Commons Sitting of 6 April 1933

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
MEMORIAL TO THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH.
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir Victor Warrender)reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
MEMORIAL TO THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH.

  MEMORIAL TO THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH.
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that a Memorial Tablet be erected in the Collegiate Church of Saint Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the late Right Honourable the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.
  I will gladly give directions for carrying into effect your proposal to do honour to the memory of that eminent statesman and devoted servant of his Country.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).
Mr. BATEY: I desire briefly to present a petition on behalf of 6,350 residents in the Spennymoor Division, County Durham, against the suggested co-operative tax. I will not take up the time of the House by reading the prayer, as it was read yesterday.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that expert inquiries recently held have shown that the bare minimum cost of maintenance of children is between 5s. and 6s. per head per week; and whether he will take steps
    1894
    to see that allowances on this scale are available under unemployment insurance and transitional benefit?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I can add nothing to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a similar question put by the hon. Member on 16th March.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Member aware that the minimum sum required is set out in the Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1931, and does he think therefore that 2s. is adequate for the purpose?

    COURTS OF REFEREES (PROCEDURE).
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the practice of certain chairmen of courts of referees who ask applicants appearing before them before their case is heard if, in the event of the decision being against them, they intend to appeal to the umpire; and whether, seeing that the question put in such circumstances savours of intimidation, he will instruct chairmen to ask the question, if necessary, after a decision has been given and not before?
    Mr. HUDSON: The procedure in this matter has not been prescribed, but if my hon. Friend has any cases in mind perhaps he would be good enough to let me have particulars.

    JUVENILES (LIVERPOOL).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that youths who have undergone a six months' course of instruction in woodworking at the Belmont Street Training Centre, Liverpool, are being directed to employment in a firm producing kitchen cabinets, with the promise of a standard wage rate of 20s., and that, after purchasing tools from his insurance benefit, a youth trained at this training centre was put to work on piecework conditions, which only permitted him to earn 9d. per day; and what action he proposes to take to safeguard youths from such conditions?
    Mr. HUDSON: I presume the hon. Member refers to one of the junior instruction centres conducted by the Liverpool Education Authority for unemployed boys under the age of 18. Training for specific trades is not provided at

    1895
    such centres. I have ascertained that some of the boys have taken employment with a firm which appears to be that referred to in the question, but I can find no evidence either that a rate of 20s. was promised or that the conditions permitted a boy to earn only 9d. a day.
    Mr. LEONARD: If I give details to the officials of the Employment Exchange, will the hon. Member take the matter up?
    Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir. I shall be very glad indeed to do so.

    SEASONAL WORKERS.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the present ignorance on the subject, he will instruct all Employment Exchanges in appropriate districts to warn seasonal workers that they can secure certificates of exemption from contributing to the unemployment insurance scheme?
    Mr. HUDSON: It is not the case that all seasonal workers are entitled to exemption. The conditions for exemption are set out in a leaflet which is available generally, and a copy of which is given to each person whose claim to benefit is disallowed under the seasonal workers' regulation.

    COTTON OPERATIVES (REINSTATEMENT).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that certain employers in Lancashire have not carried out the clause in the cotton trade agreement of last year relating to the reinstatement of employés involved in the stoppage; and whether he will take steps to bring this breach of the agreement to the notice of the employers' association?
    Mr. HUDSON: I understand that the employers' and workers' organisations have had under discussion the progress made in the re-employment of displaced operatives, and my right hon. Friend does not consider that there is any necessity to take action of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that this problem has gone beyond that stage and that the allegation is definitely made by the workpeople that reinstatement is not provided by the employers where there
    1896
    are vacancies; and will his Department in those circumstances see whether anything can be done?
    Mr. HUDSON: The situation is that there was no clause in the Cotton Trade Agreement, such as is suggested by the hon. Member in his question. The matter was merely included in the memorandum. The whole question is being discussed between the two sides, and my right hon. Friend thinks that no useful purpose could be served at the present moment by intervening.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that this provision was in the memorandum and not in the Agreement, and will he institute inquiries into the complaints made by the workers' organisations, in order to see whether they are well-founded?
    Mr. HUDSON: Officials of my Department are in touch with both parties, but, in view of the information which we have, my right hon. Friend thinks that at the present moment no useful purpose will be served by adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.

    PUBLIC WORK SCHEMES.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Minister of Health whether he will issue a list of public works involving an individual expenditure of more than £25,000, excluding slum clearance, the building of dwelling houses, schools and labour exchanges, upon which public authorities, at this date, desire to embark by means of a loan-expansion policy, with or without Government aid; and will he also state the total estimated expenditure and the number of persons likely to be employed upon feasible schemes?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): This information could be obtained only by means of a return from the local authorities: and the return and deductions based on it would be subject to so many qualifications, as to its inclusive character, practicability of schemes, probable cost and extent of employment, and the dates by which employment would be available, as to have no practical value. Local schemes at any given moment are at all stages of preparation, and, before actual loan sanction, require careful examination. The statements already made have re-

    1897
    moved any doubt as to the ready sanction which awaits proposals for public works of a remunerative or useful character.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Has not my right hon. Friend already in his Department a list of the type of public works which I have described in my Question; and could he not issue to us such a list, so that we might see whether there is any foundation for the statement that a system of loan expansion would help employment?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir; there is, in fact, no such list in existence.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he is now in a position to make a statement in respect of colliery owners and the insurance of their workmen for fatal and non-fatal accidents in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act;
  (2) if he is now in a position to state what amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act he proposes to make in regard to compulsory insurance for injured workmen?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): My right hon. Friend does not at present contemplate any amendment of the Act in the direction suggested. As regards the mining industry, the information supplied by the Mining Association shows that in almost every area the mutual indemnity associations have now made arrangements to insure the owners against all their liabilities under the Act, excepting only payments due in disablement cases in respect of the first six months; good progress is being made in getting the firms to take advantage of such insurance. The chief exception is Lancashire, but I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend is informed that a scheme has now been drawn up by a committee representing the two Lancashire indemnity associations, and is being submitted to all the Lancashire collieries for acceptance. As regards those undertakings which prefer to do their own insurance, a model form of trust deed is
  1898
  being prepared which will provide for the maintenance of reserves adequate to meet all outstanding liabilities. Much, no doubt, remains to be done, but there seems to be good ground for hoping that the co-operation of the industry will enable matters to be placed on a satisfactory basis.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that in these policies there is abundant guarantee for the men who are employed in the pits which are to be covered, and that the men are adequately provided for?
  Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir. In the mutual indemnity associations I think there is no doubt about that.
  Mr. GRENFELL: Is the right hon. Member aware that there are cases where men who were supposed to be insured under a mutual indemnity scheme were not safeguarded?
  Mr. HACKING: I shall be pleased if the hon. Member will let me have particulars of that.

  LOTTERIES AND BETTING (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether in view of the urgency of passing legislation during this Session, he will state whether the final Report of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting may be expected before Whitsuntide?
  Mr. HACKING: I am unable to add anything to the answer given on the 27th March, in reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).
  Captain MACDONALD: Has the right hon. Member any idea when this commission will report, in view of the fact that it is some time since it ceased taking evidence.
  Mr. HACKING: The answer is given in the reply to the question to which I have referred on the 27th March, when my right hon. Friend said that the final recommendations might be expected in two or three months' time.

  ALIENS (RUSSIANS).
  Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Home Secretary if he will state how many Russian subjects are now in this country?
  Mr. HACKING: According to the latest information, the number of persons registered as Russians is:

  Males

  …

  31,496

  Females

  …

  36,429

  Total

  …

  67,925

  Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Is it possible for the Minister to consider a restriction on these people coming into the country?
  Mr. HACKING: There are restrictions under the Aliens Act.
  Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of these are White Russians?
  Mr. HACKING: I do not think I could give that information, even if I had notice, but I should say that the great majority of Russians in this country are people who have been here for very many years, and I do not think there is any reason to suppose that every Russian is of necessity an undesirable alien.

  MAINTENANCE ORDERS.
  Mr. RANKINasked the Home Secretary whether he will circularise benches of magistrates recommending them to have recourse to the Vagrancy Act in connection with persistent refusals to maintain wives and families; and whether he is aware that this procedure is being followed in Liverpool?
  Mr. HACKING: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that magistrates are unaware of the relevant provisions in the Vagrancy Act, and, so far as he is aware, there is no occasion for his calling attention to them in the way suggested.

  POACHING (CONVICTION, WORKSOP).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inuiries into the case of the man named
  1900
  Marples who was convicted at Worksop for poaching?
  Mr. HACKING: After full consideration, my right hon. Friend has decided to recommend the remission of the remainder of this man's sentence, and instructions have been given for his release forthwith.

  TRANSPORT.

    TAXIMETER CABS (RENEWAL LICENCES).
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Home Secretary whether he will direct the metropolitan cab-licensing authorities to revise the conditions of fitness laid down for granting renewal licences of taximeter-cabs so that taximeter cabs may not ply for hire which are below the safety point in steering efficiency, engine power, and control; and is he aware that the reconditioning requirements are now such as to retain on the streets taximeter-cabs which are uncomfortable and out of accord with the need of the public?
    Mr. HACKING: Taximeter-cabs are not licensed if they are below the safety point, and my right hon. Friend is assured that no revision of the conditions of fitness of such cabs in that respect is required. As regards the second part of the question, it would be unfair to the owners to reject the older cabs merely because they may not attain the degree of comfort to be found in new models. It should be remembered that a cab is often the sole means of livelihood of an owner-driver.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this state of affairs is often due to hard economic conditions?
    Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir, but the conditions as to fitness must be complied with.

    ROAD WORKS (KERBSTONE).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Transport whether the committee appointed to promote the wider use of British kerbstone in Greater London has been successful in diminishing the sale of foreign materials in that area; and whether any arrangements have been made or considered to extend this scheme to other parts of the country and to include other types of road materials?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The committee has received encouraging replies from the highway authorities in Greater London, but there has not yet been time for definite results to be ascertained. I doubt the advisability of attempting to extend the scheme at present in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend, whose aim is largely met, I think, by a condition, of which I am sending him a copy, attached to all grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of works.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the imports of foreign sets are still continuing at a very high level, and is the Department doing anything more to prevent it?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If my hon. Friend would like to have a copy of our instructions, I will send it to him.

    RAIL AND ROAD CONFERENCE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to introduce legislation in connection with the recommendations of the Salter report; and, if so, at what date?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Government have already announced their intention of introducing a Bill before Easter, and it will be available to hon. Members in the course of the next few days.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In view of the growing feeling that the recommendations are open to very serious question, cannot my hon. and gallant Friend arrange for a day's discussion on the subject before legislation is introduced?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, I think there will be plenty of opportunity of discussion when legislation is introduced.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, STAINFORTH.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (1) how many children in the Stainforth area, near Doncaster, are being taught in temporary schools; how
  1902
  many such buildings are being used; and when permanent accommodation is likely to be provided;
  (2) how many children of school age in the Stainforth area are not attending school owing to lack of accommodation?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): There is considerable pressure on the school accommodation in the area referred to. My Noble Friend has no doubt that the local education authority is watching the situation closely, but he is asking them for more precise information, and will communicate with the hon. Member. Five temporary school buildings, providing accommodation for 1,020 children, are in use, and my Noble Friend understands that proposals for a new permanent school are now under consideration by the local education authority.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these temporary schools have been in existence for at least 20 years and that they are wholly unfit for the use of the children? Further, is he aware that there are 1,221 children with a playground of less than three-quarters of an acre, and does he not think that the time has arrived when a new school should be provided as soon as possible?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Those considerations will be relevant in considering the local authority's proposal for a new school.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: As the proposal for a new school has been held up since the Government came into office, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time has arrived when economy ought not to deprive this district of a school when one is so urgently required?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I would point out to the hon. Member that the proposal for this new school has not yet been received by the Board?

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.
    Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the Minister of Health if he has any information as to the number of villages in Great

    1903
    Britain which have no proper water supply; and, if not, whether he will make arrangements to obtain such information?
    Sir H. YOUNG: This information is gradually being accumulated by my officers in the course of their work. A special investigation, comprehensive enough to be of value, would cost an amount of public money not to be justified by any advantage in comparison with the regular work now in progress. I propose issuing a circular shortly on rural water supplies.

    MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (INMATES' DISCHARGE).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Minister of Health whether, as a measure to improve the accommodation in asylums, he will take steps to have notices put up acquainting friends of inmates, as provided under Section 79 of the Lunacy Act, how to facilitate the discharge of inmates to the care of their friends; if he is aware that in one case, where this provision was carried out and notices temporarily posted up, many applications were received and discharges effected; and whether he will advise that the Section referred to shall be utilised in the interest both of the inmates and of the institutions?
    Sir H. YOUNG: If the hon. Member will send me details of the particular case to which he refers, I shall be very glad to consider what inferences can properly be drawn from it. In the meantime, I would refer him to the reply which I gave to his question on this subject on the 23rd February.

  DEPRESSED AREAS (RATE BURDEN).
  Mr. STOURTONasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the urgent need for action, he will be in a position before the House adjourns for the Easter Recess to make a statement as to the Government's intentions to relieve the depressed areas of the increasing burden of Poor Law relief?
  Mr. LAWasked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the anxiety which is felt in many parts of the country as to the Government's policy, he is yet able to make a state-
  1904
  ment on the position of the depressed areas in relation to the burden of the Poor Law rate?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The matter is occupying the immediate attention of the Government. I am unable to say to-day when such a statement as that referred to will be made.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that some depressed areas are depressed because of past profligacy on the part of the local authorities—
  HON. MEMBERS: No.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Will my right hon. Friend bear that consideration in mind in any decision that is come to?
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount expended by local authorities in Scotland on able-bodied relief for unemployed and their dependants since 1921; the amount expended by Glasgow, Clydebank, Dumbarton, Greenock, Paisley, and other industrial centres; and, in view of the representations made to him by local authorities that the State should undertake to pay the cost of able-bodied relief, what action is to be taken by the Government to relieve local authorities and ratepayers of this burden?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am sending the hon. Member a tabular statement containing the information asked for in the first two parts of the question. As regards the last part, as was stated on the 30th March in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) the whole matter is under the consideration of the Government.

  BREWING CONCERNS (PROFITS).
  Mr. HOLDSWORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the profits of brewing concerns for accounting years ending in the Income Tax year 1913–14, and in the latest year for which particulars are available, representing the profits as computed for Income Tax purposes less the amounts allowed for wear and tear of machinery and plant, and including profits arising from the carrying on of any trade ancillary to the main business?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The profits of brewing concerns for accounting years ended in the year 1931–32 which were the basis of the Income Tax Assessment for the year 1932–33 are estimated at £23,000,000. The profits for the year 1932–33 which will be the basis of assessment for the current year will not come under assessment to Income Tax until next autumn, but I anticipate that they will show a considerable decline. The profits for the year 1913–14 were just under £10,000,000. These estimates, include in addition to the profit arising from brewing, any ancillary profits of the business.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Would it be possible to give some relief to the consumers of beer out of some of the profits of the liquor trade?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind the fact that the brewery trade gets a higher profit than any other trade in the country, and more advertisement and more Press?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CANADIAN WHEAT (AMERICAN SHIPMENT).
    Mr. RANKINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the difficulty in carrying out the regulations now required by the customs to obtain preference for Canadian wheat shipped through American ports, he will consider the desirability of altering these regulations so as to enable all wheat of proved Empire growth consigned by any route to the United Kingdom to be admitted free of all customs duty?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, Canadian wheat is admitted free of duty, provided that it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs to have been consigned to the United Kingdom from a part of the British Empire. The mere transit of such wheat through United States ports enroute to the United Kingdom does not debar the wheat from preference, provided that it is shown to have been definitely consigned from Canada to this country. I would remind my hon. Friend that consignment from a part of the Empire has been a general
    1906
    condition of the grant of preference ever since the Imperial Preference system was introduced in 1919, and I am afraid that I cannot accept his suggestion that this condition should now be waived in the case of particular goods.

    TRADE NEGOTIATIONS (BRITISH COAL).
    Mr. D. GRENFELL (for Mr. LAWSON)asked the President of the Board of Trade the countries with which he is now negotiating trade agreements in which British coal is involved; and if he can state the tonnage of the export coal involved in these negotiations?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. E. Brown): Coal is prominent among the articles which are under discussion in the case of all the countries with which negotiations are now proceeding. It is clearly impossible to indicate the extent of the concessions which may be secured until the agreements have been concluded.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House of the countries with which trade agreements are being negotiated?
    Mr. BROWN: The countries with which we are negotiating trade agreements are Argentina, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. In addition, we are in communication with the German Government in regard to their restrictions on the importations of United Kingdom coal.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman be able soon to inform the House of the progress in these matters?
    Mr. BROWN: I hope at not too distant a date.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Are any discussions proceeding with France?
    Mr. BROWN: Not at the moment.
    Mr. BEVAN: Will he inform the House why?

  SCOTLAND.

    PIG MARKETING SCHEME.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOTasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange for a sitting or sittings of the public inquiry into the pig marketing scheme to take place in Scotland for the purpose of taking the evidence of Scottish objectors?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I have been asked to reply. I understand that the evidence of Scottish objectors to the Pig Marketing Scheme has already been taken.

    AGRICULTURAL WAGES.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the farmers in Easter Ross and other parts of Scotland propose to reduce wages by per annum, and have declined to meet the representatives of the trade union to negotiate an agreement; that the farm workers have decided to strike unless the threat to reduce wages is withdrawn: and will the Department of Agriculture take immediate action to prevent a reduction in wages and to see that the union is recognised?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that farmers in Easter Ross propose to reduce wages by £10 per annum, but I am not aware that so large a reduction has been proposed in other districts. I further understand that no negotiations have taken place in Easter Ross between the farmers and the farm workers, and that the latter are not prepared to accept situations as from Whitsunday at the rates offered them. The Department of Agriculture for Scotland have no power to take action in the direction suggested by the hon. Member, but if opportunity arose for exercising their good offices they would be glad to do anything possible.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: May we take it that the Secretary of State will use the whole power of his office to defend these poor men, who have no organisation to defend them, in the wilds of the Highlands?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As I mentioned to the hon. Member, my good offices are at the disposal of the different parties in the matter.

    GLASGOW CORPORATION (INQUIRY).
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now state the number and nams of persons who are to form the judicial committee of inquiry into the allegations of graft by members and officials of the Glasgow corporation; the terms of reference; when they will take up their duties; and where the sittings will be held?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The proposed terms of reference to the Tribunal are set out
    1908
    in the Notice of Motion which appears in to-day's Order Paper. On the other points mentioned in the hon. Member's question, I think it would be appropriate that I should defer a statement until the Motion is taken. I hope that it will be possible to take the Motion next week.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the proposed judicial inquiry to be held in Glasgow will have powers wide enough to receive complaints of trafficking between police officers and certain bookmakers and afford protection to those submitting evidence?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The terms of reference contained in the Notice of Motion which I have put down relate to the administration of the Corporation of Glasgow and of the Licensing Court and the Licensing Court of Appeal for the city and it is not proposed that the tribunal's inquiry should be extended so as to include an inquiry into the conduct of police officers. These officers, in addition to being subject to the ordinary criminal law, are subject to a police discipline code, breaches of which involve various measures of punishment. Cases of known or suspected misconduct, or offences by police officers should be reported either to the Chief Constable or to the Procurator Fiscal.

    RIVER LEVEN (POLLUTION).
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Prevention of Pollution of the River Leven, Fife, will be published?
    Mr. SKELTON: I understand that the committee hope to submit their report to the Department of Health for Scotland on 11th April. The report will be published as soon as possible thereafter.

  DESTRUCTIVE IMPORTED ANIMALS ACT (NUTRIA).
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to take any action under the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, with a view to regulating the importation and keeping of nutria in this country?
  The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): As the result of inquiries I have caused to be made as to the

  1909
  practice in other European countries as regards the keeping of nutria, and of information obtained from other sources, I have come to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence at present to justify action as regards nutria under the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932. The Ministry has arranged, however, for the representative associations of fur breeders to keep and supply the Ministry with a record of all persons keeping nutria, and facilities are to be afforded for officers of the Department to visit their premises in order to see the conditions under which the animals are being kept.
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the amount allocated for this purpose is w holly inadequate to deal with the possibilities of destruction by these pests?

  AVIATION.

    PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN (AERODROMES).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps are being taken for the provision of civil aerodromes in Palestine and Transjordan?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): There is already a civil aerodrome at Gaza in Palestine. Consideration has been given to the question of providing further civil aerodromes in Palestine and Transjordan, but owing to financial considerations it has not been possible to do so. Meanwhile, however, arrangements are, on request, occasionally made for civil aircraft to use, subject to the exigencies of the service, certain of the Royal Air Force aerodromes and landing grounds in Palestine and Transjordan.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, though Palestine is said to be one of the most prosperous parts of the British Empire, there is now no aerodrome nearer than 35 miles from Jerusalem?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are some physical considerations in Palestine which affect the position.

    FOREIGN COUNTRIES (SUBSIDIES).
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what was the value of the direct subsidies given to civil aviation in France and Germany and of the indirect subsidies given to civil aviation by the United States of America during 1932?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Information regarding the actual payments by way of subsidies to civil aviation in France and Germany is not available, but the amounts provided in French Estimates for the nine months ended 31st December last totalled 162,500,000 francs, and those in German Estimates for, the year ended 31st March last 20,732,000 Reichsmarks. As regards the United States of America, the indirect subsidy to civil aviation for the year ended 30th June last by way of loss on air mail contracts was approximately 23,850,000 dollars.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Could not the Government emulate the example of the United States in treating higher aviation as they did?

  GAMBIA (NATIVE AUTHORITY ORDINANCE).
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what measures are taken to prevent abuse of the powers to exact forced labour in cases of real or threatened famine which are conferred on native authorities in Gambia under Clause 1C of the Native Authority Ordinance, 1983; and whether he is satisfied that the Clause conforms with the Geneva Forced Labour Convention?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Government of the Gambia will exercise a close supervision over the working of the Ordinance through the Commissioners in charge of the provinces. I am advised that the Clause in question does not conflict with any provision of the Convention to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his consent was given to the enactment of forced labour in Gambia Protectorate; and whether, in view of

  1911
  the frequency of famine, any steps are being taken, by irrigation or otherwise, to increase the amount of land available for cultivation and thus increase the supply of food?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I presume the hon. Member refers to the Native Authority Ordinance of 1933, which, as I have just stated, is in conformity with the International Labour Convention. I approved the provisions of this Ordinance in draft. Famine is not at all frequent in the Gambia, but steps are being taken to increase the production of food locally.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    IRAQ.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what instructions have been given to the air officer commanding in Iraq with regard to bombing internally to assist the Iraq Government under any circumstances?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As stated in the reply given on 16th November, His Majesty's Government have undertaken no obligations in regard to assisting the Iraq Government in the maintenance of internal security. If a critical situation arose and a request for such assistance was rceived, His Majesty's Government would consider the situation as a whole, including such matters as the protection of British and other foreign subjects and their property, before coming to a decision as to the assistance to be given, if any, and as to its nature.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Are we to understand that the Air Force in Iraq cannot be used for the protection of British nationals without previous arrangement with the Iraq Government?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I think my hon. and gallant Friend understands from my answer what the situation is.

    KURDISTAN (LANDING GROUNDS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what expenditure is being incurred on the building of aerodromes in mountainous country in Kurdistan, both by way of renovation and repair; and what are the reasons for this?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The only expenditure that is being incurred is the almost negligible cost of maintaining some existing landing grounds which are required for training purposes.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (MATERIALS).
  Mr. MITCHESONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what preference, if any, is given by the Air Ministry in the placing of their contracts to goods manufactured by purely British firms over those goods manufactured in the United Kingdom by firms whose capital is owned entirely or substantially by foreign persons or organisations outside the United Kingdom?
  Sir P. SASSOON: There is no preference on a basis of ownership of capital, provided it is clear that British labour will be employed, that the materials to be used are mainly British, and that accordingly the contracts will give employment in this country?
  Mr. MITCHESON: Will the right hon. Gentleman follow the practice of other countries in future and give this preference?
  Sir P. SASSOON: The activities of companies with foreign capital help to relieve unemployment in this country. Therefore, it is not considered desirable to discriminate against them in this manner.
  Mr. MITCHESONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what preference, if any, is given by the Admiralty in the placing of their contracts to goods manufactured by purely British firms over those goods manufactured in the United Kingdom by firms whose capital is owned entirely or substantially by foreign persons or organisations outside the United Kingdom?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): No such preference is given as it is not considered to be practicable.
  Mr. MITCHESONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what preference, if any, is given by the War Office in the placing of their contracts to goods manufactured by purely British firms over those goods manufactured in

  1913
  the United Kingdom by firms whose capital is owned entirely or substantially by foreign persons or organisations outside the United Kingdom?
  Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. In placing contracts with firms whose works are in this country, it is not considered to be either practicable or desirable to discriminate between those whose capital is British owned and those whose capital is wholly or substantially held by foreign persons.

  WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister if he can now state the date on which the proposed World Economic Conference will be held?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) on Monday last, to which I have at present nothing to add.
  Captain MACDONALD: Is there any truth in the statement that the Prime Minister is proceeding to America, and what is the object of his visit?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Easter holiday is coming on, and I hope the Prime Minister can use the opportunity of doing as he thinks fit.
  Mr. MAXTON: I hope no one in the House would dream of interfering with that. Might I ask if the Prime Minister's visit to America is going to take place, and if it will have any effect in postponing the date of the World Economic Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Quite the opposite. I hope it will hurry it up.

  GERMANY.
  Mr. JOHN MORRISasked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salford, North:
  "That this House, whilst not desirous of interfering with the domestic government of any country, observes with regret the continued persecution of Jews in Germany, recognising that the Jewish race cannot be identified with any particular nation,
  1914
  extends to British Jews its sympathy in the hour of their trial caused by the persecution of their co-religionists and requests His Majesty's Government, in the interests of world peace and the advancement of international trade, to make friendly representations to the German Government, in accordance with our ancient tradition, to respect the numerical weakness and defenceless position of Jews in Germany."
  The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that the press of Parliamentary business makes it impossible to allot time for the discussion of this Motion. The views widely held in this country have, however, recently found very full expression.
  Mr. MORRIS: While thanking the Prime Minister for his reply, might I ask if the House is to have no opportunity of registering the strong feeling that obviously exists upon all sides against the persecution of Jews in Germany?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is a matter of discretion. We are quite willing to leave it at the moment where it is.
  Major NATHANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now able to make a statement as to the general situation in Germany and, in particular, as to the situation of the Jews in that country, and as to the measures of discrimination directed against them?
  Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a report from the British Ambassador in Berlin in respect of the treatment of Jews in Germany?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to the Leader of the Opposition on the 30th March, His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin has been asked to furnish a report, and he prefers to await this before making any general statement regarding the situation in Germany.
  Major NATHAN: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to indicate any date by which a report from His Majesty's. Ambassador may be expected?
  Mr. EDEN: We expect it very shortly; I hope during the course of the week-end.
  Mr. JANNER: Will the hon. Member press for a reply by the end of the week in view of the great anxiety which is being felt on all sides, and, in connection with that reply, will he endeavour

  1915
  to obtain particulars concerning the Jews in German Upper Silesia who are being displaced from their vocations and treated with violence, particularly in view of the German Polish Convention which was entered into on 15th May, 1922?
  Mr. EDEN: There will be no avoidable delay. Obviously, the preparation of a report of this kind takes time. The more details for which we ask, the longer it will take to obtain them.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that this question may become urgent, and that it is nearing the time for Parliament to adjourn, will not the hon. Gentleman at least see that a statement is issued before the Adjournment in case we may wish to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment?
  Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member may be sure that the House will be given information as soon as we are in a position to do so, and if we are able to do so after we have examined the report of His Majesty's Ambassador.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Do not these events show that the mentality which caused the Belgian atrocities in 1914 still exists in Germany?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend whether it is possible for the League of Nations to be asked to take steps to deal with the very large number of refugees who have been driven out of Germany just now?
  HON. MEMBERS: Russia—
  Mr. LANSBURY: Exactly; I am willing to do the same for our people in Russia too. But one question at a time is enough.
  Mr. EDEN: Of course, I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he has given me no notice of this question.
  Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does not the League of Nations exist to help persecuted minorities?

  EMPIRE MIGRATION.
  Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for
  1916
  Dominion Affairs if he can give any information regarding any action taken as a result of the resolution passed by the House on the 7th December, 1932, urging His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to secure the co-operation of the Dominions in comprehensive schemes for migration within the Empire?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of the types of scheme which should be recommended for adoption when economic circumstances permit of the resumption of migration is receiving the most careful consideration. He will, however, realise that new schemes of migration cannot be started until conditions are more favourable.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Can we take it from reports that the right hon. Gentleman is about to proceed to Australia, and can he do anything to hasten his departure?
  Mr. THOMAS: I should be delighted to do anything which would enable my hon. Friend to feel happy.
  Mr. MAXTON: Can we have the assurance of the Dominions Secretary that he and the Prime Minister will not both be out of the country at the same time?

  WATERLOO BATTLEFIELD (PRESERVATION).
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the Belgian Government for the continued preservation of the battlefield of Waterloo and the historical buildings thereon, such as the farm of Mont Saint Jean, the farm of La Belle Alliance, Hougoumont, etc., for which a contribution was made by this country in 1914 towards compensation of the owners of the land?
  Mr. EDEN: No contribution has been made out of public funds from this country towards compensation of the owners of land on the battlefield of Waterloo, and no representations have been made to the Belgian Government.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is my bon. Friend aware that contributions were made from this country, even if not from public funds, and as this is a matter in which

  1917
  this country is very much interested, does he not think it desirable, at any rate, to communicate with our Ambassador regarding the proposals which have been mooted in Belgium for building on the field of Waterloo?
  Mr. EDEN: If my hon. Friend has any information on this question, I will certainly consider it.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Thank you.

  AUSTRIA AND GERMANY.
  Mr. RAIKESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent proposals for the revision of treaties, he will state the attitude of His Majesty's Government relative to the proposed political and inter-Customs agreement between Germany and Austria; and whether His Majesty's Government is still prepared to stand by the decision of The Hague Court that such a rapprochement would be contrary to the Treaty of St. Germain?
  Mr. EDEN: I am not aware of the existence at the present time of any proposal for the conclusion either of a political or a Customs agreement between Germany and Austria. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (EXPENDITURE).
  Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the small reduction in the estimate for the subscription of Great Britain to the League of Nations for 1933, any further action is to be taken in the near future to press for further reductions in the administrative costs of that body?
  Mr. EDEN: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on the 26th October last in reply to a similar question in the name of my hon. Friend.

  RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.
  Sir BASIL PETO (for Mr. CLARRY)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a Treasury representative as successor to Lord D'Abernon has yet been appointed on the Racecourse Betting Control Board?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Yes, Sir. General Sir John Du Cane, G.C.B., has consented to join the Racecourse Betting Control Board to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Lord D'Abernon.
  Sir B. PETO: Will my hon. Friend repeat the name?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Sir John Du Cane.

  BRITISH HONDURAS (CURRENCY).
  Mr. JOELasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make it a condition of assistance to be granted to the Government of British Honduras for assistance in meeting their budgetary deficit, that British Honduras should base its currency on sterling instead of upon gold?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This question of the British Honduras currency is under consideration. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

  URUGUAY (ABSENTEE LANDLORD TAX).
  Mr. TEMPLE MORRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if progress has been made in the representations made by His Majesty's Government before the Government of Uruguay for the modification of the absentee landlord tax as applied to public utility companies radicated in Uruguay?
  Mr. EDEN: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the representations made by His Majesty's Government in support of the Montevideo Gas and Dry Dock Company's claim for exemption from payment of this tax. His Majesty's Representative at Montevideo is being instructed to continue to press upon the Uruguayan Government the desirability of reaching a satisfactory settlement of this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: If the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister is carried, will the right hon. Gentleman say how far he intends to go to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended as a precautionary measure. As announced yesterday, we hope to conclude the remaining stages of the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Bill by 9 or 10 o'clock to-night, and to devote an hour or two to the Committee stage of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Bill.
Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he made that statement some controversy, which may lead to a good deal of discussion, as to the scope of the Bill and the length of time it will be in operation has arisen, and that therefore it may be impossible to conclude as early as was expected, and does he really want to sit as late as we did the other evening, which was a very inconvenient hour?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not wish to ask the House to sit to an inconvenient hour, but as the situation of business stands we must use all the available time. We hope to conclude the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Bill by 9 o'clock to-night, and then to proceed with the Rent Restrictions Bill. We can arrange matters as the time goes on.
Mr. BUCHANAN: In regard to the Rent Restrictions Bill, is the Prime Minister aware that it is not receiving the consideration which it ought to receive, considering that it is of terrible importance to vast numbers of people? To consider the Bill in an hour or two at the end of the day's sitting, as if it were a scrap Measure, is not fair to the
House. Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider that as the Bill is of such great importance he should start it de novo on another day?
The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that an agreement has been come to that the Rent Restrictions Bill shall be got through by the sitting on Tuesday. I want to facilitate its progress by using every available hour, so that the arrangement can be kept, and I hope that its progress will be facilitated.
Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not practically the same Bill that was considered by the late Government, and are not its provisions well known to all hon. Members?
Mr. LANSBURY: It is true that originally it was agreed that three days, should be given to the Committee stage of the Bill. If we have Tuesday of next week, that is giving us the three days which were asked for, owing to the fact that many hon. Members wished to discuss Amendments. We hope to get some extra time to-night, but, as I have pointed out, other questions have arisen in regard to the Embargo Bill, which may vitiate the previous arrangement. That is all that I wanted to say.
Motion made, and Question put.
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 44.

Division No. 122.]

AYES.

[3.33 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bossom, A. C.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Boulton, W. W.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.(Birm., W)

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Apsley, Lord

Briant, Frank

Christie, James Archibald

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Bailey, Eric Alfred George

Broadbent, Colonel John

Clarke, Frank

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Clarry, Reginald George

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)

Conant, R. J. E.

Balniel, Lord

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Cooke, Douglas

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Burnett, John George

Cranborne, Viscount

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Crooke, J. Smedley

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Cross, R. H.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Castle Stewart, Earl

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Bernays, Robert

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Davison, Sir William Henry

Blindell, James

Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Denville, Alfred,

Law, Sir Alfred

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Donner, P. W,

Leckie, J. A.,

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Drewe, Cedric

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Levy, Thomas

Ropner, Colonel L.

Dunglass, Lord

Liddall, Walter S.

Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

Eden, Robert Anthony

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Ross, Ronald D.

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Rothschild, James A. de

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Elmley, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

Runge, Norah Cecil

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Mabane, William

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Fermoy, Lord

MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)

Salt, Edward W.

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

McKie, John Hamilton

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Fox, Sir Gifford

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Fuller, Captain A. G.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Magnay, Thomas

Savery, Samuel Servington

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Maitland, Adam

Scone, Lord

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Selley, Harry R.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Goff, Sir Park

Martin, Thomas B.

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Gower, Sir Robert

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Meller, Richard James

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Grimston, R. V.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Smithers, Waldron

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Milne, Charles

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Mitcheson, G. G.

Soper, Richard

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.,

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

Hanbury, Cecil

Moreing, Adrian C.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Stevenson, James

Harbord, Arthur

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Stones, James

Hartington, Marquess of

Morris-Jones, Dr. J, H. (Denbigh)

Storey, Samuel

Hartland, George A.

Moss, Captain H. J.

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Strauss, Edward A.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Munro, Patrick

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Nall, Sir Joseph

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Hepworth, Joseph

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Sutcliffe, Harold

Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

Nunn, William

Templeton, William P.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Ormiston, Thomas

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Holdsworth, Herbert

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Palmer, Francis Noel

Thompson, Luke

Hornby, Frank

Patrick, Colin M.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Horobin, Ian M.

Peake, Captain Osbert

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Horsbrugh, Florence

Pearson, William G.

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Howard, Tom Forrest

Peat, Charles U.

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Petherick, M

Wayland, Sir William A.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Wells, Sydney Richard

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)

Weymouth, Viscount

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

White, Henry Graham

Hurd, Sir Percy

Potter, John

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Purbrick, R.

Wise, Alfred R.

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Pybus, Percy John

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Janner, Barnett

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Kimball, Lawrence

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Knight, Holford

Rankin, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Ray, Sir William

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Rea, Walter Russell

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

Daggar, George

Attlee, Clement Richard

Buchanan, George

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Banfield, John William

Cape, Thomas

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Batey, Joseph

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Edwards, Charles

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Cove, William G.

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

1922

1923

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Leonard, William

Thorne, William James

Groves, Thomas E.

Logan, David Gilbert

Tinker, John Joseph

Grundy, Thomas W.

Lunn, William

Waffhead, Richard C.

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Hall, George H. (Me thyr Tydvil)

McGovern, John

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Healy, Cahir

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Hirst, George Henry

Maxton, James

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Jenkins, Sir William

Nathan, Major H. L.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Parkinson, John Allen

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Kirkwood, David

Price, Gabriel

Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Salter, Dr. Alfred

BILLS REPORTED.

  COTTON INDUSTRY BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 19th May.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AUDIT BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 19th May, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
    DEWSBURY AND OSSETT PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
      BRIDLINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
      Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL,
"to enable courts to disqualify for keeping dogs persons convicted of cruelty to them," presented by Sir Robert Gower; supported by Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Mr. Hutchison, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Sir Cooper Rawson, Mr. Herbert Williams, Mr. Cocks, Mr. Turton, Mr. Richard Evans, Miss Horsbrugh, and Sir Wilfrid Sugden; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
Sir John Ganzoni reported from the Select Committee on the Kitchen and
Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons), That they had agreed to a Special Report which they had directed him to make to the House.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Indian Constitutional Re Form,—That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution communicated to them on Thursday last: "That, before Parliament is asked to take a decision upon the proposals contained in Command Paper 4268, it is expedient that a Joint Select Committee of Lords and Commons, with power to call into consultation representatives of the Indian States and of British India, be appointed to consider the future government of India and, in particular, to examine and report upon the proposals in the said Command Paper."
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to prohibit the importation of Russian goods.)
    3.53 p.m.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words:
    "During the period of one month from the commencement of this Act."
    The discussion yesterday on this Bill left the House in doubt upon two matters of outstanding importance: First, the nature of the demands which we propose to make upon the Russian Government, that is to say, the nature of the treatment we expect the Government of Russia to deal out to the men who are now on trial; and, second, the objects for which the Bill is designed. At the conclusion of the Debate last night the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) addressed a question to the President of the Board of Trade which has a direct bearing on the Amendment. He asked whether the purpose of the Bill was to deal with trade relations generally with Russia or whether its use was to be confined to dealing with the men in prison. The President of the Board of Trade found it impossible to give a direct reply and said:
    "No one can say what is the sole object. We are bound to take powers in the widest form, and they will be mainly dealing with our fellow countrymen who are at present under arrest in Russia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1933, col. 1886, Vol. 276.]
    If the last part of the answer is to be taken for what it is worth, and if we are to ignore the first part, we have to assume that the sole purpose of these powers is to try and secure the treatment for these men in Russia which the Government require, and, therefore, there is no need why the powers should remain in the hands of the Government for an indefinite period. Yesterday the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade spoke of no other purpose, used no other argument, but that these powers were necessary in order to secure what is considered to be fair treat-
    1934
    ment for British subjects in Russia and, consequently, if they are going to be used for a wider purpose, then the House has had no opportunity of discussing that aspect of the matter. Everyone will agree that the discussion yesterday did not turn upon the economic consequences of the use of these powers. Hon. Members were prepared to face the economic consequences involved in order to secure what they considered to be fair treatment for our people there. Therefore, it would be a gross violation of the practices of this House if these powers were used for purposes which never emerged in the discussion, and it would be dishonourable on the part of the Government if they put forward the alleged bad treatment of our people in Russia as a cloak under which to obtain powers for other purposes which were not disclosed.
    We desire to limit these powers to one month. If the Government do not exercise them within one month, they should lapse. It would not be proper to argue against the use of the embargo; the Second Reading decided that point. It would not be proper to argue against the effects of the embargo. This Amendment is not directed against that, but it is put forward in order to minimise the great uncertainty which will otherwise exist if these powers are kept in reserve and may be used at any moment by the Government to stop our trade with Russia. In such circumstances great uncertainty would be introduced, and uncertainty is only next in gravity to the exercise of the embargo itself.
    Russia is carrying on a trade with this-country of something like £32,000,000, and we export something in the nature-of £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 worth of goods. With other exports included there is a total trade of something between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000. The timber importing industry feels very deeply the uncertainty which exists as a consequence of the reservation of these powers. Indeed, unless the powers terminate at an early date it will he quite impossible to place any forward contracts with Russia; it will be impossible in view of the possibility of these powers being used for purposes entirely unrelated to trade. It would he disastrous in the extreme to industries if these powers were reserved all the time. The "Financial News" the other day had a leading

    1935
    article on this matter, in which it was Pointed out that the trade with this country is of great importance, that the Government had underwritten something like £10,000,000 of credit for the Russian trade, of which £7,000,000 would fall upon the Treasury if the Russian Government failed to meet its commitments, and that any fall in Russian trade to this country must have financial repercussions.
    I have been told that a great deal of the £50,000,000 which is frozen in Germany was lent by this country at something like 8 per cent., and was re-lent to the Russians at 15 per cent., and that any collapse of the Russian export trade would affect the chance of getting that money repaid. Russia owes Germany something like £250,000,000. She owes America a great deal of money also. She was making use of the unfavourableness of the balance of trade between Russia and Britain in order to make her payments to Germany and America. [Laughter.] I expected that hon. Members would laugh at that remark. But that state of affairs existed before the War, and there is nothing new about it. We have an unfavourable balance of trade with Russia merely because we needed the goods that Russia was able to sell, and she did not need in the same quantities the goods that we made.
    It is absurd for hon. Members to argue that there is any injustice in an unfavourable balance of trade as between one country and another. Indeed, if we are to maintain our position as a creditor nation we must have, in terms of goods, an unfavourable balance of trade with most of the nations of the world. I wish, therefore, that lion. Members opposite would drop their jeers, which are an indication of juvenile intelligence. The point has been dealt with so often that it is difficult to express oneself with the ordinary courtesies of Parliamentary language. Some hon. Members say that there is something terrible in Russia selling more 'to us than we sell to Russia. The President of the Board of Trade informed us yesterday that there was every hope that that gap would be filled up. It is very necessary that such gaps should be filled up. But at the moment the point at issue is that, as long as these powers are
    1936
    possessed by the Government and are not used, they introduce an atmosphere of uncertainty into Russian trade relations; they make it difficult for contracts to be placed with firms in this country; they imperil the contracts which already exist; and they render possible a complete collapse of Russian foreign credit, to the ultimate disadvantage of this country in its financial and industrial aspects.
    Therefore I submit that the powers which are being asked for in the Bill should have as limited a period as possible, and should be ended as soon as the immediate purpose for which they are being sought has been accomplished. There is no need to widen the argument at all. The issue is perfectly simple. It has a purely economic consequence. If the Government do not intend to use these powers in order to coerce Russia into giving a more favourable trade agreement, if the purposes of the Bill are merely to secure justice for our people in Russia, one month's powers are adequate for the purpose. If Russia fails to give satisfaction to the Government within one month there will be no difficulty, with such an overwhelming and docile majority, in securing a continuation of the powers. But it surely would be in the best interest of British trade that financiers, bankers and industrialists and workmen up and down the country should know that these powers are to come to an end within one month, and that they have no relation at all to the permanent trade relations between this country and Russia.
    There are Members of the Conservative party who look upon these powers not merely as a means of obtaining justice for our people in Russia, but as a means of carrying to a successful conclusion an anti-Russian vendetta that has been running in this House and the country for many years. I do not believe that the vast majority of citizens in this country are anxious to engage in a vendetta against the Russians. Decent people in this country would be outraged by the idea that the difficulties, the necessities, the misfortunes and the perils of our people in Russia are being exploited for subversive reasons. It may be said that that is not so. Then those who say it is not so do not need these powers for any longer period than is necessary to secure the desired end.

    1937
    We submit that a month is enough. If it proves to be inadequate the Government can get the powers renewed. But we do say that in the interests of British workpeople who are at work on Russian contracts, in the interests of international commerce which is suffering so grievously from uncertainties of this character, in the interests of the trade stability of the world, and in the interests of the honour of Great Britain, we should limit the powers as much as possible. If an extension of the powers is required later the President of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Secretary have only to stand at the Treasury Box, to beat the big drum and wave the Union Jack, and the powers will be given by the docile majority behind them. We, therefore, submit that if the commerce of Great Britain is not to be sacrificed to the jingoism of the Conservative party, the House of Commons should limit the powers for which the Government now ask.
    4.1 p.m.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I think it will be for the convenience of the House, Captain Bourne, if we may ascertain at this stage what is your view with regard to the course of the discussion. The Amendments which are on the Order Paper cover mainly two or three points, hut the first two are closely woven together—that of the period during which the Proclamation shall remain in force, and the subject of Parliamentary control. I do not know how far it would come within the Ruling which you might care to give, but I would submit that it might be for the convenience of the House that we should know whether we might discuss these two subjects at the same time. If we might do so on this Amendment, it might facilitate our proceedings. I would ask, therefore, if we might have your view on the subject.
    4.2 p.m.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee. The Amendments to Clause 1 cover three points: First, the continuance of the Act itself; secondly, the length of time the Proclamation conferring these powers might remain in force; and, thirdly, what opportunities this House or Parliament would have of discussing or dealing with any proclama-
    1938
    tion that might be issued. If it is the will of the Committee, I do not see why we should not have a general discussion on those three points upon this Amendment, on the strict understanding that the discussion is not repeated when I put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and that any subsequent Amendment it is desired to move may be moved briefly, and a Division taken, if desired. If that is the feeling of the House, I do not see why we should not take a general discussion on this Amendment.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: Would it not have been much more proper if the point had been put by the President of the Board of Trade before the discussion started, rather than that the Amendment should have been moved in certain restricted terms, and then be extended to cover other Amendments?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that, according to the Rules of Order, it is quite open to me to address the Committee a second time, if necessary. I have the assistance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General at my side, and he, no doubt, will be able to deal with the intricate arguments put by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). But, on the general subject, I think we might very usefully take advantage of the latitude which you, Captain Bourne, suggest and deal with the Amendments which are foreshadowed.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: On the point of Order. You, Captain Bourne, will see that my name is attached to one of the Amendments to which you referred. You made the suggestion that we might take a discussion on all three points. So far as I am personally concerned, I have no objection to that, but I would ask whether I was correct in assuming from your remarks, that although we might have a discussion on all those three points and separate Divisions if we liked, that in itself debars us from having any discussion on the question: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? It is the practice, I suggest respectfully, that in such circumstances we are not precluded from having a word to say on that Question of the Clause standing part.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: That was the point to which I was also desirous of directing your attention, Captain Bourne,

    1939
    when you said that you hoped the discussion would not be repeated on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I would respectfully concur, but it may be that on that Motion there would be other and minor points raised which could not be dealt with conveniently, or, indeed, according to the Rules of Order on any of these specific Amendments, and it would not be assumed from what you said, that the discussion on the Clause standing part should necessarily be very brief, that it should not cover the wider ground if the course you suggest is adopted.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Obviously, it is impossible for me to foretell what will be covered if we have a general discussion now. My only point was that if we have a general discussion covering the three points suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the discussion raised on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" should not cover ground which has been already covered. Other points will possibly arise, and it would be, of course, quite unreasonable to suggest that they should not be dealt with, but arguments already addressed to the Committee should not be repeated.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry I was not in at the beginning, but there is a manuscript Amendment to be moved, I understand, which contains propositions dealing with Parliamentary control, and so on. Can that come into the discussion now? If it does, I think that in all probability, in the discussion on the Clause standing part, points would be raised, but we would not want to go over ground that had been already fully covered.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If I may say so, I think that that is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. We have been dealing with the subject, and in order that the Committee might have before it the exact terms of the Amendment which the Government themselves will propose, we have had 200 or 300 copies struck off, and these can be obtained in the Vote Office now. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General hag supplied them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, they can be obtained in the Vote Office where I,
    1940
    myself, have obtained them. I know that they are available.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: If we had known beforehand that the Amendments now on the Paper were to be covered by the Government's manuscript Amendment, the whole discussion from the beginning would have been changed. That is why a protest is made. But I entirely concur with the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government are going to cover these points, it is desirable for the discussion that we should know the Government's intentions as early as possible.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have taken the earliest opportunity of replying, and I think I can tell the hon. Member now exactly what we propose.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it is as well to be quite clear about this point. I have before me a copy of the Government's Amendment, which covers the three points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and, obviously, this reason might be put forward by the Government for resisting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. That being the case, I think the Committee will agree that it will be to the general convenience if we take a discussion on all three points on the Amendment, but I can only agree to that if the Committee will not repeat the discussion on subsequent Amendments.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I understand that we take a discussion now on the three points you have mentioned and which will be met by the Amendment. On the other hand, on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," there is the general operative effect of the Clause which can be discussed?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly I do not wish in any way to limit the discussion on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but only as to repetition.
    4.9 p.m.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the course of the discussion yesterday I was asked whether the Government would agree to a time limit for the proposals in this Bill, and I promised the House that before reaching the Committee stage we would look into that point in its various aspects, and,

    1941
    if necessary, make proposals. We have fulfilled that pledge. We have gone into the matter with great care. We have remembered the views which were expressed in various parts of the House and other considerations which are germane, and we have come to the conclusion that it is right and proper that the Bill should be amended in the terms of the manuscript Amendment with which, I hope, Members are now supplied. But if I may, I will read it through in order that it may be clear that it covers the points of the discussion yesterday and is on the lines raised to-day. In lieu of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and others on the same subject, we would prefer to insert, in page 2, line 27, at the end, the words:
    "(7) A proclamation under this Act, other than a proclamation revoking a previous proclamation, shall cease to have effect at the expiration of three months from the making thereof; but, if before the expiration of the said period of three months a resolution is passed by each House of Parliament praying that the proclamation be continued in force, either for such period as may be specified in the resolution or until a further resolution praying that it be revoked is passed by each House, it shall he lawful for His Majesty by further proclamation to continue it in force in accordance with the terms of the resolution, but without prejudice to his power to revoke it at any time:
    Provided that in reckoning any such period of three months as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
    The last paragraph which I have read out may be regarded as common form. The substantial parts of the Amendment are to be found in the first three-quarters of it. We cannot accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale of one month. Obviously, in the circumstances of the day, it would be quite inadequate; but we do provide for a time limit for, if I may say so, the more reasonable period of three months.
    Mr. LUNN: Is there any provision in the Bill for the Proclamation being communicated to Parliament, or is it covered by the Amendment which is now being proposed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, it is inherent in the Amendment which I have read.
    Mr. LUNN: It does not say so.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It does not necessarily say so, but I can assure the hon. Member that it is inherent in the Amendment. It does give control over the extension of the Proclamation after three months or before the expiration of three months. It is also provided—
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry to intervene, but we have not the advantage just now of any legal advice on this matter, and some of my hon. Friends and a friend outside the House are of opinion that the power of Parliament, as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, is not here. I would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General if he would give us his opinion?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech, and then I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be only too glad to give him the full advantage of his advice. If we are in agreement, as I hope we are, that, first of all, there should be a limitation of time, and, secondly, that a reasonable period is three months, we have made some progress towards unity of feeling. The next provision that appears here is:
    "if before the expiration of the said period of three months a resolution is passed by each House of Parliament praying that the proclamation be continued in forcex2026; it shall be lawful"
    and so on. That brings under the control of both House of Parliament the extension of the period of prohibition, and that, I know, is the view which has been advocated not only in various quarters of the House but in other quarters as well. We have endeavoured to meet that view, and I hope that this will take out of the way any controversies as to detail, leaving the larger points of principle to be dealt with at the appropriate time. I only make these introductory remarks in order to make it clear that we are anxious to conform to the general view of the Committee. We have taken into consideration the points raised yesterday, and have done our best under legal advice to put into our Amendment all that is requisite to carry out the intention of the Committee. If there are any points of legal interpretation or drafting or points such as that raised by the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon.

    1943
    and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be only too delighted to deal with them.
    4.16 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: May I put one question before the right hon. Gentleman concludes? These powers are now to be limited to three months, under this proposal, but, if the Proclamation were issued at the end of three months, would it be allowed to run for a further three months? I think that the three months period dates from the issue of the Proclamation and not from the date of the obtaining of the powers. My Amendment limits the power to issue the Proclamation to one month from 18th April, but the Amendment indicated by the right hon. Gentleman would give power to issue a Proclamation at any time within three months, which means that a Proclamation might be in force six months after the passage of the Bill.
    4.17 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has not quite appreciated the scope of the Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member was to limit the operation of the Act to a period of one month. That is to say, at the end of one month there would be no power to make any new Proclamation and the validity of the then existing Proclamation would die with the Act, which had brought it into being. That is an Amendment which my right hon. Friend has said the Government are not in the circumstances prepared to accept. It would obviously rob the Measure of that very validity and efficacy which the Committee, I think, intend that it should have, in the circumstances for which it is designed. Then the question arises as to whether Parliament should not have some control as to the length of time for which a Proclamation once made under this Measure shall operate. The Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is designed to provide that such Proclamation shall be effectual for three months. If Parliament does not then make some further provision, the Proclamation shall cease to have effect, but the Amendment provides
    1944
    machinery by which Parliament shall, if it thinks fit, authorise or allow a Proclamation to be made extending the existing Proclamation for such further period as may be prescribed. That, of course, is a different method from that suggested by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale who desires the Act only to be in existence for one month. Assuming that the Act will continue in existence, our proposal is that the power of making a Proclamation under the Act shall only be the power to make a Proclamation for three months, in the first instance, unless, in the meantime, Parliament gives fresh power to make an extension of that same Proclamation.
    4.19 p.m.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As far as I am concerned, I think the Attorney-General has made the position under the suggested Amendment perfectly clear and, in regard to the point immediately raised by the question of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), the answer given on behalf of the Government entirely satisfies me. But another question was raised by the hon. Gentleman which was, indeed, asked yesterday, and to which I do not yet know the answer of the Government, and I venture to ask for a little more enlightenment from them before we proceed to vote on this Question. For what purpose is this Bill introduced? I understand that the occasion of the Bill is the treatment of certain British subjects in Russia. I do not say that the methods employed in connection with that question, for which power is taken in this Bill, might not possibly be required in a different connection and to deal with a different subject. I do not, like some hon. Members, exclude the prohibition of imports except under licence as a means of negotiation, or even an arm of negotiation for a trade agreement. But I think it very important that, in the particular circumstances in Which this Bill is introduced, there should be no such complication.
    There is no doubt about it in our minds that this Bill is being introduced because, as we think—as we fear—the lives of certain British subjects are in peril. If their lives are not in peril, at any rate we are profoundly anxious as to whether they will receive justice. I do

    1945
    not think that any other issue should be allowed to complicate that clear and simple issue. I therefore beg the President of the Board of Trade, or whoever will speak again for the Government, to assure us that, as far as the Measure which we are passing to-day is concerned, it shall be used only for the purpose for which it has been introduced, and that, if they need similar powers for any other purpose, they will come to the House for them and treat them as an entirely independent issue. I make this appeal, because I think a favourable response from the Government would have a great effect upon the unanimity of the Committee and, therefore, would be a great reinforcement of the representations which the Government are making. If you allow it to be said that under cover of your anxiety for these British citizens, now in peril, you are pursuing any other aim, you weaken your case, damage your influence, and lay yourself open to grave misconstruction. I assure my right hon. Friends that this appeal comes from a friend. I beg them to consider it in the friendly spirit in which it is offered.
    4.23 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Everyone will realise the cogency of the appeal which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, not only because of his long service in the House of Commons but because of the position which he occupied for many years with great distinction representing this country. His speech exactly points the reason for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). What we are offered in the Amendment suggested by the Government is a method whereby the House of Commons will keep control over the operation of Proclamations under this Measure, by which, from time to time, imports will be stopped or lessened or restrained or allowed to come in as the case may be. That does not meet the essential point. Whether one thinks that the period should be one, two or three months, the essential point of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is the limitation in time of this Measure for a specific purpose. It may be said that one month is not enough and that the period ought to be two or three months, but there is in this Amendment the essential principle
    1946
    that a protest on a matter, involving the rights of British subjects, must be kept distinct from any question of trade negotiations.
    I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) was speaking the mind of the whole Committee in saying that, while we may be absolutely certain in our own minds, no person in any other country should have cause for even the suspicion that we were using the danger of our fellow-subjects as a pawn in the game of trade negotiations. We know that the Government with the majority which they have in the House of Commons can act quickly in an emergency in passing legislation, and there seems to be no reason why the Government should not accept the principle of my hon. Friend's Amendment. The detail of time is a matter for adjustment, but the effective principle is that the actual operation of this Measure and the powers which it confers on the Government, shall be strictly limited in time and shall not be powers which can be held in terrorem for an indefinite period and for a purpose, not related to the question of the rights of these particular British subjects, but related to trade negotiations.
    4.26 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The Committee ought to be deeply grateful for the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). He has expressed in a most cogent and forcible manner what is in the minds of many of us. This Bill was commended to the House by the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, solely on the ground that the Government needed powers which would enable them to intervene effectively on behalf of British subjects now in peril in Russia, and the House of Commons yesterday was prepared to give those powers for that purpose. If it had been intended to use those powers for purposes of trade negotiations, I submit that it was the clear duty of those two right hon. Gentlemen to have said so definitely, in order that we should know that, and not, having secured the acceptance by the House of Commons of this Bill for one purpose, afterwards to say: "It was not limited in terms to that purpose, and

    1947
    we are free to continue this Measure for entirely different purposes," even though the question of the trial of these men had been satisfactorily settled.
    That was the point which I made specifically in my speech yesterday. I put it to the Government and asked for a reply to it—that point and no other. My hon. Friends and myself were placed in a most invidious position last night by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, first ignored my question entirely, and, afterwards, when I pressed it, gave a reply which, if I may respectfully say so, was an evasion. We were prepared to vote for the Bill. We had intended to vote for the Bill; we had distinctly declared that we were willing to give these powers in order to help to secure the safety of these British subjects in Russia. We came to the House expecting to find ourselves in the Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. We never for a moment anticipated that there could be any doubt that the Government would say that the Bill was for this one purpose. We were amazed when the right hon. Gentleman, first, did not deal with the question at all in his speech, and afterwards, when pressed, gave an answer which, in effect, was that the Bill might well be used for other purposes than that for which it was being commended to the House. For that reason, I am most grateful for the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The point which he has made is precisely that which we made yesterday, and, if it had received yesterday the response which I hope and feel confident it will receive to-day, we without hesitation, would have voted for the Second Reading of the Bill.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. BATEY: It is rather good to see the Government now prepared to admit that a time limit is needed in connection with this Proclamation, but why three months? We are told that the trial in Moscow is going to begin on the 10th April, but this Bill will not come into force until the 18th April, so that if the Government accepted the Amendment of my colleague, limiting it to one month, that would mean five weeks in effect. I submit that five weeks would be sufficiently long for a Proclamation prevent-
    1948
    ing trade between this country and Russia to remain in force. Such a Proclamation ought to be in force for as short a time as possible. But why treat Britishers in Moscow differently from Britishers in this country? If there was a danger to Britishers in this country, a Proclamation under the Emergency Powers Act could only be in force for one month, and then the Government would have to come back to this House every month to have the Proclamation renewed. If there was a danger in this country of our people not being able to get their food supply or their water, or if there was danger to their life, the Government would not have power under the Emergency Powers Act to issue a Proclamation for more than one month, and if such a Proclamation is good enough for Britishers in this country, surely it is good enough for Britishers in Moscow. I wish the Government had not put in the three months, because one wants this dislocation of trade limited as much as possible. If necessary, at the end of one month, they could come back to this House for emergency powers as they did during 1926, when we had the General Strike and the coal lock-out.
    4.33 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I very much hope that the Government will adhere to their Amendment, and I am quite unable to understand the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), and others. Why should we confine this Bill to the particular six or seven men who are now under arrest? They are not the only British citizens in Russia, and what is to prevent a similar thing happening in a week, 10 days, or a month's time. Why should we not have this power, which can be brought into operation if any similar thing should occur? For the life of me, I cannot understand it, quite apart from anything to do with trade, but even on the trade side it can only place this country in exactly the same position as Russia occupies at the moment. I base the argument, however, on the protection of our own citizens. It is most desirable that we should have this power in reserve, which can be called up by a Proclamation at any time in the event of a similar thing occurring in the

    1949
    future, and why this House should strip itself of this power and limit the power to a month, six weeks, two months, or three months I am at a loss to understand. I hope the Government will adhere to their Amendment, which would give this Parliament the power to protect our citizens in a similar way if anything of the same kind were to occur again.
    4.35 p.m.
    Mr. LUNN: I know the bitter feeling which the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) generally shows, and I thought I saw almost the same in the Foreign Secretary's speech yesterday, but the point about which I am most concerned is the control of this House over legislation. My name is attached, with other names, to an Amendment at the bottom of the first page of the Order Paper, providing that Parliamentary control shall be retained. The Amendment submitted by the Government contains no provision that the Proclamation shall be brought to this House, and no powers whatever within Parliament to deal with this matter until the end of three months. I want to ask the learned Attorney-General to make it quite clear whether the meaning of the first words of my Amendment, which say:
    "Where a proclamation has been made, the occasion thereof shall forthwith be communicated to Parliament,"
    is or is not included in the Government's Amendment. If he looks at the Emergency Powers Act of 1920, Section 1, Sub-section (2), he will see that provision is made in that Act, which was no more important than this, that Parliamentary control should be retained in the matter. Fearing as I do, as I see the Government removing the powers of Parliament and giving them outside the House to other bodies in nearly everything they do, and doing it glaringly in the Bill as it stood yesterday, I fear that this House is not being allowed to consider what will be the effect of its legislation. I put this question in order to have it made clear whether or not we shall have Parliamentary control or have it taken away absolutely by the Government's Amendment.
    4.38 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: Our Amendment limits the lifetime of the powers them-
    1950
    selves to one month after they are given, but the Amendment of the Government now before the House simply limits the lifetime of the Proclamation, and the powers remain in existence indefinitely. All that the Government's Amendment does is to limit the extent of the Proclamation, and there is nothing to prevent the Government making a Proclamation, without consulting the House of Commons, which lives for three months. If, in the course of the three months, the House of Commons does not authorise its continuation, it dies, but there is nothing to prevent the Government a week later or the next day issuing another Proclamation for a further three months. I submit, therefore, that to say that this Amendment meets our case almost amounts to Parliamentary sharp practice. The impression has been given that the Amendments on the Paper are being met by the Government's manuscript Amendment, but the powers for which the Government are now asking will still exist indefinitely if the Amendment is accepted, and the point of view of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) is met. The Government will always have the power, and the only limitation upon it will be that imports can only be stopped for three months at a time. I submit that that is an accurate interpretation of the Amendment.
    4.40 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member stated in the earlier part of his observations, what I tried to say, and hoped I said, clearly enough earlier in the afternoon, that the Amendment which my right hon. Friend suggested was addressed to the duration of a Proclamation. Now the hon. Gentleman has suggested that, notwithstanding the terms of the Amendment, which quite clearly suppose that a first Proclamation shall die a natural death unless both Houses of Parliament have authorised its extension, this House and the other House would tolerate what I cannot help thinking would be a gross piece of cunning and deception; that is to say, they would seek to use the powers to make a fresh Proclamation and pretend that it was a first Proclamation, instead of using the powers which the Section confers upon the Houses of Parliament to extend the first Proclamation if the Houses of Parliament think fit. All that I can say is that

    1951
    the hon. Gentleman is a little too astute. I cannot believe that any House would tolerate such cunning and deception as to abuse this provision in the way which he has suggested. The obvious intention of it is that once a Proclamation is made, it shall not be continued unless both Houses of Parliament have approved its continuation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that explicit assurance, and I cannot imagine any withdrawal from it on the part of this Government now that I have stated the position.
    4.42 p.m.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) introduced rather a new consideration into the Debate when he spoke of the prospect of further incidents of this kind occurring in Russia after a period of a month or two or three months, but if we could have an assurance that the Bill or the Act was to be used for the purpose, and for the purpose only, of protecting British citizens in Russia, I do not think that we on these benches would want to insist upon a time limit. The first three Amendments on the Paper, one of which stands in my name and in the names of some of my hon. Friends, are designed, however, not so much to effect a time limit for its own sake as to bring before the Committee the point that was raised a few minutes ago by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain); and the main object of all those Amendments is to secure, by means of a time limit, that the powers under this Bill shall be used for one purpose alone. We venture to ask for a rather more definite assurance from the Government than has yet been given, and I think the necessity for some assurance of that kind is shown in a passage which appears in the "Times" newspaper this morning, at the end of the first leading article, which reads:
    "By passing the Bill now before the House of Commons Parliament will enable the Government after April 17th to negotiate with the Soviet on an equal footing so far as trade relations are concerned."
    It goes on to say:
    "It will also give the Government a means of applying pressure on behalf of the British victims of the Ogpu—a means which everyone hopes may not need to be used, but of which the energetic use in case of need will be supported by the whole force of public opinion."
    1952
    I submit that anyone reading that passage in the "Times," who had not heard or read the Debate in this House yesterday, would be given the impression that the first object of this Bill was to regulate our commercial relations with Russia, and that the protection of the victims of the Ogpu was simply a secondary object of the Bill. We on these benches feel very strongly that this Bill should be used for one purpose, and for one purpose alone, and we are not alone in that feeling. There were two very important speeches delivered in the Debate yesterday, one by the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) and the other by the hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank), both of whom stressed this very point from the Conservative benches. It is quite clear that there is a good deal of anxiety on this point in all quarters of the House. Speaking as I do from these benches, there is one thing which I should like to say in reference to the reply given at the end of the Debate last night by the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be no attempt to use this Bill in any infringement of Free Trade principles. On a question like this, I am not in the least concerned with Free Trade principles. I do not think that either Free Trade principles or, for that matter, Protectionist principles ought to enter in any way into our consideration of this matter. I suggest that our fiscal views, whatever they may be, ought to weigh merely as dust in the balance beside the paramount consideration of securing a measure of substantial justice for our fellow citizens in Moscow.
    I want to suggest in all seriousness that we may actually prejudice the interests of these men in Moscow if we permit any ambiguity about the purpose of this Bill to remain. The object of the Bill, as it was explained yesterday by Government speakers, and as we all understood it, is to be able to say to the Russian Government in the event of any denial to these men of substantial justice, that we will cut off trade relations. It is obvious that that is a very strong position. In the present economic state of Russia it must offer a strong inducement to the Soviet Government to see that substantial justice is done. If, however, the

    1953
    Soviet Government have any reason to suspect, through any answer that is given or any speech that is made in the House, that even if these men are released, or after the trial are acquitted, the powers under this Bill may still be used for an entirely different purpose, surely we have destroyed a very large part of the inducement that we are holding out to the Soviet Government.
    How much stronger would be the position of His Majesty's Government if they said clearly: "Refuse substantial justice to these men, and we shall use the powers given to us under this Bill; deal fairly with them, and these powers will be withdrawn or will lapse automatically." I submit to the Committee that we shall blunt this weapon if there is any doubt about the purpose for which it is to be used. If the Government want powers in order to regulate our trade relations with Russia, the proper course is to come to the House and ask for them. We on these benches are just as much concerned about this matter as hon. Members in any other part of the Committee, and I appeal to the Government and to the Committee to make it clear that the Bill is not being passed with any arrière pensée, with any kind of mixed motive, but for the one purpose alone of securing substantial justice to our fellow countrymen who are in such grave peril in Russia.
    4.49 p.m.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The appeal that has been made to the Government carries weight with us. It is in connection with the primary consideration which weighed with the Government, and, I believe, with the House yesterday and to-day; that is, the fate of our fellow countrymen in Russia. It is from that point of view alone that I am prepared to say anything this afternoon. I am not going to enter into fiscal controversy with my friends below the Gangway; that can wait. This is a far graver matter, and, if there is any suggestion that the powers for which we are asking under this Bill with the object of aiding those who are in peril are to be whittled down or diluted by the suspicion that they are to be mixed with our fiscal controversy. I say at once that, so far as I am concerned, the prime consideration with me is the life and liberty of these men. I will at once, therefore, give an under-
    1954
    taking on behalf of the Government that we shall not use these powers for any other purpose.
    4.51 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to clear up a point that troubles us on this side? Am I right in putting the position in connection with the Amendment in this way? Although the period covered by the Proclamation will come to an end, this Bill will still remain in force, and can remain in force for many years or for ever, and Proclamations can still be issued under it at any time. May I put my question in another form? Am I right in assuming that this Bill will continue for many years to come until it is repealed, but that a Proclamation can be issued under it for any period of time and for any purpose whatever?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Bill when it becomes an Act will remain in force until it is repealed. The undertaking which was given by my right hon. Friend in unequivocal terms, was an undertaking that it would be used solely for the purpose which he stated.
    4.52 p.m.
    Sir BASIL PETO: In view of what the President of the Board of Trade has said, there is now evidently complete agreement between the Government and those who have put these Amendments on the Paper with a view to the limitation of the operation of these Orders to periods of three months and the like. There is also complete agreement that this Bill will be used for one purpose only, that is, as far as possible, to ensure the safety of our fellow citizens in Russia. It is important, however, that we should not limit the Bill to such an extent that it will not be an effective weapon. I think that we may probably run the risk of getting a little mixed up at this point, because the limitations that have been put down are with a view to maintaining Parliamentary control at frequent intervals for any Orders that are issued are put down on the assumption that the Bill was to be used with a view to taking fiscal action generally with regard to trade with Russia. As we do not desire that it is important that we shall have something that will have an effective influence on the Soviet Government.

    1955
    I ask the Committee to consider whether the restriction of any imports from Russia for so short a period as three months—although I admit that by a further Proclamation it can be extended—is likely to be effective or as effective as we can make it. What is the reason now, in view of the unanimity in the Committee as to the purpose for which the Bill is to be used, in having such an absurdly short limitation of the restriction of imports? The effect on the main imports from Russia of an embargo for only three months would be nothing whatever. They could be held back, even in the case of perishable goods such as eggs and the like. They do not come over here at such frequent intervals and so wonderfully fresh that a large part of them cannot be held back until the end of the three months and then shipped forward. With regard to timber, oil and things of that kind, a restriction of imports lasting only three months would be no penalty whatever. Therefore, I suggest that in view of the use to which this Bill is to be put, we should bear in mind what the President of the Board of Trade told us towards the end of his speech last night. He was speaking about the suggestion that was made to withdraw the Ambassador from Moscow, and said:
    "At all events, the withdrawal of the British Ambassador to Moscow would not have touched the Russian Government on any sensitive spot. If you ask me whether this touches them on a sensitive spot I say that it does; and, what is more, it is the only spot we can reach."
    He said further:
    "What we are entitled to do, and what we are now attempting to do, is to take action, and take action that is understood." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1933; cols. 1887–8, Vol. 276.]
    I venture to suggest that the limitation of the embargo on Russian goods to three months will certainly not arm the Government with any weapon, to use the term of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), with whom I do not agree on fiscal matters. He spoke of this as a weapon, and said that he and his friends would like to see it used for the purpose for which they were agreed that it should be used, namely, for the protection of our fellow citizens. Therefore, I think there will be agreement on all side of the Committee that
    1956
    we should make this weapon reasonably effective. I do not think that three months limitation is sufficient.
    4.56 p.m.
    Mr. PRICE: The Committee will be grateful for the climb down of the Government from the position that was taken up yesterday. We are discussing this Amendment in quite a different atmosphere. I am afraid that the atmosphere yesterday was such as to stampede the House and the country. We are not prepared to accept the statement of the Attorney-General with regard to the powers and the length of time that the Government will operate this Bill. It is strange that when this Bill was introduced we were told definitely that it was for no other purpose than the protection of British lives in Russia. There is no opposition from any part of the House to giving reasonable protection to British subjects, either in Russia or anywhere else, but the speech of the President of the Board of Trade last night made it perfectly clear that behind his mind and the minds of the Government was the idea that this Bill will be used not only for the protection of British subjects, but for other purposes. Many of us have that doubt even now. Russia is not the first country to which protest has had to be made about the treatment of British subjects. There is a country now which is under a dictatorship—not the same as Russia, I agree—where there is any amount of room for protests from the House of Commons with regard to British and other subjects, but nothing is done.
    It is rather strange that the Government should want this Bill placed permanently in their hands. If we find at the end of the trial of these men that justice has been done, as we hope we shall, why should this Bill be hung up and held in readiness? Why are we preparing for Russia alone? It will be fair to assume, and I think that we shall see at the end of the trial, that these men will be justly dealt with. Therefore, we are afraid that the President of the Board of Trade, who at one time was the prophet of Free Trade, is endeavouring to use this position in order to support the Government's general policy of Protection and tariffs. If not, why should we give to the Government the power to use this weapon for three months at a time on Proclamation, and also leave in

    1957
    their hands for as long as they like, the power to use it on future occasions? A Proclamation could be issued against Russia without the Government coming to this House, and we might have British trade permanently interfered with. If, however, that is not the Government's intention, why should they not make it clear in the Bill, and use the Bill only for the purpose for which it has been introduced?
    Yesterday there was a lot of cheering over the statements made by the introducer of the Bill, but to-day, when questions have been put not only from this side of the House but from supporters of the Government who have been looking upon the Bill with a suspicious eye, and giving good reasons for their views, we find a different tone prevailing in the House. I want to add my plea to others which have been advanced that if the Government intend what they say they should word the Amendment to mean that this Proclamation will be enforced only so far as the lives of these men are in peril, and that when this affair is terminated they will abandon this power, so that trade negotiations can proceed with Russia undisturbed by bias and prejudice, of which there is a lot behind this Bill. There are people in this House who would vote for any kind of legislation which interfered with the general development of Russia, simply because they are against the Constitution of Russia—I do not say that I am in favour of it. I object to any Member of the Cabinet bringing before this House a Bill which purports to be for a special purpose when the Government have at the back of their minds a restriction of trade such as would affect thousands, aye millions, of working men and women in this country and in Russia.
    Therefore, we appeal to the Government to specify very clearly what they mean, and we ask for the powers to be limited as proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), because then they will be sufficient to do all the Government say they want to do. I trust that before the Debate is ended the Treasury Bench will change their mind once again, that is, for the third time, and make a good job of it. They should let the country see that the only power they want is a power to defend the lives of British subjects in Russia, and that when that diffi-
    1958
    culty is out of the way ordinary trade relationships can proceed.
    5.3 p.m.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: In intervening for a moment I would say, incidentally, that I think the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) is a little unreasonable in not accepting the formal undertaking which the President of the Board of Trade has just given us. He gave it in response to a very firm appeal by a most important Member of this House, and he gave it in terms which were quite unequivocal, and if that is not good enough for hon. Members opposite I do not know what is. The only reason why I rose was to express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has met any criticisms which I may have made. By his clear undertaking as to the limited scope of this Measure and his promise of the Amendment to be moved later, he has met the point that the control of Parliament must be borne in mind by those who draft Measures which are to receive general support in this House. He has done that very handsomely, and in the circumstances I shall not, of course, move any of the Amendments which stand in my name. Because he has granted that measure of Parliamentary control and because of the undertaking he has given, I should like again to make an appeal to the Opposition to bear in mind that we are dealing with a situation of very grave anxiety to certain British subjects in Russia, and ask them whether it would not be as well to curtail the Debate as much as possible and to let the Third Reading of the Bill be passed with unanimity.
    5.5 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman just now was certainly a, very full and adequate one as affecting the points raised by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and the hon. and gallant Member behind, but I do not yet understand quite clearly what is the nature of the promise the Minister was making. As I understand it, he promised in very definite terms that this power shall not be used for general fiscal purposes, but, there is the point that, the powers obtained by the Government now to deal with the case of these arrested

    1959
    engineers may be brought into active life again subsequently should a British subject be arrested in Russia for any crime. That makes trade between this country and Russia quite impossible. I do not need to remind the right bon. Gentleman that trade is always a two-sided business, that there is always the buyer and the seller, and I ask him, as a much more experienced business man than I am, whether he would enter into any long-term bargain with anyone under conditions which would allow that bargain to be interrupted at any moment by a Proclamation from this House? It may be, as is reiterated again and again—on what grounds I do not know—that these men are absolutely innocent of any crime. I hope that is true, but it has still to be demonstrated.
    What guarantee have we that in the course of another month or two some British subject in Russia may not be arrested by the Russian Government with a really genuine case against him? In the interval some perfectly legitimate bargain may have been entered into, not between the British Government and the Russian Government but between some trader in Britain and the Russian Government. The British trader has expended money, he has taken commitments upon himself on the assumption that the contract is going to be fulfilled, and then finds, not because of any trading act in Russia, nor any default on his part, but by reason of a state of public excitement in this country and in this House, that his contract is liable to be cut short by Proclamation. No intelligent business man is going to attempt to carry on business under such conditions. Before I withdraw my support from the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me just exactly why, if this Bill is not wanted in the future for the regulation of business relations between the two countries, he is retaining it. I do not know whether this is going to work as a diplomatic instrument on this occasion, I do not know whether the Government have any information as to whether this kind of pressure on the Russian Government will compel the Russians to declare all these men innocent in advance of the trial; but of this I am sure, that though an instrument of this description may be used
    1960
    once for this purpose that once will be the only time when it could be effective.
    Because of the impossibility of trading under conditions such as these, and because I do not believe a continuance of these powers can have any effect on the immediate case before us, and must have a diminishing influence on any future case, I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee why, since he has stated very categorically that he does not want these powers for general fiscal purposes, does not want them for general trade purposes and does not want them even as an instrument for bargaining for a new trade agreement, he wishes to retain them in the future. Is this Bill to be retained as a new diplomatic instrument; and if it is retained as a new diplomatic instrument against Russia, are we to look forward to its speedy extension as a diplomatic instrument in our relations with other countries where difficulties of a similar sort may arise? I should be very glad to have answers to these questions.
    5.11 p.m.
    Mr. LYONS: Instead of the attempted confusions which we have just heard, I think it would have been better if some alternative scheme to the prososal put forward by the Government had been indicated, if any exists. I hope hon. Members will not forget that it was said yesterday, with all the authority which a statement from the Foreign Secretary carries, that the position was a grave one. It is not the case, as was suggested just now by an hon. Member opposite, that we want every British subject declared to be innocent of any crime, but if he has to be tried we want him to have a system of trial which is somewhat in accord with decent notions of justice. We are satisfied, and there can be no question about it, that every attempt has been made to deny decent justice to a number of our own citizens in Russia. Those men have been treated in a manner which can only be described as being offensive to any ideas of justice we may have, and it is necessary, as was conceded from all sides yesterday, to take some action to try to help them in the position of very grave danger in which they find themselves. The Foreign Secretary asked yesterday if there was anything else that we could do except give the Government this power which they are seeking.

    1961
    "I ask the House if there is nothing else that we can do to help British subjects who are in peril, to at least do this—to give the Government and the country to which they belong, and to which they look, this authority, and to trust us to use it in their interests and in the interests of the State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1933; col. 1784, Vol. 276.]
    I think it is absolutely essential that in this moment of gravity and peril such action should be taken as will show the Russian Government that this country is not only behind these particular individuals in the denial to them of substantial justice, but is behind any of our citizens who may be treated in a manner which completely offends against all ideas of substantial justice. This is not a question of fiscal adjustment. We are dealing with a position of acute emergency. How it can be said that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has given general support to the principle of tariffs in face of the express undertaking he was good enough to give I cannot think, and I am sure that I am voicing the feelings of almost every Member in this House when I say that we accept the statement he made without any reservation whatsoever. To say that this Bill should be made as effective as possible is to put the position quite mildly, and I associate myself with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) when he said that these men, placed as they are in a position of extreme delicacy, through no fault of their own, were entitled to demand that the whole weight of this House should be behind them. I hope the Government will see that the action taken through the medium of this Bill provides them with a weapon which is going to be effective and which has the authority of Britain. To say, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), that it will be unfortunate if, as soon as a British subject is arrested on any future occasion, a Proclamation under this Bill will put the machinery into force, is in my humble submission incomprehensible. When we are trying to prevent a country, which hon. Members of the Opposition like to claim as all-high, from offending against every notion of justice, we must have a Measure which is effective and quick. We appreciate the circumstances of gravity in which the Bill was intro-
    1962
    duced. I hope that the action which is taken by the Government will be taken quickly, and in such a manner as to show the accused men that the House of Commons is behind them in their endeavour to assert their right to justice.
    5.16 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I would not have intervened at this stage had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons), and on account especially of the speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank). The burden of both speeches was, I think, that we should accept as made in good faith the promise of the Government that they will not use the powers of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament except for this particular trial in Moscow. We are told that we are not fair in not accepting that very definite promise made by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. I would not charge the right hon. Gentleman and the Government with insincerity. I think that the Government will adhere to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman; but I ask the Committee to remember that events are stronger than Governments, and that occasions may arise in our relations with Russia that will literally blow a promise of that kind to the winds.
    Suppose there was a case in Russia in six months time of a British subject being murdered. The Government with the support of hon. Members would be bound to take some action. They would let loose the forces of reaction at once. If hon. Members of the Liberal party below the Gangway will pardon my saying so, it is quite as reactionary not to vote at all as it is to vote for the Government. A man ought to have a mind either one way or the other on this issue. It would be a very low charge indeed to challenge the honesty of the right hon. Gentleman in the statement that has been made, but while we do not challenge that statement, I repeat that events in international affairs are so very terrible on occasions that the Government would be acquitted by 80 per cent. of the present Parliament if they broke the promise that has been made this afternoon. We have to bear that in mind.

    1963
    May I say, without being offensive, that many pledges have already been broken by this Government.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely the hon. Member does not suggest that the Prime Minister has broken pledges?
    Mr. DAVIES: I do not select individual Members of the Government.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: That is all right.
    Mr. DAVIES: I am dealing with the Government as a whole. I am very distressed to see what is happening in connection with this Bill. If the Committee will bear with me, I would like to make one or two observations on Clause 1 and the Amendments to it, with which we are dealing. I have no hesitation in saying what I have always said about dictatorships of all kinds. Whether they are of the Left or of the Right they are reversions to barbarism. Dictatorships of the Centre fall into the same category. Wherever there is a dictatorship of the Centre, the Right or the Left, these things are bound to happen. A dictatorship is all right provided that you are the dictator, but if anyone challenges him he must take the consequences.
    This is probably the first time in the history of this country where the fiscal weapon has been used for a purpose of this kind. I am not sufficiently learned in the history of our land to be sure of that, but I do not recollect reading anywhere that a British Government has used the fiscal weapon for purposes of intervention in this type of case. I am, therefore, distressed that we have reached a stage which, up to 18 months ago, would have been absolutely unthinkable. We are faced with an entirely new proposal, and if this kind of thing is to happen between nations I see no use for the League of Nations. If nations, as soon as one of their nationals gets into trouble abroad, use this sort of weapon in order to support those nationals, we might as well scrap the League of Nations and all our international relationships. This is part and parcel of a new diplomacy which cuts across all our previous arrangements in diplomatic affairs.
    The President of the Board of Trade was very anxious to assure the Committee that this Bill is a temporary Measure, but I would impress upon the
    1964
    Committee two or three points. It will be remembered that it was understood that this Bill first of all had nothing to do with the trial in Moscow. Later on we were told that the Bill was necessary because of that trial. Later on still we were told that the Bill only dealt with the specific purpose of the Moscow trial. Now it has been suggested that Proclamations will only be issued to deal with cases relating to justice to our nationals in Russia. One thing troubles me in connection with this Clause. Although Proclamations will come to an end after they have been issued, the Bill will remain an Act of Parliament, and Proclamations may continue to be issued under it so long as it remains upon the Statute Book. So far as I understand the temper of this Parliament, I am as positive as I stand here that if anything untoward happens between ourselves and Russia later, either in regard to trading or to safeguarding our nationals, the pressure that can be brought to bear from the extreme Tory wing of the National Government is such that Proclamations under this Bill will be issued, in spite of the promises that have been made from the Government Front Bench to-day. For that reason, and without imputing any dishonesty to the right hon. Gentlemen, who have made that promise, I say very definitely, from my experience of political life in this country, that events compel Governments sometimes to break their promises. It will be easier for them to break their promises in this respect than in almost any other connection.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. Gentleman was Under-Secretary for Home Affairs in the late Labour Administration.
    Mr. DAVIES: No, I was not. It was in the first Labour Government.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I withdraw. The hon. Gentleman was very lucky to have missed that. I do not wish to strike a discordant note, or to detain the Committee for more than a minute, but I cannot allow this Clause to go without saying that I listened to the President of the Board of Trade with a good deal of dismay when he practically pledged the Government to use this Measure solely for the purpose of obtaining decent treatment for those poor prisoners—or primarily for that purpose. I am one of the few people who

    1965
    have never been entirely happy about the methods that have been used, no doubt with the best intentions, by the Government, in dealing with this matter from the start. I am very doubtful, with some hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition, of the use of an economic weapon to remedy what is admittedly a political grievance. I do not think that it is the right way of tackling the sort of difficulty which confronted us, and I wish that I could feel as sure as some of my hon. Friends that this Bill will secure what we should regard as fair judicial treatment for the four British prisoners in Moscow. I do not feel at all certain that it will; in fact, I think that it is highly improbable. I do not think that anybody is likely to secure what we should regard as fair judicial treatment in Soviet Russia, because they do not go in for fair judicial treatment there. It is not the sort of thing that they believe in, and they openly say so. I doubt whether this Bill will achieve the objective that we have in view.
    I think that it is wanted, and urgently, and that it has been wanted for some months past as a matter of general principle. I do not see how we are ever to negotiate a satisfactory trade agreement with the Soviet Government until we possess the very necessary powers, which they themselves possess, of prohibiting the entry of subsidised goods into the country. That is a view that many hon. Members on the Conservative benches have long taken, and it is a view which some hon. Members, who in the past have advocated import control boards as a matter of principle, would be prepared to accept.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: But we always associated with it the principle of State trading.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I am not arguing about that particular aspect of the question. I am merely saying that in accepting the principle of import control boards hon. Members have also accepted the principle that the State ought to possess the power of regulating the entry of subsidised goods into the country, particularly since I have often heard hon. Members say that certain goods were produced under conditions of sweated labour abroad. I doubt the efficacy of this Bill for this purpose, and I doubt if it will help those poor prisoners, but
    1966
    I hoped, and still hope, that it might help some of the farmers and fishermen whom I represent in the North of Scotland. I was aghast to hear the President of the Board of Trade announce to the Committee, in response, it appears, to an irrelevant request on behalf of the very diminutive Liberal party, that the Government only propose to use these powers for the specific purpose. It is not a proper weapon to use. I very much doubt the use of an economic weapon to achieve a political end; I always have doubted. You can only hope that it will be effective from that point of view, and any hon. Member is entitled to express his anxieties on that point. The Government themselves are not sure that it is going to be successful.
    I hope that the events to which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) referred, which would make this Bill continue in operation for months to come, will occur, but I hope that the conditions will not be similar to those of recent events and will not involve the imprisonment of British citizens. I think, however, that economic events may well take place which will induce the Government to realise the advisability of retaining the power for which they are asking at the present time, in the interests of our own people and of negotiating a good trade agreement, and that they may find it desirable —indeed I think they will be compelled —to exercise these powers, not only in respect of Russia, but in respect of other countries in Europe.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Government would break the pledge which they have given this afternoon?
    Mr. BOOTHBY: No, I am only hoping so.
    5.31 p.m.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: One is compelled to conclude, from the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), that his interpretation of the statements made by the President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney-General is that, so long as injustice of any kind to any person obtains in Russia, this economic weapon must continue to be applied. I intended to put the very pertinent question which has just been addressed to the hon. Member as to

    1967
    whether he desires that injustices should continue to be perpetrated in Russia in order that the fishermen in his constituency may be helped. Apparently he thinks that this economic weapon is desirable, not so much for the purpose of helping the engineers who are directly affected in Russia, but because of the effect that Russian trade has on his constituents. I do not desire to do him an injustice, but there is a grave contradiction between his remarks and the speeches which have been made on behalf of the Government.
    It is very difficult to understand the reason for the appeal which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). Yesterday he delivered a speech which delighted me, as did that of the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor). Those speeches certainly indicated that, although the hon. Members were supporters of the Government, they were not prepared to get into the state of frenzy that we saw here yesterday afternoon after the Foreign Secretary had delivered his speech. That speech was of the kind that one often hears from solicitors in police courts, and certainly it was not substantially higher than some of those speeches. There could be no case for many of the remarks that he made about the Russian Government. The weight of evidence contained in his speech was based upon material obtained from one side only, namely, from the British Ambassador. After all, an eminent legal authority like the Foreign Secretary ought to have had the evidence from both sides.
    Mr. BERNAYS: On a point of Order. Is it in order for a right hon. Gentleman to read a great national newspaper on the Treasury Bench?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I believe that there is a Rule against the reading of newspapers in the House, and I am sure it will be respected.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I did not know that the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway was interposing on my account. I had a piece of duty to discharge with reference to this particular newspaper, and, out of courtesy to the hon. Member opposite, I remained in the
    1968
    House rather than withdraw; but I will gladly withdraw in order to comply with the views of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. MAXTON: With the Rules of the House.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is it not a question of the Rules of the House, and not of the views of an hon. Member?
    Mr. McGOVERN: He can do no wrong.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I am interested to hear these friendly references as between Liberal Members. It would seem that they are more concerned about points of Order than about the real, vital issues that are being discussed. I was about to say that, if the Foreign Secretary, who is an eminent lawyer, had obtained evidence of the Russian view of the situation, he would not have made that one-sided speech yesterday. All that has been said about Russia and its method of either justice or injustice can be said against the right hon. Gentleman for his speech yesterday. It was entirely based upon one-sided evidence obtained from our own Ambassador, who should have been impartial, but whose honour certainly could be questioned when he made such remarks as are contained in telegram No. 27.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have been looking again at the Government Amendment, and I see that it goes further than I originally thought, but I do not think we can discuss the White Paper on this Amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I accept your Ruling. Our interpretation of this Amendment is that for three months it will be possible for the Government to continue to issue a Proclamation. Under the Bill they obtain power to issue a Proclamation every three months if they so desire, and so long as injustice, as conceived by the Government, is meted out to any British national—not merely the persons now involved, but any British national for any length of time—the Government, according to our interpretation of the Amendment, will have the power to issue a Proclamation.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I must intervene to correct the hon. Member's impression, if I understood his remarks aright. The Government, to use his expression, will have the power, or rather,

    1969
    there will be the power, to issue a Proclamation without the intervention or control of Parliament in the first instance but the Government will not have the power to extend that Proclamation without the approval of Parliament. Therefore, it is not accurate to say, as the hon. Member said in unqualified terms, that the Government can make a Proclamation for three months as often as they like. Parliament can, but the Government cannot without Parliament.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I accept the literal rendering of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is a positive fact that the Government can come back to the House at the end of three months and seek powers to issue a Proclamation for another three months, or for any time. I accept his statement that they have to come to Parliament before they can issue a new Proclamation, and that Parliament must decide.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That certainly is the case, and it is precisely what would be provided by some of the Amendments which stand on the Paper in the names of hon. Members who are not supporters of the Government.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: There has been no statement from the other side of the House, or from persons who disagree with our view, which would indicate any justification for the continuance of these powers for longer than one month. We are informed that the trial of the engineers in Russia is to commence on 10th of this month. The powers sought in the Bill will not commence to apply until the 18th. If one month were allowed to elapse after the commencement of the powers sought in the Bill, practically six weeks would elapse altogether, and then, if the trial were not over, and if, as conceived by the Government or by Parliament, a semblance of injustice prevailed, it would be possible to seek powers for another month, or for any period that Parliament might desire. Nothing has been said, so far as I have been able to gather, by any of the spokesmen in opposition to our Amendment which would indicate that one month is not ample in the circumstances, and certainly it would impair our trade substantially less than the three months proposed in the Government Amendment.
    1970
    We know what this would mean to the mining industry in particular. Any cessation a trade with Russia would tend to increase that industry's costs fairly substantially, owing to the fact that Denmark and Sweden would obtain almost a complete monopoly of the import of timber into this country. In South Wales a substantial quantity of timber from Russia is being consumed in our collieries, and anything which would tend to continue these powers for longer than we consider to be absolutely necessary, namely, one month, would tend, if anything, to create unemployment, would materially affect forward contracts that have to be fixed, and would prejudice anything like the slight revival that may now be taking place in some of the small collieries in the South Wales area. We have to presume that this would apply, not only to South Wales, but to other parts of the country as well, and the number of men that would be affected would be substantially greater than the number of fishermen who would be affected in the constituency of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. Our proposal, therefore, ought to be supported by him and others if they are considering the question of trade and the people who may be affected in this country.
    We would like the President of the Board of Trade to face up to the Amendment that we have put on the Paper. As far as we can see, a period of three months would be absolutely unnecessary. It must substantially affect our trade, and it cannot possibly help the persons who are in peril in Russia. Everyone in the House to whom I have spoken since last night has admitted that, since the Second Reading of this Measure, they would not, whatever the circumstances might have been before, now be in the shoes of the engineers in Russia, that their case will be considered less dispassionately than it was before, and that the use of an economic weapon of this kind must of itself create, not dispassionate-mindedness, but irritation, and, instead of helping the persons in Russia, which apparently is the concern of all Members of the House, would imperil their position substantially. We hope, therefore, that the Government will not imperil trade, and will realise that practically £40,000,000 of trade as between Russia and ourselves is involved,

    1971
    and all that that means to the country. Further, Members should not allow themselves to be influenced by political prejudice against a system in which they do not believe. We can never expect any system of jurisprudence in Russia, America or Germany to conform precisely to our own. I could refer to Tammany Hall. There was Thomas Moody in prison for 15 years.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now making a Second Reading speech.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Recent speeches have dealt with the question of justice. The purpose of the Bill, we understand, is to give the Government power to institute, as far as possible, the semblance of British justice in Russia. British justice is not instituted in any other country. Protestations have been made in the House against the treatment meted out to persons in Germany, and no action here has been taken about it. Reference has been made to British subjects in India, in America, and all over the world, who are suffering injustice and have been subject to something that we would not think akin to British jurisprudence, but not a single protest has been made. We cannot establish our conception of British justice in Russia by methods of this kind. We think that British justice is founded on private property, and the moment private property was removed a new type of justice would have to be established. The Russian people have abolished private property. Am I to presume that, if someone in this country tried to blow up a gasometer, he would not be treated as a criminal?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself more closely to the Amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not desire to continue. Apparently the reason for my getting out of order is that most of what I 'have had to say has been following other speeches that have been made. I trust that the Government will realise how they are imperilling the coal trade and other trades, and are imperilling the lives of the people whom, apparently, they think to safeguard, and that, upon reflection, they will accept the Amendment.
    5.50 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: The statement of the President of the Board of Trade has made the Measure a very much better one. At the same time, I feel very doubtful whether we are really going to serve the interests of these unfortunate men whom we are all so anxious to assist. I trust that it may be so, but one cannot help having doubts about it. I think it would still be very desirable that there should be some time-limit to the operation of the Bill, and that it should cease to have effect altogether at the end of three or six months, or something of that kind. Although the Government have given a very specific pledge—and I am sure they mean to keep it—it may well be that pressure will be put upon them. We have seen the fierce indignation at the promise that has been made to the hon. Member opposite not to use it, in the interest of his constituents, and they may well find themselves in a difficult position later on.
    There is another reason for limiting the operation of the Bill. I think there is very definitely a case for using the economic weapon in political affairs, but it ought to be dealt with on an international basis. Instead of having a Measure brought forward in a tremendous hurry, the Government ought to have an opportunity of bringing forward a Measure on a much wider scale applicable, when they think fit, to all nations by general agreement among nations. Recently they were considering internationally dealing with an emabrgo in the Far East. One can draw this satisfaction out of this Debate, that it is coming to be realised that the economic weapon can be effectively used in political affairs. I only wish the Government had acted with similar enthusiasm when 80,000 Chinese were slaughtered by Japan.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting right away from the Bill.
    Mr. MANDER: I appreciated that you might say that, Captain Bourne, but I was giving a reason why there should be a time limit to the operation of the Bill in order that the Government might have an opportunity to study the question internationally and bring forward a Measure, say, in a year's time, applicable to all countries in the world. If they

    1973
    were to consider it from that point of view and accept an Amendment on these lines, it would enable them to propose a, Measure next year which would deal with Japan, Germany and, possibly, other countries that require attention on the same lines.
    6.53 p.m.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I cannot see the reason for the Government resisting an Amendment limiting the Bill to a very specific purpose and to a given time. Probably they have in view that they might be compelled to use it again at some future date, or it may be that they believe it will be essential to use it periodically. I do not know whether these men in Russia will be given a fair or an unfair trial. I know nothing at all about the system in Russia. But, if I could be assured that the Government only intend to see that the men have a fair opportunity to present their defence, I should be inclined to support the Bill, because I think subjects of this country are entitled to claim the protection of the Government. I have no fault to find with that at all and, if men are arrested in another country and the Government come to their aid and say, "We are going to see that you have a fair trial and a fair opportunity of defence and of presenting your case in a proper atmosphere," that is a very laudable object and one which no reasonable person would condemn. If the Government are convinced that there is no chance of these men getting a fair trial, they are entitled to pursue the matter as strongly as they desire. On the other hand, if they are satisfied that there is no opportunity of a fair trial for any British subject in Russia, the better thing to do is to withdraw completely and sever all communication with the country if they have no faith at all in their system or their actions.
    There is another point here that appeals to me. No Government should succumb to the demonstrations of antagonism which are continually created in the House and in the country even in connection with this case. We are entitled to say that justice should be done, but it is another matter, in my estimation, to say, as has been said in the House, that these men are perfectly innocent and could not be guilty of any crime at all. I think the limita-
    1974
    tion of time proposed would serve a very useful purpose by seeing that they were given a proper opportunity of defence. It would mean that, if the Government of Russia succumbed to influences of that character, a big stick would be placed in the hands of almost any country to dictate terms to Russia and to dictate whether people should be tried for an offence or liberated. That is not a proper attitude for any Government which is hoping itself to treat persons of criminal intent, who may be foreigners, in a proper manner. Every minority is entitled to a proper opportunity to defend itself.
    The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), in reply to an interjection by me last night, said that I was pro-Russian. I deny that I am pro-Russian in the sense that I am prepared to back Russia in carrying out any form of injustice on British or any other subjects. I resent any suggestion of that kind. I have stood continually against the domination of people who have taken their orders from Russia and have always stood, in the House and in the country, for the free expression of opinion and for the creation in this country of a movement which would not be dominated by outside forces. I object to dictation from Russia or any other country in a political sense, but I am also bound to object to complete dictation by this House and by the country as to the way they shall conduct their own affairs. It may be true that a period of national emergency such as Russia has undergone may produce a change of mind, and that they may see in every action a desire to overthrow the ruling force or to create a counter-revolutionary movement. It may be true that men get into a state of prejudice and passion—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member, like several others, is now getting very far away from the Amendment.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I only wish to add, if I may, that in that state of mind men may be driven to various things which are not reasonable. I am not going to suggest that reason only applies to Russia, or that it only applies to this country. If the Government were intending to use the Bill for the purpose for which, I believe, they are entitled to use it, to

    1975
    safeguard the rights and liberties of their fellow-subjects in Russia who have been arrested and to see that they have a fair trial and a proper defence, I would support the Bill in every shape and form. But if the Bill is to be used to carry out a continual method of pin-pricks against Russia, as has been pointed out by some hon. Members to-night, I shall be bound to oppose the Measure in every shape and form. There are sections in the Committee who are regarding the Bill altogether from the point of view of a dire hatred of Russia and its political system, and we have to be careful that those points are not exercised. The Government are entitled to take proper measures for the defence of their subjects and to secure a fair trial. But if those subjects are, after a fair trial, found guilty, they should bear the consequences as aliens would have to bear them in this country.
    6.2 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: I suppose that the Committee will wonder why an Irishman should intervene on this occasion. When I crossed over from my own country this morning and opened the newspapers, at first blush I was astounded at the action of the Liberal party. I did not understand the situation, as I had not been present at the Debate. A great deal of explanation, which was evidently required not only by my folk at home but, I believe, by the people of England and Scotland, has been given this afternoon as to why the Liberals abstained from voting last night. It may be through inability or lack of faculties on our part, but we in Northern Ireland never could understand the Liberal mind. When I saw what had occurred this morning all that I could say was, "Those Liberals again!" I really think there has been a great deal too much ado about nothing this afternoon. What the President of the Board of Trade said at the close of the Debate last night would have satisfied me, but it certainly did not satisfy the Liberal mind. I can assure my right hon. Friend that there will be no attempt to use this as any infringement of Free Trade principles or anything of that kind. That fact does not enter into our calculations at all. The main object is connected with the way in which our fellow countrymen have been treated in Russia.
    1976
    If I had been the Leader of the Liberal party I would have got up in my place and said, "On the distinct understanding that that is the limitation of this Bill, we will vote for it."
    Sir H. SAMUEL: That is what we did say in the afternoon.
    Sir W. ALLEN: But you did not carry it out.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Will my hon. and gallant Friend kindly read on to the next words?
    Sir W. ALLEN: The right hon. Gentleman said:
    "Is that the sole object?"
    The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade replied:
    "No one can say what is the sole object. We are bound to take powers in the widest form, and they will be mainly dealing with our fellow-countrymen who are at present under arrest in Russia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1933; cols. 1187–8, Vol. 276.]
    It was up to the right hon. Gentleman to get up in his place and to say definitely that they would support the Bill, if they were given such an assurance, while the Bill was going through Committee. It would be an English gentleman's way of doing it. I rise to explain to the Committee that there is a real point at issue for Ulstermen in this connection, and that is the production of Russian flax.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There can be no doubt that the subject does not arise on the Amendment.
    Sir W. ALLEN: I was under the impression that a great deal of argument had been used this afternoon as to why the Bill could only apply to the individuals who had been in prison, and should not apply to the question of Free Trade or Protection. That was my understanding, and a great deal was said about the possibility of using the Bill for the purposes of Free Trade. I wanted to put my point of view briefly.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question as to whether there should be any limitation does arise on the Amendment.
    Sir W. ALLEN: That is exactly the point to which I was coming. My point is that the position should be definite

    1977
    and distinct, because it is of importance to us that we should have the use of Russian flax, otherwise our trade will suffer. I wish to put our standpoint, but, no matter what it may cost, the Ulster people are prepared to stand by the Government to see that justice is done.
    HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!
    6.8 p.m.
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: I had not intended to take part in this Debate, and in spite of the interjections of some of my hon. Friends I have no doubt I can make as useful a contribution to it as most of them. I want to detain the Committee very briefly indeed, because the discussion has taken a turn in regard to which I think that I shall make a small contribution. First of all, I do not approach this question with any animus towards Russia or Russian trade. I have during the past few years attended innumerable meetings of manufacturers in this country, and I have constantly directed them, when the occasion seemed good, to try to extend their trade in Russia, and' to get some of the work which is going into other countries. I have badgered the Department of the right hon. Gentleman, not once, but many times, feeling, as I did now and again, that our Government were not taking quite so liberal and broad a view of their chances of extending business with Russia as they might have done.
    Having, I hope, made my general position on the question clear, where does one find oneself now? I have personally great sympathy with those men now in prison, for although I do not know them, I know their business associates personally. It may interest the Committee to know what the feeling is in regard to those Englishmen who are in prison. Some of them have been in Russia for a long time. They are all regarded by the men who know them best in this country, not only as not being enemies of Russia, but, through their association with the Russian people, as having a definite Russian complex. They are working for the Russian Government. They are doing the best of work in pursuance of their normal occupation. They want to do their job well, and all that they desired
    1978
    was to make good M. that country. Therefore it has come with special amazement to all men who know them in this country that a situation of this kind should have arisen. The indignation which is being felt, not only in the trade of engineering, but, in my experience, among the rank and file up and down the country, is not so much due to the fact that these men have been arrested and put upon trial. One gets the impression listening to speeches here that that is the grievance which we have on the Government side. It is not. If in Russia there were a judicial system, tried and proved, which had the respect of the world as has our judicial system, the Government would never have thought for a moment of intervention. They would have believed that that system of jurisprudence would have applied to those men, and that if not found guilty they would have actually been discharged.
    The fear, based on the history and practice of the Russian system, is that the men will not get a fair trial, and that our fellow-citizens indirectly will suffer hardship because we here had not the courage to intervene on their behalf. That is the issue. The Committee this afternoon have been discussing at considerable length, not so much as to whether the economic weapon should be used in the political support of our countrymen, but the length of time during which that weapon should be used. I want to put a point to the Committee, and it was really my reason for getting up, because it is a new point. If you consider the history of our trade relations with Russia for the past 10 years, you find that consistently we have been buying from them a great deal more than they have been buying from us, in some years creating a credit cash balance of not less than £23,000,000 a year which they have been spending elsewhere. [An HON. MEMBER: "And so have other countries."] For 10 years the trade between Russia and America has created a credit balance for America of £100,000,000.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir John Ganzoni): I am afraid that the hon. Member is getting rather far away from the Amendment.
    Mr. RAMSAY: I was going to make my submission, and I think that when

    1979
    I have been allowed to make it, you will probably find that I am not getting away from the Amendment at all. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] If I have said anything which I should not have said, I sincerely apologise, but I am just coming to my point. I have heard a Russian Ambassador in this country address manufacturers not once but several times in tones of patronage, telling them what they must do to extend their trade with Russia. My point is, that the peril in which our fellow-citizens find themselves to-day is the result of our economic complaisance in our relations with the Russian people. If we had stood out for a measure of economic justice much more strongly and forcibly than we have done, they would have respected us more, and,
    in my judgment, this position would never have arisen. Therefore, in my view, the Government in assuming this weapon, should not cripple their future action too much. The Russian people will respect them far more when they know that the people of Britain are able to hit back, and having assumed this weapon I take it that we shall not be too willing to hand it away, believing that if we can assert our dignity, intelligence and strength in relation to the Russian people that, indeed, will be the surest safeguard of peace and harmony in the future.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 306.

    Division No. 123.]

    AYES.

    [6.15 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McGovern, John

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Banfield, John William

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Milner, Major James

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, Gabriel

    Buchanan, George

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Thorne, William James

    Cape, Thomas

    Hirst, George Henry

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cooke, Frederick Seymour

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Groves and Mr. John.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Burnett, John George

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Denville, Alfred

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Dickie, John P.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Donner, P. W.

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Doran, Edward

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cazatet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W)

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Chanman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)

    Clarke, Frank

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Bernays, Robert

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Copeland, Ida

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Blindell, James

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Boothby, Robert John Graham

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Fuller, Captain A. Q.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Cowan, D. M.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Goff, Sir Park

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Briant, Frank

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cross, R. H.

    Grstton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbre',W.)

    McLean, Dr. w. H. (Tradesten)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Maitland, Adam

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Hales, Harold K.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Scone, Lard

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Creydon, N.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Meller, Richard James

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Hartland, George A.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Milne, Charles

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Soper, Richard

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. Q.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Stevenson, James

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Storey, Samuel

    Hornby, Frank

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Munro, Patrick

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Stuart, Lord C Crichton-

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Patersf'ld)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Nunn, William

    Templeton, William P.

    Hunt, Sir Gerald B.

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Thompson. Luke

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Peaks, Captain Osbert

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Jennings, Roland

    Pearson, William G.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Knight, Holford

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Potter, John

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rankin, Robert

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Levy, Thomas

    Ray, Sir William

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    White, Henry Graham

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Whiteside. Borras Noel H.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Eeclesall)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

    Wiss, Wilfrid D.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Mabane, William

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaharn)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Young, Rt. Hon.Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Sir George Penny and Lord Erskine.

    Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out the words "His Majesty by Proclamation," and to insert instead thereof the words "the Board of Trade by order."
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to support the Amendment, which stands in my name and in the names of two of my comrades. We move this Amendment because as Socialists we view with alarm
    1982
    the part that is being played so far as this portion of the Bill is concerned. We think that the proposal which we wish to amend is a new departure. While it may be right to issue a Proclamation, we wish to register an emphatic protest against the way in which it is proposed to be done. We do not, however, wish to delay the Committee, because we have other serious Amendments to discuss.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 310; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 124.]

    AYES.

    [6.29 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Denville, Alfred

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Dickie, John P.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Donner, P. W.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Alexander, Sir William

    Drewe, Cedric

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Levy, Thomas

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Ersklne-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Mabane, William

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kalsey

    Fox, Sir Glfford

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Magnay, Thomas

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Maitland, Adam

    Bernays, Robert

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Blindell, James

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Boothby, Robert John Graham

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Bracken, Brendan

    Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)

    Meller, Richard James

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Briant, Frank

    Guinness, Thomas L. E, B.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Milne, Charles

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Burnett, John George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Harbord, Arthur

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Hartland, George A.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Munro, Patrick

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hellgers, Captain F F. A.

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm.,W)

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Nicholson. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Nunn, William

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh,S.)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Clarke, Frank

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Patrick, Colin M,

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hornby, Frank

    Pearson, William G.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Peto, Geoffrey K (Wverh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Copeland, Ida

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Potter, John

    Cowan, D. M.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Jennings, Roland

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Cross, R. H,

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Ker, J, Campbell

    Rankin, Robert

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ray, Sir William

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Knight, Holford

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Danman, Hon. R. D.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Remer, John R.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Soper, Richard

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Stevenson, James

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stones, James

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Storey, Samuel

    White, Henry Graham

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Salmon, Sir Isidore,

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon, Sir H. (Darwon)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Templeton, William P.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Scone, Lord

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Thompson, Luke

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Sir George Penny and Lord

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Erskine.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Maxton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major James

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, Gabriel

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Buchanan, George

    Hirst, George Henry

    Thorne, William James

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cove, William G.

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McGovern, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

    Mr. LUNN: I beg to move, in page 1. line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(2) Where a proclamation has been made the occasion thereof shall forthwith be communicated to Parliament and, if Parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within five days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within five days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by that proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day."
    In my opinion the proposals in this Bill abrogate the powers of Parliament in this matter, and I feel that the Amendment which is to be submitted by the Government does not meet the situation in anything like the same way as this Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 284.

    Division No. 125.]

    AYES.

    [6.41 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Halt, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, Gabriel

    Batey, Joseph

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Thorne, William James

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams. David (Swansea, East)

    Cove, William G.

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Alexander, Sir William

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Fremantle, Sir Franc s

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Meller, Richard James

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Goff, Sir Park

    Milne, Charles

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Grimston, R. V.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Munro, Patrick

    Bernays, Robert

    Hales, Harold K.

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Blindell, James

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Boothby, Robert John Graham

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Nunn, William

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Briant, Frank

    Hartland, George A.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hastam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Pearson, William G.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'ptn, Bilston)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.{Berks.,Newb'y)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Potter, John

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Burnett, John George

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Pybus, Percy John

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Hope. Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hornby, Frank

    Ramsay, T. B. w. (Western Isles)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ray, Sir William

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Clarke, Frank

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Remer, John R.

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cooke, Douglas

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Copeland, Ida

    Jennings, Roland

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Cowan, D. M.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Knight, Holford

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Cross, R. H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Denville, Alfred

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Scone, Lord

    Dickie, John P.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Donner, P. W.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Drewe, Cedric

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Mabane, William

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

    Eastwood, John Francis

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (O. of W.)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Soper, Richard

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Maitland, Adam

    Spens, William Patrick

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    1988

    1989

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Stevenson, James

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Stones, James

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Templeton, William p.

    White, Henry Graham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Sir George Penny and Lieut-

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    6.52 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at the end, to add the words:
    "(7) A proclamation under this Act, other than a proclamation revoking a previous proclamation, shall cease to have effect at the expiration of three months from the making thereof; hut, if before the expiration of the said period of three months a Resolution is passed by each House of Parliament praying that the proclamation be continued in force, either for such period as may be specified in the Resolution or until a further Resolution praying that it be revoked is passed by each House, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by further proclamation to continue it in force in accordance with the terms of the Resolution, but without prejudice to his power to revoke it at any time:
    "Provided that in reckoning any such period of three months as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
    This is an Amendment which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade indicated was one which the Government would propose. I do not think I need add to any observations that have already been made in order to commend the Amendment to the Committee.
    6.54 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 6, to leave out the word "either."
    This Amendment is the first of three which we propose to move. I am grateful to the Government for moving their Amendment. It is agreed that there shall be a period of three months, after which this House must again be seized of the matter. It seems logical that the further period be three months; otherwise the Government might get an extension which is quite unlimited. Drastic legislation such as this should be kept under the control of the House. I do not think it would cause any serious difficulty to the Government to accept our
    1990
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It provides that an extension of the Order can last for only three months, with provision made with regard to the House being dissolved or prorogued. I do not want to elaborate the point.
    6.55 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The effect of this Amendment to the Government Amendment, coupled with two later Amendments which would be consequential to it, would be to authorise the making of a Proclamation for a period which in all could not possibly exceed six months; that is to say the Proclamation originally made under the Bill would be, for a period of three months, and then, if the Amendment to the proposed Amendment were accepted, it could be extended as the result of votes of both Houses of Parliament for a further period of three months. That is the object of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It is obvious that if the Bill is required for the purposes for which it is designed and for which it is now solely intended to be used, there must be no doubt about the efficacy of the weapon, no doubt about the efficacy of the Act for the purpose for which it is designed; and if it were known that no Resolution, no Proclamation could be efficacious for more than a period of six months in all, it is quite easy to see that the weapon would be less potent than if the Houses of Parliament were in a position to extend the length of time by Proclamation to any extent necessary to effect the purpose in view. One can see quite easily that prisoners might be kept in custody and proceedings might be prolonged so as to tide a trial over a, period of six months, and then the powers under this Bill would be exhausted. That would baulk the intention of Parliament in bringing forward the Bill. For these reasons, the Government are unable to accept the Amendment to the Amendment.
    6.57 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: In the first place I would express my thanks to the Government for proposing this Amendment, which we very cordially welcome. I think that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to the proposed Amendment has a sound point, but he has not expressed it in the right way, and he has laid himself open to the complete reply from the Attorney-General which we have just received. The Amendment of the Government will have the effect that a Proclamation can be made by His Majesty on the advice of his Ministers and it will be valid for three months and no longer, but before the expiration of the three months the Government can come to Parliament and get Resolutions from both Houses, and those Resolutions may be for an indefinite term. The hon. Member for Limehouse says: "That is wrong; limit it to three months." The Attorney-General replies that the effect would be that the whole procedure would terminate at the end of six months, and then another Act would be needed.
    Assuming for the purposes of this discussion that this Bill is necessary, assuming that a Proclamation has to be made, it is not desirable in the circumstances which we envisage to cut the whole procedure off at the end of six months. A proposal that I was going to make was that Parliament should retain power to review the matter at intervals of three months. The powers that have been conferred by this Bill are tremendous—an absolute embargo—and I can see the Government coming forward and saying, not in respect of the whole of Russian trade but of one particular part of it, perhaps timber, that the Proclamation is to terminate at the end of three months and they must get a Resolution from the House of Commons. That Resolution might have no term in it at all; it would not come up automatically for review. It might go on year after year, possibly until some Government with a different point of view came forward and moved to revoke it, or a Proclamation was issued revoking it.
    I would suggest that the two points of view should be combined. The Proclamation should run for three months and no longer, but, if the Government agree that it is desirable, it should come up for review. If Parliament passes a Resolution, let that Resolution be for three
    1992
    months, with power of renewal for subsequent periods of three months, if it is found by the House of Commons and House of Lords that it is desirable to do so. I have suggested a form of words and handed them to the Attorney-General. I do not know whether he will be able to accept them straight away, but if he would give an undertaking that this matter would be considered on the Report stage, which is to be taken quite soon, or that in another place the right form of words would be found to achieve the purpose, I, for one, would be well content.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman correct in saying that if my Amendment were accepted the whole Act would come to an end? Would it not be possible for the Government to have a new Proclamation?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Strictly speaking I have no doubt there could be a new Proclamation under the Act after the original Proclamation had come to an end, but it would not be quite right to start off at the end of six months with a new Proclamation, and in that way avoid the intention of Parliament.
    7.3 p.m.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) will not press his Amendment. I intervened at an earlier point to secure from the Government an assurance that this Bill, introduced in special circumstances, and for a special purpose, should be used only for that purpose. The Committee received from the President of the Board of Trade a most explicit engagement to that effect. That satisfied me that the Bill will only be used for that purpose. Let us make the Bill as effective for that purpose as possible. Just let us consider the case. We have not got satisfaction; therefore the first Proclamation is issued. We hope that the passage of this Bill will bring home to the Soviet Government how strong is the feeling in this country. We hope it may not be necessary to take action under the Bill; that the right thing will be done, and all cause of complaints removed. But if that does not take place, the first Proclamation is made. That Proclamation endures for three months. If in that time we have not brought home to the Soviet Government the strength of our feeling, and have not got satisfaction from them, then

    1993
    I am in favour of prolonging the Act indefinitely—as indefinitely as the action is prolonged against which we protest. I think that after three months' experience, if we have then to issue a new Proclamation, it ought not to be limited in time. In the instance we are considering—the Proclamation having been made, and we not having got the satisfaction we desire during the period of three months—it is Lot merely a new Proclamation which is required, but other steps as well.
    7.5 p.m.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if, during the extended period after three months had expired, the conditions were met the Proclamation would lapse immediately, or would the Proclamation continue after the conditions had been met?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Bill is for the particular purpose of securing justice for certain British people. There is power taken by the Government to revoke a Proclamation when made, if they have got that which is the whole purpose of the Bill. Assume it to be in three months, or one month, or four months, they will revoke the Proclamation. You use the argument of force to meet conduct of force. The whole purpose of reprisal is to cause certain action to cease. I assume that a Proclamation to revoke a previous Proclamation would be issued at the end of four months, six months, or one month, as soon as satisfaction is obtained.
    7.7 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) will not press his Amendment. It does not commend itself to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is anxious that the Houses of Parliament should retain complete control. Before the original three months can be extended, Parliament will have to decide upon the question. Parliament may extend the period for two or three months or, as the right hon. Gentleman says, indefinitely. Parliament may pass such a Resolution, but it does not thereby set going a machine which it has no power to stop. Parliament will always retain power to revoke a Proclamation, even although made for an indefinite period. That is explicity provided for in the Government's Amendment. It is not accurate to suggest that,
    1994
    if a Proclamation is made for an indefinite period, the House of Commons and the House of Lords are deprived of effective control over the position. The right hon. Gentleman is anxious to have every three months a fresh decision by the Houses of Parliament on this question. I am bound to say that might leave the Government in a less powerful position vis à vis the Soviet administration. It seems to me very like the game of cat-and-mouse. The Soviet Government, if the prolongation of a Proclamation for three months was obtained, might hope for some change in the House of Commons, but if they knew that the Parliament in session at that time had power to make an indefinite extension of a Proclamation, they would be likely to pay more attention when they knew it would remain in force until Parliament saw fit to revoke it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that we have gone far enough.
    7.9 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not concur in all the arguments of the Attorney-General. I think it would be useful if Parliament had to review the matter from time to time. In view, however, of what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), who has rendered such excellent service to the main object we have in view, and having regard also to what has been said by the Attorney-General when first moving the Amendment, bearing out another point to which we attach great importance, I will not, in deference to the views expressed by them, move the Amendment.
    7.10 p.m.
    Mr. THORNE: In the event of there being a long Recess, could the Executive revoke a Proclamation in the meantime?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Executive would not have the power to revoke a Proclamation that had been made by Parliament for an indefinite period. Parliament alone could revoke it.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Clauses 2 (Provisions as to licences) and 3 (Relief in case of non-fulfilment of contract due to existence of Proclamation vender Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Short title, commencement and interpretation.)
    7.13 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end to insert the words:
    "and this Act shall cease to have effect on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three."
    We move this Amendment for very obvious reasons. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said that the Bill has been introduced for a very specific purpose. Our contention is that, unless the Government can achieve their object in nine months, no Proclamation should be renewed at the end of that time. Fears have been expressed by the Attorney-General with regard to a limiting of time, when it was proposed that at the end of three months there should be power to extend a Proclamation for a further three months. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that to limit the operation of the Bill to six months might engender certain action in the country responsible for this Bill, and might cause procrastination. That may be the case, but I do not think the argument could be extended to nine months. I think all parties in the House will be agreed that there is no necessity for an extension beyond nine months. We are satisfied that long before the expiration of nine months, either the Government will have succeeded in their object, or it will be plain that they are not likely to succeed by the methods which they are adopting in this Bill.
    It is our desire that cur relations with Russia should be improved as quickly as possible, and we think that if the Government accept this Amendment, which gives them power for a period of nine months, that ought to be ample for dealing with the problem with which they are concerned at the moment. I am sure that the Attorney-General and the President of the Board of Trade, as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham are anxious that the present problem should
    1996
    be resolved as quickly as possible. If we could indicate not only to the Soviet Government, but to residents in this country and to those who have been carrying on a good deal of trade with Russia, that the Government's intention is to deal exclusively with the present humanitarian problem, I think general satisfaction would be given throughout the country. I do not think the Attorney-General can use the same arguments against the nine months period as he did against the six months period, and I repeat that, if, at the end of nine months, it is found that these men have not been fairly and squarely dealt with, and if any further action in the matter is considered to be necessary, I do not think there will be opposition from any quarter. I hope the Government will indicate to the world that they have confidence that fair play and sportsmanship will, be brought to bear at an early stage, and that the whole problem will be resolved before the end of nine months.
    The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: It is necessary to put this Amendment in a slightly different form from that in which it appears on the Paper. The Question is, "That the words:
    'and this Act shall cease to have effect on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three.'
    be there inserted."
    7.20 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Amendment put in the way in which you, Sir John, have put it to the Committee, will lead hon. Members to appreciate that if it were accepted it would of necessity mean that no Proclamation could be effective after 31st December, 1933, the reason being, as I have already pointed out, that if the Act dies, everything done on the authority of the Act also dies. That would be likely to deprive the Government of a weapon which it should have and which should be as potent as we can make it. If it were known that the most His Majesty could do, on the advice of his Ministers, was to issue a Proclamation that covered only a period of nine months that would be less effective than if there was power to issue a Proclamation which might be effective for 12 months or even longer. If we are going to do this thing at all let us do it in the most effective fashion. May I take this opportunity of

    1997
    correcting an answer which I gave just now to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne). I had overlooked the words at the end of the Government Amendment, "without prejudice to his power to revoke it at any time." Therefore, the Proclamation can be revoked without the intervention of Parliament.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Assume that the Amendment is rejected and this Measure remains on the Statute Book, is it the intention of the Government to preserve it as an Act for all time, although, once the present problem is resolved, it will not be used?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend has given a very explicit undertaking as to the purposes for which this Measure shall be used. If the Measure remains on the Statute Book it is obvious that it could not be used for any other purposes, if that undertaking is to be honoured. I imagine that in due course it would be removed from the Statute Book, but there would not be any possibility of its being used for other purposes, consistent with Parliamentary honour.
    7.22 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The Attorney-General and the Committee ought to consider this point. This Bill concerns us and one other nation. We could not apply these powers to any other nation—at least so I understand it. This action is taken because of certain incidents in Russia. The Bill is for the purpose of dealing with that emergency. If we take the Attorney-General's view that it should remain in force without any date, the assumption is that, in regard to Russia at any rate, you must have this special kind of legislation for an undefined period. We think that if these incidents are closed, that position would not be conducive to those friendly relations which, I understand, the Government and the House of Commons desire. I think it disastrous that the Bill has been brought in at all. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh!"] I will put it another way. I think it disastrous that anything should happen to compel the Government to think and the House of Commons to assent that such legislation is necessary. I think it a bad thing to continue that legislation a moment longer than is necessary to accomplish the aim which you
    1998
    have in view, and it is for those reasons which the Attorney-General has not met that we press the Amendment. The period of nine months is a good long time, and I hope, and I am sure everybody hopes, that nine days will see the whole business finished.
    7.24 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: There is nothing operative under the Bill unless you have a Proclamation and the Government can bring the Proclamation to an end at any time. Then there will simply be an Act on the Statute Book which is dormant, which is doing nothing, and the House of Commons can repeal that Act when it wants to do so. But that is no reason for putting in a nine months' limit. If it were proposed that, directly the Government considered the Measure to be no longer necessary for this purpose, it should come to an end, I could understand it. But I do not see why hon. Members should use this very small point to try to put a further limitation on the powers given under the Bill and I ask them whether they think it necessary to press their Amendment. I was delighted to hear that the Government are not going to accept the nine months' limitation though I hope that none of these powers will have to be used, as I am sure everyone else does.
    7.26 p.m.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it to be understood as the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has said that this Measure lies on the Statute Book doing nothing? I think the position would be quite different. If the Measure is continued, is it to be understood that, in no circumstances, it is open to the Russian Government to arrest British subjects on their territory, even though they have occasion for doing so as they might have for all we would really know? Is it to be understood that immediately an arrest is made in Russia under a Russian law a Proclamation is to be issued and this. Measure is to be held over their beads. So far from doing nothing, it would be a very vicious and threatening weapon. it would constitute a constant threat aimed at the Soviet Government. To pick out one Government in all the world against which this is to be directed is an anomaly to which the House of Commons ought not

    1999
    to consent, and, in any case, we ought to seek to bring it to an end at the earliest possible moment.
    7.28 p.m.
    Mr. DENMAN: I am sure that the Committee as a, whole will agree with the Government that it is undesirable to insert a precise time-limit where the prospects are so uncertain. On the other hand, there is, I am sure, a general feeling that if the Government, by means of this Measure, are as successful as we all hope and the slate is wiped clean in regard to this matter, then, unless there is something to terminate this Measure it will remain on the Statute Book and it will be open to people to point to it as something which might be enforced if any Government in this country wished to do so. The way to secure complete control and at the same time produce an automatic ending of the Measure at any time the Government wish to bring it to an end, would be to accept the Amendment but to add the words "unless renewed in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act." It could then be continued from year to year unless and until it bad achieved its purpose, when the Government could get rid of it by not including it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
    7.29 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: As the Attorney-General knows, any Act of Parliament that is for a certain period can be carried on further, without any words to that effect being in the original Act, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, if the Government of the day consider it necessary. Our objection to the absence of any date is that this is a sort of stigma against the jurisprudence operative in Soviet Russia. Some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may want that stigma to remain, but I think it is a terrible thing for the British House of Commons to continue it indefinitely. Against my own
    judgment I am conceding that you have cause for it. I am conceding your whole case, but if your case is right and if you are taking action to deal with that case, you ought to put a limit on the time that you are to keep a big stick of this sort in your hand. You ought to consider that there may come a time—speedily we hope—when this can be dispensed with and if that hope should be disappointed you have always got the means of including the Measure in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I am very sorry indeed that the Attorney-General cannot see his way to meet us on this point.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: If we get over the difficulty now obtaining in Russia, and if we get full satisfaction, we on these benches think that we ought to put Russia on the same footing as other nations, and if the Government have not something else in mind, we would like to know how long this Measure is to remain on the Statute Book. Will it remain year after year, or will there be same time-limit? We have put down this Amendment in order to find out what the Government's intentions are in that connection. If they could say, "Well, in 12 months or 15 months we intend to remove it if all goes well," I do not think we should press the case much further, but we feel that we are entitled to some explanation. If things go better and our relationships with Russia become normal again, as they must do some time or other—we cannot keep out a big nation like Russia for all time—this Measure should be removed from the Statute Book, and we desire to know when that will be.
    Question put, "That the words:
    and this Act shall cease to have effect on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three,'
    be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 279.

    Division No. 126.]

    AYES.

    [7.32 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Banfield, John William

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Batey, Joseph

    Edwards, Charles

    Kirkwood, David

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Buchanan, George

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Leonard, William

    Cape, Thomas

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Lunn, William

    Cove, William S.

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Daggar, George

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Maxton, James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Milner, Major James

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Price, Gabriel

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Thorne, William James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. John and Mr. D Graham.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Elmley, Viscount

    Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Emrys-Evane, P. V.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Alexander, Sir William

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J, R, (Seaham)

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Maitland, Adam

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Meller, Richard James

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Beauchamp. Sir Brograve Campbell

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Milne, Charles

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Bernays, Robert

    Greene, William P. C.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

    Griffith, F, Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Grimston, R. V.

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Borodale, Viscount

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Munro, Patrick

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Harbord, Arthur

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hartigton, Marquess of

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C,(Berks., Newb'y)

    Hartland, George A.

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peterst'ld)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. C. T.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Nunn, William

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Burnett, John George

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Pearson, William G.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Penny, Sir George

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Hornby, Frank

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Potter, John

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Clarke, Frank

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Janner, Barnett

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jennings, Roland

    Rankin, Robert

    Copeland, Ida

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Reed. Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Cowan, D. M.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Remer, John R.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cross, R. H.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lees-Jones, John

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Levy, Thomas

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Denville, Alfred

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Dickie, John P.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Donner, P. W.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Drewe, Cedric

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Salt, Edward W.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    2002

    2003

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n) & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Smithers, Waldron

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Templeton, William P.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Soper, Richard

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L,

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Spans, William Patrick

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Stevenson, James

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.

    Stones, James

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Blindell.

    Stourton, Hon. John J

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Bill reported; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    7.44 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: We are now coming to the close of two days' Debate on this Bill, and the House will probably agree that the Government were wise, on second thoughts, to devote two days to the Bill, because certainly we have been able to discuss it to-day in a calmer atmosphere than yesterday. We have to remember that this Bill is not a matter of domestic legislation. It is an act of the Government directed towards a situation in the world outside. When the Government are taking action on behalf of this country in relation to other countries, it is important to put our case in such a way as will be understood and appreciated by all the world. The forum to which we address ourselves is the whole world and not this House. Therefore, I am sorry that in the speech of the Foreign Secretary yesterday in introducing this Bill he seemed to be addressing himself to Members of the House as if they were a jury. He won his jury, but a case put before the jury is not necessarily put in such a way as to appeal to the world at large. I thought that the President of the Board of Trade in winding up was a little flippant. The one Minister was forensic and the other flippant, but both of them were appealing to the House.
    It is necessary that Ministers should appeal to the House and convince the House, but in our Debates to-day we have had speeches made by Conserva-
    2004
    tives such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and the Attorney-General which were a good deal more in accord with the importance of the subject, with the delicacy of foreign affairs, and with the dignity of this country. It is a pity that our external affairs are so entirely in the hands of Members of the National Government who are not, as far as I know, yet members of the Conservative party. It seems to me that the dealing of Ministers with Russia is rather a continuation of the methods of the Dominions Secretary in dealing with Ireland. In both cases we have Ministers who were not yet sufficiently well established with the bulk of their supporters as to abstain from playing to the gallery. I am sure that both these difficult matters of external policy would have been handled better by members who had been long years in the Conservative party. To-day, however, we have had—and I should like to welcome it—a recognition from the Government that there was point in the criticisms of their action. Yesterday there was an unfortunate mingling in the speeches and in the applause of two separate interests. One was the perfectly legitimate indignation of Members at the suggestion that their fellow subjects were in danger and were being maltreated in a foreign country. Mixed with that there seemed to be other, motives—a motive of hatred of another country and a motive at times of trade interests.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did a service to the House in bringing it back to a realisation that in foreign affairs we want to have unmixed motives. He rendered a service to the House and to

    2005
    the country in getting that declaration from the Government which we did not get last night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) tried to extract it from the Government, but he did not get it. He got an ambiguous answer that this Bill was mainly but not entirely for this purpose. We have been told to-day that it is to be used for one purpose and one purpose only. It is to put a weapon in the hands of the Government for one purpose, and I understand that the purpose is to obtain justice on behalf of our nationals. The purpose is not to exacerbate feeling between this country and Russia, and I understand that the Government do not intend if they can possibly avoid it to have a break with Russia. Therefore, it behoves all of us who speak in this Debate to try and avoid anything that will cause ill-feeling between the two countries. I wish that that had been borne in mind more in the course of the Debates which we have had up to now.
    It is most important that where we have a case to put before the world we should put it absolutely clearly and should not try to stand in a false position. Particularly is that the case where a matter of law is involved. In the case of Ireland our position was weakened where we had a strong case by being based on false premises in regard to the rights of the two countries. In the present case a position was taken up which cannot really be defended and which probably the Government on reflection will not attempt to defend. They asserted that it is unthinkable that any of our nationals could be guilty of certain offences. You may say if you like that the laws of Russia are absurd and that the offences with which these people are charged are absurd, but you cannot say that someone with whom you are not in personal contact cannot possibly have committed a breach of the law of another country. That, I consider, was an indefensible position to take up.
    I am not going to argue the legal position, for it has already been argued fully by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). We on this side have taken the line that the Government are not only right in taking, but are bound to take, all proper steps to see that our nationals are properly protected. If anybody had brought for-
    2006
    ward the suggestion that our nationals were in danger of injury to life or limb without this action being taken, we should have been the first to say that the Government must act and take every action in their power. As a matter of fact, there was a delay, but it was not quite so long as it was feared to be judging from the speech of the Foreign Secretary. It was a comparatively short time. We have elicited now that these men are to be brought to trial, and that that trial is to be an open trial. The question arises whether it is right that we should pass this Bill under those circumstances. I do not think that anyone supposes that the Government want to put the Bill into force. They want to use it as a weapon for argument, but what is their argument to be? Their argument is that they have a right to insist that there shall be a trial and a fair trial, but they cannot insist that these men shall be tried in exactly the same way as they would be in this country. If they were tried and condemned after a trial wrongly conducted, and if the punishment were excessive, the question would arise whether it was perfectly right and proper for the Government to interfere. But you cannot ask any nation to stand up in a white sheet, and say, "Your nationals are guiltless and our courts of justice are such that these people must even have the form of being acquitted before they have been brought up in the courts." That is why we oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.
    We agree that there are circumstances where action must be taken. We agree that the Government must protect their own nationals, but the point is that you must be right in time; you must be right in cause and reason, and not merely convince this House but convince the whole world. I hope that as soon as possible we shall get a full accession of reason to the governors of Russia. I hope that that will be met in a spirit of reasonableness by the representative of this country. I do not say in the slightest that there is not cause for grave anxiety or for action to be taken by our Government. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Government of the Soviet is an entirely wise and sensible Government. The point that should be made is that in dealing with other Governments you should never try to bring yourself to take the kind of line of the

    2007
    people with whom you have to deal. The more excited they are, the more restrained should be the attitude we should adopt.
    Yesterday we had a speech delivered by the Foreign Secretary such as I have never heard or read of from any Foreign Secretary. The job of a Foreign Secretary is not to stimulate indignation, righteous or otherwise. Foreign Secretaries have quite enough to do in dealing with national feelings on both sides without adding to them. If the Government get their Bill to-night, as they will, I hope that it will be strictly kept, as we are told it will be, for the purpose for which it is intended. I hope and believe that the whole matter may be adjusted very speedily between the Government of this country and the Government of Russia, and that we in this House, remembering the critical state of affairs all over the world, will be very careful not to put fire to any of the powder which is lying about the world at the present time.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) almost overwhelmed me with the unusual compliments he paid to me on my intervention earlier in to-day's proceedings, but I was a little embarrassed, because he seemed to distribute those compliments to me only for the purpose of emphasising his criticism of the speeches of my right hon. Friends. He thought the speech of the President of the Board of Trade flippant. I did not notice any flippancy. He thought the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs forensic. I should have called it a very lucid exposition of the case and a most cogent argument in favour of the Bill. But it is the business of an Opposition to oppose, and I make no objection if the hon. Gentleman takes the opportunity of the Third Reading to show that it is not "roses, roses all the way" for the Government, and to indicate that he thinks other people could do their work better than they are doing it.
    I agree with him that the case for the Government as it is before the House now is an even stronger and a much clearer and cleaner case than it was as it was left by the Debate yesterday. But may I add, also, that I think the position
    2008
    of the Opposition is far more reasonable to-day than it was as disclosed in the opening speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I infinitely prefer the statement made by the hon. Member for Limehouse of the rights and duties of a British Government in such cases to the special pleading of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol when he opened the discussion yesterday, or to his conclusions, which he varied every time he rose, but in none of which did he recognise as clearly as the hon. Gentleman has done the duty of the Government to protect British subjects abroad against injustice.
    But I do not want to be contentious; I wish to make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman and his friends. I cannot relate the speech which he made to the action which he announced the Opposition are going to take. Yesterday there was a point, which had been left obscure, which did cause grave concern to many hon. Members sitting on both sides of the House. It was a fear lest under cover of a Bill to deal with a particular emergency, to deal with the case of British subjects in danger of their lives or of suffering injustice, the Government should be securing from the House powers which they would use for some other purpose. I have said already that I am not averse to giving the Government those powers in relation to any country if they be necessary for the purposes of successful negotiations in other matters, but that is a question to be considered on its merits and quite apart from the action which we are now taking, and thanks to the representations from different parts of the House, we have had from the Government, by the mouth of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the most explicit undertaking that the powers sought in this Bill shall not be used for any other purpose than the purpose of securing justice for British citizens, and that if similar powers are at any time required for other purposes the House will begin the matter again de novo. That has been made perfectly clear; if you like to say so, that concession has been given. At any rate, the position is now clear and definite that this Bill exists only for a specific purpose.
    I, too, hope, like the hon. Gentleman, that it may not be necessary to enforce the Bill. I hope that justice may be done

    2009
    without this Measure being invoked, but when we have confined it to the one purpose of securing due process of law, due administration of justice to British subjects, cannot we be unanimous in our object? The hon. Gentleman has admitted the duty of the Government to protect. I do not ask him to say, what the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has already told us that he could not say, that he thinks this is the best method. We are all equally anxious that it should not be necessary to use it; we are all equally anxious to secure justice and protection for our fellow subjects. How can we best attain that end? By making the vote unanimous. The best protection for these men is to give to the Government the strongest assurance of national support. In that way we show to the Soviet Government how universal is the feeling of anxiety here about the treatment of these men. By bringing home the universality and the unanimity of the feeling, we shall take the best step in our power to make it unnecessary for our Government actually to put these powers into force.
    Without reopening any of our differences, and making allowance for the fact that my standpoint is one and the standpoint of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Limehouse is a different one, I do appeal to them, in the interests of the efficacy of the passing of the Measure, and in order that it may not be necessary to put it into force, in the interests of the effect which is to be produced upon the Soviet Government, and in the interests of national unity, to reconsider their decision to oppose the Bill, a course which will not only be misunderstood but is not unlikely to require the Bill to be put into force when, without that division of opinion, it might be that the mere passage of the Bill would be sufficient.
    8.8 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: To the appeal which has been made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) we on these benches give an immediate response. It is our intention to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill, and we would have voted for the Second Reading yesterday if the statement made by the Government this afternoon had been made by them last night.
    2010
    I am well aware of the fact that our abstention yesterday evening aroused considerable resentment among a large number of Members who had not heard the statement which had been made on behalf of the Liberal party earlier in the day, and who formed the opinion that we abstained because we were unwilling to arm the Government with powers which were considered necessary in the interests of British subjects in grave danger in Russia on account of some doctrinaire fiscal views of our own. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) had some genial words to say on that subject this afternoon, and I have little doubt that there were a considerable number of Members last night who, when we sat still on these benches during the Division, would gladly have employed Ogpu methods against us and have summarily executed us without trial.
    To-day the situation is entirely different, for the appeal which I made yesterday has been endorsed with great force and authority by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, and has been fully met by the Government. It has been specifically declared that this is a Bill for dealing only with the emergency that has arisen through the arrest of British subjects in Russia, and is not to be regarded as part of the machinery of this country for dealing with trade negotiations. The powers which are being granted to the Government are tremendous powers; they are, and must be regarded as, absolutely abnormal. I am not convinced, and my hon. Friends who sit on these benches are not convinced, that this is necessarily the right way of handling the situation. Indeed, we have grave doubts whether it might not have been better handled in other ways without any such Bill and without such speeches as we have heard from the Foreign Secretary and from the President of the Board of Trade, but, as I said yesterday, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom being of opinion that this particular weapon is essential to them if they are to carry out with success the duty which devolves upon them of protecting British subjects in Russia, I do not think that any of us in the House of Commons should take the responsibility of denying them the powers which they desire and which they claim.
    For that reason, and in spite of these views, we shall vote for the Third Read-

    2011
    ing, and I hope that possibly even at this late hour our hon. Friends on the benches opposite may not press the matter to a Division. Even if they do so, the speech made on their behalf by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) indicates that they realise that it is the duty of this Government to intervene, and that they earnestly desires that the representations which have been made, even though they may have been made in a tone and in a manner of which they do not approve, will have successful resets. I hope there will be unanimous vote of the House, but, if there is not, at all events these Debates have shown that fundamentally there is a great consensus of opinion in this Parliament, which reflects the universal opinion of the nation outside, that we are most deeply concerned for the fate of our fellow subjects in Russia, and believe from the bottom of our hearts that the just treatment by the Russian Government of those men who are now in danger will conduce to good and friendly relations between Russia and Great Britain, while the reverse must imperil that feeling of good will between the two countries which we, at all events, most earnestly desire to maintain.
    8.13 p.m.
    Major MILNER: I wish to refer for a few moments to what has been said by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). Neither of them did justice to the views of this party, and more particularly to the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I would like to quote what my hon. and learned Friend said yesterday. In almost the first words of his speech he used expressions which were repeated almost word for word by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) this evening. He said:
    "I want to examine the position shortly, and I hope calmly, in order to see whether it is really in the best interests not only of this country but of the accused persons themselves, that we should take the action now proposed. I am sure there is one proposition of international law upon which everybody in this House will be absolutely at one, and that is that this country has an absolute right to afford protection to its subjects, wherever they may be abroad, in any foreign country. That right, of
    2012
    course, carries with it the duty to see that that protection is given and also the duty, in any particular case where it may appear that its subjects are in jeopardy, to make the fullest possible inquiry in order to ascertain the whole of the facts with regard to those subjects."
    In almost his closing passage my hon. and learned Friend made an appeal on similar lines to the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse. He said:
    "I venture to ask the Foreign Secretary whether, in view of the danger to the men and the possibility of this matter being dealt with on a friendly basis with the British Government, he does not consider that even yet it might be possible to avoid the passage of this Bill, anyway to avoid any possibility of anything happening under it? If only the longer and more sensible view can be taken, perhaps by both parties, who at the moment have got both nations into a state of excitement and hysteria which is just the sort of state which so often has led to war in the past, surely we as a House of Commons can treat this matter not as a lot of people who are excited but as a matter for calm deliberation. We ought to try to do what is, in the circumstances, the best thing to be done from the point of view of our relationships with Russia and the protection of these men, because I feel convinced that if we continue to pile up ill-feeling in Russia by the sort of statements that there are in the White Paper and by this sort of emergency action which is being taken to treat Russia in a way in which no country has ever been treated before, and by this House of Commons, we are seriously jeopardising not only all future relations with Russia but we are seriously jeopardising the fate of men who are still in their hands, and who it is for them to deal with and not for us. If by being more reasonable, and even by making a gesture at the last moment, anything can be done in that direction I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1933; cols. 1785 and 1800, Vol. 276.]
    What more could the hon. and learned Gentleman have said yesterday than in fact he said? It is very remarkable to note the change of atmosphere since the Foreign Secretary's speech yesterday, due to a number of reasons. It was not perhaps the matter but the manner of the Foreign Secretary's speech which excited so much feeling in the House. One or two matters have been made clear since he spoke. I do not think that he did justice to himself in not bringing to the knowledge of the House certain facts which were extracted from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his closing speech last night. Those facts ought to have been

    2013
    brought to the notice of the House by the Foreign Secretary. It is now understood—and the Foreign Secretary understood the whole time—that there is to be an open trial, that British legal advice is to be available for our fellow-citizens in Russia, that charges have been made and have been received by the Foreign Office, although particulars have not been given in this House, and that the appropriate indictment, or the documents or whatever they are in Russia, have been served upon the accused persons, or upon some of them. Those are the facts which ought to have been brought to the notice of the House when the Foreign Secretary made his opening speech, and they should not have been left in the undecided state to say the least of it, in which the Foreign Secretary left them.
    I had intended to say a word or two on some more or less minor matters, but I think, in view of the temper of the House, that that is neither necessary nor desirable. I feel that we are apt, all of us no doubt, including myself and my hon. Friends, to see the mote in our brother's eye and not the beam in our own eye, but the very distinct impression was left upon the House yesterday that nothing approaching what was done in the way of legal procedure in Russia is ever contemplated in this country. I hold no brief—far from it—for the Russian legal system. I do not profess to know a very great deal about it, but I know something about our own system which, without question, is in every way the beat in the world; yet even in this country and in countries in which we control the government, to have arrests made without Charge is not unknown. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Healy) told me last night that so recently as 1922 he was incarcerated for two years without any charge being made against him. It is common knowledge that we have asked questions in this House within the last month as to what the charges were against Lieut. Baillie-Stewart, and that no details were given, but only such general observations and directions as were given by the Russian Government in this case.
    Sir J. SIMON: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not suggest that the officer to whom he has referred did not know the charges?
    Major MILNER: I am not in a position to say, although I put a question with a view to eliciting the information, on what date the officer was informed of the precise charges against him. I can only say that yesterday the Foreign Secretary made a great point of the fact that during the period in which the correspondence included in the White Paper was carried on, five days I think in all, no particulars of the charges were delivered. In fact, there were general particulars of the kind of charge, and of the way in which the wind was blowing, and also in that correspondence the particular article of the criminal code under which the charges would be brought was mentioned.
    The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must point out that we are now on the Third Reading, and that the. Debate is strictly limited to what is in the Bill. I think the hon. Member will agree that it is desirable that we should not proceed with these questions of detail.
    Major MILNER: I accept your Ruling at once. The only other observation I shall offer to the House is this: An appeal has been made to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, but I am afraid that they have not appreciated the position that we take up. The policy of the Government, which is apparently to be supported by the Liberal party, is the policy of the big stick. We do not believe in the policy of the big stick, and we do not believe in making that stick bigger by adding our votes to those of the National Government in this matter. That policy is becoming almost a habit on the part of the National Government. It was used, for instance, or attempted, to be used, in the Anglo-Persian dispute;., where I think gun-boats were sent to the Persian Gulf.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden):No gun-boats were sent to the Persian. Gulf.
    Major MILNER: I accept that statement. It may be that there was a suggestion that they should be sent. There was certainly something in the papers about it, but I accept the Under-Secretary's statement that no action of that sort was taken; but there, in my view and in the view, I think, of my hon.

    2015
    Friends on these benches, the big stick was to be used. The matter was to be referred to the Hague—
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean to say that to refer a question either to the League of Nations or to the International Court of Justice is an improper act comparable to the use of the big stick?
    Major MILNER: No.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If he does not mean that, what is the meaning of what he is now saying?
    Major MILNER: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Debates on that subject, he will find precisely what we felt about it, and what we expressed on that occasion. We may be right or wrong, but we think that that was an attempt on the part of this country to use the big stick. By the timely intervention of a representative of the League of Nations, a friendly arrangement was eventually arrived at. Certainly there was a protest by the Persian Government. They felt, as the Russian Government have felt, that we were attempting to dictate to them, or to impose upon them. I am reminded that on the Irish question we took certain action, which has not proved to be in the least satisfactory from the point of view either of Ireland or of this country, and here is a third attempt on somewhat similar lines at economic reprisals. In my view, if there is no change in the attitude of the Government, though I hope there may be, a similarly unsatisfactory result may ensue.
    I 'ask myself: Is the course upon which the Government have embarked the most likely to result in advantage to our fellow citizens who are accused in Russia? I happen to have been a prisoner myself for a period of months, both in a foreign gaol and in a foreign fortress, and I think I might also say, on one occasion during that period, a foreign dungeon, or something approaching it; and, therefore, I have the very greatest sympathy both with those who are still in prison in Russia and those who have, we hope permanently, been released. I have the greatest sympathy with their relatives. I know the anxiety which my own absence, perhaps in rather different circumstances, caused to my relatives, and, therefore, I
    2016
    think I can claim to be a reasonably unprejudiced person in looking at the matter from the point of view of the accused persons.
    We now know the charges, we know that there is to be an open trial, we know that some British legal advice is to be available, and, no doubt, Russian counsel will be available to defend the accused persons, just as in this country an accused Russian could have the advantage of British counsel. The further one goes, the more do the respective Governments become involved, and the more the prestige of the Governments and feelings of patriotism and so on become involved. It seems to me that, the further the Government carry this action, the more likely is it to make the Russian Government endeavour to justify their action in arresting these British citizens. Therefore, I cannot agree that it is an advantage to pass the Third Reading of this Bill, and certainly it will not be an advantage to proceed to carry it into effect, as I am sure we all hope will not be done. Human nature, whether Russian or British, naturally and properly resents reprisals, or threats of reprisals, and we ourselves should be the first to resent that sort of action on the part of any other country.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house made an appeal, and I should like also to make an appeal. The world from end to end is in chaos to-day. Almost every country is involved in conflict of one sort or another. We profess, and the National Government profess, that this country—as may, indeed, be true—is happier and better off in many respects than almost any other country on the globe. Is it not our duty, in a matter of this sort, to set an example to the rest of the world? Surely, that example was not set by the Foreign Secretary in his speech yesterday. I suggest that our only proper course is to look at this matter as coolly as we can, and to take no action which could possibly make matters worse in any way. I would appeal to the Government not to put this Bill into operation, but to do as our fathers did with some of us in our young days, that is to say, put us on our honour, so to speak, to play the game. I suggest that that is the action that should be taken with the Russian Government, and one hopes that they would respond. If we do not adopt that attitude, we exacerbate feel-

    2017
    ing, we bring nationalist feelings into the question, and almost force upon those Russians, whoever they may be, who try our fellow-citizens, the obligation or the duty to justify what their Government has done.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that the Russian Government, in order to save its face, will manufacture evidence against our fellow-subjects?
    Major MILNER: I never said one word about manufacturing evidence. I said that, human nature being what it is, in circumstances like these, if threats are made and actions are taken, they will, in the nature of things, almost feel obliged to take a prejudiced or biased view. They would be far more likely to do so than if they were put on their honour, as some of us were as young men and children, to do the right thing. I think that, on consideration, the hon. Member and others will agree that that is possibly the case. In these circumstances, I, for one, shall oppose the Third Reading, and, if the Bill is passed, I sincerely hope the Government will find no reason to bring it into effect, but that, in view of the atmosphere in this Rouse, it may be possible to bring about a happy issue to this unfortunate question.
    8.32 p.m.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I was a little afraid, at one time during the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), that the Debate was going to be taken away from that broad and, I may say, generous atmosphere in which it was launched by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), and the extraordinarily moving appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I have spent practically all my working life in assisting to the best of my ability in the administration of justice. Justice should not be a matter of administration in one country to the exclusion of other countries. Those of us who really believe in justice believe that it should be a principle which should be widespread in its application; and my friends who, with me, believe that this Bill ought to be supported, support it because we think that it gives to the Government a power to try and see that those principles which we hold dear are
    2018
    brought into the fullest play. Nothing is further from the thoughts of any of us than the desire that international relations should be affected in the very least degree by mere threats, or by anything more than notice to the world that we choose to arm ourselves, in case of necessity, and only when driven to it, with the necessary powers to protect the lives, the reputations, and the characters of the people of our own country and our own race. We support the Bill for that and for no other reason, because we believe it is necessary to see not only that justice is done but that it should be manifestly clear that justice is being done.
    There is one other aspect which appeals to me and which I should have thought would appeal to many of my friends in the Labour party. We are choosing here for the purpose of defending some of our own people an economic weapon. It is an opportunity that has been given to us to see whether by economic means we can, if necessary, persuade those with whom we disagree to come to some measure of agreement, or at least to see that we feel very deeply indeed on what is being done to these unfortunate people in Russia. I cannot help feeling that it is very much better that it should be done by economic weapons than by those real weapons of which so many of us of middle age have had such bitter experience in the past, and in respect of which there is so much general agreement nowadays that we should use every possible attempt to see that we never have recourse to arms again.
    It gives me, I will not say satisfaction, because no one with any sense of responsibility can derive any satisfaction from the present circumstances in which we find ourselves, or even in the fact that it is necessary to provide the Government of the day with another weapon, but it gives me, shall I say, some sort of relief at the measures that we are compelled to pass into law for the preservation of our own people that at least they are measures which will not endanger human life on the other side or the lives of our own people here, and, if we can do that, I should have thought, if I may make an appeal to hon. Members of the Opposition, that they would see some good in the Bill from that point of view as indicating the

    2019
    possibility that at last we are finding some other weapons instead of having to assert our rights by recourse to arms. I hope again, if I may add my small voice to that of those who have made an appeal to the Leader of the Opposition, that we should let it be known that only if we are forced will we make use of the weapon that is provided by the Bill. I should have thought it was most eminently desirable that we should let people on the other side understand, not only the men who are undergoing trial but those who are going to try them, that the feeling of this country is strongly and determinedly united behind the action which the Government are taking.
    8.39 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The purpose of the Bill is to set up a prohibition of imports from Russia into this country because certain men have been arrested and are awaiting trial. No one denies the right not merely of a country but of an individual to make representations about a person who is arrested. Even if these men were criminals, I could not help feeling sympathy for them. The whole of my life is taken up with the defence of the criminal population. I spend nearly all my time when I am not in the House of Commons in and out of the law courts. The consequence is that, even if we admitted that they were wrong, I should still feel, whether it was Russia, Germany or Australia, a sympathy with the person who is unfortunate enough to be on the criminal side of any quarrel abroad. I have so many times committed wrong myself that I have often felt that I should have been there and the other men ought not to be there at all. Consequently, one occasionally has a fellow feeling for them. It is not wrong that a nation, or indeed an individual, should make representations for a person awaiting trial. Every responsible Member of Parliament has done it at one time or another. If that is good for an individual to do, it is certainly not wrong for a country to make representations to another country. On that there is common ground. That is all that anyone has said so far. Indeed, some of us are asking that representations should be made in the case of Germany. If we believe that is not wrong, surely we cannot say it is wrong in the case of Russia.
    2020
    What is the position that we are faced with? We are not against nations or individuals making representations, but nations have the right of arrest. No one will say that Russia alone of all the countries in the world is not to have a right of arrest. Consequently, we are in common agreement on two points: First of all, we have a right to make representations and Russia has a right to make arrests. Secondly, I think Russia has a right to make its own laws for its citizens, and no other country has a right to make laws for Russia. So long as Russia is a sovereign State she is entitled to make here own criminal courts and her own conduct of trials and, if foreigners go to Russia, as foreigners come here, they must be subject not to British law in Russia but to Russian law. I represent a fairly large foreign population in my division, everyone of whom is subject to British law and punishable by British law. I frequently have complaints that their trial is not right or just, but it is British trial and they are domiciled here. If that is the case, what is the position? The protagonists of this Measure argue: "Yes, that is all right. We believe each country has the right of arrest, and we believe each country has the right to make its laws, but in Russia it is different. They do something from some other place."
    I have a regard for the legal profession. I am not one of those who say they are dishonourable men. But what are the facts that you are basing your case on? Let me sweep sentiment aside. I only heard two speeches yesterday, that of the Foreign Secretary and that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps). I have seldom heard a speech in this House which made a greater plea for passion, and I have seldom heard a speech made by a lawyer which divorced itself from fact and dealt so much with both prejudice and human sentiment. Let us take the facts. What evidence have we got? Take the White Paper. The evidence there is that of an eminent Ambassador. There is no other evidence at all, and his evidence is merely evidence of interviews. There is no evidence to show that the men are either guilty or not guilty. I know that it is said that they are innocent. The Foreign Secretary said so, but what they have to do in the courts is to prove it.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the English courts, but I should be very shocked if under the English system you had to prove your innocence.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: If there is a doubt about his innocence, a man must go for trial. All we have had so far is a statement by this eminent Ambassador. We have no other evidence.
    The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that the hon. Member is now forgetting the caution he expressed at the beginning of his own speech.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I had a feeling yesterday that nobody examined the legal issue. The legal consequences should have been examined. The hon. Member who was sitting beside me a moment or two ago when the hon. and learned Member was speaking showed to what lengths what was called fair play for Russia could go. He said that he wished that we had the Russian powers. When we said that judges often treated men, in cases of passion being aroused, severely, he said: "Yes, and they had a right to do it." If the men had been arrested in France—and do not think that Britishers have not been wrongfully arrested in France and tried—or if they bad been arrested in any other country in the world, in America, this Bill would not have been introduced. The Measure is introduced not so much to secure justice for the men, because if there was a speech —and I say it in his presence—calculated to create passion and not to secure a fair trial, it was the speech of the Foreign Secretary yesterday. A speech was delivered a short time ago by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) with which I did not agree, but I could not avoid admiring its tone. You cannot divorce a Bill of this kind from the speech of the Foreign Secretary. In Russia the speech of the Foreign Secretary will be regarded as part of the Act.
    Yesterday there was a constant sneer at the country in which the men were to face their trial. There was a constant stream of offensive remarks. There was nothing more calculated to interfere with those men getting a fair trial than the proceedings here yesterday. My chief objection to the Measure is that it
    2022
    is not calculated to operate in favour of the men but against the country in which they are to be tried. The reason behind the Measure is not to secure justice for the men, but to attack the system which is running in Russia. I do not mind people criticising the Russian system and opposing it, but I object to those men being made the innocent victims of an attack upon another system. Whatever the rights and wrongs, we have no alternative but to vote against this Measure, which in my view is a dishonest Measure. It is dishonest for the reason that you can only do this sort of thing effectually against Russia. If this sort of thing had been done against France, it would have been a declaration of war, and would have been meant as such, and if it had been done against America it would have been a declaration of war. But Russia is weak. Let us be frank about it. I admired the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. He was not doing a popular thing last night, but something which might cost him votes at the moment. Russia is not too popular. Arrest in a foreign country is not popular. None of those things is popular. It is the easiest thing in Britain to awaken feeling against the foreigner at any time. One can see it with regard to Ireland, and in regard to religion.
    This Measure is popular, but it may not be right because of its popularity. In this House there are men who at the Law Courts could gain popularity by deserting their profession and appealing to prejudice, but again and again they have not done that, although it is often tempting to do it. This Measure is an appeal to prejudice and not to reason. It is an appeal against a country which is not very popular; a country which is not equipped as other countries are equipped. The Government will win to-night. There is no use in appealing to them, as they are appealing to us, and there is no use in threatening, because threats would be useless and silly. I neither threaten nor appeal. It is not the place to-night to express a proper judgment, but a few years hence, when one can look calmly back on what is being done, I am certain that those who live the longest will not be proud of the action that the Government have taken.
    8.57 p.m.
    Mr. HANNON: I rise to make an appeal to the Leader of the Opposition. We had a moving appeal from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), supplemented in equally touching terms by the appeal of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) conveyed to the House the idea that there was some motive behind the Bill other than the safety and security of our fellow countrymen in Russia. Will hon. Members reflect on the attitude of this country towards Russia in our trading relations during the last 10 or 12 years? The Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade has continuously for years past devoted himself day in and day out to the development of British trade with Russia. I am talking facts in relation to a group of companies who have given very large credits to Russia. We gave those credits under circumstances that have not been granted to any other country under the sun. It is true that our trade with Russia for the last 10 or 12 years has enabled us to keep large numbers of people in employment in this country. Does any hon. Member suggest for a moment that British firms anxious to employ their people and to carry on trade with Russia are anxious to have a quarrel with that country and to break off relations?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In this House there is a large body of opinion, particularly since the Election, anxious to break off all trade with Russia.
    Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member has misinterpreted a large body of feeling in this House. I have never heard any expression of feeling in this House against Russia, except where it was felt that Russia was departing from the ordinary moral obligations of Government as we understand them. There have been moments in this House and throughout the country when acts on the part of Russia have stirred profoundly the people. Throughout the whole course of this Debate—and one was grateful for the sobriety which came over the House this afternoon—there has not been one single suggestion that could be honestly interpreted as other than anxiety for the safety of our fellow countrymen in Russia. These men who have been taken into custody by the Soviet administration, some of
    2024
    whom have been released on bail, are men of outstanding quality in their profession and craft in this country. I should like to say in relation to the great firm affected by the arrests, the Metropolitan-Vickers Company, that no single individual in Great Britain has more zealously and continuously worked for the promotion of trade with Russia than Sir Felix Pole, the administrative head of that great firm. It is monstrous to suggest that men sent out in important capacities to maintain the reputation of that great firm in Rusia, and who have carried out series after series of contracts there without reproach for 10 or 12 years, would lend themselves in any circumstances to a conspiracy of the quality which has been charged against them.
    My appeal to the Leader of the Opposition is this. We have had a, clear definition this afternoon of the precise purpose of the Bill. Its limitation has been laid down with exactitude by the President of the Board of Trade. Everyone in this House and outside will wish that the occasion will not arise when the purpose and objective of the Bill will be given effect to; but is it not far better in the interests of these men in Russia that we should have a unanimous vote of the House on the Bill? I have heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition make speech after speech in this House in favour of great causes. During his whole life he has been identified with benevolent purposes in a great variety of activities. Would it not be a most benevolent act on his part to-night to allow this Measure, a Measure designed for the purpose of safeguarding the life and liberty of our fellow citizens, and securing for them a full measure of justice in a foreign country, to go through unanimously. Will he not join with the rest of the House in signifying the unanimous feeling of this great Assembly that attacks upon the liberties of British subjects must always be defended under our great Constitution. The Debate is of great interest not merely to those in this Assembly but to people all over the world.
    The hon. Member for Gorbals asked whether we would take this kind of action in relation to any other foreign country. He quoted the United States of America and France. It is inconceivable that anyone would be charged in either of those countries without the charge

    2025
    being made fully known immediately following upon the arrest of an individual.
    Mr. COCKS: What about Germany?
    Mr. HANNON: The real feeling and anxiety in this country has been that British subjects have been arrested and charged without the substance of the charge being made known.
    Mr. COCKS: What is happening in Berlin at this moment?
    Mr. HANNON: Deep-seated sentiments have been aroused and we were bound to take action of the kind contemplated in this Measure. I hope that the party opposite will on this occasion associate themselves with the full volume of public sentiment that goes out to these men in Russia, and join with us in giving this Bill a unanimous passage through the House.
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: The Debate so far has been in accordance with the highest traditions of the House of Commons and the gravity and tolerance of the speeches shows that hon. Members on all sides of the House realise the importance of the issue. Yesterday I think, we started on a wrong basis. The Foreign Secretary dealt with the White Paper yesterday as though it did not require very much explanation. He took up the position of an advocate addressing a jury who had never heard anything of the case before, and emphasised certain points. He used his great skill to take advantage of certain facts, with the result that a rather stronger line in opposition was developed. Englishmen do not like to see anyone put upon unduly and he aroused a certain amount of antagonism by the line he took. After reading the White Paper I felt that the position in regard to the men in Russia was one of serious gravity and that this country ought to do something. But what; that is the difficulty. I do not think that this Bill is the right way of approach. We propose to prohibit the importation of Russian goods, that is, we are going to cut off our trade with 170,000,000 people. That is a serious matter for this country, and especially to us on the Labour benches.
    When we were in office we brought about trade relations with Russia, although we met with stern opposition from most other people. But we secured
    2026
    it; and we cannot lightly allow that position to go. We think that the Government are not proceeding on the right lines. It can be taken for granted that something must be done; that we must look after our nationals. It is the proud boast of an Englishman when he goes abroad to think that in extremities he can look to the mother country for help. There is not a single Member on these benches but who feels as keenly in regard to these men in Russia as anybody else.
    Mr. HOWARD: What would you do?
    Mr. TINKER: I will tell the hon. Member what I would do; I may be wrong. If I had been in the position of Ambassador to Moscow I should have used more judgment and common sense. If he was dictated to by the Foreign Office here they will, of course, take the responsibility. Anyone reading the White Paper will agree that it is not the kind of language to use to another Government; and if it had been used in the case of America or France, or to Mussolini, I can imagine that there would have been some trouble. I should have used a little more tolerance towards Russia. I should have tried other means. Let us put ourselves in their position. If we had arrested some of their men and their Ambassador came to us and told us that we must adopt different methods we should no doubt think that our methods were right, and would not tolerate for a moment another country telling us what we should do. That is our psychology. I will give the President of the Board of Trade the credit for understanding the Russians. He has said that a long intercourse with Russians has taught him that the only way to deal with them is by telling them quite definitely what we intend to do.
    It may be that I do not understand the Russian psychology in the same way as the President of the Board of Trade, but I would treat a Russian exactly as I should treat myself, and, therefore, I find that the methods we have adopted in dealing with Russia would at once raise my ire and make me more determined than ever. We believe, in the interests of these accused men, that the right position has not been taken. If, after all, they were shot and I felt that they had not had a fair trial, I would go to any length to get justice for them.
    Mr. HOWARD: It would be too late.
    Mr. TINKER: I agree that there is that point of view. If something did happen to these men, and 35 Russians have been shot, well, I should stand condemned for not having taken action before. I certainly agree that that is a strong point in favour of the Government. When I read that paragraph I was shocked to think that in any country in the world such kind of things could take place. But I am afraid that our attitude may act on the Russians in such a way as to rouse them to take that action, and that it may place these men in more jeopardy than they are now. If that happens who will stand condemned? These are the reasons why we feel bound to oppose the Bill. Hon. Members opposite will at least give us credit that we are just as anxious for the safety of our nationals in other parts of the world as any hon. Member, and whatever may be the result we hope that these men will soon be released and returned to this country.
    9.13 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I do not intend to prolong the Debate because I said what I had to say on the matter last night, and hon. Members want to go on to the next Order on the Paper. I should not have risen but for the appeal that has been made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and other hon. Members. Our case has been put quite clearly by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). We think that this business has been mismanaged, mishandled, from the beginning. The Bill is founded on the White Paper and supported by the speech of the Foreign Secretary. It is impossible to detach one from the other. If we gave a vote to-night, even if we thought it was necessary to have these powers, or abstained from voting, such acquiescence or that action would be going back upon what we said yesterday, and either indirectly or directly supporting the speech of the Foreign Secretary and the White Paper. That is an impossibility; it is out of the question.
    The Bill, of course, will go through and the Government will be armed with these powers. My own attitude on every charge that is made against anybody, I
    2028
    have held this view ever since I could think, is that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty. That is the law in this country. But we must remember that in many countries beside Russia, the contrary procedure is adopted. The person charged has to prove his innocence. In this case no one in authority has questioned the right of any sovereign Power to put an alien on trial. We are now all hoping that the trial will take place and that it will be a fair trial. We are hoping to have a verbatim report of it, so that everyone will be able to judge, and I am hoping devoutly that the powers under this Bill will not have to be put into operation. We cannot help feeling that economic war is as bad as any other kind of war, because it must lead on to it ultimately. We think that the condition of the world, and especially the condition of Europe today, is such that any antagonism such as this, between ourselves and a great people like the Russians, can make only for evil. Therefore, very regretfully I say that I and my friends cannot vote for the Third Reading of the Bill. We are only a few but we do act together.
    We regret very much indeed that we cannot respond to the appeals of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), but I would beg them to believe that we are extremely interested in the well-being of our friends across the sea, and equally concerned in maintaining the best kind of relations with all the other nations of the world. We believe that our friends in Russia will be safer without this kind of legislation, and safer if those who have to negotiate with the Russians will negotiate with them as equals, without any regard to the fact that their manner of life and their system of living are entirely different from ours.
    If any people in this House think that this sort of judgment that is passed on Russia and Russians generally is something new, I beg them to read the Debates that took place in this House between 1876 and 1880, when this country was in very strong controversy on foreign affairs with Russia. As a boy I sat up in the Gallery and listened to Mr. Gladstone on the one side, and Mr. Gathorne-Hardy and others on the other side, and the same sort of charges of bad faith

    2029
    were thrown across the Table. In the end the great nations of Europe had to live together, had to settle their differences, and had to trust one another. There is a new Government in Russia to-day. It is striving to create a new and altogether different sort of life. I would like the Foreign Secretary to forget the sort of thoughts that were in his mind yesterday, the thoughts that compelled him to make the speech that he did make. I would like to see him meet the Russian Ambassador in this country and hear both of them say: "Let us find a way by which we can live together under better conditions and on better terms than have existed till now."
    9.20 p.m.
    Sir J. SIMON: I have no intention of claiming the attention of the House for more than a few minutes. There is other business which we hope to be able to take up to-night. I was glad to infer from what was said by the Leader of the Opposition that in his view no further speeches from the Opposition would be needed. The right hon. Gentleman added very appositely that be was leading a consolidated and united party.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: After consultation.
    Sir J. SIMON: Let me express a very sincere desire that we bring this discussion to a conclusion and pass the Bill through this House in the spirit and atmosphere which is best calculated to help our fellow subjects who are in a condition of great anxiety. I accept entirely, without the slightest demur, the assurance that has been given by more than one hon. Gentleman who has criticised the Bill but thinks it his duty to vote against it, that he entertains the same sincere desire as any of us to give his help to- our fellow subjects. I am sure that that is quite true. Notwithstanding what I think have been very unreasonable comments and criticisms and imputations of motive, some of them seriously intended and of a most distressing character, I know very well that every one in the House hopes that this Bill will truly help these men. The Leader of the Opposition and his party are not able to respond to the appeal which was made to them in such moving terms by my predecessor at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I do
    2030
    not want to draw any distinction between them, but I do say that when the Leader of the Opposition said just now that he was equally concerned with preserving good relations with Russia as with assisting these men, I doubted whether we could put things in the scale in that way. At least I cannot. If indeed, as may be the case, any word of mine deserves the reproaches of my critics, I think some of my fellow countrymen will perhaps be disposed to excuse a man who spoke because he felt deeply and felt the terrible responsibility upon his shoulders.
    The first main criticism which was suggested was that I had in some way misrepresented the contents of the White Paper. I am in the recollection of the House when I say that I did nothing of the kind. No one can point to a single sentence in the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday which distorts or exaggerates a single phrase in that White Paper. The next criticism was that, after all, the White Paper was one-sided. It is not one-sided. It consists very largely of facts, of communiques issued by the Soviet authorities themselves and of reports of conversations which could be attacked or challenged, if they were not accurate. Then came a suggestion, for which there is not the slightest shadow of foundation, that the Government had some indirect motive—I think, in the circumstances, it would have been a very contemptible and mean motive—and that they were exploiting the anxieties of these men in order to get powers to be used for some other purpose. I leave hon. Members who entertain that view to the luxury of their own imaginations. There was not a single word in my speech which left any doubt on the matter. There was a suggestion that there was something ambiguous in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. That suggestion I thought unjustified, but, be that as it may, on behalf of the Government he has made the matter entirely clear in the course of the Debate to-day.
    This is a proposal put forward by the Government, on the advice of authorities whom it is my duty to defend and whom, I think, the House as a whole will wish to thank for their devotion, as to what may be the best way to deal with a very difficult situation. I have not heard—not even in the frank and very fair speech of the hon. Member for the Leigh

    2031
    Division (Mr. Tinker) or from any other quarter of the House—any practical suggestion as to what should be done as an alternative. I make one exception. Somebody suggested that we should have withdrawn our Ambassador. That is one of those phrases which easily cross the lips, but I should like to hear from any hon. Gentleman opposite how he thinks the Ambassador would get back again and whether he thinks those good relations with Russia would be really maintained 'if we were to accept his advice and create that breach, if we can find some other way? The great difficulty about withdrawing an Ambassador is that if you really wish to promote, as the Government do wish to promote, good relations with a foreign country, you must find some means and occasion on which you can restore your diplomatic representative.
    This Bill gives us the powers for which we ask, and, on behalf of the Government, I thank the House. I hope with all my heart that these are powers which will not have to be used, but that matter does not lie in our hands, but in the hands of the Russian authorities. I do trust that
    this public act of the British House of Commons, conducted in the light of day and with the knowledge of all the world, may bring home to the authorities of this great sovereign State the gravity with which we regard this situation, and our conviction, which the whole House shares, that it is our duty to do our utmost to remedy it. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished that we may, indeed, find these efforts which we are making produce the result which I am sure we all desire. An hon. Gentleman opposite said just now, very truly, that Englishmen did not like to see other people put upon. He was then referring to the position of Soviet Russia. Englishmen like still less to see other Englishmen put upon. I trust now that we may have so overwhelming a vote as will show to the Russian State and to the whole world that in this matter we are not pursuing any selfish or vindictive or incorrect course, but trying, like honest beings, to help Englishmen who are in peril.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 41.

    Division No. 127.]

    AYES

    [9.30 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Elmley, Viscount

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Cassels, James Dale

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Alexander, Sir William

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Apsley, Lord

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Clarke, Frank

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gillett, Sir George Master man

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Copeland, Ida

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Bernays, Robert

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Goff, Sir Park

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Granville, Edgar

    Blindell, James

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Boulton, W. W.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cross, R. H.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Grimston, R. V.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Briant, Frank

    Denville, Alfred

    Gunston, Captain D. w.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Dickie, John P.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Donner, P. W.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Burghley, Lord

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Burnett, John George

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Harbord, Arthur

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Hartland, George A.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Meller, Richard James

    Salt, Edward W.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Milne, Charles

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Hornby, Frank

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H (Denbigh)

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Smithers, Waldron

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Janner, Barnett

    Munro, Patrick

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Soper, Richard

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Nunn, William

    Spens, William Patrick

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.

    Stevenson, James

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Stones, James

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Pearson, William G.

    Storey, Samuel

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Peat, Charles U.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Penny, Sir George

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Leckie, J. A.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Lees-Jones, John

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Levy, Thomas

    Potter, John

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Templeton, William P.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Pybus, Percy John

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess Of

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Rankin, Robert

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Macdonald Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    White, Henry Graham

    McKeag, William

    Remer, John R.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. sir Ian

    Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Maitland, Adam

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Wood, sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Captain Austin Hudson and Major

    George Davies.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Milner, Major James

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Price, Gabriel

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Thorne, William James

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Wellhead, Richard C.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Cove, William G.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McGovern, John

    Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 4th April].
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Amendments as to restriction on right to possession.)
    Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, to leave out from the word "unless" to the end of line 20.
    In order to explain the reason for my Amendment, may I read to the Committee the operative part of Sub-section (1) of this Clause. It provides:
    "No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply … shall be made or given unless"—
    and two conditions (a) and (b) follow. Immediately after the word "unless" and before these two conditions are the words:
    "the court considers it reasonable to make such an Order or give such a judgment and either,"
    which I propose to omit. Those words are quite correct in respect of condition (b) but are not correct in respect of condition (a). The condition in paragraph (a) is that the court has power so to do under the provisions in the First Schedule and if hon. Members refer to the First Schedule they will find set out there a number of conditions (a) to (h) inclusive. These are all substantive facts. The First Schedule commences with the words:
    "A court shall, for the purposes of Section three of this Act, have power to make or give an Order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply … without proof of suitable alternative accommodation where"—
    Again the words occur which I am moving to omit from Clause 3 of the Bill:
    "the court considers it reasonable so to do."
    As I say, all these conditions (a) to (h) are questions of fact and I hold that it is not reasonable to put in these words giving this latitude, or rather duty, to the court to consider whether it is reasonable to make an order or give a judgment if they are referred to the First Schedule. One of these paragraphs of the First Schedule, namely para-
    2036
    graph (h) covers the case of the owner of a single house which he requires for his own occupation. It is especially in respect of paragraph (h) that I consider these words unnecessary. They are liable to prevent such an owner having the right to possession of his own house. The court can decide if any of these conditions set out in the First Schedule are or are not present in the case under consideration. The governing consideration, that "the court considers it reasonable to make such an order," does not appear to me to be either applicable or relevant in that case. If my Amendment is accepted, the one following is consequential, to insert the words:
    "consider it reasonable to make such an Order or give such a judgment, and"
    in the place where I think they ought to occur, namely, before paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1). The question of suitable alternative accommodation obviously leaves open the question as to whether or not it is reasonable to make an order. The conditions laid down in the First Schedule are so definite and such easily ascertainable facts that I do not think this discretion should be conferred on the court.
    9.47 p.m.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The Committee will apprehend that the effect of the Amendment would be, as my hon. Friend so clearly explained, to exclude the equitable jurisdiction of the court in a certain number of cases in which possession can be obtained by the landlord. I regret that I do not feel able to accept the Amendment, and I trust that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press it. I listened with the very greatest care to what I would again call his very clear explanation of the Amendment, to see whether any real distinction could be made between the class of cases in which he proposes to exclude the equitable jurisdiction of the court and the class of cases in which he does not propose to exclude it, and I must say that I do not think any such distinction can be found. The distinction was based upon there being a question of fact in the one case but no question of fact in the other, but if the Committee will look at some of the cases in which it is proposed to exclude the equitable jurisdiction of the court, some of the acts of the

    2037
    tenant which entitle the landlord to possession, such as, for instance, whether he has not paid his rent or has committed a nuisance, they will see that quite clearly those are questions of fact.
    Sir B. PETO: My contention was that these were questions of fact.
    Sir H. YOUNG: They are all on the same basis. It is, as a matter of fact, I think, part of the essential scheme of the adjustment of rights between landlord and tenant under the Rent Restriction Acts that we should preserve this jurisdiction of the court, and I do not think there is any sound case for excluding it in the one case more than in the other.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman go to the trouble of setting out all these details in the First Schedule if they are all to be overridden by what is reasonable? Why does he not leave it simply to equitable jurisdiction, to the absolute discretion of the county court judge? For the life of me, I cannot understand why he hampers his Bill by putting in a lot of facts.
    Sir H. YOUNG: The first and sufficient answer to my hon. and learned Friend is that we are merely re-enacting what has always been the law of control and decontrol throughout the period of control, but another answer would be that the equitable jurisdiction of the court is not one which is absolutely at large but one which is guided and controlled by the description of the specific cases in which re-possession can be taken by the landlord. That is a guide to the court as to the manner in which it should exercise its jurisdiction.
    9.52 p.m.
    Sir B. PETO: I must point out to the Minister that if he leaves the Clause as it is, there is no owner of a house who wants it for his own possession who will be able with any certainty to say that there are any conditions laid down in the Bill under which he can get that possession. Therefore, I cannot regard the decision of the Minister as satisfactory. At the same time, I recognise that we are only on the Committee stage, and I shall take the opportunity of consulting my friends as to whether we shall
    2038
    deal with the question further on Report. At the moment I am willing to withdraw my Amendment, in view of what the Minister has said, although I cannot say that he has completely satisfied me.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.53 p.m.
    Sir ROBERT ASKE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, after the word "tenant," to insert the words:
    "at a rent similar to that being paid by the tenant."
    This Amendment is regarded as of great practical importance in those areas where there are a great many poor people, particularly unemployed people, and where there is a shortage of houses. This Clause, for the first time in legislation of this character, makes the existence of alternative accommodation alone a ground upon which the court can dispossess the sitting tenant. Up to this time the question of alternative accommodation has only been material in two cases as an adjunct to other grounds upon which the court could so act, and even in those cases the question of alternative accommodation has always been linked with the question of the means of the tenant. Under this Clause alternative accommodation is in itself a sufficient ground, provided that the alternative accommodation is a council house. Provided that a local authority will give a certificate that there is a suitable council house available for the tenant, that is a ground upon which the landlord can go to the court and ask that the tenant shall be dispossessed.
    In the ordinary case that might be a proper provision, but in the areas where there is great poverty the question of rent which the tenant would have to pay for the council house which is regarded as the alternative accommodation becomes of the greatest importance. Assume a tenant with a wife and five children and a rent in his present house of 7s. 6d. A council house in the district suitable for families of that kind might be as much as 14s. Under this Clause as it stands the fact that there was a council house vacant at a rent of 14s. would entitle the landlord to go to the court and ask for an order dispossessing the tenant. If that tenant is unemployed, he will have only 33s. 3d. out of which he will have to pay his

    2039
    rent and maintain and clothe his family. If he has to pay an additional 5s. or 6s. for rent than he is paying at the time, it is obvious that the additional money can only be paid at the cost of some of the necessaries of life fox himself and his family.
    I ask for the sympathetic consideration of the Minister for these cases. The Amendment provides that there shall be inserted in the Clause a limitation that the alternative accommodation should be available at a rent similar to that now being paid by the tenant. It would mean that the court would have a discretion in all cases where the rent of the alternative accommodation was similar, which means reasonably similar, to that actually being paid at the present time. I have indicated that up to the present wherever alternative accommodation has been in question in this kind of legislation it has always been a part of the definition that alternative accommodation should be reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant. That has been a great protection to tenants. The only argument of great force which I can see against the proposition contained in the Amendment is that there is the overriding control of the court in all these cases and that the court will exercise its discretion in each case. There are no rules laid down as to what questions the court should be bound to take into account, for the court is entitled to take into account all the circumstances of the case, but what the court would unquestionably take into account also would be the fact that in all definitions up to the present there has been a reference to the means of the tenant as part of the definition of alternative accommodation and that there are no such words inserted here. Another matter which the court will take into consideration no doubt is that in this Bill, in the last part of the First Schedule, express power is given that the court shall not make an order unless in cases where the court is satisfied that greater hardship would be imposed by making an order for possession than would be the case if the court did not do so. No limitation of that kind is contained in this part of the Bill.
    The second point is that there are some judges who take a strict view of these Acts in favour of the landlord. There
    2040
    are other judges who take a liberal view in favour of the tenant. It is not right in the case of these poor people that they should have the risk of being deprived of what is now security of tenure and be placed at the discretion of the court according to the particular view which a particular judge happens to take of their case. The third ground that I want to mention is that poor people of this kind hate the idea of going to the court. A long experience of practical connection with poor people in the matter of their dealings with their landlords convinces me that the greatest injustices are being suffered by hundreds of these people because they do not know what to do or how to do it. To tell any of these people that they have a right to go to the court is really to tell them some matter of abstruse law which they cannot possibly understand and with regard to which it is quite useless to expect them to endeavour to enforce such legal rights as they have. In practice, it simply means that the landlord will go to the court and the tenant will be unable to put his case or to pay a lawyer to go to the court and appear for him. This is no real protection to the tenant in cases such as that.
    I submit further to the Minister that there is no need for a provision of this kind, because one finds in all our districts where there is great overcrowding that wherever people can afford to pay for a council house they are only too glad to take it. At Newcastle Town Hall thousands of names are down of people who cannot be satisfied, because there is an insufficient number of council houses for them. It is only the people who are too poor to take the council houses who do not apply for them. I appeal to the Minister to exercise a sympathetic view on this matter. It is one which has caused the northern Members great anxiety. They have considered it most carefully, and the Amendment is the unanimous Resolution of those Members. I therefore appeal to the Minister to accept it if possible.
    10.5 p.m.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: I would like the Minister to tell the Committee under what circumstances these provisions are intended to operate. Why should the housing authority have to give such h certificate and how can it give such a certificate? How can it know the con-

    2041
    ditions of the house to which the certificate is to apply? This provision is only to apply, as I understand it, in the case of an application by a private owner for an ejectment order. Why should the housing authority give such a certificate in the terms of this Sub-section, and how can they do it if they have no knowledge of the facts of the case?
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: I am afraid I cannot act on the assumption that this particular Clause cannot apply, and I rise to support the Amendment. I think the position can he put briefly by explaining the position of a litigant in these matters. The more we can do to save people from going to the courts, particularly in questions of this kind, the better, and if it were made clear that the owner had to show there was accommodation available at a similar rental it would result in the tenant and the landlord knowing at least one thing, and that is that that particular proviso had to be complied with. It must be within the knowledge of anyone who has attended the courts and heard these cases that judges do differ on what is suitable accommodation, and if judge; differ it is obvious that local authorities can also differ. A local authority may be of opinion that the house which they are offering is a suitable house, even though the rent may be quite outside the means of the person who has to take it as alternative accommodation. I do think the position is sufficiently important to justify the right hon. Gentleman in accepting the Amendment, because although on the surface this may appear to be a trivial point it may be the means of saving an enormous expenditure on costs by litigants or prospective litigants. For that reason, if for no other, and even if the right hon. Gentleman thinks this point would be in the minds of the local authority, I feel that these words should be inserted, so that there may be a clear decision when the matter of suitable alternative accommodation is at issue.
    10.9 p.m.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: On behalf of my colleagues I would like to say that we heartily support this Amendment. The other night, when talking on this Bill, I referred to a letter which I had received this week giving particulars of a case in which notice had been given to a tenant
    2042
    to vacate a house within 14 days. That tenant was not aware, even though living in a controlled house, that he had a right of appeal to the county court. That indicates the ignorance of a large number of tenants about these matters, and the only reason why I received the letter was because the tenant was in such a state of anxiety that he did not know what to do for the best. There had been no offer of alternative accommodation, and he is in a district—I am speaking of the Pontypridd area—where there is an enormous shortage of houses. Although a large number of colliery companies have gone into liquidation there are no vacant houses, no houses have been built on any extensive scale for a large number of years, and people will be in a very difficult position if they are expected to vacate a house, even if alternative accommodation is provided for them, if that alternative accommodation is at an excessive rent. In these days, when depression is causing grave hardship among the poorer class, nothing should be done to impair the future prospects of these people. We appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment.
    10.11 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the question of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) as to the giving of a certificate stating whether or not a council house will be provided by the local authority is that of course the local authority is the only authority that can give such a certificate, and since it is the housing authority it is the duty of the local authority to give such a certificate. That is as regards Sub-section (2) of Clause 3. As regards the certificate as to similarity in the matter of rental and extent, the hon. and learned Gentleman will observe that under Sub-section (4) all that the local authority have to do is to give a certificate as to the extent of the accommodation afforded by dwelling houses provided by them and the amount of the rent charged by them. That is a certificate of the housing facts as regards their own council houses in their own area. That is a matter within their direct knowledge and control and they are the proper authority to give such a certificate. On the general issue raised by the Amendment, this Amendment does, as a matter of fact, run counter to some of the basic principles of the law of control and de-

    2043
    control. In the first place, let me point out to the supporters of the Amendment that there is nothing unknown to the law of control in the circumstances to which they refer, because under the existing law possession can be obtained by the owner of a house under a large number of conditions relating to the acts of the tenants and the actual needs of the landlord without the offer of any alternative accommodation at all. It goes much further than the circumstances to which they refer and to which they object.
    As regards the actual case dealt with in the Amendment, I think I can best satisfy the Committee that the Amendment is not necessary by pointing out the extremely full and careful provisions of the law, as it will be left by this Bill, for the protection of the rights of the tenant when he is called upon to give up possession under the provisions of the Bill. As to the requirements of the alternative accommodation which is offered, the general principle is that, first of all, it must be appropriate to the needs of the tenant who is called upon to go out, appropriate to his needs in respect of the extent and the character of the alternative accommodation offered, and as regards the proximity of the house offered to his old dwelling house and to his work; secondly, it must give him equal terms in respect of security of tenure; and, thirdly, in the general case it must be suited to his means.
    Those are the basic principles and those principles are carried out in other Clauses defining the character of the accommodation which fulfils those needs. In the first place, it will be fulfilled by a controlled house. A controlled house is, of course, practically equivalent to the house which he is called upon to vacate, and there can be no question about that. In the second place, the requirements as regards alternative accommodation may be fulfilled by an uncontrolled house, as long as it satisfies all those requirements to which I have referred, including suitability to the means of the tenant, and therefore it satisfies the requirements which have been dwelt upon by the Amendment. Lastly, the Bill lays it down that those requirements in respect of alternative accommodation can be fulfilled either by a council house, under the certificate of the authority, or, if not by a
    2044
    council house, by an uncontrolled house which is not a council house but is a new house, certified under the certificate of the local authority to be equivalent to a local authority house as regards type, rent and security of tenure, and also as regards proximity to work.
    The only case in which any comment can be passed by the movers of the Amendment is the case of the council house. I believe it will commend itself to the common sense of the Committee that every possible obligation to the tenant is fulfilled when he is offered, in exchange for his existing tenancy, a house of the same sort that is being provided by the local authority of the area to members of the working class. To impose any other obligation is to impose an impossibility, and practically to negative the provisions of the Bill. As regards repossession by the landlord, it is not possible, in present conditions, or in conditions which will ever exist in the future, to obtain a free supply of new houses for alternative accommodation which you could certify could be let at the same rents as the old and inferior pre-War house. You would really be demanding a perpetuation of control in this respect unless bad houses were provided having as small a rent as the pre-War house, and that is what we do not desire to do. There can be no possible hardship in providing, for alternative accommodation, a council house or its equivalent, of a type recognised to be suitable to the means and the needs of members of the working class.
    Finally, what was very fairly pointed out by the Mover of the Amendment is true, that we have here a case of the desirability of the protection of the equitable jurisdiction of the court, to which I referred in connection with the last Amendment. It is not only useful but it is necessary for such a class of case as this, that we shall ensure, owing to the impossibility of suiting a general law to meet every individual case, the equitable jurisdiction of the court, so that no intolerable hardship is inflicted upon any tenant. In those circumstances, I believe that the Committee will be satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are not only just, but most carefully just, in protecting the rights of the tenant in this regard.
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: In spite of the explanation which has been given by the Minister, I still hope that the words will be inserted in the Bill. The speech of the Minister, while comprehensible, to us in the Committee, shows the necessity of the Bill containing words which can be readily understood by our constituents in the industrial areas. We are now dealing with one of those examples of legislation by reference which are the delight of the legal profession and the despair of the man in the street. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to the plea which has been put forward by many of us who have been returned to the House of Commons from industrial constituencies. This Amendment, which has been moved by the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Sir R. Aske), and supported by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) and by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams), shows that, not for the first time during the Committee stage of the Bill, we are involved in one of those miniature battles, if I may so put it with great respect, between the depressed area and the departmental dogmatist.
    We shall be pleased to see this legislation made as simple as possible to our constituents, who cannot always afford the luxury of consultation with the lights of the legal profession. I believe that the principle of the Amendment is sound, and I hope that the Minister, between now and Report, will give a little further consideration to the views which have been put forward again and again, with very little encouragement, by Members in all quarters of the Committee who desire to see the law clarified for the benefit of their constituents in the industrial areas. Whether the hon. Member for East Newcastle presses his Amendment or not, I assure the Government that, in their own interest, they will be well advised to reconsider this matter between flow and Report.
    10.23 p.m.
    Mr. CAPE: I was in considerable doubt as to whether this Amendment was worth considering until I heard the Minister explain it. After his explanation, I am satisfied that the Amendment is absolutely necessary. On the question of alternative accommodation, and the means of finding such accommodation for a tenant who has
    2046
    to change from one house to another, I think there is general agreement with what the Minister said, in, if I may say so, a very masterly manner; but he told us about everything except the Amendment. He never mentioned the rent at all. What is the good of alternative accommodation as regards rooms, proximity to work, and so on, if the man's rent is put up to the extent of 50, 75 or 100 per cent.? He cannot indulge in a luxury like that, and, consequently, the essential question for the man in this class of house is what rent he will have to pay. Every man likes a good house if he can afford it. When I was an ordinary working man, I liked to get as good a house as I possibly could, but I also considered what amount of rent I was charged, and, generally speaking, I had to be guided, as regards the house I chose, by my power to pay the rent. It is true that we did not have the difficulty in getting houses that we have to-day.
    I want to put to the Minister a case that may happen. It may be that, while a man is living in a house, the medical officer of health or the local authority may condemn the house for sanitary reasons. They may be able to find him a house with slightly better accommodation than the one from which they are asking him to remove, but it will not be a controlled house. It is true that, if it is a house built by the local authority, he will have a certain amount of protection, but it is no good telling the outgoing tenant "We will find you a house with four rooms, back yard, scullery and all the amenities of the neighbourhood will be better than the house you are in," unless you can tell him at the same time the rent that he is expected to pay. That is the whole thing. I do not think this will affect a great number of houses, but that makes it all the more important to have it in the Bill so that you can protect the tenants who will not be able to protect themselves. If all the landlords in the country were of the same mind as the Minister, or if the Minister could be there every time a house was to be let, we need have no fear, but he will not. The landlords may forget that the right hon. Gentleman is Minister of Health. They will only think of what rent they can extort. I beg the Minister, along with Members in all parts of the House, to accept the Amendment and give the class of person who will have to remove

    2047
    security with regard to the alternative accommodation and the rent that he will have to pay.
    10.27 p.
    Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension and I should like to remove it in order to set at ease any fears that may arise. The hon. Member is afraid that the alternative accommodation, consisting of an uncontrolled house which is not a council house, may be offered at a rent having no reference to the kind of rental that the tenant was paying before. That is not so. It is expressly secured that, if the alternative accommodation is an uncontrolled house, it must be one of two things, either suited to the means of the tenant, that is the same kind of rent that he was paying before, or it must be absolutely certified to be equal as regards rental to a council house. The danger that the hon. Member has in mind cannot, therefore, arise.
    Mr. CAPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me where that is in the Bill?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I will give the hon. Member the reference.
    10.28 p.m.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: The Minister did not answer the objections that I made. Sub-section (2) refers to a certificate of a house to be built, and, therefore, it is almost impossible to say whether it can be regarded as equivalent alternative accommodation. Sub-section (4), to which the Minister referred, only applies to the previous Sub-section, which only comes into operation where a certificate under Sub-section (2) is not applicable. I entirely agree as to the value of Subsection (4) because it states what the accommodation actually is. It is conclusive evidence of the fact and the County Court is to decide whether it is equivalent accommodation or not. But that has nothing to do with Sub-section (2). I suggest that it would be advisable to consider before Report whether Subsection (2) is of any advantage at all or could be put into operation and whether it had not better be taken out of the Bill.
    10.30 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have not any doubt myself that the wording of Sub-section (2) will be adequate for its purpose, to make
    2048
    sure that it shall be the duty of the local authority to give a certificate if it will provide a council house. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will be kind enough to consider whether this meets his case, and discuss it with me on another occasion if he is in doubt about the matter, when I will gladly give it consideration.
    10.31 p.m.
    Mr. CAPORN: As we are discussing the question of certificates, I believe that they will be of considerable value in saving expense. I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there is power in a local authority to incur the expense out of local funds of giving those certificates. As far as I can discover, there is nothing in the Bill which provides that a local authority may, or shall, issue a certificate to anybody who applies. The Clause provides that when the certificate has been issued it shall have certain effects, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider before the Report stage whether the local authority would have power to incur the expense. If there is any doubt upon the matter, local authorities will be extremely shy of utilising the powers.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I would remind my hon. Friend that I am assured that there is no doubt that there is such a power on the part of the local authority to incur expense in regard to any duty placed upon them by Act of Parliament. I will certainly give the matter consideration, seeing that a doubt has been raised.
    Mr. CAPORN: I doubt whether there is a duty placed upon the local authority. The Clause seems to hale certain effects. I appreciate the answer of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Miss RATHBONE: There is one point in the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman which is not quite clear. He said that it will be sufficient if the landlord is able to offer accommodation equivalent to that of a council house in the neighbourhood. Does he mean to say that the rent will be suitable? Suppose the rent of a house occupied by a tenant is 8s., and there is a council house rented at 25s. in the neighburhood, will it be sufficient if the house is offered at a rental of 25s. because the rent of a council house in the neighbourhood is 25s.?
    Sir H. YOUNG: In reply to the hon. Lady, the Clause as it is drafted in the Bill is capable of no such extravagant interpretation. Accommodation must be,
    "in the opinion of the court, reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family…and either—similar as regards rental and extent to the accommodation afforded by dwelling-houses provided in the neighbourhood by any housing authority…or otherwise reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant."
    I hesitate to attempt to interpret an Act of Parliament, but I know how a person with common sense will interpret it. It is the accommodation of the normal type of dwellings in the neighbourhood.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 58; Noes, 230.

    Division No. 128.]

    AYES.

    [10.35 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McKeag, William

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Ashe, Sir Robert William

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Milner, Major James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Price, Gabriel

    Briant, Frank

    Hirst, George Henry

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Buchanan, George

    Janner, Barnett

    Thorne, William James

    Caps, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    White, Henry Graham

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McGovern, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Apsley, Lord

    Copeland, Ida

    Hartland, George A.

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Ht. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hornby, Frank

    Bateman, A. L

    Cross, R. H.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Dunglass, Lord

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Blindell, James

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Bossom, A. C.

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Erakine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Burghley, Lord

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Burnett, John George

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Liddall, Walter s.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Greene, William P. C.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Grimston, R. V.

    Macdonald, Capt. p. D. (I. of W.)

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Maitland, Adam

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Stones, James

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Rankin, Robert

    Storey, Samuel

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Ray, Sir William

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Meller, Richard James

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Milne, Charles

    Remer, John R.

    Summersby, Charles H,

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Rhys, Hon, Charles Arthur U.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Monsell, Ht. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Templeton, William P.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess, of

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Munro, Patrick

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Salt, Edward W.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Ward, Lt-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Nunn, William

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Selley, Harry R.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Penny, Sir George

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Soper, Richard

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westmorland)

    Lord Erskine and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Stevenson, James

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I do so in order to get from the right hon. Gentleman a statement as to how far he proposes to go to-night.
    Sir H. YOUNG: It is within the memory of the Committee that, as a result of conversations which have taken place through the usual channels, it is proposed to complete the Committee stage next Tuesday. It is entirely a matter for the convenience of the Committee as to how it will distribute the time. I think it is clear that it will be for the general convenience of the whole Committee to make as good progress as possible to-night within reasonable time, in order that we may not be overburdened on Tuesday and have to sit later than is convenient on that occasion. There is a lot of matter in the new Clauses, and in Clause 9. On the other hand Clauses 4, 5 and 6 have not very much matter in them. Therefore I propose that we should get to the end of Clause 6 to-night. On Clause 7 I understand there are points which particularly interest the Opposition and that Clause may be reserved to our next occasion.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: With the good will which has now been shown in the
    2052
    Committee I think that by midnight at the latest we might get to the end of Clause 6. The undertaking which was given the other night, about finishing the Committee stage on Tuesday, of course stands. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we get to the end of Clause 6 to-night, because there are not many matters of consequence to be discussed there. If hon. Members opposite would curb their oratory I should be very glad to respond on behalf of my hon. Friends here and get to the end of Clause 6, on the assumption that we get through in the next hour or so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    10.48 p.m.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to move in page 5, line 9, to leave out the word "provided," and to insert instead thereof the word "available."
    The Sub-section of the Clause refers to an application for possession of a house, and the provision of alternative accommodation "reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant as regards proximity to place of work" and so forth. Paragraph (i) states:
    "similar as regards rental and extent to the accommodation afforded by dwelling-houses provided in the neighbourhood by any housing authority for persons whose

    2053
    needs as regards extent are, in the opinion of the court, similar to those of the tenant and his family;"
    My Amendment is to leave out the word "provided" and to insert the word "available," and has to be taken in conjunction with the next Amendment, which would leave out the words "by any housing authority." The Bill provides that the alternative accommodation shall be calculated on the standard of dwelling-houses provided in the neighbourhood by any housing authority. My Amendment would read, "provided by houses available in the district," either a house provided by a local authority or some other similar house. In the first place there may be no local authority house at all, and the Clause would therefore be inapplicable, but the Amendment provides that the alternative accommodation ought to be as nearly similar as possible to that of the house which an individual is giving up. The test ought to be the test of a similar house as to rental and accommodation in that particular area, whether provided by a housing authority or anybody else. If there are no council houses in the district then the Clause is unworkable. If there are, why should not they, along with other houses in the district, be taken into account? If there are no council houses, why should we not take the houses available in the district? To my mind, that is common sense.
    10.51 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I think the purpose of the Amendment is quite clear from the hon. Gentleman's lucid explanation. It will also be clear, I think, that this Amendment goes as much too far in the one direction as the last Amendment went in the other. The test of what is reasonable, alternative accommodation is the council house, or the equivalent of a council house in rent and extent. The last Amendment proposed to reduce it, and the present Amendment would increase it. It is clear that the alternative accommodation under the Amendment might be a house whose rent was very much bigger than a council house, and had no relation to the rent of a council house at all. That might impose an intolerable hardship on the tenant of the house, and would deny him receiving alternative accommodation. I think the Committee would be following the path of wisdom in sticking to the middle course
    2054
    defined by the Bill, and taking the council house or the equivalent of a council house in regard to rent and extent.
    Amendment negatived.
    10.53 p.m.
    Mr. PEARSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, after the first word "the," to insert the word "lowest."
    The object of this Amendment is to remove an ambiguity. The Clause places on the local authority the obligation of informing the tenant of the lowest rent charged by them. Hon. Members are aware that there are council houses of the same dimensions let at different rents. For example, under the Addison Acts when prices were high houses were built and naturally commanded higher rents. Houses were also built under subsequent Acts, and as the Clause stands a local authority may offer a high-rented house to a tenant which is beyond his capacity to pay whereas similar accommodation might be offered where rents were lower which the tenant could afford. I think this Amendment is very desirable. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment so that the position may be clarified.
    10.54 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I think I can satisfy the hon. Member that the Clause as it now stands achieves much of what he desires. We cannot accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper. Under Sub-section (3) alternative accommodation is considered suitable if it is similar in regard to rental and extent to a council house. The hon. Member wants to make it similar as regards rental and extent to the lowest rented house. It happens in many cases that this may be a pre-War house and in such cases this Amendment would prescribe that, to be considered suitable accommodation, a house which was up to post-War standards of working class housing would have to be offered at a pre-War rent. I can satisfy the hon. Member that in so far as the rents of various types of council houses vary—I refer to the Addison houses and the Wheatley houses —the certificate mentioned in the Subsection would presumably show the rents of the several types of post-War houses in order that the court in considering

    2055
    whether a particular house was suitable alternative accommodation could decide whether it was similar in rental and extent within the meaning of Clause 3.
    Amendment negatived.
    10.56 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, at the end, to add the words:
    "(6) If any person, with intent to deceive, knowingly makes any false statement calculated to lead to the belief that suitable alternative accommodation within the meaning of this section is available for a tenant or will be available for him when any order or judgment takes effect, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and imprisonment."
    If I take but little time in moving this Amendment, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not think that we do not attach the greatest importance to it. It provides a new Sub-section which might be regarded as a penalty Clause. The Bill in the main deals with Class "C" houses, the small houses of the wage-earners, of which it is estimated some 4,000,000 will continue in control for another five years. During that time applications will be made by house owners for possession of the houses. Applicants for possession must satisfy the courts on the several points set out in Clause 3 and in the First Schedule. It is imperative that the information given to the court should be accurate because the question of possession is vital to the tenants. The wage-earners who occupy Class "C" houses will be considerably inconvenienced and owing to the low wages paid to this section of the community it will be impossible for them to employ solicitors to present their cases to the courts. They have to rely largely on their own efforts.
    There is no penalty Clause at present in the Bill, and we deem it necessary that no tenant should be dispossessed of his house by what may be regarded as jobbery on the part of the owner of the house. The Amendment provides a penalty which would act as a safeguard and help to ensure that only strictly accurate information will be submitted to the courts in applications for possession by owners. In our opinion, the time has come when some punishment should be
    2056
    provided for the house-owner who makes a false statement in order to get rid of his tenant. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee could recite numerous cases which have arisen since 1923 in which owners have secured possession upon information which was not strictly accurate. A provision like this would make it easier for the tenant, and give him a better opportunity of having his case presented to the courts with the necessary accuracy.
    11.0 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I would assure the hon. Member that we are entirely at one with him as to the desirability of having some penalty for false statements, but I think the Amendment is unnecessary. The issue will arise before a court, and one of two things will happen. Either the landlord himself will come and give false evidence, in which case there is no difficulty in dealing with him under the ordinary law, or the local authority or its officer gives one or other of the certificates described in the Clause. In either case I think the law as it exists is adequate to deal with the point, because let me remind the hon. Member that, under the Perjury Act, not merely false evidence on oath is dealt with, but there is a Section of that Act which says:
    "If any person knowingly and wilfully makes otherwise than on oath a statement false in a material particular and the statement is made in a certificate or other document which he is authorised or required to make by an Act of Parliament."
    he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and certain penalties will follow. So that, one way or the other, I think that in every case in which a false statement about alternative accommodation came before a court there would be a means of dealing with it under the existing law.
    11.2 p.m.
    Major MILNER: Take the case of a landlord who goes into the box and says that in two months' time one of his houses will be available. An order is made on that basis, but on the appropriate date the house is not available. Would not some provision, not quite in these terms, I agree, because it is in the nature rather of a false representation or promise, be necessary to meet that ease?
    11.3 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: He either made a statement which he believed to be true or a statement which he knew to be false or a statement which he did not believe to be true. If he believed it to be true when he made it, I am sure the hon. and gallant Member would not wish that he should be penalised, but if he either knew it to be false or did not believe it to be true, if, in other words, he tried to mislead the court, I am quoting the words of the Perjury Act which would enable him to be dealt with.
    Major MILNER: Are those verbal representations?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: On oath.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Who would prosecute in the event of an owner going into the witness box and making a statement that is untrue, or putting it in a document? Would it be the tenant who had been deprived of his house, or who would it be?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: On appropriate information, any police officer could prosecute.
    Mr. G. HALL: In view of the statement of the learned Solicitor-General, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Prevention of excessive charges for sublet parts of dwelling-houses.)
    11.4 p.m.
    Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    This Clause deals with one specific question alone, and that is the question of excessive charges for sub-letting a part of a dwelling-house, and it appears to be here if anywhere in the Bill that you are dealing with something which is a question of fact. Therefore, I cannot see why the Clause should be worded so that an order for ejectment of a tenant may be made in those circumstances rather than that the order shall be made
    2058
    if the tenant is found to be sub-letting part of the dwelling at a rent which is in excess of the recoverable rent for that part.
    11.6 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that it is impossible to accept this Amendment. It is another instance of abolishing the discretion of the Court. Let me point out to the hon. Baronet that we are here giving an additional ground on which a landlord can obtain possession. If a tenant is profiteering in sub-letting that is to be a ground for the landlord obtaining possession, but it is conceivable that this profiteering may not be culpable. It is conceivable that more than the recoverable rent may be charged in a case when it is only found out for the first time in the proceedings. It seems to me impossible to deprive the Court of their overriding discretion to give possession to the landlord. If we accept the Amendment, it would be imperative on the court, once it is shown that a fraction more than the recoverable rent has been charged on a, subletting, though it is only discovered for the first time in those proceedings, to order possession. That would be flying in the face of the policy which has run through the Rent Acts of giving the court all the time an overriding discretion to enforce a particular provision.
    Sir B. PETO: On the learned Solicitor-General's argument it is therefore clear that the owner of property, where he proves that the tenant is sub-letting at profiteering rents, has not the absolute right for the recovery of possession. I am under the impression that that was the object of Clause 4, that is, to do something certain and to prevent what is one of the scandals of the Rent Restrictions Acts, which is that there are sitting tenants all over the country profiteering by sub-letting and keeping the owners of the property from getting possession of their houses for their own occupation. In view of what the Solicitor-General said, however, it would be idle for me to press the matter and I must ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    11.8 p.m.
    Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:

    2059
    "or that the total rent of the portions sublet exceeds the controlled rent paid by the tenant to the landlord."
    The Minister will see that this Amendment has substance, and I hope sufficient to enable him to accept it. The principle of the Clause is that if a tenant sub-lets any portion, at an excessive rent, it may be a ground on which the landlord can recover possession. The case has been brought to my notice where a tenant has got possession of a controlled house and is sub-letting various parts of it at rents which in the aggregate mean that the tenant is sitting there and paying nothing to the owner of the house in rent at all, because he is collecting more from the sub-tenants than he is paying in rent. A much more pertinent reason for giving the landlord possession of the house is found in the case which I envisage in the Amendment, where the total rent of the portions sub-let exceeds the controlled rent paid by the tenant to the landlord. I do not think the Minister wishes to protect and to keep in a controlled house a tenant who is not living there because he cannot find anything cheaper but because he is drawing more in rents from his sub-tenants than he is paying to the owner of the house.
    I can give an example from my own constituency of a man who bought a house for £400, his life savings, but is unable to get possession of it, and finds his tenant taking in so many lodgers that he is able to live there rent free while he, the owner, has to work very hard to find the money necessary to keep the house in proper repair. I have also been given particulars of another case in which the aggregate rents from all the sub-lettings amount to nearly double the controlled rent. Therefore, if it is reasonable to put in this Clause to deal with sub-letting at an extortionate rent, it is even more reasonable to say that the landlord shall be able to get possession of the house where the tenant is really using the house in order to gain a means of livelihood by sub-letting at rents which in the aggregate exceed the rent he is himself paying.
    11.12 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, attractive as it sounds when proposed by the hon. Baronet. I cannot help thinking that the case which he is putting is rather a rare
    2060
    one. The object of the Clause is to prevent a tenant from profiteering by charging excessive rents when sub-letting, and the hon. Baronet wants to allow the landlord to regain possession not only if the tenant is profiteering, that is, charging an excess rent for rooms, but if the aggregate of the rents he is charging exceeds the chief rent. It may happen that a tenant who before the War rented a bigger house than he required may be sub-letting parts of it to-day at rents which in the aggregate may exceed the chief rent. He sub-let in days when the market price had risen and in such circumstances he can hardly be said to be doing anything illegal. We cannot accept the Amendment.
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. CAPORN: It seems to me that the policy of the Rent Acts is to give statutory protection to a man in possession of something, that is, a house, which he requires for his own use and is unable to obtain similar accommodation at a reasonable rent. The true policy should be that all sub-letting should cease and that all sub-tenants should automatically become the tenants of the head landlords. If that was provided, you would get rid of the whole difficulty as regards profiteering, and you would relieve the head landlords of great injustice. I hope that the Minister of Health will consider at some time whether that would not be a better policy.
    11.16 p.m.
    Sir B. PETO: I appeal to the Minister to give this matter further consideration. The whole purpose of rent restriction legislation and particularly of this amending Bill is to give a tenant protection at the place where he wants it, the dwelling-house of his own occupation. Surely the Minister does not want to give a tenant the right of making a living out of a house which belongs to somebody else who wants the house for occupation of self and family. To say that the man who owns a house has no right to occupy it and to let off a part that he does not want, and that the tenant who happens to be the sitting tenant has the right to remain there and to use this profitable piece of property which does not belong to him, is an unjust business and one which, I know, is causing very grave injustice in many cases. I must ask the Minister, if he cannot accept my Amend-

    2061
    ment in this form, which would protect all landlords, whether they own many houses or not, at least to give the right to the man who owns only one house, and to say that, if there is to be any profit out of letting any rooms in it, it is the man who owns the house who should make the profit, and not the tenant. That is the principle I want to see embodied, and I would ask the Minister to give that point consideration before the Report stage.
    11.18 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: My own view is that the matter is exactly as it was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary and that the cases referred to by the hon. Baronet are in fact covered by the provisions of the Act to give the landlord protection. At the same time, I should be happy to give consideration to the cases which have been quoted to the Committee, between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: These cases are not uncommon cases; they are very common indeed and I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary when he made the statement was quite correct. It is likely to apply to a vast number of cases of people who buy a house before they retire in order to let it when they have retired. I believe you can cover a large number of cases of that sort, and I ask the Minister to consider this point in all its aspects.
    11.19 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I am the last person to wish to prevent profiteering in sub-letting, but I think the suggestion which has been made goes a little too far. There is a considerable number of cases where a tenant takes a large house, occupies a portion of it and lets the remainder in a perfectly legitimate way, and performs a public service by enabling a house which is too large for present needs to be split up among a number of tenants. The resident tenant in that case performs a certain service, and incurs a certain amount of trouble and risk. We want, of course, to stop profiteering, but anything that would stamp out the taking of houses by tenants for the purpose of making an honest living by subletting would work very unfairly against many people who have done this for a long time and have behaved quite fairly.
    11.21 p.m.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: Apparently the hon. Baronet is only opposed to profiteering when it is done by the tenant. He is thinking of the interest of the landlord. The cure for this difficulty is to provide sufficient houses. If that were done there would be no need for subletting, and we should get rid of the question of profiteering, whether on the part of the tenant or of the landlord. That there has been profiteering we agree, but the tenant is not always to blame; there is something to be said on both sides. The remedy for the evil is a sufficient supply of houses.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 5 (Amendment as to ascertainment of standard rent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Temporary continuance of provisions as to mortgages where property decontrolled by this Act.)
    Amendment made: In page 7, line 26, leave out from the word "the," to the first word "the," in line 28, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "twenty-ninth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, by virtue of the provisions of section one of this Act, the principal Acts shall, until the expiration of."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. JAMIESON:
    In page 7, line 36, at the end, to add the words:
    "In the application of this section to Scotland it is hereby enacted as follows, that is to say:—
    (1)The principal Acts shall have effect in relation to a mortgage secured over property comprising one or snore dwelling-houses to which the principal Acts shall have ceased to apply by virtue of the provisions of this Act till the arrival of the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas succeeding the said period of six months next after the passing of this Act;
    (2) During the period of five years succeeding the above-mentioned term, the sheriff court may, on the application of the landlord, make an order restraining the mortgagee from calling in his mortgage or taking steps for enforcing his security or for recovering the principal money thereby secured, if it is satisfied

    2063
    that such calling in, enforcement, or recovery would cause greater hardship to the landlord than to the mortgagee. The sheriff court may, on the application of the mortgagee or landlord, rescind or vary any order so made if satisfied that by reason of any material change in circumstances the rescission or variation is necessary or proper;
    (3) The restrictions imposed on a mortgagee by an order under this section may be imposed subject to such conditions as regards instalments of principal, increase of interest, or otherwise and for such time as appears to the court to be proper, but so nevertheless that the restrictions shall cease to be operative if at any time after the making of the order—

    (a) interest is more than twenty-one days in arrear; or

    (b) any covenant by the mortgagor (other than the covenant for the repayment of the principal money secured) is broken or not performed; or

    (c) the mortgagor fails to keep the property in a proper state of repair or to pay the interest and instalments of principal recoverable under any prior encumbrance; or

    (d) any conditions imposed by the court upon the mortgagor are not carried out.

    (4) This section shall not apply to a mortgage where the principal money secured thereby is repayable by means of periodical instalments extending over a term of not less than ten years from the creation of the mortgage."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Amendment should be moved as an Amendment to Clause 9.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    11.25 p.m.
    Mr. STUART BEVAN: There is a very strong feeling among those who see professionally the working of mortgages, and, in particular, the effect of control with regard to mortgages, that the time has now come when, in the interest of mortgagor and mortgagee alike, mortgages should become decontrolled. If ever there was a case in which the views and opinions of lawyers are of value, it is this one, because lawyers, by their situation and activities, are of all people the best qualified to see how the control of mortgages works from the point of view of the interest of both parties. For some 17 years mortgagees have been unable to call in their mortgage money, and, while that mortgage money carries with it the obligation on the mortgagee to pay the
    2064
    interest, the money, as capital, is sterile, and the mortgagee is prevented from making such use of it as in ordinary circumstances he would desire to do. The position becomes even more oppressive in cases where the mortgagees are trustees. The tenant for life dies, and, instead of the mortgage being called in and the capital distributed among the remaindermen or beneficiaries, who would apply it to various uses—starting in business, and so forth—the capital remains tied up, and has remained tied up for all these years. Other disadvantages that flow from this are that in course of time trustees die and new trustees have to be appointed and the estates cannot be wound up, and in the case of small estates the cost of appointing new trustees is a considerable burden upon the estate.
    I have presented it so far from the point of view of the mortgagees and particularly of the cases where the mortgagees are trustees of an estate. Now we have to consider the position of the mortgagor. For all these years he has been protected from the obligation which he would otherwise have been under of repaying his loan upon statutory notice being given. In that respect he has been in a position far superior to that of the borrower who, instead of borrowing on the security of land, has borrowed on a note of hand or has raised money by a bill of sale or by other means, in which case the law has given him no protection at all. It will be said that it would create a very great hardship if mortgagors were suddenly exposed to the obligation, after all these years, of repaying the capital sum advanced. The answer that is made to that is that money is much cheaper to-day than it was and the rate of mortgage interest is lower, and, if only mortgagors were so advised and got out of the lethargy in which they find themselves through this protection having been extended to them for so many years, they could pay off their mortgages and create new ones at a lower rate of interest than they have been paying all these years. These are the proposals that are put forward by the Incorporated Law Society and most of the provincial law societies in the country. They come with very great

    2065
    weight when they are put forward and supported by these influential and experienced bodies of men who in the course of their daily practice are brought face to face with the position of mortgagors and mortgagees alike.
    11.29 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that there is no lack of sympathy on the part of the Government with the hard cases to which the has referred, but the Marley Committee dealt with this matter after they had heard representations from the Law Society and other bodies on the subject and pointed out that it was essential to stick to the cardinal principle that a man who had borrowed on a free security should not be compelled to re-borrow on a controlled security for the purpose of repaying a loan and that, as long as control of houses remained, so long must control of mortgages remain. But, of course, in this Bill we are sweeping away control over the whole range of houses from £45 to £105 in the Metropolitan area, and corresponding figures elsewhere, and by that very fact the control over mortgages in that range will disappear at the same time.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out the difference in the financial position now. The Marley Committee reported at a time when these changes had not taken place. The report was issued in July, 1931. If it is true that it would be so easy for mortgagors to go into the market and re-borrow at a lower rate of interest, that in itself affords the answer to the suggestion that mortgages should automatically be decontrolled. There is nothing in the world, at any moment, to prevent a mortgagee from transferring his mortgage. He has a perfect right to do so. He has a pre-War mortgage at, shall we say, 6 per cent. If people are tumbling over each other for mortgages at that rate when at present they can only get, shall we say, 4 per cent. or whatever the prevailing rate is, the only issue involved in this Clause is as to bearing the cost of the transfer. That is all it comes to, because any mortgagee can transfer, and it is simply a question of whether he is to bear the whole cost of the transfer, or whether the transferee, with the object of getting 6 per cent. instead of 4½ per cent., is willing to pay the whole or some part of the cost. That
    2066
    is really the end of the story and all that there is in it.
    Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Committee reported Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  WYTHENSHAWE PARISHES (TRANSFER) MEASURE, 1933.
  11.34 p.m.
  Sir JOHN HASLAM: I beg to move,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Wythenshawe Parishes(Transfer) Measure, 1933, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent,"
  As the Measure is entirely non-controversial in character and is only brought forward in the interests of administrative efficiency, I do not think I need go into the details. It was introduced in the Church Assembly by and with the entire approval of the two dioceses concerned and was passed both by the Church Assembly and the Ecclesiastical Committee, in my presence, with absolute unanimity. I think I am in duty bound briefly to explain what the Measure does. It transfers certain parishes from the Diocese of Chester to the Diocese of Manchester. Manchester has enlarged its borders and the area proposed to be transferred is now part of the city of Manchester. It is for the administrative efficiency of the parishes concerned that the Measure is brought forward.
  Sir JOHN BIRCHALL: I beg to second the Motion.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday eveving, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes before Twelve o'clock.