§ LORD MOTTISTONEhad given Notice that he would move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Treaty of Peace (Covenant of the League of Nations) (No. 4) Order, 1935, may be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this late hour I will not detain your Lordships for more than a very few minutes because no long speech is required in order to make it clear that the subject I bring before your Lordships is of very real importance to our whole Parliamentary system and indeed to the privileges of your Lordships' House and of another place. I have put down the Motion that the Order in Council of 20th December last be annulled in accordance with the provision made in the Treaty of Peace Act which was passed through this House on the 24th July, 1919. I sent word to my noble friend opposite that I did not move this in any spirit of hostility to the Government, but that I hoped he would meet the strong request that I make that the Government should not in future resort to Orders in Council in matters which are not only so highly-contentious as this, but so far removed from the intentions of the framers of the Act of fifteen years ago.
I do not say for a moment that what the Government have done is illegal. Indeed I think I could prove that from the strict legal point of view it is not illegal. What I do say is that it is grossly unconstitutional and I think I shall be able to prove my point to any liberal-minded or constitutionally-minded man. Here is an Order in Council which was approved by His late Majesty on the day Parliament adjourned before Christmas. The Order was not circulated to members of your Lordships' House or to members in another place. When I heard about it accidentally and came to the Vote Office the officials there had not got a copy, and when we sent over to 102 another place we found there was not a copy there. It was with the utmost difficulty that I ultimately got a copy from the Stationery Office. I am not now concerned with the merits or demerits of sanctions, but I am concerned to say that when the Government set out on a policy designed to starve out the people of Italy it is a matter which, under the democratic system under which we live, ought not to be passed sub silentio and Only discovered haphazard by somebody who cares about constitutional rights and forms. It ought to be the subject of proper debate in this House and in another place.
The object, of course, of this Order was to reduce the amount of foodstuffs going to Italy by inducing Yugoslavia to send no more to that country. It is proposed to deprive Italy of all those various things, fowls, eggs, and other necessaries of life about which we have been talking for the last three hours. I think it is a good rule that Orders in Council should not be based upon an Act unless they are in some way germane to that Act. How remote from the original Act is this Order in Council will be seen—and here I am sure my noble friend will not quarrel with me—when we reflect on the fact that the Treaty of Versailles enshrines or expounds a most complete victory over the Germanic Powers. And that victory was only rendered possible by the continuance of Italy in the War. The Germans so very nearly won, especially after Russia had gone out of the War, enabling the transference of eighteen divisions to be commenced the moment that the Treaty of Brest Litovsk was signed, that continuance of the War was only made possible by the fact that Italy did not follow the example of Russia. It is not for any of us to complain of Russia having deserted, because the ordeal was very intense, but all of us who were in France, as I think my noble friend was, in March, 1918, and especially those who were in the neighbourhood of Amiens, as I was will agree with the statement of all historians that had the Germanic forces had even three fresh divisions available from the 26th to the 30th of March they would undoubtedly have driven the British Army back to the Channel Ports and the French Army back on Paris. On that all historians are agreed. Had Italy gone out of the War as Russia did, ten or fifteen or 103 twenty divisions could have been spared from that front to reinforce the Western front, with the result that we never could have won the War and never could have had this precious document before us. Yet we are using this victory in order to starve out the very people who enabled us to win the victory.
The thing might be described as opéra bouffe if there were not an element of tragedy in it. Such an extraordinary thing has never happened, I am sure, in the experience of anyone in this House. To use a treaty against people whose strenuous determination to stick it out enabled us to make that treaty is the most extraordinary thing I should think of which your Lordships have ever heard. I protest against it as a very wrong thing, and it is especially wrong to do it by Order in Council in a way which made it likely that neither this House nor another place would have any opportunity of deciding whether it was a good plan or a bad plan. When my noble friend opposite comes to reply I hope he will give some assurance to your Lordships' House that in matters of vital importance involving the possibility of war—in this case, of course, there is no dispute that, if you carry sanctions beyond a certain point, war is almost certain—such a procedure will not be followed again. We all hope that sanctions are very soon going to disappear. I think probably they will, and that they will never be employed again. To refuse financial aid to people who break the peace is as much as you can do, unless you mean to go to war. What are termed "sanctions" will never, I believe, be seen or heard of again. But until that happens, will my noble friend give us the assurance that acts, such as this, involving great risk of war, shall not be enacted by Order in Council but shall be made the subject of debate in this House and in another place, so that we can have an opportunity of deciding, Yes or No, whether that policy is wise or foolish? On those grounds I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Treaty of Peace (Covenant of the League of Nations) (No. 4) Order, 1935, may be annulled.—(Lord Mottistone.)
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOB FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE)My Lords, we are all glad to see our noble friend Lord Mottistone back in his place in the House after his illness. I admit frankly that I should have preferred him to be one day later, because this Motion was to have been answered by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who has, unfortunately, had to go away to attend a meeting of the Cabinet, and I therefore have to take his place. I think it must be the result of my noble friend's illness that he has not read this Order. It has nothing whatever to do with the imposition of sanctions upon Italy at all. All it does is to reduce the duties on poultry and on eggs and to increase the quota of bacon on those articles which come from Yugoslavia.
§ LORD MOTTISTONEBut, surely, for the purpose which has been stated elsewhere; for the purpose of in some way compensating Yugoslavia for the loss of trade due to the policy of sanctions which she joined in imposing upon Italy. It has been so stated.
§ EARL STANHOPEI myself stated in this House, when my noble friend was ill, on the last occasion we were debating the matter, three weeks ago, and I made it perfectly clear, that Yugoslavia had already imposed these sanctions upon Italy, and then she came and proved her case that she was in the result a very heavy loser. Something between one-quarter and one-fifth of her trade was with Italy, and she asked that other nations should come to her assistance, and this country was very gladly able to do so by making these reductions in the duties on eggs and poultry and increasing the quota for bacon.
§ EARL STANHOPEThe Yugoslavs helped in the War; but, if I may be allowed to proceed, I am a little surprised that my noble friend opposite should describe this Order as a matter of a very contentious description. I should have thought that it might be so from some points of view, but not from that of anybody who sat on those Benches. I always thought that my noble friend sat there 105 principally because he had some attachment to the old Free Trade policy which used to be pursued in this country. This Order reduces the duties which used formerly to be imposed on these articles, and, in other words, is a distinct step in the direction of Free Trade. So I am bound to say that I fail to understand why he is so annoyed about it.
Then he proceeded to tell us that, while no doubt this matter might be legal, it was at any rate unconstitutional. I have frequently in my life had to learn several kinds of what is familiarly described as jargon: Service jargon and, more recently, Foreign Office jargon and League of Nations jargon, but I have never achieved the jargon of the legal profession, and so I am rather at sea to understand how a thing can be unconstitutional and yet be legal. All I am concerned to say here is that undoubtedly this Order is quite definitely legal. If your Lordships will turn to the Treaty of Peace Act, which my noble friend quoted, you will see that by Section 1 (1):
" His Majesty may…make such Orders in Council and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty and for giving effect to any of the provisions of the said Treaty "—
in other words, the Treaty of Versailles. Part of the Treaty of Versailles was, of course, the Covenant of the League of Nations, and when you turn to Article 16 (3) of the Covenant you find that:
" The Members of the League agree, further, that they will mutually support one another in the financial and economic measures which are taken under this Article, in order to minimise the loss and inconvenience resulting from the above measures."
That is to say, the imposition of sanctions.
The Co-ordination Committee of the League of Nations which was set up when this matter was being considered at Geneva adopted on October 19 last year a set of proposals of which I need only trouble your Lordships with part of one. Proposal No. 5 (c) says that nations shall
be willing, after the application of economic sanctions, to enter into negotiations with any participating country which has sustained a loss, with a view to increasing the sale of goods so as to offset I 106 any loss of Italian markets which the application of sanctions may have involved.Then, as a result of that and in conjunction with it, the Governments which accepted these proposals agreed to study the possibility of adopting the following measures:(1) The increase by all appropriate measures of their imports in favour of such countries as may have suffered loss of Italian markets on account of the application of sanctions.…(4) Assistance generally in the organisation of the international marketing of goods with a view to offsetting any loss of Italian markets which the application of sanctions may have involved.I need hardly say that His Majesty's Dominions were consulted as to the part which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom should take in this matter, and they one and all agreed with the proposals which were made.I hope I have shown that under the first section of the Treaty of Peace Act we are entitled to make Orders to carry that Treaty into effect. It is no use having treaties unless you can carry them out, and in order to carry them out and in order to carry out the proposals of Article 16 of the Covenant, it was thought that the simplest method was to make this Order, so as to endeavour to offset in some way the losses which Yugoslavia had sustained. It has nothing whatever to do with the original imposition of sanctions upon Italy. It is merely trying to see that one of those who were with us should not suffer more than could be avoided; and, as that country had undoubtedly lost a bigger proportion of her trade than any other, and is herself a very poor country—so poor, indeed, that, she has had to impose a moratorium on charges against her agricultural population—His Majesty's Government felt justified in acting in this way.
When my noble friend talks about its being a most serious matter, may I remind him that these actual products which are dealt with in this Order are a very tiny fraction of the total amount that is produced or imported into this country? I think I gave the figures on the last, occasion, but perhaps I might repeat them. The increase in the quota for bacon amounts to one-tenth of one per cent. of the total United Kingdom supply, and an additional allowance of 400 cwt. a week is allowed to Yugoslavia. As 107 regards turkeys, which compete with the Hungarian turkeys, they are a good deal smaller than the United Kingdom turkeys and much the same size as the Hungarian turkeys. Hungary is not taking part in the sanctions against Italy, and therefore her trade is suffering more than any other importer into this market. We do not think there is any great injustice in that, under the circumstances. There is a reduction of duty from threepence to one penny per lb. on fowls or turkeys up to a limit of 60,000 cwts. in the course of the year. Eggs represent 0.25 per cent. of the total United Kingdom supplies and 0.75 per cent. of imported eggs. That is what the Order does for Yugoslavia, and my noble friend tells the House that this is a most serious situation, and one that requires the immediate attention of this House and the Government.
Really I venture to think that to use language of that kind with regard to an Order such as this is hardly justifiable on the part of my noble friend. And may I say that in dealing with this Order the Government have taken every possible care? Not only were the Law Officers consulted in regard to this in 1920, when they gave it as their opinion that Orders in Council could be made to give effect to Article 16, but we once again submitted it to the Law Officers last year. In each case, of course, the legal advisers of the Foreign Office had been consulted first, but in order to be quite certain that we were on perfectly safe ground the matter was again submitted to the Law Officers, and again, on September 5, 1935, they concurred in the opinion given by the Law Officers fifteen years before. I venture to submit that to bring this matter before your Lordships and to talk about it in the way my noble friend has done when His Majesty's Government are dealing with very critical affairs with regard to international relationships, is a course which I hope will not often be repeated, because the difficulties that we are trying to deal with at this moment are quite sufficient without their being increased.
§ LORD MOTTISTONEMy Lords, may I respectfully say that the noble Earl has not answered any of the questions which I put to him? I asked whether they would undertake not to proceed by Order 108 in Council in vitally important matters which might land us in war.
§ EARL STANHOPEI had hoped that I had proved to this House that this is not a vital matter, and therefore there is no analogy.
§ LORD MOTTISTONEThat is the question I asked. These Orders in Council have been issued, and whether this can be regarded as a vital matter is a matter of opinion. I wished to ask whether the Government will undertake not to use these Orders in Council in a vitally important matter. If he says: "No, this is a legal way of doing it, and we are entitled to do it ", then I must say that I think it would be very wrong for me or anybody in this House to acquiesce in such a decision.
§ EARL STANHOPEI am afraid I cannot acquiesce in what the noble Lord has said. I should be afraid to give such a pledge, because the noble Lord must realise the rapidity with which these things come upon us. Something might happen in the Recess, when this Government or its successors might find it of real importance to the country to proceed by Order, and I should be sorry to tie the hands of this or a future Government by giving a pledge in such a matter. Obviously, it is a procedure which will not be often used, and if it were to be used with regard to a vitally important matter it would, of course, be brought before this House.
§ LORD MOTTISTONEThe last words used by the noble Earl go far to satisfy me. He says that if the matter were really important it would be brought before Parliament. We cannot carry the matter further now. I make no apology for having raised this matter now, for I do regard it as a vital matter that this procedure by Order in Council should be put an end to. In the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.