Lords Sitting of 14 December 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ABERDEEN CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
BREAKING UP OF STREETS BY STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.
Message from the Commons, to acquaint the House that they have passed the following Resolution, to which they desire the concurrence of their Lordships—namely, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider those sections of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, which relate to the breaking up of streets for the purpose of laying pipes and other works, and to report what, if any, modifications of those provisions should be made to meet modern conditions with a view to their incorporation in future Bills and Orders promoted by statutory undertakers.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MID-STAFFORDSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
LORD ALNESS LORD ALNESS moved to insert the following new clause:
Authority for proclaiming intended marriages, etc.
"1. The following Churches shall be and hereby are authorised to proclaim intended marriages and to issue banns of intended marriages to members or adherents of their respective Churches, and to make such regulations for this purpose, and for the issue of all necessary certificates, provided such regulations are submitted to and approved by the Registrar General of Scotland:

The Baptist Church.

The Catholic Church.

The Congregational Church.

The Episcopal Church in Scotland.

The Free Church of Scotland.

The Free Presbyterian Church.

The Jewish Church.

The Methodist Church.

The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

The United Free Church of Scotland.

The United Original Secession Church."

The noble and learned Lord said: I desire, with your Lordships' permission, to make three preliminary observations regarding this proposal. The first is that it gives effect to the unanimous recommendation of the Morison Committee, who indeed placed the proposal in the forefront of their recommendations for immediate legislation. The second observation is this. According to my information, no opposition was offered by the Church of Scotland in evidence before the Morison Committee to the proposed extension which my new clause embodies. The third observation I desire to make is that I am satisfied, from correspondence which I have had with responsible and representative persons in Scotland, that there is a very strong desire in that country in favour of this proposal, and that that desire is by no means limited to the general public, but has been expressed, and is felt, even by members of the Church of Scotland itself. Accordingly I venture to say that this proposal comes before your Lordships' House with considerable credentials.
Now, passing for a moment to the merits of the proposal, again I have just three observations to make. The first is that the proposal, in my humble submission, is a fair proposal. It is fair to

547
the Churches which have a right in Scotland to perform the marriage ceremony, and all of those included in this list have that right. On the other hand, the existing system, which makes the proclamation of banns in Scotland a strictly guarded preserve of the Church of Scotland, I submit is really not fair. It is felt by many to involve a slur on other Churches that have an equal right with the Church of Scotland to perform the marriage ceremony. It seems to me to constitute a real grievance, of which the other Churches are acutely conscious.
I would remind your Lordships that the scheme in vogue in Scotland depends essentially upon mere custom. It is true there is a very old Statute which is directed against clandestine marriages, but the system as you find it in that country to-day depends upon custom. This is not a new proposal, nor is the sense of grievance new. I was interested to find that in the Report of a Royal Commission in 1868, so far as Scotland is concerned, presided over by one of the greatest lawyers in this or any other age, the matter was referred to. Lord justice Clerk Inglis, who became Lord President Inglis, conducted an investigation at that time into the law of marriage in Scotland, and in that Report which he wrote I find this with reference to the existing system of proclamation of banns:
"It is not unreasonably complained of by the Scottish Non-conformists, who are married by their own Ministers, as being in their case vexatious as well as useless."
That it is vexatious I have endeavoured to establish to your Lordships' satisfaction.
That it is useless I think I shall have little difficulty in establishing also, for my second point upon the merits of the proposal I make is that it is a forcible proposal, by which I mean an effective proposal. The proclamation of banns in churches to which one or both of the parties belong, either as members or adherents, is more likely to obtain publicity, which is what is desired, than the proclamation of banns in a church—which may take place to-day in the Church of Scotland—with which neither of the parties has any concern at all. A nominal residence is not infrequently taken in a particular district, and the banns put up in a church of which neither of the parties knows anything. The "fishy customer,"
548
if I may use that expression, is more likely to resort to a church of Scotland in a part of a great city where he is quite unknown, and where he may hope to smuggle through a marriage. This could not be done if it were the law, as it should be, that he must be a member or adherent of the church in which the proclamation is made. Again, this is no new thing, for I find that the late Lord President Inglis, in his classic Report, wrote this:
"This mode of proclamation"—
proclamation in a Church of Scotland—
"tends to promote clandestinity rather than to prevent it, by inducing persons to resort for marriage to places where they are unknown."
The third and last observation on the merits that I wish to make is this, that my proposal is not only fair and forcible but also feasible. I heard a suggestion, made I think by Lord Strathcona on the Second Reading, to the effect that it would create endless difficulties. I have not yet heard what those difficulties are. I am not aware of any. All I would say at this stage, with regard to that suggestion, is that I have had many letters from Scotland from persons who have devoted their lives to the practice of registration, and they all assure me that they see no difficulty in practice in working out this clause. What is more important than that is that before the Morison Committee the Registrar-General in Scotland and the President and Secretary of the Association of Registrars in Scotland gave evidence, and nothing was said by those witnesses which prevented the Commission from unanimously reporting in favour of the proposal which I now submit to your Lordships. It is not surprising that that should be so. It is an essentially simple matter. After proclamation in the Church of Scotland a certificate of proclamation is issued by the Session Clerk and that certificate is the warrant for registration. I ask why should not that be carried out equally effectively in any one of the Churches which I have named, and which the Morison Committee named, and in each of which the minister is entitled to perform the marriage ceremony?
It was said by Lord Strathcona that it is more convenient to have this ceremonial rite carried through in a church which has a territorial basis. I am not

549
quite sure that I appreciate the force of that argument. All I would remind my noble friend of is this; that the unit for proclamation purposes is not the parish but the registrar's district, and, moreover, I confess I have some doubt as to whether, strictly speaking, the Church of Scotland, to-day, is organised upon that basis. The Episcopal Church certainly is. I do not want to detain your Lordships unduly, but this is an important matter, felt to be so on the other side of the Border, and I thought it my duty to lay before your Lordships this proposal, well documented by authority as it is, and to ask for it your Lordships' favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Alness.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): Although I am aware that there are other members of your Lordships' House who wish to speak on this matter, it might perhaps be for your Lordships' convenience if I gave you now the views of His Majesty's Government. We are not able, I am afraid, to accept this Amendment, which we regard as neither wise nor practical. It is based on the recommendation of the Committee, at page 15 of their Report. It differs, however, from that recommendation in one important respect. The Amendment proposes that proclamation of banns by each of the Churches set forth in the Amendment shall be in accordance with regulations made by that Church and approved by the Registrar-General. The Committee recommended that proclamation by all Churches should be in accordance with the Act of Assembly made by the Church of Scotland in 1932. It is more than doubtful if either scheme would work. It is extremely unlikely that some of the bodies named in the Report would welcome dictation from the Church of Scotland as to the proclamation of banns. On the other hand, it is not appropriate to put the duty of approving or disapproving regulations on the Registrar-General. That is not germane to his functions.
Apart, however, from those difficulties, any proposal to empower Churches other than the Church of Scotland to proclaim banns would give rise to very serious difficulties and would be practically un-
550
workable. In the first place, many religious bodies not named in the Committee's Report or the Amendment would claim, or might claim, a similar right, and endless controversy would ensue. In the second place, it is not possible to graft on to the traditional system a system of publication of banns in the meeting places of all kinds of sects and denominations, which are not organised, as the Church of Scotland is, on a territorial basis. Under the Act of Assembly of June 1, 1932, a church or churches are appointed for the purpose of proclamation of banns for each registration district under the Registration of Births, etc., Acts. If proclamation is to be allowed in churches of other denominations, how is the particular church for each registration district to be determined? In many cases there will be no church of the denomination in question in or anywhere near the registration district in which the parties to, or one of the parties to, the proposed marriage reside. Indeed, we find it difficult to believe that any test could be devised which would fit all denominations.
If the parties to a marriage belong to different denominations, but live in the same district, would proclamation be necessary in a church of each denomination, or would that be left to the regulations made by the two churches? Doubtless many other troublesome questions would arise, and arise after the Bill becomes law. It is accordingly thought that any extension of the power to proclaim banns to other religious bodies is attended with practically insuperable difficulties. Moreover, the selection of the parish church is in all probability not due to ecclesiastical reasons but because it affords a suitable local centre for publicity. Publicity is given to other matters in pursuance of statutory enactment by affixing to the parish church door. Nor are people whose religion makes the parish church unacceptable bound to resort to it for proclamation. There is, of course, the alternative of publication under the Marriage Notice (Scotland) Act, 1878. For these and several other reasons we think this Amendment is unwarranted and cannot be accepted.
LORD THANKERTON: I am glad that the noble Lord who has just spoken on behalf of the Government has taken up the position that he has taken. This question has been familiar to me for

551
many years. For five years I occupied a post in the Church of Scotland, and while it is true, as the noble and learned Lord who proposed this Amendment has said, that the Church of Scotland was always sympathetic to the view, there were always practical difficulties in the way of it. In addition to what the noble Lord who represents the Government has just said, I would like to offer a few observations of my own. In the first place, if there is any question of smuggling (I think that was the phrase of the noble and learned Lord), surely he is going to make it very much easier to smuggle when there is a large choice of churches in which you can have your proclamations. But the important point to remember is this, that this requisite is not really a religious requisite at all, it is a civil requisite. Proclamation of banns is requisite in order to make a good "marriage ex facie ecclesiæ." In the absence of banns the marriage is perfectly good, but it is not a marriage in the face of the Church. It is true that under a very ancient Act passed in the seventeenth century there are penalties on the parties who perform what is called a clandestine marriage.
Another point I would desire noble Lords who are not familiar with marriages in Scotland to remember is that there is no need to be married in a church, and a very large number of the marriages which take place, even of the most firm adherents of the particular church to which they belong, are not in a church at all. Of course, originally there is no doubt that this publication of banns was Church law—not mere custom, it was Church law; and it was in order to preserve the domain of the Established Church for the time being that a good many strict Church laws were passed at that time. That has all passed away, but it remains the fact that the purpose of this publication of banns is in order, first of all, that public notice should be given of a marriage; and, secondly, and perhaps more important, that any possible objections to the marriage should be brought to light. Now if you think for a minute of country districts, the parish church is not only the religious centre, but it is the place where many public notices—Income Tax notices and, if I remember rightly, Diseases of Animals Act and other notices—are by Statute affixed; and
552
in the absence of a town hall or a parish council (though there are no parish councils now, I think) the parish church is the one place where the public generally know they will find or hear of things of this kind. From the practical point of view, even in a town the choice of where you can learn about marriages that may be taking place is very much more limited under the present system.
I agree with what the noble Lord has said about the difficulties that would emerge—really practical difficulties—when you are seeking to define the bodies who are to be included in this list, because one thing is quite certain—that the list that is in the Amendment, apart from certain minor inaccuracies, which are not very material, is quite inadequate to cover everybody. I think I could name five or six other bodies that would equally be entitled to claim. The more you spread the provision—the alternative provision, after all—for such things, the less effective you render the real purpose of it. While everyone is from the religious point of view in complete sympathy, certainly in the Church of Scotland, with the ministers of other Churches who are performing the marriage ceremony in their desire that they also should publish the banns, the real question is one of public convenience and public interest. May I remind your Lordships that in I could not guess how many cases, but certainly a great many, publication of banns, even under this Amendment, could take place anywhere but the place where the marriage is to be held or by the minister by whom the marriage is ultimately to be performed. It does not follow, as one knows in many cases, that people are married by their own minister. Perhaps mostly they are, but they may come from other parts. That is not the point I wish to stress. The point is really a practical one. This is a very important check on the contraction of marriage, and it is right we should see that such an important check is not rendered less effective than it is at the present moment.
LORD MACMILLAN: I should like to associate myself with what has just been said by my noble and learned friend. If this were a question of denominational preference, I should be with the mover of the Amendment, but it is not a question of denominational preference in any sense whatever. It is purely a question

553
of expediency. What is desired is that there should be a uniform and simple method of publication of banns for all purposes. The parish church happens to be an institution to be found in every parish in Scotland in the length and breadth of the land. It is the traditional place for public announcements. It is still, under Statute, the place where even such unattractive matters as Income Tax assessment notices are posted, and it is therefore a place which, so to speak, is dedicated to public purposes. The moment you proceed to complicate the marriage law, which it is one of the purposes of this Bill to simplify, by introducing a clause of this sort, it will raise difficulties as to which church you are to select, whether you are or are not a member or adherent—because it is only a member or adherent who is to have this privilege—whether the parties belong to different denominations, or perhaps may not have a church at all in the region where they are residing. All these things seem to be complications introduced into a measure the purpose of which is to simplify the marriage law of Scotland.
If it were a matter of giving preference to one denomination over another, my feelings might possibly be aroused, but when it is a question of what is the convenient method by which notification can be given, is it not better to adhere to the method that has all the sanctity of tradition, which is simple, well known, and well calculated to achieve its purpose? Therefore I should not wish to give a preference to these particular bodies selected here, and if you are to give a preference to them you will have to open the door to all manner of bodies, some of which it would not be easy to identify, and whose places of meeting might also be somewhat ambiguous. In the interests of simplicity and expediency, this Amendment, however well-intentioned, should not be made.
LORD ROCHESTER: There is only one important point I wish to bring to your Lordships' notice, and it is consequent on the reply made by the noble Lord who spoke for the Government. There is certainly one conspicuous omission from the list in this Amendment. If your Lordships should in your wisdom decide to accept it, I wish to enter a reservation in favour of that exception and to reserve my right on the Report stage to move an
554
Amendment to include the body to which I refer. I refer to the Salvation Army. Under the existing law of Scotland relating to the celebration of marriage, the Salvation Army stands on precisely the same footing as all the other religious bodies included in this Amendment. More than that they have in Scotland some 500 ministers—officers solemnly set apart and commissioned for the preaching of the Gospel—and they have some 200 churches known as corps. There appears to be no valid grounds for the omission of so large a body as the Salvation Army, more particularly as under the existing law Salvation Army officers possess and exercise precisely the same powers to conduct marriages, and under precisely the same conditions, as the ministers of the eleven churches mentioned both in the Report of the Departmental Committee and in the Amendment before your Lordships' House this afternoon. I would only add this one word, that I should like to support the Amendment. I regret that the Government have not seen their way to implement the recommendations of the Morison Departmental Committee. If this Amendment should be accepted, I should ask your Lordships' permission to move on the Report stage for the inclusion of the Salvation Army.
LORD GAINFORD: Perhaps it is rather absurd for an Englishman who does not know much about the system in Scotland to speak on this question, especially when very distinguished legal authorities differ; but, if we go to a Division, certainly I shall vote in favour of the Amendment. It does seem to be in favour of religious liberty. In this country of England marriages take place in every kind of church. Even Quakers are allowed to have their own method of issuing what is equivalent to banns by giving notice of intention of marriage, and these marriages are allowed to take place in a Friends' meeting house. In exactly the same way it seems to me that all persons in Scotland who desire to be married in a place of worship ought to be allowed to do so if they so wish.
LORD ALNESS: I merely want, if I may, to reply quite briefly to one or two of the criticisms which have been offered on this proposal. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, is concerned, he based his opposition to the proposal on the ground that it is not feasible.

555
All I can say in reply to that is that, having taken the best advice open to me on the matter from the registration authorities, I reached an entirely different conclusion from that which he has reached on the advice he has received. Still more striking is it, as I said, that all the registration authorities in Scotland had a full opportunity before the Morison Committee of offering any criticism of this scheme—and possibly did so—and the Committee reached the unanimous conclusion which I am asking your Lordships to support.
With regard to my noble and learned friend Lord Thankerton, he suggested there might be more smuggling through of marriages under the proposal in this new clause than under the existing system. I am quite unable to follow that argument. It seems to be based on the noble Lord having inadvertently omitted to notice that the proposal is that the banns should be proclaimed in a church of which one of the parties is a member or adherent and in which he is therefore known. Lord Thankerton further criticised the list of Churches which this Amendment includes. That list is not without official authority. It emanated from the Registrar-General for Scotland, and was placed before the Morison Committee. It included, according to the information then available, all the Churches which are entitled to perform the marriage ceremony. That was the test. Now, apparently, from what the noble Lord below me has said, one at least was omitted.
LORD THANKERTON: And others. If my noble friend had looked at the Statute, he would have seen quite clearly that this list is incomplete.
LORD ALNESS: I am not going to criticise the information given by the Registrar-General for Scotland; I do not have the necessary knowledge. All I can say is that this statement was put forward officially by him, and unanimously accepted by the Departmental Committee. But it seems fashionable nowadays to disregard the Reports of the advisers whom you have invited to advise you. My noble friend Lord Macmillan treated this, from beginning to end of his observations, as a question of expediency. I do not so regard it. I regard it as a question of justice and fair play, and on the question
556
of expediency, if that be directed to feasibility, then I do not weary your Lordships by repeating what I have already said. I respectfully venture to think that the considerations which I have put before your Lordships have not been met, but while that is so, having regard to the fact that the Government are opposing this Amendment and that the Government have been supported in that attitude by other noble Lords, I do not propose to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon it. I content myself by registering a respectful protest against the decision of the Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Marriage before registrar]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) In the case of the illness of one of the parties or other unforeseen and exceptional circumstances shown to the satisfaction of an authorised registrar to exist and to prevent the attendance of the parties in the office of the authorised registrar a marriage may be contracted under this section in the presence of the registrar in any dwelling-house or other building within the area for which the registrar has been appointed to act and which has been approved by the registrar. The registrar shall be entitled to an additional fee of fifteen shillings in respect of a marriage contracted under this subsection."
The noble Viscount said: The Amendment itself is, I think, self-explanatory. I have put it down because I have from time to time read reports in the Press of marriages having been contracted on the death-bed of one of the parties. I understand, under the present law of Scotland, all you would have to do would be to make a declaration before two witnesses in such a case. Therefore it is depriving these people of the right which they now have. It may be an impertinence on the part of an Englishman to move an Amendment to a Scottish Bill, nevertheless I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Viscount was good enough to give me notice that he intended to put down this Amendment. I told him at the time I did not think he would be able to produce an Amendment that

557
would be workable and I am afraid that is the case. We cannot therefore accept his Amendment. The case the noble Viscount has in mind is a rare and exceptional one, and the need for any provision to meet it is correspondingly small. Where one of two parties who desire to get married is unable by reason of illness or other exceptional and unforeseen circumstances to attend at a registrar's office, the parties are not thereby precluded from carrying through the marriage, for they would have no difficulty in arranging for the attendance of a minister and the performance of the marriage ceremony by him in the hospital, house, or other place in which the party unable to attend the registrar's office may happen to be, and there is no reason why they should not be required to do so, if they wish to get married at once. In this respect the parties are much better off than they are in England where, I understand, a marriage, other than a marriage by special licence, or a Jewish or Quaker marriage, must take place in a church or chapel or other building duly authorised or in a registrar's office.
But whatever may be thought of the noble Viscount's proposal on its merits, the Amendment in which he has embodied it is open to several objections. It cannot be left to the registrar to comply or not, as he chooses, with a request for attendance at a place outside his office. It is equally impracticable to give parties the right to require his attendance at any place and at any hour of the day or night. A via media between those extremes is by no means easy to devise, and the noble Viscount's Amendment does not overcome the difficulty by making the registrar the judge of whether the illness or other circumstances are such as to prevent attendance at his office. That is not a matter which ought to be committed to a registrar. It is not clear what is meant by "the area for which the registrar has been appointed to act." If the expression means merely the parish or district of which he is registrar, the Amendment will not meet the case where the parties, or the one of them who is unable to attend at the office, is outside the registrar's parish or district. If, on the other hand, the area for Which the registrar is "authorised" under the Bill is what is meant, there is no such thing, for the scheme of the Bill contemplates
558
that any authorised registrar may "conduct" marriages, irrespective of the residence of the parties, not that the whole country shall be divided into areas each assigned to a particular registrar for the purpose of the carrying through of marriages.
Even if this difficulty were got over, the Amendment might involve the absence of the registrar from his office for long periods to the grave inconvenience of the public and the registrar whose expenses might exceed the proposed fee. The Amendment requires the registrar to approve the building in which the marriage is to take place. This is not an appropriate matter to commit to the registrar, and it would have the effect of enabling the registrar to attend or not according as he chose. The Amendment is accordingly unacceptable inasmuch as it seeks to meet a case which is already sufficiently provided for, and for that reason I am afraid the Government cannot accept it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
LORD ALNESS LORD ALNESS moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
Marriages of female minors with aliens.
". No marriage in Scotland of a female minor between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one years with an alien shall be lawfully contracted unless with the prior written consent of her parent or guardian."
The noble and learned Lord said: The argument does not appear to carry any weight with the Government, but I venture to repeat it, that this new clause exactly carries out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee which was appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the second place, the Amendment carries out the wishes of quite a number of representative and responsible organisations in Scotland; for example, the Edinburgh Women's Citizens Association, whose views I think have been communicated to my noble friend Lord Strathcona, and various other bodies.
I would further remind the Committee, if I may, and the Government, that even if this new clause be adopted the law of Scotland on this matter will not

559
approximate to the law of England as it is to-day. I speak with all reserve on the subject, but according to my information and reading, by the law of England a marriage of a minor cannot be contracted, save in the most exceptional circumstances, without the consent of that minor's parent or guardian. The proposal which I now make, so far from being a new one, was made as far back as 1868 in the Royal Commission to which I have already referred and to which Lord Justice Clerk Inglis put his hand. This is what he wrote regarding this matter:
"We think that the present law of England and Ireland—requiring such consent—should be extended to all marriages in the United Kingdom, and that no notice of marriage should ordinarily be received from any minor without the consent in writing by the proper parent or guardian."
That was a proposal made seventy years ago. It has not yet received effect. It would not receive full effect even if my new clause were adopted. The proposal in the new clause is a modest one, that where there is a marriage between a minor and a foreigner, the consent of the guardian or parent of the minor should first be obtained, and obtained in writing.
My noble friend Lord Strathcona, when I mentioned the matter on the Second Reading, said that the intention of the Committee was to deal with marriages between Scottish girls and Indian students, and reminded the House that an Indian was not a foreigner. I cannot deal with what was in the mind of the Committee. All I can look at is the unanimous recommendation of the Committee and the use of the word "foreigner." However that may be, certain it is that many marriages take place to-day between Scottish girls and foreigners—not Indians, but foreigners in the strictest sense of that term. Marriages take place between Scottish girls and foreign sailors and many other types of foreigner. That is well-known and familiar to all of us who are familiar with the domestic economy and marriage problems of Scotland. If that is so, the sooner that sort of thing is stopped the better, for the consequences are disastrous.
What are the consequences? Very often, though the marriage is valid according to the law of Scotland, it turns
560
out to be wholly invalid according to the law of the country to which the foreigner belongs, and the wife or the wife and children may find themselves stranded in a foreign land. Again the wife, if deserted by a foreign husband, may find herself left without any redress according to the law of Scotland. Consequences so dire as these ought to be prevented if it is humanly and reasonably possible to do so. This Amendment, if adopted, would provide a certain check and safeguard, and therefore, without delaying your Lordships with further argument, I submit it for the consideration of the Government, and I bespeak for it a more friendly reception than my first Amendment had.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Alness.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am sorry that we cannot accept this Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. It is true, as he said, that this Amendment is based on the recommendation of the Committee, at page 16 of their Report, but reading that recommendation in the light of what is said on page 5 of the Report, what the Committee had intended was apparently that a marriage between a Scottish minor and an alien, which is invalid according to the law of the alien's domicile, should require the consent of the minor's parent or guardian. The Amendment therefore does not exactly carry out the recommendation. In either form, however, the proposal is very hard to justify. We do not see why a Scottish minor should be free to marry, without her parent's or guardian's consent, a British subject of the worst possible character, but should require such consent in order to marry a foreigner of the highest possible character. A rule of law which requires parental consent to any marriage whatever of a minor is intelligible, but it is difficult to see any justification for requiring such consent in some cases only, especially when those cases are selected on grounds which may be quite irrelevant to the wisdom or unwisdom of the proposed marriage.
It is probable that what the Committee had in mind, as has been said, was chiefly marriage with Indians, where the Scottish wife finds sometimes that, though she may be her husband's only

561
wife in Scotland, in India she may be only one of several. This happens whether the Scottish wife is under twenty-one or over it. Moreover, Indians are not aliens but British subjects, as I told your Lordships on Second Reading. On political grounds it is obviously undesirable to single out foreign countries or particular Dominions or Colonies for exceptional treatment as regards marriage to Scottish women. The Amendment makes no provision for the case where the parent cannot be found or unreasonably refuses his consent, and where there is no guardian. A glance at the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, Section 9 and Schedule, will show that elaborate provision is required to meet such cases. In terms of the Amendment the marriage in question would be invalid if the consent of the parent or guardian were not obtained. If so, the cure seems worse than the disease. In England, where the consent of the parent or guardian is required to the marriage of a person under twenty-one (not being a widow or a widower), the marriage is not invalid if the parties succeed in carrying it through without consent For these reasons it seems clear that any enactment on the lines of the Amendment would do more harm than good and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD THANKERTON: I would like to add a few words to what the noble Lord said and to join in his request to my noble and learned friend to withdraw the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord makes a proposal which is entirely novel in the law of Scotland, that a marriage of this kind should be null and void, and in my humble opinion it is a very dangerous proposal. It is not the law of England. Further, the Report of the Committee was very strongly against insisting on the parents' consent to a minor's marriage and it was only in a more limited case than the Amendment provides for that they suggested such a course might be taken. It is true they suggested that in that event the marriage should be null and void, but that would be going far beyond anything I know in any other country.
Personally I would like to know the kind of case that is really in the mind of the noble and learned Lord. Take the case where a Scottish girl, a minor, marries an alien who is polygamous.
562
That marriage would not be valid, as I understand the law of Scotland, according to the law of Scotland. There is no need for legislation in that case, and that would apply to most of the suggested line of thought. Beyond that, which I think is already sufficiently protected, I would like to be given an illustration of what is covered by the Committee's view. This would go far beyond the Committee's view. Whether the marriage was valid in another country or not this Amendment would cover it. On the other hand, there might be no suggestion of invalidity in another country and yet the marriage would be null and void if it took place without the parents' consent, even if the parents could not be found. Personally I cannot think of the class of case that is thought to be affected, and at any rate I am quite satisfied that this proposed method would be a very dangerous precedent. It is not the proposal of the Report of Lord Justice Clerk Inglis. He suggested assimilating it to the law of England or Ireland, which does not make the marriage null and void, but arms the parents with means by which they can prevent the certificate of the banns and so on by notice. There are certain penalties—I do not know whether they are in force—but the marriage is not null and void either in England or Ireland. I suggest that this would be a very dangerous precedent to set up.
LORD ALNESS: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in reply to the two speeches we have just heard. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, seemed to be, as I understood it—I hope I did not misunderstand it—that the Amendment does not go far enough, and that it would be more logical to provide that in all cases where a girl who is a minor marries the consent of her guardian or parent should be required. I am entirely of that view, if I may respectfully say so, but it would not be relevant to introduce such a provision in this Bill. My view is that it would be wise to take one step at a time, and, having taken the step which this Amendment proposes, then to extend it on the lines of the suggestion made by Lord justice Clerk Inglis to Scotland as a whole, thereby assimilating the law of Scotland to the law of England, and also giving effect to the Report of the Royal Commission. With regard to what my

563
noble and learned friend Lord Thankerton said, I should have thought that my Amendment exactly gave effect to the recommendation of the Morison Committee, which I hold in my hand. The Morison Committee recommended that a marriage contracted by a minor in Scotland with a foreigner should be null and void.
LORD THANKERTON: "In such circumstances."
LORD ALNESS: In the circumstances set out in the second paragraph in the Report.
LORD THANKERTON: And then, if you go back to page 5, you will find there is a qualification which is not in your Amendment.
LORD ALNESS: I am sorry I am unaware of any qualification. I am looking at paragraph (2) on page 5 at this particular moment. There I find this statement:
"In recent years young Scottish women have contracted marriage with foreigners which, though valid according to the law of Scotland, are invalid according to the law of the foreigner's domicile. We suggest that where a Scottish minor purposes to marry a foreigner in such circumstances the consent of the minor's parent or guardian should be required."
That is a narrative of what the Committee thought, but when one comes to the recommendation it is as clear as words can make it—the marriage shall be "null and void"; and that is exactly what my Amendment proposes. In the circumstances in which I find myself—namely, that the Government have resisted the Amendment throughout—I feel that it would be hopeless to press the matter to a Division, and accordingly I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Abolition of irregular marriage by declaration and by promise subsequente copula.
5. No irregular marriage by declaration de presenti or by promise subsequente copula contracted after the commencement of this Act, shall be valid.
LORD ALNESS LORD ALNESS moved, after "copula," to insert "or by cohabitation habit or repute." The noble and learned Lord said: I apologise for inflicting myself once more upon the Committee, but I shall be extremely brief in dealing with
564
this Amendment. I think a word of explanation is perhaps required of me in view of what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill. At that time I entertained the view, which I still entertain, that it was unjustifiable in this Bill, in order to remedy a local grievance at Gretna, to abolish almost in its entirety the whole law of Scotland relating to irregular marriage. It seems to me that the same purpose could be achieved quite easily and effectively by providing that these irregular marriages should immediately be registered. I still think so, but, having had an opportunity of conferring with the authorities of the Scottish Office and with my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, and having received a large volume of correspondence from Scotland on the subject, I have come, rightly or wrongly, to the conclusion that there is a large body of opinion in that country which desires to see the law of irregular marriages in Scotland abolished, and which takes the view that Gretna, if not the cause of that abolition, should at least be adopted as its occasion.
I hope, if I may say so, that I am a good democrat, even to-day, and, as such, I bow to the opinion that has been expressed in Scotland on this subject, although I do not share it. But, having taken that step and reached that conclusion, I find myself up against the problem of whether, if the law of Scotland relating to irregular marriages is to be dealt with, it should be abolished entirely, or whether, as the Government propose, only two-thirds of it should be abolished. As your Lordships will notice, in Clause 5 it is proposed to get rid of two forms of irregular marriage in Scotland—namely, interchange of consent, and what is known as promise subsequente copula. The third form, marriage by cohabitation, habit and repute, according to this Bill will remain untouched. I venture to think that that is a most illogical performance and once more—but that argument seems to be of no avail—to sin against the unanimous Report of the Morison Committee. The truth is that this form of marriage is not really, in the strict sense, marriage at all. It proceeds upon a fiction, and only if the fiction is successful does marriage emerge as a consequence. I am not aware of any system of law in any country which embodies

565
this particular form of marriage, either regular or irregular.
I am aware—I again speak with all reserve—that in the law of England cohabitation after a certain time raises a presumption of marriage, but that is quite different from our law in Scotland. I think my noble and learned friend Lord Thankerton, who has differed from me so often this afternoon, will agree with me on this occasion. Cohabitation, habit and repute constitute under the law of Scotland a valid marriage. As a famous old Scottish Judge wrote many years ago, the fact of a man allowing a woman to take the station of and be called his wife is a constant and continued declaration of consent. And of course, as your Lordships have heard in these debates, in Scotland, up to now at least, consent makes a valid marriage. It has been said—and my noble friend Lord Strathcona stated it on the occasion of the Second Reading debate—that this form of marriage might cure informalities in an otherwise properly contracted marriage. I am afraid—it may be my own fault; it probably is—that I do not fallow that argument, because the extract certificate of marriage records the necessary and mutual consent of the parties.
In any event, just think for a moment of the means that would have to be adopted in such infrequent cases as my noble friend referred to in order to achieve the purpose in view. It would involve raising in the Court of Session a very costly, probably a prohibitively costly, action of declarator. The proof in that action of declarator would, as the Morison Committee stated, bristle with difficulties. I cannot better illustrate that to the Committee than by giving an example from a very old case, which is reported in the Law Reports, where a marriage of that sort was sought to be established by bringing a declarator. What was proved was that the alleged husband said to his alleged wife in the presence of her family:
"Maggie, you are my wife before Heaven, so help me God."
Notwithstanding these formal and solemn words, the House of Lords on appeal held that there was no marriage and no real intention to effect a marriage, and accordingly the suit failed. Therefore, even in the infrequent cases which I understood
566
my noble friend Lord Strathcona to adumbrate on the Second Reading, the prospect before anybody who essayed such an action would, to say the least of it, be extremely bleak. Accordingly, I suggest that if a surgical operation is to be performed on the law of irregular marriage in Scotland, it ought to be complete in its character, that it should not excise two-thirds of the law and leave the remaining third standing, contrary to the advice of the Departmental Committee of the Scottish Office. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, after ("copula") insert ("or by cohabitation habit and repute").—(Lord Alness.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The noble Lord's Amendment proposes to abolish marriage by cohabitation, habit and repute. It is true that the Departmental Committee recommended abolition. It has, however, on full consideration been thought desirable that this form of marriage should be retained and I will endeavour to give the reasons for that decision. In the first place, though the formalities attendant on the only two forms of marriage possible when the Bill becomes law—namely, religious marriage celebrated by a minister, and marriage in a registrar's office—are so simple that the chances of a successful challenge to the validity of a marriage on the ground of non-compliance with the necessary formalities are extremely small, it is desirable to obviate, so far as possible, any such challenge.
Under the existing law, validity could never be questioned, for the parties interchanged consent, a religious marriage, even if bad as a regular marriage, would still be a good irregular marriage by declaration de presenti. Accordingly, if marriage by declaration goes, it is necessary to make some provision to prevent the validity of a marriage being challenged or successfully challenged on the ground of some trifling informality. The retention of cohabitation, habit and repute marriage exactly meets this, and that seems more satisfactory and simpler than abolishing it and reintroducing by positive enactment something very similar. This course is all the more justifiable when it is kept in view that none of the social evils referred to in the Committee's Report are associated in any way with marriage by cohabitation, habit and

567
repute. It is anticipated that the doctrine will be resorted to very rarely indeed. Cases are not common under the existing law, but they will be much less common in future, for under the existing law the doctrine can be utilised in cases where there really has been marriage by declaration de presenti or by promise subsequente copula, of which, owing to lapse of time, proof is not available. I hope I have succeeded in my endeavour to explain to the noble and learned Lord the reason why we think this Amendment should not be accepted.
LORD THANKERTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord asked me to associate myself with him in his view of the law of England, amongst other things. Let me say that I was sorry that I was not present when he spoke on the Second Reading, because I read his speech afterwards and I was surprised to find that after his long experience in office, and his considerable connection with Church matters, he remained what I may describe as an unrepentent Conservative sentimentalist. Ever since my earliest days, when I went to settle in Scotland, where for a number of years I was associated with Church matters, there has always been an outcry on the part of the Churches and others against irregular marriages, including the Hogmanay marriages, and whilst in one sense the Gretna Green marriages certainly were the occasion of measures being taken to set up this Committee, it was the occasion that moved Government circles, but not that which moved the Church of Scotland. They have ever been against these irregular marriages.
I agree that when one looks at the Report of the Morison Committee and considers the matter logically, one would expect this aspect of the marriage law of Scotland to be cut out as well. I rather differ from my noble and learned friend in this respect. Marriage by habit and repute—and the reference he made to an old case sounded more like a marriage de presenti than a marriage by habit and repute—was merely the means by which you got evidence of consent, which was necessary under the law of Scotland. In the English case, where there is a presumption that everything has been correctly carried out, it is very similar. It is a presumption of evidence, and it is
568
one that leads you to presume that there has been a valid marriage. I do not see any very great difference between the two, but I do think it is up to the Government to justify this little thing being left in. For my own part I think there may be cases, such as for instance where it is desired to prove legitimacy in an important case, years after the marriage has taken place, and after the presumed marriage parties have died. You do not know where they have been married, and you cannot prove that they had been married, but it is never doubted that they were married, and they have lived together on a respectable standing as husband and wife. It is perfectly true that there may be such cases in which this doctrine will be of advantage.
It has a very limited extent, and therefore for myself I am not prepared to object in any way to the view of the Government. I do not think it can do any harm, and in certain cases the retention of this form of marriage may be useful, as, for instance where, because of the lapse of time, you cannot get evidence. I should be very loth in such cases to alter the present law so as to exclude the chance of proving a marriage as you can at present. Therefore I am not prepared to support the noble and learned Lord's Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not want to intervene in the argument which the noble and learned Lords have mentioned, but I would like to ask one question. Is it not the case—I was always under the impression it was—that where the doctrine of marriage by cohabitation, habit and repute was involved was really in the case of a death, to clear the way of a woman who might not be able to prove her marriage, and thus enable her to take her proper share of the estate?
LORD THANKERTON: Might I answer the noble Lord on that? I think it is quite true that for some years before the principal Statute it might have occurred. If it was still available I do not think any harm would be done, and I think it would be unfair to cut this Provision out of the law.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, if a layman may presume to interfere in this battle at the Bar, I would humbly put forward a small argument in favour of the attitude of the Government

569
and of Lord Thankerton rather than that of Lord Alness. This system of irregular marriages which we now, for all practical purposes, are abolishing, did lead to a great many abuses, bigamies and so forth, which were of course the cause of the Bill. At the same time it must be realised that by far the greater number of the marriages hitherto regarded as irregular were firm and perfectly respectable unions, but I think there is no doubt that a great many of them never were properly registered. For at least a century we are going to have the possibility, amounting I think to a probability, of cases, usually on demise, of persons coming forward seeking to prove that they are either the widow or the heir-at-law of the deceased. It would be a great pity, when in many cases there can be no real legal proof of the legal nature of that marriage, though it was nevertheless undoubtedly a perfectly regular marriage, if in those circumstances the marriage has to be declared invalid and the children, possibly, illegitimate. For this reason I would suggest that the retention of this part of our old law is fully justified.
LORD ALNESS: Having regard to the attitude which His Majesty's Government have taken up on this matter, I feel that it would be otiose on my part, or worse, to divide the House on this Amendment. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

LIMITATION BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 7:
Provisions in case of settled land and land held on trust.
(5) Where any land held on trust is in the possession of a person having a beneficial interest therein or in the, proceeds of sale thereof, his possession shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the possession of the trustees, or if the person in possession is both a beneficiary and a trustee, his possession shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be that of a trustee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM) moved to leave out subsection (5) and insert:
"(5) Where any settled land or any land held on trust for sale is in the possession of a person entitled to a beneficial interest in the land or in the proceeds of sale, not being a person solely and absolutely entitled thereto, no right of action to recover the land shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to accrue during such possession to any person in whom the land is vested as tenant for life, statutory owner or trustee, or to any other person entitled to a beneficial interest in the land or the proceeds of sale."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, there are certain Amendments which stand in my name to which I may refer. The most important of them is the first Amendment, which is due to a suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who moved an Amendment on the Committee stage which I promised to consider. That matter is a technical one, and I am not surprised to find that, bearing in mind what the noble Lord suggested on the last occasion, it is possible to make a subsection—namely, subsection (5) of Clause 7—read in a more satisfactory way, which will avoid some of the difficulties that the noble Lord pointed out. The substituted subsection is now limited to the case of settled land and land held on trust for sale, whereas the old subsection applied generally to all cases where land is held on trust.
I think that meets the main criticism that Lord Mancroft made on the previous occasion, and in particular it meets a case which he had in mind—namely, the case where a purchaser enters into possession of land without obtaining a conveyance, and the legal estate is held on trust for him by the vendors. The new subsection does not apply to any case where the person in possession is the sole, or the sole surviving, beneficiary under the trust or settlement. In fact, as now drafted it only effects the object for which it was designed, which is to prevent one beneficiary under a settlement or trust setting up a title adverse to the rights of the other beneficiaries. There is another point that was raised by Lord Mancroft in reference to the subject of co-ownership of land. It is true that the Bill does change the law of limitation in relation to concurrent interests in land, but that change, or some change, is necessary owing to a change in the general law effected by the legislation of 1925, and this change is the right one, having regard

571
to the fact that concurrent interests can now only exist under a settlement or behind a trust for sale. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble and learned friend. I think he has met as far as possible the principle which I had in mind when during the Committee stage I ventured to bring criticisms before your Lordships' House. It seems now quite clear to me that the provision which is in the Government's mind does not affect, as worded afresh, the case of a purchaser in possession who has not a conveyance. It will merely affect settled land and land in trust for sale. That being so, I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord. I am much obliged to him for having moved the Amendment to Clause 7.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25:
Effect of acknowledgment or part payment on persons other than the maker or recipient.
(5) An acknowledgment of any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim shall only hind the acknowledgor and his successors, but a payment made in respect of the debt or claim shall bind all persons liable in respect thereof:
Provided that an acknowledgment or payment made after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for the bringing of the action shall only bind the acknowledgor or the person making the payment, as the case may be, and his successors other than successor on whom the liability devolves on the determination of a preceding estate or interest in property under a settlement taking effect before the date of the acknowledgment or payment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (5) and insert:
"(5) An acknowledgment of any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim shall bind the acknowledgor and his successors but not any other person:
Provided that an acknowledgment made after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for the bringing of an action to recover the debt or other claim shall not bind any successor on whom the liability devolves on the determination of a preceding estate or interest in property under a settlement taking effect before the date of the acknowledgment.
572
(6) A payment made in respect of any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim shall bind all persons liable in respect thereof:
Provided that a payment made after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for the bringing of an action to recover the debt or other claim shall not bind any person other than the person making the payment and his successors, and shall not bind any successor on whom the liability devolves on the determination of a preceding estate or interest in property under a settlement taking effect before the date of the payment."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a matter of drafting. Subsection (5), it was thought on reconsideration, was an exceedingly difficult one to understand and, as redrafted in the form of two subsections, it will be much more intelligible. We now separate the case of acknowledgments in respect of a death made after the expiration of the period of limitation and a case where there has been a pecuniary payment made. I think it is as well, as the Bill is exceedingly hard to understand, that it should be made as easy as it can be made in the circumstances of the case.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31:
Interpretation.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be under a disability while he is an infant, or of unsound mind, or a convict subject to the operation of the Forfeiture Act, 1870, in whose case no administrator or curator has been appointed under that Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection but without prejudice to the generality thereof, a person shall be conclusively presumed to be of unsound mind—

(a) while he is detained in pursuance of any enactment authorising the detention of persons of unsound mind or criminal lunatics, or is receiving treatment as a voluntary patient under the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, being treatment which follows without any interval such detention as aforesaid; and

(b) while he is detained under any provision of the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1938."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the last Amendment is in reference to cases of unsound mind. On reconsideration it was thought that unsound

573
mind as a ground of disability might be somewhat difficult in cases where a person was detained in the various ways in which he may be detained and it was possible to suggest that, though so detained, he was not of unsound mind. In order to meet that, I have an addition to Clause 31 which reads:
"For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection but without prejudice to the generality thereof, a person shall be conclusively presumed to be of unsound mind—
(a) while he is detained in pursuance of any enactment authorising the detention of persons of unsound mind or criminal lunatics, or is receiving treatment as a voluntary patient under the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, being treatment which follows without any interval such detention as aforesaid;"—
that is one series of cases where a person may be detained as being of unsound mind—and
"(b) while he is detained under any provision of the Menial Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1938."
There should be a disability provision in the Bill in relation to a person who is a lunatic or a mental defective under restraint. From this point of view it does not so much matter whether a person is of unsound mind or not if he is shut up in any of these places or is under such detention as is possible under these Acts. When that happens, your Lordships will agree, it is unnecessary to inquire subsequently whether the restraint was in fact for unsound mind or not. Accordingly the Amendment makes it clear that the disability of unsoundness of mind applies to cases of mental deficiency where the deficiency is sufficiently serious to require the person to be restrained. I should add that the Amendment does not constitute an exhaustive definition of unsoundness of mind. The door is open to any person who can satisfy the Court that he was of unsound mind at the material date, whether or not he was under restraint, and accordingly he will be entitled to rely on the disability provisions of the Bill. The Amendment relates simply to the question of disability in the form which is mentioned on the Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

REFUGEE PROBLEMS.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps are being taken, in conjunction with the Inter-Governmental Committee or independently, towards the relief of the suffering of refugees from Germany, Czecho-Slovakia and other countries, and the reconstruction of their lives in this and other parts of the world; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot hope to emulate the brevity of the noble Lord, Lord Alness, on the Marriage (Scotland) Bill in dealing with the Motion that stands in my name, but I shall detain the House for as short a time as possible, knowing that your Lordships will not object to spending some time on the subject of discussion because it is a well-known fact that members of this House are always chosen to lead charitable and other causes. Their names are at the head of all the claims on our generosity which appear, especially round about Christmas, and such is the generosity of members of this House that we discovered on a recent Joint Committee of both Houses, when dealing with collecting charities, that there were members of your Lordships' House supporting not entirely worthy causes because of those instincts to help which are clearly held by all members of this House.
This evening for a moment we can examine a cause which is a very worthy cause, and one which is, in point of fact, not a charity at all. This question of refugees, it seems to me, is really a very remarkable opportunity, and in all probability represents a very good investment on the part of this country and the remainder of the British Empire. It is not only a moral question, it is an economic question and has the possibility of great economic advantages. I hope, therefore, if I suggest there should be further aid by the Government to help the evacuation and settlement of refugees, I shall have the support of your Lordships' House. It will be necessary very briefly to summarise the position before we look into the possibilities which I have suggested in the Motion. The last debate we had on this subject was raised by the Lord Bishop of Chichester in July last. That arose out of the Evian Conference, which was called on the initiative of President Roosevelt to deal with the new pressure of refugees from Germany and Austria. The conditions in July had become so bad that they

575
had really aroused the sympathy and anxiety of the world, and the result was that the British Government accepted the invitation of the United States Government to join in the Conference at Evian, and by that means showed not only their sympathy but their acceptance of a share of responsibility for dealing with this terrific problem. Incidentally, by sending a Cabinet Minister as head of the British delegation—Lord Winterton—they sent the only Cabinet Minister, and I think the only Minister, who was present at Evian. Thereby the Government showed their realisation of the extent of the problem and their willingness to help.
Since July matters have really become a thousand times worse. There is no need for me to dilate on the sufferings which are being inflicted on a defenceless minority in certain countries. The newspapers are filled with stories of horror, and I suppose it is difficult to find any parallel for such a position, at any rate in recent history. I went to the meeting at the Mansion House last week where a very young Peer, Lord Rothschild, made a speech. It was a very remarkable, very restrained, very moving speech to listen to, and in the course of it he gave one example. He said that his advisers estimated that there had been in Austria alone, since March of this year, something like 7,000 suicides owing to the suffering inflicted. To-day the alternatives before these would-be refugees seem to be some sort of torture or death, a complete degradation of the whole of their standard of life to what would appear to be almost a sub-human existence if they remain in those countries, or emigration. As to the extent of the problem of those who desire to emigrate, I gather, and I am sure other noble Lords gather, from the appeals we get from individuals and groups, that there can be few who do not desire if it is possible to get out of those countries.
An estimate of the extent of this problem has been given by the Government in another place as being somewhere over 500,000 of the Jewish minority, not less than an equal number of the "part-Jews," and thousands of political, religious, and pacifist would-be emigrants who are not Jews at all. Sir John Hope Simpson, who is such a very well-known and sympathetic expert on this subject, speaking at the meeting of members and others in this Palace last week, gave as
576
his opinion that the Jews were rather less than half the total of those who were afflicted. We also have the very interesting statement by the Prime Minister in another place—and I carefully avoid all ipsissima verba in this matter—that there have been already some 120,000 of these refugees permanently settled in other countries. That is a very large number.
There is one other group that I would mention in analysing the immediate problem, and that is the very tragic group—and I hope very much that the Government will be able to give us a little help on this matter—who are now stranded between Poland and Germany. They number to-day about 6,000. There has been given to them help from a number of external voluntary organisations, such as the American Joint Distribution Committee, the O.R.T.O.Z.E. and others, and they have been getting help from the Polish Refugee Fund in this country. I think I am right in saying that Mr. Lansbury made himself responsible for heading that appeal. I want to say in passing one word in connection with the attitude of the Polish Government on this matter, because I think I should remind your Lordships that these are not in fact Polish citizens. They are persons possibly of Polish birth but certainly not of Polish citizenship. Originally there were some 15,000 expelled from Germany, of whom about 8,000 or 9,000 were received into Poland, and only this balance of some 6,000 are stranded on the frontier. I had a letter from a Jewish observer in Poland from whom these words came:
"I must insist upon the fact that the Polish authorities accepted the refugees in a very noble way. In Silesia (in the first days) they were allowed to pass the border even without passports, and the Governor of the district gave them a special train (without any payment) to take them to the various big cities. I have heard about policemen who carried on their backs children and old women."
The authorities did, in fact, facilitate the settlement in the course of perhaps a week or ten days of some 8,000 or 9,000.
That was a very generous attitude on the part of a very poverty-stricken country, a country which is generally considered to be anti-Semitic but which in fact did receive with great generosity these poor people. I do not in any way desire to belittle what has been done in this country; quite the contrary. A great deal has been done, and we do know that

577
during the last five years, according to a statement by the Prime Minister on November 21, some 11,000 have been settled in this country. Some 16,000 I think were received, and about 5,000 have moved on. In addition to this immediate problem, there is the potential problem, which is very serious and which we should bear in mind. In Poland there are about 3,400,000 in the Jewish minority alone, and there is among certain classes a growing feeling of anti-Semitism, not from my own personal observation among the ordinary agricultural and factory workers but among certain sections, and it is tragic to realise that there is a group in Poland who would desire to add to the stream of refugees coming from Germany and Austria by the adoption of methods similar to those being used in those countries.
I came across a quotation from a paper called the Gazette Polska in which they say the only way to solve the Jewish problem is to use the same methods as are used in the Third Reich. The demand by Poland for Colonies was based on much the same sort of point of view. I mention that because it shows not only that we have an immense problem to face immediately, but that there are possibilities of that problem within the not too distant future becoming infinitely greater and infinitely more difficult to solve. Added to that, the position in Hungary and in Rumania, where already there is a process of denationalisation going on among the minorities, indicates that there are considerable dangers of the rush of to-day becoming even the torrent of to-morrow.
There is no need to go into the causes of this except to mention that one of the chief causes must be said to be the stoppage of immigration into various countries, and particularly into the United States of America. The average number of immigrants into the United States for the years 1881 to 1913 was 650,000 a year, of which a very small percentage were Jews—I suppose not more than 8 per cent. were Jews—and that has been reduced to something like 43,000 a year in the past six years. That damming up of these potential emigrants from those Eastern European countries is partly the cause, or at any rate is an economic explanation of some of the trouble. The immediate problem is being dealt with to some extent by a number and variety of
578
organisations. There is, of course, the League of Nations, which dealt with refugees of the type of the Russians and the Assyrians and so on through the Nansen Office. Then, in 1933, the League appointed a High Commissioner who presided over the evacuation of refugees, Jewish and non-Jewish, coming from Germany. The present High Commissioner is Sir Neill Malcolm, whose good work is recognised by everybody. At the end of this year, on 31st December, those two organisations, the Nansen Office and the High Commissioner's Office, come to an end and rise again next day as a joint organisation under a new High Commissioner, again a very distinguished civil servant, Sir Herbert Emerson, who will become the High Commissioner for the new organisation.
While we were not faced with the new difficulties in Germany, there can be no question from the most recent report of the League of Nations that the trouble in regard to refugees was in process of solving itself. Then we were faced with the new rush to which I have referred. There was that new exodus which called forth the Evian Conference of July. The object of that Conference was, in the first place, the orderly evacuation of the refugees, or the persons who were becoming refugees at that time, from Germany and Austria, and also transit and settlement in other countries. As I understand the position, there is a very important development which has just occurred in this connection and I would be very glad if the noble Earl who replies for the Government could give some information as to me visit of Dr. Schacht to this country, which is reported in The Times this morning. I understand that Dr. Schacht is coming over with Dr. Beyen, the President of the Bank of International Settlements, and with Mr. Montagu Norman, who I understand has something to do with the Bank of England, and there is said to be about to be discussed the possibility of refugees from Germany bringing out property with them. It was one of the most important recommendations of the Evian Conference that the new Director, Mr. Rublee, should get in touch with the German Government and see to what extent refugees could be allowed to bring out property in order to make it easier for them to be settled. It is very important to know what is in the minds of

579
Dr. Schacht and Dr. Beyen in regard to that. So far the Inter-Governmental Committee which arose out of the Evian Conference has completely failed to get in touch with Germany with regard to this property, unless I am wrongly informed. As to that, the noble Earl will no doubt tell your Lordships what is the position.
The task now facing us as a result of the claims in connection with the dastardly murder of a German diplomat in Paris a few weeks ago is, of course, immediate evacuation. I cannot help feeling that it will be the desire of all of us who have read the appeals from various organisations to help in that immediate task, even though some may have misgivings as to the economic risks of a very generous attitude at the present moment. I think it must be pointed out that there is a great difference between the countries contiguous to Germany—Holland, Belgium, Switzerland and so on—and highly industrialised countries like Great Britain, which cannot in any case be countries of permanent settlement on any large scale but must be transit countries to receive and pass on these unhappy people, perhaps after training, to the eventual settlement countries. I think we must pay tribute to France, which has probably received more of these refugees than all the other countries put together. The French are, I suppose, in great difficulties, for not only have they had to receive refugees from the North but thousands and thousands of Spanish refugees—I believe 25,000. Other countries, of course, have helped and I should like to mention particularly the offer from Australia to receive over three years 15,000 settlers.
Let me say one word about the United States in order to bring to the notice of your Lordships the difference between the policy in this country and in the United States. The United States have a numerical quota for immigrants, but in this country we have no quota. We only limit entry, apparently, by capacity to secure maintenance, and unhappily for the moment the size of the problem has resulted in a slowness of procedure both in the voluntary organisations and in the Aliens Department of the Home Office which is not a desired or desirable slowness. The United States have a quota for Germany of 27,000 a year. The United States representative at Evian, Mr.
580
Myron Taylor, made an offer that any unfulfilled portion of the quota in any year should be added to the 27,000 available in the following year. That was a very valuable gesture because the quota in fact had never been anything like filled. But the applications of persons desiring to go to the United States have reached such enormous proportions that people who are receiving a quota number cannot use that quota number for three or four years. I have had a letter from the American Consul in Berlin dealing with a certain case, in which he says that from calculations made it is likely that these persons will not receive visas before the lapse of several years according to their place on the waiting list. They have got their quota number, but they cannot get visas because of the quota limitations. I venture to think that our own system is in some ways preferable, because it is capable of being expanded in times of great emergency. I have not mentioned Palestine in this connection, because we debated Palestine last week, and I personally accept the position that it would be undesirable to do anything to jeopardise the coming Conference.
May I say one word about the machinery in this country for dealing with this problem? Broadly speaking, the position is that those desiring to bring over refugees have to apply to what is called the Co-ordinating Committee. That is a Committee representing some eleven organisations which sorts out among the various organisations the various groups of refugees. The requirements of the Government were laid down a short time ago in the House of Commons. The first is a guarantee that these persons should never become any public charge in this country. It is an unlimited guarantee, and a guarantee which anybody would face, I should have thought, with some trepidation. Still that is the regulation and I wish to say that I understand it is administered as leniently as possible by the Department concerned. A second demand by the Government concerns the ultimate prospect of further immigration or of settlement in this country. The private organisations, having met the demands of the Government, pass on the applicants to the Aliens Department at the Home Office and if that Department approves the recommendation of the organisation concerned the British Consul is instructed to issue a visa.
Let me say that I think everyone who has had anything to do with attempts to aid refugees will agree that the officials in the Aliens Department of the Home Office have been extremely courteous and polite, and always extremely helpful. I have met in telephoning, in visiting, in trying to get through cases, nothing but helpfulness from these officials who—I am sure the noble Earl knows this—have been hopelessly overworked in the last few weeks. In spite of additions that have been made to the staff of the Aliens Department, there is still a very considerable delay. I was approached by a noble Lord yesterday who has some influence with a number of big companies, and who offers not less than two hundred extra staff, if the Aliens Department will use them, drawn from the Alliance Assurance Company, the Prudential Assurance Company and the Co-operative Wholesale Society. They are trained people who would come in and help, to expedite the tremendous pressure which is being made upon the Aliens Department at the present moment.
One other suggestion I should like to make is that an inquiry department might be established at the Aliens Office to intercept inquiries which are being made all day, not only by Members of Parliament but also by thousands and thousands of anxious members of the public, who are constantly having cases to deal with. The present position of the telephone exchange there is, broadly, that they keep somebody to say automatically that the required person is not there—simply because there is a limit to human endurance. That, of course, is causing much anxiety and, in fact, is causing delay, because proper cases are not getting through. If the Department had, shall I say, a number of searchers who, when an inquiry comes through for George Jones or whoever it may be, would be, as it were, detectives, would search round and find where the particular file is and, without interfering with that file or with the progressive advance of the case, could come back and give the demander the requisite information, it would save much anxiety and an enormous amount of utterly unnecessary telephoning and would not interfere with the progress of the machinery.
The other suggestion I make is this. We have heard stories of long queues of unhappy persons in the various capitals
582
who are desiring to get out: hundreds and hundreds of people standing outside the British Consulates in Vienna, Berlin and so on. I wonder whether it would be possible to establish some sort of special refugee office in these Consulates, perhaps not at the Consulate itself, where, in a less dangerous position, people who are waiting for and demanding visas could be accommodated. Not only is the Aliens Department hopelessly overworked, but the Co-ordinating Committee is hopelessly overworked. I am told that such is the need for extra staff that applications put in to-day cannot be dealt with for some four or five weeks, or something like that; it varies from day to day.
I venture to think that another factor that might be dealt with is the simplification of procedure. The possibility might be considered of the issue of block visas, much on the lines on which the quota numbers of the United States are distributed among the various Consulates. For instance, ten German numbers may come to the United States Consul in Malta, which are never used but which are available for issue under the authority of the Consul if a German desiring to go to the United States goes to Malta. I hope there will not be a rush to Malta after this by people who want to get a quota number for the United States without a minute's delay! The only people who would benefit from that would be the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. At any rate, that is the position, and I think there might be some value in that suggestion.
We have got over a good deal of the delay in the children's scheme. The movement for the care of children from Germany is working very much more quickly, and they have a block system of dealing with children which is quite admirable. It needs to be developed. There is a suggestion that we need more temporary camps for these children. I am going to ask the noble Earl if he would consider the possibility of putting some of this work of camps into the hands of organisations like the Y.M.C.A., so that they would superintend small camps in various places and there would be no delay through lack of accommodation in bringing over the children, such as there is in Holland at the present moment. I think that all refugees might very well be considered as nominally in

583
transit in this country; yet we should realise that from a certain number of refugees there are enormous advantages to this country in their permanent settlement—and, I hope, also for the refugees themselves. We have some interesting cases of research chemists, people who understand special processes, who would be of the utmost value in this country. Perhaps I might remind your Lordships that the Home Secretary a few days ago told another place that, while it is true that we have 11,000 refugees from Germany, they have been instrumental in giving employment to 15,000 British workmen in new industries in this country established through their instrumentality. That seems to me to be a very valid reason for encouraging the permanent settlement of those who could in fact make their contribution to our difficult unemployment problem, and I hope that the noble Earl will have a word to say about that.
In this connection my last word will be on the question of the training of these young emigrants, so that some could possibly stay here but most of them could more quickly be settled in some other country. I want again to pay a tribute to the Home Office in this connection. In a recent case in which I was interested they at once instituted an inquiry and without delay gave their broad support to the bringing over of a certain school in Berlin, complete with instructors, machinery and so on, because they felt that this was a method of dealing with these younger refugees which would be satisfactory both to the refugees and to this country, and also a contribution to the needs of those who desired to come out. The funds which have been raised for the purpose of this immediate help demand our generosity. We feel a tremendous gratitude to Earl Baldwin for leading in his great appeal. We can never forget the enormous generosity of the Jewish organisations, who have thrown up countless millions towards this terrible task, and we owe a great debt of gratitude, if I may say so, to the Archbishop, who has given so much of his time, sympathy and influence to helping in these appeals.
Finally, my Lords, I want to touch upon the biggest aspect of all in this problem, and one upon which I hope that
584
the noble Earl will give us some hope. That is the eventual settlement of these refugees. The long-term solution involves the finding of a place where large numbers can settle in some other country. It was suggested by the Prime Minister that this must be undertaken by the voluntary organisations, but I am going to submit that it is too big a task altogether for the voluntary organisations, and I do hope that the Government will reconsider the possibility of giving some aid to this work. I am perfectly certain that the national conscience in this country would support the Government if they are able to give a much more direct aid to this work of helping in solving eventually the main problem. I would suggest that there might be a Government grant towards the cost of these services. I would suggest that the Government might very well consider, through the Inter-Departmental Committee, either a loan or a guarantee internationally of some sort of issue in the form of a loan, for the work of large-scale settlement. I think I may say that there has been a change of public opinion from the point of view of the Evian Conference that we should settle on a small scale by infiltration. I think the change has been towards supporting, if possible, mass settlement in one or possibly two main areas in the world. I think it was felt that the infiltration solution tended to arouse racial difficulties, and that mass settlement, if a suitable area can be found, and I hope it can, would be better.
Where then are they to go? Here I want to ask the Government if they will be just a little more direct in the consideration of various suggestions. Of course we know that the Government have nothing whatever to do with the British Dominions. At the same time we have just this much to do with them, that we have a common defence machinery. If a Dominion by some action tends to encourage the possibility of attack, or to give an excuse for the possibilty of attack, for example, by taking no steps towards filling or helping to fill alleged open spaces by receiving refugees, then there might come a time when this would lead to some sort of military danger in which they would then request our help. In these circumstances, I think we have this much, that we might encourage the pos-

585
sibility of some sort of large-scale settlement. Take, for example, the question of Western Australia, where large areas are completely uninhabited, and where I understand even the Government are in favour of the settlement of a million people, and nothing is being done because the Dominion Government has pronounced, broadly speaking, against the project. This is a matter of great delicacy, and one for consultation, but I think perhaps it is worth perhaps even a second letter on this subject, when communication is being made, to ask as to the possibilities of such a solution. We did make a suggestion as to Tanganyika, and I think it was a mistake, because it caused the maximum of irritation by reason of its being a former German Colony, and it is doubtful to what extent it can be used for anything like mass settlement.
Another suggestion was British Guiana, and it has caused a great amount of discussion. I am interested in the Report of the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, on this subject. He visited British Guiana in 1922. He was not then Lord Halifax, but was of course known as Mr. E. Wood. His Report, which is of the utmost interest, is Command Paper No. 1679. In this Report he not only points out the tremendous possibility of British Guiana—and I am certain that nobody in this House would fail to feel sympathetic towards anything which Lord Halifax reports on so sympathetically—but he says that although it is as large as Great Britain it has a population less than that of Hertfordshire, and a cultivated area about one-fifth the size of Kent. Although that was in 1922, I may say that the climatic conditions and general development of British Guiana have not changed in the meantime. It is interesting that Lord Halifax in this Report suggested dividing the, Colony into two, leaving one portion under the existing Government and organising the remainder under a separate administration. That is just the possibility for some form of new, say, Jewish National Home—a separate administration with enormous advantages over anything we have had before. He reports that British Guiana is practically uninhabited. It seems to me to have advantages, when we consider the difficulties in Palestine at the present time.
The same sort of report was made by Lord Snell, then Mr. Snell, when he
586
visited British Guiana in April, 1927, and it is quite extraordinary to read the favourable reports of that country by these various examiners. These Reports are available, and I think they are well worth consideration. There is the possibility, in view of the offer of Holland, that we may have a joint offer of land in British, French and Dutch Guiana, which would give three great countries behind such a scheme, and therefore enormously add to the possibility of building up a new National Home, with the advantage to us, I think, of finally becoming, partly at any rate, a British Dominion. I think that is worth considering. I do not want to go into other places because I think I have detained your Lordships a long time.
Finally, let me say that I think we have a great opportunity. It is not a Jewish problem at all, but a much bigger problem. It is an international problem, and one towards which there has been shown throughout the world a desire by almost all nations to make some contribution. I would like the British Empire to benefit by this big-scale settlement, and I believe it would be of very real benefit to this country. I think that if out of evil good can come it is possible that an attempt to find a common solution of this problem may do something towards uniting the democracies of the world. That might be an additional reason why we should give our utmost support to finding a solution. The Government have already done a very great deal, but, if I may respectfully say so, I think there is still a great deal more to be done. I beg to move.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lord, I am not going to make any speech on this vast and baffling problem. I have already had opportunities of doing so elsewhere, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reference to myself. I only wish to emphasize one aspect of the problem which presents itself to the voluntary organisations with which I am specially associated. I want in a few sentences to emphasize the urgency of providing space into which the refugees whom we are willing to receive may ultimately pass. We all know that is a question for Government action, and I very much trust that the noble Earl who will reply for the Government will be able to assure us that the Inter-Governmental Committee is very

587
busy at the present time in facilitating the provision of places of permanent refuge, and that our own Government are still active in promoting investigations in parts of our own Dominions and Colonies. I particularly hope that, though the omens may not seem very favourable, something may be done even now to persuade the German State to be willing to allow those who leave its borders to carry with them some means by which they can support themselves. I believe that such a permission would not only be of great assistance to those who wish to help the refugees, but would ease the international situation in a very real degree.
May I illustrate the pressure of this particular problem by two illustrations? The first is this. A great many people are very willing at this present time to receive into their houses refugees—not only children but adults—but the question which they are beginning to ask with some apprehension is: "For how long shall we be responsible for keeping these good people in our houses and making ourselves responsible for them? If we had the prospect of a limited responsibility we would gladly undertake it, but we hesitate before we commit ourselves to a responsibility whose length we cannot determine." The second and perhaps more forcible illustration is that unless speedily there can be this outlet for the refugees whom we welcome, the funds which are at present being raised for their maintenance will very soon become exhausted. I think these sums are likely to be great. I think the heart of our people is really touched in this matter and that there will be a large response to Lord Baldwin's appeal. But I have been startled to-day to learn that at the present time—and the increase of refugees, as the noble Lord has pointed out, is likely to be great—at the present time in this country we are paying out £100,000 per week for our refugees. Now if that continues—for so I am credibly informed—the time will rapidly come when even the most generous funds provided for the maintenance of the refugees will be exhausted, without much money being available for the far more expensive and important task of enabling them to emigrate and to take their proper place in any settlement that may be provided for them. That has always been a very expensive thing, because it cannot be
588
done without considerable expenditure per head.
Therefore I only wish to emphasize how necessary it is that while we are willing to bring in a considerable number of refugees, we must at the same time very zealously be addressing ourselves to the problem of how soon it may be possible to enable some of them to go out into a permanent refuge. If it be not so, I foresee the difficulty that the burden may become much heavier than it is possible for voluntary organisations to bear. The Government will have to step in, and it is conceivable that reaction may set in, which would be very undesirable. I therefore earnestly hope that the noble Earl will be able to assure us that there are good prospects that the Government, either by themselves or through the Inter-Governmental Committee, may be able to speed up the chances of a permanent settlement for as many refugees as possible.
LORD REA: My Lords, I do not intend to detain you for more than a few moments but I have one or two definite points that I wish to put in support of what has been said by my noble friend Lord Marley. It is of particular urgency, I am informed, that something shall be done to widen the bottle-necks that exist at the present moment. I am referring firstly to the Consulates abroad, where I am told that there are the most pitiful scenes of people waiting week after week throughout the bitterly cold central European winter; and not only the men, for very often the men are afraid to appear in person, and it is the delicate wives who spend these long hours day after day in what at present is almost the vain hope of getting the necessary permits. I do think that steps should be taken, if it is at all possible, at the earliest moment largely to increase the facilities at those Consulates, so that that bottleneck at any rate may be to some extent widened.
Then, too, in confirmation of what my noble friend has said, I am told that the voluntary organisations in this country are overwhelmed with the amount of work that they have to do, and that the funds at their disposal are not sufficient for them to engage the staff which would deal competently and quickly with the problems which arise. I wonder whether it is not possible for the Government to

589
provide some assistance, either monetary or in skilled staff, to see that there is no further unnecessary delay here. Because, indeed, the delay in itself means tragedy. It was put to me only this morning that if we are not very quick about it those whom we shall be importing into this country will not be refugees but criminals, paupers, and lunatics, who have been driven to this condition by the neglect which I am sure is not wilful on our part. Then, too, I want to urge that there should if possible be some relaxation in the regulations here. I am aware that everybody wishes to administer them in the most humane manner, but if I am rightly informed it is rather hard that there should be an insistence on emigration within a period of no longer than eighteen months, no matter whether an individual in this country is prepared to make himself responsible for life for the maintenance of the immigrants in this country. Surely we might relax that regulation a little bit. I also want to suggest that it should not be too closely insisted that these refugees in this country should do no work while they are here. I am aware that this is a controversial question, but it cannot be really necessary to insist that they should not even do voluntary work. That must be bad for the unfortunate refugee. These refugees cannot be said to be taking the jobs of some hundreds of thousands of unemployed in this country.
That brings me to the further point that we should not be too rigid in refusing to accept these refugees as permanent settlers in this country. I am informed that a large number of them are very skilled in their own trades, which do not exist in this country—such trades as the Bohemian glass industry, Czecho-Slovakian china, and fancy goods from Austria—all of which have been carried on by these skilled refugees who, if they cannot bring with them their capital, or even their special machinery, at least bring with them the goodwill of the business, for a large number of these industries made goods for the export trade. If the proprietor of such a business, the deportee from Austria or Germany, can come over to this country, I am satisfied that capital will be available for him to set up his industry here, and his knowledge and the goodwill of that business ought to be sufficient to bring substantial profit to this country.
590
Lord Marley has pointed to other cases of giving employment to British working men. I am of opinion that the matter is very well worth investigation from the point of view of whether some of these specific industries could not be set up in some of our depressed areas with even greater prospects of success than some of the industries which have been artificially imported into them within the last few months. But that is not what I really rose to suggest to your Lordships. What I wish primarily to do is to impress on the Government the need for speed in relaxing these regulations, which perhaps may have been necessary at the time, but which have proved to be rather hard in actual working. I appeal to the noble Earl who is going to reply to look into the question and see whether some relaxation is not possible.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, with regard to the observation which fell from the most reverend Primate as to the expense of maintaining refugees in this country, he has been very much misinformed as to the amount required.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Since I spoke I have been informed that the sum I mentioned refers to money which is also being spent in Germany for the benefit of refugees there.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: If it includes Germany and Vienna and other places where the refugees are, then I should say that might be correct. In this country it is far less than that. At the same time the charge is an exceedingly heavy one here, and together with all the other expenses that fall upon the voluntary organisations, especially for training and immigration, which is their main purpose, the funds at their disposal are far less than the urgent needs.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, the question we have been discussing this afternoon is one which has so many different aspects, and so many points have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, the most reverend Primate, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that I feel sure the House will forgive me if I am unable to reply to all the numerous questions which have

591
been put to me. But I can assure your Lordships that the whole of the speeches made during the course of this debate will be most carefully read, and will be given the most careful attention by the Ministers and Departments concerned. I should like to say that His Majesty's Government welcome and are glad to have the opportunity of further explaining what their policy is in regard to this general problem. The exceptional and intensive character of recent action taken in Germany has, very naturally, deeply stirred British sympathy, and it has rendered this problem, potentially at any rate, as the noble Lord pointed out, if not actually at the moment, more overwhelming than anything we have yet experienced. I want to assure the House that the Government are fully conscious of the urgency of the whole situation and the need for speed. They are desirous, and are doing everything they can, to solve the difficulty with which we are confronted with the greatest possible expedition.
Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Marley, pointed out, this is by no means a new problem. It is not a problem that is confined to Germany or to any particular country. It is a world-wide problem, and one that must in my view be dealt with and solved by international co-operation. It has been with us, as we all know, recurrently ever since the War, and it is due to a number of causes which it is not necessary for me to go into of a political and economic nature. After the War we first of all had the difficulty which arose in connection with the Armenian and the Russian refugees. At that time these difficulties were dealt with to a certain extent administratively both here and in France, and possibly in other countries, but it was very soon found that international effort was absolutely necessary. In 1921, as your Lordships know, the Nansen Office was set up by the League, and that Office has continued to do everything possible for the benefit of these particular refugees. In 1933 the German problem was raised in an acute form, and the League once again took the question up and a "High Commissioner for refugees coming from Germany" was appointed and has functioned since then. It was feared by a number of people that the activities of these two organizations
592
might cease at the end of this year, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Marley, has told your Lordships, at the Assembly of the League last September it was decided to merge the work of these two organisations into one single organisation, and, as he also told your Lordships, Sir Herbert Emerson has been appointed as the new High Commissioner and will enter on his functions on January 1 next.
These organisations only dealt with those refugees who had already been established outside their own countries, but it had become, even a considerable time ago, abundantly clear that international effort was absolutely essential in order to organise involuntary emigration from Germany, which had already reached large proportions at the beginning of this year. As the result of American initiative, the Evian Conference took place, and following upon that the London Inter-Governmental Committee was set up. My noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is Chairman of that Committee, and the executive authority is really vested in the Director, Mr. George Rublee, a distinguished American lawyer who has undertaken this task. The task with which he has been entrusted is really of a two-fold kind, as the noble Lord pointed out. Firstly, it is to improve as far as possible the present conditions of exodus from the country of origin of those refugees, and to replace them by an orderly method of emigration. The second part of his task is to make contact with the Governments of the countries of likely refuge or settlement in order to develop as far as possible permanent opportunities for that settlement.
The first part of his task has been very greatly complicated by political, economic, and financial difficulties, and through no fault of the Director or Committee it has unfortunately not yet been possible to make any great progress, but it is only right that I should point out and emphasize the fact, which I know your Lordships appreciate, that progress in this direction depends to a very large extent indeed on the attitude of the country of origin. And the reasons for this are perfectly obvious. Other countries, particularly those countries which are suffering under the burden of unemployment, are naturally reluctant to receive, in large numbers, emigrants from other countries who have no visible

593
means of subsistence, and consequently the success of the second part of the task with which the Director of the Committee is entrusted must depend very largely on the success of his negotiations with the country of origin.
The noble Lord, Lord Marley, referred to the visit to London of Dr. Schacht, and asked me if I could give him any information with regard to that. I regret that I am not in a position to give him any information on the subject. I can merely say that the Committee is still working and hoping to make that contact which is necessary in order to try and lighten the difficulties of this extremely difficult question. Nevertheless, a lot of extremely useful work has already been done by that Committee, particularly in regard to its approach to the country of settlement. But my noble friend the Chairman of the Committee and the Director are working together extremely closely, and they, and the Committee also, are examining every possible outlet with a view to passing the results of their examination on to the Governments of the countries concerned. Furthermore, every effort is being made to focus the attention of the Governments who were present at the Evian Conference not only upon the importance but the extreme vital urgency of the problem. The results have been by no means negligible and in particular there has been an encouraging response from a number of the Latin-American countries. I feel that it is only right that I should take this opportunity of expressing our feeling that the Director is to be very warmly congratulated on what he has been able to do in the face of great and most disheartening difficulties.
May I say a word or two in regard to the share which His Majesty's Government have taken in efforts up to the present time? That is best explained, I think, in the statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made in another place on November 21. May I remind your Lordships of the main features of that statement? He first of all pointed out that since 1933—I think the noble Lord mentioned this—the United Kingdom had permitted 11,000 men, women and children to land in this country. This was in addition to 4,000 or 5,000 others who had landed since that time and emigrated to other countries. He went on to explain that the activities
594
of His Majesty's Government were chiefly directed to extending to the utmost the capacity of the voluntary organisations to provide for the refugees. There was constant consultation with the Co-ordinating Committee and the co-operation is as close as it can possibly be in the circumstances. Following on this consultation it has been possible to arrange for the admission of certain categories of emigrants in considerable numbers without encroaching upon the labour market, such as nurses and domestic servants, and, furthermore, special facilities are being provided for refugees to be retrained, particularly in agriculture.
There is a further word I should like to say in regard to this matter later on, but undoubtedly the most important category to be helped is the category of the children. As your Lordships know, the Home Secretary stated in another place that His Majesty's Government were prepared to provide facilities for all children whose maintenance could be guaranteed by voluntary organisations or individuals. There has been an extremely generous response to the appeals for assistance for this object, and upwards of a thousand children have already been admitted into this country, or are on their way having been authorised to come here, and the Government expect that many thousands of children will finally be admitted in this way.
Then, in his statement, the Prime Minister referred at considerable length to the possibilities of settlement in the Colonial Empire. I do not think that it is necessary for me this evening to recapitulate what he said on that occasion. All the Colonial Governors were approached on this subject, and I should like to say just one word about the position in regard to British Guiana, because the noble Lord opposite specifically referred to it during the course of his speech. When the Prime Minister made his statement he said that he was not quite certain of the total area that might be available for this type of settlement, but that he thought it was within the region of something like 10,000 square miles. I am informed that as a matter of fact the area is considerably larger than that, and is something like 40,000 square miles. I readily admit that much of this country is forest land and may not be suitable for this type of settlement, but at any rate there is in British

595
Guiana this very large area which is undoubtedly worthy of examination and investigation with a view to possible settlement on a considerable scale in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Marley, made a short reference to what had been done by other Governments as a contribution to the solution to this problem. I do not want to make invidious comparisons, but the noble Lord referred to what was being done by the United States Government, and I should like to say that we very readily and gladly recognise the great efforts that they are making in trying to solve our difficulties. We are all extremely grateful for the close personal interest which President Roosevelt is taking in this subject. I also would like to pay my meed of tribute to the French Government, to whom the noble Lord also alluded. They are maintaining the tradition which has been established there of a really generous policy towards refugees. I understand that already they have some 250,000 refugees of different nationalities, and in the circumstances I do not think we can expect that they can do very much more, but I am informed that they are still always ready to admit those who are in immediate danger. I should like to mention one other country, and that is Holland, because I think that in proportion to its size and population it has made as great a contribution as any other country in assisting to get over our difficulties. I understand that 25,000 refugees have entered Holland since 1933, and it was recently announced that refugees were now entering at the rate of 1,000 per week.
The noble Lord has referred to the Dominion Governments. He knows that they are giving urgent attention to this matter. Your Lordships, however, know quite well that the Dominion Governments alone can speak of what they are doing or are prepared to do in regard to this problem in general, and I really do not feel that I can say anything further than that at the moment. I only wish to refer to the fact that the Australian Government have undertaken to receive 15,000 refugees spread over a period of three years.
I should like to say a word about refugees from Czecho-Slovakia. Of course the recent crisis there has thrown a very
596
great additional burden upon the shoulders of those people who are concerned with this problem. There are a large number of refugees. At present I think the majority are either self-supporting or are being housed and looked after by friends, but there are still a considerable number of refugees in camp who are being cared for by the Czech Government with the assistance of such funds as the Lord Mayor's Fund. As your Lordships know, the Czech Government have recently set up an Institute for the care of refugees and for organising their settlement and emigration abroad. In the work of this Institute there is no discrimination on grounds of nationality, religion or race. I am glad to say that it is understood that arrangements have been made by the Czech Government to enable emigrants to take a certain proportion at any rate of their capital out of the country. I might add that the Chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee and the Director are proposing that involuntary Sudeten German emigrants from Sudeten areas, in view of the fact that they really are in the same position as involuntary emigrants from Germany, should be brought within the scope of the Committee's work. That has not been finally settled but we very much hope that it will be accepted.
As to the action of His Majesty's Government your Lordships know that they authorised the temporary admission of 350 refugees from Czecho-Slovakia on undertakings, which were forthcoming, that they would be maintained if necessary during their stay in the United Kingdom. Subsequently the Government authorised admission under the same conditions of the families of those 350 refugees to whom visas had been granted. I am informed that the number of those authorised to enter the country is over 1,200, and that a considerable number of applications are still under consideration. I should like to point out that the fixing of the figure at 350 was an exceptional measure. It did not mean that that was the limit to the number of those whom His Majesty's Government were prepared to admit, and I can tell your Lordships that His Majesty's Government will consider sympathetically further applications and will authorise admission on receiving assurances that these applicants will not become a charge on the public funds or

597
displace British labour. I would like to say in regard to the advance of £10,000,000 to the Czecho-Slovak Government which His Majesty's Government have made, that the Czech Government have placed a substantial proportion at the disposal of the Institute for the care of refugees. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, referred to the question of the unfortunate refugees who are stranded now between Germany and Poland. I am afraid that there is nothing very much that I am able to say in regard to that. His Majesty's Government feel that it is not a matter with which they can cope alone. All I can say at the moment is that this question is going to be considered by the Inter-Governmental Committee.
Various questions in connection with co-operation between the Government and the Co-ordinating Committee have been raised during the course of the debate. I can assure your Lordships that this co-operation between the Government and the Co-ordinating Committee, as representing voluntary organisations, is of the closest possible kind. It is constant and it goes on not merely day by day but almost hour by hour. As a result of this co-operation it has been possible to avoid the submission of individual cases, and permission to enter the country has now been arranged by means of block grants to parties of children, domestic servants and nurses. Comment has been made on the fact that the staff dealing with this problem in the Aliens Department is not sufficiently large. I can only say that the staff is being expanded as rapidly as circumstances allow. In the last three weeks there has been an increase of personnel of twenty-eight, of whom nine are experienced officers. The noble Lord has made a number of suggestions with regard to the possible way of increasing those staffs. He has also raised the question of the possibility of getting such organisations as the Young Men's Christian Association to organise camps for children, and so on, throughout the country. I am net really competent to deal with these subjects at this time, but I can assure your Lordships that all reasonable suggestions that are made this afternoon will undoubtedly not escape the attention of those who are chiefly concerned with these questions
I should like to say a word or two about the question of what are known as
598
transit refugees. I am able to say that a scheme has been worked out in consultation with one of the principal voluntary organisations whereby refugees to be admitted to this country until they can proceed overseas will be able to obtain a visa from the appropriate passport control officer upon presentation of a serially-numbered form, which will be authenticated by a stamp affixed in the Aliens Department. This will undoubtedly simplify the whole process and, I hope, save time and to a considerable extent avoid the delay in regard to which we have had so many complaints. In addition to the persons who are likely to leave the country shortly for overseas, we contemplate that a number of younger men and women, possibly between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five, will be admitted under this arrangement for the purpose of being retrained either in industry or in agriculture.
Another matter about which I must say a word—and it has been raised by, I think, two speakers this evening—is that of the difficulties of financing these activities. The House will remember that it was laid down on the initiative of the United States Government at Evian that the cost of the maintenance of refugees was not to fall upon the Governments concerned, and it is on that basis that the Committee—the Inter-Governmental Committee—I think has been approaching its task and carrying on its work. I might say in this connection that the appeal of the voluntary organisations for assistance has met with a wonderful response from private resources and private charity. But I fully appreciate the aspect of the question which was emphasized by the most reverend Primate: that unless in a comparatively short time we are able to devise means of settling these people permanently abroad in some place or other, the funds of these organisations must eventually, and perhaps rather sooner than we care to think, become exhausted. His Majesty's Government are fully conscious of the importance of that aspect of this subject, though I fear that I am not in a position to say anything definite about it to-day.
The noble Lord opposite has raised a wider question, having in mind the difficulties of long-term settlement of these refugees, and that is the possibility of Government loans. We should try to

599
deal with the position by Government-guaranteed loans: I think that is what he suggested. Once again, I fear I am not in a position to say anything definite to your Lordships. I can only say that, for the present, private funds must bear the whole cost of these activities, and the next step must obviously be the examination of settlement schemes by Jewish bodies, a step for which His Majesty's Government are prepared to give every possible facility. It is really only at a later stage, when the probable cost of these things can be estimated, that any question of a loan can become a practical proposition. When and if it does become a practical proposition, of course it will depend upon the attitude of the Governments as a whole who are concerned in this matter. I fear I am not in a position to say anything more definite in regard to this question this evening.
I have tried to show during the course of my remarks that in all these various efforts and activities His Majesty's Government have taken their share and, indeed, more than their share in helping. Criticism of what His Majesty's Government have done is inevitable and to be expected, and is of various kinds. It is often said abroad, and particularly in Germany, that we are intervening in what, after all, are that country's domestic affairs. This seems to be a most extraordinary and entirely untenable point of view. The facts are that the pressure exercised on large sections of the German population inevitably produce an outflow from that country, and large numbers of people manage to get out, authorised or not. This places upon neighbouring countries, and indeed upon far-distant countries too, a very heavy burden and responsibility. This question is therefore of very great concern to those countries, both from the humanitarian and from the social aspects. It is clear that they cannot ignore this question; they have to take it up. That is quite obviously what the countries concerned intend to do.
On the other hand, there are those who consider that voluntary efforts to deal with this question are not sufficient and that His Majesty's Government ought perhaps directly to organise and finance the immigration of refugees. To a large extent I certainly sympathise with that point of view, but I wonder whether people fully realise the vastness and the magnitude of
600
the problem, and the consequences for a country such as this, with a very large number of unemployed, of the introduction into it of a considerable population with inferior standards of life to those which obtain in this country. Of course the capacity to absorb refugees from other countries depends almost entirely upon the type of person in question. It is quite clear that those who have a certain amount of capital and means of subsistence, or who are to be absorbed in occupations as a result of which they would not displace British labour, can be dealt with much more easily than others, but I think every one will agree that we cannot throw our gates wide open, finance refugees, and allow limitless immigration into this country. That, I think, is entirely out of the question. We feel that the solution for these difficulties must be sought by carefully-planned international policy, and by carefully-planned international action.
Let me repeat once more that it is reasonable to hope and expect that Germany, from which country this problem emanates in this instance, should assist in overcoming the first great obstacle, and that is the lack of financial means of the great majority of refugees. In this country we have imposed, as your Lordships know, no quota on the number of refugees, and we are interpreting the immigration regulations very widely, for humanitarian reasons. I can only say in conclusion that although we feel it is impossible to ask the taxpayers in this country, in the present circumstances, to shoulder what would be tremendous additional burdens, I can assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government will make every effort themselves, and will sympathetically consider all representations and suggestions which are calculated to contribute towards the solution of this grave problem.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for the character of his reply, and there are a good many points, naturally, in which I find myself in agreement with him and for which I am grateful. I fear I failed to make myself understood in connection with the suggestion that I apparently proposed introducing a large number of people into this country. I think the words were "limitless immigration of inferior standards of living." I expressly said that I considered this country was a country of

601
transit, and that I was not in favour of settlement, and I am sorry that I was misunderstood in that connection. That must clearly apply to an industrial country with a large volume of unemployment. It can only be special types of settlers who can be permanently accommodated here, those who are skilled in processes and those who are equipped from a scientific point of view.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: May I interrupt to say that I never really suggested that it was the view of the noble Lord himself; but I said there were a considerable number of people who thought that the possibilities were very much greater than they actually are.
LORD MARLEY: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl. I am sorry I misunderstood him, and I would like to identify myself with him in that respect, that this can only be a place for persons of a certain type, and not for the agricultural hordes of Eastern Europe. There is one other point on which, perhaps, I misunderstood the noble Earl. I did say, and I do know, that there has been the greatest co-operation between the Home Office and the Co-ordinating Committee, and I hope I was not understood as suggesting that there was not. What I did try to suggest was that it needed strengthening, so that each link of the chain would be able to bear its own allotted strain. As to what the noble Earl said with regard to visas for transit refugees, I could not follow what he said, but I shall read it with very great interest in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and he will forgive me if I suggest that one of the Papers which I think he might lay would be some sort of explanation for those who are constantly receiving inquiries in that connection.
Another Paper which I would suggest is a simple explanatory leaflet which members of Parliament would be able to send to those who apply to them for assistance or advice. It should be some simple explanatory leaflet, which would explain the position to-day, the necessity for arrangements for settlement, and the point raised by Lord Rea with regard to labour permits. Of course if people have not got labour permits they cannot work here, but many hundreds and possibly thousands have permits, and if there was some sort of explanatory leaflet on how
602
to get them, it would save myself and others the burden of writing long letters to people who do not know the most elementary forms of making their applications. I was most interested with regard to what the noble Earl said as to the hope—I will not put it higher—of the possibility of some sort of joint Governmental action. I am not fastening on to him any promise, but he suggested the possibility or hope that there might be some international action in connection with financial assistance, and that I thought was of value, if it materialises.
Finally, I would like to say this; that as regards the suggestion as to the process workers, I am afraid that Canada has already jumped in on the claim for the porcelain and glass workers of Czecho-Slovakia. I understand that there is under discussion an agreement with Canada whereby 4,000 will settle there and open glass works, such as those for which Czecho-Slovakia has been famous. I am glad it is within the Empire, and I hope that the agreement will materialise. In connection with the work of the Inter-Governmental Committee I would like to join in the tribute which the noble Earl paid to the work of M. Rublee, who has had a gigantic task and has had to face almost intolerable affront. I noticed the noble Earl was rather careful in speaking of the work of the Inter-Governmental Committee. He said, I believe, that every effort has been made to explore every avenue; and he did tell us that the results were by no means negligible. We have heard that, I am afraid, very often, and I do not think it helps us very much.
Nevertheless there were two points that I welcome. One was the possibility of the Sudeten Germans coming under the Inter-Governmental Committee, and the other was the possibility of these unhappy German Poles having their case considered by that Committee. If consideration by the Committee were all it would not be very much, and if the Committee did no more than it has managed to do so far that would not be very helpful. But with the presence here of Mr. Taylor from the United States, and with the new energy which is being apparently administered into that Committee, one hopes it may be more successful, especially in view of the visit which is taking place now, which I am led by the noble Earl to suppose, may, with the

603
help of Governmental resources, have some useful results. If the noble Earl would consent to lay some papers on the two lines I suggested, the simple leaflet and the explanation of the new system of transit visas, I would at once withdraw my Motion.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not want to give any undertaking, because I do not quite know. But I will inquire, and certainly, if it is feasible to do something of the kind, I will do it.
LORD MARLEY: I am very much obliged, and I fully accept that. I think the noble Earl has shown great sympathy, and by the leave of the House I desire to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

COAL (VALUATION PROCEDURE) RULES, 1938.
Report from the Special Orders Committee that they have examined the draft Rules as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the provisions of the Rules raise important questions of policy and principle which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Coal Act, 1938, under which the Rules are submitted for approval; that the Rules are not founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Rules cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Rules:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past seven o'clock.