Lords Sitting of 25 April 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD NUFFIELD.
Sir William Richard Morris, Baronet, O.B.E., having been created Baron Nuffield of Nuffield in the County of Oxford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
WATCHET URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
BRIGHTON, HOVE AND WORTHING GAS BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SUNDERLAND AND SOUTH SHIELDS WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
NORTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
TITHE BILL. [H.L.]
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday, May 3.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to amend the law as to the effect of death in relation to causes of action and as to the awarding of interest in civil proceedings. I move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE: LORD DERBY AS A WITNESS.
Message received from the Commons requesting that their Lordships would be pleased to give leave to the Right Honourable the Earl of Derby, K.G., G.C.B., G.C.V.O., to attend to be examined as a witness before the Committee of Privileges appointed by them.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, it will be perhaps for the convenience of your Lordships if I explain the meaning of the Message which has just been read at the Table. It appears that last week a Motion was made in another place by Mr. Winston Churchill in which he made certain charges with regard to tampering with witnesses who were appearing before a Joint Committee, and he moved that those charges be referred to the Committee of Privileges in another place. That Committee has since met and, as I understand, at their instance the Message which has just been read has been sent by the House of Commons asking the leave of this House to my noble friend the Earl of Derby to attend as a witness before that Committee. I understand that the noble Earl, who is in his
712
place, will presently express his own willingness to accede to that request, and I imagine that your Lordships' House will be only too anxious if he sees fit to allow him to render any assistance in the way of giving evidence which may be possible.
The position which gives rise to the present Message results from the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. One of those Orders, No. LXIV, which I think dates back some 260 years, provides that:
"No Lord shall either go down to the House of Commons or send his answer in writing, or appear by counsel to answer any accusation there, upon penalty of being committed to the custody of Black Rod, or to the Tower, during the pleasure of this House."
My noble friend Lord Derby, being anxious to avoid those penalties, thought it right to communicate with the officials of your Lordships' House with regard to this matter. I propose to move in accordance with precedent that leave should be given to my noble friend Lord Derby to attend the Committee of Privileges in the House of Commons, pursuant to the Message of to-day's date, if he thinks fit. I presume that if that Resolution is passed a communication will be sent to the other House in accordance with its terms. I need hardly say that in passing this Motion we are consenting to the request which has been made to us that the noble Earl shall attend as a witness. It would be, of course, quite impossible and improper that there should be any attempt in another place to treat him as anything but a witness in the course of the proceedings which are taking place before the Committee of Privileges. I beg to move.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Derby to attend to be examined as a witness before the Committee of Privileges appointed by the House of Commons, if he thinks fit.—(Viscount Hailshain.)
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I sincerely trust that your Lordships will assent to this request from the House of Commons. I certainly give my fullest assent to it personally.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS.
LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON had given Notice that lie would call attention to the lack of provisions in the Ancient Monuments Acts for the maintenance of houses of historical or artistic importance; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think I need apologise for calling your Lordships' attention to a matter which is really of the greatest importance to this country. England, as the centre of the English-speaking world and as a country full of the interest and importance and history of Europe, preserves a marvellous collection of old buildings, ecclesiastical, civil, domestic, unrivalled by any other country in the world. That is our great heritage. The heritage of this people is in what its forefathers have left behind on the surface of the earth—not merely the cathedrals and churches they built, but still more the houses in which they lived and in which they took so much pride. Those houses are now in a very perilous condition. They are actually in danger from year to year of going backwards, and even of falling down. Many of our ancient houses, houses of first-class historical importance, have already suffered. Some have been pulled down; many are no longer inhabited and no longer taken any good care of, and they are in a condition of peril. Our heritage of the past is imperilled by the way in which we are treating its monuments.
This is not a matter which I raise as a single individual. The condition of our ancient monuments is a matter which has attracted the attention of Parliament more than once, and which receives great attention from the public. There have been from time to time important attempts at legislation. The Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913, and the Ancient Monuments Act, 1931, show how considerable has been the attention which even Parliament has been able to devote to this question. In addition to those Acts, in 1921, when the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, was First Commissioner of Works, he appointed an Advisory Committee to consider the whole question of the position of ancient houses. That Committee reported, but its Report naturally did not receive much attention, and it has been forgotten. So far has it been forgotten that I believe I possess the only
714
copy of the Report which survives; and I should be glad if that Report could be reprinted and laid on the Table of the House.
That Committee, dealing with the Acts, and especially with the Act of 1913, considered the whole question. They began by deciding what an ancient monument was, and they defined it as any monument specified in the schedule to the Act of 1882, and any other monuments or things which in the opinion of the Commissioners of Works are of a like character, and any monument or part or remains of a monument the preservation of which is a matter of public interest by reason of the "historic, architectural, traditional, artistic, or archaeological importance" attaching thereto. That definition would seem to be wide enough to embrace any ancient monument, even a house, but the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913, in Section 12, subsection (3), provides:
"This section shall not apply to any structure which is occupied as a dwelling house by any person other than a person employed as the caretaker thereof or his family."
The Finance Act, 1930, further dealt directly with this question by enacting in Section 40, subsection (2), that:
"… such pictures, prints, books, manuscripts, works of art, scientific collections or other things not yielding income as on a claim being made to the Treasury under this section appear to them to be of national, scientific, historic or artistic interest"
should be exempted from Death Duties. It would appear that the wording of that section is wide enough to include houses, but as a matter of fact it does not include them. Houses, however wonderful as works of art, however treasured as historical monuments, are excluded from any protection under any of the Ancient Monuments Acts.
Let me for a moment direct your Lordships' attention to the French law dealing with ancient monuments. By that law the owner of a national monument, or of a house scheduled as of national importance, is forbidden to interfere with its artistic qualities, but he receives from the State in return the undertaking of certain parts of the upkeep. In fact, in France, the State does maintain the structure of ancient houses of sufficient importance to be included in the schedule

715
of ancient monuments. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the chateaux on the Loire. They are all marvellously well preserved; and they are preserved at the expense of the State, but they remain inhabited, habitable by and useful to their owners. I have not the figures and I do not know how much that action costs the French Government, but at all events, in return for giving up a portion of his rights, and for allowing his property to be visited at certain hours by the public, the owner gets his structure or his building kept in order by the State.
I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that a great many of the great houses in England are in a parlous state. The owners cannot afford to spend upon them the money which the upkeep requires. I will not name any particular house; your Lordships know them well. There is, for instance, one house with many acres of roof, and that roof is in a condition needing very considerable expenditure, which the owner cannot meet. Unless it is taken over by the Government in some shape or form, that house is doomed; the roof will fall in and then it will be a ruin. The remarkable fact is that while it is still roofed and still inhabited it must bear Death Duties, it must pay taxes—Income Tax and so forth—on a valuation. It has to bear all that, and the owner gets no assistance from the British public, which possesses so vast an interest in that building and in others like it. If it were to become a ruin, if the roof were allowed to fall in, then it would be possible for it to be scheduled as a public monument and for the Office of Works to take it over, to repair or replace the roof, and bring it again into a habitable condition; but it would not be inhabited while it was an ancient monument. While it is an ancient monument and is inhabited it can get no assistance whatever from the State.
It is not enough to buy one of these houses and make a kind of museum of it. That has been done in several cases. Old houses in some of the great towns have been bought, or received as gifts, and have become the property of the city in question, but what do you get? You get a sort of museum piece. What we really want is to have houses lived in—houses that have been lived in by
716
generations of one family, houses which contain the accumulation of family portraits, and one thing and another which give life and vitality to a building, not a mere museum. We have museums enough perhaps; I sometimes think that we have too many. We do not want to have a number of houses treated as museums; we want them to be lived in. We want our kinsmen beyond the seas, when they come in great numbers to visit the Mother Country and to see her treasures, to see places that are alive and not dead museums, which might be copied and rebuilt anywhere else in the world. We want a living thing preserved, and that is one of the difficulties with which we are faced in this connection.
It is a commonplace to say that this failure to maintain our great houses is due to the Death Duties. The Death Duties on these houses are not heavy. These houses are treated, so far as I know, with considerable liberality by the Government, and indeed I think you will find that most of these great houses which are tending to come into a parlous condition are lightly treated when it comes to Death Duties. It is not the Death Duties on the houses which really cause the trouble but the Death Duties on the estates. A man inherits a great national house. He inherits not an asset but a very heavy liability, and one that his estate is very likely unable to bear. It is with these houses as it has been with some of our English cathedrals. Take Westminster Abbey for example. It was richly endowed by pious donors in the past, and it was a very rich corporation. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when they were founded and brought into operation, took away the bulk of the estates of these very rich old establishments and left them with incomes sufficient for carrying on their daily work as places of worship, but they left nothing for the maintenance of the fabric. The result was that when, a few years ago, there was a great cry that Westminster Abbey was in danger, they had not the money for doing the necessary repairs. A subscription was opened and largely subscribed to, and they were thus enabled, by the generosity of living people, to save the Abbey for posterity. That ought not to have been necessary. There was an estate sufficient

717
ten times over for all purposes, but it had been confiscated.
The same thing is happening in regard to our great national houses. The owners of them have not had very large demands made upon them for Death Duties on the houses, but the demands for Death Duties on the estates have been such as to eat up all the financial resources that would have enabled the owners to maintain their houses. That has happened generation after generation, and each generation comes nearer to the point when the inherited property is almost insufficient for maintaining the family house, and no considerable help is obtained from outside. Take the valuation for Income Tax and so forth. I need not mention the name of any great place, but your Lordships will easily be able to dot my "i's" and cross my "t's," if I take an imaginary case. A question arises as to the valuation of an estate for Income Tax and Death Duties and rates and taxes. The proper valuation is small, but the authorities come down on the owner and say: "No, it is true you have got a large house and it is historic and costs you money to maintain it. You may have two such houses, or a park or two such parks, all valued for rates and taxes and so forth, and if you were to pull down your great houses and eat up your parks into building land you would not only receive a much bigger income but also save the great expense of living in your ancestral home."
There is a direct urging from the Government side to destroy and not to preserve our national heritage. It is absolutely impossible to look forward one hundred years and see surviving, with any certainty, any considerable number of our great houses, and not merely our great houses, because some of the most important architectural monuments which remain are small houses, and those are falling under the scythe of taxation from year to year in increasing numbers. It is this impoverishment of the propertied classes, in so far as it applies to houses, that is the cause of our unfortunate position. We are using up our national heritage and allowing it to disappear. We are allowing one of the great assets of our civilised country to pass out of our hands. We are allowing a great treasure to be destroyed, and it is not merely a sentimental treasure but it is a great practical treasure.
The tourist industry, as we all know, is very badly run in this country. I am told that if we ran the tourist industry with the same ability as the Italians do we might reckon on a profit of £10,000,000 a year, which we are far from getting now; but the tourist industry, if it is to yield a return, must include the great houses. People come from the ends of the earth to see England, but they want to see the houses, the names of which are on the tips of our tongues. They are allowed to see them. The owners are very generous in this matter and they open their doors to the public, two or three times a week it may he, freely, and in return for that they get nothing. In France if a man throws open his house for public enjoyment he gets a return. The Government step in and save his house from destruction, and schedule it as a national monument. We are threatened on all sides in this country. It has happened to be my duty to investigate the condition of these old houses in England, and I can assure your Lordships that the condition of many of them is terrible.
I beg your Lordships to consider the importance of this question. I am not making any demand for money, I am not putting forward any proposal as to how the trouble should be met. I merely desire to raise the question in order to obtain support from the public in a movement to maintain and preserve, and repair if necessary, the great heritage we possess in our fine and beautiful ancient buildings. You have a schedule drawn up of ancient monuments and houses that are not inhabited, but it is the inhabited house that we want to preserve. Once an old house becomes empty and abandoned it has lost three-quarters of its charm, and much of its value. We want to preserve the important houses that people live in, and we want a schedule of them and some contribution from the State towards their maintenance in a useful state.
I do not believe there exists one member of this House who does not substantially agree with what I am saying. Everybody who realises the condition to which our ancient and important houses are gradually being reduced must see that it is time that something was done to arrest this destruction and decay. What that should be it is not for me to say. It is a question in the first instance of finance., with which we have

719
nothing to do. It is a question for the Government to take up as opportunity arises and as soon as possible, so that we may retain the possession of these buildings of great value and hand them on to posterity not wrecked, ruined and destroyed, but repaired, kept beautiful and in a condition of utility. I lay this question before your Lordships with confidence that I shall obtain public-spirited support from all classes of the community in this agitation in which I am taking part. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Conway of Allington, asked me whether I would support his proposal as representing the smaller manor houses, as he has been speaking rather of the great houses of England, so many of which belong to members of your Lordships' House. I do indeed gladly support his proposal, and I would make one or two specific suggestions about it. It so happens that I live in a house which is universally acclaimed by artistic people as a house of beauty. Mottistone Manor, to which by great good fortune I succeeded some years ago, is a very beautiful manor house. Its roof is in good repair, and I believe it will remain so during my lifetime and my son's. But I tell you this because of an interesting experience I had, which reinforces the argument which the noble Lord has addressed to your Lordships' House and the Government.
I was asked not long ago if somebody could come down—I think from Country Life—to draw pictures of the house and write an account of it. A most interesting man came, and I said to him when he had done his work: "How sad it must be for you to think that your very interesting task must now be coming to an end, for I think you told me that for seven years you have been going round England seeing these beautiful old Elizabethan and Tudor houses, big and small." He replied to me: "Oh, no, that is not the point at all. There are enough of them in England for me to continue going round seeing houses of historic and artistic interest for another twenty years, but I have got to hurry up, because so many of them are falling down." This was a man who really knew what he was talking about. The thing is urgent. England, I believe, from what this man and others have told me, has
720
more beautiful buildings of this kind than any other land on earth. I think Sir Edwin Lutyens would agree with me in that, indeed I am sure he would, because he told me. Yet we are taking less care of these buildings than any other country.
The noble Lord, Lord Conway, instanced the castles on the Loire, and in almost every country special arrangements are made whereby beautiful buildings of historic or artistic interest, whether big or small, are relieved of taxation and relieved of rates and other burdens in order to induce owners to continue to live there and maintain them intact as beautiful buildings. Now I would suggest to His Majesty's Government, with deep respect, that they really ought to act before it is too late. Lord Conway told us of one historic house the roof of which is falling in. There are many others. Why should not the Government revive Lord Crawford's Committee? Why should they not then decide to treat historic houses as we already treat great pictures and say that if the owner will give facilities on a reasonable scale, as is done in France, those buildings should be exempt from Death Duties, and that other things shall be done to help the owners to keep them in good repair, and so maintain them for the advantage of all concerned? I respectfully beg the Government to take this matter into their immediate consideration. It is not one of those things that can afford to wait. I hope they will take some action forthwith which will preserve, let us hope for all time, these glories of England.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the object of the Motion which stands in the name of my noble friend is to recommend the inclusion in the Ancient Monuments Act of provisions for the maintenance of houses of historical or artistic importance. But in reality I believe that the wishes of the noble Lord go somewhat beyond that, for his speech was devoted to the possibility of relieving the landlord or the owner of these historic houses of the crushing burden of Death Duties, which, of course, do—and I think that is generally recognised—on the succession of a new life seriously prejudice any appreciable chance there may be of carrying out the necessary repairs and maintenance. The Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee, of which my noble friend is a

721
member, gave a full report on this point, under the heading of "Secular buildings in use," and I will endeavour to explain to my noble friend why these recommendations were not accepted by His Majesty's Government.
In the first place any attempt by the State to exercise a reasonable degree of control over inhabited houses was likely to raise considerable opposition on the part of the owner, or if the Commissioner accepted responsibility for repairs and maintenance he must of necessity be given large statutory powers. Secondly, the expense involved in any large scheme of taking over responsibility for maintenance in whole or in part of any of these historical or artistic buildings must represent a figure which, although it is not possible to estimate it, would certainly be one of considerable size. The additional questions of rating, taxation and Death Duties would all have to be taken into account. Under the existing Ancient Monuments Acts, 1913 and 1931, the Commissioner of Works has power to schedule, or with the owner's consent to assume guardianship of, any ancient monument which is not an ecclesiastical building in use or a dwelling-house inhabited by anyone except the caretaker. On the other hand, buildings of an artistic nature and importance can now be scheduled as having special architectural or historical interest under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and cannot be demolished without the consent of the local planning authority. That, as the noble Lord will see, does guard to some extent against the destruction of these ancient buildings.
The noble Lord raised one or two points which I shall endeavour to answer. I fully realise that the noble Lord has a particularly strong case, but I cannot let pass his remark that it appeared to him that His Majesty's Government were destroying our national heritage. I believe that the policy which His Majesty's Government have pursued arid which has resulted in a reduction of taxation has considerably alleviated the distress of the owners of these properties. On the other hand, the noble Lord will recollect that if the Opposition one day assume the powers of Government and proceed upon a policy of taxation of land values, a very different story may be told. The noble Lord based his claim for the exemption of these properties on
722
the ground that, under existing law, pictures and works of art which are adjudged to be of national, historical, artistic, or scientific interest are exempt from Death Duties until they are sold.
The claim that land and buildings of national importance should also be exempted from Death Duties has been put forward from time to time and was last considered by the National Parks Committee in 1931. This Committee in effect rejected the claim for exemption from Death Duties of lands and buildings of national importance so long as they remained in private ownership. They did, however, recommend the exemption of land and buildings which are given or bequeathed by will to the National Trust or some similar institution. This decision was accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a clause was inserted dealing with that point in the Finance Act of 1931, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that date was not prepared to give effect to the suggestion that relief should be extended to lands and buildings remaining in private ownership. I am afraid that His Majesty's Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day do not feel inclined to alter the decision on that point. The object of exempting works of art from the payment of Death Duties was to induce the owner not to sell these works abroad. It was hoped it would give him some inducement to keep them and value them, and for that reason they were excluded from the payment of Duty.
I fully agree with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that these historical buildings entail a very heavy expense to the owner and may be, as they sometimes are, largely kept up for the benefit of an interested and admiring public who have rights of access to the property. These, I am advised, are not considerations which can lead to their exemption from Death Duties, but they are factors which are taken into consideration in determining the value of property on which Duty is chargeable. A large house of historical or artistic importance is not really valued at any very large sum of money for Death Duty purposes. On the contrary, it is valued at an exceptionally small sum. If the owner of the house is also the owner of large property round about it then the graduation of his Death Duties will

723
be due entirely to the value of the land which he owns.
The noble Lord addressed one or two questions to me, and he asked if the document from which he quoted about the situation of the chateaux in France—namely, the Report of the Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee of 1921—could be reprinted. I understand there are a certain number still at the Stationery Office, but if the noble Lord could give me some indication of the number he requires I should be happy to arrange for the publication of further copies of this Report.
I am sorry I cannot accept the Motion of the noble Lord. I hope he will realise that His Majesty's Government fully appreciate that Death Duties are a heavy burden upon the owners of land and the owners of these historical houses, but it would be quite contrary to the decisions of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer if a policy were instituted allowing the owner of an ancient house of historical interest to reside in that house for the remainder of his life and for his heirs and successors to do likewise, and for the maintenance and upkeep of that house to be chargeable to the public purse. I wish sincerely that I could accept the noble Lord's suggestion. Indeed, if he suggested to me that he wished the complete abolition of Death Duties I should be with him, but unfortunately the public purse requires money, and at the present time His Majesty's Government cannot give any indication of relief in the way my noble friend suggests. I would therefore ask him to withdraw his Motion.
LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LIBERIA.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any information they can give to the House in reference to the position in Liberia; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, some little time ago I heard it said half in jest but probably more than half in earnest, that ever since the League of Nations has been established we have all become atrocious busybodies constantly prying
724
into each other's affairs. It is in the rôle of a very conscious busybody that I am asking your Lordships to interest yourselves for a few moments this afternoon in the affairs of the Republic of Liberia. My excuse for doing so is that your Lordships' House has never hesitated to express the strongest disapproval of gross misrule in whatever part of the world it has occurred, and still less when that misrule has had the result of causing unnecessary suffering and misery to friendless and helpless people. Now that is the position in the Republic of Liberia to-day. It is being exposed to the gravest misrule, and the indigenous races are enduring a great deal of perfectly unnecessary misery and almost deliberate injustice.
The language which was used in this House two years ago by the then Lord Privy Seal, Lord Snowden, recalled to some of us the historic denunciation by the late Lord Grey when he was Foreign Secretary of what was known as the red rubber scandals of the Belgian Congo. What Lord Snowden said two years ago is, unfortunately, still perfectly true to-day. There are noble Lords in the House who will be able with far greater personal authority than I can claim to tell the story of the abuses which have characterised Liberian administration in recent years, and all that I need do is to allude in the briefest possible fashion to some of the more outstanding events. It is quite unnecessary to go into ancient history.
As your Lordships know, Liberia was founded over a hundred years ago to be a home for the emancipated negro slaves of the United States who wished to return to their own native Continent. In 1847 it became an independent Republic, and since then it has been under the Government of the descendants of those emancipated negro slaves, a community now of about 15,000 strong, who exercise unquestioned dominion over some two million indigenes of mixed aboriginal tribes. Almost from the very start there has been trouble and no real progress in civilisation has been made. There is a pretentious imitation of American political institutions, but beyond that it hardly goes, and, although we ought to recognise the labours of a few high-minded and patriotic Liberians them

725
selves to improve matters, the position of the country to-day is wholly deplorable.
If a description is required perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote a few sentences from a message to The Times which was sent by a thoroughly informed correspondent. This is what he said:
"This beautiful country is seen to be in a worse condition than it was 100 years ago. After 100 years of Americo-Liberian government it is; without a mile of railway, with no roads to the interior, without a medical or telephone service. The Treasury is in a bankrupt condition and the volume of trade is rapidly declining. The twin evils of corruption and indolence are too glaring to be denied, while the 2,000,000 natives are suffering oppression and cruelty at the hands of the 15,000 Americo-Liberians."
This charge of oppression and cruelty was not purely haphazard. The Commission of Inquiry upon which Lord Snowden based his denunciation, known as the Christy Commission from the name of its president, Dr. Cuthbert Christy, had reported, after the most careful examination on the spot, that it found slavery rampant in Liberia, and there are in that Report the most alarming and disgusting descriptions of forms of slavery which succeed in evading the law. Small children of five and six years are pawned in perpetuity in order to pay taxes, and there are still worse things. That was one of the findings of the Christy Commission. They also found that natives were being shipped overseas under conditions which are scarcely distinguishable from slave raiding and slave trading. They found that, though it may seem a minor conclusion, there was a great deal of forced labour and corrupt practice. That was in 1930. That Commission was followed by another one presided over by M. Brunot, an eminent French administrator, which dealt with the financial rather than the social scandals. M. Brunot's Commission reported that the finances of the Republic were in a desperate condition and that the state of the public health was a danger to the rest of the Continent of Africa.
Liberia is a Member of the League of Nations, and the attention of the Council of the League has, of course, been drawn, and drawn very forcibly, to these inquiries. Repeated endeavours have been made by the Council to help
726
Liberia to put its house in order, and to endeavour to make it realise how far short it falls of the standard which is expected of civilised nations. That thankless task has been largely carried out by a Speciai Committee of the League, presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. It culminated in the presentation to the Government of Liberia by the League of a plan for the reform of the whole administration, with the generous financial assistance of a Finance Corporation of America. The plan included, among many other suggestions, primarily the appointment of a Chief Adviser to the Liberian Government. It then recommended the division of the country into proper administrative districts, properly controlled and administered. It recommended the appointment of a Financial Adviser who would be designated by the President of the United States, and of a number of health experts to advise in their particular sphere. It recommended the preparation of a State Budget which, apparently, had been unknown before, and some control of the revenues of the State. Finally, it advised that the League should be allowed to arbitrate in cases of serious difference between the Government and the advisers as appointed.
Your Lordships will readily admit that this is hardly the sort of project that would be presented to a country that had shown the most elementary sense of responsibility for its own ditties of good government and the just treatment of the natives entrusted to its care. The mere fact of the League having delivered—I do not think I am using words that are too strong—such an ultimatum, and having delivered it on the clearest evidence before it, does clearly indicate to your Lordships the extreme gravity of the situation. That was in 1932. So far as we know, nothing has been done by Liberia, but a great deal has been written. In particular, Liberia has handed in at Geneva a long list of reservations to the plan—reservations which, if they are accepted, would go a long way to render the plan wholly nugatory. They talked bombastically about their sovereign rights. They refused to be bound by any advice they might get from the experts appointed. They refused the arbitral decision

727
of the League. They refused to allow their so-called gendarmerie—who incidentally are the worst agency for the oppression of the native tribes—to be brought under any form of external control. They refused any limitation of their pernicious practice of selling concessions in native lands and native rights to outsiders. Finally, they stipulated—and here I quote the very words of their reservation:
"That the Chief Adviser shall not be appointed from any State to whose nationals the Liberian Government has financial obligations, or is under economic commitments, nor from any State having territory contiguous to Liberia."
That reservation, if accepted, definitely seems to limit the scope of selection of the Chief Adviser to Iceland or Manchuria.
In other words, my Lords, they virtually reject with contumely the efforts of their colleagues in the League to help them to achieve the status of a civilised people. What is even worse, they insist in effect on a continuation of the grave scandals which now exist in their treatment of the native races, scandals which are offending the public conscience of the world. Obviously, the matter cannot rest here. Presumably, it will come before one of the approaching meetings of the Council of the League who are bound to consider the whole situation. What I venture to suggest that your Lordships would like to know is how far the British Government are going to throw their great influence into the scale, to induce the Council of the League to take proper arid adequate steps towards the restoration of good government and ordinary humanity in this derelict State. The other request which stands in my name is that the Government will be pleased to publish any Papers connected with this long controversy. We know that there have been Papers. In the annual messages of the President of Liberia there are extracts from Despatches from His Majesty's Government. Whether those extracts are complete or authentic it is impossible to tell. It would help enormously all those who are interested in this difficult subject if the Government would publish the Despatches which have passed, the Consular Reports which undoubtedly have been received as to the state of affairs, and anything else of an official character bearing on the matter. I ask that these should be published in
728
the form of a White Paper so that at least public opinion may be informed as to the actual facts, and, if it is informed, may he in a position to be brigaded in support of the Government and the League in removing an intolerable blot on civilisation.
LORD LUGARD: My Lords, there are two aspects of this Liberian question to which I desire to direct your Lordships' attention—in the first place the great length of time which it has dragged on without any result, and secondly the part which the British Government have taken in it. In order to do so I will recall as briefly as possible the sequence of events. It is just on five years since the United States of America in June, 1929, used these words in a note to the Liberian Government. It called attention to the "reliable evidence" of the existence of
"a system hardly distinguishable from organised slave-trade, in the enforcement of which the services of the Liberian Frontier Force and of certain high Government officials are constantly and systematically used."
There had been a large number of American citizens in Liberia prior to that date—some as Advisers to the Liberian Government, others engaged in educational or mission work—so that the United States Government had reliable sources of information, and it is important to remember that this very grave indictment was made on information which had reached that Government before any Commission was sent by the League of Nations to make inquiries.
In reply the Liberian Government were compelled to demand an inquiry and stipulated that it should be undertaken by the League of Nations. A Commission of three men was despatched, two of them negroes appointed by the United States of America and Liberia respectively; the third, Dr. Christy, the nominee of the League, was a man of sound judgment with exceptionally wide experience in many parts of Africa, including some time with me in Nigeria. The terms of reference were drawn up by the President of Liberia himself. The Commission began its inquiry on the spot in April, 1930, and submitted its Report to the League in December of that year. It more than confirmed the worst allegations. The Liberian Government resigned. His Majesty's Government

729
at once refused to recognise the new Liberian Government until there should be evidence of some sincere reform and in January, 1931, directed the British Chargé d'Affaires to inform the Liberian Government that it regarded the report as a "shocking indictment" and was
"convinced that without assistance from outside … no Liberian Government would be able to carry into effect the full programme of reforms and His Majesty's Government gives the fullest support to the suggestion that the Government of Liberia should be committed for a time to an International Government."
The Liberian Government hastily passed several measures prohibiting slavery, etc., but since it had been the first, I think, to ratify the Slavery and Forced Labour Conventions, while itself exporting labourers as slaves, not much importance could be attached to these Acts. For the rest it pleaded financial inability to carry out the proposed reforms, and appealed to the League for assistance. Thereupon, in March, 1931, the League decided to send a Commission of Experts consisting of M. Brunot, formerly Governor of the French Ivory Coast, with M. Ligthart, a Dutch financial expert, and Dr. Mackenzie, of the Health Section of the League. The Commission was in Liberia in June and July, 1931.
In spite of the despatch of these Commissions reports were received of continued misrule and of reprisals on natives who had given evidence before the Christy Commission. Towards the close of 1931 the Liberian Government sent what they called a "peaceful patrol" to visit the tribes. It was under the command of a negro—not I believe of American extraction—who called himself Colonel Davis. The troops burned many villages and the people were in a state of panic. His Majesty's Government, on receipt of this information, considering the matter to be urgent, approadhed the American and French Governments in March, 1932, without awaiting the Report of the Brunot Commission, with a view to demanding the immediate discontinuance of these practices. In that same month, on a Motion by the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, there was a debate in your Lordships' House on this subject, and the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, who spoke for the Government of the day, informed your Lordships that the reply to that joint protest by the three Governments was not
730
satisfactory. About the same time I am informed that Assistant Consul Ryding was sent by the foreign Government into the interior to report on the condition of affairs. The Liberian Government sent a guard with him on the excuse that his life would be in danger from the tribes, but he escaped at night and went to the villages. His report has not been published.
The League then despatched Dr. Mackenzie to endeavour to restore peace. He arrived in July, 1932, and found that several Kru tribes had risen against the Government, but inter-tribal quarrels involving eighteen or twenty tribes had broken out, and he reports that "four tribes comprising some 12,000 men, women and children had been driven into the bush and were in a state of advanced starvation." The whole Kru coast had become engaged in inter-tribal fighting, which Dr. Mackenzie states had been instigated and supported by the Liberian politicians, and that the unrest had spread to the large settlements of Kru-men in the British Colonies of Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast, who were trying to smuggle arms and ammunition to their fellow tribesmen and were themselves anxious to join them. In the space of two months Dr. Mackenzie achieved the almost incredible feat of inducing these warring tribes to agree to keep the peace for the space of a year—namely, till August, 1933. Recognising the temptation to fight so long as they retained their weapons, he reports that they surrendered them of their own accord, and 500 rifles and guns were handed over to the Liberian Government, which Dr. Mackenzie as an official of the League was bound to recognise as the de facto Government. His action received the full approval of the League Council.
Those who know the African will agree that (as the saying is) it is easier to get butter out of a dog's mouth than to get a tribesman to part with his weapons, or to agree to proposed tribal land boundaries, and it is no wonder that the Liberian Government were anxious that Dr. Mackenzie should extend his peaceful Mission to the other large tribe, the Grebes, who had sent seventeen Paramount Chiefs to meet him. But the time at his disposal did not admit of his undertaking this task. The United States had also sent a distinguished American—General Winship, the Judge

731
Advocate-General of the United States Army, and now, I believe, Governor of Porto Rico—to Liberia to report. He returned to America early in 1933. His report has not been published but is believed to be in the same sense as those already received.
Reverting now to M. Brunot's Expert Commission, towards the end of 1931 they submitted their Report and proposals for a reorganisation of the Liberian Administration with foreign assistance which the noble Lord who preceded me has described. The Report was published in May, 1932, and considered by the League in October, 1932. The Report stated that Liberia was completely bankrupt. Salaries, bills, and interest due on loans were unpaid. The Liberian Government professed to accept the scheme, but made reservations which I need not describe in detail, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has stated the purport of them. It suffices to say that they were wholly incompatible with the fundamental basis of the reforms. The adoption of the proposals depended in any case on the result of the negotiations which had been begun with the Finance Corporation of America, with which Mr. Firestone, the Concessionaire, was closely associated. It had made a large loan to the Liberian Government, on very onerous terms. Mr. Firestone was ready to co-operate with the League Commission and to give generous financial assistance. By June, 1933, the negotiations were successfully concluded, and the League Committee was able to report that a slightly modified plan had been accepted by the United States Government and the Finance Corporation. It was pointed out that the plan safeguarded the political independence, the territorial integrity, and the sovereign rights of the Liberian Government, while affording a means of financial assistance. If it was not accepted in its entirety without reservations by the time the Council met in January, 1934, the League would be compelled to withdraw from any further attempt to deal with Liberia's appeal for assistance. In order that there should be no misunderstanding Dr. Mackenzie was again despatched to Liberia on behalf of the League in order fully to explain the plan.
In December, 1933, the United States addressed another Note to Liberia stating
732
that she expected her to accept the League's recommendations, in which the American Government would co-operate. When the Council assembled in January, 1934, the Liberian Government made practically the same reservations as before, which the Experts Commission of the League had said were quite incompatible with the execution of the plan. The League Committee was therefore dissolved, and the League's activities in the matter ceased, but as a last chance the Liberian Government were told that if before the Council meeting next May they should decide to change their attitude, their representations would receive consideration then. The latest information is that the Chiefs arrested by the negro Colonel Davis are still in prison and some are said to have died, that access to the sea on which this sea-faring and fishing tribe depend has been closed; that President Barclay is on his way to the interior, and troops sent in advance to prepare for him have fired on villages and committed various outrages reported in a recent communication published in The Times from its correspondent in Geneva. The tribes appeal to the League for help now that their arms have been surrendered in reliance upon the intervention of the League. The Chief who sends this appeal says that he is in a dilemma. The President will summon him on arrival. If he refuses to come, it will be regarded as a reason for attack. If he obeys he has reason to fear that he will be arrested as the other Chiefs were, and perhaps share the fate of the 75 Chiefs—I am told the right number was 84—who were executed in 1917.
That, my Lords, is I believe a fairly accurate account of the history of this matter and the present position of affairs. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, will correct me if in any particular I have been in error. Indeed, the principal facts were confirmed by the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, speaking for the Government of the day in the debate in March, 1932. He said that the charges of continued misrule were corroborated by Consular Reports. There had in fact been what be described as "a recrudescence of cruelty and oppression." He informed the House of the decision of the British and United States Governments to withhold recognition of the new Liberian Government pending reform, and he added that His Majesty's Government

733
would "continue to take a very active and prominent part … to put a stop to this grave and cruel maladministration." Liberia had for over a hundred years enjoyed the protection of the American Government, which had on more than one occasion sent warships to support the Monrovian Government against the tribes. These League inquiries have at least had one good result in that the United States Government has withdrawn its recognition and informed Liberia that unless comprehensive reforms are loyally and sincerely put into effect it will result in the final abdication of her friendly feelings.
Following the example of their fathers, who announced their neutrality in the Franco-German War of 1870, Liberia declared herself on the side of the Allies in the Great War, and she thus became an original Member of the League. She claimed sovereignty over 2,000,000 natives in the hinterland, among whom no Liberian dares to show his face unless supported by troops—though by the Berlin Act of 1885 effective occupation alone constituted a claim to sovereignty. It is surely a tragic paradox that the Liberian Government, should now rely on her membership of the League for immunity from intervention. As long as she remains a Member she boasts that her independence is guaranteed, and no one can prevent her from doing as she pleases, for by Article 10 of the Covenant
"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."
The League itself, as Lord Cecil told us, has "no material means of coercion." All it can do is to say: "No reform, no money," relying on Liberia's financial straits.
But we now have definite information that she is proposing to grant to certain Dutch and Danish syndicates concessions of the land or minerals which belong to the people of the country. I imagine that the prospect of what the Liberian Government can realise by the sale of these concessions is the real explanation of the defiance by the Liberian Government of America and the League. The negro community in the United States appears to be misinformed regarding the true state of affairs in Liberia. We can understand and even sympathise with their
734
desire to prove to the world that the negro race is capable not only of self-government but of governing a subject people; but the fact that Professor Johnson, an American negro, was one of the Christy Commission which exposed the slave-dealing and misrule, should show them that so far from establishing the prestige of the negro race in the eyes of the world by championing the cause of the Liberian oligarchy, they are seriously injuring it. Their assistance in carrying out the League plan would be welcomed.
The tribes, partially disarmed and torn by internal disputes, are powerless to throw off the yoke, and the Monrovian Government will continue to foment intertribal quarrels. The League, having satisfied itself that this grave misrule exists, is compelled to declare that it can do nothing without the willing consent of Liberia, and that its activities must now cease. The American Government, which is unhampered by membership of the League, cannot evade the responsibility of her long connection with and support of the Liberian Government in the past, or the share which men claiming American nationality have had, and I believe still have, in the conduct of Liberian affairs. It would seem that she is in the best position to issue that ultimatum which would at once produce acceptance of the reforms which this costly discussion for five years has failed to secure. All are agreed that nothing short of the fear that worse may befall will induce the Liberian Government to agree, and as His Majesty's Government very truly declared three years ago, they are themselves incapable of putting it into execution.
We know from the statements made in both Houses of Parliament—no less by the late Socialist than by the present National Government—that our Foreign Office is deeply concerned about the state of affairs in Liberia. No appeal is needed to stimulate that interest, and I am sure that if the noble Lord who replies consents to lay Papers it will be found that nothing is wanting in the shape of displomatic protests. The question is whether anything more effective can be done. I venture with diffidence to make the suggestion that His Majesty's Government should in the first place, jointly if possible with France, invite the Council of the League to declare that

735
failing the acceptance without reserve of the League's plan any steps which the United States Government may consider necessary to put an end to present conditions would be welcomed; and in the second place to exert British influence, jointly with France, in pressing the American Government to take the initiative in compelling the Liberian Government to accept the scheme of reform which has been prepared sympathetically and disinterestedly by the League Commission, or failing acceptance to put it into execution herself so far as the interior is concerned, leaving the Government of Monrovia to enjoy autonomy in the coast enclave which they actually occupy, and so avoid bloodshed which may have repercussions beyond Liberia.
If this course is not practicable, I would like to call attention to certain articles in the Covenant of the League, which may be applicable to the case of Liberia. Article 23 (b) binds all Members of the League to "undertake to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under their control," and paragraph (f) adds that they "will endeavour to take steps in matters of international concern for the prevention and control of disease." Both of the Commissions appointed by the League have definitely and categorically declared that Liberia has violated these pledges for years past and is still violating them Article 16 says:
"Any Member of the League which has violated any Covenant of the League may be declared to be no longer a Member by a vote of the Council concurred in by the representatives of all the other Members represented thereon."
I suggest that it is open to His Majesty's Government to propose such a vote. Alternatively, I would remind your Lordships that His Majesty's Government have since 1931 refused to recognise the Liberian Government, and we now have no accredited representative there. This I presume means a rupture of diplomatic relations. Article 12 of the Treaty of Versailles says:
"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…."
It would therefore seem open to His Majesty's Government to submit the cause of the existing rupture with Liberia to an inquiry by the Council.
736
Such an inquiry would put the question on a different basis. Hitherto the inquiries conducted by its Commissions have had their origin in the request by Liberia for financial assistance. But an inquiry based on the Reports of the League's own Commissions would in effect be to decide whether Liberia should remain a Member of the League or not.
Even though Geneva may question whether the clauses quoted are applicable, or even though the suggestion that Liberia should be invited to leave the League may not be accepted—and I am well aware that there is likely to be opposition to that—the fact that it has been made by His Majesty's Government, which has always been a strenuous supporter of the League, will at any rate dissociate Great Britain from participation in a policy which allows membership of the League to be used as an obstacle to reform. It will probably impress the United States Government, and will no doubt have a considerable effect in Liberia. It seems inconceivable that the Council of the League, confronted with the scathing Reports of its own Commissions, and with the fact that the Governments of the United States and of Great Britain had withdrawn their recognition, should not only refuse any redress to tribes who had given up their arms relying on its assistance, but should allow membership of the League to prevent any effective assistance to them from outside.
Suppose that the United States or any other State declined any longer to be flouted by Liberia and resorted to force, is there any Member of the League which would be prepared to champion the cause of misrule and put in force the sanctions prescribed by Article 16 of the Covenant? Would not the critics of the League once again accuse her of delaying to face realities until the situation had passed beyond her control? The matter brooks no delay, in order to prevent the sale of land and minerals to which the vendors have no right, to do away with a focus of yellow-fever which is a danger to the whole West Coast, and to save the tribes who have appealed for help.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I desire on behalf of my noble friends to give our most emphatic support to the noble Lord,

737
Lord Meston, in the Question that he has put to His Majesty's Government. The conditions in Liberia have been fully stated both by Lord Meston and by Lord Lugard, whose authority on African questions is nearly always decisive for my own mind. I do not desire, therefore, to detain your Lordships by going over ground that they have traversed, and I only want to say that, although this problem is one of great difficulty, and that great care has to be taken not to do the wrong thing, something at any rate must be done. It seems incredible that the conditions which now prevail in Liberia can go on with the sanction of the civilised world. I feel that they can no longer be ignored. I am sure that if the conditions were well known they would create alarm throughout the Continent of Europe, and equally sure that if the people of our own country realised what they were there would be an outburst of moral indignation.
I cannot help feeling that His Majesty's Government have some real claim to interfere—if that is the right word to use in regard to this matter. Liberia is stationed very close to Colonies for whose welfare His Majesty's Government are in the main responsible. There was a time when Sierra Leone was regarded as "the white man's grave," but, owing to expert administration and the careful building up of sanitary conditions there, that state of things has been altered. Yet we have contiguous to that Colony Liberia, concerning which we are told by the Brunot Commission that the only hospital in the place has no electric light, that there are no sanitary arrangements, that there is no notification of infectious diseases, and no accommodation for patients suffering from leprosy, tuberculosis, smallpox, yellow fever or scarlet fever. So that, as the Brunot Commission further states, it is clear under these conditions that Liberia constitutes a serious danger on the West Coast of Africa. That is, I suggest, a practical reason why His Majesty's Government should feel increasingly alarmed at the conditions which prevail in Liberia.
I do not feel called upon to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, in the suggestions that he has made as to what might be done. I feel it right, however, to make the suggestion, purely on my own account, that pressure might be brought to bear upon Liberia by European Governments to accept the League's plan.
738
If Liberia persistently and deliberately refuses to accept that plan then her position as a Member of the League should be very seriously questioned, with the understanding that, if she were excluded from membership of the League, the territory would become suitable for rule by a mandatory Power. The noble Lord, Lord Lugard, thought that the United States of America might take steps. Well, so they might; but it is right that as practical politicians we should remember that there are 2,000,000 negro votes in the United States of America, and that therefore it is not easy to assume that that does not present a problem to the United States Government.
I feel that the United States Government has a great responsibility; but there is also this, that an appeal to the negro peoples of the world might be made. This matter very closely touches their honour, as the noble Lord has suggested. We all know who have had contact with the negro peoples that they are a generous-minded race, and I am sure they would be stricken with horror if they realised all that is happening in Liberia at the present time. The condition has got so bad that, according to the Brunot Commission, the native is beginning to leave his village and crops and to take refuge in the forests. It seems to me, facing as carefully as I can the practical difficulties and the seriousness of taking any step at all, that there are limits below which no nation ought to be allowed to fall and at the same time retain her place among the civilised nations of the world. Therefore my noble friends and myself have pleasure in giving our support to the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has asked of His Majesty's Government.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have very little to add to the very full statement of the facts of this appalling problem which has been laid before your Lordships, especially by Lord Lugard, who has such exceptional knowledge and authority, but for many reasons and in many ways I have such a solicitude for the peoples of West Africa that I cannot on this occasion be altogether silent. I do not propose to detain your Lordships with any further details of the position

739
of affairs in this most unhappy part of the world. I would only say this, that surely it is one of the most lamentable tragedies of history that those who went forth 100 years ago as the liberators of the members of their own race bearing the motto, "Love of liberty has brought us here," should be continuing there in the face of the civilised world as the oppressors of these people—about 15,000 Americo-Liberians tyrannising over 2,000,000 members of inoffensive native tribes.
Though I have many details at my disposal which, if they were widely known in this country, would raise the greatest possible indignation, I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with them. I have risen now in the hope that my noble friend Lord Cecil will follow me and explain exactly what is the position of this matter in reference to the League of Nations, because plainly this is an affair that concerns not only this unhappy country itself but concerns our own responsibilities in West Africa. The disease and disorder are spreading from Liberia into Sierra Leone and elsewhere, and it concerns indeed the credit of the whole of civilisation. Most rightly the League of Nations has interested itself in this matter, and I should like very much to know from the noble Viscount whether we may take it that the League of Nations definitely declines to pay any attention to reservations which were made to its own plan by the Liberian Government, and whether if the Liberian Government persist in these reservations the League of Nations will no longer render them any sort of assistance. I do not dwell upon these reservations. Lord Meston spoke of the main ones, and it is needless to dwell upon them if we may have the assurance of the noble Viscount that the League of Nations is not in the least likely to acquiesce in them.
But the matter goes a little further, and it would be a very great relief to those of us who feel deeply on this matter if the noble Viscount, or the noble Earl who will reply for the Government, could give us some assurance that the resources of the League of Nations in this matter are not exhausted. I have spoken about one lamentable tragedy. Surely it would be a tragedy even more lamentable if the fact that technically Liberia is a Member of the League of Nations should make
740
the whole operation of the League of Nations, as the only guardian we have not only of the peace of the world but of the care of native races, completely inoperative. I should be glad if the noble Viscount would give us some assurance that so far as the League is concerned its resources are not wholly exhausted. I know the difficulties about requesting Liberia to cease to be a Member of the League, but if the facts were really known I almost wonder whether the possibility of such an invitation to leave would be in doubt. Surely there is no question that in more than one respect it has disqualified itself from membership of the League and any reassurance, if it can be given, which the noble Viscount can give will be most welcome to those who care, and care deeply, for the welfare of the peoples of West Africa.
So far as the Government are concerned I know how deeply this matter lies upon their conscience, and I am sure that the noble Earl will be able to reassure us on that matter. There was a time when, if these facts about Liberia had been known to the people of this country, there would have arisen such a storm of indignation as would have compelled the most drastic possible action. But times are different now; men's minds are preoccupied with other things. We cannot rest still, however, while this blot upon the whole of the civilised world remains, and it would be a relief if we could know that His Majesty's Government, possibly in close co-operation with the United States of America, will do all that is possible to terminate a state of things which has become intolerable.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the most reverend Primate for the reference he has been good enough to make to myself. I think the case has been very fully stated by Lord Meston and Lord Lugard, and I do not propose to go over again what they said, but to my mind the essential facts really lie in a fairly narrow compass. As one of the noble Lords explained, Liberia became automatically a Member of the League of Nations by reason of the fact that she declared herself an ally of the Allied and Associated Powers. She thereby entered into certain covenants; Lord Lugard has referred to some of them.

741
Under Article 23 of the Covenant she undertook that she would endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children. She further undertook, as my noble friend told your Lordships, to secure the just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under her control, and she also no doubt undertook to endeavour to take steps for the prevention and control of disease. Therefore, whenever it was that she was charged by the United States Government, acting on the report of certain United States travellers, with having connived at slavery or slave-trading, she was charged with a breach of her solemn covenants under the League, and she was aware no doubt of the other Article to which Lord Lugard referred—Article 16, paragraph 4, which enables the League to eject from membership any Member who has broken any of the covenants into which it has entered.
It was no doubt for that and similar reasons that Liberia warmly denied the truth of the charges made against her and demanded an inquiry. As your Lordships have been told, the result of the inquiry was to show that the charges against her were absolutely true. Accordingly—and this has perhaps not been sufficiently emphasised in the discussion this evening—she expressed her willingness to carry out reforms, but stated she was in this difficulty, that she had no money with which to carry out reforms. She asked the Council—and that is how the Council came into it—to assist her in finding the money necessary to carry out the reforms to put an end to these abuses. That was the starting point of the intervention of the League. A Committee was thereupon formed of which the representative of this country was Chairman, first Mr. Arthur Henderson and, when his other duties compelled him to abandon it, I was asked to take his place. We sat very frequently and for a long time to answer this request of the Liberian Government for means to carry out the reforms. It was for that purpose that we sent out the Brunot Commission, which has been described, and received its very valuable and full Report of what would be necessary in order to carry out the reforms, because there was no question of asking for assistance for Liberia until we knew what
742
reforms it was necessary for her to carry out.
The objects that we had in view, and the Brunot Commission had in view, were first of all, of course, to put an end to this mis-government of the natives and the slave trading and everything of that kind; secondly, to assist in finance; and, thirdly, or as a consequence of that, to be quite sure that the League should not lend its authority or influence in order to obtain finance unless it was quite satisfied that the reforms to be carried out would effectually achieve the main purposes for which they were to be instituted. Therefore the whole discussion took place on the basis that the Committee of the League were prepared to do their best to secure the money necessary for Liberia provided she carried out these reforms. It was, in form, always an offer to Liberia which she could reject if she liked.
When we came to look into it, it was claimed that the only source from which money could be obtained was the American Finance Corporation, which had already invested considerable sums of money in developing Liberia and which, therefore, had an interest in securing some amelioration of the government of Liberia. There was no other source of money. We looked everywhere, and no other source of assistance could be found. It was a time when adverse economic conditions oppressed the world at large. No Government was prepared to advance any money, nor was any private individual prepared to advance any money, in the circumstances. The result was that we had negotiations with the financial interests on one side and the Liberian Government on the other. That had certain great advantages, and the chief of them was that it was one of the reasons—not the only one, but one of the reasons—why the United States Government was continuously represented on the Committee and took an active share in the discussions.
When we came to look into the matter it was plain there were three currents. The Liberians wanted as little interference as possible, and as little cost as possible. The Finance Corporation wanted some security for their money. The League wanted real genuine security for the better government of Liberia and

743
nothing else. They had no other interest in the matter. They wanted sufficient alterations to make the government of Liberia a decent government, which it certainly was not, and some direct supervision by the League to see that the reforms, once instituted, were continuously carried out. It was after very long negotiation and hearing—I think with great patience, or I hope so —the representations made by the Liberian Government and others on the subject, that the plan of assistance, as it was called, was devised. It was not exactly what we should have wanted if we had been free to do anything we liked. It did not go nearly as far as some of us would have liked to have gone. We cut it down more than once in order to prevent it being too costly and in order to meet the difficulties and objections felt by the Liberian representatives. I think we cut it down to what we regarded as the absolutely irreducible minimum. Indeed the financial interests of the United States and the United States Government thought we had gone almost too far; and we made some slight modifications in order to make it more effective and to meet their criticisms.
Broadly speaking, it consisted of what Lord Meston has described. We proposed to set up white administration in the six Provinces—the six Provinces which comprise the whole of the native population—so as to secure for that native population decent government. We proposed, in particular, that no armed force should be used in those Provinces except with the assent of the administrators, and we also proposed certain very minimum reforms. We had gone to the very limit of what was reasonable, to the very minimum of reforms in the direction of health, and we had to abandon several other things which we thought were most desirable, such as educational reforms, and even judicial reforms, leaving them to be worked out by the new Administration when it was set up. We also—and this was the suggestion of the Committee itself—desired the appointment of a Chief Adviser who should be in touch with the provincial administrations on one side and with the League on the other, would report to the League, would be capable of being dismissed by the League, and
744
would be the essential feature of the Government. That was the vital thing. That was the broad outline of the plan we suggested.
I venture to assert to your Lordships that if any criticism could be made of it, it certainly is not that it disregarded the liberties of Liberia too much, but that, if anything, it did not go far enough to make really certain the good government of that country. I am sure that anything less than that would have been futile and dangerous. I agree most fully with what has been said by noble Lords who have preceded me that, in effect, the reservations suggested by Liberia amount to a total rejection of the plan. They really cut at the very root of it, because they propose that the Chief Adviser and the other administrators should be entirely under the control of the Liberian Government, and should have no kind of jurisdiction except that of tendering advice to the Liberian Government. I am sure that any plan of that kind would be utterly futile, and the League would be most ill-advised in my judgment if it consented to he responsible in any way for a new reform on lines of that kind.
Some reference has been made to the Kru incident. That was really a separate matter and had no direct bearing on the discussions about the plan of assistance, but it was felt by the Committee to be of great importance. It was an object lesson on what was happening and what was the condition of the government in Liberia which we were trying to improve. I need not recount again what my noble friend Lord Lugard has so well described as the successful and very self-sacrificing efforts made by Dr. Mackenzie which were crowned with such a very large measure of success. But what is more important is that during the very time when the plan is being offered to Liberia, when Liberia has made these reservations, she has so acted as, apparently, to stir up trouble again in these very Kru territories. Many of us have received very touching appeals from the Chiefs of the Kru country, urging that some measure of protection should be granted to them against the extraordinarily brutal methods of the Liberian soldier.
The most reverend Primate asked me what the position was so far as the League was concerned and what it could do. I have tried to describe the position

745
so far as the League and the plan of assistance are concerned. Liberia is obviously free if she likes to reject the plan. I do not quite agree with one thing which was said by my noble friend Lord Lugard. I doubt whether her intention to reject it in effect is due to the possibility of getting money elsewhere, because I do not believe that she will do that. I think it is due to this. Her financial position is governed largely by the amount of money she owes to the Finance Corporation. For a long time she went on paying some part or the whole of the amount that she owed to that Corporation. But at a given moment she observed that in other countries there was a practice of declaring what is called a moratorium when you do not wish to pay what you owe. She thought that was an excellent plan, and she declared a moratorium on the whole debt to the Corporation. Thereby she greatly relieved her financial situation. I think that since she did that she has cared less for financial assistance. But of course that is only a temporary solution. She will, undoubtedly, get into the gravest financial trouble in the immediate future, and although that may ultimately lead her to adopt a more reasonable attitude, in the meantime it will make the situation for her unhappy subjects even worse than it is now.
I think the present situation is this. Unless at the last minute Liberia alters her attitude the Council will be bound to declare at the next meeting that the plan of assistance has failed, and that as far as the request for assistance presented by the Liberian Government is concerned it cannot he granted, because Liberia has declined to carry out the only conditions on which it would be safe, or decent or proper for the League to assist her to get money—and without the assistance of the League she certainly will not get it. That disposes of that particular point, the point of the plan of assistance, but I agree with the most reverend Primate that that is not the whole thing. There remains the covenant into which Liberia has entered, to give, putting it broadly, fair, decent and healthy government to the native tribes and others under her control.
My noble friend Lord Lugard has suggested that the League might invite the United States to coerce Liberia. That would be a matter for the League to consider,
746
but personally I should have some doubt whether that policy would have any great prospect of success. He also suggested that we might demand a further inquiry under Article 12. I really do not think there is much to be gained by a further inquiry. I think we know the whole of the facts and, though it might have some moral effect, I am afraid that if Liberia is prepared to defy the unanimous opinion of the Committee—for the Committee was absolutely unanimous right through, and so was the Council—a further inquiry would not he very likely to produce much effect on Liberia.
There is a question which the Council will have to consider and which His Majesty's Government will have to consider, and that is whether in the circumstances Liberia has not brought herself within the provisions of the fourth paragraph of Article 16, whether she has not broken her covenant, as she certainly seems to have done, and whether in those circumstances it is right that she should continue a Member of the League any longer. If the Council decided that she was riot entitled to continue as a Member of the League then she would be in the position which any country was in before the League came into existence—at least so I think—and whatever could have been done under those circumstances could be done when that change had taken place. That is a matter which I think the Council will have to consider very carefully, because undoubtedly, this matter having been brought to their attention formally and the Council having considered it deeply and very carefully, it will be a very grave misfortune not only to Liberia and to her subjects, but, as I think, to the civilised world as a whole, if it turns out to be impossible to take any action in order to reform the government of Liberia and bring it somewhere near the standards of government which prevail in other parts of Africa.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I do not propose to detain you more than a few minutes, but as I raised this question in a rather different form two years ago I should like to say a few words. I think your Lordships' House is much indebted to my noble friend Lord Meston for bringing forward this Motion if for no other reason than to show that here—and I am sure it will be the same in the other House—there is entire unanimity in

747
regard to the position of Liberia and the way in which the Liberians have behaved. If you will allow me to say so I agree with the most reverend Primate that if the facts which have come out this afternoon, which are familiar to many of us, were known to the country generally, there would be such an outcry that the Government would have to take action in a way which perhaps in present circumstances it is impossible for them to take.
Since I brought forward this matter about two years ago, not only, so far as I can understand, has nothing been done in Liberia to improve the position, but matters have gone from had to worse. I might say they have gone from very bad to very worst. I am sure that noble Lords have listened with the greatest interest to the speech by my noble friend Viscount Cecil, who speaks with authority as Chairman of the Committee. In regard to two things at least I entirely agree with what he said. I agree that any one who has studied the proposals made to the Liberian Government by the League of Nations and who has also studied the reservations which the Liberian Government made to those proposals, must regard the reservations as quite incompatible with the proposals of the League. If they were adopted they would entirely destroy the benefits which would otherwise accrue from the proposals of the League. The League have no alternative but to reject these reservations and to insist on the full proposals that they made themselves. As my noble friend says they are the minimum requirements of good government and proper treatment of the natives in Liberia.
I was a little disappointed that he was unable to answer fully the questions put by the most reverend Primate. He did say—and I think the House listened with interest and appreciation and agreement —that if, as appears possible, these negotiations break down and Liberia will not accept the scheme of the League without reservation, then it will have to be considered whether Liberia ought to remain a Member of the League of Nations. I should have thought, speaking as a layman, that the extracts read from the Covenant by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, make it quite clear that Liberia has in every possible way shown
748
her unfitness to be a Member of the League, and that she certainly ought to be "struck off the rolls." But the question is, what can be done after that? The difficulty appears to most of us to lie in giving a proper answer and a conclusive answer, or even any answer at all, to the question: What will happen if that position arises? I do not know whether it is fair to ask the Government to make some suggestion in regard to that matter; but after all they, with France and America, will be responsible for the future of Liberia.
I think it is clear that in the circumstances indicated Liberia ought to be struck off the League. She then becomes an independent country entirely apart from the League. The League ceases to have any jurisdiction over her; and who is then to undertake her protection and her suzerainty? Really the only country which is in a position to undertake that is the United States. She was responsible for Liberia's creation, and from the very inception of Liberia she has been responsible, both politically and financially, for her existence. I do not know, of course, what may be the views of the American Government, but I understand that they take a very serious view of the position, that they are very anxious to co-operate with England and France and other countries concerned, and that if they were pressed and if it were understood that they would have a free hand, they would be prepared to undertake the protectorate of Liberia. So far as I can judge the United States appears to be the only nation who can undertake it.
I think that it was my noble friend Lord Snell who suggested that in these circumstances Liberia, under the League, might be made one of the mandated territories. How far the League now has power, under its present conditions, to declare that a certain territory shall be a mandated territory, and to hand it over to a certain Power, I am unable to say. If that were possible, however, that would be a fairly simple solution. Liberia then would become a mandated territory and could be handed over to sonic possibly rather unwilling protector. But that is to my mind the difficulty at the present moment. I quite agree that the steps taken were the right steps and had to be taken; but what are we

749
going to do afterwards? So far as I am concerned, except for the suggestion which I have made, I am afraid I am not able to throw any light upon it. I am glad that we have had another opportunity of discussing this Liberian question and of giving it the consideration which this House does give to these matters. I hope, and indeed I am sure, that this debate will be of value from the point of view not only of Liberia itself with its 15,000 Americo-Liberians but, still more important, of the 2,000,000 people under their care.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, you have had the advantage of listening to speeches from several noble Lords who have a very wide and deep knowledge of this subject, and therefore I hope that I shall not have to weary your Lordships by speaking at any great length. Much that I had intended to say has already been said both by my noble friend Lord Lugard and by the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, Lord Cecil, and your Lordships will not wish to hear it again. But I can say on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that the very serious reports to which your Lordships have listened this evening from all the noble Lords who have spoken are not in the least exaggerated. I can conceive of no country where a tale of such misery and illness and of such misgovernment can be told as is told by every noble Lord, and rightly and faithfully told, of Liberia.
Your Lordships have not discussed this question since the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, raised it a little over two years ago, and, as he said, things have gone from bad to worse since that time. I may remind your Lordships that the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, speaking in 1932, said that the Government of the Americo-Liberian minority had been a complete failure and the administration had been completely bad; and that is equally true to-day. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who made a comparison with the neighbouring country of Sierra Leone. That is a Colony and Protectorate under the British flag; and I can imagine no comparison which shows the effects of good and bad government so clearly as that comparison. You have Liberia, of an area of some 43,000
750
square miles, I think about one-and-a-half times larger than Sierra Leone, with its population also somewhat larger. Its import and export trade, however, is barely one-eighth that of Sierra Leone. The natural products and the development which might be expected from either country appear to be very much the same; and yet when you come to compare the two you find, as one noble Lord said, that there is not one inch of railway in Liberia; that there is in fact one road of fifty-five miles throughout a territory which extends for 350 miles along the coast and 120 miles inland, and that all the rest of the country can be traversed only along the coast by surf boats or by following native tracks with everything carried by head porterage along those tracks.
But that is not the end of the story. Several noble Lords have referred to the question of disease in Liberia. If your Lordships would allow me I should like to go somewhat further, and to tell your Lordships a little more about it. The country is riddled with malaria; in fact, it is definitely stated by the committee of experts that in Monrovia, the capital, malaria is practically universal. Dysentery occurs widely; tuberculosis exists; elephantiasis and hernia are common in the interior; yellow fever is practically endemic throughout the coastal area; and if plague ever starts in Monrovia there is no question but that it will spread with appalling rapidity. Not only is Liberia a danger to herself and to the West Coast of Africa, but she is a danger to the health of the world. So far, fortunately, ships are unable to lie alongside, and therefore the whole of the connection with the outside world has to be effected by surf boats out to ships at anchor in the bay. To that extent there is some protection against the spread of yellow fever and the introduction of plague into that country; but if any package arrives with a plague-infected article in it, and one of the innumerable rats in Monrovia becomes infected, then the plague may spread with great rapidity throughout the whole of the West Coast of Africa. As several noble Lords have said, there is no attempt at any sort of medical service. There are a few medical officers in the country, working in a private capacity with the most magnificent self-sacrifice and enthusiasm, but of service organised by

751
the State, which is the only way, of course, in which such a service can be made to be effective, there is no sign whatever.
The noble Viscount on the Cross Benches said, and of course quite truly, that the Government of Liberia had stated that they would like to make some of these reforms but that there was no money. That is still the case to-day. In spite of their having declared their moratorium, I think the situation there financially is just as bad as it could possibly be, and that that, therefore, is the foundation of the reason, as my noble friend has said, for their appeal to the League. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read (it is quite short) the actual terms of the plan which was agreed by the Committee of the League of Nations of which my noble friend on the Cross Benches has been so long the Chairman. And may I take this opportunity on behalf of the Government of thanking him for his services as the Chairman of that Committee? I think that we all agree that the appeals to which he has had to listen over a long period must have taxed the whole of his patience and the whole of his forbearance. I can imagine many of us in that position having lost our tempers and our self-control when faced with the situation that he was faced with for a long period of months. We are most grateful to him for what he has done.
This is the plan that was made, and, as my noble friend has said, it was the minimum which the Committee felt would be effective to get a proper government instituted for the first time in Liberia. Your Lordships will recognise that it gives power to the foreign advisers to have executive control. It is quite useless, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, to have foreign advisers attached to a Government if that Government is able to take no notice of the advice given, and to go on in its own sweet way as before. It was, therefore, advisable that these advisers should be given executive power. The main characteristics are these: (1) The appointment of a foreign Chief Adviser, three foreign Provincial Commissioners and three Assistant Commissioners, to reorganise the administration of the country: the Provincial Commissioners to be responsible to the Chief Adviser and to
752
the Secretary of the Interior, who would, however, only issue instructions after consulting and obtaining the approval of the Chief Adviser: the Chief Adviser himself to be responsible to the League Council, who would appoint him with the agreement of the Liberian President. (2) The appointment of two medical officers for hospital and health work, responsible to the Chief Adviser and the President of Liberia. (3) The continued appointment of a Financial Adviser, together with assistants as provided for in the loan agreement with the Finance Corporation of the United States. (4) The negotiation with the Finance Corporation of an agreement supplementary to the 1926 agreement, under which the Corporation would make very considerable concessions.
Now the Liberian Government, as several noble Lords have said, made all sorts of reservations with regard to that plan, and in particular with regard to the financial proposals. They proposed also to cut down the powers of these advisers until they ceased to have executive power, and therefore would not be able to effect any real changes. The whole plan in the eyes of the Finance Corporation of the United States depended upon these advisers not being in this position, and therefore unless they were satisfied that these advisers had executive authority they themselves were not prepared to go into the plan at all. The matter was brought before the League by my noble friend's Committee and, of course, they entirely agreed that the plan was reasonable and sound and should be carried through without amendment. They so reported to the Council. When the Council met in 1934 it was clear that the Liberian Government intended to reinstate reservations similar to those previously rejected by the Council. The actual representative from Liberia said he had not received instructions, but he anticipated that the reservations would be very much the same as before.
The result was that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking at this meeting of the Council, made it quite clear that the Liberian Government had had the full measure of consideration and help which the Council were willing to give, and that the plan was their final and definite offer.

753
He hoped that the Liberian delegate would telegraph to his Government making this plain to them. The Council of the League then decided that they would be prepared to consider any new factors, but that the whole question would have to be closed in the May session—that is to say, a month from now. When these reservations were received they were found quite definitely to be such as had been refused before, and His Majesty's Government have no hesitation whatever in saying that unless the Liberian Government produce some new plan before the Council meet in May next, this country will definitely refuse to assist in giving any further financial assistance to Liberia, and will recommend that the plan be withdrawn.
Your Lordships may perhaps like to hear something also of the other side of the question, which was that referred to by several noble Lords—namely, the oppression of the native races. It was referred to on several occasions in the debate in this House two years ago by several noble Lords, and Lord Lugard particularly referred to it again to-day. Lord Snowden, on the last occasion, told your Lordships that His Majesty's Government had made representations to the Liberian Government through our Chargé d'Affaires, that the United States Government and the French Government had also protested, and that the German Government had subsequently associated themselves with us. The Liberians again sent a quibbling reply, saying that they saw no reason why we should have made those representations, but they gave an explicit assurance that no definite action would be taken against the Krus so long as the Krus maintained a peaceful attitude.
His Majesty's Government, as your Lordships may imagine, were not satisfied, and so we asked our Vice-Consul at Monrovia to go and make an investigation himself, in April, 1932. He made the journey mostly by surf boat and on foot through the bush. He got no assistance from the Liberian Government, who, indeed, put as many obstacles in his way as I think they dared. He went out at the charge of the four Governments interested in this question: the United States Government, the French and German Governments, and ourselves. He found that the Liberian Frontier Force had in fact ravaged the Kru country, burned
754
forty-one villages, and definitely killed sixty-nine men, forty-five women and twenty-seven children. The Liberia Committee considered this Report of Investigation and decided to send out a League Commissioner to negotiate a truce. The League Commissioner was Dr. Mackenzie. I am sure my noble friend has studied this Report of our Vice-Consul. If it had the same effect upon him as it had upon me, I think he agree that it is a terrible Report. In my view it proves conclusively that the Report is founded on careful investigation, and, in spite of all the denials which the Liberians may make, it is absolutely correct.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Further inquiry was made, and proved that it was correct in every particular.
EARL STANHOPE: I only drew my noble friend with regard to that Report because the Liberians have again stated that there is no foundation for the Report. Quite definitely, in my view, that is untrue, and I am glad to get his confirmation of it. Dr. Mackenzie went out and found the tribes fighting amongst themselves and also against the Liberian Government itself. He went out with the assistance of His Majesty's Government. We provided a sloop for him, and also a native police force as an escort, with the result that he was able to get through his work there at a most amazing speed and to make a truce in a very short period. Your Lordships will, I think, realise the advantages of his action. These native tribes were fighting each other. There was a good deal of killing and burning and destruction going on, and I think you will agree that Dr. Mackenzie was justified in persuading these natives to hand in their rifles. But the result has been quite deplorable.
Dr. Mackenzie impressed on the Council when he returned to Geneva that this truce was only for a short period, and that action should be taken before that period lapsed. Thanks to the opposition and the obstinacy of the Liberian Government action, in fact, has not been taken; with the result that the Liberian Frontier Force has again crossed the boundary, and the Kru tribes are now entirely at the mercy of that Frontier Force. The sinister significance of this fact is made clear by Reports which have recently been received from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, and confirmed

755
by appeals from the Kru chiefs to the League of Nations, showing that Liberian forces have arrested a number of Krus and destroyed their property with a view to enforcing submission to the President of Liberia, who is making a tour of the provinces at this moment.
In the light of this information, and although His Majesty's Government are not in full diplomatic relations with the Liberian Government, His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Monrovia was instructed on March 16 last to draw the President's attention to the assurances given by the Liberian Government in March, 1932, which I have read out to your Lordships, that the tribes on the Kru coast should be secure from molestation by agents or forces of the Liberian Government. His Majesty's Government were seriously concerned at the reports received, and in requesting a categorical assurance that the measures would be discontinued, desired to remind the President that the reports of barbarous treatment of the tribes in 1931 and 1932, which the Liberian Government had previously denied, were entirely confirmed by the Mission of Investigation which was subsequently sent to the Kin coast. His Majesty's Government trusted that on this occasion the Liberian Government would not content themselves with an empty denial. The moment at which the Liberian Government had laid themselves open to a renewal of these charges was singularly inopportune, since the May meeting of the Council was to afford them what could scarcely fail to be the last opportunity of accepting assistance in the reform of their administration. The text of the Liberian reply to the League proposals seemed to His Majesty's Government to indicate their intention to reject the League's offer, and, if such were indeed the case, they could not hope or believe that civilised opinion would countenance unchecked the continuance of those abuses which the past few years had brought to light.
His Majesty's representative reported March 27 that he had presented this Note to the Liberian Secretary of State in the absence of the President on his tour through the Kru district. In his reply the Liberian Secretary of State stated that he had no knowledge that any such events were happening, and he denied that the assurances given in the
756
Liberian Note had been disregarded. He made rather impudent suggestions that the protest was made in regard to Liberian subjects and not in regard to British subjects, and therefore he did not quite see what cause we had for interference. I think your Lordships will agree that the efforts of the League have been a complete failure. That is obviously not due to any lack of action on the part of the League, but solely to the continued obstinacy of the Liberian Government. I think you will also agree that His Majesty's Government have done their very utmost, both as a Member of the League and independently, in regard to this matter. But that is where the situation rests at this moment.
Noble Lords have asked me: What about the future? The position is that the Council of the League meets to discuss this question in May. We are only one Member of that Council, and do not constitute the Council as a whole. Therefore it is impossible for me to lay down what action the League Council will take. I think it is quite obvious that the fact that Liberia is a foundation Member of the League will not protect her from the very grave view that I anticipate the Members of the League Council will take, as does His Majesty's Government, in regard to this situation. This much, however, I can say, that His Majesty's Government will be fully prepared to co-operate with other interested Governments in seeking by other means to ensure a more efficient and more humane administration in that unhappy land than exists at present. I am afraid I cannot be more definite at the moment than that, because, as I have reminded your Lordships, we are only one Member of the League Council. But we are anxious that the whole of the Members of the League should realise what is happening in Liberia, and that those clauses of the Covenant which were read out by my noble friend Lord Lugard have in fact been broken by Liberia, and that therefore drastic action should be taken. We hope that other Members of the League may take the same view of the seriousness of the situation as we do, but of course I cannot say whether that will be the case or not.
As regards the question of Papers, my noble friend the Secretary of State will be very glad to lay Papers. We suggest that we should wait until after the

757
meeting of the League Council, so that we can lay the Papers in a complete form. The reply of the Liberian Government was made to the League, and not to His Majesty's Government. Therefore, until that has been placed before the League Council we are not in a position to publish it. After that I imagine it could appear in the White Paper. Similarly, the Despatch which was sent to our Chargé d'Affaires in Monrovia and the reply which has since been received could appear. Therefore, if I might suggest it to my noble friend, I should like him to agree that, while we will lay Papers, we should not lay them forthwith, but wait until after the meeting of the League Council in a month's time.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, we recognise the difficulties of the situation, but we hope that in the event of the League of Nations finding it necessary to exclude Liberia from the League the Government will take steps with other Powers to see that an end is put to this abominable cruelty which has been going on in Liberia. I feel that the whole of this country and the whole of America and the civilised world would rise against the continuation of these horrors if they knew what was taking place. It is important that the Government should themselves be prepared to take definite action with other Powers to stop these things in the event of the League having no longer the power to exercise the authority, which they are prepared to exercise if Liberia is reasonable, as we believe that it is not at the present time.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am sure that all who are interested in this matter will be sincerely grateful to the noble Earl for the very full and sympathetic consideration which he has given to it, and more especially for his promise to publish Papers. If I may venture to say so, it seems a very reasonable thing that publication should be delayed until after the League Council has met next month. We are all extremely grateful to the noble Earl and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FIREARMS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I respectfully crave the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I move the Second Reading of the Firearms Act (1920) Amendment Bill. The purpose of this measure is to amend the Firearms Act of 1920, in regard to the age of persons who may purchase firearms and in respect of those to whom firearms may be sold. The object of this short Bill is primarily to raise the age at which young persons may purchase or hire firearms, to raise the age from fourteen years, at which it now stands, to seventeen years. Seventeen years has been selected as the age for the purpose of this Bill because under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, a person ceases to be a young person at the age of seventeen. The Bill comes to your Lordships from another place, where it has passed with general consent rapidly through all its stages. Indeed it was supported and I think welcomed by the Home Secretary when introduced into that House.
The Bill, being an Amending Bill, is a somewhat technical measure, and it may be considered confusing by reason of its cross references, because its provisions must be read in conjunction with the Firearms Act, 1924). The Bill is also somewhat difficult to follow because the definition of "firearm" given in subsection (1A) of Clause 1 is not the same as it is in subsection (1B). In order to clarify the position I would point out to the House that in subsection (1A) a firearm is held to be a large bore rifle and also includes shot gun, air rifle, small bore rifle, and, in short, any lethal weapon; but in subsection (1B), immediately following, a firearm has a different meaning. It is only held to be a large bore rifle or other specially dangerous weapon. It does not include a small bore rifle, shot gun, air rifle, or air gun. I shall not attempt to explain to your Lordships why the same word has two different meanings in two immediately adjacent subsections. I have long given up endeavouring to understand the ways of the draftsman who refuses to use stops and says things which, generally speaking,

759
I have great difficulty in understanding and which frequently have subsequently to be interpreted in the Law Courts.
This Bill is certainly confusing. It consists, as your Lordships will see, of merely two clauses, and, as I pointed out, its purpose is to amend the Firearms Act of 1920. After the War it was found desirable to take steps to regulate traffic in and use of firearms, and therefore the Firearms Act, 1920, was passed, one of its objects being to control the irresponsible use and ownership of firearms by young persons. The Act has proved satisfactory. It has stood the test of time fairly well, but it is now found as a result of the working of the Act that young persons under seventeen years have dangerous facilities for acquiring firearms. There have been several distressing cases of young persons shooting people on which severe magisterial and other comments have very properly been passed. As the law now stands, a young person between the ages of fourteen and seventeen can acquire a rifle or other lethal weapon quite easily provided he has got a firearms certificate. In future under the provisions of this Bill a young person will be prohibited from purchasing any firearm defined in this Bill, if he is under the age of seventeen.
Under Clause 1, subsection (1A), a young person under seventeen may not purchase or hire such a weapon, and no person shall sell or let for hire to him any firearm. The definition in subsection (IA) reads that a firearm is a rifle, shot gun, air rifle, small bore rifle, or dangerous lethal weapon. A young person between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, while he cannot purchase, can, however, use a shot gun, air rifle, or small More rifle, and he can use an ordinary smooth bore rifle. He can be given a shot gun or rifle, but the responsibility for the proper use of those weapons will rest with his parents or whoever he is out with. He is not permitted under any circumstances to buy any of these weapons for himself until he is over the age of seventeen. Under subsection (1B) a young person under the age of fourteen shall not use or carry a firearm or ammunition and a person shall not give, lend, or transfer a firearm or ammunition to such a young person. I must admit that at first sight this appeared to me, as no doubt it will
760
appear to your Lordships, that a young person could not go out shooting game unless he was over the age of fourteen because in terms of the Bill he might not carry or use a firearm, but in this case a firearm, as I have already pointed out, does not mean a shot gun and does not prohibit a young person shooting game with the ordinary small-bore gun. In short, a young person under the Bill can carry and use a shot-gun and the ammunition for it. He can also use an air-gun or small bore rifle, but he cannot buy a shot gun or rifle or any other weapon.
This Bill does not change the law in respect of the use of ordinary rifles. The main Act enacts that no person under the age of fourteen is allowed to use a rifle. I think this restriction under the Firearms Act, 1920, already on our Statute Book, is not so widely and generally known as it ought to be. In respect of the use of a rifle this Bill contemplates no change whatever, and its use remains prohibited to the young persons under fourteen. The Bill is not retrospective in its provisions, but in future it will not be open to any young person under seventeen to purchase a small-bore shotgun. He can use it, he can own it, if one is given to him, but he must use it under parental control or under control as far as possible of some other responsible nature. I would stress the fact, because such oppostion as there has been to the Bill has been due to this, that the Bill does not prevent a parent or guardian taking out a lad before the age of fourteen and teaching him how to shoot. In fact, in the view of the promoters of this Bill, the earlier a lad is taught the dangerous nature of a gun the better it is, and the more likely he is to have respect for it and to use it safely and properly in after life. The Bill does not in any way interfere with the use of rifles by cadet corps, rifle clubs and miniature rifle clubs. They will be continued in exactly the same way in the future, if this Bill is carried, as they have been allowed in the past. I have briefly indicated the main objects of this measure, and I would respectfully submit it to your Lordships' consideration and ask for the indulgence of a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends have asked me to offer our general support to the Bill. In doing so, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, on a very clear exposition of what I venture to say is a very badly drafted Bill? May I also say, having heard his speech, that I agree with everything he said about young people and firearms. With many other noble Lords I agree that the time for a person to learn to shoot is when he is quite a young boy. My own youngest son before he was fourteen was an exceptionally good shot and a very safe one indeed. He has been out shooting with some of the best shots in the North of Scotland, and all of them congratulated him both on his marksmanship and the general confidence he showed and inspired; but the idea of his being able to go to a gunmaker's before he was fourteen just because an indulgent relation had given him money and buy a rifle or pistol or anything else is horrifying. There is all the difference in the world between a boy being taught to shoot early and going out with teachers or parents or elder brothers and having a free run of the market to buy any lethal weapon. It seems to me the Bill is in every way admirable and on behalf of my noble friends I desire to support it.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House has very clearly and concisely dealt with its provisions. As he has given so clear an exposition of the measure it is unnecessary for me to refer to any detail contained in the Bill. I would, however, say that His Majesty's Government regard the Bill as a useful measure to deal with the particular problem of safeguarding young persons from purchasing firearms and thereby running the risk of
762
doing serious bodily injury to themselves or other persons. It has already been said on behalf of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in another place, that the Government hope that this Bill will reach the Statute Book in the very near future. I think it is unanimously agreed that since the Act of 1920 some provision was necessary to safeguard young persons between the ages of fourteen and seventeen from being able to go, without the knowledge of their parents, into the premises of a gunsmith to procure a weapon that is dangerous to themselves. I can assure the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill that it has the full support and sympathy of His Majesty's Government.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, before we adjourn I think I ought to acquaint your Lordships with the fact that there is a, long list of noble Lords who desire to take part in the debate on the Betting and Lotteries Bill which is down for Second Reading to-morrow, and that it is highly probable it will be impossible to bring the discussion to a close to-morrow. That means that the debate will be adjourned until the next day on which it is possible to resume it in your Lordships' House, and that will be on Tuesday in next week.
House adjourned at four minutes before seven o'clock.