Sitting of 6 February 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE.
The Right Honourable Sir Henry Bucknall Betterton, Baronet, C.B.E., having been created Baron Rushcliffe of Blackfordby in the County of Leicester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD PORTAL.
Sir Wyndham Raymond Portal, Baronet, D.S.O., M.V.O., having been created Baron Portal of Laverstoke in the County of Southampton—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 2, line 27, leave out subsection (4).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons Amendment. It is a purely formal matter. When the Bill passed through this House your Lordships inserted the usual Privilege Amendment in Clause 1, namely:
"(4) Nothing in this section shall authorise the expenditure of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or out of moneys provided by Parliament."
When the question goes to the House of Commons for that House to vote the necessary supply that provision naturally has to come out, and that is the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY OF LIQUOR IN CLUBS.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That, in view of the inadequacy of the existing law in regard to the supply and consumption of intoxicating liquors in registered clubs, and the abuses arising therefrom, His Majesty's Government be requested to introduce legislation in general agreement with the recommendations on the subject made by the recent Royal Commission on Licensing (England and Wales) in its Report.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the matter raised by this Motion is one that for some time past has been arousing great public concern. It was dealt with by the Royal Commission on Licensing in the Report presented some three years ago, but the position has become worse since then. It is not primarily a temperance question, although the interests of public sobriety are vitally concerned. It is a matter in which law observance, respect for law and respect for the intentions of Parliament are closely involved. It particularly concerns those responsible for the maintenance of social order as well as those entrusted with the administration of the licensing laws, such as the Police and the licensing authorities. The club supplying intoxicants is not a new institution. It was not in its origin a product of the law. It arose outside the law as a voluntary and private institution, and its legality was not challenged until the year 1882 when, in the case of Graff versus Evans, it was declared to be legal on the ground that, the liquors distributed being the property of the members of the club, the transaction was not one of sale but of supply, and in no way a contravention of the licensing laws, which were concerned with sale only, and that any profits or surplus derived from the difference between the net price of the liquors and the price paid by the members supplied was a gift to the funds of the club in which the members supplied had a proprietary interest. It was the essence of the transaction that the liquors were the property of the members, that they were
794
supplied only to the order of a member, and that none but members derived profit from or had a financial interest in the transaction.
That is the position of a members' club. The position of a proprietary club is different. In that case the subscriptions of members are paid to the owner, who has control of the club and to whom the club house and property belong. All the profits go to him and he alone is responsible for the losses. A distribution by him to a member on payment is a sale and thus comes within the licensing laws, which render the transaction illegal. This illegality is obviated in practice by the members appointing a committee, sometimes called a wine committee, to act on behalf of the members and with their money buy the liquor. This liquor can then be supplied to members on payment as in a members' club. In many of the ill-conducted clubs and in bogus clubs, the committee, if appointed, is a mere pretence. The liquor is bought by the owner and sold by him, and he takes the profit on the transaction, which is quite illegal. It is in these one-man clubs, as they are sometimes called, that the gross abuse of the law has arisen. The new fact is the recent rapid expansion of the club movement and the threat which, since the War particularly, it offers to the utility and efficiency of the liquor licensing system. This expansion was undreamed of in 1902, when the registration of clubs supplying liquor to their members was made compulsory.
No precise official figures are available to show the numbers of clubs supplying liquor which were in existence prior to compulsory registration, which came into operation in 1903, but it is clear from inquiries made by the Royal Commission which sat from 1896 to 1899 and was presided over by Lord Peel, that the number amounted to some thousands by the end of last century. In 1896, according to returns made to the Commission by the Police authorities in the country, the total number of clubs in which intoxicants were supplied in the United Kingdom was 3,990 of which 3,656 were in England and Wales. In 1904, after the first year of compulsory registration, the number in England and Wales had grown to 6,371. Assuming that the estimate made by the Police authorities in 1896

795
was correct this shows an increase of 2,715 clubs in eight years. In 1910 the number had risen to 7,536. By January, 1915, the number had grown to 8,902. The numbers declined during the War years to 7,972 in 1918 but rose rapidly from 1919, and beyond all precedent to 15,298 on January 1, 1934, an increase of 7,326 in fifteen years. Part of this increase no doubt is due to post-War changes in social ideas and to the demand of social requirements which older institutions such as ordinary public-houses did not satisfy.
So far as this is the case there is nothing to be said against it, provided only the law furnishes proper safeguards against abuse. The bona fide club has a place in our social life and is an institution to be encouraged. Unfortunately, a mass of evidence exists to show that a large part of the increase is due to the establishment of bogus clubs and undesirable clubs against which the present law provides inadequate safeguards. Clubs may be struck off the register for misconduct and, according to the licensing statistics recently published, the number struck off in 1932 was 417 and in 1933, 380. It is pointed out that these figures may include clubs struck off as having ceased to exist and struck off through no misconduct; but in number the proportion of these clubs is very small. I need not remind your Lordships of the proceedings which have been taken against night clubs and other undesirable clubs in London. They seem to have migrated to Maidenhead, and more particularly to the residential suburbs of London. Since I put this Motion on the Order Paper I have received letters from residents complaining of the nuisance which these clubs create in their quiet neighbourhoods. Apparently the practice now is to take a house in one of these neighbourhoods which has stood empty for some little time—and in many of these neighbourhoods there are houses which are empty because people are not able to live in them—and to use the house as a club. For some weeks the neighbouring residents are constantly disturbed by cars coming and going at all hours of the night, and frequently by noisy drunken people leaving the club. When the proprietor finds the Police on his track the place is closed for a time. Then another club is started in the same house, and
796
similar rowdy scenes are enacted until once more the proprietor becomes alarmed and retires again. One result of all this is that houses in the neighbourhood are quite unsaleable.
The Royal Commission in their Report summarised the position at the date of the Report on the basis of the important evidence which had been submitted to them, and I am going to show to your Lordships, very briefly, I hope, that since that Report was issued the situation has become very much worse. Paragraph 514 of the Report of the Royal Commission states:
"We have, moreover, received evidence in detail from various sources of deplorable conditions actually existing in certain clubs to-day. We have been told of structural conditions which are defective, and worse: of club premises constituted of a single room on a top floor with no window, and of clubs where sanitary accommodation is inadequate or altogether unfit and objectionable. We have been told also of clubs frequented by persons of the worst character of both sexes, of clubs virtually run as betting establishments by bookmakers, and of clubs in which drunkenness is a regular occurrence. It is significant that, according to the evidence given us, there are clubs in which ordinary amenities of any kind—such as the provision of newspapers, etc.—are totally absent."
Paragraph 515 of the Report is as follows:
"We do not mean to imply that such conditions are characteristic of club life in, general in this country; but the fact that they exist to a substantial extent indicates clearly, to our mind, the need for some measure of further control which will ensure that bogus or undesirable clubs do not achieve or retain registration."
So much for the Report which was presented three years ago. I have two or three reports of Police authorities reporting on the state of matters subsequently to the hearing of the evidence by the Royal Commission. Perhaps I may read them to your Lordships. I have in my hand the annual report of the Chief Constable of the City of Bradford for the year ending December 31, 1931. In that report, after calling attention to the fact that many clubs in the city have been struck off the register for misconduct, he proceeds:
"Having regard to the great—in many cases insurmountable—difficulties which beset the Police in getting sufficient evidence to justify application for a warrant to search clubs suspected of contravening the law, the fact that twenty ill-conducted clubs were closed during one year points to the conclusion that a not inconsiderable number of clubs in the city are not con-

797
ducted in good faith and are little better than 'drinking dens' set up solely for the purpose of supplying intoxicating liquor and for betting and gaming, with no pretensions to afford even ordinary amenities.
"During the year under review, I have received many complaints and reports of alleged excesses and irregularities in or near such premises."
Further on in the report he states:
"Many of the premises registered as clubs are quite unsuitable for the purpose and would be disqualified by law by reason of structural unsuitability and annual value from having intoxicating liquor licences attached to them, while many of the persons conducting them do not conform to the qualification of fitness to hold a justices' licence which the law requires."
The report of the Chief Constable of the City of Liverpool for the year ending December 31, 1932, calls attention to the number of registered clubs, which he says is 176, being an increase of seven on the total of the previous year, and proceeds:
"Proceedings were taken during the year for offences in relation to sixteen clubs, resulting in the conviction of twenty-one persons concerned in their management. Eleven of the clubs were struck off the register,"
Then the Chief Constable proceeds to quote from his report to the licensing justices:
"I have no desire to labour the unsatisfactory state of the law in relation to clubs, nor to attack the conduct of the general body of clubs in the City, but I Think it desirable to state briefly in this report some of the unsatisfactory conditions which have been found to exist and the difficulties which confront the Police in dealing with an undesirable typo of club which has increased in numbers during recent years.
"In clubs of this type, ordinary amenities of any kind have been found to be almost entirely absent, the structural condition of the premises often defective, the sanitary accommodation unfit, and, indeed, wholly inadequate in those clubs resorted to by persons of both sexes.
"There is evidence that, in the interval between the execution of search warrants and the court proceedings, the business of the clubs concerned has been carried on more extensively and intensively in order to provide for the payment of possible penalties. Further, at the hearing of the cases, representatives of those low-class clubs attend the court to scrutinise the police witnesses so as to be able to identify them and frustrate their entry into other clubs of similar character.
"It is within the knowledge of the Police that some of the clubs which exist solely for drinking and betting are run by bookmakers. The names of a committee may appear on a minute book, but the
798
clubs are, for all practical purposes, bookmakers' establishments. It would also seem that membership is of no account, as was indicated in a case where, of the 57 persons found on the premises, only two were members of the club, these being the steward and barman.
"Another case illustrates that the striking of a club off the register is of little value as a deterrent, and that disqualification can easily be rendered ineffective. A club which occupied a room in a building was, on conviction, struck off the register and the club premises disqualified for six months. Almost immediately a new club, virtually under the same control, and occupying another room in the same building, was formed and registered.
"The Police experience great difficulty in obtaining evidence. The closest scrutiny of all entrants is maintained by officials of the clubs, and the doors leading to club premises are often securely locked and holted. 'Spy-holes' are cut in the woodwork to enable doormen to first examine persons seeking admittance, and systems of electric bells are installed to give alarm when necessary.
"If the Police resort to clandestine methods, as at times they are forced to, in order to defeat those means of covering grave breaches of the law, it is because, as the law stands, there is unfortunately no alternative if an open scandal is to be avoided."
The Chief Constable for Leeds in his Report for 1932 speaks well of the old-fashioned clubs which are mostly well conducted and give the Police little cause for anxiety, but he calls attention to a new type of club, the one-man clubs which are springing up in the City, and a new class of offence—namely, the sale of intoxicating liquors to non-members. He refers also to one of the clubs prosecuted as "a drinking den of a very low character, carried on in the nature of a one-man club for personal benefit only." Further evidence of the undesirable nature of these clubs is to be found in the proceedings of the police courts. I have studied dozens of these cases reported in the Press during the past year, all proprietary clubs. I will cite only two or three cases to show the nature of the club revealed in the evidence. A proprietary club at Leeds was registered in October, 1932, and struck off in November, 1934. Members paid no subscription but might put what they liked in the infirmary box. The proprietor was convicted of selling beer out of hours and keeping a gaming house. The magistrate said that it was nothing else than a place run by a bookmaker for the purpose of gambling, betting and drinking out of hours.
In the case of a proprietary club at Hull, parties concerned were convicted of using the club for the purpose of betting and selling liquor without a licence. Evidence showed that a resolution had been passed exonerating members from financial loss in the event of a police raid. According to the minute book two bookmakers were granted permission to take up betting in the club. In convicting, the magistrate complained that the Legislature did nothing to amend the law. A proprietary club tried at Havant was registered in 1931 and struck off in 193d. The evidence showed that there was no record of the nomination or election of members. Members were elected verbally and not by any committee and their names did not appear in the minutes. There was no wine committee, and the members did not have any control over the supply of liquor. The chairman of the bench characterised the club as a bogus club. Other convictions show that clubs were really unlicensed public-houses. In some cases there was no pretence at having a wine committee; in others there was a so-called wine committee but it never functioned. Another practice is to admit members at the door. The candidate pays threepence at the door, one penny being for the entrance fee and twopence for a month's membership. This is against the law, as there must be an interval of forty-eight hours between nomination and admission.
So much for these convictions. There is another class of case which is also grossly abused and that is registration. In 1930 a proprietary club was duly registered. After a short time the steward was convicted and fined and the club was struck off the register. Next day another club was registered as at the same premises. Afterwards another club was also registered as at the same premises. Some time afterwards still another club was registered as at the same premises. It got into trouble and proceedings were taken against it. Before the summons was heard a fifth club was registered as at the same premises. In each of these five different clubs the same individual appeared as the leading man in the capacity of steward, president, trustee, secretary and door-keeper. The magistrates convicted on the summons and the club was
800
struck off the register and the premises were disqualified for twelve months.
The object of registering these various clubs consisting mainly of the same people was apparently that, if one club was struck off, the business could still be carried on by one of the other clubs. This object was frustrated by the premises being disqualified. The resources of our friend were not, however, exhausted; for regarding himself as employing' himself he stamped an insurance card both as employer and employee. Whether he is now enjoying his unemployment benefit I do not know. In view of these facts which are only typical of a large mass of other instances, it is safe to say that an amendment of the law is urgent and long overdue. It is not surprising to find that benches of magistrates have begged the Home Secretary to have the law strengthened.
It is sometimes said that the growth in the number of clubs is due to the reduction of the number of redundant public-houses. This was a familiar plea before the Act of 1902 was passed and registration imposed. As a matter of fact the rate of increase in clubs was lowest during the period when the suppression of redundant licences was highest and has been at its highest since the reduction of redundant licences has substantially declined. For example, between 1905 and 1911, in twenty-five out of the then seventy-three county boroughs in England and Wales, there was not only no increase in the number of clubs but an actual decrease of sixty-one as against a decrease of 883 redundant on-licences in the same period. In the whole of the county boroughs in England and Wales in the same period (having a population of 15,000,000) the net increase in clubs was only 109 as against a decrease in on-licences of 3,480.
The great part of the increase of clubs has coincided with a very low rate of reduction in on-licences. There is no apparent relation between the two things. The primary cause—far exceeding all others is the inadequacy of and the loopholes in the law. In 1902 no such increase as the post-War increase in clubs could really be foreseen. The number of clubs then known to exist was relatively small, and, although steadily increasing, was not increasing at a formidable rate.

801
The intention of registration was to regulate the growth of clubs and so safeguard a privilege from abuse. In this it has signally failed. The law as it stands provides no real security against abuse. The registration of clubs is purely formal. The secretary of the club is required to deliver to the magistrates' clerk of the petty sessional division in which the club is situated a form containing the name, address and objects of the club, the name of the secretary, the number of the members and the rules relating to the election of members and such matters, and pay a fee of 5s. The justices' clerk is thereupon bound to register. He has no right to question the information supplied. He has no authority to challenge the bona fides of the promoters. No inquiry is permitted into the character of the promoters or the nature or suitability of the premises.
The large increase in the number of these bogus and undesirable clubs sullies the fair name of club, and the effect is to obstruct the administration of the licensing laws. The aim and object of our licensing system is to regulate, safeguard and control the sale of alcoholic liquor. The club law, as it now exists, with its automatic registration, its non-requirement of proof of bona fides and its lark of effective supervision, largely stultifies this system by facilitating the promotion of bogus clubs, in which the distribution of liquor is not "supply" but unlicensed sale. It has been said that it has a deterrent effect on the discretion of licensing justices in the reduction of redundant licences and the granting of new licences. An argument now used is that if a licence is refused a club will be started. It also works against the reasonable endeavours of licensing justices to adjust sale facilities to local needs. It also handicaps the Police. They may suspect that in certain clubs there are serious irregularities, and, as the law stands, they have great difficulty in obtaining evidence of these irregularities, as pointed out by the Chief Constable of Liverpool. It means watching the premises for some considerable time, or gaining an entry in some disguised form and then obtaining a search warrant, and this is followed by all the notoriety of a raid. The fact is that the present law gives shelter to
802
violation by protecting bogus clubs from effective observation.
The illicit business carried on in these clubs is an injustice to the licensed victualler, who is subjected by them to unfair competition. Many of these clubs are really unlicensed public-houses and have been so described by magistrates in the police courts. They are run by individuals for their own profit. The licensed victualler complains that he has to pay a licence duty of one-half the annual value of his premises and his share of the compensation levy. He has to be a man of good character, his premises must be suited structurally, and he is liable to have his premises visited by the Police at any hour. The proprietor of one of these clubs pays only a duty of 3d. in the pound on his purchases of liquor during the previous year. He may be a man of no character, as he often is, and his premises may be entirely unsuited, as they sometimes are, for the purposes of a club, and, however bad the conduct of a club may be, the Police can only enter under a search warrant on sworn evidence. Things have got to such a pitch that these illicit clubs are bought and sold as an ordinary business. They are advertised for sale, disclosing the bar takings and the general profits of the concern, sometimes described as licensed or fully licensed. A club is in no sense licensed. Here are a few samples: "(1) Fully licensed club, two bars, £1,000, including fixtures, stock and goodwill, over 100 members. (2) Gentlemen's club, full licensed, price £1,250. (3) Fully licensed working man's club, price £1,650. (4) £450 all at. Working men's club, takings £48 per week." These transactions are indicative of the fierce competition publicans have to meet in this type of club.
Some very important evidence was tendered to the Royal Commission by representatives of club organisations. This was chiefly from the central club organisations of the political Parties, and front the Working Men's Club and Institute Union. Their evidence was mainly to the effect that self-discipline was the right way of approach to the problem. These organisations certainly exercise a discipline over their members, and if their clubs were the only clubs concerned probably no amendment of the law would be necessary. But they represent only about one-third of the total

803
number of registered clubs, and the breaches of the law have not as a rule arisen in connection with them, but with clubs outside their organisation. Another contention was that proprietary clubs should be refused registration. Many of these clubs are old-established, and comply with the law. A general prohibition of proprietary clubs would exclude clubs against which there never has been any complaint. Sometimes the expression "proprietary club" is used in a special sense as meaning the bogus club, which is not in law a club entitled to, registration, but is really an unlicensed saloon. A club of this kind ought to be excluded from registration, and the recommendations of the Royal Commission would effect this.
The Royal Commission recommended certain amendments of the law. Among other things they recommended that the system of registration should be continued, and that the registration authority should be a small committee of the justices of the petty sessional division, selected in county boroughs by the borough justices, and elsewhere by Quarter Sessions. They recommended also that the registration of clubs should be discretionary, to be renewed annually. The discretion, however, should be limited. In the case of initial registration the discretion should be limited to certain matters. For example, the structure of the premises should be satisfactory and there should be an absence of any disqualification of the premises, and the persons participating in the management should be of good character. A club should be one promoted for some legitimate object, not merely for obtaining the supply of intoxicants. Other recommendations were that the minimum number of members should be fifty (with power of the registration authority to allow a number of not less than twenty-five), and the names and addresses should be given. Under the present law a club may be struck off the register if it has less than twenty-five members. Further there should be an absence of any "tie" or any understanding amounting to a "tie," and the supply of intoxicants should be under the control of members.
They recommended also that the renewal of registration may be refused for frequent occurrence of drunkenness,
804
habitual admission of members after an insufficient period of waiting, disorderly conduct and illegal sales. The parties entitled to object before the registration authority should be the Police, the local authority and persons owning or occupying houses in the neighbourhood. There is at present power of entry by the Police under a search warrant. The Commission propose another and modified power of entry—namely, by a suitable officer acting on the written authority given for the occasion by the Chief Constable. No well-conducted club could reasonably object to this. The Chief Constable would only authorise a suitable officer where he has good ground to believe that irregularities were taking place. During the War there was a right of entry by the Police. This right worked with perfect smoothness, and no trouble or difficulty, so far as I am aware, ever arose. It is certain that few club members knew of the inspection. The Commission made certain other recommendations which I need not at present detail. I recognise that the present Parliamentary Session is likely to be fully occupied with other important measures. But I hope that my noble friend who will speak on behalf of the Government will be able to state that they intend to deal with this subject at an early date. The law is now flouted every day. The position is getting worse. It may be possible to secure a Bill based on some measure of agreement. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That, in view of the inadequacy of the existing law in regard to the supply and consumption of intoxicating liquors in registered clubs, and the abuses arising therefrom, His Majesty's Government be requested to introduce legislation in general agreement with the recommendations on the subject made by the recent Royal Commission on Licensing (England and Wales) in its Report.—(Lord Amulree.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, it had been my hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester would have been present to follow the noble Lord. He has taken a very great part in this matter, and would have spoken with a closer knowledge of recent inquiries than I can claim to possess. But as he is unable to be present owing to indisposition, I am extremely happy to add a few words of testimony in support of what the noble

805
Lord has put before your Lordships' House. First, may I express the obligation which I think that all interested in temperance and social welfare must feel to the noble Lord himself for his conduct of the Royal Commission. He has laid us under a real debt of gratitude, and I trust that his labours on the Commission may lead to action beneficial to the whole community. It is of the greatest importance that it should be borne in mind, as the noble Lord mentioned but did not, I think very heavily stress, that the recommendations upon this point were unanimous. There was some division in the Commission upon other points, but upon this there were unanimous recommendations.
The chief matter that I wish to impress upon your Lordships is that, as far as I can judge, clergy and social workers intimately concerned with the life of the people now regard the club question as the very heart of the whole temperance issue. At the moment, at any rate, the great evil, the growing menace, comes from the development of clubs under the state of the law which the noble Lord has just set out. It does seem to he highly anomalous that whereas for a licensed house there must be very careful inquiry, and the needs of the district are considered and how far existing provision already meets these needs, the registration of a club is virtually automatic, and, as the noble Lord has pointed out, this applies not only to the first register but to what is virtually the re-register of the same club even when it has been struck off the list for misconduct. It can then be reopened under another name—it might be by the same people—and there is nothing to prevent, that happening. Not only so, but in cases where a licence has been suppressed the premises may be opened almost immediately afterwards as a club. I have an instance, for example, from Bradford, where on the last day of 1929 a beer house was closed as redundant, compensation amounting to not less than £5,800 being paid to the parties interested. Two days later the same premises were registered and opened as a club, the son of the former publican becoming the club secretary. They had netted £5,800 in the transaction and really made no effective change in their business.
806
The noble Lord quoted the findings of magistrates and justices in various parts of the country. I happen to have in my hands a report of the Leeds justices of very recent date which entirely bears out what the noble. Lord has quoted from Bradford and elsewhere. In this report these words occur:
"The intolerable state of affairs which the proceedings in the Leeds courts as well as elsewhere had revealed this year could only be dealt with by legislation, striking boldly at a state of things which, if continued, would, by the sheer multiplication of clubs seriously prejudice and imperil the effective administration of licensing law in its most fundamental aspects."
Reference has already been made to the general club movement and to the injury to the reputation of wholesome and sound clubs by the bogus clubs which it is possible to run under cover of the law as it stands. Police court cases are sufficient to prove the existence of a very real evil. It is certainly acutely felt by the residents in some of the new areas that they are unable to make any protest which is effective with reference to the establishment of clubs in their neighbourhood. Their views can be heard and receive attention if what is proposed is a licensed house, but if what is proposed is a club, which will, to all intents and purposes, be merely a drinking house, they have no power to take any effective action at all.
Moreover, the growth of the evil, which threatens to become greater every year as the opportunity of making profits under the existing state of the law is more widely realised, threatens any reasonable and sound temperance reform of a general kind; and as one who believes that it would now be perfectly possible and most desirable that those interested in reform should co-operate with the leading brewery houses in promoting better distribution and better conduct of public-houses, the menace due to this illicit trade that, is carried on, and which can hardly be checked under the law, is a serious and, I think, an insuperable obstacle. Therefore, not only to deal with the evil in itself but to open the way to well-considered reforms on a larger scale afterwards, I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accept the Motion which the noble Lord has brought forward.
The two main proposals, as he has amply indicated, are that registration

807
should be made a reality with reasonable conditions attached to it, and that there should be an opportunity of really checking the observance of the law by the clubs which are registered through a very carefully considered form of Police entry. I know it has been suggested that if such a provision is made—and of course it must be universal—we shall have the spectacle of Police officers entering the Athenæum and observing the conduct of its members. They would find it, I think, singularly dull, and I do not think they would stay long. I do not believe there is really any serious ground of objection on this line, and I am quite certain that if the Working Men's Club and Institute Union and other great organisations, which deserve the highest credit for the tone they have successfully maintained in the clubs affiliated to them, can be assured that they are protected in their essential autonomy they will not raise any serious objection when they are also going to be protected from the rivalry and the degrading association of these bogus clubs. I think I need say no more. My chief object is to bear my testimony to the strong feeling among social workers intimate with the habits of the people that this is a very grievous evil and, in these days, the most acute portion of the whole evil in this field. I very cordially support the Resolution put before your Lordships in the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, the two previous speakers have made so overwhelming a case for some reform of the law that my observations will be very brief. As the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, indicated very clearly—and no one is more competent or qualified to speak than he is, having been Chairman of the Royal Commission—the present state of the law leads to grave irregularities, and prejudices absolutely the effective administration of the licensing law. The noble Lord is quite right in saying you have got, in fact, unlicensed public-houses in many of the clubs, and that state of affairs both tends to nullify the intention of Parliament in doing away with redundancy and also causes the licensed victuallers to be subjected to very unfair competition. At the same time, as the most reverend Prelate has rightly observed, it tends to bring into
808
discredit the otherwise excellent movement associated with clubs.
As your Lordships will have gathered, the Royal Commission, which represented totally different points of view and on which representatives of the licensed trade, manufacturers and distributors, were represented, was unanimous in recognition of the fact that the state of the law at the present moment was most unsatisfactory and that reform was desirable. There was, I understand—I have seen a report of it in the papers—a deputation to the Home Secretary of representatives of the licensed victuallers in December. They indicated quite clearly that at the present moment a large number of so-called clubs were registered for the sole purpose, in effect, of selling drink, and of selling drink during prohibited hours, and that the supervision of these so-called clubs was so completely inadequate that it was practically ineffective. I am perfectly certain that it would not be wished that anybody outside or in this House should believe that we had any feeling at all against the club movement as such. It has done a great deal of good. The club movement brings relaxation and education in a large number of towns and villages up and down the country. There is not a word to be said against that movement. In fact it is deserving of the greatest support. But the whole club movement at the present moment is being discredited owing to the grave irregularities which are going on.
I venture to intervene to-day because of recent occurrences in the neighbourhood where I live, Maidenhead. Reference has been made to it this afternoon. I do not know whether it is mainly due to the activity of the Police in London, but at all events recently, in the Maidenhead district, there has been a very substantial increase of most undesirable clubs. I have here copies of a petition which was recently sent to the Government. I think it can be summarised in a few words. The petitioners submit a number of documents which, in their words, show "the magnitude and persistence of the evil" and they demand that the Government shall take action to remedy it by altering the law. That petition was signed by the Chamber of Commerce, repre-

809
senting the business interests; it was signed by the Ratepayers' Association, representing property owners—a large number of people got rid of their houses because of the disturbance created by those who frequent these clubs—and it was supported by a resolution of the borough council and by a large number of the leading citizens. Because of my personal contact with the matter, I was one of those who signed that petition, and for that reason also I venture to take part in this discussion. You have there what amounts to a gross scandal which cannot be dealt with at the present time by the law as it is.
I am afraid that there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding among some of the clubs as to the purport of the change which is asked for in the law. I have in my hand a copy of the Conservative Clubs Gazette for January, 1935, in which it is stated:
"We venture to hope, in its own interests, that the Government will do nothing of the kind."
That is to say, to give effect to the recommendations of Lord Amulree's Commission.
"Any attempt made to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission would range against it the whole of the club vote and all the influence that members of clubs—who number 4,222,113, according to the latest official return—can exercise."
It is perfectly ridiculous to say that 4,000,000 members of the Conservative clubs are going to vote against the Government if the Government give effect to the very reasonable demand for changing the law so that the intention of the law may be carried out.
I am perfectly certain that if a proposal like this was put before the members of those clubs, or before any conference, it was done in such a way that the members did not have a correct appreciation either of the situation as it is to-day or of the proposal that is made for bringing about the change in the law. I am certain that anybody investigating this question with impartiality and an open mind would agree that there is real need for an early change in the law. We want more effective supervision and more effective control. Nobody wishes to embarrass decent clubs. I do not believe the members of any club who understand the situation as it now is would have any legitimate cause of complaint
810
if the recommendations of the Royal Commission were carried out. I hope very much that the noble Earl when he speaks on behalf of the Government will be able to indicate that the Government are seized of the gravity of the situation and that they hope, in so far as they are able, to try to remedy it in the near future.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I would support my noble friend's Motion from another point of view. I do not pretend to be a teetotal reformer or to be a teetotaller. I speak from the point of view of the moderate drinker and of the moderate club-man. I would say that the abuse of drinking is the worst enemy that the trade and the decent club-man has, and now that this particular matter has been brought forward by the noble Lord I hope that the Government will attend to it. I would rather speak of it from the point of view of what has happened in the past, because I have studied the subject, and, indeed, committed myself to the writing of quite a big book on British Taverns. That remark is not intended to be an advertisement of the book, but simply an excuse for my saying a few words in this debate.
The law has been the subject of change during many centuries. It has been the subject lately of Royal Commissions whose members have had to consider many varying circumstances. I suppose that in the last century there have been at least three great circumstances which have altered the whole of the brewing trade. The first is that instead of every house having its own brewery we now have big breweries. This has come about, particularly in the industrial towns, owing to the enormous distribution of liquor that is required. The second circumstance has been the practical abolition of adulteration which the wonderful discoveries of Pasteur into fermentation and micro-organisms have rendered possible. The chemical industry has come into the brewing trade. The third circumstance has been the change that has taken place in the price of liquor since the War, and the movement and change in the general feeling of the country at large.
There is no doubt that drinking has diminished enormously. There is no doubt that the redundancy of public-houses has been put an end to at very great expense to the owners. But this

811
may have been neutralised by these clubs. Statistics have shown that for every public-house that is closed as redundant there is now springing up one-and-a-half clubs, and the number is going up not in one district only but on an average throughout the country, chiefly perhaps in industrial districts. If you do away with more public-houses you would simply have these clubs coming in and taking their place practically untaxed, under no supervision to speak of and started by anyone who can get a few persons round him, run in a manner that is disgraceful and, if ousted from one place, going on to another. I think that the history of the liquor laws in this country from very early times shows that Governments have been wrecked owing to the introduction of these laws. There have been fierce debates and difficulty when attempts have been made to pass a general Act of Parliament. The noble Lord has said that the recommendations in the Royal Commission's Report are more or less bound together, but he has himself now picked out one particular bit of the Report which he indicates could be dealt with in a comparatively small Act of Parliament and that that might at least put a stop to the further increase of these bogus clubs.
I am not at all sure but that one of the best courses might not be to follow what has happened in Scotland. There, before a club is started, the flat of the sheriff has to be obtained, and the applicant cannot even approach the sheriff unless he has two justices of the peace vouching for his bona fides. Could not something of that kind be done here? Even if they may say that they are overworked, could not we ask the Stipendary Magistrates in the big boroughs and cities, assisted by assessors, if you like, and the clerks of the peace in other districts, to act as a sort of judges, and make certain definite inquiries as to the character, which is the important thing, of the so-called proprietor or promoter of a club before he is allowed to open one and as to the number of persons who are to form the club, the kind of premises in which it is to be carried on, and the rules which should govern it, some of which are indicated in the Report of the Royal Commission. I cannot conceive that that would be a very difficult Bill to get through.
812
I would like to express the hope that the Government will introduce a Bill, which might be talked about, or, if not, that they would encourage the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, himself to produce a short Bill, which might be the subject of discussion in this House. The Lord Chancellor's Department, as I am well aware, is always ready to assist in matters of drafting for the purpose of putting such a Bill into proper form. I think it will be better to concentrate upon this comparatively small point as compared with the very large and difficult questions that might arise if one tried to deal with the whole of the Royal Commission's Report in a single Act of Parliament. I fancy that agreement might be more easily obtained if existing clubs were left alone and the bad ones were eliminated gradually by the Police; if we started with the registration of any clubs that might be set up and so nipped in the bud the movement before it becomes a still greater scandal. It is sad to see newspaper headings such as "The scandal of the clubs," to read almost daily of some bogus club that has been repressed only after very difficult work on the part of the Police, very often by the Police having to follow the very undesirable method, if it can be avoided, of disguising themselves in order to gain admission and see how the club is conducted. I trust that the answer of the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government will be that the Government smile upon Lord Amulree's Motion, and I hope that in the very near future encouragement will be given for the introduction of a Bill to be discussed by your Lordships' House.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I shall intervene for a short time only in this debate because there seems to be general agreement in support of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Amulree. I should like to associate myself with the appreciation which has been expressed of the value of his services as Chairman of the recent Licensing Commission. I think I am stating what is universally admitted when I say that it is owing to his tact and judgment and his absolute impartiality that such a full measure of agreement was reached on the recommendations one of which he is submitting to your Lordships' House to-day. I naturally take a somewhat special interest in

813
this Motion. Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, to the Licensing Commission which sat under the presidency of the late Lord Peel from 1896 to 1899. I had the honour of being a member of that Commission and I should like to say that I rather deprecate the apparent disposition in these days in certain quarters to belittle the use of inquiries by Royal Commissions. Going back to my own experience of over 35 years ago, I feel a certain satisfaction in remembering that a large number of the recommendations which we made as a Commission at that time have by to-day found their way to the Statute Book.
There is one point I should like to emphasise with regard to this recommendation and the other recommendations which were practically unanimously supported by the recent Royal Commission. That is the thoroughness with which the Commission did their work, the way in which they heard evidence from every section of the population and every shade of opinion. The fact has already been commented upon by a previous speaker that the Commission was made up of men and women of every kind of opinion and experience, and that as a result of their inquiries, extending over a considerable time, the Commission upon this point arrived unanimously at the conclusion embodied in the recommendation upon which the noble Lord asks the Government to introduce legislation.
I should like to associate myself with what has been emphasised by every previous speaker—namely, that in asking for a change in the law in regard to the control of clubs we do not do so because we do not recognise to the full the essential place of clubs in the social life of our country. We have no objection whatever to the extension of clubs. In fact, I think that we shall find that their numbers will still further increase as time goes on. The point which I think demands the early attention of Parliament is that as a result of the registration of clubs a large number of bogus clubs, and clubs that are not really clubs in the right use of the word, have been created. That has resulted in a state of affairs in which you find in this country a large measure of unrestricted drinking facilities on club premises, side by side with the strictly regulated consumption of drink
814
upon licensed premises. It is that palpable injustice which the noble Lord who has moved this Motion desires to remedy.
Before I conclude I should like to say that the country which I know best, Wales, has a special interest in the recommendation that there should be further control of clubs. As some noble Lords may remember, I have on more than one occasion in the past taken the opportunity of drawing the attention of this House to the special position of Wales in regard to licensing reform, a position based upon the very strong convictions of the great majority of the people of Wales. I should like to point out to your Lordships that in regard to clubs. Wales has a special grievance. It is a little more than fifty years since the Sunday Closing Act for Wales was passed, an Act which has, by general consent, been of real benefit to the life of the country. The people of Wales are especially concerned for the effective administration of that Act. What is the present position in regard to Sunday closing in the areas in Wales in which these clubs happen to be registered? It is simply this. In these areas, owing to the fact that the law in regard to drinking in clubs on Sundays in Wales is at present the same as that which prevails in England, the result is that in those particular areas in Wales where those clubs happen to be formed, Sunday closing becomes in large measure inoperative. I hope very much that that fact will be noted when the Government takes in hand legislation on the question.
I may say that evidence upon this point was put before the recent Royal Commission on Licensing, and as a result of that evidence a recommendation was made that the consumption of intoxicants in clubs in Wales on Sundays should be generally prohibited, subject to the qualification that the registration authorities should have power to grant special exemption in cases in which they think such special exemption should be granted. I think that makes it clear that so far as the evidence which was put before the Royal Commission went, there is a very strong case for legislative action upon that point. I do not desire to take up further time in this debate. I know very well how crowded the programme of the Government is at the

815
present time, and the enormous difficulties which lie in the path of legislation, but I do venture, in common with the other noble Lords who have addressed the House to-day, to express the hope that before the end of this Parliament a Bill dealing alone with this point may be brought forward, because I believe that there is such a general measure of support behind it that they will find it not altogether difficult to pass it into law.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I think that the case which we have heard against these so-called clubs is so overwhelming that no further words are required to prove it. The worst clubs have been shown during the course of this debate to be farcical in their existence, to have no real membership, and to offer no amenities. They have been shown to be under no real control and they have been shown to be a menace to the work of the licensing justices, who dare not now reduce public-houses which they think ought to be reduced, for fear that they may be immediately reopened as clubs. We have also heard that the brewers themselves are in many cases in favour of some such legislation. But I confess that I look forward almost with some little alarm to the answer which may be made on behalf of the Government. I think it is vital that we should make clear precisely how this matter stands, and I would like, if I may, to anticipate what may be the reply of the Government.
I think it may be said that the Government cannot take up such a contentious subject as temperance legislation at this moment. It may be said that the Royal Commission made so many good and wise recommendations that if there is to be any temperance legislation it ought to be dealt with in a comprehensive sort of way. Then we may be told—and of course there is something in it—that legislation of a piecemeal character is always a little unsatisfactory and that it is better to wait for a better opportunity when the whole subject may be dealt with. May I tell your Lordships what I venture to say in reply to that? Obviously this does involve the temperance question, and a great many people are interested in any legislation which may be initiated in regard to clubs from the temperance point of view. But as I have listened
816
to the debate as it has progressed, the impression which has been made upon my mind is that this is not really and strictly speaking primarily a temperance matter: it is really a question of respect for law and order.
Many noble Lords have spoken—and I should like to associate myself with every word that has been said upon that point—of the excellent character of clubs in general. I do not think that anybody who has listened carefully to this debate would suggest that anybody here is in favour of what is commonly spoken of slightingly as "class legislation." We all want clubs for ourselves; and in every sphere of life we want clubs where men can enjoy themselves in a wholesome manner in their leisure hours. No one can suggest that an attack is being made upon club life from any point of view. What I am trying to urge is just this: I do not think it would be a satisfactory reply for us to hear that the Government, for reasons which I have suggested, could not embark upon any temperance legislation when their programme is so crowded as it is at the present moment. Let us rather regard it as legislation to ensure that existing laws are not flouted and made to be ridiculous. Let our attitude be not merely that we would like for the sake of temperance to see these inferior clubs removed, but that it is a wrong thing to allow the existing law on whatever subject to be made ridiculous through the agency of any institutions which are designed to bring the law into contempt. I look upon this question as a very important one, not, I repeat, merely from the temperance point of view, but as being bound up with that respect for law and order which always characterises English conduct.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of what other noble Lords have said. As a magistrate for over 25 years in the St. James's division of Westminster, which as your Lordships know embraces the whole of Soho, I know that it is perfectly true that for every public-house which we reduce—a very difficult thing to do, because the question of compensation and other matters arise—a club or two clubs spring up. Clubs are entirely free from any inspection, and not only are they bad sources for the supply of drink

817
(and I may say that I am not a teetotaler) but they are also bad centres for a good many other things besides. I really cannot see why provision has not been made for the licensing justices, who are not overworked in London, or for the Stipendiary Magistrates, to supervise the registration of new clubs.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the question which we are debating this afternoon is one of the major problems of licensing law and administration south of the Tweed, and if I may say so, it is most fortunate that the Resolution on the Order Paper should have been moved by a noble Lord who has such knowledge and authority on the subject. I would say at once that His Majesty's Government fully appreciate the importance of the question raised. As the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, has said, it is common knowledge that, while the standard of conduct and conditions in the genuine club is high, certain types of club exist and are increasing which are not in fact clubs at all and in many of which abuses are rife. It has been suggested that these abuses could be largely corrected by a fuller use by the authorities concerned of their powers under the present law; but I think it is generally appreciated, as I think your Lordships have heard this afternoon, that amendment of the law is the only really effective remedy.
Unfortunately, the problem is among the most acutely controversial of all the problems in the licensing field, and the solution is not, I fear, to be as simply found as has been sometimes suggested. It is perfectly true, on the one hand, that there is a very substantial and authoritative body of opinion, including the Magistracy, Police, and both trade and temperance organisations, which strongly supports the recommendations of the Royal Commission that the supply and consumption of intoxicants in clubs should, in a variety of directions, be subjected to further and stricter measures of control. On the other hand, the attitude of the clubs themselves has to be reckoned with; and it must be remembered that the clubs comprise a substantial number of the citizens of this country, and, in the words of the Royal Commission, constitute "a most valuable element in the structure of our society." The general contention of the club
818
organisations is that the properly conducted club ought not to be interfered with at all; and up till now they have evinced strong opposition to the majority of the Royal Commission's recommendations.
It is quite clear that any measure applying all the recommendations of the Royal Commission must expect to meet with great opposition; and it is by no means clear that any more limited proposal would have a much better chance of general acceptance. It has been rightly emphasised that the main urgency of the present problem centres round the question of what is usually termed the bogus club; and it has been suggested this afternoon by Lord Askwith and others that, if the whole body of the Commission's recommendations is too difficult to contemplate, it should not be difficult at any rate to bring into force in England and Wales a scheme of discretionary registration, which in itself might go a long way towards throttling the development of the bogus club. In favour of this course it is argued that the clubs themselves, or at any rate the principal organisations representing them, have expressed their willingness to accept a scheme of discretionary registration in some form.
Unfortunately, however, whatever may be the merits of such a proposal, the prospect of an agreed passage for a Bill even on these limited lines appears to be remote. In the first place there is not, so far as I am aware, any evidence to show that the clubs' organisations would accept such a proposal uncoupled with any concession to their point of view in some other direction, which might or might not—more probably not—be a generally acceptable proposition. Secondly, my Lords, even assuming that the principle of discretionary registration were to be accepted all round, there is still room for much controversy in regard to the method of application. For instance, take the question of the constitution of the registration authority. Many hold that the justices are the proper body for this purpose, and the Royal Commission themselves suggested that a Committee of the justices should be the proper authority. The clubs, however, have expressed strong views to the contrary, and apparently favour a local authority, with appeal to some such body as the County Court—a suggestion which,

819
on the other hand, the Royal Commission rejected. There are, my Lords, also various other points involved on which difference of opinion is bound to arise: for example, the treatment of existing clubs, the degree of discretion to be allowed to the registration authority, the statutory grounds and rights of objection, and so forth.
But even if the complications could be shown to be not so formidable as I have suggested, there are other practical considerations which, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich has foreseen, from the Government point of view must rule out any question of amending legislation at present. Apart from the fact that the Government, with so many matters of more urgent importance on hand, have not yet been able to take into general review the recommendations of the Royal Commission for amendment of the licensing laws, Parliamentary time, as your Lordships will be fully aware, is already mortgaged up to the hilt so far as the present Session is concerned; and, to put it plainly, I fear that there is no present prospect of any time being available for any substantial measure of licensing reform. This is not to say that a debate such as that which we have had this afternoon is wasted. The Government are anxious for all the guidance which they can obtain on this difficult and thorny matter, and they welcome the opportunity for public and authoritative discussion which has been afforded by the moving of this Resolution. I can confidently undertake on their behalf that the views expressed by noble Lords this afternoon will receive the close and sympathetic attention of His Majesty's Government, even though, for the reasons which I have endeavoured to explain, it is not possible for them to promise any early action.
LORD AMULREE: I wish to thank my noble friend for his courteous reply. At the same time I must express my disappointment at the nature of it. It is a great pity that some time could not be afforded, if not this Session in some future Session, for dealing with this matter. But in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion by leave, withdrawn.

GERMAN REFUGEES.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether refugees from the Saar are considered to come under the general responsibility of the High Commissioner for Refugees (Jewish and non-Jewish) coming from Germany; and what action is being taken by His Majesty's Government to aid the High Commissioner in his general task of settlement of refugees; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Motion in the interests of a very unhappy and unfortunate group of persons who are refugees from their own country, and I cannot help thinking that it will appeal to your Lordships' instincts of justice and humanity, which must animate us when these unfortunate people are under consideration. The question deals with refugees from Germany and in particular the refugees from the Saar. The League of Nations, when refugees started to leave Germany, had to take cognisance of the seriousness of the position, because the number of refugees leaving that country and taking refuge in other European countries became very large. They reached a total, eventually, of something like 70,000–70,000 people uprooted from their homes and forced to take refuge in other countries. In consequence, about eighteen months ago the League of Nations decided to appoint a High Commissioner, advised by various advisory bodies to deal with that matter. In the Resolution of the League it was stated that the Assembly
"Having regard to the situation created by the fact that a large number of persons, Jewish and other, coming from Germany have taken refuge in several countries;
"Considering that their presence in those countries constitutes an economic, financial and social problem which can be solved only by international collaboration;
"Is convinced that all governments will assist the High Commissioner to the best of their abilities in the tasks defined above."
The High Commissioner selected was a very well known American, Mr. James McDonald, who, up to the time of his appointment, was Chairman of the Foreign Policy Association of New York, and Mr. McDonald started his task under circumstances of considerable difficulty. Refugees were still, and are still, leaving Germany, and while, during

821
the eighteen months that he has been High Commissioner, he has succeeded in helping in the organisation of a good many of the refugees, yet the task facing him substantially remains a very serious one. Of the 70,000 refugees it is calculated that about 35,000 only have actually been settled, and of those the greatest number, 20,000 or thereabouts, have been settled in Palestine. Of the remainder there are a few thousand settled in the United States and a few in South Africa, and some have been absorbed in European countries. That leaves still 35,000 unsettled refugees in various countries, and the vast bulk of those refugees are at the present moment in France. Something like 15,000 have been received by the French Government, and have no chance of being settled. There are perhaps 3,000 to 4,000 in Czechoslovakia, a few in Austria and Holland, a considerable number in Poland, and perhaps 2,000 or 2,500 in Great Britain.
In no sense of the word is the method of dealing with this question to be considered anti-German or against the German Government. We realise that the German Government have a right to their own internal policy, and that if their policy does in fact involve the leaving of that country by large numbers of refugees, this becomes an international question because these refugees have to be received somewhere. The problem has been recognised to be international by the League of Nations, and the only question that arises is how best the recognised international aspects of that problem can be dealt with by the nations. The High Commissioner began his task with a small loan of about £1,200 or £1,400 from the League of Nations—25,000 Swiss francs. It was only a loan, which had to be, and was in fact, repaid. Since then no Government has contributed a penny to the support of either the refugees or the administrative office of the High Commissioner. The whole of its task has been rendered infinitely more difficult by the fact that he has been forced to try to raise the money from private sources, and has not had a penny from any Government. The private sources involved have subscribed somewhere in the neighbourhood of £1,500,000 for looking after these refugees, and it is
822
interesting to notice that whereas 80 per cent. of the refugees are Jewish, 95 per cent. of the money subscribed has come from Jewish sources; in other words, it is the Jewish organisations which are now mainly helping to look after the Christian or non-Jewish refugees.
Of course, there have been methods of helping other than through the High Commissioner. I was Chairman of a Relief Committee for Victims of Fascism, which established, among other things, homes for children near Paris, and looked after a certain number of children; but clearly the best work must be co-ordinated through the High Commissioner, and the High Commissioner has had very great difficulty in meeting his administrative work and the work of helping the refugees. I understand that the High Commissioner did suggest some months ago that the Governments might join together in making a small grant merely to pay for the cost of administration of his office—for travelling expenses, the keeping up of a small office which is at present established in London at Sentinel House, Southampton Row, and other matters. It would have involved a payment by this country of perhaps £2,000. I believe that the United States had expressed their full willingness to contribute their share, and other countries had agreed more or less unofficially, provided that the greater countries, including Great Britain, would do their share. I hope that the second part of my question, then, may receive the sympathetic consideration of the representative of the Government, and that we may take our share in subscribing to a small fund to aid in paying the expenses of administration, so that every penny subscribed by the organisations for the refugees may go to the refugees, and none of it may be absorbed in administrative expenses of the office of High Commissioner. That is important because there has been a good deal of perhaps uninformed criticism of the office of the High Commissioner. I do not believe the High Commissioner has been extravagant. I confess I do not know all the methods of his expenditure, but it would clearly be a tremendous help to the voluntary organisation if they knew that every penny they subscribed would go direct to aiding refugees and that none would be used for administrative expenses.
The real problem is the problem of settlement. It is no good paying to keep these indigent families in countries where they are not settled and where they merely become a dangerous economic element in time of difficulty. When you get such cases as I have seen of doctors and lawyers earning their living by selling newspapers in the street, of families who at one time were well-off living in corners of disused barrack rooms in circumstances of peculiar suffering to families not accustomed to it, you see that settlement is the real problem; and I think we owe a great deal of gratitude to Palestine for having received so many of these families and for the work which has been done by Jewish organisations such as Ort-Oze. That organisation takes Jews not trained in industry or agriculture and gives them courses of instruction in factories or on farms and enables them to be settled in certain countries where they do not become an economic difficulty. Some of these families have been settled in Poland, some in Czechoslovakia, some in the Crimea, some in the Ukraine, and some in Siberia. Clearly the establishment of some central fund, may be on an interest-bearing basis, would render possible the wider application of settlement. Moreover, it would bring in the element of justice in this problem which, I submit, is lacking at the present moment, because of the fact that the vast majority of the refugees have been received in two or three countries whereas certain countries have received almost none at all. It would clearly be just that those countries which have received most of the refugees, and are therefore bearing most of the cost, should be reimbursed by countries which have not taken their share in dealing with the problem which has been recognised to be international in character.
I hope very much, therefore, that consideration may be given to the possibility of establishing some fund from which those countries which have received most of the refugees may be, to some extent, reimbursed, may have money made available for the settlement of the refugees, so that they may not become an economic burden on the community concerned. It would have one other effect which, I think, is important. When you have a large mass of refugees in one country it is quite possible for the feeling to grow up that these refugees are the cause
824
of all the economic troubles from which that particular country is suffering, so that you get an anti-foreign feeling growing up among the people which may sow the seeds of future international difficulty and even of war, and where a large number of the refugees are Jews you also get growing up Anti-Semitism which causes, and has caused in the past, such immense misery and suffering to large numbers of people. I hope very much that the answer we may get will indicate some sympathy on the part of the Government with this proposition.
There is one other small point to which I want to refer before coming to the question of the Saar, and that is the question of the extradition of refugees for political offences. A few, not many, cases have occurred in which refugees have, on the demand of their country, been extradited and have suffered very severely when taken back to their original country. We had a case of a man extradited from Holland a few months ago for an offence committed many years before, who was given six years imprisonment; and we have a case now in hand of a German who is in Switzerland, of whom extradition has been demanded, and it is expected that if he is in fact extradited he will be put to death as soon as he gets back. One feels that this international problem is rendered more difficult by this risk to refugees, and I hope that the weight of the British members of the League of Nations may be used in an attempt to safeguard against this danger without, of course, interfering with the full rights of sovereignty of the nations who are Members of the League of Nations.
These problems have been rendered worse in the last few weeks by the striking result of the Saar plebiscite, and by the fact that a considerable number of refugees from Germany had taken refuge in the Saar and that many inhabitants of the Saar itself will be compelled to become refugees after March 1. The number involved is estimated to be about 2,000 refugees from Germany in the Saar, of whom about 1,000 are Jewish, and it seems to me they are clearly refugees from Germany within the ordinary definition and therefore come under the High Commissioner appointed by the League of Nations. Again money is wanted, and in particular we have a considerable

825
number of Jewish refugees who would, and could, settle in Palestine if money were available. It seems to me that the Saar constitutes a special problem both as regards refugees from Germany in the Saar and as regards Saarlanders who will become refugees from the Saar as soon as it returns to the German Reich.
I understand that the second part of this problem has been estimated to consist of perhaps 5,000 refugees. We know, according to a report in The Times a few days ago, that something like 7,500 individuals have applied for visas to leave the Saar, and of these the French Government have already admitted 3,700 refugees. They are mainly at Strasbourg, and the French Government has written an extremely important Memorandum to the League of Nations which I should like to mention because it brings out the international aspect of this problem. The French Government in its Memorandum to the League of Nations, dated January 18, stated that it was desirous at the outset of placing the question on an international plane and it went on to say:
"It desires to explain briefly to the Council of the League of Nations the reasons that have led it to adopt this conclusion and the consequences that the latter would seem to involve."
It raised the point that France alone cannot be responsible for the refugees, and continued:
"The position of the League, of Nations as regards the refugees from the Saar is different from that in which it has been placed in all the other cases of refugees with which it has had to deal hitherto. For fifteen years the League has administered the Saar territory, the inhabitants of which have been in some sort its subjects. It is probable that the majority of those who, owing to their opinions, are now forced to leave their country, voted for the maintenance of the League's administration. The League therefore has a responsibilty towards them, not only that general responsibility of a humanitarian nature which is laid down in Article 23 of the Covenant, but a direct responsibility."
Then it goes on to say:
"These consequences will in the first place be of a financial nature."
As regards the special responsibility of the League of Nations for the Saar-landers who have to leave the Saar, I hope our Government Will initiate and support proposals whereby League re-
826
sponsibility may be accepted and clearly defined. It is not, of course, for an outsider to indicate how this can be done. One may merely remark that machinery does exist in the person of the High Commissioner and the High Commission, and, given funds, it would be clearly possible for him to deal with the problem. Not a great deal would be involved. I suppose that a very few thousand pounds divided among many nations would suffice at any rate to start to deal with the problem. I am quite certain that unless the problem is dealt with, and dealt with quickly, the fact of the existence of these refugees in the various countries may render much more difficult the fulfilment of the desire which is widely felt at the present moment in all countries and among all Governments that Germany should make an early return to the League of Nations. I believe the fact that this problem is not dealt with is an obstacle to the return of Germany to the League. Therefore, in view of the fact that it is widely considered extremely desirable that Germany should return to the League of Nations, I hope very much that the Government will give a sympathetic reply. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHIELWOOD: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to my noble friend who has just sat down for bringing this question before it, because it is one which is of enormous importance. "Enormous" perhaps, is an exaggerated word, so I will substitute of very great importance. I agree with almost everything my noble friend said, and particularly with one observation to which I shall not return; therefore I will say now that the great object is settlement and not relief. That is an essential fact of the situation. Merely to feed these unhappy individuals and keep them from starvation, though it may be necessary as an emergency measure, is no settlement of the question. I need not trouble your Lordships with any detailed description of the facts of the situation, because I agree, broadly, with what the noble Lord, Lord Marley, has said. I think I take a little more sanguine view of what has been done than he does. I believe the German refugees number 79,000 and it may be said that, in one way or another, something like a little over 50,000 have been

827
dealt with. They may not have been dealt with altogether satisfactorily, but something has been done to deal with them. The outstanding liability, I think, is about 27,000. I may, however, be wrong, and the noble Lord's information may be more correct than mine.
It is worth while for us to emphasise and to realise that of that 27,000 close upon half are in France. The French very justly and continually press upon the Governing Body of the High Commission, of which I happen to be a member, that this is a situation which is very unfair to them, and it must be admitted that it is a very striking fact that their liability in this matter is very much greater than ours and that we have done, as a Government and as a State, almost nothing to help in the situation. We have been very rigid in excluding refugees, and we have usually forbidden them to try to earn their living when they come here. There are only about 2,500 here. The French Government have at any rate fed and housed the refugees, I am afraid very imperfectly, but they have done that to a great extent, with very much larger numbers to deal with. That is merely by the way, but I think it has some bearing on the main contention which I am going to venture to put before your Lordships.
My noble friend spoke appreciatively of the work of the High Commission, and I think he did say—though I am not sure he quite made clear to your Lordships—that the High Commission has no money of its own at all, not a farthing. No money is subscribed even from private sources to the High Commission. The relief is all done by private enterprise, and, as my noble friend very justly said, by far the greater part has come from Jewish sources. There is one particular activity which I should like to mention for fear of appearing to do injustice, and that is the very remarkable work that has been done for the academical people who have been excluded from Germany. There really has been a very remarkable effort on the part of all the Universities, particularly in this country, and elsewhere also, by which they have provided places for the men, many of them very distinguished persons, who have been forced to leave their country. In many cases payment has been provided for them, at any rate for a certain time, and that has been done very largely by a kind of volun-
828
tary levy made by the University people out of salaries which are certainly not extravagantly high. That is worth remarking on. But it is true that, broadly speaking, the non-Jewish refugees have not been so well cared for, or anything like so well cared for, by the non-Jewish population as the Jewish refugees have been cared for by the Jewish community throughout the world.
There is one other observation I should like to make. The noble Lord's Motion deals primarily with German refugees, but it would be a great mistake to suppose that the refugee problem is only a German refugee problem. There are a very considerable number of refugees from a great number of other countries. There are Russian refugees, there are Yugo-Slavian refugees, and I was told the other day that there are a very large number now of Spanish refugees. Moreover, we have the problem, with which we are more familiar, of the Assyrian question, and the old but still painful question of the Armenian refugees. All these constitute a very serious problem. They constitute—I wish I could convince noble Lords of it and particularly the Government—a serious danger to the international position. It is a great mistake to suppose that this is merely a humanitarian question. It is not so. I shall come back to that in a moment. It is an international question, and an international question of a serious character.
You have these bodies of refugees in the different countries. There is nothing more miserable than a refugee until he is settled in his new country. He has no work; he is living, perhaps, on his own resources, perhaps on charitable funds that are subscribed; he is necessarily idle; he must be discontented; he has nothing to do except—and really I do not blame him for it—to grumble and perhaps conspire against his old country. The existence of these people all over the world is a serious danger, though I do not pretend that it is one of the major causes of the continuance of international unrest. Believe me, it is one of the causes and one of the circumstances which make it so difficult for the world to reach a position of complete stability without which we cannot hope to overcome the great difficulties that now beset us.
I would like to say just a word about the actual machinery which exists for

829
dealing with this general refugee problem. It is a little more complicated than my noble friend described. There was set up some years ago an organisation in the League of Nations itself, which is now called the Nansen Organisation because it was created by the energy of that very great man Dr. Nansen, who continually impressed upon the nations of the world their duty to deal with the refugee question. It was mainly, I think, with Russian and Armenian refugees that he was concerned, and he did not spare himself in the slightest degree. Indeed, his death at a comparatively early age was very largely due to the immense exertions and hardships which he undertook to serve this cause. That organisation still exists. It has done very remarkable work, and it has done it with extreme economy. It has not indeed completed its work—there are still many refugees of the very class with which it was established to deal—but it has done a great deal. As probably many of your Lordships know, the condition of some of the Russian refugees, for instance, is really very pitiable. These unhappy people, living largely in the Far East, are driven to the utmost extremity to support life.
That is one organisation, and a very useful organisation. Then there is the High Commission which was created recently in order to deal with German refugees. But whereas the Nansen Organisation is part of the League of Nations—I am sorry to be so technical, but it is important that this should be apprehended—the High Commission is not part of the League of Nations. The League of Nations nominated the High Commissioner. It recommended the creation of a body called the Governing Body—so called for the old reason locus a non lucendo, since its governing powers are nothing at all. It created this body on the strict understanding that it was to have nothing more to do with it. That was a compromise to meet the views of Germany, who was and still remains part of the League, a compromise which I think is most unhappy and has worked exceedingly badly. Now, in addition, we have the Saar refugees, and I understand it is now held by a great many people at Geneva and by many other people that the Saar refugees do not come under the High Commissioner, but must be dealt with separately. The matter, I understand, is to be considered
830
at the next meeting of the Council of the League. If that view prevails, you will have three entirely separate organisations dealing with the refugee problem, apart from the further separate problem of the Assyrians, which is being dealt with again by other machinery. That is a very unsatisfactory position, and I do not think it is working well.
The High Commissioner, I think, has done all he could, but his position is one of extreme difficulty. He has no funds to administer, he has nothing to give to these people, and all he can do is to try to facilitate their negotiations with foreign Governments and to find out, by great exertions, by travel and so on, some method of settlement in different countries which he can recommend to the refugees. It is that aspect of the question which I venture to present specially to His Majesty's Government. I beg them to consider this question of refugees as a whole, and to have a really effective policy upon it. I should like them to consider very carefully whether these organisations ought not to be amalgamated into one organisation directly under the League of Nations. I attach great importance to that, not only because of the financial aspect of the question, on which I will say a word presently, but also because if it is under the League of Nations it becomes subject to the whole of the machinery of the League. That means that from time to time the reports of the proceedings of the organisation are made to the League of Nations, public opinion is kept alive as to what is actually going on, and the Assembly can, and would, debate the matter if there was anything worth debating. So you get the whole organisation of public opinion, on which support of the League rests, at the back of this as part of the general activities of the League. I believe that would be a great advantage.
I put this forward the other day at the Governing Body and I was met with two objections. Perhaps I ought to describe the Governing Body. It consists of the representatives of about a dozen Governments, who have no power at all. They sit round a table and their function, as I understand it, is to do their best by moral influence to assist the High Commissioner. I do not wish to say a word against the members of the Governing

831
Body—I am sure they are all admirable men—but they are for the most part officials of the various public departments of the different Governments. They have no power of initiative and no power to come to any decision except such as has been approved by their Governments. I must express the view that, as at present constituted, the usefulness of the Governing Body is very doubtful. If any proposal at all novel is made, all they can do is to say that they will refer it to their Governments. If the proposal is not novel, they read out the instructions which they have received from their Governments. I really do not quite see what particular advantage there is in the Governing Body as at present constituted. But we did discuss this particular question, and, as I say, two objections were raised.
In the first place it was suggested that if you put the German refugees under the League, that will be resented by Germany. I cannot believe that. What is offensive to Germany is to deal with German refugees on a different footing from other refugees. If all refugees were put under one organisation I do not see why it should be offensive to Germany, and do not believe it would be. After all, the one thing against which Germany is always protesting is being treated differently from other nations. The other objection, and perhaps the more serious one, was that it might throw some cost on the Governments concerned. That would not necessarily follow, but there would be no doubt a certain fulcrum on which you could press for greater contributions from the Governments concerned. It may be that that would happen. I quite agree that a great deal of this expenditure is charitable expenditure, and may be fairly left to charitable sources, but if I am right in my contention there is an aspect of it which is political and therefore should rightly fall upon the Governments concerned. The principle has often been adopted of the Government giving one pound for every one pound subscribed by charity. That might be adopted in this case, or if the Government would not go as far as that, they might subscribe some fraction of one pound for every one pound of charitable contributions.
It does seem to me that we ought to clear our minds about this question of
832
refugees. It is too important a matter to be left to be dealt with as each hard case arises, with a claim that a little should be done, or that a little more should be done, to meet a particular case. I am satisfied that this is a political question of great importance, and that it has a bearing upon the peace of the world. The very Resolution which set up the High Commissioner, as my noble friend pointed out, emphasised the international aspect of the question. So does the Memorandum which the French Government recently communicated to the League. But quite apart from that, it is obvious on the face of it that this has a great international aspect. The presence of these refugees raises questions of an international character. Partly questions of general unrest and partly questions of how you are to deal with foreign bodies in a homogeneous State. All these questions are raised, and they are really serious international questions and ought to be dealt with as such.
I know that it is said that British interests are not directly concerned. Until we get out of that way of looking at international questions progress is very difficult. British interests! If some question of territory is involved, if some question of trade is involved, or still more if the safety of some individual British subject is involved, everybody says: "British interests are involved; we must take action, and very strong action." I do not dispute it, but after all the interest which we have, infinitely more important than any of those questions except, perhaps, the safety of a British subject—infinitely more important than any territorial question or any trade question—is the preservation of peace. It really is at the bottom of the whole future of this country. In the very well known and brilliant speech which was delivered not very long ago by Mr. Lloyd George, he very rightly said that none of the proposals which he was about to put forward had any value or any sense at all unless they were based on a proper policy for the preservation of the peace of the world. The whole prosperity of the country, the whole recovery of the country, the whole future of the country, depend upon the preservation of peace.
Therefore anything that affects the tranquillity of the world, anything that threatens the friendship of one nation for another, is a matter of the most

833
intense and direct British interest that you can possibly conceive; and to tell me that because the refugees do not actually belong to Britain and are not actually British subjects therefore there is no British interest in the matter, is simply to fly in the face of all the real facts of the case. Until we can realise the truth of that central proposition, that our great interest is the preservation of peace, and not only say it as we do say it on platforms, but really act on it and believe in it, we shall never succeed in restoring tranquillity and peace to the world and prosperity to this country.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, the question raised by my noble friend and supported by the noble Viscount is one which must engage all our sympathies and is one of extraordinary interest, but I could wish that my noble friend or the noble Viscount had cleared up the great difficulty which must necessarily arise in the minds of all of us as to what are the classes of persons who constitute these refugees, and whether they can all be dealt with in precisely the same manner. Some are refugees because they have been expelled from their countries; others are refugees because life has been made very uncomfortable for them in their countries; others are refugees because life has been made impossible for them in their countries; others are, or will be, refugees (as from the Saar) because they think that life will be made impossible or uncomfortable for them in their country.
That is the very unfortunate position of a great many people in this world, even in this country, who are expelled from the institutions of their own country and have no means of livelihood, though here at any rate the "dole" is provided for them. I do wish that in making this proposal those who support it had given us a more general proposition as to the kinds of person who, having left their countries for one reason or another, are to be supported by international organisation. I merely wanted to raise that point, and perhaps the noble Lord who replies for the Government will take a comprehensive view and give us a definition of the classes of person to whom he thinks such international action could apply. Failing that, I cannot help saying that this particular ad hoc arrangement which has been made for dealing with the various classes, seems to me to be the
834
only possible kind of arrangement which could have been made at the time.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I desire to support the Motion of my noble friend, because I happen to be president of the Save the Children Fund, one of the bodies which are attempting to deal with the lot of the refugees from Germany. I want to tell your Lordships that our experience shows the extraordinary urgency of the case my noble friend has put, and it shows, too, I think, that he has been very moderate indeed in the way in which he has stated it. Experience shows that the problem is too great for charity to deal with. Over 70,000 persons have been uprooted from their homes, and perhaps of all the unfortunate circumstances that one hears of or imagines, the situation of those who are positively uprooted and driven, workless and homeless, to another country is the most miserable. Over 70,000 persons uprooted like that form an immense problem.
The different needs of different classes of these refugees have been grappled with by various societies. In England five or six bodies have dealt with different sides of it. The Society of Friends has been conspicuous; the Save the Children Fund along with them has dealt with the necessary though most unsatisfactory business of mere starvation relief; the academic world has been dealt with by a special body; the international Students' Service has helped an immense number of the expelled students; the trade unions have done a great deal for their fellow Socialists; and, as we all know, the Jewish community has with extraordinary generosity done the bulk of the work. But our experience shows that if the question is seriously faced it is impossible not to conclude that it must be dealt with internationally. The Assembly of the League adopted resolutions indicating unanimously that the collaboration of the Members of the League was essential, and the Council shortly afterwards established the High Commission. The Government have chosen to leave action in the main to private charity, and private charity has done its best.
I would like for a moment to tell your Lordships what I myself saw when I went to make inquiries on behalf of my own society in Paris. The pitiable situation of the refugees there could not be

835
exaggerated. You have in Paris the greatest mass of the refugees. I saw, for instance, a converted military hospital into which were crowded single men, a large number of children, and families, attempting to make shift, a number of them in a single dormitory, sometimes without any heat in winter. I also saw a very large number of refugees in the kind of furnished room which is to be found in Paris and in very dark and crowded quarters. I saw families in deplorable dejection. A particular family comes to mind in which the mother of two boys who had been roughly driven from their school in Germany, was the daughter of a Protestant pastor, but that particular family was banished on the grounds of the Aryan policy though entirely sympathetic with the Christian community. Perhaps the saddest part of the fate of the refugees is that they are not in the main people accustomed to hard outdoor work. I have seen refugees from peasant communities. During the War I saw great masses of Serbian refugees, but peasants are in a very different situation from that of the kind of refugee who has come out of Germany, people very largely earning their living by brain work, lawyers, doctors, journalists, pastors, some Roman Catholic priests, many of them people from well-to-do families, accustomed to the same sort of circumstances that we know ourselves, and on that account suffering immensely more than refugees from peasant communities.
The Save the Children Fund is dealing in Paris with about 1,300 children, the great bulk of whom are positively suffering from malnutrition. Only 27 per cent. of them, according to recent inquiry, were up to normal weight, and to deal with these the society provides nurseries, crèches, distribution of food and clothes, and there is daily deterioration from hunger, overcrowding, and, perhaps as much as from anything, from the anxiety of mind which must weigh upon these people all the time. If ever there was a case for generous giving, there is certainly one here. The burden, as we have already heard, has been faced in a remarkable degree by the French authorities, mainly with the aid of the Jewish community, and the burden is too great to be a fair one for
836
France alone to undertake. The Times said very rightly the other day:
"France, helpful as she is proving herself, cannot he expected to bear the whole burden. Private charity may afford some partial relief, but properly organised relief can only come through the League."
We have learned how, although the great bulk of the money comes from Jewish sources, there are in fact 20 per cent. of non-Jews among the refugees. I think the proportion of the fund contributed by Jewish sources was indeed understated. I believe the funds from non-Jewish sources have not really equalled more than 4 per cent. of the total amount. I think if there is a responsibility felt by the Jewish community for their fellow religionists, it would be equally fair that those who claim to be Christians should feel an equal responsibility for their fellow Christians.
As to our place in the matter, it is very natural that with our greater burden of unemployment than France has had to face there should be represented in the action of the Government hesitation to undertake any responsibility, but after all France is suffering more and more from unemployment at this day, and we are not less responsible because comparatively few of the refugees are in this country. I think our part ought to be recognised very clearly, as has already been urged—recognised in regard to our responsibility as individuals for giving where we can, because in any case private charity must take a great part in the work, but, more than that, it would not seem to be at all unreasonable that our Government should take its part in the particular expense of settlement. Lord Cecil justly remarked that settlement is of the essence of the solution. There is a scheme for settling refugees fitted for settlement in South America. It is not a very large proportion of the refugees in France who are so fitted, but the cost would nevertheless be over £200,000 for that particular scheme of settlement, and obviously private charity is not able to face a sum like that.
I would make a suggestion also with regard to the administrative action of the Government. There are cases, for instance, in this country where refugees have children of elementary school age. It would not seem to be excessive generosity to allow ordinary educational facilities to those children. Yet there

837
have been cases where children, who by inadvertence had been allowed to take their places in an elementary school, have been turned out and their parents given notice that on no account would these children be allowed to grow up in this country. There is also the cost of sickness. The funds of the relief societies are largely occupied in the great expense of dealing with sickness. The system of public assistance that is in operation surely might be allowed to deal with the cost of the sick, which at present reduces the funds available for normal relief.
Chiefly I would urge, in regard to the administration of the Aliens Act, that there is room for improvement. Mr. Eden, in answering a question in the other House last summer, claimed that our Government is ready to admit the German refugees if they are not about to take work from our own people, but I could give your Lordships cases of refugees who have been refused admittance to this country, although they had definite invitations to stay with friends known to be able to support them, and although they had no intention of taking work in this country. I must say, although I regret to do so, that there has been action on the part of the immigration officers which is high-handed and unworthy of the traditions of this country, and I would be very glad to furnish the Government with particular cases which justify me in saying that. The great tradition of hospitality to unfortunate refugees from foreign countries that this country possesses, has been maintained by the action of the private individuals who have given to the funds, and not by the action of the immigration authorities. I think that the Home Office might very well instruct their immigration officers to act at least as liberally as Mr. Eden said it was their duty to do, speaking in another place last summer.
Of course we cannot forget the cause of all this trouble and we may deeply regret that the German Government alienates would-be friends by expelling so many of their citizens who have been guilty of no moral fault, but our responsibility is none the less international because of the source of the trouble. The refugees are there, and their condition has been rightly described as a public scandal. The Society of Friends very rightly said in a recent appeal in the Press that
838
"The High Commissioner is unable to do more than make further appeals to private funds, and the refugees are unable to obtain permits to leave or to work, and they must continue to do the only thing they are permitted to do, that is, to starve or to return to Germany, where concentration camps may await them."
Well, we are bound to agree with the Friends that it is high time the Governments of the League dealt with a state of affairs which is truly described as a disgrace to humanity.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, in the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, who is away in the Middle East on official business, I have been asked to give the reply to this Motion. I must first of all thank the noble Lord in whose name the Motion is down on the Paper for having given me previously some indication of the lines on which he would put forward his case, although I must confess that, not so much in his case but in the case of other 'speakers, the speeches have travelled a fairly long way beyond the Motion on the Order Paper, as I believe so often happens in your Lordships' House.
The first portion of the Motion begins by asking whether refugees from the Saar are considered to come under the general responsibility of the High Commissioner for Refugees, Jewish and other, coming from Germany, and at the risk of a good deal of repetition I think it is important that we should get the position entirely clear. The position is that on January 19 the League Council decided to instruct its Rapporteur for Refugee Questions, acting in collaboration with the Council Committee of Three on Saar Questions, to submit at its next session proposals regarding the settlement of the refugees from the Saar. Not only is nothing at present known as, to the form the proposals in question are likely to take, so that any statement which I might make on the subject would be premature, but it would in any case be most improper for His Majesty's Government as one Member of the Council to give public expression to views on a subject on which the Council as a whole has decided to obtain the opinion and recommendations from a special Committee. I regret therefore that I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to this part of the noble

839
Lord's inquiry. It should not be assumed, of course, that His Majesty's Government have formed no views on the subject, but it would not be appropriate that I should make a statement just now.
To turn now to the second part of the noble Lord's Motion, which enquires what action is being taken by His Majesty's Government to assist the High Commissioner in his general task of settling the refugees, I think it may be useful if, in order to dispel any misunderstanding which may exist as to the position and functions of the High Commissioner, I were to remind your Lordships of the circumstances in which the High Commission came into being. On October 11, 1933, the League Assembly adopted a Resolution suggesting that, as the presence in various countries of refugees from Germany constituted a problem which could only be solved by international co-operation, the Council should appoint a High Commissioner to negotiate and direct such co-operation; and should invite States to be represented on a Governing Body which would assist the High Commissioner in his work and receive from him periodical reports on the development and fulfilment of his task. These reports would be forwarded by the Governing Body to the States likely to be able to assist in the action contemplated. The Resolution further suggested that the expenses of this cooperation should be defrayed from funds contributed voluntarily from private or other sources. On the following day, October 12, the Council gave effect to this Resolution of the Assembly by appointing a United States citizen, Mr. J. G. McDonald, to the post of High Commissioner, and by inviting the Governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Uruguay to be represented on the Governing Body. These Governments all accepted this invitation, as did the Government of Yugo-Slavia, which was subsequently also invited to be represented. The Council finally authorised the advance to the High Commission (as suggested in the Resolution of the Assembly) of a sum of 25,000 Swiss francs as a loan for initial administrative expenses. This sum has, I may say, since been repaid.
It will be clear to your Lordships from this brief explanation that it was the
840
intention of the League Assembly and of the League Council to create, for the purpose of dealing with the problems raised by the existence of the refugees from Germany, an independent institution, entirely free from League or governmental supervision, in no sense subordinated either to the Governments or the League, and supported by entirely voluntary contributions drawn from private sources. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, was anxious that some form of central fund or pool should be created for this purpose, but I think that throughout emphasis has been laid on the desirability of this being done through private sources and voluntary contributions, and that nothing was to be expected from Governments in the way of money. No proposal has been made to the Governments on behalf of the High Commissioner that any such fund should be created.
In a word, it may be said that by the action they took at Geneva in October, 1933, the Governments concerned placed the question of the refugees in the hands of the High Commission, though they provided themselves with a channel of communication—this new organisation—and showed that they meant to keep in touch with developments by appointing representatives to its Governing Body. The Governing Body, on which His Majesty's Government are fortunate in having Lord Cecil as their representative—I may add that Lord Cecil was elected Chairman by his colleagues of the Governing Body at its very first meeting at Lausanne in December, 1933—have held a series of meetings, mostly in London, at which reports have been received from the High Commissioner on the progress of his work and resolutions adopted embodying recommendations designed to facilitate the settlement of the refugees in accordance with the schemes evolved by him. It will be apparent to your Lordships that administrative action on the part of the Governments may occasionally be required in order to give effect to these recommendations: and it has accordingly been the practice of the High Commissioner's office to forward such resolutions periodically to the Governments concerned—not only to the Governments with representatives on the Governing Com-

841
mission—with a request for an expression of views.
I do not need to assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have invariably subjected these recommendations to the most benevolent and careful consideration; and favourable replies have been returned and appropriate action taken, whenever such a course has been at all possible. A spirit of sympathy will continue to inform the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the endeavours of the High Commissioner in the discharge of the task which has been entrusted to him, and in cases where administrative action may be necessary the High Commissioner will be able, as hitherto, to count on the most careful consideration being devoted by His Majesty's Government to all suggestions which may be brought to its notice through the appropriate channels of communication.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, went on to suggest in his speech that some form of amalgamation should be adopted in this work so that the League should take it on itself. The only information I can give him on that point is that His Majesty's Government have already received, through the medium of the Governing Body of the High Commission, the suggestion put forward by the Advisory Council of the High Commission that the High Commission should become an integral part of the League of Nations. His Majesty's Government are considering this suggestion, but they would remark that it is not for them nor for the Governments represented on the Governing Body, nor even for the League Council itself, to take any decision involving so fundamental an alteration in the status of the High Commission. As noble Lords will remember, the High Commission was brought into existence as a consequence of a Resolution by the League Assembly in 1933. By the terms of that Resolution the organisation which was to be set up to deal with the German refugee problems was most carefully separated from any direct connection with the League and from any control by the Governments, and was established on an entirely independent basis. Any such far-reaching alteration in the status of the High Commission would therefore, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, require the assent of the League Assembly
842
which, I believe, in the ordinary course of events, will not meet until the autumn.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Nobody, I think, suggested for a moment that His Majesty's Government could do it off their own bat, but the Government could have a policy on the subject which they could submit and press on the Assembly.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: That is all the in formation I can give the noble Viscount on the policy of the Government at the present moment. Then the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, invited me to give a definition, I think, of the different classes of refugee, but I should prefer to leave that to someone who is more ingenious in mind than myself. Everybody is aware that there are a great many different classes of refugee, and that is one of the difficulties of giving any precise definition on the point. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, in the course of his interesting speech made some reference to the hard administration of the Aliens Act. I have no particular information which I can give to the House on that matter, but I must confess I have heard no such complaints myself, nor can I refrain from reminding your Lordships that, sympathetic as the Government is on this question and sympathetic as we must all be in so serious a matter as this, we have at certain times, especially in times like these, to have regard to the conditions of employment and unemployment in this country in dealing with these matters. I think that is all the information I can give to the House at present regarding the matters on the Paper.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I have no doubt that the sympathy expressed by the noble Lord will bring great satisfaction to the refugees who will continue to suffer during the next few months pending the Report by the Mexican Delegate to the League of Nations, which will be made at the next Session of the Council, I suppose, in May; and equally they will continue to suffer during the present year because in any case no action by the League as regards a fund can take place under the constitution of the League until after the Assembly meets in September, and then not until January 1

843
when the new Budget takes effect. That is an office point of view, but hardly a humanitarian point of view, and it is not one which deals with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Cecil—namely, the vital effect of the continued existence of this refugee problem as a threat to world peace. That is an aspect with which the noble Lord failed to deal at all.
It seems to me he took far too narrow a view of the responsibilities of His Majesty's Government, and I am quite certain that from that point of view there will be considerable regret at the comparative inaction of the Government. But at least we have learned this, that if the High Commissioner will himself put forward proposals whereby the various Governments can co-operate in ensuring the administration of the High Commissioner's office by contributions or other means, this Government will give sympathetic consideration to pressing that point of view on the League of Nations. I hope that the High Commissioner will take cognisance of that expression of opinion by the representative of the Government and will, through his Governing Body and through his association with the representatives of the nations involved, prepare a plan which can secure the definite practical assistance of His Majesty's Government, in addition to that of other Governments,
844
and not merely their sympathy. I request permission to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF OSTEOPATHS BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to move that the following Lords be named of the Select Committee on the Registration and Regulation of Osteopaths Bill which was approved by your Lordships recently:—Viscount Esher, Viscount Elibank, Lord Redesdale, Lord Carnock, Lord Dawson of Penn, Lord Amulree, and Lord Marley.
Moved, That the Lords following be named of the Select Committee:—

V. Esher,

V. Elibank,

L. Redesdale,

L. Carnock,

L. Dawson of Penn,

L. Amulree.

L. Marley.

—(Viscount Elibank.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.
House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.

BURY AND DISTRICT JOINT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
  HOYLAKE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]

    PORT OF LONDON BILL. [H.L.]
    CHICHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

    ANDOVER GAS ORDER, 1935.
    Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Andover Lighting and Power Company:
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

    HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
    First Report by the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered to-morrow.