Lords Sitting of 22 January 1948

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Borough of Farnworth Order;
Urban District of Denton Order;
Urban District of Harpenden Order.
Lord WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC REGISTERS AND RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
4.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Lord MORRISON: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I had intended to commence my brief outline of the measure by saying that I thought it might prove non-contentious—until I remembered that I got myself into trouble just before the recess by making a somewhat similar remark about another small Scottish Bill. Noble Lords who were present then may remember that on that occasion, fortunately for me, I received unexpected help from a noble Earl on the Benches opposite, Lord Glasgow, who came to my rescue by announcing that, for the first time in his life, and I think he said probably the last, he intended to
590
support the Labour Party. The Bill was passed and is now in another place. In presenting this present Bill I hope I have learned to be cautious. I commence therefore by modestly saying that I doubt if this Bill is non-contentious, but that I hope I am on safe ground in describing it as a small non-Party measure which I am sure will receive the careful consideration which it deserves.
The Bill is designed to effect reforms in the Registers and Records Department in Scotland. The Registers and Records Department is in charge of the Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland, an office created in 1928 when the Registers Department and the Record Office were brought under a single control. The Registers Department is concerned in the main with the registration of property transactions in Scotland and the Record Office with the custody of Scottish legal and historical records. The first main object of the Bill is to provide for the appointment of separate Keepers of the Registers and Records respectively. For many years prior to 1928 the two departments had been loosely united under the titular headship of the Deputy Clerk Register—an office which was allowed to lapse after the First World War. They were merged in 1928 under the new office of Keeper of the Registers and Records, and it was expected that this course would be conducive to efficiency and economy in the working of these departments. But the expectation has not been realized. The two offices exercise different functions for which different qualifications are required; and the experience of the last twenty years show clearly that the practical advantages lie in separation.
It is in line with the practice in almost all other countries that the Record Office should be a separate administrative unit, and the separation now proposed is recommended by the present Keeper of the Registers and Records, after many years' experience of the amalgamation, and by the Scottish Records Advisory Council, a Statutory body created in 1937. A subcommittee of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, after inspection, has strongly endorsed this view, and this is what they say in their Report:
"The combination of the Register and Record Departments under a single Keeper does not spring from the nature of the work of the two Departments, which is quite different and calls for different qualifications and outlock."
LORD SALTOUN: Would the noble Lord say what the Report is and when it was published?
LORD MORRISON: The Report is a Report of a sub-committee of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. I cannot give the noble Lord the date on which it was published but I will obtain it for him.
This proposal, to which effect is given in Clause 1 of the Bill, and which will create a separate Scottish Record Office, will be widely welcomed in Scotland. The second main object of the Bill is to carry out reforms in the Registers Department in the procedure for the registration of writs relating to property transactions in Scotland. Such reforms were proposed by a departmental committee in 1928, but at that time there were differences of opinion on the subject and further consideration of the proposals was deferred. The reforms are now endorsed by the Organization and Methods Division of the Treasury after inspection last year. The General Council of Solicitors in Scotland have been consulted and have raised no objections to the proposals. Effect is given to the main reforms in procedure in Clause 2 of the Bill, and Clause 3 provides, with the concurrence of the Lord President of the Court of Session, that subsidiary details should be regulated by Act of Sederunt. This provision will maintain the Courts traditional position in connexion with the Register.
It is proposed that the reforms should be introduced on a date to be appointed between January 1, 1949, and January 1, 1951, and when in full operation they should effect important savings in time and man-power in the registration of writs. Advantage is taken in Clause 4 of the Bill to provide that the regulations for the destruction of useless documents which have been transmitted to the Keeper of the Records may, by agreement, be applied also to the destruction of useless documents which, though not actually transmitted, are of a kind which could be sent to the Keeper. The remaining clauses are formal and do not call for comment. The proposed reorganization will allow the Registers Department and the Records Office to work as two contiguous but self-contained units and will modernize the procedure for registering writs. With these words I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House as a short but useful measure.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morrison).
4.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he doubted whether this Bill is non-contentious. I have been trying to work out what he means by that statement. My own view is that the Bill is more an unnecessary Bill than a contentious one. I cannot see that it is really essential. I have only one or two remarks to make. One is that I am glad that the appointment of the Keeper of Registers and Records will be in the hands of the Lord President of the Council; and I hope that the status of the office will not be reduced. I think it is perhaps not inopportune now to pay a tribute to Dr. Angus, who has worked with such distinction.
With regard to the second part of the Bill, which deals with the registration of writs, I think it is perhaps premature to introduce such a measure at this time. We have the very complicated Town and Country Planning Act, which is going fundamentally to affect the whole of land tenure and the registration thereof. I should have thought it would be wiser to wait until the effects of that Act were more fully and properly appreciated. I see that the Secretary of State is empowered, as I think he has been before, to pay such remuneration as the Treasury may agree towards maintaining the Scottish records; and I think I am correct in saying that the annual sum expended at the present time is £200. I would commend to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he should consider increasing that amount when this reorganization takes place, because the sum is really inadequate to deal with the volume of records which, if worth keeping, are worth keeping properly.
4.11 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on this Bill in support of His Majesty's Government. In the first place, I think this is a measure which is long overdue. I was Chairman of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, but not of the sub-committee which went into the details of the Bill. The present Keeper has quite exceptional qualifications for the dual post, and the authorities of Scotland, after consideration, came to the conclusion that

593
it was extremely improbable now that they would find any other individual with qualifications suitable for the dual post. The sub-committee of the Standing Commission found that the records really were completely behind so far as their arrangement, their indexing and the rest of it, is concerned and they were nowhere near the standard which prevails in England. Quite rightly, I think, Scotland felt that something should be done about the matter, and done as soon as possible, and that there should be an historian with qualifications for that post similar to the Keeper of the Public Records in England. Therefore, it was thought desirable to divide the post into two. The Registers are entirety different from such things as we know them on this side of the Border, and I would not attempt to put my toe over the line in regard to Scottish law, which is a long way outside my depth. I understand that the Registers are in constant use in the Courts and, therefore, an entirely different set-up is required from that necessary for Public Records. I have only one criticism to make of the proposal which is now being brought forward, and it is that as the Report of the sub-committee of the Standing Commission (which I think, by the way, was never published) was made some time ago, so far from this Bill being brought in too soon, I think it is a good deal overdue.
4.13 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am told that the great William Pitt the Younger, when he had very bad business to transact in Parliament, would shake his head over it and say, "It is a very bad case, a very bad case; we must apply our majority to this." His Majesty's Government, when they have a very bad case, shake their heads over it and say, "We must apply Lord Morrison to this," because he has had so very many difficult Bills and this, I think, is the most difficult. I hope your Lordships will not allow the great kindness we all feel for the noble Lord to prevent you from giving really serious consideration to the measure which is now proposed. We can do so with more freedom as the noble Lord who introduced it has said that it is a nonparty measure. I think it certainly is. The question is not one of our Party or of your Party, but of what is the best thing to do. I hope, therefore, that the noble
594
Lord will not feel that we are arguing on Party lines if, as a House, we express our feelings strongly about this Bill.
I do not propose to controvert anything that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, said about the measure. His remarks concern only Clause 1. But Clauses 2 and 3 are the important part of Bill, and they must be very seriously considered by your Lordships. In the first place, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, is misinformed, I think, as to the extent of the opposition to this Bill in Scotland. I think he is under the impression that there are only a few people called searchers whose pockets are going to be injured by the Bill, and who are opposing its passage. That is really not the case. It is perfectly true that those searchers and every law agent in Scotland who is in touch with those searchers will be injured by the Bill, and it would be a pity, I think. to do anything unnecessarily which will injure a body of men who have done magnificent work in the past and have contributed to the security and efficiency of Scottish business. This Bill is strongly opposed by the Scottish Law Agents' Society which represents the Scottish law agents in every town in Scotland and whose leaders are the leading practitioners of law in Scotland. The Society of Solicitors to the Supreme Court has reported against the Bill. The Society of Writers to the Signet has not reported, but that may be largely because there has not been proper time for them to do so; they have not been sufficiently well aware of what was in prospect.
As the noble Lord said, the Bill is founded upon a Report made in 1928. That was called the Fleming Report, and it was so contrary to the experience and knowledge of every member of the legal profession that it was tacitly abandoned. It is true that a revised Report was made in, I believe, the year 1932, but the Government did not act even on that Report, and it has lain dormant for the sixteen years that have since intervened. I should like, in passing, to say that I think your Lordships should be very careful about legislating in conformity with Reports that have been practically withdrawn, then allowed to lie dormant, and then, a decade or more than a decade later, produced to your Lordships as authority for legislation. That is the way in which bad and unsatisfactory laws are

595
produced. It is true that in January, 1947, there was a Report made which I have not seen and which very few people have seen. It was prepared by the Organization and Methods Division of the Treasury. I am told that that Organization and Methods Division consists of a gentleman and a lady, who paid a visit to the Register House and asked a few perfunctory questions. I understand that the lady is a B.L.—I do not know what "B.L." stands for; I think it should be V.L. or M.L., not B.L.; but, in any case, whatever her qualifications and whatever his qualifications, a few questions on a short visit are not enough to establish a case.
I will give your Lordships some idea of what actually happens. Every heritable burden and every title in Scotland is, and has been, I think, from time immemorial, registered in the Register House. The brief which I have before me talks about Acts of 1603 and 1693, but, as a matter of fact, the practice of the registration of deeds is very, very ancient in Scotland. May I say, largely for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, if he is interested in these things, that in Scotland we used the notary rather than the seal. We use the Continental practice as our method of establishing authenticity of documents. When a deed is sent for registration it is noted in a presentment book. The hour, as well as the date of the presentment of the deed, is noted, with a short description of the deed sufficient to identify it. If no objection to the deed is made it is entered in what is called the minute book—a book written in pen and ink and kept in order—with the hour at which it was presented. The minute book, of course, is indexed. If you or I or anybody buys property in Scotland, he is entitled to have that property delivered free of burden; and it is and has been from time immemorial, the universal practice for the seller to produce what is called a "search." He produces a search made by a searcher who goes to the Register House and searches the minute book, and who goes as far back as is necessary to establish that there are no heritable (which in Scotland means real) burdens upon that property and that it is free of encumbrances.
596
It is proposed in the present Bill, in Clause 2 (1) (a), to abolish the minute book and to keep only the presentment book. That sounds all very well, but I should be sorry to see such a step taken, because a large number of writs are sent for registration which are never, in fact, registered. There may be some flaw in the writ, or there may be some fault in the description—for example, in the bond or something—and then that writ is withdrawn from presentment and is never registered. It may come back in an altered form, or there may have been some more vital fault and it may never come back. The presentment book, therefore, is merely a rough day book, and it affords only the data from which the minute book, which is the really important book, is made up.
The importance of the minute book lies in this: that the validity of deeds is dependent upon their order in the minute book; an earlier deed claims precedence over a later deed, and that is a very great security. The officials of the Register House make their own searches, and that is a great convenience for them; but normal legal practice is to have a private searcher who goes back through the minute book and establishes quite clearly the fact that there are no burdens there. There is an important point here, that that private searcher is liable for the truth of that search. If anything is discovered—if there is some burden or other which he has not discovered, and which inures against the seller or purchaser—he is liable. Under this Bill the Treasury are to take over this responsibility, but, as I understand it, they are not going to take over the responsibility with anything like the completeness that the present very efficient searchers take it over, and that will inure greatly to the disadvantage of business.
It has been stated that the object of doing away with the minute book, and merely recording these searches, is the great saving that it would make in labour and trouble. I am not convinced of that, and I am also strongly of opinion that the saving of trouble will be secured by diminution of security. I did ask, in a private conversation, the extent to which this saving would go, and how many people would be saved by reducing the minute book. I could obtain no clear answer. The only answer I received was

597
that it was the opinion of the Fleming Committee: But when, as a matter of business, I am considering savings in a business I work it out in man-power, and I do get some idea of the extent of those savings. Therefore, I think this should be reconsidered.
There is another important point in regard to Clause 3, which gives the Court of Session permission to prescribe the form of writs. Nobody is better aware than I of the great saving and advantage that has come in business in Scotland by having photographic reproduction of writs. It is a very great advantage indeed, and we are all perfectly aware of it. When photographic reproduction is impossible the registration takes very much longer, and typing and manuscript has to be used instead. Therefore, this Bill does propose to give the Court of Session power to prescribe the form of writ to be recorded, the size of the paper (and of the margins thereof), and to enable the satisfactory reproduction by photography. In my view that is going much too far. We are all perfectly aware of the advantage of these processes, but I would point out to your Lordships that almost anything can become a writ, and one cannot always be sure of having writs in a form that makes them suitable for photography.
Let us take a very simple case. Let us take the case of a bond upon a house. I grant a bond upon my house and get the money. When I sign the bond, the money is handed to me, and the bond is sent for registration. Suppose that it is not registered, that it is rejected by the Keeper of the Register, what happens? What is the position? It does not say in this Bill that the writ is invalid, it says merely that it cannot be registered.
The writ is, of course, perfectly valid; it is a contract to pay money, and yet it may not be registered. Supposing that writ is in existence, it may take priority over a registered writ which is in the minute book, if the minute book remains, and in the presentment book and the official search if it does not remain. In a competition I do not know which of the writs would be preferred. So there we should have a serious situation. I think this Bill goes very far, in that respect, and in its present form should certainly not go through your Lordships' House.
598
I have shown your Lordships that the whole of the legal profession in Scotland, so far as we have been able to obtain its opinion, is opposed to this measure. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, appears to have been misinformed about that. At any rate, that is to the best of my information. I have shown your Lordships strong reasons for drastic amendment of the Bill, but I submit that, though it should be amended, the amendment should take place after consultation with those legal bodies who know most about this matter—that is, the Society of Writers to the Signet, the Society of Solicitors to the Supreme Court and the Scottish Law Agents' Society. I regard that as very important. I will not ask your Lordships this afternoon to reject this measure, but I will ask my noble friend who speaks for the Government to arrange that there may be a considerable interval before we have the Committee stage so that when that stage does arrive he will be in a position to put forward Government Amendments which will have the support of the legal profession in Scotland. A prolonged interval will also give us the opportunity of consulting with our clients, and getting from them Amendments which they would wish to have made.
4.30 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships would not wish me to go into lengthy details at this stage on this small measure. May I say, very briefly, how delighted I am personally to see the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, back in his place after his visit abroad. This Chamber does not seem like your Lordships' House when Scottish affairs are being discussed and he is away. I am very glad he has now returned. I had thought that perhaps he might have come back bearded like the pard and swearing strange oaths, but this is not a Bill which gives him a fair opportunity. I have no doubt, however, that further Scottish Bills will be brought forward liter on. I am indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, for his commendation of the Bill, and I entirely agree with him so far as my knowledge of this measure goes. It is difficult if not impossible to find a suitable candidate for the dual post of which he spoke. It has been put to me that the kind of person required is a con-

599
veyancing lawyer and a historical scholar, and that is a combination which is not easy to obtain.
The only serious opposition to the Bill has come from the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. As I have already said, I do not think that he would expect that I should go into detail in answering his points, particularly as in the later stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House there will be opportunities for these matters to be developed. In addition, the Bill, after it leaves your Lordships' House, will still have to run the gauntlet of all its stages in another place. The noble Lord interrupted me—quite legitimately—when I was speaking about the Report of the subcommittee of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. It was an informal Report and it was made to the Treasury and the Secretary of State, and was not published.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, seemed a little afraid that the proposals in the Town and Country Planning Act would cause complications. I am informed that the proposals in this Bill will not be affected at all by the Town and Country Planning Act. I hope Lord Saltoun will forgive me if I do not attempt to answer in detail all his questions. There is, however, one which I should like to answer. He has quoted a statement which I also saw in a Scottish newspaper. I believe it is on record that even in Scottish newspapers mis-statements sometimes appear. That is very rare, of course. The statement to which I refer was to the effect that the Organization and Records Department of the Treasury had sent a lady to Edinburgh. I believe that is entirely incorrect. The lady, I am told, is employed on the staff in Edinburgh, and has been for many years. She was not sent there from London as was stated in a prominent Scottish newspaper the other day.
Perhaps I may be allowed to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this brief discussion. We know that at this moment most of your Lordships are not particularly interested in Scotland but have a greater interest in other business to which the House is about to proceed. It was therefore well that the discussion on this measure should be brief. In regard to Lord Saltoun's request for a longer interval than usual before the Committee stage of this Bill is reached, may I say
600
that I am not myself responsible for those matters, but I will endeavour to ensure that arrangements are made for a period of a fortnight to elapse instead of a week, which is the usual interval before the Committee stage is reached. I hope that that will give the noble Lord the time which he requires.
Lord SALTOUN: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH WIVES IN RUSSIA.
LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART rose to call attention to the continued detention of British wives by the Soviet Government, to propose action, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think you all know this story by heart—and I say advisedly "by heart." It is a test case of the right of human beings to embark on the most ancient and instinctive of all their callings—the pursuit of happiness. Of such we say: "Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder." Now a modern idol has claimed, without cause vouchsafed or discoverable, to ride rough-shod over our convictions.
I propose to-day that we should show that we mean what we say—nothing more and nothing less. This perfectly needless dispute has arisen because all human impulses are suspect in police States. So, hardly were these young lives joined together when they were arbitrarily put asunder. We pleaded in vain and we reasoned in vain. We have made no fewer than fifteen futile representations, all of which have been treated with the same contumely and utter disregard as every representation we have made in the course of the last three ugly and debasing years in regard to judicial murders, faked elections and breaches of faith. Surely we have had enough of these humiliations. Even in this matter, in which the most craven fellow-traveller can find no word to say in defence of the attitude of the Soviet Government, we encounter nothing but blank refusal from Totalitaria, which continually demands fresh human sacrifices to a new Moloch as deaf to pity and as blind to reason as the old.
Seen in the light of holocaust, the fate of a few married couples may seem a small affair. But we do not see things

601
in that light, and this is not a small affair. It is not a small and petty piece of gratuitous tyranny. The issue goes far deeper. The happiness of fellow beings and fellow subjects has received an utterly senseless life sentence—how senseless will be seen from what follows. On December 17, Mr. Bevin was asked in another place whether Moloch, or Molotov, had ever told us of any motive for this stupid cruelty. He answered laconically, "No, Sir." Then he was asked: "Can the right honourable gentleman hold out any hope that these husbands will ever see their wives again?" Just as laconically he answered, "No, Sir." My Lords, that is a confession of impotence. It is a counsel of despair. It will do Mr. Bevin, this Government, this Parliament and this country no good as it stands. I propose to-day that it should be re-written. The new version would read as follows:
"Question: To ask the House of Lords whether they can hold out any hope that these husbands will ever see their wives again.
Answer: Yes, every hope if the Government will play the cards that fortune has put into their hands."
My Lords, you hold all four aces. I ask you to play them. As for myself, in conformity with Mr. Bevin's celebrated formula I will put my cards on the table face upwards. But, before trying to show how I think they should be played, may I say that I have played many hands for all of you for nearly forty years? I have served Governments of every complexion—Conservative, Liberal, Labour and Coalition. For each one I have carried out their instructions, even when they went against the grain. I argued often. I objected sometimes. On occasions, I protested—and protested strongly; but from none of these instructions did I depart. When they were final, I acted on them as thoroughly as had they been my own. There is no merit whatever in that—the entire public service do that. It is a matter of conscience. Now, in the free evening of my life, I have received fresh and binding instructions, not from any Party but again from my own conscience; and from those instructions I can no more depart than in the days when I was your servant.
Some people may say that I import sentiment into politics. Why, yes, I certainly do. I allow some space for sentiment in such grave matters as our relations with
602
France and the United States, and space for sentiment in my hatred of German aggression and of all forms of cruelty everywhere, including this one. And I also allow some space for sentiment in the minor affairs of political life. British politics are not so hard-boiled as to exclude sentiment. Such exclusion is the hallmark of Tolalitaria. I not only plead sentiment, I go further. I say that this universal pursuit of happiness would be more likely to succeed if man more often followed the heart that God has given to all, and less often the lead that He sometimes denies.
We are, all of us, threatened again by this heady and heartless totalitarian design to dictate to the world, whether in the mass or as represented by these poor people whose cause I am defending today. I think there is still room for heart in these matters. Should I have said "heart" at all? Surely I was wrong. I can find no heart in the Kremlin. I can find no heart in people who have descended to the meanest of all forms of racialism—the prohibition of foreign marriages. The Kremlin had approved these marriages. It approved the weddings before persecuting the wedded; and that is perhaps the foulest feature of the whole of this sad story. In my view there is no heart in those who say: "Those whom God has joined together we shall certainly put asunder" for the more pleasure of giving pain. No, I think there is no heart at all. in Robotti-Anticristo. I have found a Soviet agent who calls himself by that name, and Robotti-Anticristo could not: possibly have a heart. Therefore, for all that we hold dear, we are bound to stand against him in an evergreen maquis of the spirit. Therefore, in this very moderate course which I propound and press to-day, I ask and expect the support of all antirobots—that is, of all normal people, and above all, of those who profess and call themselves Christians. Alter all, the first question confronting us to-day is, how much does Christian marriage mean to us? Behind that, there is a much greater question: Does the individual matter? Moloch, ancient and modern, says "No." Christ said, "Yes"; and we have said "Yes" ever since. Therefore it is rot open to Christians to sit with folded arms and say "Yes, yes, yes. I agree with Christ in principle but nowadays nothing can be done in practice."
All I ask is the application of simple parity, complete reciprocity—that reciprocity which is the basis of all international relations and which is never long disregarded without danger. The Soviet Embassy and Consulates are no more concerned in this than our own. The Soviet Government, however, maintain here a large number of other establishments, all very heavily staffed. For instance, there are 120 members in the Trade Delegation alone, and a glance at the telephone directory would show your Lordships that they use no fewer than 48 telephones. There is, in fact, in this country a large Soviet colony. These 120 members of the Trade Delegation are accompanied by something like 100 wives and 50 children. There is a very good reason for that, very germane to my argument to-day. The Soviet Government always prefer to send married couples to these assignments, lest the celibates should be corrupted by Western affections. Carlyle called Robespierre the "sea-green incorruptible." Now we have "blood-red incorruptibles," racialists all, whether in a minor matter of this kind or in the major menace of Pan-Slavism. Every one of the fifty children of these married couples attends their own school in Hampstead, lest one of them should accidentally crunch one pip of the fruit of the tree of Western knowledge.
Besides all these there are other cultural and trading organizations—the Soviet Shipping Agency, the Russian Oil Products, the Moscow Narodny Bank and so on. All these have Soviet staffs with full facilities for family life. There are no such staffs and facilities or institutions for the British in Russia. Where, then, is the reciprocity? That is only the beginning of the story. We have here as well the Tass Agency and the Soviet Weekly, with similar staffs and similar facilities for family life. We have the Soviet Film Agency, with similar staffs and facilities. We have no such British agency in Russia. Again I say, where is the reciprocity? The story continues. All these Soviet staffs with wives and children occupy places in this country which are not only leased, but bought. Now the sale of property to foreigners is illegal in the Soviet Union. Where is the reciprocity? Again, all the Soviet families enjoy here full liberty of movement. Very
604
different is the position of the British in Russia.
All these Soviet families have the utmost ease in acquiring entrance visas here and no exit visas are required. Very different is the position of the British in Russia. Again, all these Soviet families have liberty to import and employ Russian servants. Very different, again, is the position of British establishments in Russia. They have to take the nominees of the Soviet Government—that is, of the N.K.V.D., as it was, the N.V.D., as it is now—regardless of the qualifications of the people, and on occasions, we all know, these people are used frankly for spying. There is, in fact, an enormous disproportion of numbers and facilities between the British in Russia and the Russians in Britain. Above all, there is this disparity of facilities for family life which we freely allow here and which Moloch and Robotti Anticristo deny to others.
Therefore, my simple proposal is that we should make a final appeal to Stalin. I hold no brief for the Dean of Canterbury, who has just written a book in high praise of Totalitaria, called Soviet World. In search for matter of adulation he went out to Russia and had an interview with Stalin in which the question of these poor wives came up. The Dean has written that, cordially and spontaneously, Stalin said "Something will be done." Well, let us ask him to fulfil that promise, but at the same rime indicate that if these wives have not been returned by the end of next month we, for our part, shall apply the principles of parity and reciprocity. In other words, we will equalize the number of Soviet women and children in this country with the number of women and children in Russia, leaving aside the matter of the diplomatic and consular staffs. What could be more just and reasonable than that? I do not ask for any tyrannical retentions; I merely say that if the Kremlin opts for parity we will courteously and humanely return these women and children to their own country. That is my proposal. If the Government can better it I shall welcome their proposition. I say that the time for words has gone, and the time for action has come. We have been wording, and wording and wording for years, and nothing whatever has happened. Now there is an end of that epoch. If the

605
Government can improve on my proposal, let them. If not, it stands, and I will now say a few words in defence of that proposal, and in advance.
In some timorous quarters it may be urged that any breath or touch of humanity might somehow affect the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement. Well, that Agreement is immensely advantageous to the Soviet Union; in fact, many of us think that Russia got the best of it. In any case, if there were ever any default on that Agreement—that is possible at some future date; nobody can foresee—it would be for reasons very different from those which I am putting forward to-day. Anglo-Russian trade is a convenience to both sides and I hope it will go on to expand and prosper. But trade has no more to do with this case than the flowers that I insist shall bloom in these young people's spring. Moreover, it is possible to sell grain and timber in a state of temporary celibacy. I hope it might be very temporary. It might even be possible to do it on something less than forty-eight telephones. Moreover, whenever your Lordships noticed in the past—and believe me here I speak with considerable inner knowledge—that the staffs of a foreign mission from any country were notoriously and obviously inflated, you could be well assured that not all their members were indispensable to, or sometimes even engaged in, the strict purposes of commerce and diplomacy. I hope the House will note that I have not entirely lost the diplomatic art of under-statement. I shall say no more on that subject to-day. I merely mention it in passing to show that if the Kremlin insists on parity, we shall not be the losers.
Moreover again, firmness is always much more conducive to understanding than weakness. Therefore, I hope that nobody will be afraid of snarls from any home-grown totalitarians. Travellers' tales are proverbially suspect, but fellow travellers' tales are food for derision. The French have shown great firmness in a similar cause, and in much greater difficulties. The Communist Party in the French Assembly is exactly ninety-two times Messrs. Gallacher and Piratin. Even if, for good measure, you throw in the bunch of fellow travellers in another place, the disparity is enormous. Yet the French have stood very firm. There are hundreds of French subjects literally
606
dying to get out, and modern Pharaoh will not let the people go. So the French have decided, although they too need grain, that until Pharaoh does let the people go they, for their part, will allow no one over whom they exercise jurisdiction, either by virtue of birth or naturalization, to go to Soviet Russia. That is a great deal more than I ask. Surely, this Government is not going to falter where the French have trodden so firmly in the name of humanity.
But if the French example is not enough, let us pass on to another—the Chilean example. Towards the end of last year then; was a breach of diplomatic relations between Chile and Soviet Russia. Therefore, the diplomatic staffs of both countries were due to leave. But the son of the Chilean Ambassador in Moscow has married a Russian. Again Pharaoh stepped in and would not let the lady go. Whereupon the Chilean Government decided, and instructed their Mission, that they should remain detained in Moscow, and the Chilean Government for their part would detain the Soviet Mission in Santiago until the lady was allowed out. That is brave. The operation has perhaps been facilitated by the fact that there are twelve Chileans in Moscow, and well over fifty Russians in Santiago, but that is the automatic result of these inflated Soviet staffs everywhere. In cases like this they operate as readymade hostages to fortune. That is why I say that you hold all four aces. The Soviet have got nothing higher than a knave in this case, and I see no reason—and, for my part, I would never consent to it—that a knave should ever take a trick again in this game.
This trail of blood and tears which, through no fault of ours, we are compelled to call the twentieth century, has left us all after unutterable sacrifice in a world more bullied than ever. Only a few days ago Dimitrov was threatening to hang the pale remnant of the opposition in Bulgaria because they criticized the Budget. That is only one of a thousand signs of out times which in many aspects and areas are being frog-marched back to despotism. Very seldom can we do anything to mitigate the ever-growing tale of tyranny. Very seldom can we, save by prayer or protest, shed one ray of light on the gloom. It would be a shame on us all, indeed, if in a case

607
where we can do something we still continue to lift no finger to ease the burden, and smugly exemplify La Rochefoucauld's terrible sentence, that we are all strong enough to bear the woes of others. We can render no greater disservice to peace than by giving the impression that we can always be flouted and trampled upon, and that the day will never come on which that can be done once too often. That is the atmosphere in which greater conflicts are prepared. We have it in our power in this matter to make a contribution not only to a better but to a safer world.
On January 3, Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister, spoke out boldly against totalitarian tyrannies and turpitudes. That was wise and timely, and brave and statesmanlike. But it would not be statesmanlike to utter brave words, and then to recoil at the first facile opportunity of putting them into action. I think the Lord President saw that when he spoke eight days later on the same theme. He said: "We must do things; we must take action." Here is the chance to take action. The Government can do it. Let to-day be the end of the era of retreat. The noble Lord, who I believe is to answer me to-day, said in this House nine months ago that we were making forceful representations on the matter. I am grateful to him for that, but it is clear that the representations, through no fault of his, have not been forceful enough. But he said at the same time that we would not let the matter drop, and to-day I am claiming the fulfilment of that pledge. It is not our wont to pass by on the other side. This matter has been raised before in both Houses, and all honour to them who did so. It has been raised but not pressed, and to-day we have it before us for the first time in its full significance. All other recourses have been in vain.
There was an occasional Soviet practice before the war, adopted with a view to raising foreign currency, of allowing Soviet subjects to be bought out by relatives abroad. That sordid practice has ceased. A fortnight ago this matter came up indirectly before the Committee of the United Nations which is engaged in trying to draft a Bill of Human Rights, and one of the clauses proposed to them would have had the effect of authorizing husbands and wives to live together. Well, you would have thought that was a pretty cracking platitude for the
608
twentieth century, would you not? But not at all. The Committee solemnly divided on the platitude, and four voted for it, four against it and there were six abstentions. What are you to think of that? Now, in a world half-choked by moral cowardice, I turn to you, and I ask to-day that we should exercise an elementary, uncontentious human right, which no curtailing legislation can wish to deprive us of. I ask, in a matter like this—which may seem so slight to the cynical but is so wide to the compassionate and far-seeing—that we should so bear ourselves that every human who thinks with and speaks from the heart should say: "Thank God for the House of Lords." I beg to move for Papers.
5.2 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, in the deeply moving speech which he has just addressed to us, my noble friend Lord Vansittart has, I am sure, struck a strong responsive chord of sympathy with the spirit of everything he has said. Certainly in the British Parliament and in this House we would none of us subscribe to the doctrine that because the matter affects only a limited number of people we would ever be content to see it put aside. Indeed, the whole of our characteristic history consists of the fact that men have stood up and have championed causes or individuals when they felt that the issue was one which struck at the very heart and centre of our traditions.
Although the situation of these unfortunate husbands is, of course, well known, I venture to mention one circumstance about it which adds greatly to my feeling in the matter. If I understand the situation aright, these gentlemen met the ladies whom they afterwards married in Russia, at a time when they were themselves serving the Allied cause. I think almost all of them were members of our own fighting forces. They were engaged in giving help, and I think I may add instruction, to Russian elements, in order that they might more successfully carry on the war. I know that one of them was over there for the purpose of instructing Russian flying men in the use and practice of a particular military aeroplane. Those were the circumstances in which these men found themselves in Russia. When one adds to that the fact, to which my noble friend referred, that their marriage to these ladies was approved in

609
advance by the Soviet Government, the full magnitude of the barbarity—it is nothing but barbarity—of the way in which this matter has been dealt with by the appropriate Soviet authority becomes manifest.
I do not for a moment think it would be the wish of the House that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, speaking as he always does from the cross Benches, should be the only voice here to declare its horror at what has happened and our determination to support anything which can be wisely done to stop it. That is my excuse for getting up for a few minutes—without claiming to use the language, eloquence and appeal which the noble Lord has at his command—to make quite a plain statement, certainly for myself, and, I think, for a great many people at any rate on this side of the House. I can quite see that at an earlier stage there may have been wisdom in the view: "If we want to achieve anything here we must handle these difficult people carefully." It might have been urged some time back that we are not likely to achieve what we want if we use vehement language or extreme threats. I do not myself think that that would necessarily be an unwise counsel in all circumstances; certainly I would not be prepared to call the people who thought that it was the right course names which would suggest that they were acting in a cowardly way. Diplomacy may sometimes require that attitude, but I think a point can be reached when it becomes obvious that this gentle approach, this whispered humbleness, this appeal to the other man to behave like a good fellow and to shake hands, may be overdone. I certainly would have thought that that was the situation with which we are faced now.
I do not for a moment suggest that it is by any means a complete analogy, but some of your Lordships may think it natural that I should remember that in 1933 the Soviet Government seized seven British engineers, and not only accused them of sabotaging the turbines which they were erecting for their own employers but proceeded to put them through an examination—less understood in those days than it is now. That, I recall, involved keeping one of the men for nineteen consecutive hours under examination without ever a charge being made against him, by three sets of examiners taking turns,
610
while he was not allowed even a respite while he ate his food. I may perhaps be allowed to recall that in that situation the Government thought it right—and they were supported by Parliament—to take positive action, involving the passing of an Act of Parliament. It did so turn out that by taking that positive action the Vickers' engineers were released. There certainly are, therefore, cases when that may be regarded as the proper course. I ask the noble Lord who is to reply: What is the view which His Majesty's Government take of this matter?
I too have reminded myself of the earlier debate here. It was in April of last year. It was a short debate on April 30, if any noble Lord cares to look it up. There the question was raised, in suitable and well-chosen terms, by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. He expressed what we all felt, I think—a great desire to appeal earnestly to the Supreme Soviet to reconsider the decision and to let these people go. The Government answer was given by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I will venture to read one sentence of what he said—speaking, I am sure, with the authority of the Foreign Secretary. He said that there had recently been a distinguished Russian visiting this country and that they had been making representations to him. He went on:
"His Majesty's Government expect to hear in due course the result of this approach. As I say, we feel strongly about the justice of our case, "—
and I am quite certain that noble Lords opposite feel that as strongly as anybody else—
"and we shall certainly not let the matter drop."
The question which occurs to me, as we are all of one mind, and as the Government have put themselves on record as saying that they will not let this matter drop, is "Well, then, what are they going to do?" My noble friend Lord Vansittart has proposed a particular course of action and has presented it very persuasively, as well as with a good, deal of knowledge of detail. I do not possess, and I doubt whether many noble Lords here possess, sufficient knowledge of the situation between ourselves and Soviet Russia to know the probable reactions of the Russian mentality, or to form a view as to whether the noble Lord's proposal is the right one or the best one. Nevertheless,

611
I want to say two things quite explicitly—and though my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition is unable to be here at the moment he expressly authorized me to use these words, so that I am not merely speaking for myself; I can speak for him and, I think, for fellow noble Lords here. First, I would say that we would wish to be associated in the fullest measure with Lord Vansittart's vigorous and effective protest. Secondly, while we cannot, I think, be expected to endorse his particular remedy, which is obviously a matter for consideration, we do wish to put on record that we should rejoice if concrete steps were taken (and we hope that concrete steps will be taken) for the purpose which we have at heart.
I do not know how much the Soviet Government care for the good opinion of other people. One would infer from much of their recent action that they do not care a fig about it. They devote an enormous amount of energy, time, personnel and money in propaganda for Communism. Without going into the matter so far as that, I cannot believe that Soviet Russia is entirely indifferent to the extent to which the world at large regards its behaviour as tolerable. I think I should be perfectly right if I were to say that I cannot imagine anything better calculated to stir up anti-Russian feeling in this country than the behaviour of the Soviet Government in this particular case. That anti-Russian feeling will grow, and will grow on a ground with is an absolutely just ground, because it is literally intolerable that we should find perfectly innocent fellow citizens denied the most elementary and the most universally recognized right of living with the wife of their choice.
Therefore, my Lords, any argument that we must treat this matter gently, tentatively and speculatively is no longer of any value at all. The only course which we should find satisfactory would be that concrete steps should be taken with the object of ending the situation. Whilst I fully realize how difficult this must be for any Government, I do ask my noble friend Lord Pakenham—whose words, I am sure, have been most carefully authorized—what he is going to do. I ask him the question: "Are you going to tell us that no concrete step can be taken, seriously aimed at securing the release of these people?" If he is, we
612
shall certainly have not the slightest hesitation in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, in his Motion.
5.17 p.m.
Viscount SAMUEL: My Lords, it is well that from every quarter of the House expression should be given, however briefly, to what I believe to be the united support of your Lordships' House of the case that has been made with so much eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. Indeed, the large attendance of noble Lords here on a Thursday afternoon to consider this Motion is a proof of the widespread feeling which animates the members of your Lordships' House. In that they are, I feel sure, representing the sentiment of the people as a whole, for this is a matter which every citizen can understand. There are multitudes of people who know nothing about dialectical materialism, who have no views on Polish frontiers or on the question of the Dardanelles, but who can understand very fully the simple human question which is involved in this issue, a question affecting not merely a few individual families but the very principle of home life.
Someone has said that there are few things more evil than a frontier and all that a frontier implies; but to run national frontiers across families, so as to divide husbands from wives or parents from children, is surely a most detestable thing. It offends not only political principles, but the common universal sense of humanity. We hope that we may be able this afternoon to hear from the spokesman of the Government what concrete action may be taken to remedy the present intolerable situation. However energetic that action might be, I feel certain that the Government would have the support of Parliament; and not only the support of Parliament but the support of the nation; and not only of this nation but of world opinion, wherever the facts can be made fully known. Those who are responsible for the policy of Russia are committing a very grave error if they think that it will be regarded as an act of strength to refuse to do something which is obviously right, merely because other people are urging them to do it. That is not a proof of rugged independence; that is a proof of moral weakness. And in the long run, the world opinion of mankind—and that can never be a matter of indifference to

613
any nation—will never regard as great any nation or any statesmanship which makes that their rule.
5.21 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: My Lords, the leaders of the two largest Parties in this House have given their unqualified support to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. I think it right that someone from the Back Benches should add support before the noble Lord replies. I must confess that when I came here this afternoon, having always taken a great interest in this matter, I was without much hope of hearing anything constructive. I am bound to tell your Lordships that my hopes have now been revived. No more than the noble and learned Viscount opposite am I prepared to say that that is the right course; but at all events it is a hopeful course, and there is some possibility of action 'being taken. I wish only to add that, like everyone else, I cordially support the Motion.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, I feel that I should say one word from these Back Benches, not because I am any more in sympathy with the Motion than anyone else—for we are all in the very greatest sympathy with this Motion—but because I personally have had such fine and pathetic letters from one of the husbands concerned; and I promised him that I would support this Motion this afternoon. With the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has put forward a really constructive and sound suggestion. It is not for me to say whether it is the right one, but I think that His Majesty's Government ought to give it the most careful consideration. I am not going to say any more, because noble Lords far more eloquent than I have already expounded this matter. However, due to the fact that I promised one of these husbands that I would give my personal support to this Motion, I have risen in order to do so.
The EarL of SELBORNE: My Lords, may I also add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart? I am quite sure that the nation as a whole cannot continue to witness the continuance of this hideous outrage without some active protest, without some protest on the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has recommended. This is an outrage against the elementary rights of humanity that
614
not even Hitler ever committed, a greater tyranny than we have witnessed from any despot in our time. It reveals Communism as the most awful tyranny with which the world is confronted at the present moment. I submit that it is impossible for us to allow representatives of the Soviet Union to enjoy the amenities such as family facilities and others that they do in this country if the Soviet Government continue in their present inhuman attitude towards women who, after all, are British subjects as well as Russian citizens.
5.24 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I came into your Lordships' House this afternoon with a few notes in my pocket and a few ideas in my head. Since listening to this debate, I have torn up those notes and abandoned those ideas, because most of the things I wish to say have been said already by others. But, as an obscure Back-Bencher and as an Independent, like the noble Lord who moved the Motion, there is just one thing I would like to say, and that is that this is one of those debates, it seems to me, which so eminently justify your Lordships' House. There is no Party advantage to be gained from anything said here this evening. Apparently, we are discussing a matter of not very great political moment. Consequently, this is the sort of debate which could seldom, if ever, arise in another place. It is the sort of debate which constantly arises here and in which your Lordships, if I may say so, eminently justify yourselves. This has been a most remarkable discussion in which it is quite obvious that your Lordships are voicing the sentiments of the entire nation. I hope that the debate will maintain its standard to the end and that we shall see that the Government do commit themselves to doing something before we leave the Chamber this evening.
The Lord Bishop of TRURO: My Lords, I did not intend to say a word on this subject, but I feel moved to add just a few sentences. It seems to me that this is exactly a question on which energetic action should be taken. It is a moral question affecting a very small number of people. That surely is just the condition of things in which a Christian, at any rate, feels especially called upon to intervene. We understand that our relations with the great Soviet Republic are very delicate. That is so,

615
and, without pre-judging the general situation at all, we fasten on this very simple and very plain moral issue. It affects but few persons, but Christians must surely feel that on this moral question, affecting but few persons, we must take the firmest possible stand. I hope that a result of this debate this afternoon will be that something really practical is done. In the view of Christian people in this country, this is the very occasion upon which a firm stand should be made.
5.28 p.m.
Lord PAKENHAM: My Lords, I think that this debate, so far as it has gone, will be long remembered by those who have listened to it. The noble and learned Viscount who spoke with so much wisdom from the Front Bench opposite pointed out that it was certain that I would have come down to your Lordships' House this afternoon with instructions and authorized to speak along certain lines. That is so, but I feel that I should be failing in my duty to all concerned, both inside this House and out of it, if I did not make even more sure than one normally does on these occasions that all that has been said would be studied by those who possess the supreme responsibility for the foreign policy of this country, subject always to the two Houses of Parliament. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will not expect quite such a definite commitment as he asked for at the close of his speech. I think it would be quite wrong to give any kind of a snap verdict on what has been said. Although, in opening in this way, I am robbing the rest of my remarks of some of their interest, I propose to say at once that I cannot commit the Government for the moment further than this promise: that they will study with preeminent care everything that has been said this afternoon.
I have ventured on occasion to differ from the noble and learned Viscount opposite on points of economics, but I have never failed to agree with him and to learn from him on any particular humanitarian issue. I felt this afternoon that he drew on a very profound wisdom and generosity of mind in his remarks. I think it would not become me to pay tribute to all the other speakers, memorable though their speeches were, but I
616
suppose that even the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart himself, has never exhibited greater strength of feeling or higher powers of eloquence than those that he placed at the disposal of the House this afternoon. I will just mention that I have seen one of these afflicted husbands at the Foreign Office, and heard from the sufferer's own lips the sad story in that particular case which is mutiplied in the Air Force. As the noble Lord said, and as the noble Viscount repeated, it is only the most unfeeling, only the most cynical—and certainly no one in this House—who would claim that here you have just a handful of human families. I fully agree that an issue of this kind takes us to the root of civilized behaviour, and it is by their behaviour in the individual case, or in the handful of cases, that great and mighty nations can be judged.
Your Lordships are aware that this question has deeply exercised His Majesty's Government for some time past. As long ago as August, 1945, the Prime Minister intervened personally in Moscow with Generalissimo Stalin on behalf of these Soviet wives. Since that time continued, but I am afraid fruitless, representations have been made. His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow has raised the question five times in writing and eight times verbally. Field Marshal Montgomery, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, spoke personally to Generalissimo Stalin in January, 1947. In March, 1947, Mr. Bevin wrote to M. Molotov and also spoke to Generalissimo Stalin. In June of last year the Minister of State wrote to M. Kuznetsov, the leader of the Delegation of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., on the occasion of his visit to the United Kingdom. The husbands have very properly been active themselves, and at their suggestion a number of Members of Parliament and prominent people forwarded petitions to M. Molotov when he was in London, so far, as we all know, without any result.
What is it that lies behind the continued refusal by the Soviet Government of elementary decencies in this matter? It is not for me, and it is perhaps beyond the power of any of us, to plumb their strange, grim mentality. No reasons have ever been given officially for the Soviet refusal, except that Generalissimo Stalin has indicated that he has twice been roughly treated by the Presidium of the

617
Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. for raising the subject. If this Presidium can treat Generalissimo Stalin roughly, they must be very rough customers indeed. Generalissimo Stalin did not indicate why or how he had been roughly treated, and his remark was not very easy to understand. The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet is concerned only with such of the wives as have applied for release from Soviet citizenship. But most of the wives have not applied for release from Soviet citizenship; they have asked only for Soviet exit permits, the grant of which lies within the competence not of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, but of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Generalissimo Stalin's remark threw no light on the reasons why the latter Ministry has persisted so steadfastly in its refusal to grant exit permits to the wives.
It is entirely incomprehensible to all of us in this House, and I quite agree it is difficult for this country to understand, why the Soviet Government should deem it against their interests to allow these women to leave Russia., or why they should refuse exit permits to some of the wives when they have previously released others. I am sure that the Soviet public would be both puzzled and surprised if they were to be told the real facts of the matter, in the same way as the British public are frankly bewildered to learn that some of these women, who are denied facilities to rejoin their husbands, are liable to tax for bearing no children. Surely that is a supremely horrible outlook.
What are the Soviet Government afraid of? Do they fear that these women would conduct anti-Soviet propaganda if they were allowed to leave the U.S.S.R.? This can hardly be so, as the wives already in this country have not shown the slightest sign of wishing to conduct propaganda. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that if it is propaganda that the Soviet Government fear, surely they must realize that they are doing themselves far more harm in the eyes of the world, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, by persisting in their present deplorable policy. One thing, of course, stands out. This question of the wives is not a purely Anglo-Soviet question. The United States, France and a number of other countries are confronted with the same problem, some of them on a
618
larger scale than ourselves. They, like us, are at present unable to make any progress in securing exit permits for the Soviet wives of their nationals.
Since this is not merely a question of Anglo-Soviet relations, I think I should remind your Lordships of the steps which have been taken by His Majesty's Government to raise the question of the elementary right of husbands and wives to be united in the various United Nations bodies which are engaged on the drafting of an International Bill of Rights. The Human Rights Commission have drafted a Bill of Rights which safeguards the right of husbands and wives to live together. In particular, the draft International Declaration of Human Rights, a part of the Bill, provides that individuals shall have the right to leave their own country and, if they so desire, to acquire the nationality of any country willing to grant it. It is true that the Declaration is only a statement of ideals and will not have legally binding force, but I am sure your Lordships will share my hope that the Soviet Government will not refuse to accept this principle, although I am bound to point out that hitherto they have reserved their position. In addition, I should inform your Lordships that the United Kingdom Member of the Status of Women Sub-Commission, which has recently concluded its Session at New York, requested the inclusion of a specific guarantee of the right of married women to reside with their husbands in the country of the husband's nationality. Unfortunately, this text was not adopted, but I can assure the House that His Majesty's Government will continue to give their support to this principle.
Your Lordships will appreciate therefore that our efforts to help these unfortunate families have been many and various, and that we should not and will not hesitate to try any course which offers a reasonable promise of being effective. His Majesty's Government will continue to take every opportunity of expressing the indignation which all free men feel at the disregard of human values involved. To us in this country and, indeed, I should think to men and women of flesh and blood anywhere, such regulations separating man and wife are abominable, and indeed would be hardly credible if they had not been brought into existence. We feel that the world can never accept such unnatural theses

619
as are propounded by a system that so derides the fundamental tenets of human behaviour. We will take every opportunity to express our indignation and horror at what has occurred and is occurring. But the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has stripped the issue, and has exhibited it in all its nakedness. As he, himself, has asked, what are words when one is dealing with a society to whom the very name of Christianity is anathema and whose conduct in a case of this kind is so alien to all that we mean by civilization?
There is no question of our being anti-Russian in this. The Russian people have wonderful qualities; their leaders are shrewd and calculating men. Let us, therefore, never cease trying to find a form of appeal that will make some impression on them. But I am afraid that it would be over-optimistic to count on such a form of appeal being found in the immediate future. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has recognized and has emphasized all that, and he concludes that pressure of a different kind must be resorted to. With all his great experience, and with his great record of public service behind him, he has given this matter his most careful thought and has offered the House a definite concrete proposal. May I say in passing, as an admirer of the noble Lord, if I may put it that way, that I felt that there was one passage in his speech which might be misunderstood outside. I think that in that passage his intention was perhaps not quite evident. I refer to the suggestion that where the House of Commons had gone wrong the House of Lords might set the matter right. I feel sure that in that passage of his speech the noble Lord was simply concerned with what one might call a competition in virtue. He was not attempting to override or overturn any decision adumbrated elsewhere.
I would also say one word about his reference to what he rather seemed to suggest was a confession of impotence on the part of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I do not think that most of us associate the Foreign Secretary with impotence. He is, as we all know, a man of great force of character, and great vigour. I would say that sometimes it is better to hold out too few hopes rather than too many.
Lord VANSITTART: I am afraid that he held out none. That is what I object to. His answers to questions amounted to zero—three-fold zero in fact, for he said "No" three times on the occasion in question, and nothing else.
Lord PAKENHAM: Having seen one of these unfortunate fathers myself this morning, I must say that I did not feel able to hold out hopes to that man. In cases of that kind I think it better not to hold out hopes until one is in a position to honour one's words. Therefore, I strongly defend the attitude adopted by the Foreign Secretary. I believe that in a matter of this kind it is better to proceed at a safe and cautious pace.
The noble Lord has come forward to-day with a new proposal. He was kind enough to give me notice of what he had in mind, and to indicate its character and the details of it, to me yesterday. But neither he nor other noble Lords will expect that within twenty-four hours the Government will have made up their minds about proposals which, I think the noble Lord himself will be the first to agree, are very drastic in character. It would be quite wrong, as I am sure all noble Lords of experience will agree, to come down firmly within twenty-four hours in relation to a proposal of that sort. All I can promise, therefore—bearing in mind that we are having a general debate on foreign affairs the week after next, when there will be an opportunity to return to this subject—is that the proposal put forward by the noble Lord will be studied with particular and especial care. We are all at one in denouncing the conduct that has produced these tragedies, and we are all at one in trying to find a solution that will actually bring the wives home here. That is the criterion that all of us are seeking to apply.
I go back now to what I said at the beginning of my speech. When a series of speeches, very weighty and very moving, coming from noble Lords of great eminence, have been made, as they have been made in this House to-day, I believe that it would be absolutely wrong of a speaker, even if he were one of the leading members of the Cabinet, to offer a firm opinion this afternoon. Therefore I must ask the House to forgive me if I content myself with a promise of careful study. I would not like to end without

621
thanking the noble Lord for the way in which he has ventilated this matter and has given the House—and, may I add, the Government—the opportunity of making their feelings plain. Nor would I like to end without expressing, on behalf of the Government, my deep sympathy for those who have been treated in this manner, and who are suffering in this way, when all they have done was to fall in love and marry while they were serving this country faithfully abroad.
5.47 p.m.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, unfortunately, I have not been able to be in the House during the whole of this discussion, but I think that the issue is quite clear. It is clear, too, I feel, that what has obviously been a most moving and impressive debate has reflected the temper not only of every noble Lord in this Chamber but of the country as a whole. It is evident that we all feel that some concrete steps must be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in his clear and courteous speech, has described the continuous protests which the British Government have made to the Government of the Soviet Union. I certainly am not going to accuse His Majesty's Government of doing nothing. Clearly, they have made strenuous efforts to obtain alleviation of the situation of these unhappy people. But the very catalogue of protests which Lord Pakenham has given us, makes it only more evident that protests alone are completely ineffective.
I do not know whether the precise steps which Lord Vansittart has suggested this afternoon are likely to be the most effective with the Soviet Government. I have not all the facts at my disposal. But, obviously, something must be done to help these people. That, I am sure, is the feeling of everyone to-day, to whatever Party he belongs, in Britain. Words are no longer enough. Something more is needed. I quite understand that it may be impossible for the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, definitely to commit the Government to-day to specific action. The action asked for is of drastic character, though clearly justified. No doubt this matter may require consideration, but I feel strongly that it is vital that it should go on record that this House holds that something concrete should be done to help these people.
622
I, personally, therefore, and I believe I speak for the great majority of noble Lords in this House, hope that Lord Vansittart will carry his Motion to a Division. I would assure the Government—and I am sure that he would, too—that this Motion is not intended to be hostile to them. It is intended to strengthen their hands, and action ought to be taken. I think there is no doubt whatever that if a great civilized country like ours were to appear even to neglect the fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens, it would lose all respect in the world, and rightly so. This is a case where we must put our foot down in whatever is the most appropriate manner. I hope your Lordships will show that by your votes to-night.
5.51 p.m.
Lord VANSITTART: My Lords, may I begin by really thanking from the bottom of my heart all those who have taken part in this debate to-night. I know it is a matter upon which we all feel deeply and I am most gratified by the width and variety of the support that has come from all parts of the House. I am deeply grateful, not only to those who have spoken, but to those who in other ways have indicated their sympathy. In normal times I should probably have accepted the response of the noble Lord who spoke for the Government and have taken his frank: and sympathetic reply into consideration. But the times are not normal and as things now stand I cannot accept that course, for reasons the whole House will follow. Already three of these marriages have been broken at the other end—and you can imagine by what means. If we drag along, the whole twelve will be broken, and that is a result I am sure neither the House nor the country will stand for.
In passing, let me say to the noble Lord that there is no reason whatever why your Lordships should not give a lead to the Commons or perhaps rectify some small error, or even large error, on their part. This is a free country and we have free speech, and we are entitied to speak from our hearts, Obviously, I cannot dream of withdrawing my Motion. I came down with that firmly in my mind. Even if I were prepared to withdraw, it would be entirely misinterpreted at the other end, and that would be fatal for the prospects of these poor people. I

623
agree with what the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, said, that we could not expect a snap decision by the Government; but, as he and as Lord Simon and Lord Samuel have also indicated, the time for words is over. It has been going on for years, and some of these marriages are six years old. We cannot go on in that way, and I think the House is unanimous in the view that the time for words is over.
I am a perfectly reasonable person and I do not expect a snap decision, but I hope the Government will take my Motion into full consideration, bearing in mind that they must now act. I know that it is very difficult for them to act. It is a very embarrassing situation. But that is part of the penalty and, in this case I think, the privilege of office. So now action must be taken. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I should like to ask that in the event of my being told that there are no Papers which can be laid, I might be allowed to convert my Motion for Papers into a Resolution, which I will now read: "That this House is of the opinion that such action as may be most appropriate and effective should be taken in respect of the continued retention of British wives by the Soviet Government." And the emphasis is on the word "action." I ask whether the Government are prepared to accept that proposition or something equally good. If the House will now accept the Resolution which I have read out, it may not be necessary to divide. If I were to divide the House I think, from what has been said, that I would have a "walkover" with this Motion. May I ask the Government whether it will accept that Motion in order to obviate the necessity for a Division?
Viscount SAMUEL: Before the noble Lord replies, may I put one point? The Motion refers to British wives. As I understand the matter, these ladies are, according to British law, British wives, but in Russian law they are still regarded as Russian citizens. If the noble Lord phrases it precisely in that way it might be even more unacceptable in Russia than if a slightly different wording were used. I suggest that to the noble Lord for his consideration.
Lord VANSITTART: I am grateful for the suggestion. Would the noble Lord
624
be content if I said "Soviet-born British wives"?
Viscount SAMUEL: That does not quite meet my particular point. In Russian law they are not merely Soviet born but of Soviet nationality. They are Soviet wives of British subjects.
Lord VANSITTART: I accept that amendment with gratitude—"Soviet-born wives of British subjects."
Lord PAKENHAM: I think that the Motion as originally drafted is perfectly satisfactory. I have therefore pleasure on behalf of the Government in accepting it. But may I say that I do not do that because the noble Lord would have a "walk-over" or would not have a "walk-over"—such calculations are not entering into my mind—but because I think it is a sensible and satisfactory Motion and I hope it will do much good.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord VANSITTART: I beg to move the Motion in its amended form.
Moved to resolve, That this House is of opinion that such action as may be most appropriate and effective should be taken in respect of the continued detention of Soviet-born wives of British subjects by the Soviet Government.—(Lord Vansittart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CLERGY PENSIONS MEASURE, 1948.
The Lord Bishop of TRURO The Lord Bishop of TRURO had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1948, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this Measure, which has been passed by the Church Assembly and favourably reported upon by the Ecclesiastical Committee, does two things: first, it consolidates the existing law, with some Amendments, and, secondly, it introduces a new system of pensions for the clergy of the future. Before 1926, if any incumbent retired he might, under certain conditions, be granted up to one-third of the income of his benefice, so that he was in effect pensioned at the expense of his

625
successor and the parish. In that year, 1926, the Church introduced a contributory pensions scheme with a view to stopping that old bad system, and in a few years the bad old system will have died out. Under the existing scheme, a clergyman pays approximately 3 per cent. of his income, and, after forty years and on attaining the age of seventy, gets a pension of £200. If he dies before taking a pension, his contributions are either returned to his estate or convened into a pension for his wife or other dependant. This Measure brings into one code the six Measures under which the system, of which I have given the merest outline, is laid down and administered.
The minor Amendments which have been introduced are of a character which will bring benefit to the clergy and to iheir families. For example, some unnecessarily hampering conditions hitherto attaching to the receipt of a pension, whether contributory or not, have been swept away. In future, for instance, a clergyman in retirement will be able to undertake ecclesiastical work at a salary not exceeding £150 a year without affecting his pension. In the past he has been limited to £100. Again, any clergyman may now retire at sixty-five, if he is willing to take a much smaller pension. The income on which the pension contribution is payable is changed from that of the calendar year to the year ending March 31, which again is a convenience to the clergyman in making his return. Further, the investment powers of the Pensions Board are to be widened in conformity with the practice of other similar public bodies.
Lastly, under this head, an interesting and important new provision allows the Board, subject to the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners, to acquire properties and to administer them as homes for retired clergymen and their widows. The need for something of the kind is great. The use of one or two country houses has already been offered to the Pensions Board by the National Trust, and by private owners. All too many clergymen who ought to resign, and know it, are deterred from doing so by the fact that they have nowhere to go, and they feel that they have no chance of getting suitable accommodation. This House will no doubt wish the Pensions Board to proceed without undue delay in this important and urgent extension of its
626
work, and I would beg the Minister of Health to render all the assistance he can, should occasion arise. That is the first heading.
The second heading is in connexion with new law. Part III creates a system of pensions for all clergymen ordained in the future, as well as for their widows and dependants. In return for a premium of 5 per cent. of their income they will each receive pensions of £200 a year at seventy, after forty years service; a pension of £50 a year will be payable to their widows, and £25 a year for each child until it reaches the age of eighteen. These figures are pitifully small, but on the one hand it is all that the clergy can afford to pay, even when the fund is subsidized by £50,000 per annum from the Church Assembly, and £100,000 from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. On the other hand, when the new State Insurance scheme comes in, the combined pension for a married clergyman retiring at the age of seventy will be approximately £360 a year. In the meantime, I am glad to say that, through the co-operation of the Pensions Board and the Dioceses, a clergyman retiring will not have less than £250 a year to live upon.
May I conclude by saying that upon this Measure receiving the approval of Parliament and the Royal Assent a full explanatory memorandum will be sent to all clergymen who will be affected by it? It will be noted that the Measure is to take effect from January 1, 1948. It is important that the new powers should become available as soon as possible, and, for technical reasons, the Measure must commence at the beginning of a year. The Measure passed all its stages in the Assembly by November, and it was then hoped that it would be possible for the Ecclesiastical Committee and Parliament to deal with it before the adjournment. That was not quite possible and, therefore, I now beg leave to move the Resolution standing in my name, to which the Ecclesiastical Committee has given its cordial assent.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly. Powers Act, 1919, this House do direet that the Clergy Pensions Measure, 1948, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Truro.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (KEADBY GENERATING STATION LANDS) ORDER, 1947.
Special Order in respect of the compulsory acquisition of lands for a generating station in the parish of Keadby in the rural
628
district of the Isle of Axholme in the county of Lincoln (Parts of Lindsey):
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.