom nothing can be said in the sense that he is doing any harm or is undesirable, is that exactly the same civil rights are enjoyed by him as by any other British subject in this country. He has the right to be used in the same way. He is considered to be here by our invitation, and he is entitled not to be condemned without being heard, to know the nature of the accusation made against him and to be brought face to face with his accusers. If there is any doubt whether the proper Common Law procedure has been adopted, he has the fundamental safeguard of habeas corpus, which goes to the foundation of our right to a decision at law as against a mere executive or administrative decision.
In those circumstances, surely it is sufficient that you should have two years, if necessary, before proceeding further. It is not only individual instances that matter, though they are often very harsh indeed. I should like to recall for a moment what one so often heard at Geneva, that this treatment of aliens does not further the international spirit which is really essential for the re-erection of our trade interests and industrial organisation. In the Economic Conference at Geneva, under the Chairmanship of M. Theusis, who was Belgian Prime Minister during the War, nothing has been so much brought to the front as the fact that, if you want international peace, you must get rid of these sources of international friction and disturbance, which do no good to anybody. If there is a real reason for this action, that is a different matter; but I am taking the case of an alien against whom nothing can be said. There is one instance that will probably be known to my noble friend Lord Desborough, and I do not wish to go into it in detail. I refer to the case of Dr. Oscar Levy, which was very much discussed. I have a letter before me on this point, but I do not think it necessary to read it now. I merely give the case as an illustration. Here was a man of the highest scientific acquirements, one who held a position which everyone recognised and who happened to be a particular friend of Lord Roberts. He does not know to this day what the accusation was on which he was condemned unheard, and he has never had a chance of seeing what his accusers said against him. Such eases as this are terribly hard. It is not only a question of poor governesses, to whom Lord Newton referred, although they are included with the others and suffer a great deal by ostracism of this kind.
I have only one more word to say. There are other Amendments upon the Paper, one in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, and the other in that of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. In my view neither of those Amendments is in any way inconsistent with that which I am moving, and when the time comes I shall certainly support them with my vote, though I shall not trouble your Lordships by speaking again. Lord Phillimore deals particularly with the hardships of deportation,
294
and Lord Rothschild with the hardships of depriving a man of particular religious views or racial idiosyncrasies of the asylum that was to be found here in old days, and was always regarded as expressing to the world the power of liberty and free action enjoyed in this country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, at the beginning insert ("Section one of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, shall be continued in force for a period of two years from the date of the passing of this Act, and").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: In rising to oppose this Amendment, it is no part of my duty to embark upon another Second Reading speech. I have already dealt with some of the topics raised by my noble friend opposite, but I am sure that his Amendment cuts right across the decision that your Lordships arrived at when this Bill came before the House for Second Reading. You then decided, by a majority of 58 to 20, that this provision should be made permanent; and, indeed, the whole object of the Bill is to make permanent the system that has been extraordinarily successful during the seven years in which it has been in operation. There have been very few complaints, and the position of the Government is that they believe that the time has now arrived when, instead of reviewing these provisions from year to year, they should make them permanent, as they have been adapted to the peace conditions that happily prevail and have been very successful. Certainly the Government would not come before Parliament for a renewal for two years of a law which they could renew (and have renewed during the past year) for one year, and it seems to me that the Amendment of my noble friend is absolutely contrary to what was adopted by your Lordships when the Bill came up for Second Reading. As to the right of asylum, on which the noble Lord opposite touched during a good part of his speech, there is no such right.
LORD PARMOOR: That is what I said.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Therefore I am repeating what has been said by my noble friend, but I rather gathered from what Lord Haldane said on the Second Reading that there was some idea that

295
there was a right of asylum in this country for people from other countries. Each country has sovereign rights of its own and can either withhold or grant these rights to the subjects of foreign countries. There is nothing new in the law of our country in that respect. What the Government are afraid of, and what they know from personal knowledge, is that there are at the present time hundreds of thousands of people living in less ordered countries than our own, who are anxious to come in and receive those benefits which a stable Government gives and which they do not enjoy in their own country.
It is very difficult to distinguish between two classes of undesirable immigrants—namely, those who are undesirable either from disease or indigence and those who are undesirable from their numbers and who, if they came here, would compete very unfairly in industries which are already over-stocked. At the present time we have a very dense population in this country. I think I have already said on a previous occasion that there are 483 persons to the square mile. There are over 1,000,000 persons unemployed. We have very great housing difficulties and very high taxation, and at the present time it is the firm belief of the Government that it would be a misfortune to this country if the doors were thrown open wide enough to admit all those people in my noble friend's category, against whom there is nothing of a personal character to be urged, but who would come into this country and compete with those who are here already in over-stocked markets, and for whom there are no houses.
It is true that this Bill would give the Home Secretary powers of discrimination. It would give him powers to admit or powers to refuse immigration to this country, but I must say that those powers have already been exercised with the most scrupulous care and that hitherto there have been very few complaints. At the ports there are immigration authorities. If immigrants desire to land here and take up business in this country, their cases are immediately referred to the Ministry of Labour and afterwards are finally adjudicated upon by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is perfectly willing to accept this responsibility, which he acknowledges is a very great one. At the same time, he is willing
296
and desirous that in any particular case your Lordships or anybody else should bring the facts to his cognisance. He takes a personal interest in the matter. It is his one desire to see that no harm is done to the proposed immigrants, or to this country, through the exclusion of any one whose presence here would be useful and would be good for the country. The safeguard that one has in this matter is that these difficult, onerous and very responsible duties are carried out by a responsible Minister of the Crown, whose actions can always be brought before Parliament, and who courts every inquiry, and who is always willing, as are those who work under him, to give every possible relaxation in those cases where a relaxation of the rules is proved to be necessary.
There were two cases to which the noble Lord who spoke just now has alluded. One was a case brought up by Lord Phillimore, and I hope that the Home Office have met that case satisfactorily.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Quite satisfactorily.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Another case was that brought forward by my noble friend Lord Haldane. I do not think that that case was quite so satisfactory. It was a case in which a certain restaurant proprietor in this country had employed the services, as commercial assistant, of a young lady who had come here, I think, from Germany, although the country does not matter. In that case also the Ministry of Labour made careful inquiry. This person had landed under the excuse that she was going to learn English in this country. She was given a temporary permit, after which she obtained occupation with this particular gentleman, and the case was brought before the Ministry of Labour. I think in that case they decided that she was not qualified, and also that this particular restaurant keeper had not made sufficient inquiry as to whether he could get commercial assistance from those already in this country; that is to say, either from resident English people or from among the aliens already here. Also, apparently, he was not paying the rate of wages which was current for

297
that employment. Therefore, in that case this particular lady was not allowed to remain.
With regard to the general question, the Government are emphatically of the opinion that, those Regulations having been tried for seven years and having been found to work with, I think, on the whole, most admirable smoothness, and having regard to the conditions under which we now labour (which in their opinion are not very likely to be improved within the space of two years, or for a very much longer time), they should come to Parliament and ask Parliament to make those Regulations, which have now to be renewed from year to year, of a permanent character. I do not know that I need go much more into the merits of the subject. I hope I have said sufficient to show that this Amendment does really cut at the whole root of the matter, and is absolutely contrary to the decision at which your Lordships arrived by a large majority. I, therefore, must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: We have a good deal of business before the House, and perhaps it is desirable that we should keep to the point, which is as to how far it is possible to amend this particular Bill by this particular Amendment. I confess that I find myself in somewhat of a difficulty. I can quite see that two years is a very short period, and perhaps is too short, but I dislike the idea of making this a permanent measure. The noble Lord admitted that present conditions were not likely to remain permanent. He spoke of housing. We hope that before very long there will be sufficient houses in this country for the people of this country and any aliens who may come in. Again, there is the further point that the Secretary of State is a hard-worked individual, and is quite unable to go thoroughly into all these cases. We are thinking, not of the cases which have been brought forward, but of the humble and unknown man who cannot get his case put before the Secretary of State at all. Those are the cases of which we are thinking, and I for my part would like to ask the Government, when they admit that conditions in this
298
country are not permanent, would it be possible, if they cannot agree to two years, to agree to some other period of time, and make the Bill last, say, for five or even for ten years? I can assure the noble Lord that any concession which he can make in that direction would be very warmly welcomed by us, and would, I think, be a very real improvement of the Bill. I do hope the Government will not meet us with an absolute refusal to take any steps at all in the matter.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I agree with what the noble Earl has said, but my difficulty goes still further. The noble Lord opposite said that his justification was the large vote given on the Second Reading in this House, and also the fact that the old temporary Act had worked well. It is easy to state it, it is very difficult to give evidence in support of it. Certainly the noble Lord gave us none. That there are undesirable aliens who ought to be kept out, and are kept out, is no doubt true, and, if he had asked for a Bill which would strengthen the hands of the Home Secretary in doing that, good and well, but that is what he has not asked for. He has asked to keep out all aliens, and the only mitigating part of his speech was his conclusion, from which I gather that the Home Secretary is willing to go into these cases and mitigate the application of the Act in instances where it is consistent with the public wellbeing to do so.
But I am anxious to support the Amendment of my noble friend for another reason. I do not think you are in a position to tell how much hardship you are going to inflict on the business world by this Bill. It may be that it is less than it now seems, but I think in some cases it would be very heavy. If you go and ask among the numerous class of people who give employment in London, they will tell you that for a great amount of work a foreigner is indispensable. He has a genius for it which we at home have not, and he has had a training for it which we at home have not. In Switzerland, waiters are trained for their work, cooks are trained, all sorts of people are trained. Take the case to which the noble Lord referred, the case I brought forward on the Second Reading, that of a well-known restaurant

299
keeper in London. He has to bring in food from different parts of Europe to keep up the reputation of his business, and he has employed, because he could not get anybody so adequate, a German lady. It is nonsense to say he did not pay her a good salary; he did pay her a good salary. It is nonsense to suggest that he could easily have got somebody better; she is a lady of the highest character. But the difficulty which he could not get over was this. He wanted somebody who could correspond in at least four foreign languages with the people from whom he bought his material abroad. Unfortunately, our education in this country has not reached the stage in which we provide secretaries, male or female, who can do that work, consequently this lady, who came here originally in order to complete her education in this country, and who got a permit for the purpose and was remaining here, so far undisturbed, was employed.
LORD DESBOROUGH: It was only a temporary permit, and she did not comply with the terms of that permit.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It is always temporary, and she only did not comply with it because she did not go away at the end of the time. Of course, she would have had to go away if it were insisted upon. The Ministry of Labour and the Home Office do not pay much attention to these things, they do not consider the difference in the state of knowledge on the Continent and here, and consequently she has to go. All I can say is that that is a principle which, if you apply it, will probably cause you a great deal of difficulty in this country. I do not say more than "probably," but I do urge that we should make this Bill at least of merely temporary application in order that we may see what hardship and suffering are caused by it. I believe there will be a good deal. I do not prophesy, because I do not know, but I am perfectly certain that neither the Ministry of Labour nor the Home Office know any better. This Bill is introduced in response to one of those popular agitations for keeping out the foreigner. Very well, you may yield, and when you yield without consideration you bring Nemesis, and it is because I do not want Nemesis to come, and see people subjected to great inconvenience, that I want to
300
support any Amendment the object of which is to make the application of the measure temporary.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I have spent a good many years of my life in the City, and I cannot agree with the noble and learned Viscount that this Bill is going to do any harm to business in the City.
LORD NEWTON: Both the two noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have delivered what were practically Second Reading speeches upon this Bill. I am not going to imitate their example, but, as far as I am concerned, I do not suppose I have been more impressed by their argument than the Government Bench is likely to be. On a former occasion I took a somewhat prominent part in opposing what I considered to be an extremely vindictive proposal in this very Bill in the year 1919. The proposal to which I refer was a clause directed against ex-enemy aliens, and it was proposed by the Government that all these people, no matter what their circumstances were, no matter how faultless their behaviour had been, should be deported from this country unless they fulfilled certain conditions which it was practically impossible to fulfil. There is nothing in my modest political career which I look back upon with so much satisfaction as my action on that occasion. With the assistance of noble Lords more influential than myself that provision was defeated, the Bill went back to the House of Commons, it was reinstated there, it came back here. We again stuck to our position, and ultimately the Commons gave way. That is the only occasion I can recollect in recent years when we have got the better of the Commons, and I honestly think that no action that we have taken during recent years has contributed so much to our recovery in the public esteem as what we did on that occasion.
But this present Bill, which is denounced by the noble and learned Viscount opposite, is a totally different measure. There is nothing whatever vindictive about it, so far as I can see. Ex-enemy aliens, for instance, do not figure in it at all. It is merely a Bill to regulate the admission, and to provide for the exclusion and deportation, of aliens. I will agree to this extent, that

301
it is sometimes worked in an irritating manner. In fact, I have suffered to a certain extent from it myself. The truth is that what I may call the Bottomley spirit is not altogether dead in this country, and I am not at all sure that it does not survive to a certain extent even in this House. But what I would like to point out is what might happen in case the Government were weak enough to accept this Amendment. It is a horrible possibility to suggest, but it is conceivable that in two years or more noble Lords opposite might be in office. If the Labour Party were in power it is certainly quite plain to me, although it might not be to the noble Lords opposite, that the policy of that Party will be dictated by the extremists of the Party—namely, Mr. Cook and his friends, who have a natural and innate affection for all revolutionaries and especially for persons who are particularly antagonistic to this country.
I believe that if this Amendment were adopted and the Bill came to an end a couple of years hence, and if the Labour Party were then in office and dominated by the extreme wing of the Party, we should immediately see pressing invitations issued to Comrade Zinoviev and to Comrade Borodin and Comrade Rosengolz to come and pay this country a visit and to remain here as long as they chose, and the warmth of their reception would only be equalled by the grief which would follow in the case of their departure. This Bill may not be much of a safeguard, but it would be rather difficult to carry out a policy of this kind if it were in existence. If the Bill lapses automatically we have really no hold upon any movement of the kind I have indicated. Although nobody detests more than I do vindictive persecution of individuals, I am bound to say that the facts as stated by my noble friend Lord Desborough are facts which you cannot get over. We are, as has been pointed out, a country with one inhabitant to every acre of land and I do not suppose such a state of things exists anywhere else and we have the unemployed stabilised, so to speak, at at least a million. In these circumstances it really would be almost criminal neglect on the part of the Government if they did not take such steps to regulate the promiscuous immigration of aliens whether they are desirable or undesirable.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble Lord opposite protests against Second Reading speeches, but noble Lords there have made nothing but Second Reading speeches. With regard to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, I wonder he does not see the defect of his own argument. If it should be the case that the Labour Party is in power the Labour Home Secretary will have all the powers which this Bill gives him, and will have the power to admit everybody undesirable and the power to reject everybody desirable. If you expect the Labour Party to be in office do not give them this power. I rise in the first instance to express my thanks to the Home Secretary for the way in which he has dealt with a particular case to which I referred him. I have no doubt the present Home Secretary, and I should think most Home Secretaries, will deal with all the matters fairly and kindly and with mercy, according to their lights, but if they get entirely false ideas of political economy they will probably deal with them wrongly.
To hear noble Lords speak of this country being over-populated and for that reason urging the exclusion of people, is to my mind quite curious. If it is overpopulated you want your people to be able to go abroad, and if your people are to go abroad, how can you expect other countries to admit them if you shut your doors in the face of those other countries? It is obvious teat what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As I ventured to say on a previous occasion we did our best to compel the Chinese and the Japanese to receive our people, how can we in turn refuse to allow foreign countries to send their people here? Two other observations, and two only, I have to make. When I come to my own Amendment I will trouble your Lordships with a few words in respect of it. As the noble Lord who represents the Home Office said, there is no right of asylum; there is no right to any foreigner to come into this country. That has been laid down by the highest judicial authority. But when he is in the country it is another story. Nevertheless, there is no right of asylum. The benefit of asylum which has been granted in this country has been the making of this country. It is the people whom we have taken in, the refugees on religious and other grounds, who have introduced some

303
of the most valuable of our industries, and I imagine that most of the noble Lords here can trace some foreign ancestry of that kind which has contributed to their present distinguished position.
Only one other observation. No doubt a Home Secretary may be a very good Home Secretary. He may do things very well, but you try all constitutional questions by the extreme case. You may have a very excellent autocrat, a very beneficent despot. I think it is extremely likely that most countries will come to that. There will be Mussolinis or dictators in probably all the Latin countries of Europe and after all, on reflection, I think there was a good deal in what Elizabeth Barrett Browning said about Napoleon III if he had not come to his power by such crooked ways. After all, it may well be that the best way of governing a country is to scrap representative Government and have an autocrat chosen by the people for the time being. But if you are not going to do that, then do not make the Home Secretary an autocrat and trust to his benevolent action.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to say one word only in reply. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Phillimore has said. We are dealing with a
thing that is bad in principle and it does not matter whether one Party or the other is in power. Possibly one Party may use it one way and another another. Let us assume that one be as just as possible, you cannot have justice in these conditions. That is the experience of the world and the experience of this country. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, said that he is against any limitation. I should prefer if I might to move my Amendment with the word "five" instead of "two." I should do that by withdrawing this Amendment and then moving it with "five" substituted for "two." If that would be convenient, I will move it in that form. With your Lordships' permission I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in its present form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, at the beginning insert ("Section one of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, shall be continued in force for a period of five years from the date of the passing of this Act, and").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Aberconway, L.

Shandon, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Southwark, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Olivier, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Strafford, E.

Parmoor, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Phillimore, L.

Swaythling, L.

Haldane, V.

Sandhurst, L.

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Falkland, V.

Hastings, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hindlip, L.

Inchcape, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sutherland, D.

Sumner, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Wellington, D.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Lamington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bath, M.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Merthyr, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Carson, L.

Newton, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Airlie, E.

Bradford, E.

Darling, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Denbigh, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Southampton, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Desborough, L.

Templemore, L.

Midleton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Warrington of Clyffe, L.

Onslow, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wharton, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Stradbroke, E.

Gisborough, L.

Wittenham, L.

Wicklow, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to insert at the end of the clause:—
"Provided that any Order in Council authorising the deportation of aliens other than aliens convicted of crime shall contain the condition following, that is to say, that before the order for deportation is carried out the alien be informed that he may within seven days apply to the Secretary of State for a report to be made upon his case by a Judge of the High Court of Justice, and that it such application be made the Secretary of State shall request the Lord Chief Justice of England to appoint a Judge of the King's Bench Division to inquire into the case, and the Secretary of State shall receive and consider the report before finally directing that the order for deportation shall be carried into effect."
The noble and learned Lord said: The Order made under the existing Act is the Aliens Order of 1920. Under Article 12 of that Order:—
"The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, in any of the cases mentioned in this Article make an order (in this Order referred to as a deportation order) requiring an alien to leave and to remain thereafter out of the United Kingdom."
A deportation order may be made in any of the following cases (I can put the matter quite shortly): If any Court certifies that an alien has been convicted; if a court of summary jurisdiction finds that an alien has within three months before the date of the proceedings been in receipt of parochial relief or found wandering without ostensible means of subsistence; if he has been convicted in a foreign country for an extradition crime; and, lastly, if the Secretary of State "deems it to be conducive to the public good to make a deportation order against the alien." There is no point in the previous enumerations. If the Secretary of State thinks it conducive to the public good to make a deportation order under this Order, which is made under the powers of this Act, he can do so. That is what I ask your Lordships not to continue as the constitutional law of England for all time.
Your Lordships, in your judicial capacity, in the year 1921 confirmed that which was the law of England, but which had not yet received such high sanction—the principle of national and international law that an alien once admitted to this country by leave of the Sovereign
306
or of the Executive is entitled to all the privileges for the time being of a citizen, is responsible for all the liabilities of a citizen, is under the King's allegiance for the time being, is under the King's protection and is to be treated in every respect as an ordinary citizen. By this Bill, which was passed as a temporary measure and avowedly as a temporary measure, for a time of stress, you are now asked to make it a stereotyped part of the law of England that an alien shall no longer have such rights. I wonder if anybody consulted the Foreign Office before proposing this measure. I wonder if anybody has ever thought what the Foreign Office would say. As an international lawyer I have always been brought up to believe that once a foreigner is admitted into a country he is entitled to reasonably good treatment. It may be even a casus belli if the subject of one country is not properly treated by the subject of another.
Under this Order—as I have ventured to say once already to your Lordships, you must try these cases by the extreme supposition—a man who has been twenty years in this country, who has married an English wife, who has children, who has property, who has a business or an undertaking to which his personal consent is required, may be there and then expelled by the Home Secretary, or detained in prison until it is time for him to be expelled. My proposal is simply to prevent this—I agree unlikely, but still possible—act of arbitrary executive power. I suggest that before the order for deportation is carried out in that class of case—not in the enumerated cases where the alien is obviously undesirable—the alien shall be informed:
"that he may within seven days apply to the Secretary of State for a report to be made upon his case by a Judge of the High Court of Justice …."
and may thus have his chance of his case being heard, of slander, back-chat and so on being disregarded and the truth being really investigated. I do not tie the Secretary of State to what the Judge says; I do not make the Judge a Court of Appeal from the Secretary of State; but I propose that the Judge should make his report to the Secretary of State and then leave him to do as he thinks proper. All I provide for is that, in that exceptional class of case, a man shall have the opportunity of an

307
inquiry before a judicial officer before he is expelled from this country; and I venture to say to your Lordships that there is probably no civilised country in which such unchecked power as that which is given to the Secretary of State in this clause is part of the permanent law of the land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: The Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Phillimore is one of very great importance, and I hope the House will excuse me if I go into it somewhat in detail. His object is that no alien, other than those convicted of crimes, shall be deported until a Judge of the King's Bench has inquired into his case and reported to the Secretary of State. The noble and learned Lord himself pointed out just now that the Secretary of State would have the final power of deciding on his course of action. In this matter of deportation orders, the Government fully recognises that the powers at present exercisable by the Secretary of State are very wide and large. Under the existing Aliens Order, the Home Secretary may make a deportation order either, (1), on a recommendation from a criminal court after a conviction; or, (2), if the Secretary of State deems it to be conducive to the public good to make a deportation order against the alien. The responsibility rests entirely with the Secretary of State. Even in the case of aliens convicted of crime the Court only makes a recommendation and does not always do that. If a recommendation is made, it is for the Home Secretary to decide whether effect shall be given to it or not, and the Home Secretary is also empowered to make a deportation order even though there has been no conviction and no recommendation. Is that not so?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Yes.
LORD DESBOROUGH: The noble Lord proposes that in the case where there has been no conviction for crime, the alien shall have the right, before a deportation order is made, to have his case investigated by a Judge of the High Court. The proposal is one which obviously deserves careful and respectful consideration. The Government fully recognise that it has been proposed with
308
the object of securing that before deportation (which may in some cases involve very severe hardship) is ordered, the case shall be fully investigated in a judicial spirit. No one will question the importance of securing that this wide power of deportation should not be exercised hastily, arbitrarily or on insufficient information. To deport a man who may have been settled in this country for a long time is a very serious step, though I think it is admitted that it rarely happens.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Hear, hear.
LORD DESBOROUGH: No one is more conscious of this difficulty than the Home Secretary, on whom this grave responsibility rests. Nevertheless the Government are fully convinced that an Amendment of this kind cannot properly be accepted. I will state their reasons. In the first place it is inconsistent with the practical working of the present system of alien control. The cases in which deportation orders are made without any conviction or recommendation of the Court against aliens who have long been settled in this country are extremely rare. The common object for which this power is used is to expel from the country an alien who has come here improperly. To take the day to day cases, an alien, for example, comes here under the pretext that he is visiting a friend or coming as a student. In a few days he is found to have taken a post as a waiter or other hotel employee.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It may be months after.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Quite so. He is at once told to leave the country and, if he does not obey, his departure is enforced by means of a deportation order. Or again, an alien arrives here as a member of the crew of a boat or as a stowaway. He tries to get a job on shore. A deportation order can be at once made, and if possible he is sent back on the boat by which he has come. In all such cases the machinery of an appeal within seven days and an inquiry by a High Court Judge would obviously be inappropriate. The facts are plain. In many of these cases no question at all is raised as to the alien's character or history. The reason for his being sent out of the country is simply that he has come in without permission or failed to comply

309
with the conditions on which he was allowed to land. The restrictions on aliens can only be enforced if it is widely recognised that any attempt at evasion recoils at once on the offender.
In a large number of cases speedy action is of great importance. For instance, the master or owner of a ship in which the alien arrived in the United Kingdom is under an obligation to remove the alien if he is found on shore, although leave has not been granted to him to land, and whenever possible an alien is sent back by the ship on which he has come. If in all these cases the alien could claim a judicial inquiry, with the result that the ship on which he had come sails away, this country has to keep the offender until another ship can be found and perhaps pay for his passage. The administrative delay and waste of money would be very serious. In all such cases as these, therefore, judicial inquiry must be rejected as unnecessary, as uneconomic and as impracticable from an administrative point of view.
It will perhaps be urged by the supporters of the Amendment that they have in mind, not such cases as those quoted, but rather the cases of persons who have been settled here for some time. Why should not a right of appeal to a High Court Judge be admitted in such cases? It will be noted that the Amendment does not in terms fetter the ultimate discretion of the Secretary of State. Under the Amendment the Secretary of State is to receive and consider the report, but he is left at liberty to accept or reject any recommendations there may be in the report as he thinks fit. This principle is undoubtedly right. The Amendment recognises that a deportation order is rightly treated by the existing law as an administrative and not a judicial act. The grounds on which such cases must in the last resort be settled are grounds of policy and not of law. The question to be answered in justifying a deportation order is whether the expulsion of the alien is "conducive to the public good." That question of policy must necessarily be left to the decision of a Minister answerable to Parliament.
The object of Lord Phillimore's Amendment, however, is that there should be a judicial inquiry as to the facts. Once the facts have been properly ascertained,
310
his Amendment recognises that the decision must be left in the hands of the Secretary of State. The question, therefore, which the House has to consider is whether there is any need to establish some new machinery in order to enable the full facts of a particular case to be brought to the consideration of the Minister responsible for making the order. In the view of the Government there is no such need. No Home Secretary acts, or is likely to act, in the dark in cases of this kind. He is naturally, before coming to such a decision, anxious to have the fullest possible information about each particular case. Every opportunity is given to the alien to make representations, and whenever any of the facts are in doubt the fullest possible inquiries are made with a view to clearing up the relevant questions. Under the procedure proposed in the Amendment, a Judge of the High Court asked to inquire into such a case would be in a less favourable position than the Secretary of State for ascertaining the facts, and he would not have the advantage of day to day experience in the administration of the Aliens Order.
So far, therefore, as regards the ascertainment of facts on which the decision must be reached, the proposed Amendment would, in the view of the Government, be of no practical value. When the facts have been ascertained, then the decision is a matter of policy which must rest with the Secretary of State. As an illustration of the principle that these deportation cases must be settled on grounds of policy and not as judicial matters, and that consequently the responsibility must rest with a Minister and cannot be transferred to a Judge, consider the recent position with regard to the Russians engaged under the Trade Delegation and by the All-Russian Co-operative Society. Can it be seriously suggested that in this case when the Government had decided to break off relations with the Russian Government and to terminate the Trade Agreement, nevertheless any member of the Trade Delegation required in accordance with that decision to leave the country should be entitled to apply to have his case heard by a High Court Judge. The mere existence of such a right would obviously be fraught with the gravest inconveniences and would be inconsistent with the

311
sovereign right of the State to decide to withdraw its hospitality from alien visitors. And even supposing such a right were granted, what would be the position of a Judge who had to review judicially cases which so obviously had ultimately to be decided on political and not on judicial grounds? It is almost necessary to suppose that the noble Lord who proposed the Amendment had entirely overlooked cases of this character, and I feel sure that the House with cases of this kind in mind will realise how impossible it is for the Government to accept the Amendment proposed.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble Lord who so pleasantly and genially conducts the business of the Home Office hardly, I think, read that long brief with which he has been supplied as if he believed in it himself. I hope he does not, but at any rate that brief is full of admissions of the point for which I am contending. I have pointed out that I do not take the responsibility from the Home Secretary, but I only provide that the Secretary of State shall be well informed as to the facts by a judicial inquiry, and then be left with the responsibility. Much of the document from which the noble Lord has read admits that that would be desirable if it were practicable. Of course it is practicable, and the small consideration of a few pounds one way or the other is nothing compared to the liberty of people who come into this country under the Government's protection. It may be that this should be limited to people residing in this country. It may be that seven days is too long. If the Government had met me on any such point I should have been only too ready to meet them, but to say that the Home Secretary is not to have the assistance of an inquiry in cases of this kind, seems to me very unwise. The last point I would urge is how much more desirable in the view of foreign Powers it would be that there should be this provision. How much more easy it would be for the Home Secretary to deal with some complaint if he were able to say that it was not merely an administrative act of the Minister but that the matter had been looked into by a Judge in a judicial manner! I cannot help thinking that you are depriving the
312
Foreign Office of a very valuable weapon by refusing to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE, on behalf of Lord Rothschild, moved to add the following proviso:—
"Provided that in the case of an immigrant who proves that he is seeking admission to this country solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious or political grounds, or for an offence of a political character, or persecution involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life and limb on account of religious belief, leave to land shall not be refused on the ground merely of want of means or the probability of his becoming a charge on the rates or failure to produce a permit from the Minister of Labour."
The noble and learned Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, intimated to me with great regret that he would not be able to be present to move the two Amendments standing in his name, and he requested me to do so. After the manner in which the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Parmoor, and my own Amendment have been met by the Government, with the majority they have at their backs, I am not going to trouble your Lordships with more than a few words. If this Amendment had been my Amendment I should not have put in the words "or for an offence of a political character," because I think those words give occasion to the opponent to blaspheme. However, it is not worth troubling to amend the Amendment, because I am sure it will not be accepted. As to the rest of the Amendment, I should venture humbly to support it on the ground which I have already intimated—namely, that this country has risen to its greatness, materially and morally, by giving the privilege of asylum under careful supervision, and that it is a retrograde step to give it up. I have nothing more to say, but I move the Amendment.
Amendment moved:—
Page 1, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Phillimore.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, your Lordships will see that there are some Amendments on the Paper. Some of them are drafting Amendments, and others are Amendments to give effect to the promises which I made on the Report stage. There is also one other Amendment—namely, an Amendment by Lord Younger of Leckie. I beg to move that the Bill be now read 3a.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 4:
Index of members of company.
4.—(1) Every company having more than fifty members shall keep an index of the names of the members of the company and shall, within fourteen days after the date on which any alteration is made in the register of the members, make any necessary alteration in the index.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after the first "shall" in subsection (1), to insert "unless the register of members is in such a form as to constitute in itself an index." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is little more than formal. The Bill provides that a company shall keep not only a register of members but also an index. The effect of the Amendment is to make it clear that a company which already keeps its register of members in alphabetical order, so as to constitute in itself an index, need not go to the unnecessary expense and labour of drawing up a separate index.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, after ("shall") insert ("unless the register of members is in such a form as to constitute in itself an index").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Giving of professional advice not to constitute person a director of a company]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 22, transpose Clause 26 to follow Clause 86.
Page 22, line 12, leave out the second ("the") and insert ("a")
Page 22, line 14, leave out ("the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 34 [Amendment of s. 89 of principal Act]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 37, leave out ("who").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36:
Form of balance sheet.
36.—(1) Every balance sheet of a company shall contain a summary of the share capital of the company, its liabilities and its assets, together with such particulars as are necessary to disclose the general nature of the liabilities and the assets of the company, and to explain how the values of the fixed assets have been arrived at.
(2) There shall be stated under separate headings in the balance sheet—
(b) if it is shown as a separate item in or is otherwise ascertainable from the books or papers of the company, the present amount of the goodwill as so shown or ascertained.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out "or papers." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the clause provides that the good will of a company shall be stated under a separate heading in the balance sheet where it is ascertainable from the books or papers of the company. It was thought that it was too much to expect a company to go through all its papers for many years back for this purpose and I have therefore tried to find a way out. My proposal is that we should say that the present amount of the good will should be shown in the balance sheet if it is ascertainable from the books of the company "or from any contract for the sale or purchase of any property to be acquired by the company, or from any documents in the possession of the company relating to the stamp duty payable in respect of any such contract or the conveyance of any such property." I think that is a fair compromise.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 41, leave out ("or papers").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 42, after ("company") insert ("or from any contract for the sale or purchase of any property to be acquired by the company, or from any documents in the possession of the company relating to the stamp duty payable in respect of any such contract or the conveyance of any such property").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 8, leave out ("due") and insert ("owing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43:
Amendment of s. 104 of principal Act.
(3) Where any debentures which have been redeemed before the date of the commencement of this Act are re-issued subsequently to that date, the re-issue of the debentures shall not prejudice any right or priority which any person would, if this section had not passed, have had under or by virtue of any mortgage or charge created between the date of the redemption of the debentures and the date of the commencement of this Act.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "between the date of the redemption of the debentures and," and to insert "before." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to protect the priority of banks and others who may have given loans to a company before the passing of the Act. There are many of these unsatisfied now. It is only loans which are given after the passing of the Act in which the priority is protected in the Bill. I understand that the Lord Chancellor will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("between the date of the redemption of the debentures and") and insert ("before").—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Provisions as to liability of directors, etc.]:
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 19, after ("and") insert ("forthwith").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Statement as to remuneration of directors to be furnished to shareholders]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (1):—
"Provided always that it shall be sufficient to state the total aggregate of all sums paid to or other emoluments received by all the directors in each year without specifying the amount received by any individual."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is merely a transposition.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 4, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, leave out lines 12 to 15.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 78 [Companies, etc., disqualified for acting as liquidator, auditor or receiver of a company]:
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 9, leave out ("appointed so to act") and insert ("acting under an appointment made").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 86:
Restrictions on offering of shares for sale or for subscription.
86.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to go from house to house offering shares for subscription or purchase to the public or any member of the public.
"House" in this section means "private residence."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit from subsection (1), the words "'House' in this section means 'private residence,'" and insert "In this subsection the expression 'house' shall not include an office used for business purposes." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is to leave out words which were inserted on the Report stage—"'House' in this section means 'private residence.'" Your Lordships will remember that this is a clause which forbids house-to-house hawking of shares, and one of your Lordships—I think Lord Halsbury—said that the clause as drafted would prevent dealers in shares going to offices for the purpose of selling shares, and that it was not desirable to interfere with that practice. I agreed and accepted his Amendment that "house"

317
should mean "private residence," but on reflection I think that goes too far, because under it a hawker could go to a small shop, from small shop to house, and from house to shop again, and the whole clause might be evaded. I propose, therefore, to omit the words inserted on Report and to insert the words I have moved. I think that effects the object which my noble friend had in mind, and will interfere less with the operation of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, leave out line 38 and insert: ("In this subsection the expression 'house' shall not include an office used for business purposes").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 87:—
Saving for privileged communications.
". Where proceedings are instituted under this Act against, any person by the Director of Public Prosecutions, nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any person who has acted as solicitor for the defendant to disclose any privileged communication made to him in that capacity."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this new clause is proposed to fulfil a promise I gave on Report.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 27, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
CLAUSE 98 [Application to Scotland of certain provisions]:
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 25, at end insert the following new subsection:—
"(5) In the application to Scotland of subsection (9) of Section one hundred and nine of the principal Act as amended by Section forty-three of this Act, and in Section eighty-eight of this Act, references to a prosecution or to proceedings instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions shall be construed as references to a prosecution or proceedings by or on behalf of the Lord Advocate").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Privilege Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREE- MENTS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I will trouble your Lordships for a very few minutes in inviting you to read this Bill a second time. Your Lordships have already had this Bill before you, not exactly in the form in which it is now, but doing the same thing in a slightly different way. The Bill was introduced and passed through all its stages, after having been examined by a Select Committee, which took a great deal of evidence from all manner of people. In particular, evidence was given that it was of the utmost importance to prevent people engaged in agriculture from being really deliberately swindled when they had to bring their cattle and other goods to market. The Bill was read a third time by your Lordships, but was not, proceeded with in the other House simply for want of time.
This Bill was introduced in another place at the beginning of this Session. It has gone through all its stages there, and now comes to your Lordships in the state in which I would ask your Lordships to read it a second time. It provides that if any "dealer," by which is meant a man who gets his living by dealing at auctions, offers a gift or any other consideration to any person not to bid against him at that auction, or who otherwise behaves in a way in which it is notorious that people do behave who belong to "rings" at auctions, that shall be a criminal offence. It is provided, in order that the Act—if it should become an Act—may not bear hardly upon people, that no prosecution should take place except on the fiat of the Attorney-General. I do not think I ought to detain your Lordships longer because you have considered the Bill very carefully before. Of course, if there are any matters to be considered in Committee, that can be done.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Darling.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, it, may be for the convenience of the House if I stated briefly and at once the position of the Home Office with regard to this Bill. When my noble friend introduced it some time ago the Home Office

319
did express doubt as to whether it would achieve the objects for which it was designed, but now that this Bill is in a somewhat different form and has gone through the scrutiny of a Select Committee and also some very considerable discussion in another place, the Home Office has not the smallest hesitation in recommending it as a Bill which may possibly do much good.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MONEYLENDERS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I greatly regret that it has fallen to my lot so soon again to trouble your Lordships with a Motion for the Second Reading of a Bill. This Bill is in much the same position as the Bill which your Lordships have just agreed to read a second time. It was introduced to the House last year by my noble and learned friend Lord Carson; it was read a second time in this House and sent to a Select Committee of members of this and the other House. A great deal of evidence was given to that Committee and the Bill came back to this House and was read a third time. Then the noble and learned Viscount opposite (Viscount Haldane) took objection to some provision which might have acted hardly, as he thought, upon pawnbrokers. The Bill could not be passed last year because of the adjournment of the House and this year it was introduced in the other House. It has been through all its stages there and has been read a third time. It now comes to your Lordships' House—of course in a somewhat different form. What it does now is this. It attempts to protect those who are forced to borrow money by improving the class of people who are permitted to lend it. They have to take out licences. If they misconduct themselves those licences may be endorsed and there is a prohibition against their soliciting people in many of the ways which they have been accustomed to do by sending them circulars and so on.
There is also a provision which prevents their charging, as they have been accustomed hitherto to do, compound interest
320
upon the money which they lend, and amendments are made in Clause 9 as to the rate of interest which may be charged. Your Lordships may know that at present moneylending agreements may be revised by a Judge if he comes to the conclusion that the terms of the loan are harsh and unconscionable. It has always been a matter of great difficulty for Judges to decide what were harsh and unconscionable terms. This Bill, which, as I have said, has passed the other House, now provides that if the interest exceeds 48 per cent. per annum there shall be a presumption—it is not more than a presumption—that the terms of the loan are harsh and unconscionable. The Judge may investigate them and he may decline to reopen the matter. He may come to the conclusion that in all the circumstances of the case 48 per cent. is a reasonable rate of interest. But if the rate of interest be over 48 per cent. then it is for the person who lent the money to satisfy the Judge that the transaction was not what a former Statute calls harsh and unconscionable. I think that is probably the greatest amendment of the present law which this Bill contains. I would call the attention of the noble and learned Viscount opposite (Viscount Haldane) to the fact that Clause 13 deals especially with loans made by pawnbrokers. Your Lordships no doubt will hear from him whether he is content with that or whether he would desire to move an Amendment to it should your Lordships read this Bill a second time, which I now ask you to do.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Darling.)
LORD CARSON: My Lords, as I originally introduced a Bill on this subject two years ago and again last year, which your Lordships were good enough to pass, perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two observations before the Second Reading debate in concluded. I feel very glad that the House of Commons have been able to pass this Bill, containing as it does very many valuable provisions which I think will be a great improvement of the law as regards moneylenders. I do not intend to go through them in detail, because most of them I discussed in this House and they have been considered very carefully by a Joint Committee of

321
the two Houses. I am very slow to make any criticisms of the Bill because my criticisms are more as to what is not in it rather than to what is in the Bill. I have observed the great difficulty which those in the House of Commons who had charge of the Bill had in getting it through the Committee owing to the various devices which were adopted by certain members of a Party who seemed to make an exception in protecting this class of capitalist. I am, therefore, very slow to do anything or say anything that might render the passing of this Bill into law more difficult. At the same time I am bound to draw attention to two or three of its provisions.
After a good deal of argument a clause was inserted in the previous Bill giving the Lord Chancellor power to increase the jurisdiction of the county court in relation to these claims by moneylenders. I am very sorry that that is omitted from this Bill. It is all very well to make enactments protecting the subject, or protecting the borrower in relation to moneylending transactions, but if a man who has been broken through moneylending transactions is brought before the High Court with all the expenses incidental thereto, I cannot see how he is to get the justice that this Bill pretends to mete out to him. To issue a writ in the High Court against a man who is at his last extremity (or the writ would not have been necessary), means that you are putting him in a position where he cannot assert his rights. The moneylender can ask for an order for summary judgment. If he wants to oppose the summary judgment the borrower has to employ counsel and solicitor and to engage in all the trouble and expense of an expensive action in the High Court. I think that probably is, in most cases, a negation of justice to men who are brought into this position by the particular method of these moneylenders.
So far as I am concerned, I would ask my noble friend the Lord Chancellor to consider whether it would not be well that we should restore what was Clause 3 in the Bill which was passed by this House last year, which gave an opportunity of enlarging as might be thought necessary from time to time the jurisdiction of the county courts, in which at very little expense the borrower could assert his rights. If the moneylender has the county court at his disposal, with the right to go to the King's Bench if any
322
point of law has been wrongfully decided, I think he is very well protected. I think it really is almost farcical to tell a man who has been ruined by moneylenders: "You can go and assert your position in the High Court and if necessary"—as the moneylenders could, no doubt, as regards their funds—"go on to get justice in the House of Lords." I do not think that is leaving open to a man in such circumstances the possibility of privileges which the Legislature would seem to have conferred if you pass this Bill.
There is another provision which I am very sorry has been left out. There was a provision in the Bill which passed your Lordships' House last year, respecting the rights of moneylenders in certain cases as regards public officers holding public offices or employment in certain cases which I will explain in a moment, and including officers in His Majesty's Naval, Military and Air Forces. There are a number of Acts of Parliament which provide that the pay, salary or emoluments of such persons as those cannot be assigned or taken in execution of any debt by any person suing them. The reason—it is a very plain one—is that this pay is given to public officers or to officers of His Majesty's Naval, Military or Air Forces for their sustenance, to enable them to maintain themselves in carrying out their public function and in carrying on the necessary work which is part of the office to which they are appointed. It has been thought necessary in order that they should have that money for that purpose, to protect them by saying in such cases that the pay, salary or emoluments cannot be taken in execution of any debt due.
I am sorry to say, as I said when originally proposing this Bill—I speak with some knowledge and experience—that when young naval officers in particular come into port, having had trying times at sea and no doubt wishing to have, what you would expect them to wish to have, a good time, there is a regular system of trying to get these young officers—and it has succeeded in a great many cases—into the hands of moneylenders. It is a common practice that men who are called "bookies" should procure them to enter into betting transactions—I know personally of a case at the present moment—and when they are unable to pay what naturally

323
every naval officer would want to pay as an honourable debt, they at once say: "I know a very good fellow who will lend you the money." They get the money at most exorbitant rates of interest. I am sorry to say that I believe there are a great many officers in that position. Young officers or officials who get into that position are not really able properly to discharge their public duties. They are pestered from day to day for the payment of these sums which they cannot possibly pay, and because of the fact that if proceedings in bankruptcy or proceedings by way of execution were taken against them they would lose not only their emoluments but their status as officers, the greatest possible pressure is put upon their relatives, who are told that if they do not pay up these debts then their relative must go down because proceedings will be taken against him in bankruptcy or under the Debtors Act, and, with a judgment against him, he will be unable to carry on the office he holds.
Last year your Lordships passed a clause which was numbered 11 in the Bill and read as follows:—
"No proceedings in bankruptcy or under the Debtors Act, 1869, shall be commenced or prosecuted in respect of money lent by a moneylender against any public officer holding a public office or employment, if the pay, salary or emolument of such person is forbidden by law to be assigned or to be taken in execution of any debt due by such person. For the purposes of this section any person in His Majesty's naval, military or air forces shall, whether on full pay or on half pay, be deemed to be a public officer holding a public office or employment,"
I do not want to imperil the Bill by putting down Amendments, because I realise that at this stage of the Session only the Government by giving time can enable this Bill to pass, but I would ask my noble friend the Lord Chancellor to consider seriously whether this is not a clause which might very well be inserted in the Bill with the responsibility of the Government themselves.
There is another clause which I am sorry these protectors of capitalism have determined to leave out. It is the old Clause 14, which provided that in the case of small loans within the sum of £3 no proceedings should lie at all. There is a vast amount of evidence, much of which has been quoted in former speeches in this House, that very poor
324
people borrow money at exorbitant rates of interest for week-end or short periods and then find the greatest possible pressure put upon them. They are threatened with proceedings, and often, as I have been told on very reliable information, with something worse. However, these protectors of capitalism have thought it well to strike out this protection of these poor people and of course there again I would be overweighting the Bill if I were to insist on the point. I commend these matters to the House and to the Government, and I must express my thanks to those who were in charge of the Bill in the House of Commons on having taken a great deal of trouble in examining this question in correspondence with people all over the country I believe that by the passage of this Bill they will have conferred a great benefit on the people of this country.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to repeat the apology of my noble friend Lord Darling for appearing so often on this occasion, but the Home Office is implicated in all these Bills and the Home Secretary made some remarks about the matter in another place. In regard to this Bill, the Government recognise the amount of time and the considerable effort that has been spent upon it, and would like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord who presided over the Select Committee and also all those gentlemen in the House of Commons who devoted so much time to the matter. The Government support the Bill in its present form, and I am glad to gather that it will be supported also from the Bench opposite. All that I need add on this occasion is that, when we come to Clause 6, the Government may possibly have to re-draft that clause, owing to certain criticisms made upon it in another place. In regard to the original Clause 13, which was withdrawn, a certain number of Amendments will be necessary in order to make the rest of the Bill read properly.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I do not rise to inflict upon the House another speech. All I wish to say is that I am glad that the Government have recognised the Bill, which I think is on the whole a good one, and that it has been a good piece of work to protect the pawnbrokers, who were hardly used under the

325
Bill as it stood and who are now safeguarded by the clause that has been inserted for their benefit. So for as I am concerned, I hope that the Bill will pass.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EAST AFRICAN AIR SERVICE.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH THE EARL OF DENBIGH rose to ask His Majesty's Government for information regarding the progress being made, and the arrangements for establishing a regular air service between Cairo, Uganda and East Africa; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, very great interest has been taken for some time in the development of an air route up the Nile to the Sudan, Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika territories, and I need not remind your Lordships of the manner in which those countries are developing and the large interests that are coming to the front there. The population is said to be something like 20,000 Europeans, about 50,000 Indians and from 12,000,000 to 15,000,000 Africans, and I believe the import and export trade at present amounts to something like £25,000,000 annually, of which about half is with the United Kingdom and other parts of the British Empire. It must be apparent to everybody that facility of communications is the one great necessity for developing countries of that description, and this fact has been recognised already by the Colonial Office through the loans that have been sanctioned for the purpose of developing railway communication in those countries, and especially in Kenya and Tanganyika.
At present letters take from about three to four weeks to come from Kenya to England, coming round by sea along the coast to Mombasa; and from Uganda they take anything from four to six weeks. The result, I believe, is that this country has lost a good deal of trade that might have come here, but goes instead to Bombay, where it is done largely by Indians and Japanese, for the simple reason that letters and commercial samples can pass from East Africa to Bombay in about ten days as against the three to six weeks taken between East Africa and this country. Early last year an attempt was made to start this air service, and Captain Gladstone., on behalf
326
of the North Sea Aerial and General Transport Company, inspected and reported upon the route as most excellent for seaplane work. It was proposed to run twelve experimental voyages, and it was estimated that something like £10,000 would be required for the purpose. I believe that the Sudan, Kenya and Uganda agreed to furnish about £2,000 each, and Captain Gladstone's company offered to find the remaining £4,000. A special seaplane was built and sent to Khartoum, but unfortunately it damaged a float on a hidden rock in the river and it was not able to proceed. Sir Sefton Brancker, whose name is familiar to your Lordships as that of a great pioneer of aerial routes, was there and lent an old Army air machine, which flew from Khartoum to Lake Victoria but, owing to engine trouble, came down in the lake and, while the people on board were saved, the machine itself was lost.
I am very anxious to know what further progress being made towards the development of this air route, because Captain Gladstone and, I believe, Sir Sefton Brancker also have stated in public that the route is ideal for a seaplane service. Great interest is being taken in the matter, both out there and in this country, and I believe the idea is that a weekly service could be established. Of course, it will have to be developed gradually, and in the early stages a subsidy of some £50,000 will be required. No doubt this amount ought to be contributed by the Colonies and territories in question, and I hope they will be assisted also by the Imperial Government. As the traffic develops, I believe there is no reason to suppose that the service will not ultimately become a remunerative one, but at all events we are very anxious to know what is being done at the present moment, and whether the Government ism contemplating bringing this most necessary air service into being. I beg to ask the Question which appears in my name, and to move for Papers.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord has put down this Motion, for the project to which he refers—namely, that of an air service to link Egypt with East and Central Africa—is one which has

327
recently been engaging the close attention of the Colonial Office and the Air Ministry. Such a service, quite apart from the benefits which it should confer on the territories immediately concerned by speeding up existing means of communication, will, it is hoped, be the first link in what should ultimately be one of the great trunk air routes of the Empire—namely, a route from Cairo to the Cape.
The present position as regards this service is as follows. An agreement was signed last November between the Governments of Kenya, Uganda, and the Sudan on the one hand, and a company styled the North Sea Aerial and General Transport, Limited, on the other, whereby the company, in return for specified contributions from these Governments, undertook to carry out within a period of twelve months from the date of the agreement an experimental survey of the route, consisting of twelve flights in each direction from Khartoum to Kisumu. These flights would, it was hoped, suffice to acquire the data and experience necessary for the subsequent organisation of a regular service on a permanent basis. Your Lordships will observe that the northern terminus proposed for this experimental service was Khartoum, not Cairo. This was necessitated by, financial limitations, but in order that some kind of through service to Cairo might be available at least for official passengers and mails and that experience might be acquired over the longer distance—for the greater the distance covered, the greater is the advantage enjoyed by air over other means of transport—arrangements were made for machines drawn from the Royal Air Force units stationed in Egypt to carry out a certain number of flights from Cairo to connect at Khartoum. The section from Khartoum to Kisumu was estimated to take three days, whilst an additional two-and-a-half days were allowed for the section Cairo to Khartoum, making five-and-a-half days in all.
Unfortunately, the opening of the service was attended by a run of ill-luck. Its commencement was delayed by an accident due to collision with some obstacle under water and, as, owing to limitations of finance and the experimental
328
character of the service, no spare machine had been provided, a standard Air Force machine was lent to the company. With this machine five successful trips were made—three outward and two return—when a second mishap occurred and the service had to be suspended pending the reconstruction of the original machine. This is now far advanced and it is hoped to resume the service next month. It would be quite wrong to deduce from this chapter of accidents that the service is impracticable or that its operation is likely to be attended by serious difficulty. That two mishaps should have occurred in the space of a few weeks is merely an unfortunate coincidence and not in any way due to local conditions. No one was injured, and but for the fact that, for the reasons I have already given, replacement machines were not available, as would have been the case with a regular service organised on a permanent basis, such as those operating between London and Paris, the delays which have in fact ensued in recommencing operations would not have arisen.
As it is, the flights carried out can be regarded as having established that the service is technically feasible and that there is every prospect of its successful operation with reasonable regularity, though of course a longer period of experiment under varying conditions of weather is desirable. It may interest your Lordships to know that the first homeward mail carried left Kisumu on the 15th February and arrived in London on the 26th February—a period of eleven days as against the eighteen days required by the fastest homeward mail by sea from Mombasa, and that it comprised some 2,600 letters from Kenya and Uganda. The confidence of all those in close touch with the project is consequently, unshaken, and advantage was taken by the Colonial Office and Air Ministry of the presence in London for the recent Colonial Office Conference of representatives of the Governments interested, to discuss both the reopening of the experimental service at as early a date as practicable and the possibility of the organisation, in due course, of a permanent service to replace it. As in all new enterprises of this character, finance is necessarily the governing factor. The provision of the necessary

329
ways and means is still under discussion, and I am not therefore in a position to make any definite statement on the future of the service. The noble Lord may at least rest assured that all concerned—the Colonial Office, the Air Ministry and the Governments of the territories affected—are convinced of the desirability of this service, are satisfied as to its technical practicability, and are working in close co-operation with a view to its realisation. I may add that, in pursuance of a suggestion made at the recent Colonial Office Conference and with a view to the further study of the possibilities of air transport in East Africa, arrangements are at the moment in train for the despatch of an Air Ministry expert to investigate the question on the spot in consultation with the local authorities concerned.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I should like to express my satisfaction at the statement of the noble Duke. I am sure it is very encouraging to realise what are the intentions of the Government. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, a Bill of a similar character passed this House last year at a period when time could not be found for it in another place. The Bill is now re-introduced with certain alterations and additions. The main purpose of the Bill is this: As your Lordships know the appeals from India form a very important part of the work of the Judicial Committee, and the Committee is at present not of sufficient numerical strength for that purpose. It is proposed therefore to authorise the appointment of two additional members of the Judicial Committee having Indian experience, such as Indian Judges, advocates or barristers or vakils. It is proposed that they should receive a salary of £4,000 a year, of which one-half comes from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and one-half will be found by India, and I am glad to say that the Indian
330
Legislature has this year approved that proposal. It is proposed that the members first so appointed shall retire at the age of 72, and that some provision shall be made for superannuation. It is of course difficult to ask that men of experience and position should accept these appointments unless they know that if they are compulsorily retired at 72, or if owing to sickness they have to retire, there will be some provision for old age. We therefore propose there shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund a pension of £1,000 a year, and if the Indian Government choose to supplement that of course it will be open to them to do so. That represents the proposal as to the new members of the Judicial Committee.
Then there is added to this Bill a new proposal of this kind. As many of your Lordships know, the present law is that the Judges of some of the Dominion Courts who are named in Statutes or in Orders in Council shall, if Privy Councillors, be entitled to sit on the Judicial Committee. The number of persons so entitled is limited to seven, but it is proposed to remove that limit. As a matter of fact the limit has not excluded many persons qualified to sit. In fact I think at the present moment only one is so excluded. But there may be others, and we are always glad to have the assistance of distinguished Judges of the Dominion Courts when they happen to be in this country. As for myself I should be glad to be able to ask any of these Judges, if they are Privy Councillors, to cone and give us their assistance on the Judicial Committee. They always give us valuable aid, and it seems to me that it is in accordance with the policy of this country to welcome these high officers from the Dominions—if qualified to take part—to join the Judicial Committee and give us their help. The effect then of Clause 2 of the Bill is to remove the numerical limit to which I have referred. Those are the provisions of the Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, this Bill is a thoroughly good Bill. The provision of members to sit in the Judicial Committee, particularly in Indian appeals, is so scanty that at times great inconvenience

331
is caused, and, with the addition of two regular, paid members, who will sit as ex-Indian Judges, informed of Indian Law, we shall certainly be in a more efficient position. I hope in time that the Judicial Committee will not assign all its Indian members to one Division, but that they will take part in the general work of the Empire, judging causes from all parts of it. I am not going to say anything more about the Bill. I warmly supported it last) Session, and my only regret is that it does not go further and provide for the addition of two English or Scottish—I do not care which—fully-qualified members for the general purposes of the Judicial Committee, in addition to those we have got.
It interests me to see the age limit of 72 for the Judges who are to be appointed. That age limit would be merciless if it were applied to my present colleagues who sit there, and I should myself before very long be threatened. It is right to put in that limit in this Bill, but I am not quite sure that a provision might not be put in enabling the Government of the day to ask any noble and learned Lord who was sitting there to continue to sit notwithstanding that he had reached the age of 72. Some of our members are over that age, for example, Lord Phillimore, but he is as young and active as the youngest and most active of us—indeed, I think he is the youngest and most active—and it would be a great loss if we had had to part from him because he had reached the age of 72; and there may be others in that position too.
332
However, we must take things as they stand.
The only clause I am not quite certain about is the final clause, which enables the Government to disregard the old limit of seven for the Judges who might sit on the Judicial Committee in virtue of their Dominion and Colonial qualifications. That is quite right in principle, but it may give rise to a certain amount of competition, in which each Dominion will desire to get its full share. If so, the position of the Lord Chancellor will be a very difficult one. He will be assailed by people going to the Colonial Secretary, who is interested in the matter from another side altogether, and without much regard for the numbers of the Judicial Committee. However, we must rely on the Lord Chancellor to be valiant. The constitution of the Judicial Committee and the laws which govern it are a most mysterious subject, which nobody has ever tackled, but we find in practice that, whether he is entitled to do so or not, the Lord Chancellor exercises great influence in the selection of the people who sit. If he continues to do so, and asserts himself against the Colonial Secretary, all may go well, otherwise I think in putting in this clause you deprive yourselves of a buckler which I myself, as Lord Chancellor, had occasion to use. But the rest of the Bill is a thoroughly excellent Bill, and I cordially support it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.