Lords Sitting of 7 November 1939

Preamble
The House met at half past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

INDIA.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given them private notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make on the position in India as disclosed by the announcement and correspondence published by the Governor-General which appeared in Monday's newspapers.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity to make some observations on this matter, and the House will, I hope, forgive me if my answer runs to some little length. I need hardly say that His Majesty's Government share the profound regret of the Governor-General at the failure of consultations which he has been holding during the last week to produce an agreement between representatives of the Congress on the one hand and of the All-India Moslem League on the other.
I may remind the House briefly that the previous discussions which the Governor-General had been so patiently conducting for several weeks past had convinced him that there was little, if any, prospect of securing agreement on plans which he had been considering with the object of bringing Indians into association with the Central Government of India in the conduct of the war, unless some accommodation could first be reached of the difficulties felt by the Moslems as to their position in the Provinces where Congress Governments were in power. As the House will have seen from the documents published yesterday, the Congress definitely refuse to consider any concrete plans such as those outlined by the Governor-General unless His Majesty's Government should be willing first to make a declaration to the effect that India is an independent nation, and that His Majesty's Government will raise no opposition to her future form of
1696
government being determined without their intervention by a Constituent Assembly to be formed on the widest possible basis of franchise, and by agreement in regard to communal representation. The Congress have further consistently taken the line, which they still maintain, that the fact that there are racial and religious minorities in India is of no relevance in that connection and that it has always been the intention of the Congress to secure, through the Constitution to be framed by Indians themselves, such protection for their rights as may prove acceptable to the minorities.
His Majesty's Government find it impossible to accept this position. The long-standing British connexion with India has left His Majesty's Government with obligations towards her which it is impossible for them to shed by disinteresting themselves wholly in the shaping of her future form of government. Moreover, one outstanding result of the recent discussions in which the Governor-General has been engaged with representatives of all Parties and interests in India has been to establish beyond doubt the fact that a declaration in the sense proposed, with the summary abandonment by His Majesty's Government of their position in India, would be far from acceptable to large sections of the Indian population.
But this does not mean that we have in any sense weakened in our determination to assist India by such means as are in our power to reach without avoidable delay the position in the British Commonwealth of Nations to which we are pledged. And let me take this opportunity of removing some doubts and suspicions which appear to have been felt in India about the reference in the recent Indian debate by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal to "the Dominion status of 1926" as being the status we contemplate for India. The suggestion, I understand, has been made that the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 has produced for the Dominions to which that Statute applies a status which somehow differs from, and is superior to, the relationship described in the Balfour Declaration contained in the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926. This House at all events will have no difficulty in believing me when I say there is no foundation for any such suggestion. My right honourable friend

1697
referred to "the Dominion status of 1926" because it was in that year that the Imperial Conference described the status of the Dominions, and the status so described has not been altered by anything which has since occurred, the Statute of Westminster having merely given legal effect to certain consequences of the constitutional position as then recognised.
It was our hope that the plans which the Governor-General had indicated, including as they did the incorporation of leaders of the main political Parties in the Central Government, if they could have been brought into play would have done much towards facilitating the removal of the outstanding obstacle at present in India's path. The Governor-General has made it clear that he is not deterred by his present failure from hoping for a reconsideration by the parties interested, and His Majesty's Government warmly approve the readiness which he has expressed to be of such service as he can whenever opportunity offers.
Meanwhile, my Lords, the position at the moment is that in Bengal, the Punjab and Sind the Ministries, which in those Provinces do not owe allegiance to the Congress Party, remain in office; in five of the remaining eight Provinces where Congress Governments have been in power those Governments have now resigned; and in the other three Provinces the Governments are expected to resign in the very near future. There appears to be in one Province—the Province of Assam—a possibility of an alternative Government. But with this one exception the Governors have found, or will very shortly find, themselves with no option, since alternative Ministries in a position to command the confidence of the Legislature are not forthcoming, but to assume to themselves by Proclamation the powers which provisions in the Act enable them to assume in such a situation. But let me make it plain that Section 93 of the Act under which this action has been taken is in no sense a penal provision; it simply provides the machinery, the possible necessity for which Parliament in its wisdom foresaw if, to quote the words of the Act itself,
"a situation has arisen in which the government of the Province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions
1698
of this Act," for carrying on the King's Government.
It is our hope that, in the absence of opposition from the supporters of Congress or from other quarters, the Governors with the aid of their official advisers and the members of the Public Services will succeed in conducting smoothly and efficiently the administration of the Provinces, the difference being—obviously a very fundamental difference—that their actions will be decided in responsibility to this Parliament and not in pursuance of advice tendered to them by Ministers responsible to a Provincial Legislature. We greatly regret that the Ministries which have with so much zeal been carrying on the government of their great Provinces and tackling with energy and resource the many problems with which administration has naturally brought them into contact should have found it necessary to withhold their further services from their country. But we refuse to believe that this withdrawal will be for long, and we shall continue to hope, so long as any grounds for such hope remain, that the Proclamations by the Governors need have only a temporary duration, for I can assure your Lordships that the Governors will be only too ready to recall to their counsels responsible advisers as soon as they are available.
3.45 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for the statement that he has made, and I am sure the whole House will share the regret that he expressed that the working arrangements in India have for the time being broken down. My judgment upon the situation after listening to the statement that has been made, is that some further effort, a keener effort, should be made than the statement foreshadows to keep the door open. The declaration as made by Congress appears, as we heard it, to be somewhat harsh, but we do not know what qualifications there may be behind the written word, and I hope that we shall not accept this failure as inevitable without trying once and twice and three times to patch up whatever difficulties have arisen. Congress appear to want to settle the matter without reference to outside influence. In that they may merely dislike official influence being exerted in

1699
any conference that may be held, but it is possible that unofficial advisers, who could interpret the mind and hopes of England, might not meet with the same negative response from them.
We cannot in this country compel either agreement or toleration in India, but it is quite obvious that the differences that exist there are based upon deep-rooted fears or prejudices, and we can only encourage every effort that is made to try to find a solution for the difficulties that have arisen. I agree with the noble Marquess that it would be a tragedy, after the great success that has taken place in provincial government—a success which has raised the prestige of India in the world—if because of communal differences the system of provincial government should now be suspended. We can only hope that a way will be found which will enable all Parties to continue to co-operate in common service to their country. The last word that I will say will be that the statement, as I have heard it at this moment, does not appear to lead to any next step. It rather leaves the situation in the air, and I feel that in circumstances that are so important the Government might give a lead by indicating a little more clearly than they have what they propose as the next step. Do they merely propose to sit and wait until things get either better or worse, or have they any other step to take which will help to provide the solution that we all hope will be found?
3.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the statement to which the House has just listened is one of great gravity. It is the most serious statement with regard to India that we have heard for many years past. Regrettable at any time, it is particularly deplorable in this critical time of war. The methods that have been adopted to meet the present emergency by the Viceroy and the Provincial Governors are obviously the only methods possible in the circumstances, but they can only be interim methods, as the noble Marquess has explained, and while they are in force, as he has told us, the responsibility for the government of India in the Provinces must rest with these Houses of Parliament since it no longer rests with the elected representatives of the people of India. No doubt
1700
this House and the other House will in due course have to consider very seriously what steps they can take—if indeed they can take any steps—to promote some form of settlement.
We debated this question here in only a brief discussion a few days ago, and then I ventured to express the view that Congress had acted wrongly in calling out the Ministries in those Provinces in which it held a Parliamentary majority. At the same time the present crisis in India is due to what I felt bound to describe as the undue delay in fulfilling the expectations that had so long been held out to the Indian people for a wide constitutional advance. We can only share the hope expressed by the Secretary of State that the present situation will not last for long. We must sympathise with the deep disappointment of the Viceroy in the non-success of the efforts that he has so sincerely and earnestly made to arrive at accommodation. While it is impossible to-day, after the first hearing of the statement that has been made, to enter fully into these matters, I have no doubt that your Lordships will desire at no distant date to engage in a further review of the situation.

CHARTERED AND OTHER BODIES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CALDECOTE): My Lords, the general purpose of this Bill is to enable modifications to be made in the constitutional and electoral procedure of various chartered and statutory bodies to meet war conditions. The Bill is, in fact, an application in analogous spheres of principles which your Lordships have recently approved in two Acts of Parliament—the Universities and Colleges (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, and the Local Elections and Register of Electors Act, 1939. Three types of bodies are dealt with. Clause 1 deals with chartered corporations, of which I will give your Lordships an illustration or two in a moment. My noble friend the Lord President has, I understand, been approached by various chartered corporations, asking for some modi-

1701
fication of their duties and to be released from the strict provisions of the charter which constituted the corporation. Your Lordships will appreciate that my noble friend has no power to dispense the corporations from the provisions of their charters. The only alternative, apart from this Bill, would be to go to the somewhat lengthy and, I am afraid, expensive process of obtaining a supplementary charter, with the prospect of going through the same procedure to re-establish peace conditions at the end of the war.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the powers contained in Clause 1, which will enable the Lord President, on the application of the corporation concerned, to make modifications of the provisions of the charter, are a sensible course. The Lord President will only have power to make such directions when in his opinion they are necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing economy or efficiency. I think an illustration or two will serve to illustrate the purpose of this clause. One of the cases is the Royal Institute of British Architects, who desire to suspend the elections of their officers. Another illustration is the Chartered Institute of Secretaries, who desire to be released from the necessity of publishing a year-book. The third illustration is the West India Committee, which desires to appoint a temporary additional deputy chairman.
That is Clause 1 of the Bill; and Clause 2 deals with statutory bodies and corporations, not with chartered bodies. It proposes to do the same to these bodies as your Lordships have already enabled to be done to local authorities. Among the bodies concerned by this clause are drainage boards, port and harbour authorities, the General Medical Council and the Malvern Hills Conservators. Clause 2 (1) (a) provides for an Order in Council to be made which will extend the term of office of members, a wholly innocent purpose which I hope your Lordships will approve in these war circumstances. Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) is of rather a different character: it enables an Order in Council to be made for reducing the number of persons required to constitute the corporation or body or to perform any of its functions. This is a power which might be thought capable of being used in such a way as to interfere with the privileges of a corporation or of members of a corporation, and His Majesty's Government
1702
thought right to schedule the only two bodies that at present can come under this paragraph. They are the Electricity Commissioners and the British Overseas Airways Corporation. Power is taken to add further bodies to the Schedule by affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
The necessity under which the Electricity Commissioners are is due to the fact that, of the Commissioners required by Statute to be appointed, three must be whole-time officers. At present the only Commissioners are three whole-time officers, but one of them has recently been appointed to another position in the Ministry of Shipping and it is desired to retain his services as a Commissioner. The other body, the British Overseas Airways Corporation, was to be constituted by the Secretary of State for Air by an Act of Parliament recently passed under which the Secretary of State had power to appoint from nine to fifteen members together with a deputy chairman. The members of the Corporation are to be paid for their services. The Secretary of State has required all the aircraft of the Corporation to be handed over to him in the present emergency, and he is of opinion, subject to what your Lordships might think, that it would be undesirable to appoint a number of persons who will have no duties to perform. In those circumstances it is very desirable to reduce the members of the Corporation to three persons, who will still be appointed by the Secretary of State for Air.
The third class of bodies is the subject of Clause 3. This clause, in brief, does for universities and colleges other than those of Oxford and Cambridge what your Lordships did for those two universities, in enabling them to meet the difficult conditions of the war by making financial adjustments, prolonging terms of office, suspending conditions relating to scholarships, and generally making arrangements for meeting the special conditions to which war has given rise. The other provisions are supplementary to the clauses which I have briefly summarised. I hope your Lordships will be able to give approval to this necessary piece of machinery for meeting existing circumstances. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Caldecote.)
3.59 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends do not wish to offer any opposition to this Bill, which we recognise as necessary, but as it has its genesis in your Lordships' House it is necessary to give it a brief examination. I wish only to ask one question and to make one observation. The question is this. These Orders in Council affect very many people. I do not know whether the co-operative societies have been consulted. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would answer that as a preliminary question. On a previous Bill I asked if the Law Society was affected, because anything affecting the Law Society requires very careful scrutiny in your Lordships' House, but the co-operative societies include so many people that it is a very wide power to give the Government. I do not see anything about these Orders in Council lying on the Table of your Lordships' House and being subject to a prayer for their anulment, as is so often the case in Parliamentary Bills. There seems to be rather a gap there. Once we give these wide powers to the Executive we have no sort of check upon them. I think that matter needs enlarging upon. I want to refer also to Clause 2 (1) (b). No other bodies can be added to the Schedule, I understand, unless, according to a subsequent subsection, a Resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament. That seems to be the only further check we have. I may be wrong, but, as I read the Bill, that is the case.
The other observation I desire to make is with regard to the two corporations mentioned in the Schedule. The Electricity Commissioners, I understood the Lord Chancellor to say, are three in number. One has now been appointed to the Ministry of Shipping; that leaves two. Is it intended to appoint a third? Their functions are of immense importance, and I would suggest that it is desirable to keep their number up to three. With regard to the British Overseas Airways Corporation, I ventured on behalf of my noble friends to criticise the proposal to have so large a body as nine to fifteen personalities as directors of this Corporation, because it was too large, and I am very glad to hear that one good result of the war at any rate has been that we are saved that mass meeting of directors in order to give seats on the Board to everyone who had had
1704
anything to do with the two bodies which are being combined, in order to preserve their rights. I am very glad to hear that a more workable body is apparently going to be appointed. But I did not quite follow what the Lord Chancellor said about all the machines being taken over by the State. I do not think that is the case, with great respect to the Lord Chancellor. I understand that Imperial Airways are still running. The distinguished visitors from certain parts of the Dominions came over by Imperial Airways machines the other day, and therefore the Corporation has an important function to perform at the present time. These are merely explanatory remarks that I am making, and I hope the Lord Chancellor will not mind clearing up the two points that I have ventured to raise. Otherwise, we recognise the necessity of this kind of legislation, and we offer no opposition to it.
4.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his observations and for saying that he would not offer any opposition to the further progress of the Bill. The noble Lord has referred to the fact that the Orders in Council that are proposed by the Bill will not be laid before Parliament. If the noble Lord will observe the very restricted and narrow limits of the powers which are conferred by this Bill, I think he will see that it is unnecessary to provide that the Orders in question should be laid before Parliament. For instance, with regard to Clause 2 (1) (a), the only power that is given to His Majesty by Order in Council is to extend the term of office of members or postpone the date of election or the filling of vacancies among such members or officers. So far as the Electricity Commissioners are concerned, the noble Lord has correctly stated the position. Sir Cyril Hurcomb has been appointed to a position in the Ministry of Snipping, and therefore he will not be able to exercise his powers as a whole-time officer of the Electricity Commissioners, but it is desirable that his services should be available as a part-time officer. So far as Imperial Airways are concerned the noble Lord no doubt is quite accurate in saying that some persons come to this country by aircraft which are not the aircraft of the Royal Air Force, but I think the fact is that the Corporation have been

1705
ordered to place their aircraft at the disposal of the Secretary of State for Air. That does not necessarily connote the withdrawal of them from the service to which the noble Lord refers. The opportunity will arise, if the noble Lord has any doubt about any particular provisions in this Bill, for further consideration, and I hope, after these few observations, that your Lordships will be prepared to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRICES OF GOODS BILL.
4.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power of Board of Trade to specify basic price, permitted increase, or permitted price]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: There are two drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("a") and insert ("the")
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("A") and insert ("The").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Enforcement by price-regulation committees.
(6) A prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of Section one of this Act shall not be instituted except by the Board of Trade upon request made to them as aforesaid:
Provided that a prosecution may be instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions either—

(a) if it appears to him that the prosecution ought to be instituted and that the local price-regulation committee, having been made aware of the matter, have failed to report it to the central price-regulation committee, or that that committee, having
1706
received a report thereof, have failed to request the Board to institute proceedings; or

(b) …

VISCOUNT MERSEY VISCOUNT MERSEY moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"Any person carrying on business in more than one locality shall have the right of representation to and hearing by the Central Price-Regulation Committee, subject to such person making a statutory declaration that uniform prices are maintained for the whole of his business in all localities."
The noble Viscount said: I apologise for putting in this manuscript Amendment so late in the day, but in point of fact the Bill as printed only came into my hands this morning. This Amendment is designed to protect the interests of the very large multiple ships, such as those of Woolworth, Marks and Spencer and Boots. It would be extremely onerous upon them if they had to send their secretary and their accountant all over the country to attend the meetings of the different price committees. Some of them have an enormous amount of Government work at present, and to ask them to send their officers to different parts of the Kingdom at the present moment would make considerable difficulty for them.
The question of uniform prices is also one which comes in the clauses of this Bill. In large multiple shops uniform prices are adhered to all over the country. Therefore in their case the question does not arise of different localities having different prices. Nor do the multiple shops keep separate accounts. So that really there is a case for some modification being made in the treatment that is applied to the very large undertakings. The drafting of the Amendment has not been easy, and I dare say it is not all it should be, but possibly the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill would consider the matter with the President of the Board of Trade, who is already informed about it, and make some suggestion at the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 14, after subsection (4), insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Mersey.)
LORD STRABOLGI: Before the Lord Chancellor describes the Government's attitude, might I ask the noble Viscount

1707
who has moved this Amendment, firstly, whether it applies to the co-operative stores? I imagine it does by the wording of it. Secondly, whether they have been consulted about this Amendment? If he has consulted them, it will help my friends in another place to decide about it.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I am not able to say.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I find it unnecessary to trouble your Lordships with any argument as to the propriety of this Amendment. The noble Viscount was good enough to show me the words of the Amendment a few minutes before I came upon the Woolsack, and he will hardly expect me, in these circumstances, to be able to express any opinion as to whether this is a possible, or properly drafted, Amendment. I would take the opportunity of saying, however, that the Bill was in another place for a considerable time. It has been printed and available since November 1 in your Lordships' House, and in these circumstances an Amendment produced at so late a stage could hardly command my acceptance. But I will certainly take the opportunity of discussing the matter, for I fully understand the noble Viscount's desire to facilitate the convenience of large businesses such as he has mentioned. I will take the opportunity of consulting my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade to see whether any device can be suggested for meeting the circumstances. Your Lordships will not understand me to give any promise that such an Amendment will be introduced, but it will certainly be given the fullest consideration.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, and I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 23, leave out ("matter") and insert ("alleged contravention").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 40, leave out ("matter") and insert ("alleged contravention").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in proviso (a) in subsection (6), after "thereof," to insert "or having themselves investigated the alleged contravention." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to enable the Central Price-Regulation Committee to make their own investigation even in circumstances where the original complaint has not been referred to them. The Bill as drafted, and as brought to your Lordships' House, only empowers the Central Price-Regulation Committee to make an investigation of matters referred to them by a local committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, at end insert ("or having themselves investigated the alleged contravention").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Right of buyer to avoid prohibited transaction, or to recover excess price.
10.—(1) The buyer under a sale, or an agreement to sell, made in contravention of Section one of this Act shall have the following rights, exercisable, subject as hereinafter provided, at his option.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words down to and including "Act" and insert:
"(1) Where a prosecution has been instituted in respect of a sale of, or an agreement or offer to sell, any price-regulated goods in the course of any business at a particular price, and the person charged has been found guilty, then—

(a) if the prosecution was in respect of a sale or agreement, the buyer under that sale or agreement, and

(b) whether the prosecution was in respect of a sale or agreement or of an offer, the buyer under any sale of similar goods, or under any agreement to sell similar goods, effected at the same or a higher price in the course of that business in contravention of Section one of this Act before the date of the finding,"

The noble and learned Viscount said: The Amendment which I now propose is

1709
necessary to give effect to an undertaking given in another place to consider a point urged upon my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General. The proposal is to leave out the first two lines of the clause so as to protect a trader from malicious and frivolous actions which might be begun by busybodies. The effect of the clause, in general, is to enable a person who has paid an excessive price to commence an action and recover the excess of price from the person who overcharged him. But the clause as it stands would allow proceedings of that sort to be brought in cases which had not had the full examination that an ordinary complaint will receive as the result of the investigation by the local price committees or the Central Price-Regulation Committee or, possibly, in criminal proceedings. The words which I propose to add will limit the civil remedy to cases where the price paid was as high as, or higher than, a price which was subsequently found on a prosecution to be illegal. This will prevent anybody from being harassed by unnecessary proceedings in which it will not be possible to have a full investigation of the circumstances as it would be before the Price-Regulation Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 1, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships will notice on the last line of page 1 of the Marshalled List that there is a misprint. It ought to read: "any sale of similar goods, or under any agreement."
LORD MANCROFT: The Lord Chairman has referred to the words "similar goods." This Amendment, with which I am in accord, seems to have recast the whole of the earlier part of Clause 10; but as the Lord Chairman has referred to "similar goods" I wonder whether the word "similar" had been added afresh, and whether that word is meant to remedy the flaw which I brought to your Lordships' notice on Second Reading, regarding similar goods being forced upon a buyer to compel him to buy one article. Does this word "similar" give effect to the suggestion I made on Second Reading?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The point my noble friend had in mind was
1710
not concerned with the Amendment I now propose. The expression "similar goods" is part of the Amendment before your Lordships' House, so that it may be provided that where a prosecution has taken place of a person who has charged an excessive price, the circumstances in which an excessive price has been charged for similar goods should not have to be examined a second time.
LORD MANCROFT: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) The rights conferred by this section shall not be exercisable by a person who is himself liable to punishment by reason of his having aided, abetted, counselled or procured, the contravention in question."
The noble and learned Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to withdraw the right of action to recover an excess price from persons who are themselves parties to the prosecution. I am informed that already, in recent weeks, speculators have been approaching manufacturers or wholesalers inviting them to sell goods at prices which are obviously in excess of the proper price in the hope of being able to re-sell the goods and make a profit. This Amendment will prevent such persons, when they find their hopes disappointed, from taking proceedings to recover the excess price.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 25, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Exception for sales by auction, or for export]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I have to move a drafting Amendment, which is intended to cover contraventions of Clauses 11 and 12 in addition to Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, leave out ("provisions of Section one") and insert ("preceding provisions").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Saving for rights of third parties.
15. The illegality by virtue of this Act of any transaction shall not prejudice any rights

1711
acquired by any person without notice of the facts rendering it unlawful.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out all words after "person" and insert "other than a person who is guilty of a contravention of this Act in respect of the transaction, or who is liable to punishment by reason of his having aided, abetted, counselled or procured, such a contravention." The noble and learned Viscount said: Clause 15 in its present form suggests that a person who pays a price knowing it to be too high, commits an offence ipso facto. It has been thought not right that a buyer should be treated as a party to an illegal transaction merely because he buys something that he requires at an excessive price. I think this was perhaps the point that my noble friend Lord Mancroft had in mind. On the other hand, if a buyer induces a trader to sell something to him by offering an excessive price, then he may be considered as an aider and abettor. The words which are proposed to be inserted here in place of the words left out, will render such persons, that is to say, aiders and abettors, subject to the consequences of having entered into an illegal transaction with all the disabilities attending that position.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, leave out from ("person") to the end of the clause and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Offences by corporations.
18. Where a person convicted of a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act is a body corporate, every person who, at the time of the contravention, was a director or officer of the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the contravention.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out all words from and including "offence," where that word first occurs, to the end of the clause and insert:
"contravention, unless he proves that the contravention was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the contravention as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions as a director or officer of that body and to all the circumstances."
The noble and learned Viscount said: Clause 18 deals with the case of a contravention by a body corporate and it was thought fit to insert a provision by which directors should not escape responsibility merely by saying that the corporate body was the subject of the prosecution. But then the criticism was made in another place that it might be open to a director, by some ingenious device, to evade responsibility under the clause as drawn, and this Amendment is the result of an undertaking given to reconsider the case. It will prevent a director evading responsibility merely by leaving the price fixing to some subordinate official and giving directions that he is to know nothing about it. These words will catch a director who is minded to evade the liability which he ought to bear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, leave out from ("that") to the end of the clause and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STRABOLGI: May I congratulate the Government on this addition to the Bill? If I may say so, I believe it is valuable and it also appears to meet the case, not only of the wilfully criminal director but also of the careless director who pretends to know nothing about it, who draws his fees and shares of the profits and that sort of thing, and does not do his duty as a director. Before your Lordships' House I have drawn attention to the state of affairs on other Bills, and Lord Templemore has always declared himself sympathetic to some means of dealing with these people. I am very glad that the Government in this Bill have seen the wisdom of introducing these words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19:
Powers of Board of Trade for purposes of this Act.
(4) The Board may make regulations for prescribing the procedure to be followed in relation to anything required or authorised to be done under this Act, otherwise than in relation to proceedings in any court, and generally for giving effect to the provisions of this Act.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) An order made by the Board of Trade in exercise of the power conferred on them by the First Schedule to this Act to specify matters to which regard is to be had in fixing the permitted increase may provide that this Act shall have effect in relation to transactions effected before the coming into operation of the order, in like manner as if that matter had been specified in the said Schedule as originally enacted."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Mancroft, on the Second Reading of the Bill, drew attention to a point on the First Schedule. I think my noble friend made the point that the power ought to be given to the President of the Board of Trade to make any addition to the First Schedule retrospective. We have adopted my noble friend's suggestion and this Amendment is to give effect to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 35, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MANCROFT: I am very much obliged; the Amendment completely meets my point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (4), after "court," to insert "or on an appeal under this Act to the referee." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down to prevent the Board of Trade's power to make regulations overlapping the jurisdiction of my noble and learned friend to make rules governing the proceedings on appeal before the referee, which is in fact an appeal from an order made by the Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 39, after ("court") insert ("or on an appeal under this Act to the referee.")—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Application to Scotland]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The first three Amendments are all drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 31, leave out ("matter") and insert ("alleged contravention")
Page 13, line 34, leave out ("the matter") and insert ("it").
Page 14, line 9, leave out ("matter") and insert ("alleged contravention").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is also a drafting Amendment consequent upon another Amendment already made to Clause 8, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 12, after ("thereof") insert ("or having themselves investigated the alleged contravention").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Matters to be regarded in fixing permitted increase]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: There is here a drafting Amendment consequent upon the insertion of a new subsection (4) to Clause 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 24, leave out from ("Schedule") to the end of line 25.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.

  PROVISIONS AS TO APPEALS AGAINST ORDERS SPECIFYING PRICES.
  1. The referee for the purposes of any appeal against an order made under Section five or six of this Act, or against an order varying such an order, shall be a member of the legal profession appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to leave out paragraph 1 and insert:
  "1.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint a person, who shall be a member of the legal profession, as referee to hear and determine all appeals against orders made under Section five or six of this Act, or against orders varying such orders.
  (2) The person so appointed shall be appointed for a specified period, subject to such conditions with respect to the vacation of his office as may be imposed before the time of his appointment, and on ceasing to hold his office shall be eligible for reappointment thereto.

  1715
  (3) In the case of illness, incapacity or absence, of the referee, the Lord Chancellor may appoint some other person to act as deputy for the referee, and a person so appointed shall when so acting have all the functions of the referee."
  The noble Lord said: These are necessary Amendments, governing the appointment and removal of the referee and other matters relating to the referee. They have become necessary owing to the decision that a permanent referee shall be appointed rather than an ad hoc referee for each appeal.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 29, leave out paragraph 1 and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Templemore.)
  LORD STRABOLGI: I did not want to refer to this matter on the Second Reading, but perhaps I may be allowed to do so here. I am glad that the Lord Chancellor is present. "A person" has to be a member of the legal profession. Excuse my ignorance: does that mean a solicitor or only a barrister at law? The other observation I wish to make applies, whatever the answer is. Under the rule of the predecessor of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, I had occasion to protest in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion against the apparent monopoly of appointments by members of the legal profession. I was hoping for a change under the régime of the present Lord Chancellor. I am really beginning to wonder where all the lawyers are coming from for these jobs. Every time a Bill is brought in by the present Government and anyone is appointed to administer that Bill, in practically every case he has to be a member of the legal profession. I have known some very wise members of the legal profession and I have known some extremely foolish ones. The fact that a man has read for the Bar or has practised for a short time as a solicitor—and some solicitors are convicted every year for roguery, as the Lord Chancellor knows perfectly well—I submit does not alone always qualify him for the requirements of a referee to administer this complicated and, as I think, largely illusory measure.
  What I humbly suggest is that you need somebody with business experience, knowledge of affairs, knowledge of the world and knowledge of mankind. And those people do not always happen to
  1716
  have had legal training or to have done legal work. I do not know if any other noble Lords have noticed this growing tendency in the last twenty years, since I have been in active politics, more and more to confine appointments to members of the legal profession. I think it is a bad development. It is bad for the legal profession; it takes the members of that profession from their proper work; and I think myself it is bad for the general body. I say that, of course, without any sort of reflection on the legal profession in its proper sphere and carrying out its professional functions. But that these posts must always be filled by lawyers is, I suggest, dangerous, for most lawyers are members of the Party represented by the majority of noble Lords in this House—I am talking of course of peace-time—which means in practice that only high Tories are appointed to these situations; and they often forget their legal function and allow their judgments to be warped by political bias.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In answer to the noble Lord, a member of the legal profession may be either a barrister or a solicitor. With reference to what the noble Lord has said as to there being wise members and foolish members of the legal profession, that difficulty has been got over by saying that the Lord Chancellor shall appoint the members of the legal profession and he is not likely to choose one of the foolish members. Perhaps I may call the noble Lord's attention also to a fact that he may have overlooked—namely, that by paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule the referee will have the assistance of assessors who will be just such persons as the noble Lord thinks ought to be put on the tribunal. The fact that this practice of which the noble Lord complains has gone on for the last twenty years and has not yet provoked a revolution obviously shows it has satisfied the public.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 1, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(Lord Templemore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

CHANNEL ISLANDS: IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS.
4.34 p.m.
LORD PORTSEA LORD PORTSEA had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government why a member of this House recently on a visit to his home in the Norman Archipelago (the Appanage of the Crown) was required to obtain a passport before being permitted to return to the mainland to attend to duties as a member of this House and if this procedure can be inquired into and varied.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to ask your Lordships' indulgence because I have to carry notes in my hands and may need to refer to them. I have very recently left a nursing home and I dare not trust my memory. A few weeks ago I had the privilege of asking a question on the subject of the Norman Islands and the noble Lord who replied told me that neither he himself nor his Department had been able to trace them either on the map or anywhere else. Indeed he went so far as to say that the only Norman Island he could find was situated off the North coast of Newfoundland. I admit I was rather surprised, but on reflection it struck me that the noble Lord himself had a Norman name, and was of Norman origin, and was standing on a Norman Island, in the conquering, dividing up and colonising of which his forbears assisted. Natural for him to come to the conclusion there could only be one such Norman Island. To-day therefore I have put in the question the words "Norman Archipelago," in the hope that those who are more learned than myself, who have read of the Grecian Archipelago and the great men who were produced in that Archipelago (which they will remember is off the coast of Greece), will perhaps consider that the Norman Archipelago may be situated off the coast of Normandy.
The Norman Islands that I am specially interested in to-day are the Appanage of the Crown; I believe the only Appanage that exists. They are described by Coke and Hale as "Parcel of the Dominion of the Crown … not in the Realm but Parcel of the ancient Duchy of Normandy which neither the power of the Crown nor the Kings of France have been able to wrest from us." That will place
1718
the Norman Islands where I think they ought to be. In the days of the Revolution when the Usurper proclaimed "the man Charles," as he called him, and threatened with death anyone who succoured him, the Islands rose to their proper place and immediately proclaimed King Charles as king. They succoured him, they fought for him, and they received his thanks. It was only when Blake with six ships came to the island and attacked it that the King advised them for the moment to give way, and they, on the most honourable terms, surrendered to the Usurper. The King showed his gratitude to them on his return, when in fact, in his own words, recalling his stay in Jersey when driven out of his other Dominions, he gave the Island a gold mace, finer than your Lordships'.
It is a glorious record; it is untouchable and it is undying. The Islands are very small. The isles of Greece are small also, and there is another little country which is not very much larger. The majority of your Lordships' House can trace their origin back to Normandy, and have Norman blood. There is another small country which gave us men of unequalled ability and character, men whose country we recall when we speak of Bethlehem and Nazareth. I have never met one of those men who, though his family had been hundreds of years in this country, was ashamed of his origin or of his mother country.
The matter that I am bringing before your Lordships is not an academic one and it is not a trifle. It is the right of a member of this House to return to his duties in this House—when I say "this House" I mean the Houses of Parliament—without having to associate himself with aliens, spies and traitors and put his name upon a form given him by the Aliens Office on a passport. I maintain that a member of this House returning to his duties in this House should be free of all that kind of thing, which is a lowering, not of the privileges, but of the rights of Parliament.
4.40 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, before an answer is given to the noble Lord,

1719
although I do not want to waste the time of the House, I cannot refrain from expressing regret that this question has appeared upon the Order Paper, in spite of the valuable geographical and historical dissertation to which we have just listened. Anyone reading the question on the Order Paper would assume it was something of portentous importance, whereas, as a matter of fact, it is quite one of the most insignificant questions I have ever seen upon a Parliamentary Paper. I regret very much the time and the trouble and even the money which have been spent in preparing an answer to the noble Lord.
What does this complaint amount to? It will not be news to the noble Lord that we are in a state of war. The Norman Archipelago, or to use the language of ordinary people, the Channel Islands, are an important military area. The War Office have made, I presume, certain regulations compelling the inhabitants of those Islands, and visitors to them, to obtain some special permit when coming to the mainland. Well, where does the noble Lord's grievance come in? I am quite sure that he does not think he is the only person affected, and although he is a Peer and a member of Parliament, the regulations do not seem to have prevented him from coming here. I do not know that he comes very often. I absolutely fail to see in what the noble Lord's grievance consists. I do not know what sort of answer he will get. Perhaps he will get an abject apology from some officer for having disagreed with his inclination, but personally I am quite unable to see where his grievance lies. It seems to me that he might with equal propriety have protested as a Peer and a member of Parliament against the indignity of being made to equip himself with a gas mask.
LORD PORTSEA: If I may say so, the authorities did not equip me with a gas mask, although they have taken my name and measured my head. Perhaps it was too large, or perhaps too insignificant, as the noble Lord suggests, to make it worth their while to send me one. There are, I think, no military stations in the Channel Islands—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order.
4.44 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA): My Lords, I feel that any contribution I can make to this debate, after what has already been said, will appear rather prosaic, but I would like to say that I understand the root of my noble friend's question lies in a very natural mistrust of bureaucracy in time of emergency. If I understand him aright, he feels that some bureaucrat or politician is seeking to take advantage of the time of emergency, to force vexatious regulations upon the community which are unnecessary. I think we should consider the matter carefully before we condemn these regulations to which my noble friend has had to subject himself, and consider whether they are in fact vexatious or unnecessary. It is quite obviously of the highest importance in time of war that immigration officers should be able to maintain strict control over those who constitute the passenger traffic, whether between England and foreign countries, or between England and the Channel Islands, or between England and Northern Ireland. The whole point and purpose of asking those who come into Great Britain from the Channel Islands to carry some document of identity is simply to enable immigration officers to know who they are and whether they are British subjects. It seems to me that any objection to a restriction of that kind in time of emergency is unreasonable. Without some restriction of that kind it would not be possible for immigration officers to control nearly as effectively the entry of aliens who, in the interests of the safety of the realm, should not come into this country.
Therefore while we do not in the least desire to restrict British subjects travelling between Northern Ireland and England, or between the Channel Islands and England, we do ask them to accept these comparatively innocuous regulations in the interests of the safety of the country, and because, unless some method of identification was available, those might come in whose entry would not be for the good of the realm or for the safety of this country when it is at war. Although the Government would always give full consideration to the right of access of members of Parliament, at the

1721
same time I do not think it is unreasonable that they should be asked to carry some document of identity in order to facilitate the work of the immigration officers and to make it easier to keep out of the country those who have no right in it.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask if it is necessary to have a passport in order to travel between the Scilly Islands and the ports of this country? Does the regulation apply to the Isle of Man, and what about the Western Islands of Scotland? If I wish to go to the Hebrides and return, must I have a passport? I rather sympathise with the noble Lord in his complaint.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: The Channel Islands are vulnerable, and so is Northern Ireland and of course Southern Ireland, and therefore naturally the same regulations apply to them, but it would be extremely bureaucratic if, in the interests of complete logic, they were extended to the Western Islands of Scotland. If they did, I think the noble Lord would be the first to complain of bureaucracy.
LORD STRABOLGI: If I may say so, I think both the arrangements are foolish.

POLAND.
4.49 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they will take steps now in consultation with other Governments to diminish the tragedy of suffering and want which now prevails in all parts of Poland and which is going to grow much worse this winter; and move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for detaining your Lordships for a few moments on this matter of the sufferings of the Polish people. The words on the Order Paper are not mine. They are the words spoken by the noble Viscount, the Foreign Secretary, the week before last when I raised this question. He then used the words "the tragedy of suffering and want which now prevails in all parts of Poland and which is going to grow much worse this winter." When I was abroad just before I spoke on that occasion, I heard from neutral and other sources how astonishing were the sufferings to which the Polish people had been
1722
subjected owing to the unparalleled things that happened to them through no fault of their own. When the noble Viscount, the Foreign Secretary, was good enough to reply to me, he used the words which are now on the Order Paper. As they were not reported in the Press at the time, it seemed to me most important that we who are so deeply committed to the well-being of the Polish people, as we were to the Belgian people twenty years ago, should try and show to those unfortunate people that we are not unmindful of them.
My noble friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out to me when I sent him the terms of my question, that it would not be possible for him to act in accordance with the suggestion I make. My question asked the Government
"whether they will take steps now in consultation with other Governments to diminish the tragedy of suffering and want which now prevails in all parts of Poland,"
because, as he truly says in his letter, neither this nor other Governments can compel those who have invaded Poland—the German and the Soviet Governments—to do anything that we tell them to do; and to invite a rebuff would be worse than useless. Therefore, as he suggested, I will put my question in this form:
"To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the tragedy of suffering and want which now prevails in all parts of Poland consequent upon the invasion of that country, and which is going to grow much worse this winter, and what steps they and other Governments are taking to relieve the hardship prevailing among the Polish refugees."
I have said that I do not apologise for bringing this question forward, because, unless I am misinformed—and indeed I know I am not, because of what the Foreign Secretary has said—the tragedy as he described it is even greater than your Lordships might have thought from the few items that have occurred in the Press.
I have seen those who were there at that terrible moment when that host, fleeing from the wrath of the invaders from the West, were confronted by the Red Army invading from the East. In common with some of your Lordships, at least one of whom I see before me, I saw the flight from invasion in the retreat from Mons. That was the Belgians fleeing; and I saw the further retreat of the French civilian population at the end of August and September, 1914; and it so

1723
happens that I am, I think, the only man in this House who saw the even more tragic Via Dolorosa of the refugees coming through Antwerp when the last of the Belgian people attempted to escape from the wrath that was befalling them. The same thing happened in both cases. There were burning villages and farms and the wretched people actually dying of starvation as they moved; children falling under the wheels and crushed to death, for all were so tightly packed in the road that with all the good will in the world the others could do nothing to help those who fell down. It was like the awful catastrophe on the Underground Railway, which perhaps some of your Lordships may remember, at Hampstead, where hundreds of people were killed by people pressing on behind. I saw with my own eyes, not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of persons jammed in a narrow road, subject to bombardment.
I am told, and the Foreign Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, that the horrors which the Belgian people and some of the French suffered in 1914 are as nothing to what these Polish people suffered in this double invasion, first from one side and then from the other. Now it was no fault of the Poles. They have an absolutely clean conscience. Whether they had any reason to suppose that they would have a benevolent neutrality behind them one need not inquire, because, though they had reason to fear attack from the West, from the East they were protected by the very definite terms of a Treaty. This was the Pact of Non-Aggression between Poland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which was made in July, 1932, and was extended to 1945. Article I says:
"The two contracting parties reciprocally undertake to refrain from taking any aggressive action against or invading the territory of the other party, either alone or in conjunction with other Powers."
Article II says:
"Should one of the contracting parties be attacked by a third State or group of States, the other contracting party undertakes not to give aid or assistance either directly or indirectly to the aggressor State during the whole period of the conflict."
And yet these unfortunate people have seen themselves invaded and have suffered all the consequences of invasion.
It has been claimed that, as the Polish State had ceased to exist, this Pact of Non-Aggression lapsed. We can leave that there: it is not an argument which anybody in this country would wish to adopt. The fact that the Poles have been so hardly used by fate makes us, I am sure—and my noble friends here will agree with me—all the more anxious to help these unfortunate people who have lost all that they had—their country, their goods, and in many cases the lives of those they held most clear, not in thousands or tens of thousands, but literally in millions. That being the position, I would venture to ask the Foreign Secretary when he comes to reply to tell us, if it be true that the sufferings are as great as I have endeavoured briefly to describe, what steps can be taken.
Many of my friends have said to me since I put this Motion on the Paper, "But what can England do for the Poles?" I say, first of all, remember that they are there; do not forget them. Secondly, remember what happened 25 years ago. Just the same thing happened to Belgium, only on a less disastrous scale. But we did not sit with folded hands; we proclaimed to all the world that Belgium was our constant care and that we should not forget Belgium. What is more, arrangements were made—and we may hear something of them in this debate—by which great assistance was given to those unfortunate Belgian people. I have no doubt that the Foreign Office—and especially the Foreign Secretary, whose mind, as we all understand, is deeply moved by this suffering, as any suffering must move him especially—are doing what they can, and we should like to know what it is.
I do not propose to go into any controversial matters to-day at all, but I just want to place on record what I believe all your Lordships will agree to be the fact: that the Poles were not in the least to blame. I go further, and say that we British people are not to blame either. We could not prevent it, and we could not say less than we did when we said: "If you are attacked, you whose integrity has been secured by constant treaties, renewed again and again, we will go to war with those who invade you." We could not say less; we took all risks. Not so much has befallen us

1725
as might have done, but we took all risks and we were right. Our consciences are clear in that regard. But if we have a right cause and clean hands, as I think we have, and when that right cause—as I am sure it will—in the end prevails, I plead that neither now nor then shall we forget Poland.
4.59 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has been very wise in not going into details as to what should be done at the end of the war. He has taken to heart the moral of the fable, which applies, I may say, to monsters as well as to lions: that you must not divide up the skin before they are dead. I am sure that in this case, as when you meet a venomous snake or mad dog, you have first of all to concentrate on dealing with it before you consider what you will do with the carcase. But it is not premature to begin considering the case of Poland, and how the weaknesses which have landed her in the present tragedy may be avoided in any future settlement, so that she may emerge stronger and less vulnerable than before.
Germany seems to have given an extraordinarily interesting example in the Baltic as to how weaknesses in these border States can be avoided. She has suggested by her big movements of German population that the interest of the people is much greater in importance than the historical associations of minorities with particular territories. The Germans have shown that they not only specialise in persecuting racial minorities, but they are unwilling themselves ever to live as a peaceful minority under foreign rule. Hitler the other day talked about "racial splinters," and he has taken care for years past to see that those racial splinters were so poisoned that they were bound to cause festering wounds in the bodies politic in which they were planted, and German Colonies have been agents consistently for disorder, and have been made the pretext for German annexation.
The solution, which must as a general principle appeal to a great many of us, is that these German splinters shall be expelled from the surrounding States, and Poland in particular, in exchange for the downtrodden minorities in Germany, such as the 1,500,000 Poles who have been persecuted by the Reich; and, although it is off the point to-day, it is not too early to
1726
begin pondering the problem of the Jews, because I have seen in the tropics lately how impossible it is to find suitable territory for these poor people. And there again, surely, the solution is that, since Germany has shown herself unfit to rule them, she should be made to provide suitable territory where they can live under their own laws.
The noble and gallant Lord's Motion in its wording deals with the suffering and want which exist in all parts of Poland. This is a very urgent problem, but it is one which is peculiarly difficult for Great Britain to deal with, now that Poland has been absorbed in a State with which we are at war; and whatever we do after the war—and surely British generosity and the debt that we owe to Poland for her grand resistance against overwhelming odds will ensure that we do our utmost—whatever be the steps that are taken, they can only take place in the way of relief within Poland after peace. The condition of Poland is very like what was to be found in Belgium in the late war, and it will, I think, be dealt with best in the same way through the agency of neutrals. It is reassuring to know that already the United States are active in the field. The Society of Friends have taken a great part in immediate steps to try to mitigate the terrible hardships of the Poles who are left homeless, and without resources under this hated German rule.
I am particularly interested in the condition of the Poles who have been driven out of Poland, and there the problem is divided into two classes. They are the combatants, who amount to something over 70,000, who have found refuge mainly in the Balkans, and civilians, who amount to between 55,000 and 60,000, according to the latest figures. The way of dealing with these people may rather differ, but they are both alike in their terrible state of destitution and want. The neighbouring Governments have shown great hospitality. They have found roofs to cover these poor people, but they have no resources from which they can substitute for the thin summer clothes in which they fled over the frontier the necessary provision against the Balkan winter, in which the thermometer drops to thirty or forty degrees below zero. There is enormous and pressing need of clothes—greatcoats, blankets, thick underclothes, and suits of clothes in which these people can live through the winter.

1727
The various philanthropic agencies in this country were not slow to do what they could. The Society of Friends, the Save the Children Fund, and various Jewish organisations immediately sent out helpers and assistance in kind, and we have now got, under the lead of the Polish Ambassador, a Central Fund, which is inviting subscriptions, which will be disbursed in money and in kind through the agencies already in the field and, where Governments exist, by special measures. In Hungary the fund which was the origin of the Central Fund, that of the Anglo-Polish Relief Committee, immediately sent out representatives and has made available a large credit, which is being disbursed locally. The needs of Hungary are very great, and it is difficult to get supplies through quickly, owing to the number of frontiers and the length of transport. But we were hoping to send off a large consignment at the end of last week, and I hope that difficulties over frontiers and laissez-passers may be got over very quickly. In Rumania the refugees are being very well cared for in the way of cover and food. The Government are giving them 100 lei a day, which is just over a shilling, but they have not got the necessary covering against the climate. The Save the Children Fund is doing admirable work there in opening orphanages, and it has saved from misery and death a great many children by this wonderful effort, which is infinitely more valuable because it has been so prompt.
The Central Fund have sent out a large supply of serum and vaccine to Bucharest, and they are hoping to send out a unit for treatment and survey of the refugee camps in Hungary as soon as we can get the necessary transport. It will be appreciated that the lot of these unfortunate refugees will be infinitely worse if pestilence is added to famine, because then it will be almost impossible to deal with them. There will necessarily be a sanitary cordon round the camps, and it is all-important to immunise them against such a disaster. Just now there are very many appeals, but I am sure the public will show the generosity to this Polish cause that they always do to such heartrending cases. Incomes have shrunk from war and taxation, and it necessarily is going to be difficult to get money. The Fund has already spent far ahead of its resources. I am told that is common
1728
form with charitable appeals, and that hospitals are said never to be efficiently run unless they are in debt. But we hope that the public will quickly come to our rescue and make up our deficit. We feel it is better to spend £1 now in covering the naked than £10 next summer when people will not really feel the climate. We hope that the Government are going to assist in bearing the burden. We should like to hear what is being done for the combatants who are interned. We know that they are in barracks, but we gather that they are very ill-provided with covering. I trust that the Foreign Secretary will be able to hold out some hope that the Government will assist in bearing a burden that may prove too heavy for philanthropic effort to bear unaided.
5.12 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of this very cogent appeal because I am connected with one of the bodies which has attempted to deal with the overwhelming need—the Save the Children Fund—following an appeal in The Times signed by the most reverend Primate and others some five weeks ago. I should like particularly to support the appeal made by the noble Lord who spoke last that the Government should play their part in diminishing this tragedy. I am very glad that the Foreign Secretary has already shown his interest by the appointment of Sir Francis Humphrys to watch over the organisation of the relief, but I feel it would be very appropriate for the Government to go further. We are familiar with the generous action which was taken by our Government in the case of the sufferings of Czecho-Slovakia. In 1920—perhaps this is a somewhat more comparable case—following on the distresses which succeeded the war, the Government instituted a plan of giving pound for pound of money raised by private effort. In this case the urgency is as extreme as we have ever known, and humane and Christian motives must be keenly aroused by the sufferings which exist, and exist, I feel, in the highest degree. They have been met to some extent by the bodies which the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, has mentioned which exclude from their purview political, religious, or racial bias. I am glad to say that America has already raised very considerable sums as well.

1729
But the Motion proposes that work should be done in Poland itself. One does feel that the German Government ought to allow such efforts as were made in Belgium by the Americans, and on that account we ought in this debate, no doubt, to avoid any political comments upon the situation apart from the urgent need of human relief. Such work as could be done in Poland would have to be done, I suppose, by neutral organisations. I am glad to know that there is some hope of co-operation from international bodies such as the Society of Friends and the Save the Children International Union—of which the Save the Children Fund is a component part—an International Union which has its offices in Geneva. But, at all events, work can be done outside Poland in neutral countries, as we have just heard, and it ought to be done on a much larger scale than has been made possible by the funds already existing.
I would only in a word like to testify to the good work which is already being done by these several bodies. Speaking from my own personal experience, in Hungary the Save the Children Fund at once sent one of its Hungarian administrators to the districts where the refugees are found near the Polish frontier. Being herself a great educational expert, she has not only done direct relief work in the provision of food and clothing, but is already doing something to establish emergency schools for the great numbers of children who are in need of education if they are to be there for any time, as unhappily they must be. In Rumania, the national Children Fund has been working mainly at Czernowitz, where the largest masses of refugees are found. Here is one striking and compelling fact. Not only are there masses of children, but 500 children have been separated from their parents and are virtually orphans, without a friend, and require, therefore, very special help.
It is deplorably true, as we have just heard, that these children, and adults too, came out of Poland in clothing utterly unfitted for cold weather—very large numbers of them in cotton clothes. Balkan cold is something unknown in this country. If any of your Lordships have not experienced the cold of winter in the Balkans, you do not know what cold is. I would never have imagined, until I experienced it, what cold could be in the
1730
East of Europe. It is a very terrible situation with which we are dealing. What can be done about it? Every humane person who can afford to subscribe ought to do so. But I would submit that it is not merely a question of humanity, but to some extent also of national honour and reputation. In 1920 Government help was given in the way I have described. Although we were at that time suffering from the exhaustion of a long war, yet the Government on a very generous scale gave the equivalent pound for pound of what was privately subscribed. I hope that the Government may at least be willing to act as generously in this case.
5.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I rise for a very few moments to associate the Labour Party in this House with the Motion that has been moved by the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches, and to endorse his plea, and the plea repeated by the noble Lord who is Chairman of the Polish Relief Fund and, after him, by the noble Lord who is President of the Save the Children Fund, for effective assistance for the Polish refugees. The point I should like, if I may, to emphasize is one that was made towards the end of the speech of my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton—namely, that this is not a purely humanitarian problem. Most noble Lords would doubtless agree that it would be unfair to ask our Government, in war-time, to respond with the same generosity to appeals for assistance from abroad as they may have shown in peacetime, if the appeals were on purely humanitarian grounds. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, that we have a special obligation and responsibility towards the Polish victims of the war, which arises directly out of our alliance with that country and the tremendous events which this alliance has occasioned.
Casting our minds back for a few moments, we remember that, fortified by the promise of help from Great Britain as well as from France, the Poles boldly rejected the German demands and, when they were attacked for doing so, defended their country with the utmost gallantry for as long as they were able to do so. Owing mainly to their geographical circumstances, the military assistance we rendered our Polish ally did not save it

1731
from defeat, at any rate in the first stages of the war. Whether we could have done more is a matter that the historian alone, with a full knowledge of the facts, can decide. I am convinced that the Government believed at the time, and no doubt still believe, that they were doing everything in their power to hamper the German offensive against Poland. But surely the very fact that the military contribution we made to our Ally's cause was necessarily so meagre renders it incumbent on us to give the maximum of humanitarian assistance. There is, indeed, a very interesting parallel that has been drawn by several noble Lords between the plight of Poland at the present time and the plight of Belgium in 1914. I am sure the Government would find support from all sections of British public opinion if they decided to respond immediately to the appeal that has been voiced on behalf of Polish refugees.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, recast his original Motion, because I think it is now in a form in which it will receive universal support. As has been pointed out by the last two speakers, there are at the present moment thousands of destitute refugees in Rumania and Hungary who require immediate assistance from abroad if they are to survive the rigours of the continental winter without heavy loss of life and without serious damage to their health. I should like—because I heard this report myself last week from the headquarters of the Society of Friends, which sent out an exploratory expedition to Rumania—to endorse the plea that has been made by the two last speakers for ways and means of providing warm clothing and blankets for the refugees, at any rate in Rumania and probably also in Hungary, during the coming months. My information coincides with that of the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, when he said that the Rumanian Government had responded exceedingly generously and were doing all they could to provide food and shelter, but that there was still a very severe dearth in the matter of protective clothing that will be so sorely needed during the coming months.
As I think every speaker has suggested, the primary need is for the money that can purchase these necessities of health
1732
and life. I, having a certain amount of experience of voluntary work for refugees, am sadly of the opinion that it will be impossible for voluntary effort to raise the required amount in time. And if, before this war broke out, the Government admitted, as they did, that voluntary effort could not cope with the influx of refugees from Germany and Czecho-Slovakia, how much more readily should they admit now that private purses, drained by war-time demands, cannot cope with the fresh influx of refugees who are victims of the war in Eastern Europe. I should like to support the very practical proposal made by my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton, that the Government might encourage private effort by offering one pound for every pound subscribed. It is clearly undesirable to do anything to damp the humanitarian enthusiasm of the public. At the same time, I think an offer of that kind would have the effect of stimulating all those whose sympathies were aroused or who felt a keen sense of obligation to give as much as they could possibly afford. That is all I have to say. My excuse for speaking at all is that my Party is very keenly anxious to associate itself with anything that is being done in the way of active assistance for the Poles.
5.27 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, it is I think in the nature of things that all your Lordships should have listened with a very wide measure of sympathy to the speeches that have been made in the course of this debate, and not least to the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the subject to our thought and who, I hope, will feel that his Motion has served a useful purpose by giving occasion for the several speeches that followed to be delivered. Every one of those who have taken part in the debate has, I think, had direct special knowledge in one form or another of the problem with which the Motion deals, and I am sure that what has fallen from them will be of real value and assistance to those who have this exceedingly difficult problem to deal with in the first instance. The noble Lord who moved was wise—I naturally think that, because he agreed with me in doing so—to alter the wording of his Motion. But, in whatever

1733
form the Motion stands, we can all, I think, welcome it as giving an opportunity to the House to show sympathy with and to commend the cause of unhappy Poland, and also to restate the unshakeable determination of His Majesty's Government to do everything that they can to prosecute the cause of the Allies, of whom Poland is one, to a victorious conclusion.
On the actual conditions in Poland, of course, as the noble Lord said, His Majesty's Government have no representatives of their own there, and they have no other direct and reliable means of obtaining information. Therefore, whatever can be done in Poland does fall, as I think my noble friend Lord Moyne said, naturally on to the shoulders of well-disposed neutrals and those who can work under their auspices. But, of course, it is common knowledge that, as a result of the invasion, wide disorganisation and destruction and great unhappiness have been caused. It is not necessary to imagine deliberate cruelty—though, I am afraid, unhappy experience does not permit us to dismiss that wholly from our minds—but even without that there is plenty of material for wholesale destitution and suffering. However, as I say, with that immediate problem it is obviously impossible for His Majesty's Government to deal, and one can only hope that some knowledge and consciousness of what the problem involves in terms of human suffering may be present to the minds of the forces now in occupation of Poland.
I am quite sure that neither His Majesty's Government nor the British people are in any danger of being indifferent to the lot of the refugees now living chiefly, as we have been told, in Rumania, in Hungary, in Latvia and in Lithuania. That, naturally enough, was a problem which, as it came into being and was appreciated here, made direct and immediate appeal to many forms of private charity and many organisations dealing with private charity in this country; and it was very soon seen that there was a certain danger of all those manifold agencies that were interesting themselves in the problem falling into a certain discordance and overlapping. It was accordingly with the object of avoiding that danger, if in fact it was a real one, and of ensuring better co-operation
1734
between His Majesty's Government, for there are directions in which we can perhaps help directly, and the various private organisations, that Sir Francis Humphrys, to whom reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, was asked to undertake the work of general counsellor, as it were, to the Polish cause, and to act somewhat as a channel of communication between the Polish Ambassador and those working with him in London and the other organisations and the Government Departments, or whoever it might be, and to try to pull the whole thing as much as possible together.
With great public spirit Sir Francis Humphrys at once accepted this obligation, and through him all organisations and individuals who wish to take any hand in this work of refugee relief can obtain easy and ready access to the various Departments of Government who may in any direction be affected. I am glad to say that he is already in close and, I think, regular touch with a great many of the workers in this cause. I also note (and I dare say my noble friend Lord Moyne will support this) that he has been able to facilitate their work in a variety of ways. It is, of course, obvious that in making money and supplies available for refugee purposes in several of these foreign countries under conditions that are quite exceptional, a good many problems political, financial and economic are bound to make their presence felt, and it is with the object of trying in part to smooth out those difficulties that we thought it well to enlist the assistance of Sir Francis Humphrys.
It would not be right, and indeed it would not be possible, for me to endeavour to particularise between the various voluntary organisations which have been good enough to interest themselves in this work. I think it is true that almost from the beginning British workers have been on the spot trying to help the refugees, and that has been no small task, as may be measured from the fact that the total number of refugees, including all sorts, amounted to something like 120,000. I think a great many people would say that there were more, and it is quite true, as more than one of those who have spoken have stressed, that as things are it is only too likely that a great many of these will be in dire need as the winter

1735
advances. Charitable organisations in the several countries have been doing their best, and I think it is true to say that in general the situation as regards actual food does not give rise to any great measure of anxiety. The real anxiety, I am advised, is in regard to clothing, because these unhappy people had to leave their country during what was, I believe, something like a heat wave—at all events what we should call a heat wave, and what we did think a heat wave at the time—and, accordingly, they left insufficiently clad to meet any more severe weather. I can well believe that the need for suitable clothing may prove itself to be beyond the capacity of even the most generous local effort.
The unified Polish Relief Fund Appeal, with which my noble friend Lord Moyne has been good enough to associate himself, has, I am told, made a promising beginning, but, as he emphasized from his greater knowledge, both expansion of that beginning and speed of the expansion of it are essential, and I hope that his words and the words of all your Lordships and my own will go far beyond your Lordships' House and reach a great many generous hearts outside it. It is indeed fully in accord with our tradition that such help as this to needy people beyond our borders should come primarily from the generosity of private individuals and organisations, and I certainly think it is true that no more deserving cause than this has ever been placed before the consideration of the British public. For all the reasons that have been given, there is no cause that should make a more direct appeal to the British people at this time than this appeal on behalf of the Poles.
The noble Lord who moved the Motion made a reference to other Governments. I have not the exact details before me, but I know the French Government have done in various ways a great deal to help the Polish cause, and, as more than one of your Lordships who spoke said, both the Rumanian Government and the Rumanian people are doing a great deal. Indeed, as I have said, the need is very great, and in regard to this business of warm clothing, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say it is desperate. It is accordingly for that reason that His Majesty's Government have felt—their minds moving much on the lines of those
1736
who have spoken this afternoon—that they also, in view of the emergency of it, ought to take some immediate share in the business and make their contribution also to the effort that philanthropy is so widely making. Accordingly, His Majesty's Government have decided to offer an immediate sum of £100,000 to meet this immediate necessity of clothing and medical supplies, which I understand are the most urgent. It is proposed, I am advised by those who deal with these things, that these materials should be purchased forthwith in this country and sent with all possible speed to the refugees in Hungary and in Rumania. In taking that emergency decision the Government, I am quite sure, will have the approval of your Lordships' House and of the great mass of British opinion generally.
So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, they confidently trust that it will be realised that this advance for urgent needs is an exceptional contribution. I have seen the suggestion, which the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, repeated this afternoon, that any contribution from His Majesty's Government should be on the basis of pound for pound. There are things to be said in favour of that course, and there are things to be said on the other side. I do not know what view the noble Lord will finally take, but I think he will not be disposed to feel that His Majesty's Government have failed to respond to the main purpose that he and others have principally in mind. But although that be done, the call for private charity will still remain and I am sure British people will not be unmindful, although we all well know the difficulties, of the special appeal that is made to them now by the tragic plight of these tragic people. It is, of course, really a problem that can only be dealt with by international co-operation, and we must endeavour to secure as large a measure of international co-operation in its treatment as we can. But for ourselves and immediately, it is, as I ventured to say at the beginning of my few remarks, at once an obligation of humanity and an evidence of the feeling that this country has for the country from which these unhappy people have been evicted.
5.44 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before we leave this subject and before I withdraw my Motion, I should like to

1737
thank the noble Viscount for the sympathetic reference he has made to the Polish people; but I think it falls to be said also that it is still true that for every one of these poor refugees, mothers and children, suffering the extremity of cold and hunger, there must be twenty within Poland itself. While I have accepted the view put forward by the noble Viscount the Foreign Secretary that we cannot ask His Majesty's Government and the French Government to expose themselves to a rebuff by inviting the invading Powers to act in the same way as we are acting, the British and French Governments, I think, might urge the great
1738
neutral Powers like the United States of America and Italy, to say the kind of things to the invading Powers that the noble Viscount has so eloquently said in the cause of humanity, in order to save these poor people from the disaster which has fallen upon them through no fault of their own, and to save not only the refugees but those still in Poland from disaster and death. I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.