LONDON NAVAL TREATY BILL.

HC Deb 23 July 1930 vol 241 cc2289-306

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This short Bill is to give effect to certain provisions of a Treaty signed in London on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and to repeal Section 4 of the Treaties of Washington Act. Under the British system of law a Treaty, although it may be binding on and accepted by His Majesty's Government, cannot be enforced in the courts of law against private individuals unless legislation has been passed. Under the Treaty of Washington, certain agreements were entered into whereby this country agreed not to build or provide by private shipbuilding certain vessels of war. That has been slightly altered by bringing within the purview of that Agreement submarines of a displacement exceeding 2,000 tons and carrying guns of above 5.1 inches. An alteration has been made in regard to the first Schedule of the Washington Treaties Act with respect to aircraft carriers carrying guns of 6 inches. That has been altered to 6.1 inches.

It is in order to give effect to these provisions that we ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill. It should be pointed out that there is no question of bureaucratic enforcement. There has to be a licence given, and the whole thing is carefully examined by the Admiralty. Where it is in agreement with the Treaty, a licence is given for building to be carried out by private firms. The further point is the repeal of Section 4 of the Treaties of Washington Act, which provides for the trial and punishment of persons violating certain rules for the protection of neutrals and non-combatants at sea. It has been found by the nations that it is not possible to enforce that, and it is thought better to follow the usual practice rather than to endeavour to enforce something which cannot be enforced and which would likely embroil the Powers in serious trouble. Those are the main points in this Bill. I beg to move.

HON. MEMBERS

Agreed!

Commander SOUTHBY

This Bill is by no means an agreed Bill. Its purpose is to give effect to the Treaty which was signed in London; but why is it necessary to take it in such a hurry? With the Imperial Conference coming on in the near future, a Conference in which the Dominions which took part in the Naval Conference will be represented, why cannot the Government wait until after that Conference before bringing this Measure before the House of Commons? It is agreed that the Bill is consequent upon the London Naval Conference and the Treaty which eventuated from it, and I suggest that it would have been wiser and better, and more courteous to the Dominions, if the Bill had been delayed until after the Conference. May I remind the House that on the last occasion when a Bill of this kind was introduced, the Bill which followed on the Washington Treaty, the Treaty was signed on 16th February, 1922, and five months elapsed before the Second Reading of the Bill took place; that was on the 7th of July. In this case, the Treaty was signed on 22nd April, 1930, and only three months elapse—it is true it is about the same time in the Session—before this Bill is presented to the House of Commons.

It is a, Bill of great importance. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Admiralty has skated very lightly and very nimbly over it, but there is more in it than the hon. Member told the House in his brief introduction. We are asked to take this Bill at half-past ten in the evening. On the last occasion when a similar Measure was introduced hon. Members opposite were extremely vociferous in their objection to the time at which the Bill was taken. I have been at pains to look up the debate which took place on that Bill and I find that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone), who was present on the 7th of July, but who I do not see in his place this evening, complained most bitterly of the Bill being taken on a Friday. He said: It is rather strange that a big Measure such as this, which is probably one of the most important Bills brought before this House since the Bill ratifying the Treaty of Versailles, is brought forward on a Friday morning with merely a quorum of Members present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1922; col. 737, Vol. 156.] That seemed to be a complaint. Where is the hon. Member to-day to complain of this Bill being brought forward at this time in the evening by his own Government? Hon. Members opposite were also concerned with the method of introducing the Bill, when it was the duty of the Conservative party to introduce it. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that he was sorry he was not present on the Second Reading, but he complained most bitterly when the Bill was in Committee and on the Third Reading stage at the Bill being brought in and dealt with as it had been. I do not know whether we shall hear any protest from the hon. and gallant Member against this Bill being taken at this hour. Are we going to hear his voice lifted up in protest against the action of his sorely-pressed and much attacked front bench? On the last occasion the hon. and gallant Member said: It is doing scant justice to the importance of the Bill"— Mark the emphasis which the hon. And gallant Member laid on the importance of the Bill when it was a Bill of the Conservative party, but when it is a Bill brought in by a Socialist Government it is a matter of so little importance that it can be rushed through in a few minutes time. The Socialist Government can closure a debate on unemployment and get on with this Bill, because, after all, it is a mere airy trifle which can be disposed of in a very short time. The hon. and gallant Member on the last occasion said: It is doing scant justice to the importance of the Bill, and the great success of the Conference which produced it. The Second Reading was taken last Friday, we are taking the Committee stage as the Second Order after a long and rather dreary debate on a very dreary Bill—a little unimportant, twopenny-half-penny Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1922; col. 1003, Vol. 156.] It was the second Order, was the complaint of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. But if he looks at his Order Paper to-day he will find that history is repeating itself; this Bill is the second Order to-day. Why then no complaint against his own Government? His complaint was so bitter and so vociferous and well worded when we were in office. Not only were the complaints confined to the question of the Committee stage, but on the Third Reading once again those great twin brethren, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull and the hon. and gallant Member for Northampton, were united, one on the question of the submarine aspect of the Bill, and the other on the air aspect. They complained bitterly that the Bill was rushed through the House with only a day's warning, and that no responsible Minister was present. Surely if those arguments applied when we were producing a Bill, they apply just as much now. This Bill is just as important as our Bill; in fact I may say—and here I am in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull—this Bill is in some respects more important, because we have the question of submarines brought into this Bill in a way which was not in the previous Bill.

Let me point out one or two of the aspects of the Bill. The complaint of the hon. and gallant Member, in his extremely clever speech on the last occasion, was that the Government were steam-rolling the Bill through the House. He used that expression. What is the present Government doing to-day? Steam-rolling the Bill through. On the question of armaments the hon. and gallant Member said that we should prohibit the whole traffic in armaments. I shall listen with great interest and expectation to the speech which I hope we are going to have from the hon. and gallant Member, in which he is going to complain bitterly that there is no inclusion in this treaty of a provision for complete prohibition of the traffic in armaments. When the hon. and gallant Member was in opposition he was a very Daniel when he came to the House. He put his case most forcibly, and complained that our Government, which was so bad, he said, had not put in a provision which would prevent completely the traffic in armaments. He complained that the control was limited only to the building of war vessels. Is he going to say that to-day? Or has he been disciplined since Monday last? Was his attack last Monday visited upon his unfortunate head by his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench? Is he to-night to be a good boy, or is he going to complain bitterly again of the shortcomings, or the lack of any comings at all, on the part of his Front Bench? It will be interesting to hear what he will say.

Let me take first of all the question of Clause 4 of the Bill. As to that the hon. Gentleman who has just dealt with the Bill said, "Oh, we have to take out Clause 4 because we are all agreed that it is unworkable." Why is it unworkable? Clause 4 was a very great advance in the last Bill. It was a Clause which met with universal approval. I have searched through the debates on a previous occasion, and there is not one single voice raised from the then Opposition against Clause 4, not one syllable of protest against it.

An HON. MEMBER

Why talk about it then?

Commander SOUTHBY

Because it might be interesting to the hon. Gentleman who interrupts, for once to get a little information. He will not get it from his own side of the House, but if he stops and listens he will always get useful information from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. Whether it will get into his head or not I do not venture to say. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery), who was in charge of the Bill on that occasion, made a great point of Clause 4, which he described as representing real progress. He said: We have armed ourselves with more effective powers for punishing those who violate the rules of war than we had when the German war criminals were tried at Leipzig."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1922; col. 759, Vol. 156.] I would remind hon. Members that under the old Manual of Military Law there was always a defence for a subordinate officer if he was able to show that the act with which he was charged was done by the order of a superior. Clause 4 as it was in the previous Measure took away that defence. I suggest that Clause 4 ought to have been left in this Bill. It was a very useful Clause and no case has yet been made out for its omission. I see the First Lord of the Admiralty is in his place taking notes and I hope we shall hear from him some adequate reason for the removal of Clause 4 and a little more detail about what led the Government to take this course.

Turning to the Schedule hon. Members will notice that the question of aircraft carriers is dealt with and in that connection I wish to point out one curious feature. This Bill is to be read in conjunction with the previous Measure to which I have referred and, like its predecessor, it is consequent upon the signing of a Treaty which moves towards the object we all have in view, namely disarmament by agreement. It is laid down here not only that we may not build, for ourselves, aircraft carriers of more than a certain tonnage, but that we may not build them in this country as it were for sale. Although we may not build an aircraft carrier of 10,000 tons or less, however, we may build an aircraft carrier of over 10,000 tons and up to 27,000 tons. Why, in all common-sense is the prohibition not made complete? A South American Republic, say Brazil, may ask us to build them an aircraft carrier. We cannot build them one of 10,000 tons or less but we can build them anything they like from 10,000 tons to 27,000 tons. I would like an explanation of this point, particularly observing, as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord knows so well, that up to date no naval constructor has been able to devise an aircraft carrier of less than 10,000 tons which will give adequate accommodation for the flying on and flying off of the machines which it carries. If this Bill is intended to prevent the manufacture and sale of this particular type of war machinery, I suggest that, logically, it ought to prevent not only the building of the small aircraft carrier—which from the point of view of the technical expert is not a paying proposition at all—but also the building of the larger aircraft carrier.

There is another question which arises in connection with this matter. If Brazil asks us to build them an aircraft carrier we may have great difficulty in doing so but if Brazil goes to Germany they can have an aircraft carrier built there the moment the contract is signed. Germany is not a party to this Treaty and can build any kind of warlike machinery—except the submarines which are covered by the Treaty of Versailles—for any other nation within the limits of the Treaty of Versailles.

Now I turn to the question of submarines. We are not allowed to build big submarines, but apparently we are allowed to build small submarines. If hon. Members look at Articles 6 and 7 they will see clearly laid down the size of the submarines which we are to keep and also that, after the coming into force of this Treaty, we are not allowed to build for sale, as it really means. We are allowed to build anything we like in the way of a small submarine, as long as it is below a certain tonnage. Surely that is not what ought to be in the Treaty. Hon. Members will notice too, that in Article 7, on page 4, there is a special provision which allows the French to maintain and keep—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Member cannot discuss the Treaty on this Bill.

Commander SOUTHBY

With great respect, I was discussing the Article which is printed in this Bill, on page 4, which distinctly reprints an Article from the Treaty. Am I not in order in discussing that?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not see the object of the hon. and gallant Member in discussing it. He could not amend it even if he disliked it. If we cannot discuss the Treaty, we cannot amend it.

Commander SOUTHBY

I bow, of course, to your Ruling, but I wanted to point out the difference in the terms given to France under this Article and the terms given to this country as regards cruisers, and that might be a reason for throwing out this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot discuss it on this Bill.

Captain CROOKSHANK

On a point of Order. If the hon. and gallant Member persuaded the House to reject this Bill, the Treaty would fall to the ground, would it not?

Mr. SPEAKER

No, it would not fall to the ground, but the Government would not be able to carry it out.

Commander SOUTHBY

I bow to your Ruling. In all the limitations in this Treaty with regard to what we may or may not build, there is no limitation placed upon any country not a party to the Treaty, and although we may not build for sale in our yards except under difficulty and under licence, other countries can go to Russia and Germany and, under the limitations of the Ver- sailles Treaty, build what they want. This Treaty and the other Treaty which is really included are designed to prevent the building and manufacture in this country of certain munitions of war and warlike material, and I would remind the House that on a previous occasion this country got into very serious trouble and suffered very serious financial loss owing to the fact that it could be proved to the United States of America that the building in this country of the "Alabama" was contrary to our Treaty obligations. It is only fair to warn the House when we begin to legislate in a Treaty, putting obligations upon ourselves not to do certain things. Anybody who looks into the future might find that those obligations might involve us in very serious loss and trouble. I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will give us a rather fuller discussion of this Treaty when he comes to reply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

With one part of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) I was in agreement, and I will not shirk it. I think this debate to-night is rather in the nature of an anti-climax. After all that we have heard of the great efforts of the Prime Minister, which we all appreciate and to which I have already paid tribute, we have this Treaty brought before Parliament late at night, and we have a speech by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, of which my hon. Friends on this bench, one of whom is very interested in this Treaty, and myself could hardly hear a word. I do not want to be unfair to my hon. Friend, but he skated over the Treaty, as the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom said. When the Washington Treaty of 1922 was introduced, we had a fine full-dress debate, in which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition took part, and although it took place late at night, it was a dignified occasion.

This, after all, affects the power of this House over treaty-making. I know the difficulties with which the Chief Patronage Secretary has to contend in arranging the business so late in the Session, but it is a pity that the Bill should be brought on at so late an hour when we shall naturally be reluctant to spend much time on its discussion. I want to deal only with Clause 2, which abrogates that part of the Treaties of Washington Act, 1922, which provides for the trial and punishment of persons violating the rules of war. I understand that the reason why we have made this retrograde step is that the Washington Treaty was left unratified by certain of the high contracting parties. It is a rather unfortunate precedent if, because a certain nation does not ratify a treaty, that treaty is to be abandoned. Another Washington Treaty, that of 1919, limiting the hours of labour, has not been ratified by many of the high contracting parties. We have not even ratified it ourselves, but that is no reason why we should abandon it.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Member is committing the same fault as his predecessor. He is now discussing the merits of a treaty with which the Bill has nothing to do.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am very sorry. I was using it as an illustration. I shall return immediately to Clause 2, which abrogates the trial and punishment of persons violating certain rules. I very much regret that it has been necessary in the circumstances to go back on the Washington Treaty. I would refer the House to the actual terms of that treaty which we are now asked to abrogate. That Conference in Washington met when the world was still suffering from great horror and indignation at the barbarities committed at sea in the War which had not long terminated. There were then drawn up in that treaty certain rules for the conduct of war at sea. The actual Clause reads as follows: Trial and punishment for violation of rules as to warfare against commerce. Any person in the service of any Power who violates any of the articles contained in Article I set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act, whether or not such person is under a governmental superior, shall be deemed to have violated the laws of war, and shall be liable to trial and punishment as if for an act of piracy, and if found within His Majesty's Dominions, may be brought to trial before any civil or military tribunal who would have had jurisdiction to deal with the case if the act had been an act of piracy."

That is a great international instrument which all other Powers were asked to ratify, and which declared the indignation of the civilised world at the outrages committed on peaceable and un- armed seamen on board merchant ships in the late War. Was the world wrong to take that view? The overwhelming opinion of the world was behind that Clause in the Washington Treaty which we are now asked to abrogate. The world was right in its opinion at that time and it is a great pity that we, the biggest maritime power in the world, with our seamen sailing all the seas should, in some future war, as neutrals be subject to the same outrages and murders on the high seas that were committed by the German forces in the late War. It was a warning that those sinking unarmed ships at sea and violating the ancient laws of humanity would be regarded as pirates, and tried accordingly.

We are going back on that, and it is a retrograde step. We have in the present Treaty put a substitute, but there is no sanction, no punishment. We have drawn up rules for the polite conduct of war. There can never be any rules for the polite conduct of war, because war can never be politely conducted. We can have a certain code which has been observed in the past, and we can enforce it. But as a hon. and gallant Member said a couple of days ago, if you attempt to prevent a submarine being used in a certain way, some nation, if she has her back to the wall, may be tempted to break those rules for the sake of gain. That is an argument that is used against having any rules. Very recent history shows that there is value in having a certain code, and I am sorry to say that in the Treaty that I will not discuss this has been departed from. The Germans broke that code, and that is why Article 4 of the Washington Treaty, which we are now asked to abrogate, was drawn up. Because they broke that code, they brought in against them the most powerful neutral which undoubtedly turned the scales in the War. It is not untrue to say, as has been said, that the man who sank the "Lusitania" won the War for the enemies of Germany. That is a classic example of how the old code, when broken, reacted against those who broke it, and therefore there is a case for having certain rules, as long as they are the sanctified rules that have been recognised and adopted by seamen for many centuries.

In this substituted Clause we go back on the well recognised practice of some centuries, and apparently it is because a certain Power refused to ratify one of the most important parts of the Treaty. France objected because she was building a great submarine fleet. This shows us that in the next Conference, when the next Treaty is brought up, the French invitation, which was made in the official French Note, must be accepted. That is, that it is no use merely discussing categories, tonnages, gun calibres and the displacement of ships; we must also discuss the use of navies. As the French said, and as we were told by the First Lord, we had to agree to it—he would, of course, agree with me that this is the retrograde step—because other Powers would not otherwise have signed the part of the Treaty that they have signed. Let me quote the words of the French Memorandum which appeared in the "Times" on 27th December last. It was issued to the world as the official Memorandum of the French Government on the dawn of the Conference: Just as a general technical agreement upon armaments implies previous political agreement, so does a complete naval agreement presuppose an understanding on the question of the freedom of the seas"— this is where the particular Treaty we are discussing now is particularly referred to— defining the rights of belligerents and the rights of neutrals and providing for the prospective co-operation of other fleets against that of an aggressor country. 11.0 p.m.

In other words, instead of relying on your own fleet, on your own minimum of 50 cruisers, you rely on the co-operative efforts of other Powers. If we could have a real code of sea law drawn up to suit modern conditions, which this Treaty does not do, and, if that is recognised as an international instrument, we could really rely on the benevolent neutrality, and possibly the intervention, of other Powers if these rules are transgressed in some future war. I am sorry to say that that was not tackled very courageously by the delegates. After I had returned to this country and the Conference was well under way I asked several questions of the Foreign Secretary, and various replies were given, but finally it emerged that there was an agreement between the British and American Governments that this particular question should not be discussed. I think that is the real cause why greater success in the Treaty was not achieved. I am not criticising when I say that greater success was not obtained, because it has been deplored by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He did his best, as we all know, but he has admitted that he would have liked the Treaty to go a little further. Before the General Election my right hon. Friend had a very different idea. He wrote a foreword to an official pamphlet issued by the Labour party in which he declared that the great question of Anglo-American relations would never be satisfactorily settled until the freedom of the seas was settled between us. I do not want to delay the House at this time of night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite will admit that this is a matter of some importance. They cheered the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) when he protested against this being taken at a late hour, and it is not for them to shout me down now. I hope that in a comparatively short time, in another year or two, there will be another conference, and in the most friendly way I do beg my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to begin the education of public opinion on this subject.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Member must confine himself to this Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I will do so. It will be admitted by my right hon. Friend that it was with great reluctance that he agreed to Clause 2 of the Bill. Why do we now have to pass Clause 2? I am afraid it is because this admittedly thorny question was left unsettled. This Clause removes from the original Treaty of 1922 a safeguard to our seamen in some future war, whether we are engaged in it or are neutrals, for neutrals were damaged and sunk and men were murdered in the late War. This is a question that touches very deep and old feelings among our people, but conditions have changed, and I beg the Prime Minister, who unfortunately was not here on Monday, to read the speech of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in that debate. He admitted at the beginning of his speech that we would no longer in the future, because we agreed to parity, be able to exercise blockade. That being the case, we need not be afraid of the big Labour party saying we are throwing away a weapon.

Mr. SPEAKER

Captain Balfour.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, I had nearly finished my speech. This is an important question which will have to be discussed on another occasion.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR

There is one point upon which I should like to have some further light and that is the question of aircraft carriers. In the speech of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty just now he said that on the question of the limitation of aircraft carriers the present position could be nullified by the granting of a licence. I would like to know on what terms the granting of such a licence would be made conditional. I would like to know if other countries are building aircraft carriers of under 10,000 tons, and I should like to ask whether the Admiralty will look sympathetically on an application by naval shipyards to do likewise. I have looked at the Treaties of Washington Act of 1922 which deals with this question, and it says: Provided that a licence for any such purpose shall not be refused by the Admiralty unless it appears to the Admiralty necessary to do so for the purpose of securing the observance of the obligations imposed by the first-mentioned Treaty, and where a licence is granted subject to conditions, the conditions shall be such only as may appear necessary to the Admiralty for the purpose aforesaid. I am at a loss to know on what conditions the Admiralty will grant the licence in question. What is the objection to the limitation to 10,000 tons and under without a minimum limit to the building of aircraft? This is going to be a very great potential danger to the future of flying and the safety of aviation.

Mr. SPEAKER

We cannot go into that question now.

Captain BALFOUR

I would like to refer to Article 3 of this Treaty, which says: The fitting of a landing-on or flying-off platform or deck on a capital ship, cruiser or destroyer, provided such vessel was not designed or adapted exclusively as an aircraft carrier, shall not cause any vessel so fitted to be charged against or classified in the category of aircraft carriers.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is one of the Articles of the Treaty and that is not under discussion now.

Captain BALFOUR

It is in the Schedule and I thought that I should be in order in referring to it. If I am not in order in referring to it I hope that at some future time we shall have some indication as to the reasons for the stipulation in this limitation because it is not right to encourage large aircraft carriers and consequently small platform flying from decks of other ships. The whole development of aviation should be to have smaller and smaller hangar ships. There is an old saying, "Where I dines I sleeps," and it is equally applicable to other pilots in the words, "Where I garages I flies."

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN

I only want to ask one question before the First Lord replies. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a more substantial answer to the points which have been raised on Clause 2, but the point on which I desire to ask a question has not been raised this evening. The Prime Minister will remember that I did suggest to him the other day that it was a little premature to take this Bill at the moment, and I think that there would have been a great deal to be said for leaving the Bill until after the Imperial Conference. I want to ask the Government whether they have an assurance from the Dominions, including the Irish Free State, that they will give effect to such legislation as may be necessary under Clause 1 of this Bill. Of course, the First Lord of the Admiralty will remember that, under the original Act of 1922, the Dominions are specially excluded, including the Irish Free State when constituted, and, of course, it is essential, if we tie our hands—we are not going to oppose it; I understand that it is part of what has been done at the Conference—if we tie our hands with regard to shipbuilding here, it is essential that equal legislation should be applied in all the Dominions, including the Irish Free State. That is a point on which I hope I shall get a satisfactory reply. If we do not get such a reply, we shall press the matter to a Division.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander)

If I may reply first to the point which has just been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, may I say that we have indications from all the Dominions which were represented at the Conference that they intend fully to ratify the London Naval Treaty, and we have no doubt in our minds that each one of the Dominions which were represented, and which indicated their intention to ratify the Treaty, will, within the terms of their own Constitutions, pass what legislation is necessary in order that they may carry out their obligations under their decision to ratify. If there is any doubt about that, it can certainly be settled at the Imperial Conference, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but there is no reason at all why, for that purpose, we should delay passing the legislation which we are submitting to the House to-night.

The Prime Minister said the other day, in reply to a question from the right hon. Gentleman, that he would look carefully into the question when to take this Bill, but I think that the Leader of the Opposition will agree that it is always important, in the interests of the State, that, when this country is ratifying a Treaty which will in any way limit the action of its nationals, that Treaty should be implemented by a Statute at once, and that that Statute should be discussed by the House of Commons. That is the course of action that is being taken now.

It would, I think, be out of order for me to reply to some of the questions which have been raised. I have, if I may say so, a great deal of sympathy with hon. Members who have had to try to keep in order in speaking on this Bill; it is exceedingly difficult to keep in order within the narrow limits of the Bill; but I may say, generally, that the Schedule reprints very faithfully the restrictions laid down in certain categories of ships in the Treaty; and as we, as a Power that is a party to the Treaty, with the four other Powers—because they are all parties—undertook solemnly that we will not build for ourselves ships of this class, it is necessary for us to declare by law that our nationals Shall not build for other Powers ships which we have undertaken by treaty not to build for use by ourselves; and, really, all the questions that have been raised about different categories of ships have to be answered, within the terms of order under this Bill, in that one way.

If, however, I am not ruled out of order in answering one specific question, I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman who referred to the limitations which were placed upon the building in this country of aircraft carriers, that, if he will study carefully the provisions of the Treaty upon which this Bill is based, he will find that what was really behind the minds of the delegates of the various Powers at the Conference, in dealing with aircraft carriers, was that you should not have growing up a very large number of ships which are fitted or do-signed as aircraft carriers, carrying a gun over the calibre of 6.1 inches, and which could be used, if necessary, as cruisers. It was a very anxious point in the minds of all the delegates to the Conference that, having got agreement at Washington in 1922—

Mr. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman is getting on to dangerous ground, and if I allowed him to proceed I should find it difficult to keep others in order if they wished to reply to him.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I was very anxious to satisfy the desire of hon. Members opposite for information. I will leave the point, but if anyone has any difficulty in the matter I shall be only too happy to give him information at the Admiralty. With regard to the other matter that has been raised, Section 2, we did everything we possibly could to achieve the major purpose with regard to submarines, and that was to abolish their use in war altogether. We failed in that purpose. We were faced then with what should be the basis of agreement, if we could get it, with regard to regulation. The agreement that was arrived at is disappointing, as compared with what it was hoped had been gained in the 1922 Treaty. But that Treaty is of no effect and we should be keeping on the Statute Book a penalty to be applied in respect to offences against the Treaty which were ineffective because they were not ratified. That is an absurd position for us to maintain. But it does not rule out the possibility of this or, I hope, any future Government continuing to deal with the matter by negotiation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

The right hon. Gentleman speaks of sub- marines. He could not abolish submarines and this was the next best thing. The rules we are advocating do not only apply to submarines. There were illegal sinkings by surface vessels as well. The whole code of international law, quite apart from submarines, wants stating again

Mr. ALEXANDER

We are quite willing to do all we possibly can to get the principles re-stated, but it is essential that we should get at the Conference, as the result of our efforts, the major point of agreement stated effectively by agreement, by ratification, by legislation, in each of the countries. The Prime Minister has stated on more than one occasion that he regretted we were not more successful but we have certainly made an actual step forward. We shall not relax our efforts but shall carry it still further.

Commander SOUTHBY

Have the other signatories to the Washington Treaty cancelled, as we are being asked to cancel, their equivalent articles to Article IV of the original Act, and did the suggestion that it should be cancelled come from us in the first place or from them?

Mr. ALEXANDER

I stated that certain signatories never ratified at all and therefore have no legislation of the kind. I have no doubt the other Powers will take all necessary legislative action to secure the purpose.

Commander SOUTHBY

The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I want to know whether those who were signatories have definitely stated that they are going to cancel.

Mr. ALEXANDER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must understand that all the Powers who are signatories did not deposit ratification—[Interruption]—if one or two did. But we have not the information at present of what they are actually going to do except that it is implicit in the Treaty itself, the agreement part of it, that they will take all necessary legislative action to implement this Treaty.

Commander SOUTHBY

The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Alexander.]