Lords Sitting of 18 February 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Hare (E. Listowel)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
His Majesty's Answer to the Address of Tuesday last reported by the Earl of Cromer as follows: —
"I have received your Address praying that, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, a Judge may be appointed to the High Court of Justice to fill a vacancy on the King's Bench Division thereof, and I will issue directions in accordance with your desire."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House whether he can give us any information about the business for next week; and, further, whether the arrangement that the Tariff Bill is to be taken through all its stages on Monday week still stands, and, if that is the case, whether a longer time could be allowed for the debate in your Lordships' House, which is likely to be an important one and in which many of your Lordships want to take part? I would ask the noble and learned Viscount whether it would be possible for the House to sit on that Monday at a quarter to three o'clock.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for asking me about the business for next week. On Tuesday there are the Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill and the Destructive Imported Animals Bill for Second Reading. The noble Lord will remember that the second Bill, at any rate, was introduced to your Lordships' House last summer by his Government. There is also
616
the Committee stage of the Dangerous Drugs Bill, to which a Second Reading was given yesterday. On Wednesday there is a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, with regard to the Report of the Joint Committee on East Africa. For Thursday we have not, at present, any business set down. If there should be anything we will give Notice of it, but there will not be any controversial business so far as I know for that day.
With regard to the Tariff Bill, as your Lordships may have read in the public Press the arrangement in another place involves that the Third Reading there will be obtained on the evening of Thursday, February 25, at eleven o'clock. It is important that the Bill shall receive the Royal Assent by the following Monday, which is a very short time thereafter, because, if the Bill is passed, the duties come into force on Tuesday, March 1. In these circumstances I would suggest, for the convenience of your Lordships' House, that the First Reading should be taken at the Judicial Sitting at half-past ten on Friday morning, February 26—that would be, of course, only a formal stage—then, that on the following Monday all stages of the Bill should be taken. Presumably the Bill will be certified and there will be no Committee stage. As the noble Lord has suggested, I have thought it would probably be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if we could meet at a quarter to three on Monday, February 29. I have consulted the authorities concerned with the legal business and I understand that they are able to make an arrangement for that to happen. In that event I should ask your Lordships to meet at a quarter to three on Monday, February 29, when I will move the necessary suspension of the Standing Orders. I hope then that we shall be able to dispose of the Second Reading debate and of the Third Reading within a reasonable time.
I am just told that the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, is to be postponed. I am afraid that leaves Wednesday next as a blank day for the moment. We shall have to see if we can find anything to occupy your Lordships' attention on that afternoon.

BOURNEMOUTH, POOLE, AND CHRISTCHURCH ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MAIDSTONE EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SITTING BOURNE AND MILTON) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

CHANCEL REPAIRS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Its object is to transfer in certain cases the jurisdiction of the diocesan court to the County Court. With your Lordships' permission I will make a short general statement, and then draw attention to one or two particular dates. There is in Cambridgeshire a parish of the name of Hauxton, and that parish is in the diocese of Ely. There was a gentleman named Mr. Stevens who, in 1927, was the owner of certain land in the parish. Unfortunately, at that time the chancel of the parish church was out of repair, and it was estimated that it would cost about £30 to put it right. The parochial church council were entitled—and it was their duty—to go into the matter, and they were advised that Mr. Stevens was liable to put the chancel into repair, because he happened to be the owner of land in the parish. And so they communicated with Mr. Stevens, and he denied his liability. The matter then came, at the instance of the parochial church council, before the diocesan court of the diocese of Ely, and the Diocesan Chancellor went into the matter. He came to the conclusion that Mr. Stevens had had notice, but he said it was quite immaterial whether Mr. Stevens had had notice or not, because
618
the mere fact that he was the owner of the land in the parish, and that this land was charged with the burden of repairing the chancel, was sufficient. Therefore, he said, Mr. Stevens was liable as the landowner for paying for the repairs.
Now, one would have thought that a simple way of finding out what Mr. Stevens was to do would have been to say: "Well, the repairs will cost £30; that is a reasonable sum: judgment against you for £30"; or it might have been a reasonable thing, in ordinary circumstances, for the council to have done the repairs. Then they could have sued Mr. Stevens for the £30, and, having proved that he was liable, and that the sum was a reasonable sum, judgment in normal circumstances would have been given for the £30. But, unfortunately, the Consistory Court, the diocesan court, had no such power. The only power apparently that the Consistory Court had was this: it was entitled to admonish Mr. Stevens, and to say to him: "Well, you must do the repairs." Centuries ago an admonition by an ecclesiastical court no doubt could have been enforced by excommunication, and it would have been a very powerful weapon for getting those repairs done—"unless you do these repairs you will be excommunicated." But even centuries ago that was thought to be rather a difficult way of proceeding, and by a Statute as far back as the reign of Queen Elizabeth another procedure was laid down.
Under that procedure—and I will not go into the very technical terms—what happens is this, that a man who has a judgment in the ecclesiastical court, under which his opponent is admonished to do a certain thing, can invoke the civil power to come to his rescue, but he has to invoke it in a somewhat peculiar way, the theory being this. It is said to his opponent: "Here is an order of a court against you. You have not obeyed the order, therefore you are guilty of contempt of court. Therefore, if you do not pay you may have to go to prison for contempt." That was what happened in this particular case. The civil power was invoked. The wheels of the machine were set going, and in due course of time Mr. Stevens found himself in Bedford gaol. There he remained till, to use the technical term, he purged his contempt: he

619
paid the sum and costs. He also had to apologise but I do not attach any importance to that.
As a result of this gentleman's going to prison in these circumstances there was a very considerable public agitation, in fact, I am almost justified in saying that there was a public outcry. But I am a churchman—I hope I am among the most loyal churchmen—and, in addition to that, if you will allow me to tell you, before I became a Judge I was also a Chancellor of a diocese. Therefore I am not wholly unfamiliar with how things are done in this sort of matter. I should like to say that a good deal of this public criticism was rather ill-informed, because it was no fault of the Church and no fault of the learned Diocesan Chancellor. All he had to do was his duty and to decide in accordance with the facts. All that he did; but, even loyal churchman as I am, I have come to the conclusion that this jurisdiction is not one to which the Church really ought to attach very much importance in these days. This is not an ecclesiastical principle for which I am prepared to go to the stake, and in my view the Church would be well advised in her own interests to jettison a jurisdiction of this character. These events happened soon after I had the honour of presiding over your Lordships' House and I was the recipient of many indignant communications, to which I sent a formal reply, but it seemed to me the best thing to do was to refer the matter to a small Committee in order that they might examine the position and make a Report. I was very fortunate in being able to secure as the Chairman of that Committee the present Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Inskip, Sir Stanford Downing, who is the secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commission and a very distinguished Diocesan Chancellor, and the late Mr. Aubrey Lawrence, who unfortunately died before the Report was made. His death was a great loss to the Church. The Committee made a Report, and the object of the present Bill is to put their recommendations into an Act of Parliament.
I am sorry to trouble your Lordships with some small details, but I had better tell you the facts contained in the Report of the Committee. It appears that as long ago as the year 1798 the Dean and Chapter of Ely were impropriators of the rectory of Hauxton-
620
with-Newton, and as such they were entitled to the rectorial tithes arising from lands in those parishes and thereby they came under a liability to repair the chancel of Hauxton Church. By an Enclosure Act of the same date they were given certain lands instead of tithes and those lands became charged with the repairs of the chancel. In 1863 the Dean and Chapter granted to Mr. Henry Hurrell a lease for twenty-one years and this lease contained a covenant binding the lessee to repair the chancel of the church. Under certain orders with which I need not trouble your Lordships this land passed into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and in 1871 the Commissioners sold all the land originally allotted, with one exception, to Mr. Hurrell and the conveyance was subject to a perpetual covenant by the purchaser to repair the chancel. In 1916, Mr. Arthur Hurrell, to whom the estate had descended, sold the property to Mr. J. H. Stevens, the gentleman who eventually found himself in Bedford gaol. The conveyance to Mr. Stevens made no reference to the conveyance of 1871, but it was clear, as I have already stated to your Lordships, that Mr. Stevens was liable to repair the chancel by reason of his ownership of the land, whether he had notice or not.
The Committee included the Hon. A. E. A. Napier and His Honour Judge Owen Thompson, and they say in their Report that having taken into their consideration all the matters
"… we have come to the conclusion that the existing remedy in cases of disputed liability concerning the repair of chancels by impropriators is not satisfactory …. In our opinion the whole procedure is cumbrous and antiquated, and in particular, the enforcement of what is really a. pecuniary liability by imprisonment belongs to a system of law which ought to be and is in fact regarded by most people as obsolete."
Probably every member of your Lordships' House will agree with that statement. They then put forward their recommendation. They had to consider what was the best thing to be done, and they came to the conclusion that in the circumstances the best thing was to transfer the whole of such questions to the County Court for its decision. Your Lordships will recall that in this particular case the amount at stake was only £30 and it does seem rather absurd that a litigant should first of all have to

621
go before the diocesan court to establish liability and then should have to resort to a process of the civil court to enforce his judgment.
There were one or two gentlemen on the Committee who were of the opinion that the best way still was to let the Diocesan Chancellor decide the question of liability and then to go to the County Court for its enforcement. What they said was, this:
"Some of our members pressed the view that it was unnecessary, and therefore undesirable, to destroy the jurisdiction in this matter of the ecclesiastical courts and that in would be better, in view of the origin and history of the duty to be enforced, that the question of liability, or subjection to the duty, should be left as heretofore to the adjudication of the ecclesiastical courts …"
As, however, this did not commend itself to the majority of the Committee and as the primary aim of all had been to provide machinery which should be workable and fair between the parties concerned, these members, without dissenting from the recommendation now put forward, only asked that their view should be placed on record.
As an old Diocesan Chancellor I am very glad that it should be placed on record, but as far as the public is concerned, and it seems to me as far as the law is concerned, it is more desirable that there should be identity of proceedings and that the whole matter should be transferred to the County Court where it could be dealt with expeditiously, cheaply and to the satisfaction of all parties. If I were asked to say why it would be better to transfer the whole to the County Court, and were to use technical language, I should say that to divide the jurisdiction between the courts was an undesirable dichotomy, but talking ordinary English let me say that it is not wise to have two bites at a cherry.
May I come to the Bill itself? Its object is to keep the law unchanged except so far as it will be necessary to transfer the jurisdiction from the diocesan court to the County Court, and to convert the personal obligation into a pecuniary liability. Clause 1 does that, and the marginal note correctly says "Abolition of jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts over repair of chancels." Clause 2 provides the Machinery for doing it—machinery which
622
is to operate when the defendant does admit that he is liable and when he is willing to repair. Clause 3 provides for urgent cases and says that the responsible authority may in certain cases do the work themselves and afterwards sue. Clause 4 contains certain general provisions as to proceedings and transfers the question to the County Court. Clause 5 enables the Lord Chancellor for the time being to "make rules prescribing anything which is required or authorised by this Act to be prescribed." Clause 6 is an interpretation clause and Clause 7 is the title. That is the whole matter. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships so long over what is a very simple matter, and I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, although this may seem a very simple and technical matter yet it is going to make a new departure in the jurisdiction of courts which are as ancient and as much courts of the realm as any others. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will think I am justified in offering one or two observations upon this Bill. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has put before your Lordships the circumstances which have made some such Bill as this necessary. With regard to the Hauxton case, I think it is well to remember that no question arises as to the liability of lay rectors to pay for the repair of chancels or as to the conduct of proceedings in Consistory Courts, but a very serious question arises as to the fitness of imprisonment as a penalty for refusing to obey the order of the Consistory Court directing the defendant to carry out repairs to the chancel. I am satisfied that there must be general agreement that this penalty is wholly inappropriate and that, once the liability has been determined, the ensuing debt should be regarded as a pecuniary debt recoverable by ordinary process of law. On that ground there is certain to be agreement, but I think it would have been well, in spite of what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, if the Bill had been drawn on somewhat different lines leaving the determination of the liability of the rector to the ecclesiastical courts and the enforcement

623
of the consequent debt to the County Court, which is the appropriate court for dealing with all simple actions for debt.
May I very shortly put before your Lordships my reasons for that opinion? In the first place, from time immemorial the whole church building, and indeed all consecrated ground, has been under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts and I should be very reluctant that any jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts over the chancel should be withdrawn from them. In the second place, you will not altogether, by this Bill, escape the difficulty of two courts dealing with the same subject matter. The question of determining the rights of a rector will remain as before with the ecclesiastical courts, and it will be for the County Court to determine the liability of the rector to carry out repairs to the chancel. You then may have one court deciding who is rector by right and another deciding who is rector in virtue of liability to make repairs—two different courts with different jurisdictions dealing with the same matter. In the third place, the determination as to what person or body of persons constitutes a rector is one of very great difficulty, and one requiring a knowledge of the whole history of lay rectors and of ecclesiastical case law, which it is not to be expected that County Court Judges or the learned lawyers who practise before them are likely to possess. For these reasons I think, in spite of what the noble and learned Viscount said, that it would have been better if the question of determining the liability of a rector had been left in the hands of the ecclesiastical courts and the enforcement of the ensuing pecuniary debt put in the hands of the County Court.
I take it, however, after what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, that after giving careful thought to this matter he has decided that the transfer of the whole jurisdiction to the County Court must be regarded as integral to his Bill. This is not really a question of principle. After all, the main jurisdiction over the chancels—namely, the giving or withholding of faculties for alterations of, or additions to, chancels—will remain where it has always been, in the hands of the ecclesiastical courts. This is really in the main a purely monetary matter about which I do not feel disposed to raise
624
any question of principle. I am bound to admit that the consideration which has been put before your Lordships by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is of very great weight, that it would be very inconvenient and that it might be more costly for the litigant to have to deal with the same matter before two different tribunals. For these reasons, though I should have preferred that the whole jurisdiction had not been taken from the ecclesiastical courts, I am not prepared to advise your Lordships to oppose this Bill. Nor do I feel bound to press for amendments in the direction I have indicated when the Bill goes to Committee. I think it very likely that there may be other amendments moved with the object of simplifying the procedure, about which I have some doubt, in spite of the claims put forward, but, subject to what may be done afterwards in Committee, I am willing myself to accept the Bill in spite of the objections which I see to it and to regard it as carrying out a reform which has become necessary.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was good enough to submit the proposed Bill in draft to his colleagues who hold judicial office in this House, so that I have had the opportunity of considering it. I venture to think that it will be a great satisfaction to your Lordships to know that, in spite of the quite serious objections which the most reverend Primate suggested might be raised to the provisions of the Bill, yet upon the whole he accepts it. Undoubtedly it would have been a grievance, and a great grievance, to the persons concerned in these matters if they had to have recourse to two courts instead of one for the purpose of settling what, in money, might represent a very small sum—£20 or £30 or £40. Therefore I think your Lordships will have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that this liability, which is certainly very closely akin to a liability which civil courts are determining every day, should now be enforced in the civil courts; that is, in the County Courts.
But I am bound to say that the actual form of the proposal seems to me at present capable of improvement. One of the objections made recently to our ordinary civil proceedings is that there is delay in enforcing a remedy and that it

625
costs a good deal of money when the delay has been overcome. Therefore, I think it is very incumbent upon us when creating a new jurisdiction to see as far as possible that we avoid both delay and extra cost, and if your Lordships would take the trouble at any time to investigate the procedure suggested you will see that it is extremely complicated and cumbrous, that it causes delay and will, I think, cause a great deal of unnecessary cost. I have no doubt it carries out faithfully the Report of the Committee, but that Committee consisted of those learned in ecclesiastical as well as in secular law, and I cannot help thinking that this procedure has adopted a combination of ecclesiastical and civil procedure which has made the Bill somewhat complicated.
To begin with you cannot enforce the obligation upon the lay rector until you have given him notice to repair the chancel within a period of three months. That seems to me to be an extraordinarily long period, for a great many of the repairs may be nothing but a small matter. There may be a few slates wrong, there may be something wrong with tiling or paving or something wrong with the walls—something capable of being remedied in quite a few days and regarding which three months' notice seems quite unnecessary. Then the rector is asked to make an admission that he is liable as rector. That is contrary to our ordinary procedure. If you are suing a tenant for repairs you do not ask him to admit that he is liable. This seems to me an unnecessary introduction of a form of auricular confession imposed on a rector which I should have thought merely complicated proceedings. Again, when you have the man before the court if he has not made the admission—and many plainly liable often shrink from making a written admission—the court can do nothing but declare he is liable and wait till the three months or an extended period has expired, and it is not until after that period has expired that you come before the court again and claim damages.
Clause 3 occupies a whole page of the Bill and provides for the machinery where the parochial church council wish to do the repairs themselves in case of urgency. They must give detailed notice of the nature of the repairs required, which involves consulting a surveyor and
626
getting out a specification of repairs and so forth, all expensive and complicated matters, and then the Court can give leave to the parochial church council to do the repairs themselves if urgent. Even then the Court cannot order the man to pay, because they must wait until the expiration of three months unless he has admitted he is liable. All this procedure seems to me to be beside the mark. It would be simple to bring the man before the County Court Judge and leave the County Court Judge full discretion to make the proper order in the case.
Those are the only criticisms I wish to direct to the matter. I sincerely hope that before this Bill comes before the Committee the Lord Chancellor will be good enough to consider this question of procedure and see if we cannot devise something simpler. This method involves considerable delay, because in many country districts the County Court Judge only sits once a month and sometimes only once every two months, and sometimes six months may elapse before any remedy can be got. I suggest that this complicated procedure is capable of being improved, but on the principle the Bill appears to me to be a great relief to His Majesty's subjects.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is very satisfactory to find that both the Primate and my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin are in favour of the principle of the Bill, and I feel quite sure it will commend itself to every one of your Lordships. With regard to the machinery I will bear in mind the criticisms of my noble friend and if he will allow me to do so I will discuss the matter with him before it comes to the Committee stage. Any appeal to expedite proceedings or to economise will never fall, so far as I am concerned, on deaf ears. I want to do everything I can to economise and to expedite proceedings. At the same time I think people ought to be given a little time. It may be that three months is too long, it may be that the appropriate time is two mouths and two weeks, but those are small, though I agree, important points.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Bill is in substantially the same form as that which passed this House last Session. The Bill introduced in November, 1030, was amended in certain respects during its passage through this House and provisions were introduced to enable the appropriate Minister to regulate the method of slaughter of grey seals in breeding places. These provisions will be found incorporated in subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill. The only difference of substance between the present Bill and last Session's Bill as it left this House, is that in accordance with an Amendment made in another place the close season is to extend from 1st September to 31st December in each year, instead of from 1st October to 15th December. The Bill of 1930 was introduced to follow the Act of 1914 in this matter, but when the point was raised it was agreed by expert opinion that the longer period was more appropriate.
Last year the Bill failed to get through owing to the exigencies of other Parliamentary business and the subsequent Dissolution of Parliament. The Government hope, however, that it may be possible to secure the passage this year of this useful measure and so enable the act of 1914 to be removed from the schedule of the annual Expiring Laws Continuance Act. In view of the debate which took place on the previous Bill I have not thought it necessary to explain again to your Lordships in detail the scope and objects of this Bill: but I shall, of course, be ready, either now or on the Committee Stage, to deal with any points which noble Lords may wish to raise. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I wish to say only one word in support of this Bill, which I hope your Lordships will pass. I agreed when it was introduced last year, or the year before last,
628
to support it on behalf of the Society for the Preservation of the Fauna of the Empire. The Society have not passed a resolution in its favour, but as it is practically the same Bill I am sure they will welcome it very heartily. It will make a considerable difference really to put this Bill on the Statute Book instead of renewing every year the Act of 1914. I very much hope that it will pass into law this Session.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, there is only one point that I want to bring to the attention of the House; that is what seems to me the abnormal length of time for which the Order has to lie upon the Table of either House. It is 48 days. My recollection is that the usual period is 28 days. I would ask the House to consider whether, as the Ministry of Agriculture might have to make an Order rather quickly, 48 days might not be too long a time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

VETERINARY SURGEONS (IRISH FREE STATE AGREEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MISCEL LANEOUS PROVISIONS) 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.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Provision as to office of Land Purchase Commissioner.
5. It shall be lawful for a Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland to hold the office of Land Purchase Commissioner for Northern Ireland, but he shall not receive any remuneration in respect of that office.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE had given Notice to move to leave out Clause 5.

629
The noble Lord said: Since I put my Amendment on the Paper I have had the advantage of a communication from the Home Office who are in charge of this Bill. That communication has in no way shaken my belief that it is unsound for a Judge of the Supreme Court to be also a member of the Land Purchase Commission. I am fortified in that belief by the fact that at present it is not legal for a Judge of the Supreme Court to hold that office. But it has been pointed out to me that there are really two reasons why this clause should be passed. In the first place, the land purchase, which is compulsory in Northern Ireland, will automatically be finished in twelve months time. Therefore, as this gentleman who is now a Judge has been acting as a Judicial Commissioner for some time it would be well to continue his experience in the Commission for the short twelve months which will elapse before the purchase is completed. In the second place, as economy is now the order of the day and he is not going to receive any remuneration, it would be well to save the salary of a Commissioner for twelve months. In those circumstances I do not move my Amendment.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I beg to thank the noble Lord for what he has said. What he said is also what I was going to tell your Lordships—that the appointment as Judicial Commissioner of this gentleman who has now become a Judge is thought to be in the best interests of economy and efficiency. I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses; agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

EVENTS IN THE FAR EAST.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any information with regard to the serious situation in Shanghai and the policy which is being adopted by His Majesty's Government for the protection of life and property, and whether any decision has been reached by the League of Nations in view of the present position. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I placed this Question on the Paper two days ago. Even since then events have moved very rapidly and
630
the situation has changed. My reason for putting the Question down was that the country might have fuller information than it has at present regarding the course of events in Shanghai and the Far East. I think your Lordships will agree that it is of the utmost importance, when matters of such gravity as are taking place in that part of the world occupy public attention, that the fullest possible information should be given by the Government in order that we may realise the position and judge the dangers that attend it. Moreover, it has another beneficial effect. It prevents people from swallowing alarmist rumours which may appear from time to time in the Press, which may not be authentic, which may unnecessarily arouse popular indignation and which, therefore, ought to be corrected. It has not been possible recently to raise this question in another place, and it is hardly fair in a matter of such gravity as this that the Government should only be able to give the information which can be extracted from them by Question and Answer across the floor of the House. Therefore my reason really for putting down this Question was that your Lordships' House should perform one of the functions which it can very properly perform—namely, have a debate on an important public question, for which the time cannot be found in another place.
I want in the remarks that I make not for one moment to say anything which will embarrass the Government, or which will rouse animosity on one side or the other. But I think it is necessary to make some survey of the situation which has culminated in such a very grave dilemma as we see in Shanghai at the present moment. Great Britain is involved to a very great extent in the events which are taking place in China. Our obligations seem to fall into four categories. I will first of all just enumerate them, and then say a word about each. In the first place we have an obligation for the defence of our nationals and for the safeguarding of our trade interests. Secondly, as partners in the preservation of the neutrality of the International Settlement at Shanghai, we have certain duties to perform. Thirdly, we are co-signatories of the Nine-Power Treaty of 1922, and of the Peace Pact of 1928. And, lastly—and

631
on this I shall lay particular stress—we have very special obligations as defenders of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
With regard to the defence of our nationals, that is a matter with which I shall deal in more detail when I come to the question of our obligations in the Settlement. With regard to the question of the safeguarding of our trade interests, that is a matter to which the Government appear to have paid very special attention, and on that point I would draw your Lordships' attention to the Note which was sent to the Japanese Government on January 7 by the Government of the United States. That Note contained a passage which I will read. If I am obliged to make several quotations, I feel it is very necessary, because I find that in what I may call the diplomatic jargon of to-day people refer to clauses of treaties and to Articles of the Covenant by numbers, and the general public are not fully aware of the actual text of which, as events have proved, it is very necessary that they should have full cognisance. In this Note the United States Government said that:
"it cannot admit the legality of any situation de facto, nor does it intend to recognise any treaty or agreement entered into between those Governments or their agents which may impair the treaty rights of the United States or its citizens in China, including those which relate to the sovereignty or independence or territorial and administrative integrity of the Republic of China, or their international policy relative to China, commonly known as the open-door policy.
"The United States does not intend to recognise any situation or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the covenants and obligations of the Pact of Paris of August 27, 1928, to which Treaty both Japan and China, as well as the United States, are parties."
That was a forcible Note, reminding the Japanese Government of their obligations both under the Nine-Power Treaty and under the Pact of Paris; but His Majesty's Government did not support the United States Government in this Note. They addressed a communiqué which is dated January 9, in which, without referring to either of those instruments, they merely pressed that the open-door policy should be observed by Japan. I venture to say that that made a very bad impression. It looked as if the British Government at that time
632
thought that the one foremost interest was their own trade interest in China, and the ignoring of the far more serious matters mentioned in the Note of the United States was, if I may venture to say so, a very serious error. Moreover, the United States have shown a desire to co-operate with the other Powers and with the League of Nations. Their readiness to do so is a matter for congratulation, and every opportunity should have been taken to co-operate as closely as possible with them.
Now with regard to the second point, the neutrality of the Settlement. Protests, I think, have been made, which have been quite ineffective, against the use of the Japanese section of the International Settlement as a base for the Japanese operations. The fact that the Japanese have done this has placed the Settlement in a very dangerous position. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the area known as the Settlement will understand that the Japanese position is now of such a character that a section of the Settlement—and that for which the British are mainly responsible—finds itself in the direct line of fire between the combatants, and, as we know, there has been loss of life in consequence. The danger in which our nationals are placed seems to be getting graver and graver as time goes on.
I would read to your Lordships a message which has been received from four British subjects in the Settlement in the last two days, and which gives us a very clear idea of the extreme difficulty of the situation. They say:
"The geographical conditions are such that the further use of the International Settlement as a base by Japan must almost inevitably drag us all into active military operations to protect our nationals. We feel sure that morally and materially the consequences of this must in the end be disastrous all round. Almost equally deplorable would be the position wherein we may also drift by becoming beneficiaries of military measures which we ourselves avoided despite great provocation."
Before I leave that point I would ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who will reply to me, whether His Majesty's Government have come to any decision with regard to the evacuation of the Settlement by British nationals, or whether they consider that danger is past.
Now I come to the two Treaties, and here, with your Lordships' permission, I will read out the articles, because I think it is of the utmost importance that public attention should be drawn to the actual text of these instruments that have been signed. Article I of the Nine-Power Treaty, 1922, says: The Powers agree
"to respect the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial and administrative integrity of China."
That is quite categorical and clear. The Pact of Paris, 1928, says in Article 2:
"The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or Conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means."
I think we all agree that the validity of these collective Treaties is now in danger, and if one of the signatories is at liberty to repudiate them their whole value is lost.
I now come to the Covenant of the Leagne of Nations, and this is to my mind the most important of all the considerations which we have before us. The Covenant of the League produced the League. On the Covenant the League of Nations must stand, and the non-observance of the Covenant of the League of Nations must not only undermine the authority, but destroy the very existence of the League. There are three relevant Articles to which I would draw your Lordships' attention. They are often referred to, but always by number, and the text is not given. It is supposed everybody knows the text, but everybody does not, and it is very necessary that they should be reminded what these Articles say. Article 10 says:
"The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled."
Article 12 reads:
"The Members of the League agree that if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, they will submit the matter either to arbitration or to inquiry by the Council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three months after the award by the arbitrators or the report of the Council."
There is an obligation on all the signatories to carry out these Articles, and I
634
think at any rate the first paragraph, of Article 16 is relevant to the present situation and should be remembered. It says:
"Should any Member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12. 13 or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other Members of the League, which hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether a Member of the League or not."
Anybody surveying the various stages of the negotiations that have taken place, the various protests and Notes until the last one which was sent two clays ago, would not find that the Foreign Secretary has shown any very great disposition to champion the cause of the League Covenant, and to put first and foremost the authority of the League. I cannot help thinking that the right honourable gentleman, although his hands must be very full with his anxious work, would even now perhaps be in a better position to continue the negotiations if he were with the other members of the Council of the League of Nations in Geneva rather than remaining here, but no doubt he will return there very shortly.
At any rate we have here a test case which seems by its extreme nature to be one that is easier to resolve than a very complicated and difficult and involved case about which there was a considerable difference of opinion. One must remember that the very serious situation which has arisen in Shanghai is the natural consequence of the League of Nations handling of the situation in Manchuria. There again there was an absence of any firm lead—a lead which Great Britain could very easily and very properly take, considering her position on the Council of the League of Nations—and the consequence has been that the Japanese, finding that they could behave with only a protest, as they did in Manchuria, have taken advantage of the situation to go a great deal further in the neighbourhood of Shanghai. There is no question that if the Covenant of the League of Nations is going to be set aside, it will not only undermine the authority of the League but, by forming a very unfortunate prece-

635
dent, it is calculated to encourage any other nation on a future occasion to flout the League with impunity.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Lord forgive me interrupting him to ask whether he will say what he thinks the League could have done in Manchuria?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: If the noble Viscount will allow me to continue my argument. I will make very humble suggestions later in my remarks as to what might have been done. For the time being I only want to point out, what I think is obvious, that the latitude which was allowed to Japan in her actions in Manchuria encouraged her to believe that she could go a good deal further in the present situation in Shanghai. Before I come to more recent events I want in all fairness to say that I believe the people of Japan are being misled. I think the facts are being hidden from them. I think they are in entire ignorance of the proceedings in their true light, and that the militarists of Japan have for the time being got the upper hand. But I for one believe that there is still in Japan a great deal of right feeling which might be appealed to. I am strengthened in that belief by the utterance of Baron Shidehara, who was then Foreign Minister, on January 21, 1926. He has made utterances more recently than that. I will not trouble your Lordships by making a further quotation but his utterance was of such a character as to show that there was in Japan, and I believe there still is, a desire to respect international instruments and an opposition to the high-handed measures which have been recently taken by the militarists.
In the last twenty-four hours a Note has been addressed by the Twelve Powers to Japan. There we have a reference both to the two Treaties that have been broken and also to Article 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. There is still a note of appeal and a certain reticence on the part of the Powers who are addressing Japan, but undoubtedly it carries the matter a good deal further. The regret is that a step of this sort was not taken very much earlier in the day. I think that that is how I should answer the noble Viscount who just now interrupted me. When a resort to arms has been taken, as was the case in Manchuria, when there was a refusal to sub-
636
mit the dispute to the League—all these eventualities are taken into account in the Covenant—the Articles of the Covenant ought automatically to come into operation. It is not a matter of standing in judgment over any nation. It is a matter of a nation which infringes certain instruments being subject to a course of procedure to which that nation itself has agreed. There can be no question that had the League acted with greater promptitude, and had such a declaration as has now been made at the eleventh hour been made at a very much earlier date, we should not have seen the extremely dangerous situation which has arisen in Shanghai to-day.
I do not know if the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell us what reply the Japanese Government have made to the Note. Perhaps it has not yet been received. We have seen in to-day's news that there has been a breakdown in the negotiations between the Chinese and the Japanese. When we recall the attitude of the Japanese Government in their reply to the five points which were presented on February 4 by the British and American Governments, we may perhaps feel some doubt as to what will be the reply to this very formal and strong appeal from the Twelve Powers. But may I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount who will reply that in further negotiations—and I hope they will continue in spite of everything; we should never relax our endeavours—no attempt will be made to bargain with the Japanese Government, allowing them a free hand to do what they like in Manchuria provided they relax their stranglehold from Shanghai. I think that would be a very unfortunate method of negotiation and I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will not entertain such an idea.
I would ask the noble and learned Viscount whether any decision has been come to with regard to a meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations. The Chinese Government throughout this business have endeavoured to keep in very close touch with the League of Nations. They have appealed to it at every opportunity and they have asked now for the Assembly to deal with the question. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell us what decision has been come to on that point.

637
A further question I should like to ask is with regard to the supply of munitions—whether the League of Nations or the Powers watching these proceedings have come to any decision as to the continued supply of munitions by the Western Powers to either one or other or both of the combatants. I do not know if any decision has been come to on that point, but it is an important point because people are apt to say that in the Far East wars will always arise because undeveloped nations have the combatant instinct so strongly developed and will always settle quarrels in this way. It is often forgotten that the undeveloped nations are supplied with their munitions, with their weapons and with their new inventions by the Christian Western nations in this part of the world. The supply of munitions, therefore, is not a question that can be overlooked.
I have been as careful as I possibly can not to say anything to aggravate the delicate situation in which the Government find themselves. My object has not been in any way to embarrass the Government, but to strengthen their hands, and to ensure that they may be aware of the large body of feeling in this country that is watching the proceedings and is hoping, I trust not against hope, that the League of Nations will succeed in stopping hostilities. I want also to press that the Government may go forward more boldly and more surely in taking the lead more than they have in raising their voice in the League of Nations, as the outstanding champion of the League, and in order that the nations of the world may insist on the establishment of the rule of law, may condemn the barbarity and what is proved to be in the long run the futility of force, and be ready to penalise any nation, however powerful, which disregards and breaks its pledge.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, having lived at Shanghai from 1923 to 1928 I should like to make one or two observations, and in doing so to ask for the indulgence always accorded to those addressing your Lordships' House for the first time. It is not, I think, necessary for me to go into the extreme gravity and delicacy of the present situation. It almost seems at the moment as if we
638
ought to refrain from general comment or criticism. We ought to be most careful to avoid trying to deal with what is essentially an Eastern situation by Western ideas and methods. It is extremely important for us to realise the effect any of our criticisms or remarks may have in Japan or China, and that criticisms are apt to make a settlement more difficult than before. I think it is possible that the situation has become a little more difficult because we in the West did not at the initial stages take into sufficiently sympathetic account the grave underlying causes which have given rise to recent events.
I have a great many friends who are still in Shanghai and I shall be very anxious to learn from the noble and learned Viscount what are the possibilities now that further conflict may be avoided, because any conflict that arises, should hostilities be renewed, will have extremely serious consequences. I shall also be glad to learn whether anything can be done regarding co-ordination between the different forces at present in Shanghai. We have had a similar situation before—to some extent in 1925 and again in 1927, when the situation was very ably dealt with by the British Expeditionary Force which was sent out there. I should like also to learn whether the municipal services, such as police and fire brigades, have again been able to function freely in the northern sector of the Settlement. It is impossible to over-emphasise the danger of the situation and I hope we shall have reassuring news from the noble and learned Viscount.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, your Lordships will appreciate that in answering the Questions on the Paper and those which have been addressed to me this afternoon, I am speaking under a considerable sense of responsibility which is not lessened by the fact that the Department which is charged with the administration of these matters is not that for which I am directly responsible. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition began his remarks by justifying his action in raising these matters in debate in this House. I do not desire to quarrel with what he said on that head. I quite agree that these grave matters deserve the careful consideration of Parliament and that there can be no

639
better tribunal in which they can be discussed than your Lordships' House, provided always, of course, that they are discussed with discretion and moderation. At the same time your Lordships will appreciate that when a matter has reached the acute stage which the present controversy unhappily has attained one has to be very cautious in the use of language lest anything is said that might, even unintentionally, tend to exacerbate or extend the area of the dispute.
The situation which has arisen in Shanghai is naturally one which has given the very gravest concern to His Majesty's Government, and it has done so on two quite distinct grounds. Taking them more or less in the order adopted by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, there is first the immediate effect upon British interests in Shanghai itself. Your Lordships are well aware that Shanghai is a Settlement which owes its inception to British enterprise and which, thanks largely to the energy and ability of our traders and great commercial houses, has grown to its present position as one of the greatest ports in the world and the centre of commerce in the Far East. To-day it must be true to say that the International Settlement contains British property which is worth many millions of pounds, and that within its borders there is a large number of British subjects who are lawfully carrying on their business there under the Treaty provisions which entitle them to commence and to maintain their trading operations within its borders. Anything which imperils the safety of British lives and risks the British property so engaged is naturally a matter of grave concern to His Majesty's Government.
There is also, as the noble Lord has quite rightly pointed out, another aspect which engages our most serious interest. The state of affairs which now prevails in Shanghai is one which it is very difficult to reconcile with the provisions of the Pact of Paris or of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Peace is the greatest interest of the British Empire to-day. The League of Nations is an institution to which we have contributed and upon which we rely as a bulwark of international peace, and anything which tends to throw doubt on the sanctity of the Covenant and to bring the League
640
of Nations into disrepute must necessarily be a matter of the gravest importance to the Government and to the people of this country. It is on both those grounds that His Majesty's Government have viewed the position with grave concern and have made every effort to protect the Settlement, to prevent its becoming involved in the area directly affected by the hostilities which, unhappily, have taken place, and to effect a cessation of acts of violence on either side.
It would be difficult within any reasonable limit of time to give in detail the steps which His Majesty's Government have taken to this end. Indeed, most of those steps have been made public property almost as soon as they have happened. In Tokyo His Majesty's Ambassador has made repeated representations to the Government of Japan. In China His Majesty's Minister, who was actually starting for a very well-earned holiday in this country, cancelled his leave and returned first to Peking and then to Nanking and ultimately went to Shanghai in order to make similar representations to the Government of China. In Shanghai itself the Consul-General worked in collaboration with the Brigadier and later on with the Commander-in-Chief of our naval forces in China and with the cordial and close co-operation of the civil and military representatives of other Powers, all devoting their efforts to protecting the safety of the Settlement and to bringing about, if it were possible, a cessation of hostilities between China and Japan.
Perhaps I may be allowed to say as one of the satisfactory features in this melancholy situation, that the relations between those responsible civil, military and naval authorities alike of all the foreign Powers in Shanghai—the relations between all those persons have been of the most cordial and friendly character, and they have been working in complete accord and in the greatest possible harmony to carry out whatever steps they thought were possible or expedient. We have now at Shanghai, in addition, the Military Attachés to China and to Japan, both there in order to ensure that any communications to the respective forces of China and Japan should be made by persons who are familiar with the language and are in the closest possible personal relationship

641
with the Chinese and Japanese authorities respectively.
So far as the protection of the Settlement itself is concerned we have, as your Lordships have no doubt seen in the newspapers, increased our naval and military forces, and the British forces at Shanghai now consist of four cruisers, one gunboat, a destroyer, and four battalions of troops and a mountain battery which has been brought from Hong-kong. I was asked a specific question by my noble friend Lord Addington with regard to the co-ordination which was taking place in Shanghai. May I say in answering him how pleased the whole of your Lordships' House I know is that he should have taken part in our debates for the first time. We hope that this certainly will not be the last time, and we are particularly fortunate in that he is able to ask questions based on personal experience and personal knowledge of the place in which these events are happening. The co-ordination, as I have told him, is very close and very complete.
He asked me as to the functioning of the municipal services in the northern portion of the Settlement, in what is sometimes called the Hongkew salient. I have not any specific information with regard to that, but, in view of the fact that this is a part of the Settlement, or a part outside the Settlement to be more accurate, which is held by the Japanese forces and which has been the subject of very considerable fighting, I do not think it is probable that the municipal services are able to function there at the present time. I am afraid I cannot be more definite in my answer than that. That is the situation and those are the efforts which we are making and have been making so far as the Far East is directly concerned. But while carrying on those efforts in the Far East His Majesty's Government throughout has been keeping in the closest possible touch with the Government of the United States and with the friendly Powers which form our colleagues on the Council and in the Assembly of the League of Nations.
The noble Lord opposite criticised the action of His Majesty's Government in January last in not signing the same Note as that which was despatched by the United States Government to Japan on January 7 and in only sending a Note of
642
our own on January 9, and he suggested, if I understood him aright, that the Powers ought to have taken sterner action at an early stage—I suppose he means in September last when there was trouble in Manchuria; and he suggested that if we had taken action under certain Articles, which he specified, in the Covenant of the League of Nations, some more fortunate results would have been attained.
With regard to the first of those two criticisms, I would point out that the position of His Majesty's Government is not quite the same as that of the Government of the United States, for the reason that we are Members of the League of Nations and the Government of the United States is not. We have throughout this unhappy controversy been working in very close touch with the United States Government. So far as I have heard, there has been no suggestion of a complaint or criticism from them with regard to any action or inaction upon our part, and, on the other hand, of course it is necessary to remember that it would not be wise or, I think, proper for His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to take action which would seem to separate it from the other Members of the League of Nations, and to identify it with the United States in any sort of opposition to other Members of the League to which we belong. Our effort has rather been, while keeping in the friendliest touch with the United States, and while acting in every way in collaboration with that Government, at the same time to remain constant to our own duty to the League of Nations, and to endeavour to ensure that the Council of the League should as a whole be the body which was co-operating with the United States in the endeavour to put a stop to the situation which has arisen in Manchuria and Shanghai.
And I would also point out to the noble Lord that the suggestion which, I gather, he hinted at, that the right course would have been automatically to put into operation the provisions of Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, would be most improper and highly dangerous. It would be improper because it involves prejudicing an issue which the Council of the League of Nations, and now the Assembly of the League of Nations, have to determine. You do not put into operation the sanctions of

643
Article 16 until you are satisfied which is the nation which is to blame and against which those sanctions have to be invoked. The noble Lord knows that it is the contention of the Japanese that in the action that they have taken they have been fully justified; that no legitimate criticism can be levelled against them and that no breach of their obligations can be imputed to them. That is a matter which the Council was taking into consideration in regard to Shanghai under the provisions of Article 15 of the League of Nations, and which, for reasons which I shall indicate in a few moments, is as yet undetermined. And therefore any suggestions of a threat to either of the parties of this controversial character which the noble Lord suggests would, in my judgment at any rate, be as improper as it would be unwise.
But there is a further criticism which I venture to make to that suggestion. The noble Lord has alleged—I am not accepting it as accurate, but I am assuming for this purpose that it is accurate—that the militarists in Japan have got the upper hand and are taking a highhanded action, and that the people of Japan as a whole have been misled. If that were true, and if this country were thereupon to take the action which he suggests under Article 16 that would be a declaration that this country deemed Japan to have committed an act of war against the other Members of the League. Does the noble Lord really think that to suggest that Japan has committed an act of war against this country would be a way of limiting or moderating the scope of the hostilities which are taking place at this moment? Might it not well be that it would have a most serious effect in extending that scope, instead of limiting it, as the noble Lord, I know, desires? That was the first criticism—the non-participation in the Note of January; and I would only observe in passing that that dealt with a period anterior to the commencement of the situation in Shanghai. It dealt simply and solely with the position in Manchuria, because the Shanghai trouble did not begin until, I think, January 29, and it is only with regard to Shanghai that the Question at any rate purports to deal.
Then I was asked a question with regard to the evacuation of British
644
nationals in Shanghai. At present at any rate I certainly cannot say, as the noble Lord would like me to say, and as I would be glad to be able to say, that the danger with regard to those in the Settlement is past. If necessity should arise evacuation would no doubt be considered, as the situation might demand, but evacuation would be a very difficult process. It would be a very disastrous process, because it would mean the abandonment of the British property and interests—sometimes the whole livelihood—of those who were taken away, and I should doubt whether a great many of our nationals would be willing to be evacuated, even if they were so advised. At any rate at present I have no reason to believe that any such course is either practicable or prudent, and I hope that circumstances will not render any such desperate course necessary.
Then I was asked whether any date had been fixed for the meeting of the Assembly. What has happened with regard to that is this. The Council of the League of Nations had taken this matter into their consideration in accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of the Covenant, and, having taken the matter into consideration, they had invited each party to the dispute, China and Japan respectively, to submit a statement of their case; and, in addition, the Secretary-General, with the co-operation of the Members of the Council who had officials available in China, had asked for an emergency report from those officials in Shanghai in order to assist the Council in coming to a determination as to the responsibility for the dispute. Your Lordships probably know that two reports have been received, each of which has been published in the public Press, on February 9 and 15 respectively. Last week the representative of China claimed the right under Article 15 to refer the matter from the Council to the Assembly. The Japanese representative challenges the validity of that reference, and I believe that what has happened is that the Council of the League has remitted the question to a Committee of Jurists who are expected to report within a day or two, and that the Council will take that report into consideration either to-morrow or on Monday—at the earliest possible moment. I cannot of

645
course predict what the report will be or what the decision will be, but until that report has been received and until that preliminary question is determined, it is impossible to say when the Assembly will be summoned. I have no doubt myself that, assuming that the reference is valid, the Assembly will meet at as early a date as can conveniently be arranged. That is only my personal opinion. I am not speaking with the authority of the Council.
If the claim to refer the matter to the Assembly is upheld, it follows that the jurisdiction of the Council to decide the question is automatically concluded. Its jurisdiction is ousted when the matter is removed from it to the Assembly, and accordingly the Council has been very careful to come to no decision upon the merits of the matter, on which it has not yet heard the contentions of the two sides, with regard to which its power to determine the question has been taken, or is alleged to have been taken, from it by the action of one of the two sides. If the matter falls to be determined by the Assembly, or if on the other hand it has to be determined by the Council, in either event the representatives of this country will form part of the tribunal before whom it falls to be determined, and I think your Lordships will agree with me when I say that His Majesty's Government would regard it as a breach of their duty to the League of Nations, as well as a breach of their duty to their fellow members—China and Japan, who are the disputants in this case—if they were to express any opinion or come to any decision as to the responsibility for the situation which has arisen, until they have heard the contentions of both sides and investigated the evidence which will be laid before them by one side or the other. Therefore it is that I cannot answer the third part of the Question which the noble Lord asks—if any decision has been reached by the League of Nations in view of the present position—except to say that the British Government, and I believe all their colleagues, are most anxious to avoid reaching any decision until they have given both sides a fair opportunity of being heard, and until they have examined the evidence which either side is in a position to adduce.
646
The noble Lord referred to the appeal which has been addressed to Japan by the twelve Members of the Council. I want to make it quite clear—as no doubt your Lordships will appreciate if you have studied the terms of the appeal in the Press this morning—that that appeal does not involve any condemnation of Japan. It does not involve the uttering of anything in the nature of a threat to Japan. It is, as it purports to be, merely an appeal from friendly Members and collaborators with Japan in the League of Nations, to a friendly sister nation, to do all in her power to assist in what ought to be, and what I hope is, the object of everyone of us—namely, to preserve the peace and to maintain the sanctity of the covenants to which we have affixed our signatures.
The noble Lord is quite right in supposing that whatever may be the issue of our present endeavours we shall not relax our efforts to attain a peaceful and satisfactory solution, and to put an end to whatever hostilities are going on. Only this morning it was found possible to arrange for a meeting between the Chinese and Japanese military authorities in the hope of achieving a settlement for the time being. I have no official information as to the outcome of that meeting, but such reports as have reached us indicate that unhappily it has not proved successful, and that there is at any rate a serious risk of a recommencement of hostilities. If that unhappily should prove to be the case, I can only say that that failure is not going to discourage us from going on with our efforts, but I do hope, in fact I feel confident, that every member of this House, as well as anybody in a place of responsibility in this country or in another place, will abstain from affirming or expressing any opinion as to where the responsibility lies for the situation which has arisen, until a full opportunity has been given for the Council or for the Assembly to determine that issue.
I am quite sure that nothing would be less likely to bring about peace and to bring an end to the position of tension, indeed of active violence, which unhappily prevails than the feeling by either side that it was being unfairly treated by its colleagues in the League of Nations, or that its case was being prejudged before it had had a

647
full opportunity of stating what it had to say. We are appealing to both those nations on the basis that they are as determined as we are to act in good faith and to carry out the obligations upon which they have entered. We shall do our very best to bring the present state of affairs to an end, to prevent unnecessary damage to British property, to protect as far as may be the safety of our own nationals, and we believe that we are more likely to achieve that end by methods of conciliation, trust and confidence than by anything in the nature of threat or of partisanship in a dispute which we deeply deplore.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I ask the noble Viscount if he could say whether any reply has been received from the Japanese Government to the
648
Powers' Note and, if not, whether when it is received it will be immediately published?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: So far as I know no reply has yet been received, and indeed I think the Note was only handed to the representative of the Japanese Government yesterday, so that there really has hardly been time for their reply. The reply will no doubt be addressed to the Council of the League of Nations from whom the appeal emanated, and the decision as to publication must rest with them and not with this Government, but I should be very much surprised if they do not give the reply the same publicity as has already been given to the appeal.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.