Commons Sitting of 1 December 1936

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    OFFICERS (VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEMES).
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for War the number of officers of various ranks in the Army retired as surplus to requirements subsequent to 1st April, 1935; the average amount of compensation given and the amount according to rank; also the number who received an increase in their retired pay under special terms?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): I assume the hon. Member is referring to the voluntary retirement, with special terms, of certain officers of the Infantry and the Royal Artillery under the schemes introduced in 1934 and 1935 to even the flow of promotion in these arms. The total number of officers who were retired under these conditions was 208, and the compensatory addition to their retired pay, irrespective of rank, amounted to approximately £54 a year.

    RESERVISTS (PALESTINE).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to show what number of reservists called up for duty in Palestine and now returned to civil life have been taken back into their former employment?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: No, Sir, I regret that I am not yet in a position to furnish a ay reliable information on this subject, as the majority of the reservists are only just completing a fortnight's leave. Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to put down another question towards the middle of the month, when I hope to be in a position to give him the information he seeks.

    LATE EARL HAIG.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether there are any documents in the possession of the War Office which relate to the activities of the late Earl Haig during the last War; and whether, in order to protect the deceased general's memory from attacks, he will cause these to be issued as a White Paper?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: The Official Historian of the War has access to all War Office records and papers, and I do not think, therefore, that a White Paper, even if it could conveniently be prepared, would serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. SHINWELL: If there is a conflict of evidence between the Official Historian and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), is it not desirable, in the public interest, to clear the matter up?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: The impartial history has been written by the Official Historian; I do not think I can add anything to that.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Have the War Office no opinion on this matter, and are they going to permit these aspersions on the memory of a deceased general to pass, without expressing an opinion?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: As I say, the Official Historian has had full access to all the papers at the War Office, and they are innumerable, and we are satisfied that the impartial account of Earl Haig's activities has been written.
    Mr. SHINWELL: What is the opinion of the Secretary of State for War?
    Mr. MAXTON: He has not got any.

    NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTE.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary of State for War who are the War Office representatives on the board of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute; and what control is exercised by his Department over the activities of this organisation and the disposal of the profits?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: The Navy, Army and Air Force Institute is a corporation consisting of a council of 12 members, four appointed by each of the

    995
    Service Departments, and the management is in the hands of a board of management which includes an officer appointed by each of the Service Departments. I would refer the hon. Member to page 942 of the current monthly Army List, a copy of which is in the Library, for the names of the representatives. The management is subject to directions of the council as regards policy, scope of trading, limitation of financial and commercial operations and any other matters which the Service Departments may instruct the council to reserve. The directions of the Council must have the general approval of the Service Departments. Under the terms of the articles of association the corporation is an association not for profit, and credit balances on trading, less transfers to reserves, are returned to members of the Services by means of rebates on purchases.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Are the accounts of this organisation published, and are they available to hon. Members?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: I could not say off-hand, but I will be very glad to give the hon. Gentleman the information.
    Mr. SHINWELL: If I put a question down, will the hon. Gentleman be able to give the information?
    Sir V. WARRENDER indicated assent.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Are these accounts published in the annual report, and cannot they be put into the Library?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: I will make inquiries.

  SCOTLAND.

    COUNTY COUNCILS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES, ETC.).
    Mr. MATHERSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give, for the latest convenient year, the names of the county councils which are exercising their powers under Section 17 and Schedule 4 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, and the amount each council spends, respectively, on travelling expenses, personal expenses, and time ordinarily lost from ordinary employment?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Elliot): I have asked county councils to submit returns giving
    996
    the information desired by the hon. Member, and I will send him full particulars as soon as they are received.

    MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the various educational authorities in Scotland interpret in different ways the regulations with regard to the milk-in-schools scheme, and that, in consequence, in some areas children are receiving far more free milk than in others; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy this matter so as to increase further the consumption of milk by children in Scotland?
    Mr. ELLIOT: My attention has been called to a statement to the effect indicated in the first part of the question. The application of the statutory provisions governing the supply of food (including milk) for school children is, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, a matter under the local authorities. The whole question of milk supply is being considered in connection with the recently published report of the Re-organisation Commission.

    SCHOOL BUILDINGS (SURVEY).
    Mr. G. A. MORRISONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will institute a survey of school buildings in Scotland which will take account of such matters as condition of buildings, floor space, arrangements for heating, lighting, and sanitation, playground and shed accommodation, provision for physical training, and condition of staff rooms?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The school buildings in Scotland are under regular review by His Majesty's inspectors of schools, who submit the necessary reports to the Department. The inspectors have already been asked to classify the schools from the point of view of the condition of the premises. A list of those that will require reconstruction or replacement has been prepared. This will be considered in connection with the programmes of work required by the raising of the school age and the provision of adequate facilities for physical education. I do not think that an additional special survey is called for at present.
    Mr. MORRISON: Will that information be available to persons interested?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I could not say without notice.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider having on his staff an inspector of buildings? Does he realise that inspectors of schools are appointed on the basis of their educational attainments, and would he consider having someone specially to examine the buildings as buildings?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I will take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion into consideration.

    POOR LAW RELIEF (LEITH).
    Mr. J. J. DAVIDSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of Poor Law relief paid in Leith for the years 1933 and 1935, respectively?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Leith is part of the city of Edinburgh and as separate accounts of expenditure in the Leith area are not kept by the local authority I regret that the information asked for is not avail able.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: In view of the answer he has given, does not the Minister consider it desirable that Leith should have separate figures, if only because of the fact that Leith has a Member of Parliament?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It would be very difficult to keep separate accounts for every part of every city that sends a Member to Parliament.

    NECESSITOUS CHILDREN.
    Mr. DAVIDSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of school children in Glasgow receiving free meals as necessitous cases for the first six months of 1936?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The average daily number during the period referred to was 8,996. In addition, 52,648 necessitous children received free milk under a scheme approved under the provisions of the Milk Act, 1934.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Does the figure with regard to free meals represent children who have been defined as necessitous cases suffering from malnutrition?
    Mr. ELLIOT: These are necessitous cases.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Suffering from malnutrition?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The point is necessitous cases. If the hon. Member wishes a further definition and will put a question down, I will try to get it for him.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Is it not a fact that they must be suffering from malnutrition?
    Mr. WATSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that instructions are being issued to public assistance committees in Scotland to refrain from supplying boots and clothing to necessitous children in view of the coming into operation of the Unemployment Assistance Regulations; and, as some time must elapse before new determinations can be made under these regulations, whether he will see that the public assistance committees continue to do their duty to the children meantime?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have no knowledge of the issue of any such instructions to public assistance committees in Scotland. If the hon. Member has any information, I shall be glad to receive it and to make any inquiries that may be necessary.
    Mr. WATSON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the statement made at the meeting of the Fife County Council?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I say that any information that the hon. Gentleman can send me I will very gladly investigate.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pairs of old boots, which had been worn by other children, were supplied by the education authority in Glasgow to children of parents in necessitous circumstances last year while their own boots were under repair; and whether he will take the necessary steps to put an end to this insanitary practice?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am now informed by the local authority that the number asked for in the Question is approximately 13,400 in the last 12 months. Of this number, about 400 were issued on behalf of the education authority, and about 13,000 on behalf of the public assistance department. The authority state that these boots are only issued to children who have already received two pairs of new boots in a year; that the boots are always in good condition, and

    999
    that they have no evidence that there is any medical risk in the exceptional procedure referred to. I am making further inquiry into the question whether this procedure involves any risk to health, and am inquiring from the local authority how the discrepancy between this information and the information previously supplied has arisen.

    HOUSING (GLASGOW).
    Sir JOHN TRAINasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses built by the Glasgow Corporation in the years 1929, 1934, 1935, and 1936
    Mr. ELLIOT: The numbers of houses completed by the Corporation during the years in question are as follow:—

    in 1929

    6,388

    in 1934

    4,439

    and in 1935

    3,878

    For 1936, the number completed up to 31st October was 1,591.
    Sir J. TRAIN: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the progress of housing in Glasgow is satisfactory?
    Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir, I have already said that I am not, and I hope and believe that the corporation are not satisfied either.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the houses built by the corporation are superior in every way to the houses built by private enterprise?
    Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the statement made by Sir William Whyte, at the National Town-Planning Conference, that building trade labour on municipal schemes is being deliberately prejudiced?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have seen Sir William Whyte's statement.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of single apartments in the Camlachie Parliamentary Division of Glasgow in which six or more human beings are living at the present time; and the number of cases in such houses in which members of the household are suffering from tuberculosis or other notifiable diseases?
    Mr. ELLIOT: According to information obtained by the corporation in the course of the overcrowding survey made at the end of 1935, there were at that time in the Camlachie Division 228 single apartments in which six or more individuals were living. The number of cases of tuberculosis or other notifiable disease in such apartments was two, living in different apartments.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schemes for rehousing in Glasgow were submitted for approval by his Department last year, the number of houses to be provided by such schemes, how many were approved, and the corresponding figures for the ensuing year; and whether he is satisfied that what is proposed is adequate in view of the housing conditions in the city and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to expedite the proposed programme of the corporation?
    Mr. ELLIOT: In 1935, 15 housing schemes were submitted and approved, providing in all for 2,765 houses which will be used for the replacement of unfit houses and the relief of overcrowding. In 1936, to 27th November, 14 schemes have been submitted and approved, providing for 2,729 houses. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan) on this subject on 24th November.
    Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the inadequacy of the preparation for housing, will the right hon. Gentleman seek for a special meeting of the Glasgow Corporation Housing Committee in order to get something done in the matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Can the Secretary of State take any steps to point out to the people who are lacking houses in Glasgow their lack of foresight in electing a Socialist corporation in Glasgow?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in considering this question, advise the Glasgow Council that at least he will recommend the Government to increase the subsidy?
    Sir J. TRAIN: Is it the case that the Glasgow Corporation are now carrying out their housing schemes in some respects with direct labour; and will the Minister, in his negotiations with the

    1001
    Glasgow Corporation, insist on their employing the number of apprentices allowed by the trade unions, to train them in house-building?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I do not think that that arises out of the question.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses of two apartments and one apartment in Glasgow in which one or more of the occupants is suffering from tuberculosis or other disease which is notifiable?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The answer to the question is 3,760.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of single-apartment houses in Glasgow which are occupied by four persons or more; and the number of houses in Glasgow of two apartments occupied by six persons or more?
    Mr. ELLIOT: According to the recent report on overcrowding submitted by the corporation, 4,638 single-apartment houses were occupied by four or more persons, and 9,786 two-apartment houses were occupied by six or more persons. I should ad I that in arriving at these figures no account is taken of children under one year of age, and two children between the ages of one and 10 years are reckoned as one adult person.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the conditions, cannot the Secretary of State again take up with the corporation this terrible question, which, apart from other reasons, is really a grave social question?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It was one of the first questions to which I directed my attention on taking up this office, and I assure the hon. Member that I am keeping it very closely under my consideration at the a present moment.
    Mr. GALLACHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that these single-apartment houses, and the crowding of families into them, were not the responsibility of the Socialist administration in Glasgow?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Housing in Glasgow is the responsibility of the Corporation of Glasgow. It does not matter what its political complexion is; the main thing
    1002
    that is necessary is to get rid of these terrible conditions at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that Members from Glasgow should keep silent about this matter?
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses completed until the latest date this year and the number likely to be completed by the end of the year; the number of houses completed last year and in 1930; and the cost to the local rates for housing this year and the cost to local rates in 1935, 1934, and 1930?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I take it that the hon. Member's question relates to Glasgow. The corporation have completed 1,591 houses in 1936 up to the end of October, and I am informed that they hope to complete an additional 600 by the end of the year. In 1935 they completed 3,878 houses, and in 1930 3,228. The Glasgow housing rate for 1929–30 was 4.74d. in the pound. In later years no specific housing rate was levied, but on a comparable basis the estimated burden of housing on the local rates was, in 1934–35, 1.60d. in the pound, and in 1935–36, 1.39d.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that building trade workers are dragged away to the building of cinemas, banks, munition factories and so on, by higher wages, and taken away from municipal corporation schemes; and is that statement made upon the authority of Sir William Whyte?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men who are alleged to be dragged away are good trade unionists—as good as any? Might I ask him again to go into the whole question of housing conditions in Glasgow, and see if there is anything that he can do to expedite at least a facing up to this problem?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have given my assurance that I have this matter under careful consideration. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question as to the taking away of labour from one job to another, I think it is a very serious thing if in Scotland, where there is so much unemployment, it should be re-

    1003
    garded as a bad thing that there should be more jobs available than there are men to fill them.

    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S ESTATE, TERREGLES.
    Mr. McKIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any statement regarding the housing conditions on the estate owned by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland at Terregles, Kirkcudbrightshire?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Of the six houses on this estate which have been declared defective, one has been replaced and occupied; three are being replaced by houses in process of erection and expected to be completed by the end of the year; and the local authority, in virtue of their powers under the Housing Acts, have approached the Department for land on which to erect houses to replace the remaining two.

    WATER POWER.
    Mr. G. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government are taking any steps to prevent any further private monopoly in the remaining places in Scotland where water power can be used?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Any large-scale water power scheme can only be carried out if Parliament sees fit to authorise it by conferring the requisite statutory powers, and consequently there appears to be no necessity for taking any such further steps as are suggested.
    Mr. HARDIE: Can the Government see their way, in order to guide the trade North instead of South, to ask for some of the surplus power generated there be given to other industries, and so help the Highlands to a better state of life?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Certainly.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland now prepared to approach the Cabinet to see that something is done in that respect, not only on existing power contracts but on the work that is coming before this House soon?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that the one coming before this House soon is in virtue of power required for local industries.
    Mr. HARDIE: It is to attract industries that want to go there that they shall have a share of that power, is the reason for asking these questions.

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. MATHERSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to fill the position of chief technical officer for land settlement in Scotland, which is still vacant; and, if so, when?
    Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the existing arrangement under which the three divisional land officers work in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary and the Chief Settlement Officer on the administrative side gives the most efficient and expeditious service in the particular circumstances of land settlement work at the present time. I have, therefore, decided not to fill the post of Chief Technical Officer. I propose, however, to make an improvement in the scale of remuneration of the Divisional Land Officers and the technical officers working under them in the field.
    Mr. MATHERS: In view of the great unsatisfied demand for holdings, can we have the assurance that there is someone in charge here who really believes in land settlement?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Oh, yes, Sir.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    MINERS' WELFARE FUND.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the concern felt by the district welfare committees at the heavy expenditure on head office charges and the increasing difficulties placed in the way of district committees preparing schemes and incurring expenditure on behalf of the people who subscribe the money; and what steps will be taken to give district committees status and reasonable authority?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): The responsibility for administering the Miners' Welfare Fund was placed by Statute upon the Central Miners' Welfare Committee. The district welfare committees are not statutory bodies, and I have no power to confer authority upon them. In any case, I am not convinced that there would be any

    1005
    justification for interference, since there is already a clear majority on the Central Committee of members directly representing the two sides of the industry. The Central Committee is, I am assured, always willing to discuss administration questions with the district commttees, and in fact holds a conference of district committees each year for that purpose. This year's conference met on 17th November, and I am informed that the question of the administration expenses of the Central Committee was raised on behalf of two or three district committees and fully discussed.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Did not the district committees, when the Bill was passing through the House, protest that this very thing would happen when power was taken away from the district committees? Has the Minister forgotten that?

    PIT DRAINAGE, SOUTH-WEST DURHAM.
    Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWARTasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the report on pit drainage in South-West Durham, prepared by Mr. A. M. Hedley and submitted on 20th July; and whether anything further is being done by the South-West Durham Reconstruction and Development Board and his Department to drain this area, which contains more than 13,000,000 tons of coal?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I have seen a copy of the report referred to, and I understand that the conclusions and recommendations in the report are receiving the careful consideration of the South-West Durham Reconstruction and Development Board, in co-operation with the Commissioner for the Special Areas. With regard to my own Department, although it possesses certain statutory powers, the support of the majority of the coalowners concerned in any given case must be secured before any effective action can be taken since it is upon them that both the cost of the scheme and the responsibility of working it would fall.
    Mr. STEWART: Is it the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intention to get into contact with the people responsible so as to deal with this serious flooding, which is a menace to the surrounding collieries?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I have said I understand that this report is now receiving the consideration of the people primarily concerned.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that this report has been in the hands of the Commissioner for two years?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: No, I am not aware of that.
    Mr. STEWART: Is the Mines Department going to deal with this question?

    OVERTIME, VICTORIA COLLIERY, FERRAY BRIDGE.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that persistent overtime has been worked by miners at the Victoria colliery owned by the Huddersfield Collieries, Limited, Ferray Bridge, near Huddersfield, and that the company have admitted this to His Majesty's inspector; and will he state what action will be taken against the company for this infringement of the Coal Mines Regulation Act?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I am aware that some overtime has been worked recently at this colliery, and that the company admit the fact, but I am not aware of any evidence which would justify proceedings for the illegal working of overtime.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it regarded as being permissive for any colliery company to allow its workmen to work any quantity of overtime without coming into contact with the coal mines regulations?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Certainly not.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If the evidence is already available and it is admitted by the inspectors that the Coal Mines Regulation Act has been broken, and they are not going to take action, what is the use of the Act at all?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: It is very useful indeed and, as far as that goes, since this question has been raised, the matter has been again gone into, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that both my eyes and those of the inspectors will be kept fixed on this colliery.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that they have had their eyes fixed on employers for the past four or five years, they have had numerous cases where the law has been broken and they have never taken

    1007
    any action? Does he expect colliery companies to take any notice of what he says?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Yes, I do.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any members of the Oversea Settlement Board have visited and inquired into settlement schemes abroad; and what have been the results of such visits?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Two members of the Board have recently made visits oversea in the course of which they were able to acquire much useful information in regard to migration questions. Lady Reading has visited Canada, and Brigadier-General Nation has inspected certain settlement schemes in the Argentine. The information gained by these visits has, I understand, been communicated to the Board. In addition, the Chairman of the Board is now visiting Australia and New Zealand.
    Mr. LOGAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the visit of Lady Reading would be in any way useful from the point of view of emigration?
    Mr. MacDONALD: Lady Reading brought back a most valuable report containing much information on the subject.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Has the Over-sea Settlement Department received any communication from abroad with regard to this visit?
    Mr. MacDONALD: I am not aware that they have received any communication on that point from overseas.
    Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any report as to the attitude of mind of the local inhabitants?
    Mr. MacDONALD: Actual settlers have been visited and, no doubt, their attitude of mind was conveyed to those making the visit.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any attempts have been made to invite the Dominions' Governments to cooperate in devising schemes of migration settlement?
    Mr. MacDONALD: As will be seen from the interim report of the Oversea Settlement Board which has been published as Command Paper 5314, the board have had the advantage of hearing orally the views of certain Dominion Ministers who have been in this country recently. No opportunity will be overlooked of such further consultation with Dominion Governments as can usefully be made.
    Mr. LUNN: Have any Dominion Governments expressed anxiety to receive settlers from this country?
    Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. Gentleman will have seen in the Press that the Australian Commonwealth Government have sent a circular on the question to the State Governments. I am not in receipt of any further information in regard to that up to the present.
    Mr. LUNN: Is there anything whatever in the report which says that the Dominion Governments are anxious for settlers to go from this country?
    Mr. MacDONALD: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report, he will see that the answer is in the negative.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the new Bill for the renewal of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, will contain a greater financial provision than the old Act, with a view to encouraging settlement in the Dominions?
    Mr. MacDONALD: I would refer to the Money Resolution in connection with Empire Settlement which is already on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I shall explain, in the course of the discussion on the Resolution, the Government's proposals regarding financial provision.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to encourage voluntary emigration societies financially?
    Mr. MacDONALD: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until the Debate takes place, when I can go into the matter very fully.
    Mr. PALING: Are the numbers coming back from the Dominions still greater than the numbers going in?
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any specific schemes for oversea settlement have been examined by the Board; and, if so, what have been the results?
    Mr. MacDONALD:I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the interim report of the Oversea Settlement Board for the period February to July, 1936, where it is stated that certain schemes of land settlement have been under examination by the Board, but that they have not yet been able to make a recommendation to me upon them. This remains the position, except that the Board have since informed me that they are unable to make a recommendation in favour of the scheme for settlement in Manitoba, which was one of the schemes referred to.
    Mr. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Oversea Settlement Board are authorised to consider the subject of migration from the point of view of defence of the Dominions and the Colonies?
    Mr. MacDONALD: I have no doubt that in considering proposals for migration within die Empire the Oversea Settlement Board will take all relevant considerations into account, including the general defence position.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it the intention of the Government to give a lead on this subject to the Dominions oversea to show that they are ready to look into schemes?

    British North America (Canada and Newfoundland).

    Australia.

    New Zealand.

    —

    Migrants from U.K.

    Immigrants to U.K.

    Migrants from U.K.

    Immigrants to U.K.

    Migrants from U. K.

    Immigrants from U.K.

    1931

    7,620

    17,864

    4,459

    11,747

    2,266

    3,623

    1932

    3,104

    21,187

    4,595

    7,700

    1,554

    3,327

    1933

    2,243

    16,371

    4,200

    6,417

    1,233

    2,112

    1934

    2,167

    12,128

    4,572

    6,022

    1,191

    1,925

    1935

    2,175

    9,712

    4,552

    5,228

    1,440

    2,206

    1933*

    1,816

    6,611

    2,620

    4,576

    906

    1,652

    * 9 months only.

    Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, when it comes to emigration, that they must be over 60 years of age?
    Mr. MacDONALD: If a lead is to be given on the matter, it must be by the Dominion Governments and this Government in co-operation.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what were the total numbers of migrants leaving Great Britain for Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, separately in 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936; and what are the numbers who have returned from the same Dominions to this country in those years?
    Mr. MacDONALD: As the answer contains tables of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures referred to:
    The numbers of British subjects who were recorded in the passenger lists furnished to the Board of Trade as leaving permanent residence (by which is understood residence for a year or more) in the United Kingdom to take up permanent residence in British North America, Australia and New Zealand, and the number of such persons who were recorded as leaving permanent residence in those countries to take up permanent residence in the United Kingdom during each of the years 1931 to 1935 and during the first nine months of the year 1936 (the latest date to which figures are available), are as follow:

    BASUTOLAND.
    Mr. CREECH JONESasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the position as regards the proposals to carry out measures for soil conservation in the Basutoland Protectorate; and from what source the necessary funds will be obtained?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: A loan from the Colonial Development Fund of £160,233, spread over 10 years, to meet the cost of a scheme for combating soil erosion in Basutoland was approved in August. The Basutoland Administration has already taken preliminary steps to initiate the scheme.
    Mr. CREECH JONES: Have all the proposed grants to the Protectorates from the Union of South Africa now been withdrawn
    Mr. MacDONALD: Those grants are held in suspense. So far as this year is concerned, they will not operate at all.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TEXTILES (EXPORTS).
    Mr. MABANEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the exports, in yards, of woollen and worsted cloth from this country to Canada in the first six months of 1932 and in the first six months of the current year;
    (2) the total exports, in yards, of woollen and worsted cloths from this country in the first six months of 1932 and in the first six months of the current year;
    (3) the exports of woollen and worsted cloths, in yards, from this country to other parts of the Empire in the first six months of 1932 and in the first six months of the current year?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following table shows the total quantity of woollen and worsted tissues of United Kingdom manufacture exported during the six months ended June, 1932 and 1936, distinguishing the exports consigned to Canada and to other British countries:

    January to June.

    —

    1932.

    1936.

    Thous.

    Thous.

    Sq. yds.

    Sq. yds.

    Woollen and worsted tissues —

    Total exports

    43,645

    59,519

    of which consigned to—

    Canada

    5,950

    9,126

    Other British Countries.

    11,737

    16,821

    OIL-ENGINE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the extent of the State subsidisation of the oil-engine industry in Germany; and what action, if any, is being taken to protect similar industry in this country, especially in Lincoln, from such unfair competition?
    Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am aware that the German Government have adopted a number of methods to assist German export trade, but detailed information is not available in regard to the application of these methods either to exports generally or to the export of oil engines in particular. As regards the second part of the question, I have, at present, no reason to think that the home market cannot be adequately protected under existing powers and my hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty of effective steps being taken by His Majesty's Government to deal with this form of competition in oversea markets.
    Mr. LIDDALL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that British industry expects the Government to protect it?
    Captain WALLACE: Then perhaps British industry will show us a practical method of doing so.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Cannot more be done to obtain detailed information from our representatives dealing with this very important matter?
    Captain WALLACE: I think we are obtaining a great deal of detailed information. At the same time it would be impossible to tell the House that we know all about it.
    Mr. ELLIS SMITH: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman read the very detailed report published in Germany dealing with this matter, and are the Government going to give the attention which industry desires that it should to the report published by the Overseas Trade Department dealing with the question?
    Captain WALLACE: The Government always pay great attention to anything published by the Overseas Trade Department.

    DENMARK.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Lincoln firms are still experiencing difficulty in obtaining from the Danish Government the requisite number of import licences for the importation of machinery orders to that country; and what results have attended the action taken by his Department last July?
    Captain WALLACE: Yes, Sir. The difficulties in question will shortly be discussed with the Danish authorities. As regards the last part of the question, exports of machinery as a whole to Denmark have increased considerably as a result of the operation of the Commercial Agreement of 19th June.
    Mr. LIDDALL: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that, in spite of the valuable assistance rendered to Lincoln firms by his Department, the distributors who are employed by Lincoln firms are met with a blank refusal on every application for any increased import licences?
    Captain WALLACE: I have already said that we are going to discuss this matter.

    COTTON SPINDLES BOARD.
    Mr. CARYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to give the House on the progress made up to date by the Cotton Spindles Board?
    Dr. BURGIN: As my hon. Friend is aware, the powers of the Spindles Board under the Cotton Spinning Industry Act came into existence on 14th September, 1936. Their duties since that date have fallen broadly under four heads, namely:
    To obtain, examine and tabulate returns of spindle capacity and of spindle activity;
    1014
    to prepare a list of owners of cotton mills and to determine and collect the amount due from each by way of spindles levy;
    to borrow money upon terms and conditions to be approved by the Board of Trade with the consent of the Treasury; and
    to enter into and complete negotiations for the purchase of redundant spinning machinery, involving in many cases, not only questions of valuation, but also the legal examination of deeds containing covenants of various kinds to which many mills are subject.
    I am informed that good progress is being made with the whole of this work. The required returns have been received, and statistics of spindle activity based upon them will, I understand, be available within the next fortnight; the assessment of millowners for spindle levy has been completed and practically the whole of the amount of levy due for the first quarter has been collected; the first instalment of the loan has been placed; and already purchases of spinning machinery have been concluded, while negotiations are in progress for a considerable number of mills.
    Mr. BURKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, quite contrary to the alleged objects of the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill as expounded from the opposite side of the House during its passing, the prices of cotton yarns have risen during the last month, and that this may have a serious effect upon the manufacturing side of the trade, and particularly in its attempts to compete with such foreign competitors as the Japanese?
    Dr. BURGIN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me the information he has upon that subject.
    Mr. BURKE: The information was given in the Press, and surely the hon. Gentleman has had it?

    SPAIN (CLEARING AGREEMENT).
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the President of the Board of Trade, (1) the figure of indebtedness of Spain to this country on the date of the suspension of the clearing agreement;
    (2) whether he is able to make any statement on the indebtedness of Spain

    1015
    to this country under the suspended clearing agreement and the removal of goods and securities from Madrid
    Captain WALLACE: The Anglo-Spanish Payments Agreement has not been suspended but, as announced in the Press on 13th August by the Controller of the Anglo-Spanish Clearing Office, payments made to the Clearing Office are not being notified to the Spanish authorities for the time being. The sterling received by the Clearing Office is being held in reserve until the position has become clearer. The amount of indebtedness awaiting transfer to this country through the Clearing Office at present is approximately £4,500,000. As regards the removal of goods and securities from Madrid, I have no precise information.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is another and cognate grievance in that British importers of Spanish fruit have paid for goods in advance and that now the Spanish authorities will not allow the British importers to receive these goods without paying for them once again?
    Mr. DODD: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say how much there is standing to the credit of British traders at the present time which has not yet been transferred?
    Captain WALLACE: I prefer not to answer either of those questions without notice.

    ANGLO-BULGARIAN TRADE.
    Mr. RILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of textile goods, machinery, and other manufactures exported from this country to Bulgaria for the year ended 30th October, 1936; and also the value of the imports from Bulgaria by Great Britain for the same period?
    Dr. BURGIN: The desired information is not readily available for the period mentioned in the question but I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement giving the corresponding particulars for the ten months ended October, 1936.
    Mr. RILEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable desire in Bulgaria to increase trade with this
    1016
    country, and has he taken any steps in the matter?
    Dr. BURGIN: Efforts have been made in discussions with the Bulgarian authorities, and perhaps the hon. Member will have a word with me, and I can tell him something more about them.
    Following is the information:
    The following statement shows the declared value of the undermentioned descriptions of merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom in trade with Bulgaria, as registered during the ten months ended October, 1936.

    Description.

    Declared Value.

    £

    Total imports of merchandise

    574,600

    Total exports of goods classified in the trade returns as wholly or mainly manufacturd in the United Kingdom

    160,300

    Of which:

    Cotton yarns and manufactures (except apparel and embroidery)

    88,800

    Woollen and worsted yarns and manufactures (except apparel and embroidery)

    4,500

    Machinery

    16,000

    Mr. RILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any trade agreement in operation between this country and Bulgaria; and, if not, will he consider the negotiation of such a trade agreement?
    Captain WALLACE: Apart from the exchange of notes of 12th November, 1925, which regulates commercial relations between the two countries on the basis of the most-favoured-nation principle, there is no commercial agreement between the United Kingdom and Bulgaria. The question of the balance of trade between the two countries, which has recently undergone a substantial change in favour of Bulgaria, is being actively considered.

    IRON AND STEEL.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of tons of iron and steel imported and exported in finished and semi-finished state under agreement with the continental cartel; the prices fixed for the home products consumed at home; the prices for imported products; and the prices received for exported products?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am informed by the British Iron and Steel Federation that for the first year of the agreement with the Continental Steel Cartel 454,000 tons of semi-finished and 421,000 tons of finished material were imported under the agreement, and 1,365,000 tons of finished and 19,000 tons of semi-finished material were exported. It is impossible to give details of prices, which vary with place and time, as well as with the quality, shape and size of each of a wide range of products. I am informed that the prices of imported iron and steel are somewhat below, but tend to approximate to the prices of British material in the home market, while export prices, which increased in 1935 as a result of the agreement, have since in general appreciated further following the increased world demand.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is there any reason why we are not making pig iron instead of importing it; and why we are not making the coke which we are also importing?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think we shall find that the production of pig iron will show a steady increase, and that it will be necessary to continue to import pig iron for some time. With regard to coke, I think coke ovens may have something to do with it.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not entirely due to the lack of foresight on the part of the Government on the industrial side?

    TIN.
    Mr. CARTLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he can give an estimate of the total stocks of tin at present held in this country?
    (2) what has been the average monthly consumption of tin in the United Kingdom during this year and how this compares with the average yearly consumption during the period of the Great War?
    Dr. BURGIN: According to the Statistical Bulletin of the International Tin Research and Development Council the average monthly consumption of tin in the United Kingdom in the first nine months of this year was about 1,800 tons; comparable figures for the War years are not available. It is reported that 1,263 tons of tin were held in official warehouses in London and Liverpool last
    1018
    week. I have no official information as to stocks held by consumers and producers in the United Kingdom.

    ORANGES (PALESTINE).
    Captain PLUGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the probable shortage of Spanish oranges during the forthcoming winter, he will, as a temporary measure, take special steps to permit the free entry into this country during the winter of oranges from the British mandated territory of Palestine?
    Dr. BURGIN: Any question of the exemption of oranges from duty, during any part of the period 1st December to 31st March, is a matter, in the first instance, for the consideration of the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that duties are imposed on oranges coming from Palestine because we take an unnecessary view in regard to the fiscal relations between Palestine and this country? Are we not entitled to give a preference to Palestine?
    Dr. BURGIN: We are not so entitled.
    Captain PLUGGE: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the supply of oranges will be sufficient to meet the demand and maintain the usual prices?
    Miss WILKINSON: In view of the vital necessity of children having oranges during the winter months, and in view of the fact that people who are getting very low wages cannot buy them at present prices, is it not urgently necessary for the Government to take this matter in hand at once?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    NEW VESSELS (ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. STOREYasked the President of the Board of Trade the number and gross tonnage of the vessels ordered under Part II of the British Shipping Assistance Act; the number and gross tonnage of such vessels completed; what proportion of such vessels have been ordered and completed, respectively, on the River Wear; and whether any applications for assistance under that Act are still under consideration?
    Dr. BURGIN: Proposals have been approved for the building of 57 new vessels of about 207,500 tons gross. Orders have been placed for 50 of a gross tonnage of about 189,000, and, of these, orders for 24 of about 98,000 tons gross have been placed on the Wear. Twenty-six vessels of 86,000 tons gross have been completed, and of these 12 of 46,000 tons gross have been built on the Wear. Two applications for assistance are still under consideration.
    Mr. STOREY: Does not my hon. Friend think that these figures show what can be done by a little Government initiative and assistance to start an industry in a Special Area, and will he urge upon his colleagues some similar action for other industries so as to absorb more of the unemployed?
    Mr. R. C. MORRISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many vessels are being built for British companies in German shipyards?

    PACIFIC TRADE.
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement as to the result of the conversations that have taken place between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Governments in New Zealand and the Commonwealth of Australia with reference to the possibility of a withdrawal of the British mail service between Australia, New Zealand and San Francisco; and can he say what action has been decided upon to deal with the position?
    Dr. BURGIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 17th November to the hon. Members for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) and Whitechapel (Mr. J. Hall), to which I have nothing to add.

    STEAMSHIP "QUEEN MARY."
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the inconvenience experienced during rough weather by passengers on the steamship "Queen Mary," many of whom have suffered injuries on account of the fact that the chairs and large furniture in the public rooms, and beds and trunks in the state rooms, cannot be made fast to the floor or walls, he will make representations to the Cunard White Star Company so that in future additional pro-
    1020
    tection should be afforded to the travelling public by making this provision; and will he state whether the present methods for making fast heavy furniture and trunks on this ship in rough weather comply with and satisfy the requirements of the Board of Trade?
    Dr. BURGIN: There are no Board of Trade requirements in matters of this kind. I understand that the owners are taking steps to ensure that the difficulties encountered during the recent rough weather shall not recur.

    BENEFIT CLUBS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the frequent cases of fraud and defalcations by secretaries of sharing-out and loan clubs and the comments frequently made in the courts upon these cases, he will consider giving facilities for the passage of a Bill through Parliament drafted on the lines of the Sharing-Out Clubs Bill of 1931, which received its Second Reading unopposed?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Bill referred to by the hon. Member was carefully considered at the time, but the proposals were found to be unworkable. This fact was, I think, appreciated by the promoters of the Bill. I would refer the hon. Member to the very full reply given to him on Thursday last.
    Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman content to allow this unsatisfactory position to go on indefinitely?
    Mr. E. SMITH: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that most of these clubs are run by poor people for the purpose of being able to save money for their holidays; and will he also bear in mind that one of the best ways of dealing with the question is to allow the Bill which passed its Second Reading in this House last Friday to become an Act of Parliament?

    EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.
    Mr. LOFTUSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the recent agreement between the Treasuries of Great Britain, the United States, and France, countries adhering to the agreement will be permitted to take gold from

    1021
    the Issue Department of the Bank of England or only from such stocks as may be held by the Exchange Equalisation Fund; and whether any contraction of the currency would be involved in the former case?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The operations which my hon. Friend has in mind concerns only the Exchange Equalisation Account. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

    MALE SERVANTS (LICENCES).
    Major MILLSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when reviewing next year block grants to county councils, he will consider abolishing Male Servant Licence Duty in such a way that the loss will not fall on the county councils?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated in a reply yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) this matter has already been noted as one of the subjects for examination in connection with the revision of the block grant.

    JAPAN (LOAN).
    Mr. DOBBIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the negotiations now proceeding in the City of London for a loan in favour of Japan; and what the attitude of His Majesty's Government is to such a loan?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as I am aware, no negotiations of the kind referred to in the first part of the question are taking place; the second part does not therefore arise.
    Mr. DOBBIE: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be good enough to give us the assurance that no authority for the raising of such a loan shall be given without first consulting with this House?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Is there any reason why Japan should be excluded alone from the benefits of foreign loans, and, in general, is it not now a good time to put our relations with Japan upon a, basis of better friendship
    Mr. BURKE: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that every service given to Japan by the City of London is a, direct disservice to Lancashire?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    SALARIES.
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of non-industrial and industrial civil servants respectively who are receiving over £4 a week and over £5 per week, respectively, in each case?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY; (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I am arranging for the collection of the information desired by the hon. Member, and will forward it to him as soon as it is available.

    SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENTS (WOMEN SALARY SCALES)
    Sir ERNEST GRAHAM-LITTLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that until 1933 Treasury authority existed for women members of scientific grades in the National Physical Laboratory, the Admiralty, and the Air Ministry to be placed on the same salary scales as men; whether that authority was given in conformity with the fair wages principle; and, if so, will he state upon what grounds in 1933 the Treasury authorised for future appointments of women salary scales lower than the corresponding scales for men?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: When the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research took over the National Physical Laboratory, the same scales of pay were in force for both men and women staff. In other scientific establishments set up under the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research the arrangements adopted generally throughout the Civil Service were followed and lower scales applied to women. On the occasion of the introduction of revised uniform scales of pay in Government scientific establishments generally, the practice obtaining in the National Physical Laboratory was brought into line with that in the other sections of the Department, and similar action was taken with regard to those Admiralty

    1023
    and Air Ministry establishments in which National Physical Laboratory scales were in force. Existing women members of the staffs who were on common scales were given the new men's scales of their respective grades, and it has also been agreed, without prejudice to the general question of principle, that on promotion they should have a reserved right to the old common scales where these are more favourable than the new women's scales.
    Sir E. GRAHAM-LITTLE: Is the Financial Secretary aware that these women are mostly University graduates who have passed the same examination as men, who are doing the same work as men and who should be put on the same basis as men? Is the right hon. Member aware that outside the Civil Service such differentiation in pay is not made?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The emoluments of existing officers are safeguarded. As far as future appointments are concerned, the general Civil Service rule must apply.
    Miss WILKINSON: Can the Financial Secretary say why it was necessary to go through all these complicated mathematics about the scale of pay for women in order to perpetuate this simple injustice?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I do not agree with the hon. Member.
    Miss RATHBONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the staff representatives of the Department concerned, both men and women, are very much opposed to this arrangement, and does he not think that it might now be considered for this Department at any rate?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I fear I can give the hon. Member no such undertaking.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (FINANCE).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what were the reasons for the setting aside by the League of Nations Assembly of the regulation that no person might be a member of the League Supervisory Commission on Finance for more than six years in succession; and whether His Majesty's Government agreed to this step?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The 1936 Assembly of the League of Nations thought it desirable that the Supervisory Commission as at present composed should continue to deal with the important financial questions arising out of the large expenditure on the new League buildings, which are not expected to be completed until 1937. The regulation referred to by the hon. Member was accordingly suspended in order that, subject to the addition of one new member, the existing membership of the Supervisory Commission could be maintained until the end of 1937. The United Kingdom delegation to the Assembly supported this decision.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the extension of office is intended only for one year?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I understand that to be the case.

    SPAIN.
    Mr. GALLACHERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of vessels, British and foreign, which have left the port of London within a month of the last convenient date for the ports of Algeciras and Cadiz; what have been their declared cargoes; and what steps have been taken to ensure that none of them were in fact carrying war material?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am informed that since the beginning of October no vessels have cleared with cargo from the port of London for Algeciras or Cadiz. The last part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can the Financial Secretary furnish any estimate of the ships which have left Odessa for Spanish ports?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir.

    UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES (STATE GRANTS).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amounts granted by the State to the universities and colleges of Great Britain for the years 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, and 1935, respectively, with the amounts to each university or college, separately, for the years mentioned?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the grants paid from the Vote for Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, on the recommendation of the University Grants Committee. A statement of the grants for the years 1929–30 to 1934–35 will be found in Table 13, page 84, of the Committee's Report for the period 1929–30 to 19,34–35. The recurrent grants for the year 1935–36 were the same as those for the year 1934–35; there were no non-recurrent grants in 1935–36.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Can the Financial Secretary give in more precise form the measure of the grants from the Exchequer to these universities and colleges on the lines of the question I have put on the Order Paper?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Perhaps the hon. Member will discuss the matter with me. I think the table to which I have referred does, in fact, give the information in detail.

    AFFORESTATION.
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWNasked the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether they will release the shepherds in their employment for work during the coming lambing season with neighbouring farmers; and, if not, what are the objections to so doing?
    Colonel ROPNER(for the Forestry Commissioners): Such shepherds as are employed on forestry work will be released if they so desire.
    Colonel BROWN: Is it not a fact that in the past they have said that they will not, take them back; so what is the good of that?
    Colonel ROPNER: I do not think that is the case.
    Colonel BROWNasked the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what is the average rent per acre received in North Tyne for the land now above the planted area; and what was the average rent per acre for this land when it was part of a balanced hill farm?
    Colonel ROPNER: As no land above the Forestry Commission's planted or plantable land in North Tyne is separately let it is not possible to make any
    1026
    reliable apportionments of rents, nor can apportionments on a reliable basis be made in respect of the rents of such lands as part of a balanced hill farm.
    Colonel BROWN: Does not that mean that the Forestry Commission are not desirous of disclosing the heavy losses they have made by not being able to let this land?
    Colonel ROPNER: They have not made any losses, and they have let the land in question.
    Colonel BROWNasked the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, why the offer of land for sale north of Haltwhistle for afforestation purposes has not been followed up?
    Colonel ROPNER: All offers received by the Forestry Commission of land for afforestation north of Haltwhistle have been vigorously followed up. If the hon. and gallant Member has a specific case in mind I shall be glad to have it investigated.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS).
    Mr. MAINWARINGasked the Minister of Labour how many families throughout the country, and separately for the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth, will benefit from the creation of the new age group in the new Unemployment Assistance Regulations as compared with the old?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the number of families affected by the improved scale rates for persons between the ages of 16 and 21 living as members of households. I am informed that the number of households containing such persons is not known; but the number of persons in Great Britain who are between the two ages and will be affected is about 120,000. No corresponding estimate can be made for the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth.
    Mr. MAINWARINGasked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated additional sum of money to be saved as a result of the means test being uniformly applied throughout the country, and particularly for the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth?
    Mr. BROWN: Until the work of reassessment under the new Regulations has been completed, it will not be possible to attempt any closer estimate of the effect than that given in the White Paper presented with the Draft Regulations (Cmd. 5229).
    Mr. MAINWARINGasked the Minister of Labour what will be the total number of single men that are likely to be reduced from a present allowance of 17s. per week to the 10s. per week provided for in the new Unemployment Assistance Regulations; and will he give the figures for the country as a whole, and separately for the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth?
    Mr. BROWN: I regret that this information is not available.
    The following Question, stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. DAVIDSION:
    70. To ask the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken by his Department to obtain the opinion of Scottish local councils of the effect on Scottish industry of the new Unemployment Assistance Board's Regulations?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I desire to raise a point of Order in regard to this question. When I put this question, I addressed it to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I asked him what steps have been taken by his Department to obtain the opinion of Scottish local councils of the effect on Scottish industry of the new Unemployment Assistance Board's Regulations? I received a letter stating that he had arranged for the Minister of Labour to answer. I want to ask your guidance as to what steps I can take to prevent the Secretary of State for Scotland from avoiding his own responsibilities?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is a very old question. It has often been raised in the House. A question which is addressed to a Minister may be referred to another Minister, and it is not a matter in which I can interfere.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: With all due respect, may I point out that this question was specifically addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to his Department. He could answer "Yes" or "No," or say whether any deputations had been received or not. That is the point I am raising.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to put his question to the Minister of Labour?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. BROWN: As the new Regulations only came into force as recently as 16th November, it would in my opinion be premature to invite opinions at the present time as to their effect whether industrial or otherwise.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: With regard to those scales of relief, has the right hon. Gentleman's Department had under consideration the position of the Scottish Office with regard to the particular question of obtaining the viewpoint of Scottish local councils?
    Mr. BROWN: I have already stated my view on this.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is it the business of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to obtain the opinion of Scottish local councils? Is it not rather the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. BROWN: It has always been the case that where the Regulations are affected, I have to answer on the subject in this House.

    INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON.
    Mr. LESLIEasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any information on the International Textile Conference to be held in Washington next spring; and whether His Majesty's Government, for the purpose of that conference, are making any inquiries into the problems of unfair competition, access to raw materials, and standards of living of the textile workers in the various countries?
    Mr. E. BROWN: His Majesty's Government cordially welcome the invitation of the President of the United States of America to hold this important Technical Conference of the International Labour Organisation in Washington. The purpose of the conference is to consider, in the light of the expert knowledge of the representatives of the industries in the various countries, the means by which the conditions of employment of those engaged in the textile industries may be

    1029
    improved. In preparation for the conference it is my intention to consult with the employers' and workpeople's organisations concerned.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will Germany be represented?
    Mr. BROWN: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

  TRANSPORT.

    PASSENGER TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
    Mr. KEELINGasked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to consult employers, or take any other action, on the suggestion of the London Passenger Transport Board that a wider distribution of the hours at which Londoners begin and end their work would reduce congestion of the board's vehicles
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to, the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): My right hon. Friend would welcome any steps which employers could take to spread passenger traffic more evenly. While he has not been approached by the Board, he would gladly consider any practicable suggestions made to him.
    Mr. KEELING: While thanking the hon. and gallant Member, will he draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to the fact that in Belfast, Birmingham and Bristol, and in many towns in the United Sates, progress is being made in this staggering of hours?

    RAILWAY ENGINES (HEADLIGHTS).
    Mr. LECKIEasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received a report on the experiments carried out by the London and North Eastern Railway Company, in connection with the use of headlights on railway engines; whether they have been successful; and, if so, whether he will recommend their general adoption on the railway systems in the interests of public safety?
    Captain HUDSON: The company inform me that this experiment of using special signals fitted with reflectors, which are detected by electric headlamps of comparatively low power, is working satisfactorily on the Boroughbridge branch line; but it is not a system suitable for general adoption.

    CHEAP MILK (MOTHERS AND SCHOOL-CHILDREN).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to give any information as to the extent and results of the scheme for the provision of cheap milk to children of preschool years and sick and nursing mothers in the Rhondda; and whether and, if so, when he proposes to extend the scheme to other areas?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. The scheme referred to is operated by the Milk Marketing Board, with assistance from the funds at the disposal of the Commissioner for the Special Areas, and in co-operation with the local authority and local distributors. As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe) on 12th November, of which I am sending him a copy. Subsequent figures show that up to 28th November applications to participate in the scheme had been re-received in respect of 4,091 persons, including 334 nursing mothers, 386 expectant mothers and 3,371 children under five. Approximately 96,000 pints of milk were supplied under the scheme in November. With reference to the last part of the question, I understand that the Milk Marketing Board, in conjunction with the Commissioner for the Special Areas, are carefully exploring the possibility of starting similar schemes in other areas.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Could the hon. Gentleman give further information as to the results on the physique of the persons who have participated in the scheme?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I cannot give those details at the moment, but the Milk Marketing Board is arranging, I think, a special investigation which will be completed before long.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question about business. During the last few days questions have constantly been addressed

1031
to the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding housing conditions in the city of Glasgow, and I have given notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Anybody who has heard the answers to the questions, and who knows the issues raised, will know that this is not a matter which could be adequately discussed in half an hour. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether between now and the Adjournment of the House for the holidays he could make some arrangement to give a little time for the discussion of the appalling housing conditions in the city of Glasgow.
The PRIME MINISTER: The request of the hon. Member is a perfectly reasonable one, but I would remind him that the subjects discussed on the Adjournment of the House are generally arrived at after mutual consultation by the various parties and by arrangement. Perhaps the hon. Member will take steps to have this subject discussed on that occasion.

Division No. 25.]

AYES

3.45 p.m.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Channon, H.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Albery, Sir Irving

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

Christle, J. A.

Furness, S. N.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Ganzonl, Sir J.

Apsley, Lord

Clarke, F. E.

Gilmour, LL.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Gluckstein, L. H.

Assheton, R.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Goldie, N. B.

Atholl, Duchess of

Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Granville, E. L.

Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Gratton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Barrle, Sir C. C.

Cranborne, Viscount

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Grimston, R. V.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Cross, R. H.

Guy, J. C. M.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Crossley, A. C.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

Bernays, R. H.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Hamilton, Sir G. C.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Culverwell, C. T.

Hanbury, Sir C.

Blair, Sir R.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Blindell, Sir J.

De la Bere, R.

Harbord, A.

Bossom, A. C.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Harvey, Sir G.

Boulton, W. W.

Denville, Alfred

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Dodd, J. S.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Brass, Sir W.

Doland, G. F.

Hepworth, J.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Donner, P. W.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Drewe, C.

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

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

Bull, B. B.

Duggan, H. J.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Dunglass, Lord

Jackson, Sir H.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Dunne, P. R. R.

Keeling, E. H.

Butler, R. A.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Calne, G. R. Hall-

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Ellis, Sir G.

Kimball, L.

Cortland, J. R. H.

Eillston, G. S.

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Cary, R. A.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lambert. Rt. Hon. G.

Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

Entwistle, C. F.

Latham, Sir P.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Erskine Hill, A. G.

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)

Everard, W. L.

Leckie, J. A.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Flides, Sir H.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the urgency of the matter, I was wondering whether the Prime Minister could see his way to grant a little Government time in which the matter could be discussed.
The PRIME MINISTER: No, I am afraid that in the circumstances that is impossible, but I feel pretty confident it could be arranged if the hon. Member would follow the direction I have indicated.
Mr. THURTLE: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind in this matter that his own supporters are working in perfect unity with the Independent Labour Party group in criticising the Socialist administration of Glasgow?
Motion made, and Question put,
"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.]

Lees-Jones, J.

Peat, C. U.

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Leigh, Sir J.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Petherick, M.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Levy, T.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

Lewis, O.

Pilkington, R.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Liddall, W. S.

Plugge, L. F.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)

Little, Sir E. Graham-

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Liewellin, Lieut,Col. J. J.

Ramsbotham, H.

Storey, S.

Lloyd, G. W.

Rankin, R.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Loftus, P. C.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Unlv's.)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Lumley, Capt. L. R.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Rayner, Major R. H.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Sutcliffe, H.

MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Rowlands, G.

Tate, Mavis C.

McKie, J. H.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Meclay, Hon. J. P.

Runclman. Rt. Hon. W.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Mekins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Touche, G. C.

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

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Train, Sir J.

Markham, S. F.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Mayhew, Lt-Col. J.

Salmon, Sir I.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Salt E. W.

Tufnell, Lieut.- Com. R. L.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Samuel Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

Warrender, Sir V.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Wayland, Sir W. A.

Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

Sandys, E. D.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.

Sasscon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Moreing, A. C.

Savery, Servington

Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

Scott, Lord William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Selley, H. R.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)

Shakespeare, G. H.

Wise, A. R.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Womersiey, Sir W. J.

Munro, P.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Palmer, G. E. H.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Sir George Penny and Lieut.-

Patrick, C. M.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

Poake, O.

Smithers, Sir W.

NOES

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Montague, F.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Adams, D. (Consett)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Muff, G.

Adamson, W. M.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.(H'lsbr.)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Owen, Major G.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Paling, W.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Parker, J.

Banfield, J. W.

Hardie, G. D.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Barnes. A. J.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Potts, J.

Barr, J.

Hayday, A.

Price, M. P.

Batey, J.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Pritt, D. N.

Bellenger, F.

Hicks, E. G.

Qulbell, D. J. K.

Benson. G.

Hollins, A.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Bevan, A.

Jagger, J.

Ridley, G.

Bromfield, W.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Riley, B.

Brooke, W.

John, W.

Ritson, J.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

Buchanan, G.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Rothschild, J, A. de

Burke, W. A.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Rawson, G.

Cape, T.

Kelly, W. T.

Sanders, W. S.

Charleton, H. C.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Chater, D.

Kirby, B. V.

Sexton, T. M.

Clase, W. S.

Lawson, J. J.

Shinwell, E.

Cove, W. G.

Leach, W.

Short, A.

Daggar, G.

Leonard, W.

Silverman, S. S.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Leslie, J. R.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Logan, D. G.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lunn, W.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Day, H.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Stephen, C.

Dobble, W.

McEntee, V. La T.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

McGhee, H. G.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Ede, J. C.

MacLaren, A.

Thorne, W.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Maclean, N.

Thurtle, E.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelity)

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Tinker, J. J.

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Viant, S. P.

Frankel, D.

Mander, G. le M.

Walkden, A. G.

Gallacher, W.

Marshall, F.

Walker, J.

Gardner, B. W.

Mathers, G.

Watkins, F. C.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Maxton, J.

Watson, W. McL.

Gibbins, J.

Messer, F.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Mliner, Major J.

Welsh, J. C.

1034

1035

Westwood, J.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

White, H. Graham

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Wilkinson, Ellen

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION (SCOTLAND).
Mr. MATHERS: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal certain enactments providing for the protection of wild birds in Scotland; and to substitute other provisions therefore."
Before the House proceeds to more contentious matters, I hope that an opportunity will be given to me to show that there is considerable unanimity in support of this Bill. Scotland is rich in wild bird life, and it is to endeavour more effectively to conserve those immaterial riches that this Bill is brought forward. I do not know whether in our familiarity with those riches we have them fully in mind, but I am sure that those Scots throughout the world who yesterday celebrated St. Andrew's Day had in mind the riches that Scotland possesses in this respect. I am sure that the feelings of many of them are represented by the words so well written by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Welsh) when he was exiled for a time in New Zealand and felt the call of the home country:
"I can hear the wild whaup mournin', Wi' his eerie hauntin' sigh,
And the circlin', swoopin' lapwing Raspin' oot his twa-fauld cry,
And the wee bit birds a' cheerie singin' Sets ma hert aflame,
But I maunna let them draw me, For I'm no' gaun harne."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Translate."] I have only ten minutes and to indulge in a translation would take up too much of my time, but for the benefit of those who labour under the disadvantage of not being Scotsmen, I suggest that they should apply their full intelligence to the reading of this verse in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and then perhaps with the assistance of a Scotsman they will be able to grasp, at least, a sense of the beauty of these words of my hon. Friend. The proposition made by this Bill is to alter the principle of protection of wild birds in Scotland in this way: At present the protection is extended to certain birds which are named in county orders. The Bill seeks to alter that method entirely and to protect all wild birds except those which for certain purposes are excluded
1036
from protection. In the Plumage Bill, for which I am responsible, the legitimate trade in ostrich feathers is not interfered with, and so in this Bill it is not proposed to interfere with the Game Acts and game birds are excluded from the protection which I seek. There is also a Schedule attached to the Bill naming a certain number of quasi game birds.
The principle of applying protection to all birds in a general way and excluding those which I have mentioned, and, in addition, excluding those which are a menace to human interests or to the interests of other bird life, is a principle that is now working, and working well I am told, in the Isle of Man, in the Channel Islands and in Northern Ireland. I am hoping under this Bill to have that principle applied in Scotland, and later on, perhaps as a result of the experience in Scotland, English Members may decide to establish the same principle in England. The Bill seeks to repeal seven Acts of Parliament dealing with wild bird protection. That is an indication of how the protection of wild birds is going to be simplified. At the present time the excuse can be made, if a rare bird is shot or destroyed in any way, that the individual who destroyed it did not know that the particular bird was protected. Indeed, if sufficiently rare it may not be protected because of its being unknown. There will be no excuse of that kind if the Bill passes. But where human interests or the interests of other bird life are menaced it will be possible for county orders to be passed, authorised by the Secretary of State for Scotland, giving a right, for the time that the order lasts, to destroy birds which are a menace in these ways. Having given that very brief indication of the way in which the Bill will work, I beg to move the Motion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mathers, Mr. Chapman, Marquess of Clydesdale, Mr. Foot, Mr. Henderson Stewart, and Mr. Westwood.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION (SCOTLAND) BILL,
"to repeal certain enactments providing for the protection of wild birds in Scotland; and to substitute other provisions

1037
therefor," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Eleventh Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1929, and to make provision for meeting certain liabilities of the Railway Freight Rebates Fund in respect of the period beginning with the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, and ending with the thirty-first day of:December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six." [Railway Freight Rebates Bill [Lords].
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
That they propose that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills do meet in Committee Room C on Wednesday, 9th December, at Eleven o'clock.
RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
So much of the Lords Message as relates to Consolidation Bills considered:
Ordered,
"That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships."—[Sir G. Penny.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Marriage Bill): Mr. Boothby; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Morgan.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That Mr. Robert Gibson, being a, Member representing a, Scottish constituency, is added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills under, Standing Order No. 47 (2).
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (CARRIAGE OF MUNITIONS TO SPAIN) BILL.Order for Second Reading read.
4.5 p.m.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In order to understand the object of this Bill and its necessity, I think it would be as well at the outset for me to draw attention to the statement made a week ago by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As the House remembers, my right hon. Friend was discussing then our relation to the two sections in Spain who are engaged at the present time in a civil war. He said:
"The policy of His Majesty's Government is to take no part in the Spanish war and to give no assistance to either side in the struggle. In pursuance of this policy, His Majesty's Government have been considering further the importation of arms into Spain by sea and the problems arising therefrom. His Majesty's Government have not so far accorded belligerent rights at sea to either side in the Spanish struggle, and they have no present intention of according such rights. As a consequence, His Majesty's ships will, should it prove necessary, protect British merchant ships on the high seas against interference by the ships of either party engaged in the conflict in Spain outside the three-mile limit."
My right hon. Friend continued:
"At the same time it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that British shipping should carry war material from any foreign port to any port in Spain. In order to make this as effective as possible in the circumstances, the Government intend to introduce legislation immediately rendering the carriage of arms to Spain by British ships illegal, and I take this opportunity of warning all British shipping accordingly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1936; col. 7, Vol. 318.]
It is with the object of giving effect to that declaration of policy that it has become necessary to introduce this Bill. It is clear from the statements made from time to time from this Box since the beginning of August that our policy has been, in agreement with that of other European Powers, one of non-intervention. Exports from this country to Spain of arms and munitions of war have been entirely prohibited, and every impartial person is conscious of our neutrality in
1054
that civil war. These measures of nonintervention have been successful in confining the struggle to Spain and in keeping this country free from participating in any way. Arms are, however, being carried to Spain in spite of the nonintervention agreement. Who is supplying the arms and to which side is immaterial. What is important to us is that a few British ships have been engaged on this traffic and that this traffic is opposed to the policy of His Majesty's Government.
The insurgents have made it clear that they intend to prevent by force the arrival of arms by sea for the Spanish Government. We have at once, therefore, to consider the exercise of belligerent rights. Let me say a word with regard to belligerent rights. If they were granted we should have to allow British ships to be stopped, to be searched or captured on the high seas by the ships of an authority whose status has not been recognised by this country. To stop British ships would be an act of force; to search them would subject them to an indignity; to capture them might be an outrage. If belligerent rights were not granted we should have to give naval support to enable British ships to carry arms to Spain in contravention of our declared policy. On that His Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that a simple prohibition of consignments by British ships was the proper solution, and the reasons for holding that view are as follow:
(1) The internal controversies of Spain do not justify interference with British ships on the high seas.
(2) His Majesty's Navy must not be used to safeguard British ships which are acting in direct contradiction of the policy of His Majesty's Government.
It follows that His Majesty's Government have decided that British ships shall not be allowed to carry arms to Spain. I can best describe to the House the operation of this decision by reminding them what the position will be when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. The legislation we are now proposing wilt enable His Majesty's ships to take measures for preventing United Kingdom vessels carrying arms to Spain. Under the Bill a United Kingdom ship carrying arms to Spain will be committing an offence against our own law and she can

1055
be brought in by any of His Majesty's ships for adjudication before a competent British court. In the circumstance of the Bill becoming law there can remain no possible excuse for any interference by Spanish warships with United Kingdom vessels, and such interference on the high seas would, of course, be resisted.
I have put as plainly and as briefly as I can the position in which His Majesty's Government and, let me add, the British Merchant Navy will stand, after the passage of this Bill into law. But we are not alone in taking action of this nature. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Norway have announced that, "Until further notice the use of Norwegian ships for the transport of arms and munitions and aircraft, or parts thereof, to Spain or countries which belong to Spain, is prohibited." That regulation came into force on 28th November. I understand that the French. Government also take the view that they do not wish their ships to carry arms from foreign ports to Spain, and they are contemplating certain action in the matter, though we have not yet been supplied with any details of what that action may be. Those are two very important decisions, and I attach importance to them because they are both Left-Wing Governments.
Now may I briefly explain the powers given in the Bill? The object of the Bill is to prevent the carriage of arms to Spain by ships which are entitled to the protection of the British Navy, and if hon. Members will look at the Bill and follow the various Clauses, they will see that Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 prohibits ships to which the Act applies from loading or carrying arms for discharge at Spanish ports or into another vessel at sea for the purpose of discharging at Spanish ports. The second Sub-section defines the articles prohibited to be carried, and they are the same as those which may not be exported to Spain under the Non-intervention Agreement. The list is to be found in full in the Order of 1931. Page 2 of that Order sets out a very wide range of arms and ammunition which come under that Order. The Arms Exports Prohibition Order, 1931, therefore provides us with the list which is necessary for the operation of this Bill.
Mr. BELLENGER: Has that a number?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. Statutory Rules and Orders, 1931, No. 413. Subsection (2) defines the articles prohibited to be carried, and this Sub-section is one of the most important in the Bill. There is no intention whatever of curtailing it, but there is power, of course, in the Subsection to vary the list if necessary. The third Sub-section of the first Clause defines the ships covered by the prohibition, and it covers all ships which are entitled to protection from His Majesty's ships, that is to say, ships registered in the United Kingdom, ships registered in any colony, protectorate, or mandated territory, and ships registered in India or Newfoundland, but it. does not include ships registered in the Dominions, in respect of which the United Kingdom does not and cannot legislate. Whether that makes any practical difference is a matter of speculation, but I would point out to the House four facts. First, the Dominions have been informed of our proposals, but we have not yet had any indication from them as to their attitude on them. It is entirely a matter for the Dominions themselves. Secondly, only the Irish Free State is a party to the Non-intervention Agreement. Thirdly, there are not many Dominion-registered ships of the type likely to be involved, for they are mainly liners and coasters. Fourthly, no Dominion-registered ship, as far as we can tell, is anywhere near Spain at the present time. Under those circumstances the limitation, that is to say, the exemption of Dominion ships is of very little practical value.
Mr. STEPHEN: If a Dominion ship were engaged in this, would it be entitled to the protection of the British Navy?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say definitely whether it would or would not under present circumstances, but I am sure of this, that if the prohibition were to be made effective, Dominion ships must refrain from this practice. What I have just said to the House makes it clear that there are in fact no Dominion ships anywhere near Spain, and, therefore, this urgent Measure need not necessarily apply to them.
Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this simple point with regard to Dominion-registered vessels

1057
that resemble vessels belonging to the Canada Steamship Lines registered in Montreal or vessels belonging to the Adelaide Steamship Company registered in Adelaide If vessels belonging to either of these lines happen to be engaged in this traffic, will they receive the protection of the British Navy?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can only say that, so far as this legislation is concerned, it cannot apply to Dominion vessels, for the simple reason that we have no control over them. If I am asked whether the British Navy would grant protection to those vessels, I think the British Navy would refrain from granting protection to vessels which were acting in contravention of a law applying to our merchant ships. I have been asked on the spur of the moment what is my interpretation of it, and I have given it.
Mr. SHINWELL: This is very important. Has that information been conveyed to the Dominion Governments? Has that point, the absence of protection in certain circumstances, been conveyed to the Dominion Governments?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: That has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. If, however, the Debate is taken on a broader basis, I have no doubt that that will be dealt with in the course of this sitting.
Mr. ATTLEE: That interpretation has been put on it, and surely we ought to know now. The point has been raised, and it is one of very great consequence.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: It has nothing to do with the Bill, in the first place, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have the subject dealt with, in so far as it is within the Rules of Order, it will be dealt with in the course of the Debate.
Mr. ATTLEE: On the Second Reading of a Bill we are discussing the policy of the Bill, and this is a matter of policy. Can we have a reply now, therefore?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question put to me could equally well have been put before the Bill was introduced or suggested. It has no direct connection with this Bill.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask this question? Under this Bill power is conferred to search British ships at sea to see whether they are conforming to the
1058
law as laid down in the Bill. Will that search extend to Dominion vessels or not?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, of course it will not, and if my right hon. and gallant Friend had read the Bill, he would have seen that. If the point is a material one every effort will be made to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman on this one point, but I must point out that it does not come within this Bill and would not be consistent with the opening statement which I am now making. May I go on with the machinery of the Bill? Subsections (4) and (5) provide for penalties. Under Sub-section (4) an offence in contravention of the Act is a misdemeanour. The penalties under the Merchant Shipping Act for a misdemeanour are, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment up to six months, with or without hard labour, and, on indictment, an unlimited fine or imprisonment up to two years, with or without hard labour. These penalties can fall upon the owner, the charterer, or the master, if privy to the offence. Under Sub-section (5) proceedings may be taken for forfeiture of the goods carried in contravention of the law. Sub-sections (6) and (7) merely give the necessary powers for the enforcement of the previous Sub-sections. Sub-section (8) applies certain provisions of the Act, if passed, retrospectively from 23rd November. Clause 2 is mainly formal and self-explanatory, the only point of interest being Sub-section (5), which contains provisions for bringing the Act to an end when circumstances have altered.
The House is asked to pass this Bill through all its stages in one day. From the moment when it appeared that the insurgents intended to exercise search, the powers given by the Bill became necessary. By direction of the Government, the Navy for the past week have been ready to act as if the Bill were law. The Bill is designed to meet a certain difficult situation. As soon as that situation existed, it was imperative that the policy which the Bill outlines should be put into operation, and the House is therefore asked to pass the Bill as quickly as may be, in order that, first, the Navy will have legal force given to orders upon which it has been acting already; secondly, that British ships which are acting in contravention of the policy of His Majesty's Government may be brought

1059
to book; and thirdly, that British ships passing on the seas upon their lawful occasions may do so without interference and with the protection of His Majesty's Navy.
4.25 p.m.
Mr. NOEL-BAKER: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has explained the purpose and the provisions of this Bill in a speech which, while delivered with his usual charm, has caused us, I confess, a certain amount of surprise and indeed dismay. He explained the motives which have inspired the Government to bring in the Bill, and he said that they are the same as those which have made them adopt the policy that they call non-intervention. I say at once that I entirely respect, and I believe all my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House entirely respect, the motives of the Government in this matter. There are critics who allege that the Government have been inspired by the desire that General Franco should win the war. I have heard some hon. Members on the other side of the House state publicly and in this House that they desire General Franco to win the war, and I think it is not impossible that some sections of the Government desire that General Franco should win the war, because the Government are not always unanimous, if we are to believe rumour, in their foreign policy.
But I am certain that the Foreign Secretary's purpose throughout has been to achieve the objects of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke and which I venture to restate as follows: He desires to shorten the war in Spain and to reduce the bloodshed which it might involve. He desires to avert the danger of international complications, to avoid all risk of a European conflagration which might follow as the result of a clash of rival ideologies. And he desires to do what he thinks, and what the Government think, the vast majority of the British people desire, namely, to be really neutral in the Spanish conflict, not to take sides and not, to take any action which would favour one side or the other. I entirely respect those motives; I accept fully the sincerity with which they
1060
are held; and I believe that the Government, in pursuing this policy, have believed that they are serving not only the interests of our country and the interests of Europe, but the interests of the Spanish people themselves. But when one is considering an important issue of foreign policy, it is not enough to approve the motives or the purposes by which that policy is inspired. One must examine the methods by which it is to be applied and the results to which it leads. And when we endeavour to examine this Bill in those regards, it does not inspire us with great confidence.
I believe I am right in saying—the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that in international law there is no precedent of any kind in British history for the action which this Bill proposes. The President of the Board of Trade has said that the Bill is needed because we have not recognised the belligerency of General Franco and do not intend to do so. I thank him for the plain statement he made upon that point, and I hope that the Government will stand firm in that position. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that if we refuse General Franco belligerent rights, it is prudent and just also to take away the reasons which might move him to belligerent action, to give him no excuse for submitting British vessels to arrest and search, to humiliation and trouble, and the more so since they would be, in fact, carrying arms in contravention of the policy which the Government have adopted. Yes, but this is not the first time that we have refused belligerent rights to insurgents. During the last century there have been many civil wars and revolutions in different quarters of the world, and His Majesty's Government have never recognised the belligerency of insurgents since 1823, when they recognised the belligerency of the Greeks.
Yet in all that time we have never once passed legislation of this kind and have never imposed these disabilities on British ships. Nor is it only in connection with revolutions that a control of the arms traffic has been envisaged. We have had arms traffic conventions, prohibiting the dispatch of arms to Africa, to the Persian Gulf and other destinations. We have had arms embargoes, but in none of these instruments have we had provisions such as those of this Bill. We

1061
are going beyond anything that has been clone in bilateral embargoes, even when the purpose was to bring to an end a covenant-breaking war. Now we are going so far beyond what was done on those occasions that in this Bill we are actually proposing to impose upon the masters of British vessels and upon others concerned with them, such as owners and charterers, penalties more severe than would be imposed by a belligerent who in war might capture a British vessel carrying arms to an enemy State. Under international law in a prize court, contraband might be seized, a cargo might be seized, and the vessel might be seized, but the crew and the master would go free. Under this Bill the master may be guilty of a "misdemeanour" which, I understand, means that he may be liable to go to prison for a period of years.
I repeat that this Bill is a new departure—a departure of importance because it touches a matter of principle which is continually arising and which increasingly affects the foreign policy we pursue. It will increasingly cause difficulties unless we have a clear policy that the world can understand. That question of principle is the supply of arms to foreigners who are engaged in warlike operations. The supply of arms is not only connected with collective security, it is absolutely fundamental to the whole policy of collective security, which the Government say it is their purpose to pursue. Yet this new departure has been made, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, without any consultation with the Dominions. He says that they have been informed. The Secretary of State for the Dominions told us yesterday that there was hardly any Dominion shipping registered in the Dominions to which the Bill would apply. Perhaps not, but that is not the point.
This is a new step in foreign policy and the Governments of the Dominions were not consulted before it was taken. Not only that, but this Bill vitally affects the rights of the Dominions on the seas, because, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, from now on Dominion ships which carry arms—legally, under the laws which they must obey—are not to receive the protection of the British Fleet. He made another statement which I failed to understand, when he said that, even before to-day, the British Navy would not
1062
have intervened on behalf of British ships, if they had been carrying arms to Spain. If that is so, why did a battle cruiser go at full speed from Gibraltar when a Spanish Government ship stopped a British ship which was believed to be carrying arms? We greatly regret that any step so absolutely vital to good understanding with the Dominions as the withdrawal of the protection of the British Fleet should have been taken without prior consultation. The right hon. Gentleman may say that it is in accordance with the letter of the Balfour Report of 1926. It is certainly not in accordance with the spirit of that agreement, and we on these benches greatly regret it.
The President of the Board of Trade said that Norway and France were to have similar Measures. Yes, but on their own initiative and following our example, but not after consultation. What is much more important, has there been consultations with the Governments of Italy, Germany and Portugal? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Russia?"] Are any of the dictatorial powers bringing in Bills before whatever bodies legislate in their countries? Unless they are, this is not a Measure of non-intervention; it will not help to shorten the war, to avert international complications or to keep us neutral. It is, in fact, like the whole policy pursued by the Government, an unwilling intervention against the Government of Spain.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will reply, "I do not care; at least it will keep the British ships and the British Navy out of trouble."I venture to suggest that that is the most dangerous of all the arguments that he could use. To tie our hands and to leave the Fascist Governments free to do what they like is only to encourage them to ever graver acts of aggression. How long will it be before they try to impose the blockade which they have threatened? The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of Norway; Norway is going to forbid the despatch of arms in her vessels. How is that going to help Norway, which, according to the Foreign Secretary's account the other day, had a ship forcibly taken by a rebel vessel to Vigo, where its cargo of potatoes was discharged. This Bill may not be the end, but the beginning of our troubles in this regard. As the rebels get desperate, as their military position gets worse, they may resort to desperate

1063
measures, and this Bill may be one more act—not an important one in itself—of running away, which makes the rebels believe that they can do anything, because we will accept anything at their hands. It is, therefore, a serious, indeed, a vital, objection to the policy which this Bill embodies that the Government have not even invited Italy, Germany and Portugal to pass similar legislation.
Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: What about Russia?
Mr. NOEL-BAKER: And Russia. But the case against this Bill under the heading of "impartiality" goes far beyond what I have already said. The Government have not only failed to secure parallel action by other Powers, some of which, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, are trying by international treaty to drive the world into a conflict of ideological doctrines; they have not even drawn the terms of the Bill so that it will operate equally between the two sides. I can put my point best by saying that the Bill forbids the transport of arms from Gdynia or Memel to Barcelona or Bilbao, but does not forbid it from Hamburg to Lisbon. The Foreign Secretary replied to this point yesterday by saying that Portugal was not specially guilty and that on military grounds it was unlikely that munitions would go through Portugal to the rebels. The Foreign Secretary does not put his case very high when he says that Portugal is not specially guilty, when we consider Italian action in the Balearic Islands.
Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: What about Russia?
Mr. NOEL-BAKER: I will give hon. Members full satisfaction about Russia in a few moments. The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that there had been infractions in various places, and he virtually admitted that Portugal was guilty of some of them, although, he implied, not on a great scale. He now says that there are no infractions by Portugal at all. With respect we find it very difficult to accept that view. He spoke of military grounds. Look at the military position. Where does General Franco put the centre of his Government? Where does he make his concentrations? Where do his big movements start? In the area along the Portuguese frontier. There
1064
have been many witnesses, some of them before the commission presided over by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), who have given impressive evidence, confirmed by journalists and many others, that the Portuguese Government have allowed a great many infractions of the policy of neutrality.
Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: And so has Russia.
Mr. NOEL-BAKER: It is true that a good many shipments are made to the rebels through Ferrol and Vigo, which are in their hands. But the Government may retake those ports, and Lisbon may then become virtually the only port on which the rebels can depend. If that happens, this Bill would still be in force and it would have, as we submit, unequal guarantees. Even at this moment we think that the shipments to Portugal are fairly heavy. On Sunday last, the "Sunday Times," which is not a paper favourable to the Government of Madrid, contained a message from a correspondent writing from Hendaye, a place where he was not likely to hear things against the rebels, but where he was likely to be well informed about their movements. He wrote to say that the Government attack on Talavera was very serious for General Franco, because Talavera was on his
"main line of communication with Portugal through which he obtains large supplies."
Now the Government propose to stop all shipments to Spanish ports, that is, to the Government of Madrid, which is the legitimate constitutional government of the country, and to set up guarantees of 100 per cent. efficiency for that prohibition. We say that they ought also at least to say that there should be guarantees concerning cargoes that go through Lisbon or, if they like, other neighbouring countries. They should guarantee that this Bill will not operate, as the rest of their policy has operated, against the Government of Madrid, that is to say, as another intervention by us.
That point affects the fundamental principle of which I have spoken and with which this Bill is concerned, namely, the supply of arms to foreigners engaged in warlike operations. How ought we to act in that regard? To whom ought we to send arms? The policy of our country has varied a good deal in recent times. Before the War we obeyed the rules of

1065
what was called the international law of neutrality, that is to say, private manufacturers of arms were allowed to sell, and private ships were allowed to carry arms to any destination, Even to belligerents at war. They did so at their own risk, but under the protection of the rules of international law; and if in the course of that work they were arrested, well, they took their chance; but if they were sunk, if the rules of international law were not observed, our Navy was there to uphold them and would, if necessary, go to fight on their behalf. After the War we changed our policy. We made the Covenant of the League. We introduced collective security, virtually abolishing neutrality—I am not going into technicalities—agreeing that the members of the League should stand together against an aggressor and support those against whom the aggression was aimed. Article XVI may have loopholes—I do riot discuss them—but if it means anything at all it means that we agreed with other members of the League to refuse arms to the aggressor but to supply arms to the victim of the aggression.
Our party hoped and believed—some of ray right hon. Friends on this side taking a very strong view about it—that once we had accepted the principle of collective security the supply of arms would be controlled by the League. We hold that there ought not to be private trading in arms, but that it ought to be subject to League decision, so that arms would only reach those who are the victims of aggression and not aggressors. In the meantime the least we can hope is that members of the League will apply this principle and will supply the victims of aggression and not aggressors. Unfortunately, in recent years that principle has not been applied with great exactitude.
In 1931 Japan attacked China; in 1932 Bolivia and Paraguay made a Covenant-breaking war; and we allowed Vickers-Armstrong to supply £1,000,000 worth of arms to those countries to violate the Covenant of the League, and the President of the Board of Trade, who introduces this Bill, granted 69 separate licences to Vickers-Armstrong to supply arms to States which were fighting Covenant-breaking wars, I think a good case could be made for saying that each one of those licences was in itself a viola-
1066
tion of the Covenant. In 1934 our policy was changed, and the Foreign Secretary —and more honour to him—secured a bilateral embargo, which ultimately became a unilateral embargo, on the Powers fighting the Chaco War; and I believe that embargo brought the war to an end. In 1935 he put an embargo on Italy to stop her attacking Abyssinia and an embargo on Abyssinia to stop her attacking Italy, and that embargo in the end also became unilateral against the aggressor. In other words, we are making definite progress towards the true conception of using an embargo to uphold the victim of aggression and to stop aggressors.
But how does this experience apply to the case of Spain? The Spanish question has two aspects. It is a civil war and it involves the danger of international complications. What is the law with regard to civil war? There has been a long history of revolution, and in modern times a great deal of practice, not in Europe, but in Latin America. This problem of supplying arms to a Government which has a rebel movement against is has thus arisen for the United States to settle many, many times. In 1930 the United States had to decide whether they would supply arms to the rebels or to the Government in a Brazilian revolution, and they made a decision which is stated in some words which I am going to read. I ask the House to listen to them with care, because they bear on the all-important Russian question. The United States Secretary of State said:
"There is nothing unprecedented in the principle which we now apply, which we have applied many times before. It is very important that people should not misunderstand it as a new principle. It is important for the reason that the revolutionists, who may be hurt by our action in placing an embargo, may assert that we are taking sides for some ulterior reason with one or other of the combatants. Instead of that we are acting according to general principles of international law. Those principles declare that where we are in friendly relations through diplomatic channels with a Government which has been recognised as the legitimate Government of a country that Government is entitled to the ordinary rights of any Government to buy arms in this country, while the people who are opposing and trying to overthrow that Government and are not yet recognised as belligerents are not entitled to that right. It is not a matter of choice on our part, but is a practice of mankind known as inter-

1067
national law. We have no personal bias, and are doing nothing but attempting to carry out the law of mankind."
In other words, other things being equal—a point which I emphasise—we ought to have furnished the Spanish Government with arms, refused arms to the rebels and called on other Powers to do the same. The point is very important, and it bears on the Russian matter, because if Russia is supplying arms to the legitimate Government of Madrid it is in a very different position from dictator Powers which are supplying the rebels.
Mr. BERNAYS: Would the hon. Member apply that principle to the Nazis if there was a rebellion against the Nazi Government in Germany?
Mr. NOEL-BAKER: I will reply at once to the hon. Member with the utmost candour. I believe in the mutual respect of differing regimes, in favour of which the Foreign Secretary pronounced in answer to a question the other day. That is embodied in Article X of the Covenant. Unless we stand on international law I believe there is no hope for world peace. I was about to say that if hon. Members put Russia on the same footing as Powers which are supplying the rebels they are very much in the position of those who would say that we were all equally guilty of violating Belgian territory in 1914, because while Germany occupied the greater part of the country we occupied the salient at Ypres.
Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Has not Russia signed the non-aggression Pact?
Brigadier-General SPEARS: According to the argument of the hon. Member our Government, the French Government and others were entitled to supply the Tsarist Government against the Bolshevik revolution, and were justified in so doing.
Mr. NOEL-BAKER: They were justified in supplying arms, that is to say allowing their private manufacturers to sell arms, to the Tsarist Government, but to send their own troops and arms along to support it is very different. That was definite intervention in the internal affairs of another country. I pass on to the international aspect of this Spanish case. The right hon. Gentleman has always said this situation involved a danger to
1068
European war and therefore was a matter of international importance. On the international side the law of the matter was, in my view, quite as clear as it was on the civil war side. We knew in the very early days of August that Signor Mussolini had sent three squadrons of Capronis from his air force, squadrons Nos. 56, 57 and 58. We know that without those squadrons General Franco could not have got his Moors to Spain, and that without the Moors he would have been very quickly overcome. We know that that action of Signor Mussolini was a plain infringement of the Covenant, was plain aggression.
I believe that if our Government had then invoked the League and had endeavoured to establish a really effective system for preventing such infractions by Signor Mussolini and others, a really effective system of non-intervention, that they would have rendered a great service to Europe. But, unfortunately, they did not. They preferred a diplomatic arrangement, and a diplomatic arrangement which they have not even tried to work, or, if they have tried, which they have not succeeded in making work fairly for both sides. They have thereby entirely failed to achieve, through that agreement, their purposes of shortening the war, avoiding international complications and remaining neutral. If the embargo had been applied all round it would have deprived the Spanish Government of their legal rights, but it might have solved the general problem. But, unfortunately, we applied it at once, and we allowed the Fascists five weeks in which to pour in arms in quantities which they thought were sufficient to win the war.
Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: How could we have stopped them?
Mr. N0EL-BAKER: We could at least have supplied the Government of Madrid while they were sending them in. I am not trying to be provocative, but to explain my point, which is that the Government of Madrid had a legal right to purchase arms, and that if we had supplied them it would have been able to defend itself against General Franco, even with his Moors and Italian support, but that as the Government of Madrid was deprived of arms we, in effect, intervened against it. I do not want to go over the evidence, because that would

1069
take too long. There was an article in the "Times" the other day from a "Times" correspondent in Salamanca who said:
"At Salamanca there are a great number of German and Italian advisers, chiefly interested in aviation. No attempt is made to conceal the help which is received from Germany, Italy, and Portugal. Public speeches are made in honour of the allies."
We have the evidence of Mr. Gerald Grosvenor, who gave a great number of circumstantial details which cannot have been invented, and he would not have deceived a man of the standing of Sir Walter Layton. He said that everybody in Majorca knew that "all the Balearic Islands would now be in the hands of the Spanish Government if the Italians had not intervened." The Foreign Secretary yesterday spoke of the volunteers in the Balearic Islands. I think there are real volunteers on both sides. I do not believe, for example, that the Prime Minister has sent the nephew of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) to Majorca, and I do not think that that young gentleman took any tanks or aircraft with him. And I do not think Mr. de Valera sent General O'Duffy to the other side. But I do believe that Signor Mussolini sent the Italians who are in Majorca. The Foreign Secretary's statement yesterday was, to my mind, most alarming, because a Government which is capable of believing in a totalitarian volunteer is capable of believing anything in its desire to evade the truth. Moreover, Italy and Germany have really avowed their intervention by recognising General Franco's regime as the Government of Spain. I venture to say that, while it may not be, as the Foreign Secretary said, a violation of the non-intervention pact to give that recognition, yet it is a violation of international law. There is no precedent of any kind for the action which the German, Italian and Portuguese Governments have taken. It is, in fact, an intervention.
Now this one-sided application of the non-intervention pact has had this result, that the Government of Madrid, which has the vast majority of the Spanish people behind it, has been opposed by such a wealth of modern armaments that it has not been able quickly to end the war. I am not going to argue this point at any length, but
1070
I ask our Government to consider what has happened to the Spanish Army. This is supposed to be a revolt of the Spanish Army against its Government. The Spanish Army used to have 48 regiments of infantry, 26 regiments of artillery, and six regiments of engineers. Who has heard of one of those regiments ever being mentioned in the communiqués of General Franco?
But in almost every communiqué issued by General Franco, we have heard of the Moors, and of the Foreign Legion. Yesterday, I think for the first time, there was one which spoke of unidentified Spanish cavalry. It was remarkable because they were called "Spanish." But we have a wealth of evidence to show that the insurgents could not get the Army, or the manpower of those parts of Spain which they control, to fight on their side. A message from the "Times" correspondent in Valencia said on 26th August that a great part of the soldiers on the insurgents side would desert if they could. I have another message from the "Times" correspondent in Valencia, on 19th September, in which he says that the officers have to take out the middle-aged civilians, one officer to every five, and force them to fight, and shoot them if they will not. He says that the soldiers and the young men are being kept inside the city because General Franco cannot trust them. I will read one more quotation from a report given, if I remember rightly, in the "News Chronicle" by a prominent Protestant leader. He said that even among the Catholic population of Spain, two-thirds were fighting on the Government side.
My case is this: That if we had had real non-intervention and a real embargo effectively applied to both sides, the Spanish Government would have won very quickly. But the policy which has actually been adopted has prolonged the war; has thereby increased the dangers of international complication, which have never been so serious as they are to-day; and has in fact, against our will, made us intervene in Spanish affairs from which we desired to stay out. We cannot support the Bill because it is part and parcel of that general policy of arms supply—a policy which it is impossible to reconcile with British ideas of justice, British traditions and British

1071
interests. We ask the Foreign Secretary when he goes to Geneva next week to try to secure an effective non-intervention system, with independent and impartial agents and full publicity, which will stop this dispatch of arms to either side. If he will do that, we will accept that policy, we will accept a Bill like this. If he does that, we believe that the Spanish Government will very soon end the war by a complete victory over Franco and his foreign invaders.
The fundamental reality of the present situation is that Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler are re-living the experience of Napoleon Bonaparte. The Foreign Secretary said, in a very eloquent speech on Friday last:
"The nations must choose. If they determine to return to the arbitrament of the sword, it will be found that the terrible weapons that science has forged can be wielded with no mean courage by peoples who love their freedom, both individual and national, and intend to preserve it."
And he added:
"But the cost must be heavy indeed."
We say that the Spanish people are now proving that his words are true. Let it not be said in times to come that the British people did anything to make the cost of their victory heavier than it would otherwise have been.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. WISE: I thought, when the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) was beginning his speech, that an alternative title to his Amendment should have been put before this House, and that it should have been called "The gun-runners' lament." I cannot see the objection which he put forward to the Bill having any validity whatever. Apparently there is a distinction in the hon. Member's mind between the supply of arms to General Franco on the part of Italy and Germany, and the supply of arms to what is alleged to be the legitimate Spanish Government, on the part of Russia and, some people say, France. I cannot see that it is possible to describe either side in Spain to-day as the legitimate government. It is true that General Franco and his friends are an insurgent party, and that they are certainly not the Government in Spain, but the existing Madrid Government also bears no resemblance to the legally elected Government. The changes
1072
in the constitution of that Government have been so drastically and unconstitutionally carried out as to make it obvious that if non-intervention is to be a reality people must be discouraged from supplying arms to either side.
That is, after all, not the purpose of the Bill. The purpose is not to secure an adequate enforcement of the Nonintervention Pact; that is a diplomatic matter of persuading the signatories to the pact to honour their signatures. All of them except ourselves, seem somewhat unwilling to do so. The idea of the Bill is to avoid unpleasant incidents which may occur with British shipping, and to avoid putting this country in the position of having to use our naval forces to enforce our right to carry on ordinary trade with the Spanish ports during the civil war. Possibly the Bill does not go far enough, but I am certain that any person who seriously desires to avoid trouble will welcome this step in the right direction.
The first of the dangers which, I suggest, still exist, are that it seems impossible wholly to control the use made of ships flying the British flag, but under a foreign charter. It is possible that illegitimate use may be made of them, in which case the onus is thrown on our Fleet to exercise the right of search, to police the Mediterranean and almost to enforce a blockade of Spanish ports, instead of leaving that to the belligerent parties in Spain. There is also the grave danger that ships belonging to foreign nations, if they think that safety is to be obtained under the British flag, will display the Red Ensign while they are running arms. I should have thought that this object—a desirable object indeed—would have been better attained if we could have introduced some system of licences. I do not conceive it impossible to say that licences to trade with Spanish ports should be issued to people who, we know, have no arms cargoes on board, and that we should supply to both belligerent parties a daily list of those ships that carry our guarantee. Those ships should be protected by the full force of the Naval power of Britain, but for ships not carrying the guarantee we should assume no guarantee whatever. That, I believe, would solve the difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Derby upon the question of Dominion ships. We could easily accept a licence

1073
signed by a Dominion 'Government that their ship was not carrying arms. It would, I think, solve a real difficulty at the moment.
Mr. NOEL-BAKER: That might solve the technical difficulty, but it would not solve the political difficulty. It would be rather a serious step to take without consultation with the Dominions.
Mr. WISE: That is not a point which affects the Bill, but one which is appropriate to a discussion upon the Statute of Westminster or some even more appropriate occasion such as a Debate upon general inter-Imperial relations. It is with the greatest joy that I welcome this enthusiasm for imperial unity—rather new born enthusiasm—on the other side of the House.
Mr. A. BEVAN: Surely the hon. Member is entirely misrepresenting the position of hon. Members here. We understand by the Statute of Westminster that the Dominions and ourselves have equal rights in the Empire, but we are now deciding, by unilateral action of our own, to withdraw the protection of the British Navy from Dominion ships.
Mr. WISE: I do not understand that that is the case. So far as I understood my right hon. Friend, it was that we should not protect Dominion ships if they were gunrunners.
Mr. BEVAN: Because of our Act.
Mr. WISE: Nor do we protect our own ships if they are gunrunners.
Mr. BEVAN: Can they search Dominion ships?
Mr. WISE: I imagine that His Majesty's ships can exercise the right of search on anything that flies the Red Ensign, and on no other.
HON. MEMBERS: No!
Mr. BEVAN: Can the belligerents in Spain search Dominion ships?
Mr. WISE: If they had reasonable grounds to assume that there were arms cargoes on board, they could. No one wishes to encourage the Dominions to take part in a European war, and there is the tendency to discourage even this country from taking part in European wars—a tendency on this side of the House and not on that.
1074
May I take up one or two more points raised by the hon. Member for Derby A great deal of his speech ran upon the idea that we have never done this sort of thing before. Surely the party of progress should not object to innovations, even in international affairs. To take one example of civil wars, the American Civil War: if we had had the sense to pass legislation of this kind we should have been saved a great deal of expense when the war was over. The fact that it was not done then, and that other revolutions have been allowed to take place without our making an effort to establish complete neutrality, is not a reasonable argument for our failing to do it now. The international situation, among other things, is far more delicate than it has been in the past. It has been a task of extreme difficulty in the last few months to prevent an explosion in various parts of Europe. If we are to persist in the right of private arms manufacturers to export arms to the belligerent parties in Spain, the sort of speech which the hon. Member for Derby made might have been made more effectively by the sales manager of Messrs. Vickers, demanding the sacred right to supply weapons, irrespective of the dangers involved, to the countries of the world.
The fact that Germany and Italy are supplying arms to one side and that Russia is supplying arms to the other, and indeed doing more, doing what the hon. Member himself most strongly deprecated even when he was maintaining the right of the private arms manufacturer to sell arms at all costs—even then be says it would be most improper for countries to use their troops to assist any belligerent force in other countries. But what else is happening in Spain to-day? Even the Spanish Government's accounts of their own fighting are clear enough, and from what they report nearly all the actual fighting is being done by an international force which is composed of a mixture of all nations; but mostly they are Frenchmen and Russians and a certain number, I believe, of German refugees. But the fact that all these parties are violating a non-intervention agreement, and breaking International law, is surely no reason why we should involve ourselves in danger merely to satisfy some desire that the Spanish Government shall be fully equipped with munitions.

1075
Many of us on this side of the House, although we desire to preserve the most complete neutrality, and not to assist either side would naturally think it less embarrassing if General Franco should win the war than if the Communist Government did—[VOICE: "There is no Communist Government there"]—not because we particularly desire to see another Fascist State on the Mediterranean, which indeed we do not. But the international complications of the Governments victory are likely to be far worse than the international complications of a Fascist victory; and as our interests are to remain at peace we naturally prefer to see the less embarrassing side successful. There is only one more point I would make, and that is to emphasise what I was trying to say earlier on of the importance of taking this view a step further. I hope it will be possible The dangers which are still left in these provisions are sufficiently patent to make it worth consideration. I believe that the Bill itself is a very definite step in the right direction, and I think with this Bill in force that would be almost a sufficient guarantee that ships flying the British flag would not be carrying arms to Spain. Therefore I do not think that either party is likely to exercise the right of search, or to endeavour to exercise the right of search, or attack, on British ships, at least for the present. But sooner or later I believe that the rumour will get around that foreign ships are using the British flag as a cover to get into Spanish ports, and before that time occurs I should like to see some effort at this system of licences, and the notifications to both belligerents of the ships which we guarantee that are within reach of their ports.
As to the extension of the Bill that the hon. Member for Derby wanted, so as to cover Portugal as well, if we say, "Let us do it to Portugal because she is small and inoffensive," we have to be logical and go to other ports which may be a source of supply to the Government. We may have to forbid the export of arms to France, because it is quite possible that arms may go from France into Spain. Indeed it has been established that a certain amount of arms has gone from France into Spain. It is quite impossible at the moment to stop the shipping of arms to France. For one thing, the defen-
1076
sive interests of France and ourselves are very much interlocked, and it may be. vital to the French system of defence that they shall be able to get arms from us. I do not believe it is logical or fair to prohibit the exports to Portugal unless you make it an all-round business. Indeed you will have to go further and prohibit the export of arms to Italy, because they might be shipped from Italy.
But we cannot enforce a world blockade at the moment, or enforce a world blockade anyhow unless we are prepared to fight for it, and surely those hon. Members opposite do not want to start a naval war against the Powers of the world just yet. I always thought they were less bellicose now than three months ago, because three months ago I thought they wanted to start a war on anybody, but of late there has been a slightly less. desire to involve their fellow-countrymen in a holocaust. Did I hear some hon. Member say "No," that he did wish to involve his fellow-countrymen in a war? If they really believe it is the interest of this country to keep out of quarrels, and not for any particular theory to incur the risk of fighting over an issue which after all is not one of vital importance to the British Empire—[A "It is"]—if they do wish to avoid that conflict the only thing that hon. Members can do is to support this Bill, and help it on its progress, because without it the fat may be in the fire, as far as we are concerned, at any moment. With it the difficult task at the moment being carried out by the Foreign Secretary, of steering the most difficult course that has been steered for a long time, will be able to continue with one snag at least cleared out of the way.
5.22 p.m.
Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The hon. Member who has just sat down exclaimed towards the end of his speech that we must be logical in this matter, but I cannot help believing that when he reads his speech to-morrow morning he will find that he has himself fallen below the standard of logic which he enjoined on hon. Members of this side of the House. I found myself as much difficulty in trying to follow the argument of his speech as he found in trying to follow that of the hon. Gentleman who spoke before him from the 'front' Opposition benches. He said that speech might have been made

1077
by the sales manager of Vickers. It is not for me to defend the hon. Member, with a great deal of whose speech I disagree, as I shall make quite clear to the House presently, and besides he is well able to look after himself. But I must say in the name of logic, to which the hon. Member himself appealed, that the whole stand that the hon. Member has taken on the question of the manufacture and the trade in arms defends him against such an accusation; and the hon. Member obviously missed the very important part of the speech on which I shall have something to say towards the end of my remarks about the necessity of having—in which I thoroughly agree—the necessity which the whole of this episode emphasises of having a clear, logical and permanent policy for the control of the trade in arms instead of an extemporised Bill. I was also surprised to hear the lion. Member, when defending the right of stopping and searching ships at sea, seem to say that he would not disagree if the British Navy stopped and searched a ship without any warrant at all. But it would be just as shocking for one of His Majesty's ships to do that without the warrant given in this Bill as it would be for a private constable to enter a house and search it without warrant, and I hope that the Government will most stoutly defend the freedom and rights of British shipping enterprise.
Now I want to make it quite clear with great frankness to all parts of the House that I find myself differing from both the hon. Members who preceded me—a little more from the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, than from the speech of the hon. Member who spoke from the front Opposition bench. I have from the first defended the policy of nonintervention. Before it was discussed in the House I defended it, and I defended it in the House on our last Debate on 29th October. We applaud the refusal of the Government to enter into a competitive rivalry in the supply of fuel for the flames in Spain. We attach the utmost important to close co-operation with the French Government in the dangers, by which freedom and democracy are faced in the present international situation, and we think the Government are right to give their loyal support to the policy which the French Government initiated and to which they are still firmly committed. Above all we
1078
believe that war in Europe is not inevitable. We refuse to regard war as something which is inevitable. We believe that, whatever its results, it would be an immeasurable catastrophe for our own country and for civilisation. Therefore the French and British Governments are right to do all they can to prevent the flames of war from spreading from Spain and, by a policy of non-intervention, to cut off the supply of war material which feeds them.
The hon. Member who spoke from the front Opposition bench is perfectly entitled to take a different view of this problem, and to say that even in spite of all those considerations to which he with his usual fairness paid full tribute in the opening passage of his speech—we ought to put our respect for the right of the Constitutional Government of Spain to buy arms above those considerations. He thought they did not justify us in cutting off the supply of arms to Spain. He has argued that most eloquently in the country before we met last month, and in the House of Commons in the Debate at the end of last month he made by far the most persuasive speech from that point of view. But when he criticised the Government for the action they have taken, and which I approve, I do not think his hon. Friends on those benches were entitled to applaud him, because certainly at the time of which he spoke, when the Franco forces were advancing and the Government was weakening, they approved of and supported the policy of non-intervention which the Government was pursuing, as we did then and as we do still.
Unfortunately, however, this policy has not been carried out by all the States who are pledged to observe it. Large supplies of arms have reached Spain from Germany, from Italy and from Russia. The Government have said that Russia is the worst offender of the three. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has said that there were other countries that were worse offenders than Germany and Italy; he has also declared that Portugal is not one of the worst offenders; and, therefore, I think it is not unfair to say that by clear implication the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has in fact said that Russia is the worst offender. We on these benches dispute the validity of that charge against

1079
Russia, and I want to make that point clear.
It seems to us that the reluctance which is evinced, not only in one quarter of this House and not only in this country, but in many quarters of the House and in many countries, to consider Russian policy dispassionately and objectively and with a genuine desire to find a basis of understanding and co-operation with that country, is a mood which involves dangers to the peace of the world. Let me say frankly that I find this lack of objectivity on the question of Russia just as much in certain circles of the Left in politics as I find it in circles of the Right. There can be no doubt that the intervention of Italy and Germany in Spain began, not in July, but some time before. Russian intervention, on the other hand, started long before that, and the early difficulties of the Frente Popular Government were created by the intrigues and outrages organised by Russian propagandists and by Spanish extremists trained and equipped for the purpose in Russia by the Communist International. But it is also equally true that there are two main groups of forces in Russia.
This intervention in the affairs of Spain was fomented by those formidable forces in Russia which are inspired and energised by the Communist International; but the principal forces in the Russian Government at the present time are making a determined effort to restrain those forces; they are making a determined effort to co-operate with Europe and with the peace-loving democracies of the world against the Fascist threats on their eastern and western flanks. They want peace and freedom to work out their great social and economic experiments in Russia. Two things, therefore, seem to me to be necessary if peace is to be maintained and lawless aggression curbed—first, that we on our part should show real willingness to work with Russia for our common aims in maintaining the peace of the world and resisting aggression; and, secondly, that the Russians should restrain those activities of propagandists which serve to disturb the internal peace and order of other countries. Once the civil war broke out, the dominant party in Russia—
Captain RAMSAY: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the point I want to put to him is a very important one. If it is necessary that we should co-operate with Russia on this question, ought we not to have an assurance that our co-operation with Russia will be antedated by their ceasing to work for revolution in this country
Sir A. SINCLAIR: There is a certain amount of co-operation now; our Government are in fact co-operating with Russia. They have negotiated a trade agreement with Russia, they have given credits to Russia, they are co-operating closely with Russia in the League of Nations in a great many activities. I want to see that co-operation grow, and I believe that the more it grows, the more Russia is brought into the circle of the nations, the greater will be the encouragement that is given to those forces in Russia which are trying to restrain the revolutionary activities of their extremists and trying to play their part in the comity of nations.
Once the civil war broke out—and this is a point to which I particularly want to draw the attention of the House—the dominant party in Russia did in fact impose a policy of non-intervention on the Russian Government. There is no evidence to show that any substantial quantities of war material reached Spain from Russia before October. Our Government, though they have not made that statement, have never contradicted it, but M. Blum made it specifically in the French Chamber. But was this restraint applauded in this country by Conservative speakers and writers 7 On the contrary, the extraordinary thing is that the result of it was that the Russian Government were taunted with being afraid to help their friends in Spain, and those who in this country—as I think mistakenly—agitated for freedom of trade in arms with Spain, were jibed at and mocked at for being more fervid in support of the Spanish Government than the Bolshevik Government in Russia. Then came the Non-intervention Agreement. There is clear proof that during the currency of that agreement arms and recruits were pouring into Spain from Italy and Germany. Few, if any, went from Russia until the 15th October, the date on which Russia said: "These arms and men have been pouring in from other

1081
countries, and we must reconsider our position." Until then, little went from Russia. The fact that these arms, munitions and recruits were coming from other countries may not have been established by the Non-intervention Committee, but testimony to their coming is given by newspaper correspondents of unimpeachable authority and integrity with the forces on both sides. Therefore, if Russia is guilty of breaking the Non-intervention Agreement since the 15th October, she has only done so after the Italians and the Germans had already done so on a scale which very nearly decided the issue of the conflict in Spain. Moreover, if Russia is guilty of breaking the Nonintervention Agreement, Germany and Italy are guilty of breaking both the Nonintervention Agreement and also the law of nations by supplying arms to forces in rebellion against a lawful and constitutional government. I hope the House understands that that is why we on these benches, and, I believe, a growing force of public opinion outside, resent the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that Russia is more to blame than Germany or Italy. It seems to us to be in clear contradiction of the facts. I want to say this also, because I understand that either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be replying to this Debate, and I want them to have a chance of denying the charge which I am going to make. It seems to us, when the answers of the Secretary of State in this House take on a tone of that kind, to indicate that His Majesty's Government are no longer so much concerned to stop German and Italian supplies going to General Franco as to stop Russian supplies going to the Spanish Government. I hope the Government will contradict that statement flatly and emphatically, and I am making it in order to give them that opportunity.
Let the Government patch up this Nonintervention Agreement if they can. I want it patched up, and I believe the British people desperately want it patched up as a shield against war; but to put all the patches on the holes through which the constitutional government of Spain is getting supplies, and to leave open all the holes through which the rebels are drawing supplies, would insure the defeat of the Spanish Government. Unlike the hon. Member for Smethwick
1082
(Mr. Wise) I believe that the defeat of the Spanish Government would be a disaster to the peace of the world and a serious threat to the interests of this country and of the Empire. The hon. Member talked about a Communist Government. When I see two dangers, I have more respect for the one which is solid and apparent and substantial than I have for a bogy like a Communist Government, which may come into being, but which does not in fact exist at the present time, and which may never come into being.
Mr. WISE: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. The danger is that Italy might feel bound to intervene openly, and, therefore, a Communist Government in Spain is far more likely to lead to a European explosion than a Government formed by General Franco.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member is apparently so submissively prepared to allow the destinies of Europe to be decided by Fascist dictators that he is horrified at the prospect that the legitimate Government in Spain might win, because in that case the Germans and Italians would put them in their place, and we, I suppose, would stand by and watch the Germans and Italians doing what they like first in Spain and thereafter in Czechoslovakia, or in any other country of Europe. I cannot conceive of a more dangerous policy than that. Indeed, if, as I have said, all the holes through which the Spanish Government are drawing supplies to Spain are to be patched up and all the holes through which the rebels are drawing supplies are to be left open, it would ensure another triumph for Italian Fascism, would still further weaken our prestige and our naval position in the Mediterranean, and would be rightly resented by public opinion in this country.
Therefore, if this Bill is to be regarded as part of the patching up process, we ask whether it will apply all round. If so, we applaud the Government's initiative. I see it stated in the "Times" newspaper this morning that those who criticise the Government will find difficulty in explaining why, when they are always asking the Government to give a lead, they criticise it as soon as it takes an initiative. We do not criticise the

1083
Government for taking an initiative, but we say that, if they are not going to try to get the co-operation of other nations, we have gone far enough in stopping war supplies from reaching the Spanish Government without stopping similar supplies from reaching the rebels. The hon. Member who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench raised the question, for example, how this Measure will affect the possibility of General Franco obtaining 'supplies from Portugal. The ship from Odessa to Barcelona will be stopped, but the ship going from Hamburg to Lisbon will not be stopped. Therefore, the ship which is carrying supplies to the Spanish Government will be stopped, but the ship which is carrying supplies to a port from which those supplies can very well reach the rebel forces will not be stopped. The Government, in reply to that, say that we ought not always to be criticising Portugal, that it is offensive to criticise a poor little country like Portugal. But I do not at all take that view. I am not criticising Portugal particularly, but it is well known that a certain quantity of supplies did reach the rebel forces from Portugal, and, if we pass this Bill, it is quite obvious that we shall tend to divert the whole of the Spanish arms trade through Portuguese ports, for they will be the only ports through which the market can, be reached. How is the Government going to deal with that? If they can tell us that their plans for control along the Portuguese frontier are ready and are then to be put into operation almost coincidentally with the passage of this Bill, that would be a very formidable answer to the argument that I am now addressing, and it would satisfy me, but unless they can do it seems to me that they are stopping the holes by which arms can reach the Spanish Government and leaving open the Portuguese hole by which they may reach the rebels.
There is another thing to which we attach great importance. Last year, when we were discussing the dispute between Italy and the League over Abyssinia, we kept on asking the Government to take more drastic action to ensure the success of the League, and they kept on retorting to us, "We are willing to go as far as the others go, but it must always be collective action."
1084
We agreed. We never disputed it. All we said was, "Go to the council table at Geneva, and challenge the other Powers in public to say whether or not they will take a certain course which would ensure the success of the League." We say now, "Give a lead in this matter, which requires collective action, the work of the Non-intervention Committee." By all means introduce your Bill but give us an assurance that you will not bring it into force until other Powers are prepared to do the same, to make this policy effective and to stop all arms, both those to General Franco and those to the Spanish Government. That is why, on the very day that the Foreign Secretary made his announcement, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) put a question asking whether other countries had been consulted and whether they would adopt the same policy. We also have asked since whether the Dominions are being consulted, and I am very glad that that question was raised by the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench. The hon. Member who spoke last said this was not the occasion to discuss it, but surely it is. If the Dominions have not been consulted on an important question of policy, we have a right to criticise the failure of the Government to enter into that consultation. We have persistently done so, and we attach the utmost importance to close co-operation with the Dominions in this and other matters.
When we asked whether there had been any co-operation with other countries, the Secretary of State answered that no approach had been made but that he was quite prepared to consider that. That was a week ago. Have other countries been approached? Is any effort being made to make this a general all round effort? The President of the Board of Trade said that our policy had been one of non-intervention in agreement with other European Powers. That is a good statement of policy but the action, the actual expression of the policy, ought also to be carried out in agreement with the other European Powers. He tells us that Norway has in fact taken action and that France is contemplating action. It shows that some of the European

1085
Powers, at any rate, are prepared to co-operate. Let the Bill, then, be put on one side for the time being. Let us pass it into law if you like, but make it clear that it will not come into action until other Powers have agreed to take effective steps which will prevent arms going to the Government as much as to the rebels. Not until then ought we to impose these extraordinary and unprecedented restrictions upon British shipping.
It is still more to be regretted that this Measure is not proposed spontaneously as a means of fulfilling our obligations under the Non-intervention Agreement but in reply to the piratical threats of General Franco to interfere with foreign shipping. The argument that the President of the Board of Trade addressed to the House was a very persuasive one. If it had been addressed to us two or three weeks ago, if it had been coupled with an assurance that he was going to secure the co-operation of other countries, I should have been strongly and whole-heartedly in favour of this method, but we cannot help feeling some suspicion about it when in fact it is not a spontaneous action by the Government, but merely their way of getting out of the difficulty in which the threats of General Franco have placed us. General Franco proposes to stop shipping which is carrying arms to the Spanish Government. He has no vestige of moral or legal right to take such action. He has already done so in the case of a Norwegian ship, which was not in fact carrying arms at all but a cargo of potatoes, and the Norwegian Government has protested. Are we supporting that protest?
In the fact of General Franco's threat, the Government are really faced with two alternatives, either recognition of belligerent rights, to which personally I should strongly object, for reasons which if need not enter into to-day, or the assertion of British rights. The Government are trying to combine the advantages of both policies by asserting the rights of British shipping on the high sea while giving an assurance to General Franco that British ships will not be used to carry war material to his opponents. What will happen if General Franco does not interfere with our ships on the high sea but within Spanish territorial waters? How is this Bill going to be enforced?
1086
Is it intended that our Fleet will indeed stop and search British ships in the Mediterranean? If General Franco wants to run the risk of bringing Great Britain into the war, if he thinks he has something to gain and is prepared to run that risk in a mood of desperation, as the last speaker said, there is nothing in the Bill to stop him. If, on the other hand, he takes the view, as I should imagine he would, that it would be a disaster to his cause to bring the British Navy- in against him, why is this Bill necessary? Why is it necessary merely to assert the rights of British shipping and to give it full protection?
To sum up, non-intervention is the policy that we want to pursue. I see no other practical policy which would not involve far greater danger for this country and the world, unless it be the policy of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) of evacuating from Spain all the Spaniards and leaving all the others to fight it out. Apart from that, I see no other policy that is more likely to be effective in preserving the rights of democracy and the peace of Europe. But we want it made effective. My own patience is running short with the delays of the Non-intervention Committee, and I believe public opinion is becoming increasingly impatient. If the policy contained in this Bill is accepted by all the parties to the agreement, I think it is a good policy. Otherwise, it will help the rebels against the Government and put one-sided restrictions on British shipping. Accordingly, our attitude on this Measure will be determined by whether or not the Government can give us that assurance for which I have asked, that the Bill will not be brought into operation and that these exceptional and unprecedented restrictions will not be placed upon British shipping until other countries are prepared to co-operate with us in making the policy of nonintervention effective.
5.55 p.m.
Brigadier-General SPEARS: I had not intended to intervene until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker). His contention is that the Bill will work entirely in favour of the rebels. I listened to his speech very carefully, and I did not hear a single sentence to substantiate that contention. It seemed to me that it ignored the

1087
reality of the situation, which is, after all, that we do not want to be embroiled. He talked a great deal about an ideal world in which all nations would refuse to export arms to an aggressor. I am entirely in favour of that, but that is not the situation that we are dealing with. We are dealing with an extremely dangerous civil war which, if we are not careful, may involve Europe in war. I deprecate Members appearing to take sides with either party in this dispute. I think it is very dangerous. I think it unfair to assume that the whole of the Spanish nation is on the side of the Government and opposed to the rebels. It seems to me that, if that were so, the undoubtedly small forces at General Franco's disposal would be quite incapable of holding the country. [Interruption.] If he were a hostile force in Spain, he would be holding the country. We know from our experience in the Peninsular War that the Spanish are the hardest people in the world to coerce if they do not want to be coerced. What is happening in Spain is that you have two extremist forces fighting it out, and the people as a whole clearly only want to be left in peace. I wish hon. Members opposite were not so persistently in favour of one side. I cannot say how astonished I was at one passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Derby. He said that we, that is, the Allied Powers were entirely justified in supporting the Tsarist regime against the Bolshevists.
Mr. NO EL-BAKER: I did not say that. I said that if we had permitted our merchants to sell arms to the Tsar, that would have been entirely in accordance with international law, as it would be if we now permitted our armament merchants to sell arms to the Government of Spain. But to intervene with a large armed force and help those taking part in civil war is a grave violation of international law.
Brigadier-General SPEARS: Even that admission I consider to be a very valuable one.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Valuable for what?
Brigadier-General SPEARS: An extremely valuable admission. I hope that in future we shall hear less of the crimi-
1088
nal action on the part of the French, the English and others in giving support to the then legitimate Government in Russia against the revolutionaries as they then were.
Mr. NOEL-BAKER: With great respect, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is misinterpreting what I said, though I know he does not wish to do so. To allow the sale of arms is different from the sending of armies in support.
Brigadier-General SPEARS: I think that we can push that matter a little too far, but the point is that we have been attacked for giving any sort of support to the Tsarist regime. It seems to me that the party to the left must admit the right to revolt against oppression. Some of the greatest movements in the world have been due to revolutionary movements. According to the arguments of the party opposite all revolution under any conditions would become impossible, and if only for this reason I beg hon. Gentlemen not to be too partisan in this case.
There is one very important point which I should like to make. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition Liberals has spoken a great deal about Portugal and of the danger of arms coming through from Portugal into Spain. That may be so, but I beg of them to remember that Spain has two mainland frontiers, the frontier between France and Spain and the frontier between Portugal and Spain, and if you propose to have sonic sort of control over the land frontiers between Spain and Spain's neighbours you must mention France just as you mention Portugal, otherwise you merely concentrate your fire upon a small country which is not able to defend itself, and whose voice has not much weight. The hon. Member for Derby emphasised what a failure the whole policy of non-intervention has been, and, if I understood his argument aright, he attributed all that failure to the British Government. He did not say a word about the fact that this policy was not initiated by our Government but by the French Government, whose leader, we all know, is a Socialist and who have Communist support. In these circumstances, and for the sake of fairness hon. Gentlemen opposite have no right to attribute failure, if there has been failure,

1089
entirely at the door of our own Government.
6.6. p.m.
Mr. MAXTON: It may be taken as a guide to the British Government in matters of foreign policy that the man who speaks first and speaks most decisively has the best chance of coming out on top. I feel that the British Government in this Measure and in their whole attitude in this Spanish issue have been so cloudy, indifferent and unclear, that they put themselves completely out of court as being fit persons to intervene in any way. I also feel that the Government themselves are not now comfortable about the position. I had never heard such an uncomfortable speech as that of the President of the Board of Trade. There is no man who is usually more competent, precise and definite than he is, but to-day he fumbled and hesitated and looked round, and had assistance from the Parliamentary Secretary and advice from the Foreign Secretary, but with the whole lot of it he was not very satisfactory or convincing. One felt that he was doing a job which had been put up to him, and that he had no heart or belief in it. It was the most uncomfortable speech I had ever heard, until I heard the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise), who wandered all over the place. The hon. Member for Smethwick can speak very decisively and precisely upon things when he really feels about them, but I felt that he was just doing the job in order to put himself right with the Government and not show any ill-feeling on his part. But they were both bettered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears). They were three speeches from the Government side all indicating profound dissatisfaction with the position, as they have every right to do.
What does the Bill mean? It means that General Franco announced that he was going to take steps to stop ships carrying arms to the Spanish Government, and that the British Government, the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade, say: "Please do not do that, General Franco; we will do that for you." Mark you, there were no threats from the Spanish Government. It was a threat from General Franco, the insurgent leader, and
1090
the President of the Board of Trade said so in his speech to-day. General Franco threatened the whole British Empire. Then something serious has to be done about it. We did not tell General Franco what would be the position, as would have been done in every other case. We should have said, "Let General Franco take whatever steps he thinks fit, but, if he interferes with the legitimate legal interests of Great Britain, then he will have to take whatever consequences arise from it." That would have been the normal answer in any other case, but on this occasion, while we are in friendly relations with the Spanish Government, it is not just quite the kind of Government that we would like to have in Spain. General Franco said that it was a Communist Government. I do not think that it ever was, but if the present position of the so-called democratic nations continues, and they continue to support the rebels in every possible way and deny legitimate rights to the properly constituted Government, then Spain will become a Communist country.
It is obvious that, as hostilities have proceeded, power has tended to move in Spain from the left Radical point towards the extreme revolutionary point. It is not at the extreme revolutionary point yet, but it has been moving steadily in that direction. France, Britain, Norway, in these days have said this to the world, and Russia nearly fell into the trap. I heard several interruptions about Russia when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) was talking. I will not say that there was a parrot cry, but there was a constant repetition of the word "Russia."
It is very obvious to all who have been following this matter very carefully, that, having entered into the non-intervention pact, Russia kept up to the point, while it became obvious that the Fascist States were simply working with their tongues in their cheeks. I am not prepared to argue the extent of the help Russia has given to the Spanish Government, but I anticipate that any help that has come to the Spanish Government from Russia has come in the latter days, when it was proved beyond denial that Germany and Italy were helping the insurgents, and after Russia had told the Non-intervention Committee, that, in view of this assistance by the Fascist Government, they must hold their hands free to act

1091
as they please. That was a legitimate and fair thing to do. But what are the people of Spain, Belgium, Holland, Norway and Sweden being told? It is that democratic Governments with a Left tendency can expect no support in difficulties in which they may be involved from the other nations of the world, while the Government of Spain and other nations are being told that in any difficulties there may be the Fascist States will always come to the support of the people with a similar point of view to their own. Spain and all the smaller neutral countries are being told that their Governments, if they are of a Fascist tendency, or have movements of a Fascist tendency, can expect support from the Fascist States. This is while we turn round and say, "You can expect no support from Democratic Governments. You cannot even have the ordinary rights that have been established for years." This is a tremendous departure from practice.
I have been perfectly frank here. I was perfectly frank on the last Spanish Debate, and I repeat it again. I want the Spanish Government Forces to win. I want it quite definitely, not because they happen to be the Spanish Government Forces. I want it to win because I believe that the Spanish Government which was elected at the last general election in Spain had an overwhelming majority, and was believed by most of the people of Spain to be their best hope of getting out of the position of desperate poverty. It was a hope to the working classes of Spain, and, therefore, I want to see that Government's authority established in its own land and let them proceed with their schemes of social readjustment and amelioration. I am not against the insurgents because they are rebels.
If I were asked whether 1 should do this if it was happening in Germany, I say that if there was a working-class vote against Hitler I would support it for all I was worth, and if the British nation had any sense as to what was best for the British nation it would do the same. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has run all over Europe, not as Foreign Secretary, but as a missionary of a whole lot of fantastic theories which have no real intelligent and practical application to the problem which con
1092
fronts him. He might as well be out of office writing pamphlets about an ideal world. It would be much better, because being in the position he is in now he is a danger to the nation with his fears, which put Britain out of action on every occasion when action could be used to the advantage of this nation and to the advantage of the peoples of the world.
Mr. GALLACHER: There is method in his madness.
Mr. MAXT0N: The hon. Member is always more tolerant in his outlook than I am. I can see the madness, but, frankly, I fail to see the method. If the rebellion is successful in Spain and General Franco is successful in establishing a Fascist Government, by the good will and active support of Germany and Italy, then I hope hon. and right hon. Members opposite look upon such a stivation with equanimity. So far as I am concerned, my support of the Spanish Government is decided for me, not on grounds of British patriotism, admittedly, but on grounds of class prejudice. I believe that the Spanish Government is a working-class Government in the main, and my prejudices lead me to support it. But I deliberately accuse the Government of this country and their supporters of taking their line because of class prejudice of a precisely opposite type. They talk in terms of the interests of owning and possessing classes rather than in terms of the interests of the British nation and its future position in world affairs.
If Spain is to become, with the deliberate help of the British Government, and through the agency of a collection of minor measures such as this Bill, a Fascist outpost in the Mediterranean, then the problem which Great Britain will have to face will be infinitely greater than the problem they are refusing to confront to-day. They are lying down in face of a threat, not from a big responsible Government, but from one whom an hon. Member has described as a pirate, who in his buccaneering is supported up to 90 per cent. of his strength by paid hirelings, the off-scourings of North Africa and of every country in Europe. People who cannot live openly, decently and respectably in their own country, are manning the arms of General Franco, and even with these people this man cannot play fair because he is paying them with bad

1093
money. This man, who is the friend of Great Britain and is going to be the future government in Spain, is paying his own mercenaries in Austrian currency of the inflation period, a currency which has been sold in the streets of London as a curio—bad Austrian crowns which have gone out of use for 15 years. This man says to the British nation, "I propose to stop any of your ships going about their perfectly legitimate business on the high seas," and the President of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Secretary say, "Oh, we are very sorry General Franco; we did not know that we were inconveniencing or incommoding you in any way. Do not do anything and we will bring in a measure which will stop our ships from carrying on their proper trade." That is the result of the Foreign Secretary's efforts.
6 21 p.m
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): It may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words at this stage, as I should be very sorry if any other hon. Member should be led into such eloquent inaccuracies as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). These misunderstandings, I think, are due to the complexity of the situation. [Interruption] I propose to explain the position. and I hope hon. Members opposite will listen. I have nothing whatever to apologise for in the policy that has been pursued and I hope to show the House the clear and impartial reasons which have actuated the Government in their action. The hon. Member for Bridgeton said frankly, and I accept it, that he was actuated in this matter by class prejudice, and he was good enough to add that I was actuated by the same motive. I do not resent that accusation. But I would like the hon. Member to explain how it is if I am actuated by class prejudice in this matter, or if the Government are actuated by class prejudice, our actions throughout this business have moved step by step with the full approval of the Front Populaire Government in France. Does the hon. Member say that M. Blum is actuated by class prejudice?
Mr. MAXTON: If I had been inside I could explain that.
Mr. EDEN: When the hon. Member makes insinuations he should explain their meaning.
Mr. MAXTON: I do not feel called upon to explain them because the right hon. Gentleman made an important insinuation himself the other day and refused to explain its meaning.
Mr. EDEN: I accept that, but at the same time I am entitled to ask the House how it can be said that the Government's policy throughout this long and troublesome matter has been actuated by class prejudice when, in fact, we have moved step by step with the Front Populaire Government in France. If any hon. Members think that the reason why the French Government took their initiative was because of pressure we put upon them, frankly, I think, that is a poor compliment to the French Government. But it is not true. The motives which actuated the French Government are exactly the same as the motives which have actuated us—a desire to do everything in our power to prevent the Spanish civil war from becoming an international conflict.
I want to begin by referring to a point which was raised in an intervention at the beginning of the Debate in connection with the position of Dominion shipping. There may be some misunderstanding, because when there are interruptions across the Table we get at cross-purposes, and I want to put the position quite plainly. In the first place, we have no reason to believe that there are any Dominion ships engaged in carrying arms to Spain or that there is any likelihood of any such ships doing so. We have no reason to believe that there is any likelihood of this happening, but if there were we should of course at once get into communication with the Dominion Government concerned, and we have no reason to believe that any Dominion Government would not co-operate with us in carrying out the policy of nonintervention. We have pursued the normal course. We have informed them of our action, which is the normal course, when the matter is not one upon which they have to pass legislation. If they want to say anything they say it. They have not done so in this case. But this is the important point. No instructions have been issued or will be issued by the Admiralty not to protect Dominion shipping, and the position, therefore, at present is that any Dominion ship will be entitled to the protection of the British

1095
Navy. The point is really completely academic, because there are, in fact, no Dominion ships except liners within 1,000 miles of Spain, and Dominion ships are mostly coastal, and their routes are nowhere near Spain at all.
The Bill forms part of the non-intervention policy of His Majesty's Government. Those who are opposed to the policy of non-intervention and wish us to break up the agreement are perfectly logical in opposing the Bill; but I submit that others are not. What would be the position without this Bill, that is, the position under the Non-Intervention Agreement without this Bill? The position would be this. We should forbid the export of arms from this country to Spain; that is part of the agreement. We should have declared, as we have declared, although it seems to be ignored, our intention to protect British ships at sea. But without this Bill British ships may take arms from foreign ports to Spain against the declared policy of His Majesty's Government, and claim the protection of the British Navy if they get into difficulties. That is the position without the Bill. Therefore, the first point is that to oppose the Bill and support nonintervention is to approve of British ships being forbidden to take British arms from this country to Spain, but to allow them to take arms from foreign countries to Spain. That is not a position which, I think, hon. Members in any part of the House desire.
Mr.ATTLEE: That has been the position for the last three or four months.
Mr. EDEN: Yes, and I propose to explain why it is necessary to take this action. The Bill, in fact, deals with a small gap in our arrangements in respect of the Non-Intervention Agreement. We have information of a few ships—very few ships—employed In this trade of carrying arms from foreign countries to Spain. The gap is small, but it is most important because of the risk of incidents. It would have been open to the Government to accord belligerent rights to both sides. Had we done that then, of course, it would have been the right of both sides to stop and search British ships on the high seas. We have not granted that right, but have said that we propose to protect British ships on the high seas. How then can we be accused of running
1096
away? How can it be said that the fact that we will protect our ships and not have them searched on the high seas is an indication of weakness? [Interruption.] I think that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) is quite misinformed as to the position. I will come to that in a moment, but before doing so, I would like to put to the House the point, which I think is a fair one, that those who oppose this Bill are in the curious position that they are seeking to enable private enterprise in this country to make money out of a trade which is opposed to the Government's policy—a policy which we believe to be in the interest of peace. I can very well imagine the language that would be addressed to us in similar circumstances if the conditions of the parties were inverted.
Now I come to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), whose arguments, if I may say so with respect, were based throughout on a false premise. He said that in a civil war of this kind the normal practice was not to accord belligerent rights. That is not so; exactly the reverse is the normal practice. The hon. Member for Derby said that it had not been done since 1820. That is wrong. It has frequently been done since 1820—and done normally —the most important recent example is the American civil war, when belligerent rights were in fact accorded to both sides. Had the normal course been followed in this case, I have not the very least doubt that belligerent rights would have been accorded a very long time ago. It may be that at some stage in this conflict belligerent rights will have to be accorded, and if they are, it will be exactly for the same reasons as in the past—for practical reasons of our own national interests.
I would like in that connection to draw the attention of the House to this point—which emphasises the point I made just now—that if we had followed the previous practice, which I think hon. Gentleman will find, if they look it up, has been the almost universal practice, of granting belligerent rights, it would have given the right to either of the two parties to stop and search our ships on the high seas, and the Navy could not have done anything. I repeat that we have not done so in this instance. Why? Because of the existence of the Non-

1097
Intervention Agreement. We hoped that this agreement would be well-observed. If it had been, the position would have been very different. I want to make it clear to the House that if all Governments in Europe who have accepted the Non-Intervention Agreement were strictly enforcing it, there could be no possibility of British ships taking arms from a foreign country in Europe to Spain. It is clear that this case could not then have arisen. It is unfortunately because some foreign countries are not carrying out this policy as we are carrying it out that this situation arises.
The alternative to what we are doing would be the granting of belligerent rights. I think it can be argued very strongly that it would have been wiser to have granted belligerent rights at an earlier stage. We preferred to pursue the non-intervention policy— they are not, of course, incompatible—but we have preferred not to grant the parties the right to search our ships. I repeat, I do not understand how we can be accused of running away because we have not granted to people the right to stop and search our ships on the high seas. I believe that that accusation arises from confused reasoning, and equally I think I can show the House that the charge that this Bill in some way helps the insurgents also arises from confused reasoning. Since we have not granted belligerent rights, we have not granted the right to stop and search our ships on the high seas. At the moment it is not the Government of Spain that is stronger at sea, but General Franco—the insurgents. How in the world can it be said that by not admitting belligerent rights to stop our ships, we are favouring General Franco?
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Those are not the only alternatives; there is the status quo— carrying on as we are to-day.
Sir AUSTBN CHAMBERLAIN: Are we to allow our shipowners to make a profit which we deny to our manufacturers?
Colonel WEDGWOOD: We are not thinking of the shipowners, nor is the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary. We are thinking of fair treatment for the Spanish Government, so that they may still be able to get supplies.
Mr. EDEN: The right hon. Gentleman is, in fact, asking us to continue a policy
1098
which forbids the supply of arms from this country in British ships, but allows it from foreign countries.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Hear, hear.
Mr. EDEN: That is not a position the Government take up.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that arms come very largely from Italy and from Germany. What he is trying to do is to stop the other side from getting any supplies from Russia. I am glad to say it is getting them, and he ought to be glad as well.
Mr. EDEN: I cannot accept that definition. In point of fact, the number of British ships engaged in this traffic is very small, but it seems to us illogical to say that we will protect our ships on the high seas even when they are pursuing a policy which is contrary to an international agreement we have signed. Let me deal now with another point which was made by the hon. Member for Derby. He said that this is the first time a Bill of this kind has been introduced. That is true. It is the first time non-intervention in such a conflict has been attempted. It may be a 'right policy or it may be a wrong one, but this Bill arises from that policy. I would also point out that it is the first time in recent history that a civil war in Europe showed a definite danger of becoming a European war, and that, being the justification for the nonintervention policy, is also the justification for this Bill.
The hon. Member for Derby made another point to which I must refer. It was a very strange point. He said it is as defensible for Russia to send arms to the Spanish Government as it was defensible for us and the French Government to have sent our armies into Belgium. That argument completely ignores the fact that Russia, like ourselves, has signed the Non-Intervention Agreement. We had not signed an obligation not to go to the help of Belgium in 1914; on the contrary, we had signed an obligation to do so. Surely it is clear to the House that the responsibility of all who have signed this Agreement is similar, and that we have all of us to seek to carry it out. It is no more excusable for Soviet Russia—although I admit it may arouse more sympathy in some quarters—to send arms to Spain than it is for any other government to do so.
Mr. MAXTON: There was a difference in method. [An HON. MEMBER: "And a difference in time."] The other Governments said that they agreed not to send arms, and sent them. At a later date, Soviet Russia intimated openly and publicly that, as they would not stop intervention, she was not bound by the Agreement.
Mr. EDEN: I cannot go into the detailed arguments again. I want to deal with the next point that was raised. 1 was asked why we acted at once in this matter, and did not wait and consult with the other Governments concerned. We acted at once because we judged it to be a British interest to do so. Once a declaration had been made of a threat of a blockade and we had met that declaration by the assertion that we proposed to defend our ships on the high seas should any such attempt be made, equally we thought it to be our duty to carry out the further stages of our policy in order, as far as lay in our power, to reduce the risks which admittedly are inherent in the policy we are pursuing.
Mr. BELLENGER: When I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether his Department had received information that General Franco was intending a blockade, he replied "No." Has the right hon. Gentleman any fresh information that General Franco proposes to do this?
Mr. EDEN: No, my answer was perfectly correct. No communication had been made to us through the diplomatic channel at that time, but statements have been made publicly and there have been declarations in the Press of which, quite naturally, we took notice. [Interruptions.] If the House is going to say that it is not the Foreign Secretary's duty to do all in his power to avoid incidents, then I feel differently; but, with all respect, I do not believe that to be the desire either of the House or of the nation. I believe the nation desires that, while pursuing a policy which we seek to make as just and impartial as we can, we should do our utmost to avoid incidents in which this country might become involved.
I would like now to deal with the position of other Governments. It is true that. I made a statement in the House on this policy which, at the time, received a considerable measure of
1100
approval from hon. Members opposite because of our refusal to grant belligerent rights. When I made that statement I had not consulted with other Governments, but I had informed the French Ambassador, and I was fairly confident of what the view of the French Government would be. [Interruption.] I knew perfectly well that they were as anxious as we were to avoid incidents. I was fairly confident that they would take similar action to our own, but whether they will do it by legislation, I do not know—I believe it is not necessary to have legislation in their case. But they are taking certain steps of a similar kind to prevent their ships from carrying arms to Spain, because they do not wish it to happen either. As the President of the Board of Trade explained, the Norwegian Government, which is a Left Government —more Left, I believe, than hon. and right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench Opposite—have already taken similar action.
I was asked to approach other Governments, and certainly I am prepared to do that. I think we must treat these matters frankly. I have ventured to explain the distinction which seems to exist. We are trying to prevent British ships from carrying arms from foreign ports to Spain. If we have complaints —and we have certain complaints, of course, against other Governments—I think the House will agree that the complaint against, shall we say, the totalitarian States is not so much that they take other people's arms to Spain as that they send their own. I have not heard anybody say that Germany is breaking this Non-Intervention Agreement —or that Italy is breaking it—because she is taking arms from some little neutral country to Spain. I do not believe that is happening for a moment; but the existence of this gap, as I said previously, is due to the fact that everybody is not carrying out this agreement as they ought. I am quite willing to make an approach—I think the matter was raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness—but I am pointing out a certain distinction which, I think, exists. I will now deal with another main criticism of this Bill; that is, the position of Portugal. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), at Question Time yesterday, intervened and said that it was notorious

1101
that Portugal had become a conduit pipe through which munitions were pouring in. Of course, "notorious" is not evidence.
Miss WILKINSON: It is in the Press.
Mr. EDEN: Nor are statements in the Press evidence.
Mr. STEPHEN: It was Franco's statement.
Mr. EDEN: What was the date of that statement? It was probably long before the Non-Intervention Agreement. Everybody knows what are the sympathies of Portugal. I know their sympathies, just as I know the sympathies of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But we have to proceed by evidence and we must be fair to Portugal, and I want the House to be fair to Portugal. This is the position. We have had evidence of certain breaches of the Non-Intervention Agreement against certain countries, and we have sent some of them to the Non-Intervention Committee, but we have had none against Portugal. This is the point I want to bring home to the House. Not only have we had none against Portugal, but only two charges of alleged breaches of the Agreement against Portugal have been brought before the Committee at all. I am revealing no secret in saying this. Those two were brought forward early in October—two months ago. The first was by the Spanish Government and the second by the Soviet Government. Both were examined by the Committee, together with the Portuguese Government's reply. In both cases the Committee, all of them—all the European States, mark you—except the Soviet representative, came to the conclusion that they had received no proof of breach of the Agreement by the Portuguese Government. That, as I say, is two months ago and since then no Government has seen fit to bring any further charges against the Portuguese Government.
Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any country has been found guilty by the committee of any breach of the agreement at all?
Mr. EDEN: That is quite another point. What I am saying is that here is a case where there was real unanimity, where everybody but one said "not guilty."
Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Is it not a case of "not proven" rather than of "not guilty"?
Mr. EDEN: There was no proof of it. I want to say one further word on Portugal. We have made inquiries from time to time of our representatives in Portugal. More than once in the early stages of the dispute I have telegraphed to His Majesty's Ambassador and he has told me on each occasion that he had no evidence of violation of the agreement by Portugal. Only this morning I sent a further telegram and I have had a precisely similar reply. I suggest to the House now that the attitude of a section of the House towards Portugal shows just that partiality of which they complain in His Majesty's Government. Because Portugal is a Fascist or right wing Government, they are convinced that that Government must be doing things of this sort, even though they have no evidence whatever for it. In that connection, I have a further observation to make. It has been suggested that we ought to have extended this Bill to cover shipments to Portugal. If you were to do that, clearly it would mean that the whole Non-Intervention Agreement should cover Portugal as well as Spain. That is the natural consequence of the argument.
Let the House observe what the position would be. The nations would say to the Portuguese Government, which is not itself a manufacturer of arms at all, "You are not to receive any arms of any kind as long as this civil strife in Spain goes on, even though it is next door to you. Even though you may be in a more anxious position"—and they certainly are— "than other countries which are more distant, you are to have no arms." What is to be the reason for this attitude? They are to have no arms because they are neighbours of Spain, because they have a land frontier which marches with the Spanish frontier. That would be the reason. Of course, the condition of proximity to Spain applies not only to Portugal but to France. Is anybody going to suggest that the same thing should be done towards France? I do not believe it. I think the French Government have observed the agreement extremely well. Where I differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite is that I cannot, without authoritative evidence, accept

1103
their view that the Portuguese Government is not doing so.
Mr. PRITT: I would not have dreamt of interrupting the right hon. Gentleman had it not been that he—perfectly fairly, no doubt—is putting it in a way in which we have never attempted to put it in any of our arguments. We have drafted an Amendment dealing with this point. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen it, but it has been examined in the ordinary course to see that it is in order and it represents the point of view which we put forward. We do not suggest that Portugal should be deprived of arms. We suggest that just as arms should not be trans-shipped at sea for the purpose of going to Spain, so they should not be trans-shipped in the ports of any country neighbouring Spain for that purpose.
Mr. EDEN: That would include France. But that is a different point from the point which was put earlier in the Debate. I want to deal now with what I believe to be the underlying issue in this discussion, and that is the position of the nonintervention policy as a whole. I would remind the House that the French Prime Minister, speaking the other day at a great public meeting in Paris, pointed out that not one country had yet denounced the Non-intervention Agreement. Let me say that His Majesty's Government have no intention whatever of being the first to commit what we believe would be a great act of folly. We believe that policy to be still the correct one for Europe and for peace. I would ask the House to consider still—because the problem is still there—what is the alternative. That alternative has been extremely well put more than once recently at conferences where hon. Gentlemen opposite stated their views. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), whose views command great respect. said to the Edinburgh Conference:
"What is the alternative to non-intervention?"
That is still our question. He said:
"If we lift the embargo, it is hard to see the end. It must, so far as we are able to judge, land us into a great international conflagration."
I agree and the Government agree. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member
1104
for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), speaking in rather more flowery language said—
Mr. MAXTON: Is this at the same conference?
Mr. EDEN: Yes.
Mr. MAXTON: That was some months ago.
Mr. EDEN: Yes, but the problem is still there. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield asked:
"Is this Conference prepared to have a battle between democracy and dictatorship over the bleeding body of Spain?"
Because we must apply the alternative it does not mean that the Government are satisfied with the working of the Non-Intervention Agreement. Of course we are not. It is not being observed as it could be, and as it should be. In the view of the Government, the nations who are not strictly observing the Agreement are running a grave risk of doing a disservice to the maintenance of peace in Europe. Moreover, they are making it much more difficult for us to join in effective international co-operation in the future. I agree with hon. Members opposite that the position as it is to-day is unsatisfactory, and the British representative on the Non-Intervention Committee is, to-morrow, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, going to make clear our anxieties and our apprehensions on this score. There is a great responsibility which rests on us all rigidly to observe the Agreement which we have accepted.
There is another aspect of the question to which I would for a moment refer, and that is the position of so-called volunteers who are joining up, according to our information, in increasing numbers on either side. At present that is not a breach of the Agreement. It is not our fault that it is not a breach of the Agreement, but such is the case. We think that the Agreement should cover this matter. We think it wrong that volunteers from other countries should take part in this fighting in Spain, and, if I may say so, the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) neatly hit off that situation in a Supplementary Question yesterday. We intend that this matter also shall be raised by our representative on the Non-Intervention Com-

1105
mittee to-morrow, and I repeat that it has not been through any lack of desire on our part that agreement on this matter has not been come to long since.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that the Government, in the policy which they have pursued in this matter, step by step though it has been with other democratic nations in Europe, particularly France, have been actuated by sympathy with the insurgents. [Hox. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That definitely is not so and I am glad to see that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite do not agree with some of those who sit behind them on that point. I think that some hon. Members opposite, very largely because their sympathies are so strongly with the Spanish Government, view every one of our actions with jaundiced eyes. It is inevitable that there should be among hon. Members of this House, those who have sympathies with one side or the other, but I suggest that to judge the matter solely from a Spanish point of view, on one side or the other, is not the duty of the Government. Our duty is to judge it from the British point of view.
I ask the House to believe that we have entered upon this policy and persisted in it because we believe it to be the best policy in the interests of European peace. I ask the House not to think that on that account the Government are either unsympathetic or unfeeling as to what is going on in Spain. I think I can say that it is, in truth, our continued neutrality, understood by both sides, which has enabled this country to play a unique part in the humanitarian field in this struggle. Through our consular officers and our Navy we have been responsible for saving literally thousands of lives, and when all the figures and facts can be given, I think the House will be impressed with the result. Only yesterday the Foreign Office received an appeal from a part of Spain where hitherto we have done no work asking us to arrange for an exchange of prisoners. Of course we shall try to do so, and I hope we shall succeed. But I think I am justified in telling the House that I am convinced that we are able to do this kind of work largely because both parties believe us to be the most genuinely neutral of the European countries.
1106
So much for the humanitarian side. Hon. Members may say that that is only one side, and that there is an appalling position as regards the actual fighting. There, again, it may be that this Government will be able to do more. It may be that an opportunity will be offered on which we can do more. If it does, I assure the House that the Government do not intend to miss that opportunity. I think we shall be better placed to render help in bringing peace to Spain through this—as I believe it to be—strict neutrality which we have observed. Certainly, I give this undertaking. If opportunity offers, or if we think the moment propitious to make an attempt, we shall make it, whether we succeed or fail. All I ask the House is that the moment, the opportunity, the occasion, shall be left to our own judgment. In this matter we have pursued this policy consistently, and we do not intend to depart from it. This Bill is, in our judgment, a necessary part, though a small part, of our work, and I hope that the House will approve of it.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. ATTLEE: I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has made a speech in explanation of this Bill and the causes behind it, because we got no speech at all from the President of the Board of Trade. The reading of a brief that he gave us was an insult to this House. It is not the first time that it has occurred. The last time the right hon. Gentleman addressed this House he came down here with a Bill and made a careless speech from a brief that had not been adapted to the occasion. This afternoon he read a brief, was unable to answer questions about it, and did not appear to understand them. It is not fitting that a Bill should be introduced in that way. Therefore I welcome the speech of the Foreign Secretary, in which he has attempted to put the case for this Bill. He has not made out his case. He said a good deal about there having been a small gap which now had to be filled. I cannot understand why this small gap appeared only just now. You have had the Nonintervention Agreement running for a considerable time. You have had breaches of that Agreement. You have had in existence all that time the mercantile marine of this country, and the obvious possibility that it could be employed in bringing arms from other countries to

1107
Spain for one side or the other. There was no provision against it in the Nonintervention Agreement. What was the cause of the discovery of the gap? It was a threat by General Franco. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this gives the impression of splendid neutrality. It does not. It only gives the impression that this Government is afraid of a threat by General Franco.
I was surprised at the right hon. Gentleman making the point about the private manufacture of arms after all we have heard from the party opposite on that—the party that decorated the late Sir Basil Zaharoff, the party that supported private manufacture. It does not meet the point made by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) that a Government has the right to import arms to defend itself against aggression, and against that right we have had this Nonintervention Agreement. The Agreement was not signed by all countries, it was only signed by European countries. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should imagine that it is impossible to bring arms from countries outside Europe, and that it is impossible to bring arms in British ships, or in British ships registered in the Dominion. The fact is that this Bill does not close the gap. That is really the trouble in regard to the whole policy of non-intervention. The right hon. Gentleman has always put it forward as being necessary in order to prevent a dangerous incident. We agreed to it at the start in the hope that it would do that. It has become abundantly plain that a large number of breaches of the agreement have occurred, and that it has not prevented the possibility of incidents.
Now we have this Bill which again is not going to fill the gap because, as we have pointed out, the Government seem to have forgotten entirely that the British Isles is part of the Commonwealth of Nations. It is surprising how often that happens now. The President of the Board of Trade did not seem to have thought about it. The Secretary of State for the Dominions knew nothing. It is only when we get the words of the Foreign Secretary that we know anything about it. They put this forward on the ground that the Dominions have not much shipping. But Canada has 6,812 steamers,
1108
of a net tonnage of 1,396,153. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?" J It does not matter where they are. This Bill is presumably not meant to act this week, and its provisions are not only in relation to ships in European waters at this moment. There are other ships in the Dominions. If by this Bill you effectively cut off a huge amount of the mercantile marine of this country the enterprising people who engage in this trade will go far and wide in search of vessels, and it is possible for them to use Dominion vessels. The Dominions are not parties to the Non-intervention Agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the people who do this will be acting contrary to the policy of the British Government. Certainly they will in the British Isles, but they will not be acting contrary to the policy of the Dominion Governments that have not signed the Non-intervention Agreement, and they will be breaking no law, because a Bill like this has not been passed in the Dominions. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the amount of danger that arises from partial legislation of this kind, which insists on considering the British Isles as standing alone and ignoring the position of the Dominions.
The Government of Spain has the right to a supply of arms. The Australian, Canadian and New Zealand shippers have a right to sell arms to the lawful Government of Spain, and a right to send their ships to take arms from other countries to Spain. Now we have the position in which the right hon. Gentleman says that in order to avoid the possibility of incidents we are forbidding our ships to carry these arms. But they are not forbidden to Dominion ships, and therefore there is the possibility of incidents just as before. Suppose that you get a Dominion ship taking a cargo to the Government of Spain and suppose that General Franco interferes, what are the British Government going to do? The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the British Government will be defending these ships on their lawful occasions. You will have therefore two categories of British ships, one of which will be defended by the Navy and the other which will not; one of which General Franco will search and the other which we will search for him. It is an

1109
extraordinary, slipshod way of doing business to say, "This has not happened, it may not happen now." When you have a civil war of this kind you may have to search all round the world for weapons and for ships. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point that this Bill is one which does not relieve the whole danger. The Dominions ships presumably can travel the 1,000 miles of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. They may presumably collect arms on the way.
The right hon. Gentleman told us a great deal about Portugal. He seemed rather scornful about reports in the Press, but he seems ready to act on Press rumours when they suit him, and to deny them when they do not suit him. I am not satisfied that the Government have done their best to get accurate information, and it does not convince me when I am told that the Non-intervention Committee has made an inquiry and that the charge is not proved. The policy that has been followed here is neither British nor good international policy. The fact is that the Non-intervention Agreement has proved a failure. The general expectation was that if you applied this Non-intervention Agreement you would bring this war to an end. But this war has got worse and worse, and to-day you have a position in Spain in which you practically have a war a I'outrance between the invaders and the defenders; you have troops brought in from Morocco, you have the sweepings of Europe enlisted, and you have the most ruthless form of warfare. The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) seemed surprised that General Franco had not been defeated already, and argued from that that the Spanish people were not against him. But war is very different to-day from what it was when the Peninsular War was fought, and it is the possession of weapons that has enabled General Franco to go on, and his modern weapons are being used with the utmost ruthlessness.
You have a great capital city being bombed night and day, and masses of women and children being killed. It is said in the Press that the Government should evacuate the city, that it is their fault for defending it. But massacre does not end when the Government forces
1110
evacuate a town or village. All that happens is that General Franco's forces come in and it merely means that massacre goes straight on. We are facing a situation which has steadily got worse, and there seems no immediate prospect of ending it. We say that the non-intervention policy has broken down and that it has worked in a one-sided way. This Bill will not assist even in the keeping of the ring. I was not impressed with the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Portugal. There is no reason why the British shipper should not get arms from some country and tranship them in Portuguese ports. The result of this, as of most things that have happened under the Agreement, is to play into the hands of the rebels all the time. I want to see this struggle brought to an end. The longer it goes on the more intense it will be, the greater the atrocities that will occur, and it will leave the whole of Spair a desert.
I would like to see whether some action cannot be taken by the great States of Europe to bring an end to the war. I agree with the tribute which has been paid to those who have done magnificent humanitarian service, but I think we ought to get somewhere beyond this mere ambulance work. I fear this thing is going on until we shall see a great city laid entirely waste, until we shall see a population of almost a million driven out. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this matter could not be taken up by the League of Nations. Could it not be taken up, to begin with, on the humanitarian side to deal with this mass of refugees, as has been done in the past by organisations such as the Nansen organisation, and cannot some effort be made to see whether, before the whole of Spain is laid waste, this struggle cannot be brought to an end? This proposal is not a proposal that can possibly commend itself to our side of the House. It does not seem to me to make more likely the avoidance of international incidents, and I believe that, in so far as it goes, it will act in a one-sided way. It really amounts to this, in the eyes of the world, that having run away from every possible dictator, the Government are now running away from General Franco.
7.17 p.m.
Wing-Commander JAMES: I hope the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and you, Mr. Speaker, will

1111
forgive me if I make no attempt to preserve the continuity of this Debate. All that I want to do is briefly to advance one or two considerations about the struggle in Spain which appear to me to be very relevant to this Bill. I speak within two very definite limitations. The first is that I wish to say nothing to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), with whom I have been working in very close harmony in the last few days, would object, and, secondly, that I hope, in the course of the next few days, to return to Spain, which I only left yesterday afternoon. It seems to me that the basic nature or character of this struggle in Spain has not yet been quite fully appreciated in this country. It is based, on both sides, upon an intensity of hatred that has to be seen to be believed. It is a clash of the most profound religious as well As political convictions on both sides. It is, I am afraid, in default of some quite unpredictable events, going to be a war as long as it is bitter. Without any exaggeration, it is going to be, in default of some intervention, a war to the death. Each side is out, quite ruthlessly, to utterly and absolutely exterminate the other side. It has all the ferocity of the religious wars of the Middle Ages and superimposed upon that the political theories of the twentieth century.
Both sides have received and are receiving an enormous volume of foreign support. Fortunately, I am not called upon to express my opinion on the Bill in the Lobby, because I am paired with the hon. Member for Broxtowe Cocks), who is now in Madrid. When hon. Members of any party talk about the assistance that General Franco's side have unquestionably received, and when they say that the war would have been over long ago had he not received this support, let them not forget that it is the proud and the legitimate boast of the Government side to-day that Madrid was saved by the intervention, at the eleventh hour, of this international column, a magnificent body of fighting men drawn from almost every country in Europe, who, for their principles, without any hope of reward, and with every prospect of an extremely unpleasant time, have rallied to the support of the Spanish Government. To talk as if the preponderance of foreign intervention
1112
was on one side is to attempt to weigh the imponderable.
I am tempted to say a word about the plight, not only of the people in Spain, but of the wretched prisoners, hostages, women, and children on both sides. I have only seen, for a few days, just one tiny facet of this appalling problem, but no exaggeration that the modern Press is capable an convey any idea of the situation in Madrid. It is perfectly and absolutely appalling. I would like to say a word about the actual character of the struggle so far, and if I appear to dogmatise a lot, I hope I may be forgiven, because I am speaking as briefly as possible. With, I think, one exception, so far as I know, the British correspondents in Madrid who have been supplying the public with their information are very young men. They are extremely nice and an extremely gallant body of excellent young men, some of them Colonials, but with that one exception they were too young to see the last War, and I think they have got the whole war out of perspective. Certainly they had entirely and absolutely misled me before I went to Spain. When they talk about intense bombardment, either from land or air, they have never seen a bombardment, and, what is even more surprising, they are not seeing it now.
It is quite different war fare. The war hitherto has been by comparison a war between two highly organised, ruthless sets of gangsters. While on the way up to Madrid we stopped to eat our rolls in a village, and while walking to the local posada for a drink of wine, we were met by a gentleman in perfectly good mufti who was carrying a submachine gun, and he came from the United States. He was a Spaniard who had been for years in America, and he appeared to be carrying the weapon of his normal trade. May I, at this juncture, in parenthesis, pause for a moment to pay a tribute to three very remarkable men who are upholding the honour of Great Britain in Madrid—Mr. Forbes and Mr. Scott, at the Embassy, and Mr. Newbiggin, of the Scottish ambulance. They have all three done the most amazing work, which has to be seen to be believed, but also they have, by their complete impartiality—an example to this House obtained and retained the confidence of the belligerents to a most extraordinary extent.

1113
I quite frankly confess that when, on the invitation of the hon. Members on the Opposite side, I went out to Spain, less than a fortnight ago, I thought our trip was a piece of rather idealistic folly. It seemed to me perfectly impossible, even before I realised the ferocity of the struggle, that we could do the slightest good. I am now quite sure that I was wrong. I do believe that this visit of Members of this House has, in some small fraction, mitigated, at least temporarily, some of the horrors, and when I say "some small fraction," I mean this, that so colossal is the volume of horrors that what in normal times would be a great deal is now but a drop in the ocean. Then comes the question of what this country ought to do. That is a very difficult problem and one on which I would not presume to touch, whatever my ideas may be, but one consideration does occur. How long can we, how long will we, be able to sit on the fence 7 I only pray and hope that there resides in the Cabinet enough youth and vigour to be able to take the extremely brave decisions which will have to be taken later on, and the sooner the better.
May I conclude by telling an anecdote which I believe is strictly relevant to the struggle? We met in Madrid a distinguished Englishman, who has been there for many years and who probably knows more about the internal situation in Spain than anyone else, and he told us this story: Many years ago he was climbing in the Guadarramas, the mountains that overlook Madrid, on a high ridge, and he came across an old stone monument. With difficulty he deciphered the inscription on it, and the inscription was, "Here lie the bodies of two brave men who fought to the death with their knives in a dispute over a melon," and he added that generations of Spaniards have looked at that memorial, in a glorious situation looking over a lovely bit of country, and have seen nothing incongruous in it. All that they have seen is a legitimate memorial to the bravery of two men who fought implacably to the death. But for foreign intervention on both sides or on either side, this war might have retained that sort of dimension. That time has long since passed. To-day the clash in Spain has ceased to be a Spanish civil war; it is already an international civil war on Spanish soil.
7.29 p.m.
Miss WILKINSON: I am sure I shall be voicing the opinion of everybody in this House if I pay my tribute to the gallantry of the last speaker and of his comrades who went out to Spain. Those of us who wished them well knew how terrific would be the task that they had in front of them. I can assure him that we all without distinction of party have read with feelings of pride of their heroism, and that we have felt that they really were carrying a message of humanity to a place where it was very badly needed. There is a point I want to raise in regard to the speech of the Foreign Secretary. Bad as the position is, things are rapidly getting to a situation where the international problem is becoming much bigger in Spain than the actual fighting. The speeches of the Foreign Secretary and of the President of the Board of Trade are really a series of pretences. This Government is paying only lip-service to impartiality. I would ask the Foreign Secretary what more could the Government have done if it had wanted General Franco to win? Both the right hon. Gentleman and the President of the Board of Trade quoted the agreement with them of Norway and of France, and said that these were Left Governments. This Government has taken a lead in organising a blockade by democratic governments of the democratic Government of Spain.
That is really what the whole of this Government's work has amounted to. The Government say that they have the Left Governments behind them. That is true, and it is because of the democratic prestige of Britain in Europe and the world—I cannot understand why such prestige is enjoyed by this Government at all—they have been able to get the domocratic Governments behind them in refusing the legitimate rights of the Government of Spain. I do not suggest that that only the Foreign Secretary wanted to do this. I know that the President of the Board of Trade would be delighted, for it would be in consonance with the whole of his public life. If the President of the Board of Trade or the Foreign Secretary had thought out whether there was really any service that they could have rendered to General Franco if they had wanted to—and I underline "if"—there is nothing that would have been so valuable to the in-

1115
surgents as organising a democratic bloc against the legitimate Spanish Government while Mussolini and Hitler engaged in supplying the rebels with arms. I am speaking of the early days when there was no question of Russian intervention and when the Russians were meticulously observing the Non-intervention Pact. When it became clear that other Governments were not observing the Pact, Russia still maintained a correct attitude. I would like to deal with a point raised by the leader of the Liberal Opposition when he said that the Commintern and the Russian intervention had in fact made the situation that led to the present troubles by organising actions against the Front Popular earlier this year.
I saw the situation in May and June this year and I was in touch with practically all sections of the Popular Front. It is simply not true that the Commintern at that time were making difficulties for the Popular Front. The hon. Gentleman has muddled up the various sections of the Popular Front and has assumed that action against which all the Communists in Spain strongly protested, were the work of the Commintern. It is not my business to defend the Communist party in Spain. In fact, there are not too many of them to defend even if one wanted to, but it is still the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has completely muddled up the actions of the C.N.T. and the work of the Communist section of the Popular Front which was engaged in fighting that particular section.
There is a curious aspect of the situation which it is difficult for people on our side of the House to understand. Several hon. Members on the other side have said that there are no vital British interests at stake in this matter. It seems rather strange that those who have been brought up in the normal school of British imperialism, of the importance of Gibraltar, of the All-Red line to India, and the rest of it, should suggest that threats to Gibraltar were not threats to the vital interests of the British Empire. I could imagine that in any other circumstances than these apoplectic colonels would be carried out of Piccadilly clubs at the very suggestion that there should be any other European Power established in the rear of Gibraltar. What is extraordinary about the whole of this conflict is that in Spain to-day two British
1116
interests are clashing. There are the imperial interests of Great Britain and the class interests of the present rulers of this Government and the country. When their imperial interests clash with their class interests, their class interests win.
Everybody who has spoken from the other side has assumed as a matter of course that General Franco is on the side of law and order. The Foreign Secretary has not suggested that here is a rebel general breaking his oath, bringing in foreign aid before there was any suggestion of foreign aid on the other side, and bombing women and children in his own country. There has been no condemnation of that. If it had been the other side, we can imagine how the Foreign Secretary or the President of the Board of Trade would have lectured this side of the House because of our lack of humanity and respect for law and order. But because it is their class that is doing this, because the rebels are the people with whom they normally associate, the importance of the imperial side of the struggle has been entirely lost sight of. I have seen a great deal of the struggle in Spain, and I know a good deal of the people there, and I feel the tragedy of what is happening and of that great country with its great traditions, with its art treasures and its real treasures in human life, being the cockpit, as the Foreign Secretary has called it, of the contending ideological doctrines of Europe.
It is the beginning of the war of Fascism versus Communism that is taking place in Spain. It cannot only be fought out there. It will be fought out in Europe, but whether finally between Germany and Russia or whether it drags the whole of us in, no one can say. That is the side of the struggle that nobody can view with anything but horror and alarm. What we on this side view with very real dread is the whole attitude of this Government. While talking of impartiality, they have in fact so arranged things that, if it had not been for one other country, General Franco by this time would have been in Madrid. It would not have been the weapons of General Franco that would have brought victory, but Italian and German weapons. Italy and Germany would then have proceeded to collect the bill for services rendered. The Front Bench opposite know that. Do they know

1117
what that bill is going to mean? Does the payment of the bill include Ceuta and the handing over of the Balearic Islands? If so, what excuse will the Government offer to their own Imperialists? Britain has had great democratic traditions in the past. It is a tragedy that we should be discussing a Bill still further to blockade the legitimate Government in Spain and that, in the course of the discussion on this the Foreign Secretary should even have suggested that before long he would be willing to grant belligerent rights to General Franco. It seems to me that this Bill is the coping stone on the whole of that long series of acts which those who were viewing the thing objectively would say was completing the British blockade of democracy in Spain.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. SANDYS: Although you, Mr. Speaker, have given us a very wide latitude in the Debate, I will not follow the hon. Lady into the intricacies of party politics in Spain, but I think that an impartial observer from a gallery in this House would have no doubt in deciding which side of the House was more impartial in its attitude towards this struggle. We on this side do not view with equanimity the establishment in Spain of either a Communist or a Fascist Government, but we are not so ready as hon. Members opposite to make a choice between those two evils. I am at a loss to know what the Opposition case is. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), but I am still none the wiser. He produced an ingenious theory that the Covenant of the League and all its provisions apply as much in civil wars as they do in international disputes, and I should have thought that he, with his knowledge of Geneva and its proceedings, would have known better. The hon. Member shakes his head, but if he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that he devoted a considerable passage of his speech to stating that theory.
Mr. NOEL-BAKER: I said that Signor Mussolini had sent Italian aircraft from the air forces of the Italian Crown.
Mr. SANDYS: I think the hon. Member will agree with me that the Covenant deals in the main with the relations between sovereign States and that therefore
1118
the question of civil war does not arise. It cannot arise unless the rights of belligerency are accorded to both parties. Yet the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the recognition of belligerent rights. However, that is a matter with which I shall deal later. Again, the only contribution which the Leader of the Opposition was able to make was to join in the general grouse against Portugal. One would think that the Opposition had something more concrete to say against this Bill, which I understand they are intending to oppose. I would go further than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the subject of Portugal. I submit that it is not only France against whom we would have to impose an embargo; we would have to impose it against not only the entire Continent of Europe, but also the Continents of Asia and Africa. This Measure is purely a maritime Measure, and because it does not deal with all the problems of the world that is surely no reason why the Labour party should oppose it. It deals very effectively with what it intends to deal with, and that is the import of arms on British ships to Spain.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party and the hon. Member for Derby also criticised the Government's policy and this Bill in particular as being one-sided. They said that the result would be that the Spanish Government would be adversely affected. I think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite forget that there are ports in Spain and in Spanish territory which are in the possession of the insurgents and that the naval forces are fairly equally divided between the two parties. This is not a Bill to deal only with the situation to-day but a Bill to deal with the situation which may arise at any time during the whole course of this unhappy struggle, which is by no means at an end. I submit that circumstances may arise at no distant date when it will be the Government naval forces which will be attempting to blockade an insurgent port.
Let me say that I warmly welcome this Bill, and, moreover, I hope that it may have important and far-reaching results. I hope that this Bill, and the non-intervention activities of the Committee in London which have preceded it, may prove to be the prelude to the establishment of a new code of neutrality, a code which will stress not so much the rights

1119
of neutrals as the obligations of neutrality. However, the immediate purpose of this Bill is, as I understand it, to prevent Great Britain from being dragged into this Spanish conflict. I submit that if we are to be able to form an opinion as to the adequacy of this Bill to secure that result we must ask the Government for more precise information as to their attitude towards the question of the recognition of belligerent rights. I did not altogether understand what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meant by his brief reference to that important aspect of the question. He said that the Government were not at the moment thinking of recognising a. state of belligerency because of their adherence to the Non-intervention Agreement—let me say in this connection that I fully and firmly support the policy of non-intervention--but almost in his next sentence my right hon. Friend added "But, of course, there is nothing incompatible between adherence to the policy of non-intervention and the recognition of belligerent rights." There he left it. He first said that we were not going to accord belligerent rights because we were adhering to the policy of non-intervention, and then said there was nothing incompatible between the two. I therefore ask the Government, when they reply, if they will give us some further information on their attitude towards the recognition of belligerency. It seems to me that that step might well prove to be the best solution of our difficulties.
If belligerent rights are—and I understand there is a possibility of it—to be ultimately accorded to the combatants it would obviously be preferable that all the Powers should recognise belligerency simultaneously, particularly in the present case, when there is one group of Powers supporting one party and another group of Powers known to favour the other party. I realise that to obtain a simultaneous recognition of belligerency would inevitably require considerable diplomatic consultation. If the object of this Bill is merely to tide over this inevitable period of consultation, and in the meantime to reduce the danger of the occurrence of an international incident which might drag us into the conflict in defence of our rights, I think this Bill is a wise, necessary and a salutary measure of international precaution. If,
1120
on the other hand, this Bill were to be regarded not as an adjunct but as an alternative to the ultimate recognition of belligerent rights, I think that it would reflect a somewhat precarious policy.
The occasion which has given rise to this Bill is the likelihood of the Spanish conflict extending to the seas on a considerable scale arid the possibility that one party may establish an effective blockade of the ports in the possession of the other. In these circumstances I think the Government reasonably envisage the possibility that the blockading party may claim the right to search foreign merchantmen. It is, as I understand, the object of this Bill to reduce to a minimum any excuse which the blockading navy may have for attempting to search British ships, and that is an object with which all hon. Members on every side of the House will be in agreement. But let us remember--and this is, I think, an argument in favour of considering very seriously the recognition of belligerent rights—that arms and ammunition are not the only form of war contraband, and that before very long it may well be that we shall have to consider restrictions which may be imposed by proclamation by one or other party prohibiting the importation of general supplies far outside the range of this present Bill. In this connection I do not believe it would be practicable to extend indefinitely the scope of the schedule of articles provided for in this Bill.
Nevertheless, while we may reasonably hope that this Bill will reduce the danger of an international complication arising from an attempt to search British ships yet, unless it is ultimately, and reasonably soon, followed by a recognition of belligerency, we shall still be leaving far too much to chance and to the discretion of the blockading party. Let us envisage the possibility of the insurgents establishing an effective blockade of the port of Barcelona and, in spite of the passing of this Bill, insisting on stopping and searching British merchant ships. If the British Government had not by then recognised a state of belligerency His Majesty's Government would, I think, be in honour bound to lodge a protest, and if that protest were disregarded they would be obliged, as I think the Foreign Secretary admitted this afternoon, to follow it up with armed intervention, by the British

1121
Navy in the Mediterranean. Such a course of events, which is by no means an improbable one, has, I think, all the makings of an ominous and an ugly international situation.
What is more, I believe that in such circumstances—and this is a matter on which 1 should be glad to have the observations of the Government—even our legal right in international law to resist search might possibly be in doubt. If the question came to be referred to the Court of International Justice at The Hague or to some other international tribunal it is more than possible that they would declare that by the action of the Non-intervention Committee—and this present Bill might still further emphasise that—the existence of a state of belligerency had already, in fact, been implicitly recognised, and that, therefore, we and the other Powers concerned were no longer entitled to deny to either of the combatants the full rights of belligerency. I submit, moreover, that unless this Bill is soon followed by a recognition of belligerent rights we, as a great naval power, who have insisted on our rights in the past, and may have to insist on them in the future, will be setting a somewhat dangerous precedent which we may one day have cause to regret. Furthermore, I submit that by running the risk of becoming embroiled in the Spanish struggle through an excessive reluctance to recognise belligerency we may well be jeopardising all the invaluable work of the International Committee for Non-intervention in which His Majesty's Government have played such an honourable and a successful part. In these circumstances, while 1 shall in any case warmly support this Measure I venture to hope that the Government will recognise that the provisions of this Bill are essentially bound up with the question of the ultimate recognition of belligerent rights, and that they will, therefore, give us this evening some further information as to their policy and intentions in this matter.
7.59 p.m.
Miss RATHBONE: I hope the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) will excuse me if I do not follow him into the interesting points he raised. Much as I am in many respects doubtful about this Bill, and I think public feeling in this country would much more strongly criticise and resent a recognition of
1122
belligerent rights. The point I want to make is that none of the defenders of the Bill, neither the right hon. Gentleman who introduced it nor the Foreign Secretary, has either met or attempted to meet what is really the main bulk of the objection raised from these benches, and that is that whatever intention lies behind the Bill—and I agree with the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) in not questioning the genuineness of the Government's desire to make, through this Bill, a real contribution to international peace—we must judge political actions by their results and not their intentions. What troubles us is the quite undeniable fact that in its actual working-out the Non-intervention Agreement, supplemented by the present Bill, has repeated the irony of the Abyssinian crisis last year. Just as then the one really effective thing the League did was by an embargo nominally applied to both parties to prevent the victim of aggression from defending itself, so today the practical effect of the Non-intervention Pact has been to prevent the legitimate Government from arming itself.
I do not see how the Government can deny—certainly it has evaded but it has not denied the argument that has been brought forward, that many of the things said by the Foreign Secretary to-day, and still more contained in his speech of 29th October, established that point. 1 remember him on 29th October reminding the House that the Spanish Government were in a weaker position to equip than were the rebels because the rebels had the control of the Army and the greater part of the arsenals. In the same speech he told us that the original intention of the Non-intervention Pact was that it should come into operation only after the German, Italian, Portuguese and U.S.S.R. Governments had agreed. Yet actually he told us that our own Government had begun to prohibit the export of arms to Spain from the very beginning of the conflict. I estimate that was some time in July—I am not aware when the prohibition of the export of arms actually came into operation. [An HON. MEMBER: "The 19th August"] Following that I think the right hon. Gentleman said that actually no export of arms from this country to Spain had been licensed after the beginning of the civil war; that was I think the expression he used.

1123
France recognised the Non-intervention Pact on 8th August, the German Government did not even pretend to adhere to it until 24th August, the Portuguese Government on 27th August and the Italian Government on 28th August. There was a whole fortnight's dalliance in each case before the Fascist States which supplied the rebels even pretended to adhere to the pact. The Foreign Secretary also reminded us, in the same speech, that Italy was geographically extremely well placed for supplying arms to Spain, and he might have added that Portugal also was extremely well placed. He said that one of the reasons for non-intervention was because of the factors on the side of those who were supplying arms to the rebels. The democratic Powers joined in the pact long before the Fascist Powers and the rebels were better supplied from the very beginning. The rebels were better situated. Why then was not more care taken that the Non-intervention Pact was not brought into actual operation until those who were supplying arms to the rebels had given evidence of their intention to stop-doing so?
What is the situation at present? Nobody can deny that Italy is still extremely well placed to supply arms to Spain and that Russia has a very long way to bring them. If Russia wants to supply arms to Spain she is very much more likely to need the help of British ships, or those of some other foreign Power, than is Italy or probably Germany. Inevitably, therefore, we are inclined to think that this, like the nonintervention pacts in the case of Abyssinia, is likely, because of the way it has been operated, to be almost entirely to the disadvantage of the legitimate Government of Spain.
Another point on which I want to say a word is the determined effort that has been made throughout the Debate by speakers on the other side, to make out that Russia is at least equally culpable with the Fascist Powers in the matter of breaches of the Non-intervention Pact. What are the facts? The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Government gave its adhesion to the pact two days after the French Government on 10th August. Is it stated that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Government committed any serious breaches of the pact between 10th August, when it signed it a
1124
fortnight before either Germany or Portugal or Italy signed it, until about the middle of October, when it had become perfectly clear that the pact was a farce, and when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Government gave full notice of its intention to have no more to do with the nonsense—to express it roughly?
I have done my best to find out what the Foreign Secretary really does believe is the case about the contribution of the Russian Government—I wish he was here because I do not like to criticise him in his absence—but I venture to think it was hardly worthy of the Foreign Secretary to insinuate in his reply to the hon. Member for Derby, as he did, that Russia had been more culpable in breaking the Non-intervention Pact than other countries, and to refuse to establish that insinuation. When I asked him the question in the House only the other day he gave an evasive reply. I asked, Is there any evidence that Russia had supplied arms to Spain in any substantial quantity previously to 5th October? He did not reply. I noted the statement made by Mr. Blum, who said yesterday that there was no such evidence.' The Foreign Secretary has not replied. Is it quite fair to make an insinuation of that kind about a great and friendly Power, and, when asked, "Did you mean it or not?" to plead the fact that the nonintervention conference proceedings are held in private and that he is not to reveal what has happened. He revealed hat happened about the Non-intervention Pact when he wanted to defend Portugal, and if he did not want to reveal what was the case about Russia he should not have insinuated something that he was not willing to prove.
I happened to be, during the last week of September, chairman of a small unofficial committee for investigating charges of breaches of international law by supplying arms to the rebels before there was any Non-intervention Pact, and subsequently breaches of the pact. At that time, the last week in September, we did not receive a single suggestion from anybody that Russia was sending arms to Spain. On the contrary, as the hon. Member for Derby said, we were taunted with the statement that the British Press in supporting the Government of Spain was more emphatically on

1125
that side than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We were asked, "When Socialist France is not sending arms to Spain, why do you want the British people to send arms to Spain?" There was far more convincing evidence than anything we have heard about the actual military situation at that time, and does anybody doubt that at that time, and for some time afterwards, the Spanish Government were on the very verge of defeat, not because they had not got far more men than General Franco but because those men were so miserably ill-equipped.
Who can account for the failure to take the Alcazar in Toledo, or the steady advance of Franco's troops to Madrid during the earlier part of the war except by the fact— as was described by eye-witnesses— that the Spanish troops were going to the front with the front rows armed with old rifles and the back rows with sticks? Would that have been the case if Russia had been sending supplies? Quite recently, within the last two or three weeks, why has there been a change in the military situation Everybody knows that it is because other countries besides Germany and Italy have been breaking the Non-intervention Pact since the thing became a farce. The hon. and gallant Member who left Madrid only yesterday told us that it was said in Madrid that it was the international force that saved Madrid, but why did Madrid need saving? Everybody knows it is because they had not got any arms. Is it, then, fair to talk of the Russian Government doing what it quite frankly said it was going to do, when it was seen that Italy and Germany were continuing their supply? I do not attach great importance to the supply that Italy and Germany sent after the pact. If they had observed the pact perfectly and sent nothing at all after the 24th, 27th and 28th August it would not have made much difference, because they had simply saturated Franco's troops with arms before that.
I think that so long as that argument is used the Members of the Government roust not blame other hon. Members for suspecting there is class prejudice in the matter. They see, and we all see, that the actual result of the Non-intervention Pact has been mainly to help the rebel troops, and they ask themselves, how it is this has been so
1126
manipulated? How it that whereas in the case of the Abyssinian dispute we were told over and over again that the Government could not take any single step until they were quite sure of the co-operation of the whole League, on this matter the Government has taken the first step? I admit France did so too, just as France was our fellow sinner last year in the Abyssinian matter. The result of it all is that through this talk of taking no part in the war, and limiting our commitments and keeping safe ourselves, what we are doing is to throw one by one of the surviving democracies of Europe into the arms of either Fascism or Communism. What can these weaker countries think when they find democratic States huddled into the corner of the fold, hoping that the wolf will feed on smaller lambs than themselves, and so will leave them alone, whereas the dictatorships protect their own?
I have not heard a speech that so unfavourably impressed me in that way as that of an hon. Member who said that the reason he wanted Franco to win was that if the Spanish Government won Germany and Italy would not stand it, and they would insist on entering openly into the conflict. If you are going to apply that argument to Spain where is it going to stop? Suppose that the next operation of this technique of Fascism is against Czechoslovakia, as is only too likely, for it is a country that has a strong discontented minority. If the strong discontented minority is stirred up to revolt, supported with men, money and armaments, and then one of the Fascist Powers comes to the rescue, we shall be told, I suppose, that we ought to wish the rebel minority to win, because otherwise we may have further trouble into which we have brought ourselves. But what is that party coining to that used to put the Union Jack up as a party symbol? Is it not plain what it will do whenever Fascism and Communism are set in rivalry or opposition
The hon. Member opposite, whose speech was not as wise as he looked— for it is not very good for British interests to have a Fascist Power at the gateway of the Mediterranean and along the southern border of France— said openly that he would rather have Fascism than Communism in Spain. But where is the menace of Communism? There is a

1127
menace of ideas perhaps, but does anybody think that Communist Russia is going to be a danger to our Imperial interests? Has Russia so little territory, or is she so finished in development, that she will bother about aggression on any other country for another 50 years at least? No sane man or woman thinks that. The struggle is between class fear and fear for private interests on the one hand, and fear for democracy, for liberty, and the sense of honour to the weaker countries that trust in us on the other, and in the clash between those two motives, class interest wins every time. I am not a Socialist and I am not a Communist, but I see the facts. Can one wonder that those of us who see those facts feel suspicious of a Bill like this? I should not be satisfied, even if I were told that the Bill is not to come into operation until Germany and Italy had signed it too. Why? Because the signature of Germany is not worth the paper it is written on. Whatever Amendments may be made in the Bill, I shall vote against it.
8.16 p.m.
Mr. MANDER: The House listened an hour or so ago to a very interesting speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), which brought such a breath of reality from the other side of the Pyrenees. One remark was made in it which I could not help feeling absolutely described the situation. It was that the international war has started. It has been going on in Spain for some time, but it is increasing in intensity, and sooner or later we shall inevitably be involved in it. No efforts of the Government can keep us out of it; they only tend to make the final intervention more disastrous. Ever since the fatal blunder of Abyssinia we have been on the run. We have been under the orders of the Fascist States, and we have not dared to interfere or to stand up to anything that they say or want to do.
We have to-day had from the Foreign Secretary a very spirited defence of the Government, as we should expect. To me it was a very unconvincing one. I hope, after the Debate to-day, we shall hear no more from Members of the Government about the unity in the House of Commons in support of the Govern-
1128
ment's foreign policy. Unity does not exist. There is the strongest opposition to the Government's foreign policy, and I hope that that will become quite clear to the Government and to the country as well. The Bill is another example of the Government's policy of isolation at all costs, and of keeping out for the time being, at any future risk to this country or to the British Empire. That policy, I believe, will have fatal results. The Foreign Secretary referred to the fact that this was a Bill only for filling up a small gap, but he said nothing about the enormous gap that is left open by which the Fascist States are pouring arms, as they have been doing for a long time, since the beginning of the civil war, into Spain. The small gap bears no comparison, and is a matter of no importance, beside the real thing which matters. I was a little surprised at the attempt he made to use the cloak of the private profit and private interests of British and foreign manufacturers in order to cover up the real fact, as my hon. Friend has just said, that the Bill will give a further advantage to the rebels. That is the whole reason why we are opposing it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) said that we should be influenced by any information which the Government could give us as to the willingness of other Powers like Germany, Italy, France and Russia to come in, and be equally bound by an engagement of this kind. The Foreign Secretary was not able to give any assurance whatever on that point. Of course, he could not. I never thought for a moment that he would do so. All that he could say was that he would consult, but even he did not pretend that consultation was likely to have any very happy results. He alluded to the fact that the Non-intervention Committee— I prefer to call it the Intervention Committee—was getting on happily and that none of its members had resigned. Why should they? They were simply disregarding it, and there is no point in withdrawing from an institution in which you absolutely decline to observe the rules. I fully agree with him that any undertaking that might be arrived at for non-intervention of the States, not simply of Germany and Italy, but Russia too, ought to be rigidly carried out.
It has already been said several times that the case of Russia is different, for

1129
the reason that for a considerable period she played the game and did not intervene until she saw that the rules were not being obeyed. Then she did the very natural and proper thing; she gave notification that she, too, would play her part in supplying arms. It is a very lucky thing that there is one State in the world which has the guts to stand up to the Fascist States. It is a very lucky thing for us. It is not a very pleasant thing to think that we are cowering behind the defences supplied by Soviet Russia at the present time, and that she is looking after our interests because we appear to be too feeble to take any stand about the matter ourselves.
The Foreign Secretary made reference to the Non-intervention Committee. I would like to ask whether information can be given to us in reply about the functions of the committee. The Foreign Secretary admitted, in reply to a question which I put to him, that no State had ever been found guilty of doing anything wrong at any time. That was the most devastating reply that we have had. It showed what an utter farce and humbug the whole thing is. It is most convenient for the Foreign Secretary, when he is asked inconvenient questions about the arrival of aeroplanes and munitions, and so on, in Spain, to be able to get up and say: "I must not refer to that; that is before the Nonintervention Committee." We have reason to know that while the proceedings of the committee are supposed to be secret, those proceedings are quite well known. They appear in the Press and are broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation. It would be interesting to know how that occurs. I would ask the Foreign Secretary if he could manage to persuade the committee to avoid presenting us every now and then with the spectacle of an ambassadorial dispute. We have quite recently had an example of a wild and savage attack, by Signor Grandi, upon Russia, and a natural reply in kind. I hope that the Non-intervention Committee will be more successful in the future in curbing the violence of any of its members.
I would ask the Member of the Government who is to reply to-night to be good enough to give us further information about what seems a very serious point. We are told that,
1130
although the Bill is not passed and has not the force of law, instructions have already been given by the Admiralty to British ships in the Mediterranean and in the neighbourhood of Spain, to take action as though this Bill already had the force of law. Why should they do that? Why cannot they wait? They waited for months; why not wait until they can act with legality? There is no sudden emergency. I should like to know precisely what those instructions are. Has the British Fleet been instructed to search vessels proceeding to Spain to see whether they have arms on board; or has the Fleet been instructed to avoid taking any action in defence of British ships which may be detained by the rebels because they carry arms? I think the House is entitled, before the Division takes place, to have some defence and some explanation of this very extraordinary and, to my mind, quite indefensible position.
Reference has been made to the case of Portugal. I quite see the difficulty of bringing Portugal in, but I do not believe that it is insurmountable. At any rate, it might be said that no British ship must carry armaments which are destined for Spain even if they pass through Portugal. I can quite see that there might be some difficulty in practice in finding that out, but it would lay down the law, and would provide some check, at any rate, on the situation. Certainly nothing has been said up to the present to reassure or satisfy one on that point. I feel that this Measure is contrary to the interests of this country and of the British Empire. No case has been made out for it, no satisfactory answer has been given by the Foreign Secretary to the questions put by my right hon. Friend, and for that reason we here intend to vote against the Second Reading.
8.28 p.m.
Duchess of ATHOLL: We are witnessing a terrible situation in Spain, and am not going to quarrel with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) or with the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) if they said some rather hard things about what they feel is the attitude of Members on these benches in regard to this question, but I think the hon. Member for Jarrow went too far in saying that the Government were not honestly trying to carry out a really impartial policy in adopting this

1131
policy of non-intervention. Having said so much, I feel bound in honesty to say that I think that that policy has told against the constitutionally elected government of Spain. My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) earlier in the Debate ridiculed the idea that the Spanish Government was constitutional, but obviously, from what he said, he recognised the recent election as having been constitutional. If that be so, the present Cortes is a constitutional body, and, as I understand, it supports the present Spanish Government, even though it is further to the Left than the one originally elected.
Since the non-intervention policy seems to me to have helped the insurgents, I cannot help viewing this Bill with some anxiety. It is, perhaps, almost inevitable that a non-intervention policy should tell against the Spanish Government. The Foreign Secretary has admitted that the insurgents have behind them bodies of troops not only trained, but well armed, and that they command the greater part of the arsenals of Spain. On the other hand, the Government had to raise new levies of untrained, undisciplined recruits, and to find arms for them. As the weeks have gone on, I think it has become ever clearer that the Government can count on the support of a much larger part of the Spanish people than the insurgents. I have been much struck by the continual repetition of the fact that the Moors and the Foreign Legion are doing the fighting for the insurgents, whereas we read of the Government's new militia levies, not only of men but of women, and I would wish to pay my tribute to the magnificent courage of the men and women who have gone up into the firing line, as we heard a few minutes ago, too often without adequate equipment. Therefore, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the insurrection, the nonintervention policy was perhaps bound to tell rather against the constitutional government.
Then one has to admit that a mistake was made in putting on our embargo against the export of arms before we were assured that other Governments were going to pursue the same policy. I can never forget that quite early in August we had convincing proof that Italian aeroplanes were being sent to the
1132
insurgents, nor that, on 13th August, I read in the "Daily Telegraph" that Sir Percival Phillips had wired from Gibraltar that he had heard that not only Italian, but German aeroplanes, and not only converted commercial aeroplanes, but bombers and fighters, were going to the insurgents. That was some five days after an assurance had been given by the German Government that they had not sent any armaments to Spain. It seems strange that, notwithstanding the evidence that existed on the 19th August that Italian and German fighting aeroplanes had been sent to the insurgents, the Government should put on an embargo. I think it would have been wiser to have waited until they were satisfied anyhow that other Governments which had taken this action were not going to take further action of the kind. Therefore, owing to the way in which the policy was introduced, and to the fact that, as we know, it was not being fully adhered to, it has further inured to the disadvantage of the Spanish Government.
I also wish to say, because I feel that rather loose statements have been made on this subject from this side of the House to-day, that I am quite convinced that the breaches of the nonintervention policy made by the Soviet Government took place very much later than the breaches made by others, and I am not surprised that the Soviet Government took the action that it did. I think we must not forget that the fight which the Spanish Government is waging has attracted to itself, not merely help from Soviet Russia, but help from exiles from Fascist countries. When the Foreign Secretary speaks of trying to get the nonintervention policy applied to the prevention of volunteers from going to Spain, I am sure he does not refer to exiles from other countries, because they have no nationality properly so-called, and, therefore, can hardly be legislated for by any Government. It is, I believe, a national force largely composed of men who are exiled from Fascist countries, and I believe it has been doing valuable work for the Spanish Government in the last few weeks. I was very glad to hear the assurance of my right hon. Friend that he would do everything he could to ensure that other Governments took the action which His Majesty's Government are now proposing to take, because, if there is no uniformity of action in this

1133
matter, the Bill will still further weight the scales against the Spanish Government.
I fully agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) in the anxiety with which lie has told us he views the possible success of the insurgents. It would raise most serious questions for this country and although, as a Conservative, I do not wish to see Spain in, the hands of the extreme elements of the Left, I must repeat what I said a week or two ago that my information from a representative on the insurgent side is that the extreme elements in Spain are Anarchist rather than Socialist or Communist. The Anarchists outnumber the Socialists and Communists put together. That is confirmed by the hon. Member for Jarrow, who is much better versed in matters affecting the Left than I can pretend to be. That being so, the fear that, if the existing Spanish Government won, we should be faced with a State which might be subject to the dictation of Soviet Russia seems to me to be a remote contingency. I probably should not tike the form of Government that might emerge, but I do not believe it would be a Government that would be subservient to Russia. As a matter of fact, it is extremely interesting to note that a leaflet dropped by the insurgents over Madrid which was published a month or two ago in the "Manchester Guardian" expressly appeals to the Anarchists to join them because their views are so radically different from those of the Communists.
So I think that, though there may be dangers to be feared on both sides, if the Spanish Government win we might have a not very orderly Spain, the dangers that that would involve to this country are very much less than those with which we might be faced if the insurgents won. Obviously, they have had the most valuable assistance from Fascist Powers which could not well be repaid in money, and would therefore have to be repaid by some transfer of territory or the use of ports, air bases and so on. Again, my friends on these benches are very apt to think that all the trouble that has taken place has been due to Russian intrigue, but when the insurrection began the Spanish Government had not recognised the Soviet Government, and it thus seems to me impossible
1134
that the Soviet Government can have been doing very much in Spain before that event. That is worth bearing in mind. I should like to endorse the appeal made by the right hon. Baronet to the Soviet Government to increase the efforts which I believe they are making to get the Communist International to desist from making trouble in other countries. It seems to me lamentable that, at a moment when all democratic and peace-loving countries are faced with such dangers, any Government that rejoices in the name of proletarian should not be doing its utmost, to prevent any fomenting of sedition in such countries. I am very thankful, need hardly say, to have my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will not miss any opportunity that may offer for mediation. I am sure he will always be on the look-out to do what he can, and I hope he will not be moved by the appeal that has been made from these benches in his temporary absence to grant belligerent rights to the insurgents.
8.41 p.m.
Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I should like humbly and respectfully to congratulate the Noble Lady on her speech. She has said many things which, I am sure, will be more convincing to the public, coming from her, than they would be coming from these benches. I hear a voice of protest below me saying that she no longer speaks for her party. There is apparent now a very interesting cleavage in the party opposite which the Noble Lady's speech emphasises very fully, and which I think the country ought to observe. She is following the line of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who is engaged upon what one might call a programme of Liberal Imperialism, in contradistinction to the reactionary capitalist Imperialism of the Front Bench opposite. They, indeed, have been prepared to sacrifice Imperialist rights to their ardent desire to preserve capitalism in different parts of the world, whereas the Noble Lady and the right hon. Gentleman are now taking the view that they are prepared to tolerate even Russia if that is likely to preserve the interests of the British Empire and of democracy. The Government have sacrificed Imperialist interests in the East to Japan in order to save China

1135
from becoming possibly Communist or Socialist. They are prepared to sacrifice Imperialist interests in North Africa in order to save Mussolini from being kicked out of Italy. Now they are prepared to sacrifice Imperial interests in the Mediterranean by such measures as this in order to do their little bit to assist Franco in winning in Spain. I look at this problem, quite frankly, from a partisan point of view, because I believe it is of vital importance to the working class movement all over the world that General Franco should be defeated. I believe the success of the legitimate popular Government of Madrid is a matter which vitally concerns a great many other countries besides Spain.
The Government have told us that one of their objectives in passing this Measure is to prevent the spread of war. I think it is Measures of this type which have in the past, and will in the future, lead to that very danger which they suggest they are trying to prevent, because one cannot, as the Foreign Secretary told us, discuss the matter except as part of the so-called non-intervention policy of the Government. If it were not for that policy, this Bill would never have been brought forward. That policy is now, and always has been, nothing more than a veil for an embargo upon the legitimate Government of Spain while a large measure of assistance was being given to the rebel enemies of that Government. The whole term "non-intervention" is an ingenious misnomer invented by the Government. There never has been any question of intervention either on one side or the other, and all that is being covered by the so-called non-intervention pact has in reality been the question of imposing an embargo stopping the legitimate Government from purchasing arms in this country and having them exported to Spain. The use of the term "non-intervention" has led a good many people to believe that if they were not for the Non-intervention Pact, opposite to the Non-intervention Pact would be intervention by the Government, a thing which has never been suggested, as far as I know, by anyone at all.
If one examines the arguments which are put forward in support of this policy one must, of course, examine the legal basis upon which the Government are
1136
pretending or are suggesting that it can be justified. It is not a question here of rival rights between two different persons or bodies in Spain. As far as international law is concerned there is only one Government of Spain at all, and there is no question of any other body having Sovereign rights in Spain at the present time. The fallacy that lies behind all the arguments dealing with the Non-intervention Pact is the fallacy which regards the position as if there were two rivals, both of equal power, fighting against one another in the Spanish Peninsular. The rebels are not, and cannot be, recognised internationally; they have indeed no international existence at all. Therefore, one has to regard this problem, not from the point of view of its effect upon two parties equally, but as to its effect upon the only party whom we are entitled to consider as having rights in Spain at the present time. Clearly what it has done—I think nobody would disagree with the facts—has been to hamper the Spanish Government in the legitimate defences of their own territory, and if one asks why it is that the Spanish Government should be hampered in the legitimate defence of their own territory, it seems to me that there can be only one possible answer that the Government can give, and that must be, "Because we do not like the Spanish Government. We are afraid of a Socialist or Communist Government that may follow the Liberal Government of Spain, and we therefore have invented this device by which we are able without appearing to do so, while professing neutrality, in fact to weight the scales against that Government."
The only conceivable excuse for such a policy, from the legal point of view, would have been if it could have been shown that the legitimate Government of Spain could have been helped in maintaining its sovereignty by the imposition of some embargo upon some of the ports of Spain occupied by the rebels. But so far from that being the case, the obvious, and indeed the universally admitted fact is, that this Agreement operated, certainly during the first three months during which it was in force, in precisely the opposite direction. It was a cloak for the assistance of the rebels by the Fascist Powers while being also an embargo upon the Government which very nearly succeeded in bringing that Government to defeat, had it not been that after the obvious failure

1137
of the Non-intervention Pact to achieve any measure of neutrality and had not Russia, seeing the legitimate Government of Spain being bled to death by these pro. cesses, stated quite openly to the world that, unless other people were prepared to observe this fact, she would be forced to lend some measure of aid to the Government of Spain. That, I should have thought, was the attitude that should have been adopted by every democratic government which had any regard at all for the preservation of Spanish democracy.
Mr. BEVERLEY BAXTER: If the German Government should lose the confidence of the German people and the trade unions should revive, and it became evident that the Government no longer had the support of the people, does the hon. and learned Gentleman still feel that the only Government that we could recognise and must assist would be a Fascist Government, oppressing and tyrannising the trade unions and the workers?
Sir S. CRIPPS: I should be quite certain that that would be the only Government that the hon. Gentleman would recognise or assist.
Mr. BAXTER: I am asking about the Government and not myself.
Sir S. CRIPPS: I am not answering for the Government. I have stated that I am frankly partisan. The view I take I would be in favour of the working-class movement, whichever side it was, and I am dealing with the argument which the Government put forward as justification for the Non-intervention Pact. I am saying that if they justify it on the basis of their legal obligations, as I understand them to do, then there are certain circumstances which follow from those legal obligations. I am pointing out that if they justify them they can do so only upon the basis that the neutrality operates equally in both directions. That is to say, that any measure of this sort which is agreed upon does not weigh against the legitimate Government. Otherwise, there can be no legal basis For the imposition of Such an embargo. It might legally be imposed by international law against rebels to assist the Government. That would be legal, but it would not be legal if it were imposed in the opposite direction so as to have the opposite effect.
Mr. BAXTER: May I—
Sir S. CRIPPS: I am afraid that I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. It is really only since the time has arrived when there has been a universal disregard of the Non-intervention Pact that it has ceased to be a menace to the European situation. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary asked what was the alternative to a non-intervention pact. The alternative is to drop the pretence. You will continue with the actuality whether you continue with the pretence or not. The alternative is to face up honestly to the facts of the situation and drop the pretence of a committee which has sat in London, and which, while everybody knows and admits there are wholesale breaches of the Nonintervention Pact, has been unable so far to obtain evidence of any case of any breach whatsoever. Never has there been a more pitiable farce than the sittings of the Non-intervention Committee, and anybody interested in preserving any form of international order must realise that to perpetuate such a farce is one of the most dangerous things to do as regards the preservation of international order.
This precise Bill, which is, we are told, a means of implementing the policy of Non-intervention, which has admittedly failed in every direction, is a Bill of a very exceptional and quite unprecedented nature, and it is being forced upon the British people by the threat of General Franco, which was not even communicated to the Government but which the Foreign Secretary read in the Press. I was a little anxious when I heard two other remarks made in the course of this Debate to-day. One was by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Wing - Commander James), who has returned from Madrid. He told us of the magnificent work that the international detachments were doing in keeping Franco back. Indeed he said, "They turned from failure to success the defence of Madrid," and shortly before he made that remark, the Foreign Secretary told us that they were proposing to ask the Non-intervention Committee to see that no more international volunteers were allowed to go to Spain. It sounds strangely as though this was another way of helping General Franco. [HoN. Members: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members say "Nonsense" Why then at this moment

1139
suddenly bring before the Non-intervention Committee the idea that people who wish to volunteer to help Spain should be stopped?
Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: Bcause, if the hon. and learned Member had read this evening's newspaper, he would see that by way of retaliation something like 5,000 Germans have landed in Spain.
Sir S. CRIPPS: Does the hon. Member suggest that they are volunteers?
Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Are the Russians volunteers?
Sir S. CRIPPS: I have not the slightest idea, but I do know that there are hundreds of Englishmen and Scotsmen volunteers in Spain.
Mr. ALAN HERBERT: I take it that it is the opinion of the hon. and learned Member that it is not in the interests of the working classes of Spain that they should be conquered by Nazi Germans?
Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not share the views of the hon. Member. The blotting out of the Government Front Bench would be the greatest benefit to the British working people in any circumstances. Never before in any period of our history has there been a person or Power sufficiently strong to enforce the passage of such legislation as this upon the British Parliament. We have never before been forced by any emergency to pass legislation of this nature, and General Franco, whose statement in the newspaper which the Foreign Secretary read, and which led him immediately to put this Bill into draft, can pride himself on being the first person to have so much power with the British Foreign Office. How drastic this Bill is can be gathered by making a comparison between what would happen under this Bill and what would happen if both parties had been recognised as belligerents. No one is suggesting that they should be recognised as belligerents, but if they had been nothing like the powers which have been taken under the Bill would have been in the hands of British courts or of the British Navy as a result of the order or declaration which no doubt would have been made as regards neutrality. All that could have been done would have been to prevent people in
1140
this country from fitting out a military or naval expedition to aid either side, prevent the enlistment in the forces of either of the belligerents, and prevent the reconditioning of warships in any British port. There would have been no power to prevent British ships unloading cargoes of any kind in the ports of either belligerent.
Mr. WISE: Is not the hon. and learned Member leaving out one important point in his catalogue—the right of search by Spanish ships of our ships at sea?
Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member does not appreciate the point with which I am dealing. I am dealing with the power of the British courts and the British Navy. General Franco's Navy is not yet the British Navy. Of course, directly they are recognised as belligerents they have the right of search, but that is not a question of the courts or the Navy of this country. To stop British ships landing goods in all ports of either of the belligerents is an unprecedented act which is being taken in this Bill. To find a necessity for making such an alteration in the law dealing with this matter, an alteration which has never yet had to be made in spite of all the wars and revolutions which have taken place in the last century, one must surely expect to find some very good and powerful reasons. We have been told by the Foreign Secretary that this is to stop up a little gap; that it is part of the non-intervention policy, and that we are going to make this profound change merely because there may be a ship or two which have been doing so. When one approaches a problem of this kind one approaches it from a very different angle if one is laying down general principles to be applied in all cases, as the Americans did in the resolution they passed in 1935, when they laid down a scheme of neutrality to be applied in all future cases. To approach it from that point of view is very different from approaching it from the point of view of dealing with one specific instance.
When you are dealing with one specific instance you cannot take into account general matters which might apply to a general piece of legislation. You must examine in the light of the facts all the particular circumstances with which you are dealing, and the Foreign Secre-

1141
tary failed completely to do that in his speech. He examined this as if it was a bit of general policy, a new principle of neutrality, which we are going to apply without examining it from the point of view of the specific case as to what harm or damage it is going to do to a friendly Government, the Spanish National Government. That is the problem which we should consider. Are we going to further embarrass that Government by taking this step, which is not part of the Non-intervention Agreement, which is not taken in concert with other Powers or with our Dominions, but taken purely because the right hon. Gentleman has been frightened by what General Franco said and which the right hon. Gentleman saw reported in the Press? He has not even had time to consult the Dominions about it because he was so hurried.
The only ground which has been put forward for the Bill is that General Franco said something which the right hon. Gentleman saw in the newspapers. In these circumstances, quite clearly, one must have regard also to the ports through which the rebels can obtain, and have in the past obtained, their supplies. Everybody knows that at the moment, whether goods are passing through Portuguese ports or not, that they are there; that it is a sympathetic Government to the rebels, and that if other ports are closed they will be 'able to go to the Portuguese ports and unload for the rebels; but they will not be able to unload goods anywhere for the Spanish Government. This, I believe, is only another of those devices which under the apparent camouflage of professions of neutrality are being aimed by the Government at the Spanish Government, because they believe their case will be better served by a Franco government in Spain than by a government of the working classes of a Communist or Socialist nature.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. GALLACHER: In a previous discussion on Spain I drew attention to what I consider to be a very notorious fact, that under its present leadership this country is being dragged down to a very deep depth of degradation. I think this Bill clearly bears that out. Is there any hon. Member opposite, or any right hon. Gentleman on the Government Front
1142
Bench, who, on reading this Bill, will dare to say that it has what is known as the "Nelson touch"? Will the Foreign Secretary, when he is passing through Trafalgar Square, take off his hat before the monument of Nelson, and say, "Behold, one who follows in your footsteps"? We have always been told that Britain is the mistress of the seas, but General Franco makes a declaration and we run away. As has been said, this Bill is part of a continuous policy. I remember nine months ago declaring in this House that there were people in this country and in the Government who were prepared to sacrifice the British Empire in order to maintain reaction in Europe. Many hon. Members laughed when I said that, but Abyssinia showed how far they were prepared to go. Today the Foreign Secretary told us that we do not want this strife to spread, but that is what we were told in connection with Abyssinia. But it has spread. It has spread now to Spain, and will go on spreading if we do not take action to stop it.
It can be stopped by the united democratic forces of Europe. It is wrong to say that it is a question of a Fascist Government or a Communist Government. There is only a small minority of Communists in Spain, and there are only one or two in the Spanish Parliament. The main body of the Spanish Government is composed of Socialists and Radicals. It is sheer madness and folly to talk in the language which is used by some hon. Members opposite. It is a question of the Fascist Powers going on their way as they wish. The British Government represents what is supposed to be a mighty Empire, and hon. Members opposite are supposed to be very proud of it. Where would the Empire be to-day, with Germany, Italy and Japan, if it were not for Russia'? Where would the Empire be if it were riot for the might of Russia? What shield would you have against the powerful, terrific, mechanised army of Germany, with Italy in the Mediterranean and in North Africa, with Japan in the East, if it were not for the might of Russia, at which the Foreign Secretary makes nasty sneers? If it were not for Russia, Great Britain would be in a very weak position against the Fascist States of Europe. Let there be no mistake about that. If hon. Members want to play with very serious questions, it is

1143
their own business, but they will have to pay a price for it.
An hon. Member opposite has said that the Government in Spain is not the Government that was elected, but has been changed. I remember that in 1531 the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Lord President of the Council was Leader of the Government, and after the election he was Prime Minister, but suddenly he went out and the present Prime Minister took his place, and there were other changes. Governments can change their personnel, but the Government of Spain represents the Spanish people and is the Government that ought to have the complete support of every hon. Member who claims to believe in democracy. We have a very peculiar sort of democrat nowadays; we have democrats of a peculiar character who are prepared to support every kind of reaction that is directed towards the destruction of peace and progress—for the democratic Government in Spain represents peace and progress as opposed to the aggressive designs of the Fascist States of Europe, which are represented by Franco.
I will now turn to the speech of the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech the like of which I am sure was never delivered by a Foreign Secretary before. I am certain there was not an hon. Member opposite who did not realise, while the Foreign Secretary was speaking, the hopeless position the right hon. Gentleman occupied and how impossible it was for him to find an argument to support that position. The Foreign Secretary said that the Government had been accused of running away. He said that they could have granted belligerent rights and given to General Franco the right to search our ships, but that that right had not been given. No! we were going to do the searching ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we knight in the near future grant belligerent rights. The right hon. Gentleman therefore puts it to us that we did not run away from Franco, but that we may in the near future have to grant belligerent rights. What an attitude for a Foreign Secretary to take up on such a situation.
I would like now to refer to the statement made by the Noble Lady the Mem-
1144
ber for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) that somehow or other the Communists had something to do with the trouble breaking out in Spain. Who are the foreign Communists in this country? [An HON MEMBER: "The Scots"] We often have the complaint that there is an invasion of Scotsmen in England. From the point of view of facts, what is all this talk about foreign Communists? What use would foreign Communists be in Britain? What use would foreign Communists be in Spain? No use. But the home article is of very considerable use in this country and in Spain. There never has been any proof that any so-called foreign Communists are in Spain, but it is obvious to anybody who has studied the matter that preparations for the revolt on the part of the Fascists had been going on for months. It did not spring up suddenly and spontaneously. It had been in preparation for months, supported by Germany and Italy.
A statement was made by an hon. Member who has just returned from Spain, to the effect that this trouble was partly religious and certain hon. Members have interjected remarks about religion and Christianity. The issue is not religious at all, but religious feelings are being played upon and stirred up, as has been done on many occasions in this country on questions which were not religious at all, in order to divide the forces of the people and put one section against another. The issue in Spain is not one of religion. It is the great landed interests, the great industrial interests, the great banking interests which are concerned. I was speaking to some business men the other night, one of whom referred in very high terms to Mussolini and Hitler and to what they had done for their respective countries. Then he put this poser to me: "What do the Communists say about religion, because the country or cause which is without religion will never prosper?" I said, "Why is it only when you refer to the Communists that you raise the question of religion? It used to be the same in regard to the Socialists. It used to be said that the Socialist movement was anti-religious. Why is this?"
Mr. RICKARDS: But is it not the case that in Spain the Carlist Wars were fought over religion before there were any Communists,
Mr. GALLACHER: I know, just as we were supposed to fight for high ideals in the Great War.
Mr. RICKARDS: I do not say that they were wrong. I am only saying that those wars were fought over religion.
Mr. GALLACHER: Yes, religious feeling was worked up but it was land and property that they were after—the Carlists and all of them. They used religion then as they are doing now. The reason why the cry of religion is only raised in connection with Communism or Socialism is because Communism and Socialism attack profits. That is the real issue. Mussolini is an atheist but he protects profits and there is no question of religion raised in regard to him. Hitler and the Nazis propose to wipe out the Christian religion and to provide Germany with a pagan religion based on the German mythology, but Hitler protects profits and so nothing is said about Hitler's religion. What is at issue here is not religion but the question of land and industrial and banking interests and profits. All the forces that are gathered round Franco, whether they are German or Italian, are concerned with the maintenance and support of profits, just as hon. Members opposite and the Government are concerned with the protection of property interests.
There are two sections among hon. Members opposite—those who are concerned with private property in general and those who are more concerned with private property in particular. That is where we find a division. There are Members opposite who feel that if democracy wins in Spain, it will be a bad influence in Europe and will arouse the German and Italian workers and cause a setback to the forces of reaction. To maintain reaction in Europe they are prepared to sacrifice the British Empire. But there are others within the camp of the capitalist class whose view one can hear expressed in these discussions and who take a rather different line. There are those who would sacrifice private property in general before they would sacrifice private property in particular. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) who is, I believe an alleged humorist, asked the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) whether he wanted the Nazis to conquer
1146
the working-class in Spain. Of course he does not, but the working class of Spain, the progressive people, including the intelligent intellectuals are not supporting but are fighting the Spanish Imperialists at the present time.
Mr. A. HERBERT: Since the hon. Member has dragged me into this, may I say that when the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) resented so hotly the idea of the invasion of Spain by a few Germans I thought it a good opportunity to refer to the extremely foolish remark—in the opinion of most hon. Members on both sides of the House—which he made the other day to the effect that it would be a good thing for the working class of this country if they were conquered by the Nazis of Germany. That was all I said.
Mr. GALLACHER: The only thing about it—which the hon. Member for Oxford University does not seem capable of realizing—is that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol put a very good idea in a very wrong way. The good idea was that of getting rid at the earliest possible moment of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite and those who are foolish enough to support them but the correct way to do that is to arouse the masses of the people of this country and to have those right hon. Gentlemen turned out lock, stock and barrel. If, while we are in the process of turning them out, Hitler should send his boys over here to stop us turning them out and to keep them in, what would the hon. Member think of that? Here you have a. legitimate Government in Spain carrying on, or proposing to carry on a policy of progress directed towards raising the poverty-stricken peasants to a higher standard and taking the workers away from the slums and away from disease —from darkness into light. Just when they were started on that policy, in came Franco with the Moors and the Foreign Legion supplied with military equipment by the German Nazis and the Italian Fascists.
Is any hon. Member prepared to support that kind of thing? What justification can there be for it? But this Bill is a continuation of the same policy, the policy of standing in the way of the progressive forces, of creating confusion and disorganising those progressive forces. Hon. Members have talked about not

1147
wanting it to spread, but unless we take a different attitude towards Fascism, this kind of trouble will spread until civilisation is destroyed, because destruction is going on all round us. I appeal to hon. Members who believe in democracy, who believe in peace and progress, not to encourage this sort of thing. It is deliberately designed to keep arms away from the Spanish Government. How is it that it always happens that the forces which represent progress and peace are hampered by your actions and that the forces which represent Fascist aggression are not hampered in the slightest degree?
Mr. BAXTER: Do you and your friends on the opposite benches—
HON. MEMBERS: Address Mr. Speaker.
Mr. BAXTER: I apologise. Does the hon. Member suggest that by prohibiting the carrying of arms in British ships we may seriously hamper the cause of the Spanish Government? To what extent will that prohibition, added to what already exists, hamper in the slightest degree the supply of armaments to the Spanish Government?
Mr. GALLACHER: If there had been none of this so-called non-intervention, which was obviously directed against the Spanish Government, the position would have been that the Spanish Government, a friendly Government, would have carried on in the ordinary way with this country and other countries. It would have retained its full right of trading with this country. It would have got from this and other countries all the arms which it requires—it had all the men—and the revolt would have been crushed at its inception. But while the Spanish Government has the men, it had no armaments. The non-intervention policy prevented it getting armaments, while Germany and Italy loaded Franco up with armaments. The policy of so-called nonintervention tied the hands of the Spanish Government completely and gave every opportunity for the development of the revolt.
Now they have made a terrific stand, a stand the like of which has not been seen before in history. They have held up the forces of Franco. Everybody, including the Press, said that Franco was in Madrid, but here he has been held up
1148
week after week and the Government is showing possibilities of developing an offensive against him. At this very moment in comes this Bill to close every port in Spain. But nothing is done about Portgual. Volunteers have gone from this country to support the Government. They have gone from other countries as well. They have had to travel under all sorts of conditions and dodged through
all kinds of frontiers. But General O'Duffy and his brigade took a boat at Liverpool and are sailing to Lisbon. General O'Duffy and his brigade will have armaments. If a general here in Britain with a brigade proposed to travel through France to support the Government, would it be allowed?
Sir RONALD ROSS: Is the hon. Member suggesting that General O'Duffy is a partisan of the British Government?
Mr. GALLACHER: General O'Duffy is a very close partisan of the policy of the British Government. Please try to understand the point I am making.
Sir R. ROSS: I do not.
Mr. GALLACHER: I know you do not. I have only got to look at you to realise that. But we are told that there is no proof of armaments passing through Portugal and here is a brigade openly, publicly sailing away from Liverpool, not to America, not to North Africa, but to Lisbon. Is that proof?
Mr. BOYCE: Will the hon. Member say how many there are in a brigade? I understood that there were 40 going, not a brigade.
Mr. GALLACHER: That is the advance guard of the brigade. Surely it is obvious that Portugal is open for brigades, well equipped brigades. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol referred to the other threat about stopping the volunteers. If you stop the volunteers from this country the Germans will still be there. If Germany signed a Non-intervention Pact which included no volunteers, the Germans would still be there, and so would the Italians. The Spanish Government, the duly elected Government of the Spanish people and representing the great body of the Spanish people, as the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) properly pointed out, is fighting the battle against Fascist aggression, and

1149
Fascist aggression will not have any more respect for the British Empire than it has for Spain or than it had for Abyssinia. Therefore I call on every Member of this House who has any regard for democracy, peace and progress to vote against this atrocity, which represents a scuttle in front of the Fascist enemies of the people of Europe.
9.34 p.m.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am against this Bill because I want Franco to be beaten and because I think that if it passes it will be more difficult to get arms from Russia into Spain. I think that the defeat of Franco depends on that. It is just as well to be candid. I believe that when I have done three-quarters of the House will agree with me. We see in the newspapers to-day that 5,000 Germans have landed in Seville with arms. Obviously if there was no opportunity of getting arms into Spain from outside to the Spanish Government, the inevitable end must be the victory of Franco and the defeat of that Government. I am perfectly aware that nearly six months ago when this trouble in Spain started the vast majority of this House and the people of this country, horrified by the accounts of atrocities in Spain, felt that their sympathies were entirely with the rebels and against that Government. It was perhaps inevitable when one reflected on the Russian Revolution, or even the French Revolution of a century before, that we should imagine it was the same and that all decent self-respecting Englishmen would be on the side of those who were against the Reds.
That was so six months ago. But I am sure the House will agree with me that during the last six months there has been a revolution or a revulsion in the feelings of the people of the country, of the Press of the country, and of the Members of this House. Partly that change of feeling has been due to the importation of the Moors from Morocco, partly to the growing evidence that the only force at Franco's back are the Moors and Legionaries and that the Spanish people are taking no part on his side in the war, partly owing to the bombing of Madrid and the killing of women and children, recklessly and apparently with no military object, partly to the heroic defence of Madrid by the people of that town, a heroic defence
1150
which recalls to our minds the defence of Saragossa in the Peninsular War, or, very similar, the defence of Londonderry in the reign of William III. Sympathies are naturally with the weaker side, and sympathies in this country have come round.
Apart altogether from the merits of the two sides, there are not many people in England to-day who would not regret the capture of Madrid and the defeat of the Spanish Government, with all the atrocities that would follow in its wake. For that reason, I say that, from the humanitarian point of view, we should all be now more or less united in desiring that the Spanish Government may be successful, and if that success can only come about through assistance from outside, we ought not to put any further obstacles in the way of that assistance arriving. The danger, as we must see at present, is that assistance, if it be only petrol, which is urgently needed, or in foodstuffs, any assistance whatever coming from Russia at the present time in Russian bottoms 'runs the risk, an ever growing risk, of being sunk by Italian submarines or in some other way before it reaches Barcelona. Probably the only way in which supplies can reach Barcelona or Valencia is in bottoms which the Italian Government or the Italian volunteers will not dare to sink, so that I regret this Bill, because it wipes out, as a possible source of succour to that oppressed people, the English mercantile fleet from the picture and leaves them to rely upon other countries.
It is for that reason that I think everybody should regret this Bill and seek in some way to remedy the harm which we are doing to those defenders of Madrid in their very difficult position, and that is why I put before the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he was speaking, the third alternative of the status quo. He put before the House, and completely proved his case, if there were only those alternatives, either the recognition of belligerent rights to both parties, or this Measure. With those alternatives before us, there is not a man who holds any of the views that I hold who would not be in favour of this Bill rather than of the granting of belligerent rights. If belligerent rights are granted, it means that not only English ships but all ships, for it would be followed by

1151
other countries, would be liable to be sunk if they were going to Spanish Government ports. They would be searched and sunk, and the British Fleet would not protect them. They would be running contraband. It would therefore be adding to all the difficulties that the Spanish Government have to face now, and if those were the only two alternatives, I and, I think, all of us would be strongly in favour of this Measure. It is because, first of all, this Bill is not the only other alternative and, secondly, because this Bill must inevitably be only one step in a progressive deterioration, that I oppose the Bill.
Suppose we consider my alternative of leaving things as they are, not acknowledging belligerent rights, because that would be an outrage, in my opinion, and would be definitely taking sides and sealing the fate of the Spanish Government. Suppose we consider the alternative of remaining as we are. That means that sooner or later a British ship might be stopped, seized, and sunk, just as the Norwegian ship was the other day outside Vigo by a Spanish insurgent cruiser. That would not much matter, but suppose it was stopped and sunk by an Italian ship. In that case there would undoubtedly be the risk of war, and I am perfectly certain that the Secretary of State, in looking at this problem, is looking at it not in the least from the point of view of either side in Spain but from the point of view of his passionate desire to keep out of war.
Mr. EDEN: Hear, hear.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: If the right hon. Gentleman really thinks this will keep us out of war, I think he has a case, but I hope to show him that it will not keep us out of war and that therefore there is no case for this Bill. He told us first of all in his speech that the Bill was to be adopted also by Norway and possibly by France. This Measure is twofold. It provides, first of all, very heavy penalties on anybody who carries warlike stores from one foreign port to another foreign port in an English ship. The penalties are there, and the British fleet is to search ships and see that they do not carry those particular goods. The British fleet is a very large order,
1152
and it is possible for the British fleet to search every ship crossing the Bay of Biscay or in, the Mediterranean. It is an extensive business, but still, with our enormous fleet, it is quite possible to deal with the problem in that way. It is also possible that the Italian and German Governments would trust us, and trust us rightly, to carry out that search. It would be impossible for British ships, without running the risk of these tremendous. penalties, to carry any warlike stores from Riga, or Odessa, or Petrograd to any Spanish port.
The same does not, however, apply, I need hardly point out, to the Norwegian Government. They have passed this law, but they cannot enforce it. We can, and the French Government may pass such a law, though they may not, and it is not easy to enforce. I do not think you will find that the Russian Government, if they came in would be keen to search their own ships, so that there are two questions. There is the question of whether Franco's Government and the Italian Government will believe that we are searching these ships and that the British ships are not carrying ammunition. They may, but there is also this difficulty, that if they do not, you will be in exactly the same position, and the risk of war will not be less but greater if an accident occurs. The House knows perfectly well that the list of warlike stores on that list are not by any means all that is needed in Spain to-day. What is needed most of all is foodstuffs, and, next to foodstuffs, petrol. They are not on that list. It is every bit as much to Franco's interest to stop those stores going in as it is to stop tanks or aeroplanes. Therefore, he will not be appeased and the Italian Government will not be appeased if we search only for these other goods. If in a month's time, if things do riot get much better, a further threat comes from Franco— "It is not your war stores I am caring about; it is petrol. You are supplying petrol to these people and we cannot carry on the war successfully as long as petrol gets to Madrid,"—it will be impossible, if the right hon. Gentleman swallows this, not to swallow that as well. And so it will go on.
The issue is much larger than the character of the contraband or what other countries come in. I do not think that it will be the slightest use or that

1153
it will convey the slightest confidence to the Government of Spain if Germany came into this agreement or if Italy came into it. It is so easy to pass a law such as this when most countries in the world outside Great Britain have a nice little way of passing laws and then never operating them at all. So I do not think that it will be the slightest consolation to hear that all the other countries are inside the scheme. We are —I will not say the "mugs"—but we are the people who pass laws like this and then put them into operation. We do not get any benefit from them because we are like a man who shows weakness; a man well driven into the corner will expect you to show further weakness. The more we surrender in order to keep peace, the more we are forced to surrender. Because we gave way in Abyssinia we have the trouble now. To go further back, although I was against trying to prevent Japan taking Manchuria, I can see now that if we had stood firm then we should not have had the trouble with Abyssinia and Spain. All this trouble becomes cumulative.
It is a very little gap that the right hon. Gentleman is stopping by this Bill. He pleads for it as a. small thing. Things will be smaller and smaller, and then the pressure upon him, on his office, on his colleagues, of the old passionate desire to keep us out of war will make each concession easier. I do not know whether I have more of the historic sense than other hon. Members of the House, but all the time that this has been going on I have been thinking of the extraordinary parallel between our conduct now and our conduct under Queen Elizabeth when exactly the same terror was going on in Spain. There we had no Franco, but Alva massacring and with overwhelming strength against the rebels. There we saw not Protestantism going down, but growing, the overwhelming strength of Spain and the Empire, the narrow seas right up against it, armies which had never been defeated, and a prestige greater than that of Napoleon; and as our friends, the Protestants, were beaten down the feeling of this country was that we must help them. It went on for years and all the time Queen Elizabeth put her foot down and said, "No" It was not until after William the Silent had been murdered, it was not until after the cause was
1154
almost hopeless and Antwerp lost, that we allowed an English army to go in and retrieve our own and Sir Philip Sidney to lose his life. Anyone looking through the reign of Queen Elizabeth knows that the darkest blot on her reign was our conduct towards the heroic struggle of the Dutch in those years of the sixteenth century.
Now we seem to be doing it again. I wish that there was someone on those benches who would put the cause of humanity and the cause of England together and see that it is not by perpetual surrender, but by courage that we can save ourselves from destruction and the world for peace. Hon. Members who still think that it would be better that Franco should win should reflect what his victory means. It means more than the enslavement of a great people. It means that we are providing for Franco all along the coast of Spain and Portugal places innumerable not merely for submarines, but for aeroplanes. The situation would be such that we could not get food ships to this country. It would not be necessary for Spain or Portugal to concede a single yard of territory. We remember how in the War the submarines used the bases in Spain and Greece and how we had to close the Mediterranean in consequence. The submarine is as nothing compared with the aeroplane; the range of the aeroplane makes it infinitely more dangerous. If Franco wins, it will not only enslave the Spanish people, but it will establish another Fascist State in a world divided between Fascist peoples and free peoples. That State will be established on our flank where our commerce can be destroyed, where our communications can be cut, whence our Fleet can be destroyed. We are doing this with our eyes shut, selfishly thinking that we in our time may save our lives. But our children will perish.
9.53 p.m.
Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: We have heard some extraordinarily eloquent speeches on matters of fundamental moment, and not least the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down, whose passionate conviction on this matter we all intensely admire. I want to come back nearer to the Bill itself in order to say that we had very much hoped that the Foreign Secretary would have been able to give us something in

1155
the nature of an assurance on the main point raised by my right hon. Friend earlier in the Debate that it will be possible to get this action of ours in stiffening up the Non-intervention policy adopted by other nations such as Germany, Russia and Italy. I except Portugal because, apparently, she is guiltless. The Foreign Secretary said nothing practicable on that point which we can take as hopeful and definite. He did say, of course, what he could about the Government's wishes, desires and hopes. We never doubted them, and I for one have not the slightest suspicion that the Government have not the position in Gibraltar in mind or the desire that General Franco should win.
An hon. Friend says that is a very innocent view to take; but that does not matter. What the Foreign Secretary did say was that the Non-intervention Agreement was not being adhered to—I think I am quoting his words—and that the Chairman of the Non-intervention Committee will make clear our anxieties and apprehensions on this subject to-morrow. We think that the Chairman will be in a stronger position in the endeavour to get other countries to fulfil their pledges of non-intervention if this Bill is not on the Statute Book by to-morrow, when the Chairman meets representatives of those other countries. We hope to be able to move, if the Second reading is carried, that the Bill should be brought into operation only by an Order in Council, that Order to be made when the States which are members of the Non-intervention Committee have given assurances that they also are going to stop the supply of arms to either side. As at present we cannot see any prospects of the Bill leading to any more general all-round non-intervention, we shall feel bound to oppose its Second Reading.
I wish to add only a few more sentences. One of the mistakes which authoritarian states are inclined to make is to think that they only are capable of real firmness. There has been too much justification for that idea in the past—though I do not want to go back on that to-night—in this dispute, but I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on having at any rate refrained from according belligerent rights. That is certainly something to the good. But our country is now being representel in Italy as a country which will always lie down and let itself be trampled on. It is a definite part of Italian film propaganda to show an Englishman playing with toy boats or arranging toy soldiers. I believe the impression which the Italians are trying to produce in that and other ways to be a profound mistake, and a misrepresentation of the attitude of this Government or of any other Government which might possibly hold office in this country. My fear is that those countries may some day go too far and that disasters may happen, I do not mean disasters to this country only, but to their own as well, for war is a disaster all round. It is because we feel rather strongly that the passing of this Bill, as long as it is in no way linked up with any probability of securing a genuine all-round application of the non-intervention policy, would be likely to increase the mistaken attitude of certain Powers with regard to the temper and spirit of the British people and, therefore, to make war more likely rather than less, that we have to take the attitude which we have taken up this evening.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 132.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hulbert, N. J.

Ramsbotham, H.

Crooke, J. S.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Hunter, T.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Cross, R. H.

inskip, Rt. Hon. Slr T. W. H.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Jackson, Sir H.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Culverwell, C. T.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)

Remer, J. R.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.

Keeling, E. H.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Dawson, Sir P.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)

De Chair, S S.

Kimball, L.

Rosa Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Denville, Alfred

Latham, Sir P.

Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.

Dodd, J. S.

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

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Doland, G. F.

Leckle, J. A.

Salt, E. W.

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

Drewe, C.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Lewis, O.

Sandys, E. D.

Duggan, H. J.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Loftus, P. C.

Scott, Lord William

Dunglass, Lord

Lumley, Capt. L. R.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Dune, P. R. R

Lyons, A.M.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Eastwood, J. F.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Simmonds, O. E.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Elliston, G. S.

MacDonald. Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Elmley, Viscount

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

McKie, J. H.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)

Entwistle, C. F.

Magnay, T.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Erskine Hill, A. G.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Storey, S.

Everard, W. L.

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

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Fildes, Sir H.

Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G K. M.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Furness, S. N.

Maxwell, S. A.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col, J.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Ganzonl, Sir J.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

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

Mills, Sir F. (Layton, E.)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nailn)

Gluckstein, L. H.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Sutcliffe, H.

Granville, E. L.

Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Moreing, A. C.

Tate, Mavis C.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Grimston, R. V.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Clr'nc'st'r)

Titchfield, Marquess of

Guy, J. C. M.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Hamilton, Sir G. C.

Munro, P.

Wakefield, W. W.

Hanbury, Sir C.

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Wardlaw-Mllne, Sir J. S.

Harbord, A.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Wickham, Lt -Col. E. T. R.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Heneage, Lieut -Colonel A. P.

Patrick, C. M.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Penny, Sir G.

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hltchin)

Hepworth, J.

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord F.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Wise, A. R.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Petherick, M.

Wragg, H.

Herbert, Capt, Sir S. (Abbey)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Wright, Squadron-Leader J.A.C.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Holdsworth, H.

Porritt, R. W.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Procter, Major H. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES-

Hopkinson. A.

Ralkes, H. V. A. M.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

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

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Ward and Commander Southby.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Cape, T.

Frankel, D.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Cassells, T.

Gallacher, W.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Chater, D.

Gardner, B. W.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Cluse, W. S.

Garro Jones, G. M.

Adamson, W. M.

Cove, W. G.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Ammon, C. G.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Daggar, G.

Gibbins, J.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Dalton, H.

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Batey, J.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Ballenger, F.

Day, H.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Benson, G.

Debble, W.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Bevan, A.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Bromfield, W.

Ede, J. C.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Brooke, W.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Buchanan, G.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Groves, T. E.

Burke, W. A.

Foot, D. M.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

1158

1159

Harris, Sir P. A.

Marshall, F.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Hayday, A.

Maxton, J.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Milner, Major J.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Montague, F.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Muff, G.

Stephen, C.

Hollins, A.

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Hopkin, D.

Oliver, G. H.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Jagger, J.

Owen, Major G.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Paling, W.

Thorne, W.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Thurtle, E.

John, W.

Potts, J.

Tinker, J. J.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Pritt, D. N.

Viant, S. P.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Walkden, A. G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Walker, J.

Kelly, W. T.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Watkins, F. C.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Riley, B.

Watson, W. McL.

Kirby, B. V.

Ritson, J.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lathan, G.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

Welsh, J. C.

Lawson, J. J.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Westwood, J.

Leach, W.

Rothschild, J. A. de

White, H. Graham

Lee. F.

Rowson, G.

Whiteley, W.

Leonard, W.

Sanders, W. S.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Leslie, J. R.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Logan, D. G.

Sexton, T. M.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Lunn, W.

Shinwell, E.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

McEntee, V. La T.

Short. A.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Maclean, N.

Silkin, L.

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Silverman. S. S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mender, G. le M.

Simpson, F. B.

Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

Bill read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Captain Margesson.]

Division No. 27.]

AYES

[10.10 p.m.

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Grimston, R. V.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Albery, Sir Irving

Cranborne, Viscount

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Crooke, J. S.

Guy, J. C. M.

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

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Hamilton, Sir G. C.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Hanbury, Sir C.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Cross, R. H.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Assheton, R.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Harbord, A.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Culverwell, C. T.

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

Bexter, A. Beverley

Dawson, Sir P.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

De Chair, S. S.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hepworth, J.

Bernays, R. H.

Denville, Alfred

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Dodd, J. S.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Blindell, Sir J.

Doland, G. F.

Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

Bossom, A. C.

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Boulton, W. W.

Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

Holdsworth, H.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

Drewe, C.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Hopkinson, A.

Brass, Sir W.

Duggan, H. J.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.

Brlscoe, Capt. R. G.

Duncan, J. A. L.

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

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Dunglass, Lord

Hulbert, N. J.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Dunne, P. R. R.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Eastwood, J. F.

Hunter, T.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Hurd, Sir. P. A.

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

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

Butler, R. A.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Jackson, Sir H.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Elliston, G. S.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Cary, R. A.

Eimley, Viscount

Keeling, E. H

Castlereagh, Viscount

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Entwistle, C. F.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Channon, H.

Erskine Hill, A. G.

Kimball, L.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Everard, W. L.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Christle, J. A.

Fildes, Sir H.

Latham, Sir P.

Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Furness, S. N.

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

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Leckle, J. A.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Ganzonl, Sir J.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Colfox, Major W. P.

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

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Colman. N. C. D.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Lewis, O.

Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

Granville, E. L.

Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Loftus, P. C.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Lumley, Capt. L. R.

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 133.

Lyons, A. M.

Petherick, M.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)

M'Connell, Sir J.

Porritt, R. W.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

McCorquodale, M. S.

Procter, Major H. A.

Storey, S.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Ramsbotham, H.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

McKie, J. H.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Magnay, T.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Sutcliffe, H.

Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

Remer, J. R.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Maxwell, S. A.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Tate, Mavis C.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Rowlands, G.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Mitchell. H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.

Runclman, Rt. Hon. W.

Wakefield, W. W.

Morning, A. C.

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Wardlaw-Mllne, Sir J. S.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

Salt, E. W.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)

Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A.J.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Munro, P.

Sandys, E. D.

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Scott, Lord William

Wise, A. R.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Wragg, H.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Simmonds, O. E.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Palmer, G. E. H.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Patrick, C. M.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Penny, Sir G.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Ward and Captain Waterhouse.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Pritt, D. N.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddi'sbro, W.)

Qulbell, D. J. K.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Adamson, W. M.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Riley, B.

Ammon, C. G.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Ritson, J.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Hayday, A.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Bonfield, J. W.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Rothschild, J. A. de

Batey, J.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Rowson, G.

Bellenger, F.

Hollins, A.

Sanders, W. S.

Benson, G.

Hopkin, D.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Bevan, A.

Jagger, J.

Sexton, T. M.

Bromfield, W

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Shinwell, E.

Brooke, W.

Jenkins. Sir W. (Neath)

Short, A.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

John, W.

Silkin, L.

Buchanan, G.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Silverman, S. S.

Burke, W. A.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Simpson, F. B.

Cape, T.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Cassells, T.

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Charleton, H. C.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Chater, D.

Kirby, B. V.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Cluse, W. S.

Lathan, G.

Stephen, C.

Cove, W. G.

Lawson, J. J.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Leach, W.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Dagger, G.

Lee, F.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Dalton, H.

Leonard, W.

Thorne, W.

Davies. R. J. (Westhoughton)

Leslie, J. R.

Thurtle, E.

Day, H.

Logan, D. G.

Tinker, J. J.

Dobble, W.

Lunn, W.

Viant, S. P.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

McEntee, V. La T.

Walkden, A. G.

Ede, J. C.

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Walker, J.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Mender. G. le M

Watkins, F. C.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Marshall, F.

Watson, W. McL.

Foot, D. M.

Mathers, G.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Frankel, D.

Maxton, J.

Welsh, J. C.

Gallacher. W.

Milner, Major J.

Westwood, J.

Gardner, B. W.

Montague, F.

White, H. Graham

Garro Jones, G. M.

Muff, G.

Wilkinson, Ellen

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Oliver, G. H.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Gibbins, J

Owen, Major G.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Paling, W.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Potts, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."— [Coptain Margesson]

Division No. 28.]

AYES.

[10.20 p.m.

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

Agnew, Lieut..Comdr. P. G.

Entwistle, C. F.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

Albery, Slr Irving

Erskine Hill, A. G.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Everard, W. L.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S.(Clenc'st'r)

Anstruther-G ray, W. J.

Fildes, Sir H.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. P.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Furness, S. N.

Munro, P

Assheton, R.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Ganzoni, Sir J.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Gluckstein, L. H.

Orr-Ewing, I. L. H.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Palmer, G. E. H.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Granville, E. L.

Patrick, C. M.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Peat, C. U.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Penny, Sir G.

Bernays, R. H.

Grimston, R. V.

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

Birchall. Sir J. D.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Perkins, W. R. D.

Blindell, Sir J.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

Petherick, M.

Bossom, A. C.

Guy, J. C. M.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Boulton, W. W.

Hamilton, Sir G. C.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

Hanbury, Sir C.

Porritt, R. W.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Procter, Major H. A.

Brass, Sir W.

Harbord, A.

Ralkes, H. V. A. M.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastie)

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Ramsbotham, H.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Rayner, Major R. H.

Burgin, Dr. E. L

Hepworth, J.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Butler, R. A.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Cartland, J. R. H.

Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

Remer, J. R.

Cary, R. A.

Holdsworth, H.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hope, Captain Hon. A. 0. J.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hopkinson, A.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

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

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Channon, H.

Hulbert, N. J.

Rowlands, G.

Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Christie, J. A.

Hunter, T.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. W

Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Clarry, Sir Reginald

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

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Jackson, Sir H.

Salmon, Sir I.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Salt, E. W.

Colman, N. C. D.

Keeling, E. H.

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Samuel. M. R. A. (Putney)

Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Kimball, L.

Sandys, E. D.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Latham, Sir P.

Scott, Lord William

Craddock, Sir R. H.

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

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Cranborne, Viscount

Leckie, J. A.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Crooke. J. S.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Simmonds, O. E.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Cross, R. H.

Lewis, O.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Lleweilin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Culverwell, C. T.

Loftus, P. C.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.

Lumley, Capt. L. R.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Lyons, A. M.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)

Dawson, Sir P.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Storey, S.

De Chair, S. S.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

M'Connell. Sir J.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Denville, Alfred

McCorquodale, M. S.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Dodd, J. S.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Doland, G. F.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Drewe, C.

McKle, J. H.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Sutcliffe, H.

Duggan, H. J.

Magnay, T.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Maklns, Brig.-Gen. E.

Tate, Mavis C.

Dunglass, Lord

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

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Dunne, P. R. R.

Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Eastwood, J. F.

Maxwell, S. A.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Titchfield, Marquess of

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Wakefield, W. W.

Elliston, G. S.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Elmley, Viscount

Moore, Lleut.-Col. T. C. R.

Wardlaw-Mllne, Sir J. S.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Moreing, A. C.

Warrender, Sir V.

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 133.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Wise, A. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Wragg, H.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

Willoughby de Ereshy, Lord

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Ward and Captain Waterhouse.

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hltchin)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

NOES

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A

Qulbell, D. J. K.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Adams, D. (Consett)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Riley, B.

Adamson, W. M.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Ritson, J.

Ammon, C. G.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Hayday, A.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Rothschild, J. A. de

Banfield, J. W.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Rowson, G.

Batey, J.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Sanders, W. S.

Beflenger, F.

Hollins, A.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Benson, G.

Hopkin, D.

Sexton, T. M.

Bevan, A.

Jagger, J.

Shinwell, E.

Bromfield, W.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Short, A.

Brooke, W.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Silkln, L.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

John. W.

Silverman, S. S.

Buchanan, G.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Simpson, F. B.

Burke, W. A.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Cape, T.

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Cassells, T.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Charleton, H. C.

Kirby, B. V.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Chater, D.

Lathan, G.

Stephen, C.

Cluse, W. S.

Lawson, J. J.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le Sp'ng)

Cove, W. G.

Leach, W.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Lee, F.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Daggar, G.

Leonard, W.

Thorne, W.

Dalton, H.

Leslie, J. R.

Thurtle, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Logan, D. G.

Tinker, J. J.

Day, H.

Lunn, W.

Viant, S. P.

Dobble, W.

McEntee, V. La T.

Walkden, A. G.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

MacLaren, A.

Walker, J.

Ede, J. C.

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Watkins, F. C.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Mander, G. le M

Watson, W. McL.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Marshall, F.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon J C.

Foot, D. M.

Maxton, J.

Welsh, J. C.

Frankel, D.

Milner, Major J.

Westwood, J.

Gallacher, W.

Montague, F.

White, H. Graham

Gardner, B. W.

Muff, G.

Whiteley, W.

Garro Jones, G. M.

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Wilkinson, Ellen

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Oliver, G. H.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Owen, Major G.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Gibbins, J.

Paling, W.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Potts. J.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Pritt, D. N.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition of the discharge in and transhipment for Spanish territory of munitions of war front certain ships.)
10.29 p.m.
Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert:
"If at any time the Secretary of State certifies that the foreign Powers at present represented on the International Committee of Non-intervention have all passed legislation similar in substance and effect to the provisions of this Act, His Majesty may by Order in Council declare that."
The purpose of the Amendment is to preserve the spirit of the Non-intervention Agreement. That was an agreement
1166
by a number of States to take action with regard to the Spanish rebellion. The Government in this Bill are proposing to take action by themselves. All we know at present with regard to action by other States is merely a suggestion that one or two other States are contemplating action. In our view whatever is done to make non-intervention effective should be done by all the States who have signified their adhesion to that agreement. The line that we have taken throughout is that it is inadvisable for this country to act by itself.
10.30 p.m.
Sir F. ACLAND: As this point has been adequately explained, the House will not want long speeches. I certainly do not want to hear long speeches at this hour nor to have to sit in the Christmas

1167
week if I can help it. As was made abundantly clear in the speech of my right hon. Friend and the speech which I made half an hour ago, we attach great importance to the point, and therefore shall support the Amendment.
10.31 p.m.
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I would urge the Government, as the two Parties who are now endeavouring to make for delay have been abusing the Government for some years because they have not advanced quick enough in international affairs, now that we have a Government who are advancing quickly, to follow the dictates of their own minds rather than the very changeable nature of the Opposition on international affairs.
10.32 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) expressed an opinion a little while ago that it might assist the proceedings of the Non-intervention Committee to-morrow if this Bill were not upon the Statute Book. The view was expressed on the Government side that, so far from that being the case, it was our opinion that the steps taken by this House in passing the Bill would very materially strengthen the hands of the British representative, who is the chairman of that committee. The Committee will appreciate that what is being sought by this Amendment is that the Bill should not come into force, not until one or more or several of the non-interventionist States have agreed, but until all have agreed. The Amendment suggests a 100 per cent. agreement upon something, which is a very large assumption anyhow. It is a very different proposition from the attitude of His Majesty's Government that it would be wise to give a lead in this matter which lies solely within the power of the Government to achieve. The Committee cannot wish that arms which cannot be sent from this country should be sent from another country in British ships to a destination which would be illegal if these ships loaded at British ports. That is an untenable attitude. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] It seems to me to be selfevident. I cannot think that the Committee will take that view. To exercise persuasion upon other countries to
1168
follow a lead is one thing, but to announce publicly that you propose to delay action until every other country has agreed to come in is a very different proposition. I would recommend the Committee to decline to accept the Amendment.
10.34 p.m.
Mr. MAXTON: I fail to follow the argument of the hon. Gentleman. The Government have taken a prominent part in the work of non-intervention, and, as far as we know, have strictly and stringently carried out their obligations not to allow the export of arms to another country, while a considerable number of the other parties to the agreement are simply ignoring that altogether. Why His Majesty's Government, having found so very little backing of their previous efforts should now go further on a course which will practically isolate us I do not know. Instead they should say to other nations, "We went a long distance in agreeing that no arms should be sent out of this country. We carried it out scrupulously, but others who made the same promise have simply laughed at the bargain. We have gone as far as a nation can reasonably be expected to go, and we will go no further unless others are prepared to show better faith on this occasion than they have on previous occasions."
10.36 p.m.
Mr. BEVAN: I am astonished at the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary. I have heard hon. Members in all parts of the House ask that before the Foreign Secretary left for Geneva or for Berlin or summoned some conference, that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the matter and of hearing His Majesty's Government's views on the line they propose to take, and we have always been met by the reply that it is unwise that His Majesty's Government should be tied by any premature declaration before entering into discussions with other Powers. It has always been said that our hands must be free, and that if the House expresses itself on matters of high policy the advantage lies entirely with other Powers. In this particular instance we are told that the course of wisdom lies in having our hands tied. I have never heard a more astonishing argument than that advanced by the Parliamentary

1169
Secretary. If we are to have any influence at all upon other countries in the Non-intervention Committee tomorrow it must be by refusing to tie ourselves in this matter. We have been told for the last few months that other countries have been ignoring their obligations under the Non-intervention Agreement. Now, we are to take the initiative in surrender and in retreat.
It is said that we must declare our position before the world. What is our position? As it is, it leaves the whole of this territory open to Italy and Germany. No one will accuse me of Imperialistic desires or an inflamed patriotic passion, but I must say that if the destinies of this country are to be preserved we shall have to take them out of the hands of the super-patriots on the Government Bench. We have been faced with one humiliation after another. What is going to happen at the Non-intervention Committee if the Bill goes through? The Government will have declared its intention at all costs to prevent any assistance reaching the Spanish Government. The Italian and German Governments are prepared to allow their shipments to proceed through Portugal. We shall find ourselves involved in particularly delicate relationships with the Dominions—that difficulty has not been got over—and at the same time have deprived ourselves of any instrument for negotiations in our discussions with Germany and Italy.
What is the intention of His Majesty's Government? Is it that the Government re trying to give permanent diplomatic superiority to Mussolini and Hitler That is the consequence that will follow from their feeble attitude with regard to Spain. I believe that attitude is wholly unrepresentative of the people of this country. I speak on this matter with great feeling and in great earnestness. I believe we could occupy decisive place at this time and could play a decisive part if we allowed ourselves to be governed by our own generous impulses. I believe that if we said to Hitler and Mussolini, "So far, no further," we would put an end to their intervention and to the Spanish civil war in a very short time. I believe that if the Government took that line they would have the whole of the country behind them. But they will not do so. They are handi-
1170
capping themselves by this Bill, and I hope my hon. Friends will riot allow them to have it so easily.
I remember that at the beginning of this affair they had their alibi. It was that they were taking a line which was approved by France, Germany, Italy, the Scandinavian countries—in fact, by all the European countries, including Russia. I heard some of my hon. Friends on this side taking Russia as an alibi for their support for the Non-intervention Agreement. I heard spokesmen of the Government also taking that as an alibi. We then defended ourselves on the ground that we were taking that stand in cooperation with every other country in Europe. Now the Government are de fending this Bill on the opposite ground, that of taking the initiative. It seems to me that the opposite reasons are used all the time to justify a policy of cowardice, retreat and surrender. The prestige of this country in foreign affairs has already fallen lower under this Government than it had fallen for the last 50 years. I believe that after this Bill has been passed this evening, it will fall even lower. This Bill simply means giving a blank cheque to Hitler and Mussolini. It tells them they can intervene to whatever extent they like in Spain and that we will take no action. We shall have to meet the consequences of that. I would not like to be in the place of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite when that happens and when they have to reap the harvest.
Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: You will not be; you need not worry.
10.44 p.m.
Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has no justification for the statement which he has made to the Committee, that the Government are pursuing a policy of cowardice and surrender. On the contrary, the Government are continuing their policy of non-intervention in the dispute in Spain. We have signed a Nonintervention Agreement and we are now proposing to take further action towards non-intervention in this dispute. The Socialist party entirely misjudge the feeling—
The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will remember the Amendment.
Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I am sorry if I was out of order, but I was endeavouring to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. He directly alluded to the action of the Government, and said that it had been one of cowardice. I was contradicting that statement to the best of my ability.
Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: You are off-side.
Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The suggestion has been made that the Government are wrong in giving a lead, in this matter, to the other nations. I ask the Socialist party and the Liberal party whether they were not in favour of the Government giving a lead to the other nations with regard to disarmament, so that those other nations might follow our good example. But when it comes to giving a lead in prohibiting the export of arms to Spain then, for some reason which I cannot understand, they are opposed to such action by the Government. This is but another example of the inconsistency of both parties. They entirely misjudge the feeling of the people in this country if they think that the people will support them in trying to defeat a Measure brought forward by the Government with the direct object of preventing this country being drawn into war as a result of the dispute in Spain. The people are not much concerned as to which side in Spain wins or loses, but they are concerned with keeping this country out of war altogether.
10.47 p.m.
Miss RATHBONE: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade says that Great Britain is going to give a lead, but the President of the Board of Trade told us earlier that there were indications that such a, lead would be followed only by France and Norway. The right hon. Gentleman added, as though to reassure us, that in both countries there were Left-wing Governments. That is just the point. We foresee that the only countries to follow this lead will be those which would send supplies to the legitimate Spanish Government. We do not like a lead which is going to benefit one side, and that the wrong side.
1172
That is why we think that this Amendment would be some safeguard, though I cannot pretend to think that it would do much, because even if all the countries who have acceded to the Non-intervention Pact nominally agreed to take similar action, how many could we trust to take that action f Certainly not those who are at present supplying General Franco's troops.
10.49 p.m.
Mr. THURTLE: It was rather amusing to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade talk about the Government giving a lead. It is a new departure for the present Government to give a lead in foreign affairs. I suggest that the Amendment is necessary in order to rescue the Government from a legitimate charge of hypocrisy and insincerity. We have heard in the last few years a continuous refrain from the Government that in dealing with international questions of major importance, there must be collective action and not unilateral action. When we were dealing with the major controversy in regard to Italy and Abyssinia and the vital question of an embargo upon oil, we were repeatedly told that the Government could not dream of unilateral action in those matters, and that they must have all the other Powers with them before taking action. If that reasoning on the part of the Government was sincere, I suggest that the same reasoning applies to the present case. Either they were hypocritical and insincere on that ocassion, or they are hypocritical and insincere on this. It might be the case on both occasions. [Interruption.] Someone suggests "following their normal practice." In any event, we suggest that on so grave a matter as this there should be collective action among the Powers concerned, and unless and until the Government can get that agreement which will operate all round and fairly, and not to the detriment of the legitimate Government in Madrid, we say that this Measure ought not to come into operation.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:. Ayes, 139; Noes, 247.

Division No. 29]

AYES

[10.52 p.m

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyk

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Potts, J.

Adams, D. (Consett

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Price, M. P.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Pritt, D. N.

Adamson, W. M

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Qulbell, D. J. K.

Ammon, C. G

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Rathbone. Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Anderson. F. (Whitehaven

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

Harris, Sir P. A.

Riley, B.

Banfield, J. W

Hayday, A.

Ritson, J.

Barnes, A. J

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

Batey, J

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Bellenger, F

Hicks, E. G.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Benson, G

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Rowson, G.

Bevan, A

Hollins, A.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Broad, F. A

Hopkin, D.

Sexton, T. M.

Bromfield, W

Jagger, J.

Shinwell, E.

Brooke, W

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Short A.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Silkin, L.

Buchanan, G

John, W.

Silverman, S. S.

Burke, W. A

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Simpson, F. B.

Cape, T

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Cassells, T.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Charleton, H. C

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Chater, D

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Cluse, W. S

Kirby, B. V.

Stephen, C.

Cove, W. G

Lathan, G.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Cripps, Hon. Sir Staffor

Lawson, J. J.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Daggar, G

Leach, W.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Dalton, H

Lee, F.

Thurtle, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton

Leonard, W.

Tinker, J, J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr

Leslie, J. R.

Viant, S. P.

Day, H

Logan, D. G.

Walkden, A. G.

Dabble, W

Lunn, W.

Walker, J.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley

McEntee, V. La T.

Watkins, F. C.

Ede, J. C

MacNeill, Weir, L.

Watson, W. McL.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.

Mander, G. le M.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Marshall, F.

Welsh, J. C.

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H

Maxton, J.

Westwood, J.

Foot, D. M

Messer, F.

White, H. Graham

Frankel, D

Milner, Major J.

Whiteley, W.

Gallacher, W

Montague, F.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Gardner, B. W

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Garro Jones, G. M

Muff, G.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Windsor. W. (Hull, C.)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey

Oliver, G. H. Owen, Major G.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Gibbins, J

Owen, Major G.

Gibson, R. (Greenock

Paling, W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

NOES

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Duggan, H. J.

Albery, Sir Irvin

Channon, H.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Dunglass, Lord

Anstruther-Gray, W.

Christie, J. A.

Dunne, P. R. R.

Aske, Sir R. W

Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E, Grinstead)

Eastwood, J. F

Assheton, R

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanl

Colman, N. C. D.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Balfour, Cant. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Elliston, G. S.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Elmley, Viscount

Baxter, A. Beverle

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C

Courtauld, Major J. S

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Entwistle, C. F.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Cranborne, Viscount

Ersklne Hill, A. G.

Bernays, R. H

Crooke, J. S.

Everard, W. L.

Birchall, Sir J. D

Crookshank, Capt. R. F. C.

Fildes, Sir H.

Blindell, Sir J

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Bosoom, A. C

Cress, R. H.

Furness, S. N.

Boulton, W. W

Crowder, J. F. E.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W

Culverwell, C. T.

Ganzonl, Sir J.

Boyce, H. Lesli

Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.

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

Brass, Sir W

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Glucketein, L. H.

Briscoe, Capt. R.

Dawson, Sir P.

Goldle, N. B.

Brocklebank, C. E. R

De Chair, S. S.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Granville, E. L.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Denville, Alfred

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Dodd, J. S.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Burgin, Dr. E. L

Doland, G. F.

Grimston, R. V.

Butler, R. A

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Cortland, J. R.

Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

Cary, R. A

Drewe, C.

Guest, Maj. Hon.O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Guy, J. C. M.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Hamilton, Sir G. C.

1174

1175

Hanbury, Sir C

Maxwell, S. A.

Sandys, E. D.

Hannon, Sir P. J.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Harbord, A

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Scott, Lord William

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Mills, Sir F. (Layton, E.)

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Simmonds, O. E.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P

Moore, Lleut.-Col. T. C. R.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Hepworth, J

Moreing, A. C.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Clr'nc'st'r)

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Holdsworth, H.

Munro, P.

Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Hopkinson, A

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)

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

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Hulbert, N. J

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Storey, S.

Hume, Sir G. H

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Hunter. T

Palmer, G. E. H.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Insklp, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H

Patrick, C. M.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Peat, C. U.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Keeling, E. H

Penny, Sir G.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham

Perkins, W. R. D.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Unlvs.)

Petherick, M.

Sutcliffe, H.

Kimball, L

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Tate, Mavis C.

Latham, Sir P.

Porritt, R. W.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

Procter, Major H. A.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Leckie, J. A.

Ralkes, H. V. A. M.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ramsbotham, H.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Wakefield, W. W.

Lewis, O.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Llewellin, Lleut.-Col. J. J.

Rayner, Major R. H.

Wardlaw-Mllne, Sir J. S.

Loftus, P. C.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Warrender, Sir V.

Lumley, Capt. L. R.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Lyons, A. M.

Remer, J R

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Wickham, Lt.-Col E. T. R.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

M Connell, Sir J.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

McCorquodale, M. S.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)

Rowlands, G.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Wise, A. R.

Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

Wragg, H.

McKie, J. H.

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Wright, squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Magnay, T.

Salmon, Sir I.

Makins. Brig.-Gen. E.

Salt, E. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

Markham, S. F.

Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Ward and Dr. Morris-Jones.

Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

11.1 p.m.
Mr. PRITT: I beg to move, in line 11, after "place," to insert:
"or be discharged or transhipped in the ports or territorial waters of any country adjacent to Spanish territory for the purpose of being forwarded to Spanish territory."
The object of the Amendment is to prevent a loophole being used through the Bill by ingenious, or not even very ingenious, persons by shipping goods through Portugal with intent to carry them to Spain. Perhaps the Committee will follow me through the words of the Clause, which are not really complicated, but which deserve a little thought in order that it may be seen how the Amendment is designed to come in. No draftsman of a Bill which is designed to prevent people doing something they want to do is content to say simply that they should not do it. The Clause begins,
1176
"No article to which this Act applies shall be discharged at any port or place in Spanish territory or within the territorial waters adjacent thereto from a ship to which this Act applies…."
That is the first straightforward prohibition. Then it goes on to deal with slight evasions—
"…and no such article shall be transhipped on the high seas from any such ship into any vessel bound for any such port or place…."
Then come the words of the Amendment; and after them the words which rather add a little additional prohibition merely for protection sake—
"…or be taken on board or carried in any such ship for the purpose of being discharged or transhipped as aforesaid from that ship."
The scheme of the Clause without the Amendment is this. You shall not unload munitions from a British ship into Spain; you shall not tranship on the high seas

1177
munitions into a ship which is going to Spain; you shall not put anything on an English ship or carry anything in an English ship for the purpose of being discharged in a Spanish port or transhipped on the high seas into a ship obviously hound for a Spanish port. And the idea of the Amendment is "Nor shall you take it into any port of any country which has land communications with Spain for the purpose of its being carried on from that country to Spain." It is not necessary for this purpose to suspect Portugal. Hon. Members can, if they desire, share with the Foreign Secretary the distinction of being the only people in the world who do not suspect Portugal. All that this Amendment is designed to achieve is to stop a loophole.
I will not ask hon. Members to suppose what would happen if this Bill were law to-morrow, because all who are assuming that it will be law to-morrow have forgotten the existence of another place, of which, of course, we on these benches are very conscious. I do not see how it can be the law at the earliest till to-morrow afternoon. But suppose it is the law the day after to-morrow. A shipowner goes to his solicitor and says "My ships have not been sailing very profitably lately, my shareholders are becoming particularly and have the offer of a perfectly good, reasonable, well paid charter at 1s 6d. a ton over the market rate to carry some munitions from a port in Greece or Bulgaria or Mexico to Spain. [HON.MEMBERS: "A port in Bulgaria?"] What is worrying hon. Members? Do not they know that Bulgaria has a coast? If Bulgaria worries them I will withdraw it, and substitute any other country, except Russia, which is reserved for an hon. Member behind.
However, the shipowner goes to his solicitor and says "I want to perform this charter," and the solicitor says "Well, you cannot perform that charter if the ship is going to any Spanish port." "What can I do?" asks the shipowner, and the reply would be "Take it to any Portuguese port. You need not even pretend" —if this Bill goes through unaltered—" that you do not know about its destination. You can write up its destination, if you like, in your offices in Leadenhall Street. That is perfectly and absolutely law. The British Government, which wants to stop every loophole, has resisted an Amendment and informed the
1178
world that all you need to do is to take it to Portugal and see whether the Portuguese authorities will let it through." Everybody knows that the Portuguese authorities might be very friendly to General Franco. They might, for all I know, have still in operation the direct line from Lisbon to Badajoz which has been deposed to by many quite impartial journalists. "At any rate" the solicitor will say "all you need to do is to take the goods to Lisbon. Ask the people who want to charter your vessel whether they are content to have the munitions delivered in Lisbon. Ten to one they will say 'yes' and if they do you can earn your charter money; and we know from the declarations of His Majesty's Ministers that if you take them to Lisbon and anybody interferes with you the whole might of the British Navy will back you up. We know that because, although the British Government told you at five o'clock on 1st December that if a Dominion vessel went to a Spanish port it would not be protected, it told you at six o'clock that it would."
As I understand it, the two matters are very much on the same footing, and just as if the Bill goes through as it stands any British shipowner who wants to carry munitions will have to take the trouble to transfer his ship to Canadian registry in order to get the whole support of the British Navy, so, if this loophole is left, all he will have to do is to take the goods to Lisbon instead of directly to a Spanish port. So far as I can see there is no difficulty of international law and no difficulty of municipal law. We have a perfect right in this country, I believe, as a matter of law to forbid British shipowners to carry a particular commodity from anywhere to anywhere. We have built up, as I understand it, what is called the greatness of the British mercantile marine by not forbidding, but we have a perfect right to forbid if we want to; and we have just as much right to say, "You cannot take to Portugal to send to Spain," as we have to say, "You shall not send to Spain."
With regard to the wording of the Amendment, I do not think there is anything difficult about the matter. The word "adjacent" is a word that has sometimes caused trouble, but sometimes it has not. It already appears in this Clause, and I see the word

1179
"purpose" appears in many English Statutes. It is always easier to forbid an act without worrying about its purpose than to forbid for a particular purpose only. Many Statutes have faced that particular difficulty with courage, and this particular Clause already has in it the prohibition of things being taken or carried for the purpose of reaching Spain. There is no difficulty about that. I do not want to say anything particularly inharmonious, but if the Government want to resist this Amendment to stop a clear loophole—and a Bill that has passed its Second Reading must of necessity be regarded as a Bill which they intend to pass—and to prevent British ships carrying munitions for Spain, some doubts as to their bona fides will really arise if they insist on preserving this obvious method of any resourceful shipowner if he wants to use it.
11.13 p.m.
Dr. BURGIN: The hon. and learned Member who introduced this Amendment gave the analogy of Sub-section (1) of Clause 1. I do not quarrel with that analogy, but I want to add this. He did not call attention to the words "territorial waters adjacent thereto" in page 1, line 8, and I would just remind him that the words are inserted to prevent it being lawful for a British ship to discharge over her side into lighters when she has reached the three-mile limit. I am only adding that in order that the analogy which the hon. Member made quite properly should be absolutely complete.
The purpose of this Amendment is to endeavour to stop what the hon. and learned Member calls a loophole. It is suggested that if you tell British ships they must not—which they know already—load from British ports or carry from British ports munitions of war for the purpose of discharging in Spanish territory—if you tell them that, and if you go on to tell them that after the passing of this Bill by both Houses of Parliament they will no longer be able to carry the same things from foreign ports and discharge them in Spanish territory, there might be a temptation to endeavour to get the same articles carried in British ships for a Spanish destination through some other port or place. That is the object of the Amendment. The Com-
1180
mittee appreciate at once the point that was made during the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, that we are not dealing in terms with the port of Lisbon alone, or the country of Portugal alone—that the Amendment would cover, as an hon. Member said, Marseilles or any port in the whole of France as well as any port in the whole of Portugal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Morocco."] I quite understand what is the meaning of the words, but this Bill has been introduced by the Government as a practical measure. It has been introduced as a measure of implementing the Non-intervention Agreement already entered into by this country, and as being something within our power to prevent, namely, that a British ship, already not allowed to sail from a British port, should not be allowed to sail for the same destination from a foreign port, with the same material.
The words which the Committee are now being asked to accept would throw upon British authorities some form of supervision in every port of France and of Portugal. Look at the magnitude of the task which the Committee are being asked to put upon British authorities. What was the experience in the Great War? A number of hon. Members in the Committee will know of the doctrine of continous voyage, and will have considered how, in practice, you prevent contraband reaching an enemy country through a, neutral country. I am not dealing with the present dispute; I am not using the words "enemy" or "neutral" in connection with the present dispute. I am merely putting the case clearly so that the Committee may understand. A clear summary of the experience of the Great War would be that in order to prevent contraband passing through a neutral country to a belligerent, you have, in effect, to censor, supervise, check and control the whole of the traffic to the country through which you suspect it may pass.
Let the Committee realise what it means, and what it would be like. It is suggested that Portugal, one of our oldest allies—[Interruption.] I am, after all, but stating an acknowledged fact. It is suggested that we should control, supervise, check and stop the whole traffic of British ships to that country. [Interruption.] I have just said that it the whole

1181
traffic that you have to control and supervise, in order to be quite sure that the contraband is not passing through to a destination of which you disapprove, and the hon. Member says, "But surely you are only attempting to stop all munitions traffic." That is just the point. You cannot do that. The whole experience of the War was that in order to stop it passing through a neutral country to a belligerent, you had to search ships to see whether they had contraband. You had to search the honest man to find out whether, by chance, he was a dishonest man. I am asking the Committee to give attention, at the moment, only to the magnitude of the change which would be introduced, with this Amendment carried.
Mr. SHINWELL: If, in the opinion of the hon. Member, a difficulty presents itself in searching ships bound for Lisbon or any other Portuguese port, is the difficulty not the same in the case of ships intended for ports of Spain? Will not British men-of-war be called upon to search every vessel, no matter what commodity is carried?
Dr. BURGIN: One of the points which I was endeavouring to bring to the attention of the Committee was the width that was being given to the Clause by the words of the proposed Amendment. The hon. Member says, if you do not widen it, if you have a smaller number of ports, would not the same difficulty present itself? Yes, it would, but in a much smaller measure. There is a certain number of lines which are accustomed to go to Spanish ports, but the number of lines that will go to either French ports or Portuguese ports or Spanish ports is a very large multiple of the number that is likely to go to Spanish ports. It is a question of degree.
Mr. SHINWELL: This seems to be an entirely new point. Do we now understand that British men-of-war will be called upon to search every British vessel proceeding to ports in Spain, no matter what goods are carried?
Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir; I hope the Committee will understand nothing of the kind. I hope they will understand that a vessel proceeding under the British flag to a Spanish port, if it happens to be stopped by a Spanish vessel, will seek the aid of a British vessel of war, and the British vessel of
1182
war, no doubt, in determining the amount of protection it can give to the British ship, will make its own inquiries as to what cargo the British ship has on board. The position, surely, is clear. What I am asking the Committee to realise is that the lessons of the Great War have shown that, if you are to attempt to stop goods passing through one country to another, you in effect have to set up a complete system of supervision of all the shipping in question going to all or any of those ports or all or any of those countries. I am pointing out to the Committee that, from its sheer width, that is an impossible performance.
Mr. GALLACHER: You are misleading the Committee.
Dr. BURGIN: I hope I am not misleading the Committee in any way in attempting, before we deal with the arguments of the Amendment, to understand to what the Amendment refers. I conceive it to be my duty in the first instance to expound it. The Amendment seeks to say that, in addition to the prohibition in Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, you should say, not merely that goods must not be loaded for, or carried to, or discharged on Spanish territory, but that there should be a like prohibition as regards ports or territorial waters of countries adjacent. I am pointing out that that would apply to the whole of France and the whole of Portugal, and that it is impossible of performance.
Mr. GALLACHER: But not the whole of the ships. The hon. Gentleman says that all British ships going into Portugal or into France would have to be searched or looked after, but that is not correct. It would only apply to British ships sailing from foreign ports.
Dr. BURGIN: Yes, I think the hon. Member is right. I do not disagree at all with that interpretation. We are not in this Clause dealing at all with ships sailing from British ports; that is quite clear. I hope the hon. Member does not think I was attempting to say anything to the contrary.
Mr. GALLACHER: That is the impression you conveyed.
Dr. BURGIN: I am very glad, if my words were too wide, to have that correction which the hon. Member has made. This will only apply to vessels sailing from

1183
foreign ports. The view I have attempted to put before the Committee is that, while we do not in any way countenance the carriage by British ships of ammunition intended for Spain from any port or from any country which is adjacent to Spain, the prohibition which this Bill gives is a prohibition applying to ports in Spanish territory and their adjacent territorial waters, and I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Mr. BEVAN: Will the hon. Gentleman clear up one point on which I am rather confused? I understood him to say it would be the right of warships of any belligerent Power in Spain to stop a British vessel and that that vessel would then have the right to call on a British warship
Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member must not put into my mouth the according of rights to the Spanish authorities. I have never said anything of the kind and I am most anxious that the Committee should not make that assumption. It is quite different. I am not referring to rights at all. I am saying that the probabilities, or the possibilities, are that a British vessel proceeding to a Spanish port within, if you like, the zone prohibited by this Bill may encounter some Spanish armed trawler or vessel of war which may call upon her to heave to. The vessel obeys or does not obey. I am imagining the possibility that the captain of the merchant vessel, confronted by the display of force, which may well be an illegal display of force, may signal to a British vessel of war "I require your assistance." The British vessel comes to her assistance. What does she do? Surely the most likely thing is that the commander ascertains for himself whether or not she is proceeding on a lawful voyage with a lawful cargo to a lawful destination. On the assumption that she is she is accorded full help. On the assumption that she is not, we must wait for the event to occur. On the assumption that the vessel is carrying an illegal cargo to a destination to which she is not entitled to go by the passing of this Bill, surely the most likely act is that the British vessel of war will direct that merchant ship to accompany her to a British port, because she is not committing an infringement of international law but of our municipal law.
1184
The whole object of this Bill is not to leave it to the parties in Spain to determine whether or not our vessels are committing a breach of international law but to give our naval vessels the power to address themselves to a much simpler proposition, whether or not they are committing a breach of our own municipal law. Happily there is no need for General Franco's or Spanish Government warships to intervene. The thing is for our vessel to be taken to the nearest available and convenient British port where the matter can be dealt with by a court of law as an infraction of the municipal law of the land. That is the meaning of the Clause and I hope that explanation will satisfy the Committee.
11.30 p.m.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is it really the intention of His Majesty's Government to invite General Franco to stop every British ship that comes along and put the proviso into practice? I never understood that there was to be that humiliating procedure. I cannot believe that the Committee will accept that interpretation as the intention of the Government. I have not heard anything more humiliating in my life.
11.31 p. m.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think, with all due respect—and I desire to preserve that respect—that the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman was really very helpful or very germane to the speech which the Parliamentary Secretary has just made. The ship of His Majesty's Navy, unless it sees reason to suspect that a British ship is breaking what, under this Bill, will be the municipal law, will convoy that ship, if necessary, to its destination and afford it all protection. Only if the captain of the ship of His Majesty's Navy sees that there is a prima facie case to suppose that it is breaking our municipal law and committing an offence against the laws of this country will it be taken to the nearest British port for adjudication. That, I understand, is the Government case.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is an entirely different explanation from that given by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to proceed. I venture to suggest that, whatever imperfections there were in the ex-

1185
position of my hon. Friend—and we are all ready to recognise the imperfections of our friends—he agrees with my interpretation of what he said. It is not really for that purpose that I rise, though I hope to remove what I believe to be an entirely unnecessary misconception by these few words. But I am a little troubled by the statement of the position of the Government. My hon. Friend mentioned the question of continuous voyage. That has become a very important part of international law. It was developed at the Courts of the United States in the Civil Wars very much at the expense of British ships which carried goods to the Bahamas, where they were transferred into smaller ships, which ran them into various small creeks or ports in Florida. In the Great War, when we had to exercise throughout the full rights of a belligerent at sea, we acted on the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and perhaps even developed them in the matter of continuous voyage. I do not want to speak dogmatically, but to seek further explanation. My hon. Friend says that we should have to supervise, check, stop, or arrest every British ship proceeding, admittedly not from our own port, but from some foreign port, not merely to Spain, but to Portugal and France. As I read the Clause it applies finally and definitely to
"any port or place in Spanish territory or within the territorial waters adjacent thereto…and should be transshipped on the high seas for any such ship into any vessel bound for any such port or place…."
And these are the important words:
"or carried in any such ship for the purpose of being discharged or transhipped as aforesaid from that ship."
I do not quite see that that is continuous voyage. You carry them up to a point outside the immediate jurisdiction of the State, it need not be three miles, it may be 10 or 20, or 50 miles, and you discharge them into other vessels for the purpose of transport and delivery in Spain. Is that doctrine available if there is any reason to suppose—and it is only when there is reason to suppose that you would act—that the arms consigned to Hamburg or Bordeaux or Lisbon are intended to be transhipped to Spain? I do not want to be dogmatic and I am not sure that I grasp the whole of the case, but I submit to the Government that they have not yet shown cause
1186
why they should not prevent not merely transhipment in "territorial waters adjacent thereto," but transhipment by continuous voyage if there is reason to suppose that there is a faked destination from which the arms are to pass to ports which are prohibited. I hope that some member of the Government will address himself to that problem. I keep an open mind upon it until he has spoken.
11.39 p.m.
Mr. R. ACLAND: It seems to me that in this matter the Government have become adepts in giving wrong reasons for not doing the right thing. During the Second Reading Debate we were told that arms were to be allowed to be landed in Portugal in case Portugal should be left defenceless in the face of a victorious Spanish Government in arms. The Amendment makes that reason inapplicable, and so we have been given another. The sole argument the Government put in opposition to the Amendment is that it is physically impossible; we have not got enough ships. I want to ask the Government seriously what is this task? I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his clear definition and explanation of the functions of British ships. He made it perfectly clear that a British warship would only be called upon to render service in the event of a British merchantman being called upon by a warship of one or other of the parties in Spain to do something. In that event—and only in that event—the hon. and learned Gentleman made it clear that a British warship might have some function to perform. If that be so, the number of British ships required in any particular part of the seas to which we may extend the operation of this Bill must be roughly proportionate—I do not know the proportion, but the Government must know it—to the number of Spanish warships of one party or the other which are to be found in those waters. May we know from the Government whether it is their view that there are now, or are likely to be, any warships of either party to the Spanish war off the coast of Portugal or the coast of France? If there is none off the coast of Portugal or the coast of France, no British warships will be required to carry out the services which were so clearly set forth by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
It is a fact that most of the Spanish warships on both sides are now concen-

1187
trated off the coast of Spain. I ask for a very definite answer to this question from some member of the Government. It must be known to the Government, because apparently the British Navy has already been acting for some days as though this Bill were now in force. How many ships of the Royal Navy are now involved in enforcing this Bill, or what this Bill would be if it were passed? If the hon. and learned Gentleman has based his argument on the grounds that we cannot do what is suggested in the Amendment because we have not enough forces, we are entitled to know, in order that the Committee may judge on this matter, how many ships are being used. If the hon. and learned Gentleman can say that 50 ships are required in order to make this policy effective off the coast of Spain, I will grant him that he has made out his case. In that event, we cannot extend it to Portugal or France, but if the number is very much smaller, it is fantastic for him to bring against this otherwise wholly reasonable Amendment, as his only argument, the suggestion that we could not carry out the Bill if the Amendment were added to it.
11.43 p.m.
Mr. NOEL-BAKER: I am most grateful for the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) of the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary. It seemed to us that the Parliamentary Secretary had gone very far towards giving belligerent rights to General Franco. There was one point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did not completely clear up, and I hope it will be cleared up. As we understand the matter, the first duty of any British ship will be to tell any Spanish ship which stops a British merchantman that it has no business to do so, and only when the Spaniard has disappeared from the scene will His Majesty's warship proceed to examine the contents of the cargo of the British vessel.
I hope the Government will reconsider their opposition to this Amendment. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has misconceived the difficulty which it would involve. Surely the work of supervision will not be done for the most part on the high seas, but by consuls and others. Surely the major part of super-
1188
vision will be done by the consuls in the ports of Spain. They will have to work hard. But why should consuls in the ports of Portugal and in the ports of France not work hard also if it is to make this Bill more effective than otherwise it would be? I hope the Government will consider that the difficulties in the way of working continuous control are not so great that they could not be overcome by using the services of the consular officers in the various ports concerned.
11.45 p.m.
Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I, too, feel puzzled by the Government's refusal to consider this Amendment. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), I suspend judgment on it, but this, after all, is not a question of those intricate examinations of ultimate destinations and those arrangements as to safe consignees which had to be operated during the War. I suppose I had as much experience as any hon. Member here of conducting that system during the War. Surely it is raising a rather absurd bogy to bring up all those questions in connection with shipments of munitions—articles for which, normally, His Majesty's Government would not grant export licences, unless they were consigned to the Government of a foreign country. Similarly, as the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) has said, the consular officer at Bordeaux or Lisbon or whatever the port might be would, prima facie, investigate any suspicious circumstances if a British ship arrived at that port with a cargo of munitions consigned to anybody other than the Government of France or of Portugal as the case might be. Surely, therefore, the problem is a comparatively simple one.
The Amendment only asks the Government to do what the Government have said is the object of the Bill, that is, to apply to British ships trading between foreign ports what would be applied to British ships trading to the ports of this country. There is no doubt that the Board of Trade if asked for a licence for the export of munitions—and that is all the Bill applies to—from this country to Lisbon, will take very good care that such a licence is not granted unless they are certain that there is no question of the cargo being sent on to Spain. The Amendment asks that precisely the same rule shall be applied by His Majesty's

1189
Government and by Consular officers in those ports to shipments from other countries. All this talk, in this connection, about the duty of His Majesty's ships to search vessels on the high seas is irrelevant. The question does not and cannot arise.
11.48 p.m.
Mr. GALLACHER: The hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade said that a British ship sailing in Spanish waters, if called upon to heave to—it might be quite illegally called upon to do so—would hoist a signal and that a British warship would go to her assistance. I do not know how hon. Members opposite regard that position, and I want to ask this question: If an honest, sturdy, independent British seaman brought up in the traditions of British seamanship refuses to heave to at an illegal command—at a piratical command—what is going to happen? Will the Minister please tell me that? An intimation has been given here that Franco, the pirate, can call on British ships to heave to. If an independent skipper refuses, what is to happen to him?
11.50 p.m.
Mr. SANDYS: I wish to clear up a remark made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in reply to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who asked whether he was right in assuming that this Bill applied merely to British ships coming from foreign ports. My hon. Friend gave me to understand, I think, that that was the case. I cannot see in the Bill that that is the case. It says in Sub-section (3) —
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that we can pursue further arguments in connection with this Amendment.
Mr. SANDYS: Am I not in order to ask the Parliamentary Secretary either to confirm or correct that statement?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Gentleman may ask him a question, but not go beyond that.
Mr. SANDYS: That is the question which I wish to ask. I would like to say also that the territories to which this Amendment would apply include not only France but Morocco, Algeria and the international zone of Tangier.
11.51 p.m.
Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to join in the request to the Government to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member who preceded me pointed out that it was not only France and Portugal which were concerned but Northern Africa as well. But I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government have given us the assurance that the French Government are going to take similar action. That would dispose of the difficulties with regard to the French coast. The statement has been made by the Government that they intend to adopt an attitude of positive neutrality, and in the face of all that has been said with regard to Portugal, and how through Portugal the main munitions are going for the service of Franco, surely in this Measure the Spanish Government are entitled to see that the British Government are going to keep its assurance of real positive neutrality. So I say that on the Government's own showing it would appear to me that they should be eager to accept this Amendment. I am not clear, having heard the Parliamentary Secretary, as to what is proposed under this Sub-section. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary was very clear himself. There are British ships from foreign ports which are proceeding to these territorial waters. May I take it that apart from action by Spanish Government warships or insurgent warships there will be no interference by the British Navy with these British vessels? Will the British Navy only come into the picture with regard to the British ships when trouble arises with some Spanish or rebel war vessel interfering with the British ships? I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to make that clear. He said that part of the function of the Navy would be to exercise a general oversight and if for some reason they suspected a British vessel was possibly proceeding to a Spanish port and carrying munitions, they would search her and see if she was all right. Later he made the other statement that it appeared that the British warships would be sufficient to look after cases when either Franco's war vessels or the Spanish Government war vessels were interfering with British ships. I hope that he will make the position clear.
I did not feel very much impressed by what he said with regard to the extra

1191
ordinary difficulties. If the British Government are going to be really neutral, they must make it perfectly plain in this Bill that they will not allow British ships to be used in this way through, say, the port of Lisbon providing the munitions for one side in this conflict. I do not see that the British Government can prove their neutrality in any other way than by the acceptance of the Amendment now before the Committee. The two right hon. Gentlemen behind the Government on the benches opposite said sufficient to the Committee, I think, to make the Government understand that there is a real apprehension on all sides with regard to this matter, and the Government ought not to allow themselves to be put into the position that their neutrality can be doubted. In listening to this Debate, I have sometimes wished, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) will allow me to say so, that instead of his protégés on that bench being allowed to get up and explain what they are doing, he himself were there, because I do not think they have made a very good job of it, and I hope they will take his advice and accept this Amendment.
11.57 p.m.
Mr. MANDER: The Parliamentary Secretary keeps referring to what will happen when this Bill passes, but we have been told already that the Bill is in operation in effect. No doubt we shall get to that point later on, perhaps between three and four in the morning, but in any case it will have to be dealt with. I hope the hon. Gentleman will respond to the appeals which have been made from all parts of the Committee with regard to this Clause, because it really is not as I think he, quite unintentionally, represented to the Committee. First of all, he suggested that the difficulties were so immense that it was outside the bounds of practicability that in respect of every country bordering on Spain every British ship should be searched. We see now, however, that the task is closely circumscribed on three points. First of all, the only country which really comes into the picture is Portugal; then you get the point that it is only British shipping going from foreign ports that are involved; and then it is only those ships when they are stopped by one of Franco's
1192
or one of the Spanish Government's ships. The task is very much more limited, therefore, and, I should have thought, well within the scope of the British Navy, and I think the hon. Gentleman ought to give us an explanation on that question. I am sure the Government are anxious to act fairly in this matter and not to show any differentiation as between the two sides, but if you are to insist on the Bill as it is and say that you will not undertake the task of including Portugal, you are deliberately differentiating on the side of the rebels, and that is an additional reason for responding to the appeals that have been made.
There is one more point, a new one that I wish to put. Suppose a British ship sailing from a foreign port approaches a Spanish port and is stopped by a, naval vessel with the colours of Franco and with the flag of Franco, if he has one, but quite obviously being really an Italian ship or perhaps a German ship. I understand that something of this kind has been done already, and as the trouble goes on there will be a greater tendency to use the ships of the Fascist powers on the side of Franco. What is to happen in these circumstances? Is the merchant ship and the British naval vessel to assume that it is a genuine Franco vessel, or are they to take action in accordance with the real facts of the case?
12.1 a.m.
Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: Many hon. Members have already said that it is obviously the desire of the Government to let no munitions or articles mentioned in the Bill reach Spain directly or indirectly. It seems reasonable to suggest, as the Amendment so ably moved by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) does, that the right way of doing it is to prevent any articles to be discharged to any port in any territory adjacent to Spain. There is, however, a confusion of thought, and there was the same confusion of thought in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). They are both thinking in terms of war. They are both thinking that belligerent rights are already existing. This is an effort to apply municipal law to a peculiar situation and they are both talking in terms of international law during a time of war.

1193
Under international law in time of war there is the right of the belligerents on either side to interfere with neutral trade—the right to stop ships and to search, and the right, if they find there is contraband, to board and condemn. Very rightly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham pointed out that that right, which was begun in the American Civil War and extended during the Napoleonic War, was largely extended by us during the late War. That is the right, when a ship is destined for a neutral port and is carrying goods which are perhaps really intended for the enemy, to stop and search the ship and to condemn the goods as contraband. The right is the right to search every ship, whatever her destination may be, and it is a peculiar right which arises during war. Unfortunately, because of the exercise of that right there has been a good deal of friction, and time and again during the late War we were, because of it, very nearly brought into conflict with neutrals. The Americans and the neutrals round Germany complained because of our treatment of the vessels which were going into their territories. All that will arise during this civil war.
What is the position here? This is a Bill which applies in the first place to ships. If we turn to the Sub-section we find that it says that articles, which can shortly be defined as munitions, shall not be discharged from a British ship—where? In Spanish territory, in Spanish territorial waters; not be carried on a vessel which is destined for Spanish territory or Spanish territorial waters. That, I should imagine, is about as far as we could go without interfering unnecessarily with international relations. What are we going to do under this Amendment? Are we going to say that we have a right to interfere with articles going to France, or Portugal or Morocco, merely because there is a possibility that they may go through to Spain? Somebody has got to deal with that possibility when the question of destination is raised. Assume that the article is discharged in a French port, and is claimed by a Frenchman.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There are the words
"for the purpose of being…transhipped."
Mr. DAVIES: For the purpose of being transhipped. But that will be a
1194
matter for proof. Someone will allege it, and someone will deny it, and someone else will have to decide between them. Where is the court which is to decide that point? Obviously we shall have questions raised in the French courts as well as in the Portuguese.
Lord E. PERCY: There is no question of any case being raised in the French courts. There is no question of the British consul being able to stop the delivery of the consignment. The question will be "Is that British shipowner liable to prosecution afterwards in British courts under the law of the land?"
Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman read Sub-section (6), beginning at the bottom of page 2 and read on to line 19 in page 3. A ship is destined for French territory and the goods are to be discharged in French territory, and then a Frenchmen makes a claim because the goods have been interfered with.
Mr. PRITT: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and learned Member talking on the Amendment or on the Bill?
Mr. DAVIES: I am pointing out that if we accept the Amendment we increase the difficulties. The best we can do at the moment is to say that no article shall be discharged from a British ship in Spain or its territorial waters. If it is in some vessel which may be likely to take it to Spain it obviously will be somewhere within the waters adjacent to Spain. If we go further we shall increase our international difficulties, which is what we all wish to avoid. For that reason I oppose the Amendment.
12.9 a.m.
Mr. MAXTON: I listened with great interest and some deference to the statements of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) but I think his whole argument neglected the consideration that this Measure deals only with British ships, and therefore all his worry about neutral countries getting annoyed does not arise. This is a Measure of the British Parliament to deal with British ships and solely with British ships, and confers no rights with reference to any other ships.
Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: The goods which are in that ship are dealt with in the Bill, because Sub-section (5) makes

1195
them forfeit in certain circumstances. It is not right to say it applies only to the ships. That is where the difficulty arises —with regard to the goods which are in the ship, which are capable of being forfeited.
Mr. MAXTON: The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke from the Labour Front Bench said, if we are going into difficulties arising out of the goods in the ships which are not the property of Great Britain or British nationals, and the dangers of complications with the friendly neutral countries, then you are bringing forward, as he says, an additional tremendously strong argument against the Bill as a whole. Certainly there can be no argument brought forward which makes the Bill a good thing applicable only to Spain and adjacent waters, but makes it a bad Bill if extended to Portugal. As my hon. and learned Friend said, if it be true, as the Foreign Secretary has told us it is true, that the French Government are taking the same line on this, France can be put out of consideration. The problem is purely a Portuguese one, and I think we are entitled as a Committee to have an answer to the issue raised by hon. Members on the Labour benches as to what exactly are the naval commitments that are going to be involved in this matter?
I am glad to see there is a representative of the Navy present now. I think this is the first time he has appeared to-day, though I should have thought this matter was of sufficient importance for the First Lord to be present. There may be some good reason for his absence of which I do not know, but undoubtedly if this Measure is to be an effective Measure, the executive work of it will have to be done by the Navy. Now I think we are entitled to an answer to the question that has been put—What portion of the Navy has been found necessary to operate this Measure in the period of anticipation, which the Government have permitted themselves in advance, of getting authority from this House—because we have been told they have been operating it without authority from this House? What proportion of the ships of the Navy have been used in this work during the last week? Have they been found sufficient for the purpose, and what additional
1196
ships would be required if the Amendment were embodied in the Bill? After all, the only argument that was advanced against the acceptance of this Amendment was that to make it effective would be cumbrous and an impossible task. Well I do not suppose anyone here will ask the Government to shoulder an impossible task. I myself wish them to shoulder a possible one. To wish an imposibility would be to go too far. But I want to ask whether they have found the present job of patrolling the coasts of Spain well within the scope of the Navy, and would it make it a very much greater task to patrol also the coasts of Portugal, and to see that British ships entering Portuguese ports are not carrying munitions of war from other countries for the purpose of the insurgents in Spain? It is an answer that can come only from the Admiralty, but we are in Committee here and I think we ought to have it from the Admiralty. What have they been doing during the last week or two, and what more do they expect to have to do in the weeks that lie in front?
12.15 a.m.
Sir ARNOLD WILSON: I hope the Amendment will be rejected and the Government stick to the Bill. The last occasion when this particular type of situation occurred was, I recollect, as far back as 1911, when the arms traffic in the Indian Ocean was at its height. Arms had been run for many years from foreign countries to India from Persia and Afghanistan. It was not possible for us, failing an international agreement, and failing the consent of the Persian Government, to stop British ships carrying arms into Persian ports, until the Persian Government had itself agreed to prohibit the importation of arms. Once the Persian Government had agreed to do it, we were in a position to stop our own ships and, with consent, other ships. Till then, we had no right to stop even our own ships. It was necessary to conclude the Brussels Convention, which is still operative in those waters, in order to regularise the position, and to confer upon the British Navy the right to search not only its own ships but those of other countries who were not signatories.
What we require in the Mediterranean in a new Brussels Convention, covering

1197
all the Littoral States. Until we have it, I think we are bound, in this case, to limit the intervention of the British Navy strictly to the terms of the Bill. We cannot include Portugal without extending it and raising a whole series of further international problems, which might be very much against our interests, in similar circumstances that might arise in future. I do not pretend to be an international lawyer, but I had a personal responsibility for some years for operating, on shore, enactments and Orders in Council following upon the arms traffic. I have a very clear recollection that, without the previous consent of the Power which owned the intermediary ports, we could not stop arms going into Afghanistan, through a third country, That seems to be a fairly close parallel with the situation with which we are now confronted. I, therefore, hope that the Amendment will be rejected.
12.18 a.m.
Dr. BURGIN: It is not always easy when one is arguing a case against an Amendment to avoid some possibility of the words being an argument in favour of the Bill. Perhaps that is what happened in this case to-night. In dealing with the extension of the Bill that would be brought about by the acceptance of the Amendment, I was naturally called upon to discuss a number of hypothetical cases. Some of the answers given to those hypothetical cases have been treated as though they were explanations of the Bill. May I reply to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) as to continuous voyage. He read Sub-section (1), and emphasised the words "transhipped on the high seas." May I say to him and to the Committee that the Clause is at present expressly drafted to limit it to transhipment on the high seas, and not to include transhipment in territorial waters or in port. Both Portugal and France are Members of the Non-intervention Committee. Once ships come within the jurisdication of those countries, the ultimate destination of the goods must be a matter for the Governments of those countries, and no British officer, naval, consular or any other, can, when articles are discharged, for example, at the port of Lisbon or Marseilles, control in any way their ultimate destination.
1198
I am giving this explanation in order that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee may not feel that there is something that has been overlooked. On the contrary, the Bill is expressly drafted to include that which it lies within our power to supervise, to prohibit and to prevent, namely, the carrying towards and the discharge at a port within Spanish territory. The Committee understands that under the Arms Export Prohibition Order of 1931 and the Instrument of 19th August, 1936, the class of articles to which the Bill relates cannot be loaded at or carried from United Kingdom ports to Spanish territory. Keeping the territory, the articles and the ships the same, the variation of this Bill is as to the port from which the ship proceeds. That is done deliberately, because it avoids the difficulty that you have immediately you embark on the international question of the discharge of goods into the ports of a friendly country with some possibility of transhipment, reconsignment, and delivery by road. I am not sure whether I have dealt fully with all the points of the right hon. Gentleman, but I trust I have given him the explanation of the drafting of the Clause.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the Chairman will allow me, I will put my point again when my hon. Friend has finished his speech. I think I can do it better in that way.
Dr. BURGIN: I wanted as far as I could to deal with that point. The point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) was a separate issue from that which has been raised in the general discussion. I wanted to make it quite clear that this Clause, whatever its merits may be, is drafted deliberately only to apply to transhipment on the high seas, and not to deal with transhipment in a port of a country which happens to be a non-intervention country. That, we have felt, is entirely a matter for that country.
Some hon. Members have spoken as if they misunderstood the object of the Bill and the object of this main Clause of the Bill. I would re-affirm that it is the conception of the Government that by making the carrying of arms by British ships from a foreign port to Spanish territory an offence against municipal law you avoid any excuse for the warships of

1199
either party in Spain having anything to do with British ships at all. I agree with the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) that the first duty of His Majesty's ships will be to resist any interference with British ships by Spanish warships, and the reason for any interference is caused to disappear entirely by announcing to the world, by the passage of this Bill, that any improper act by a British ship travelling from a foreign port to Spanish territory is an offence against the municipal law of this country, so that a British ship offending against that law can be dealt with by a British warship, taken into a British port, and dealt with by a British court of justice. Let it be clearly understood that, so far from giving any encouragement to the warships of Spain to interfere with British ships, this Measure will do precisely the reverse. It provides them with absolutely no excuse and no reason for interfering with a British ship at all.
Mr. BELLENGER: Surely a Spanish ship has to stop the merchantman first of all to ascertain whether its suspicions are correct that it is carrying contraband?
Dr. BURGIN: The Spanish ship has no reason to worry about the matter at all. If the British ship is carrying contraband, the British warship will do whatever is necessary. This is a notice to Spanish warships that we have told our British nationals that they are not to carry these goods, whether from the United Kingdom or from foreign ports. If they do, they are liable to be dealt with by our warships and taken into our ports, and the goods are liable to be confiscated and so on.
Mr. BELLENGER: Are we to understand from that that no Spanish warship is to stop any British merchantman on the seas and that only a British warship will be permitted to stop and search it?
Dr. BURGIN: Certainly. If I did not give that impression, the fault is entirely mine. It is the impression I endeavoured to create. I think it will be found, when the words are read, that we have said in terms that that is what the Spanish ship has not the right to do. [Interruption.] It means that British ships will not be interfered with by ships
1200
which have no right to interfere with them. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) asked as to the number of naval units engaged in this work. It is not the practice of the House, and it is not in the public interest, to disclose the disposition of His Majesty's Forces. At present, under an instrument dated 19th August of this year, these commodities cannot be taken from United Kingdom ports to Spanish territory. The present Bill seeks to make it equally an offence for British ships to be used as a means of carriage of the same goods from foreign ports to Spanish ports, or of transhipping them by loading over the side into lighters. It does not consider it necessary to deal with goods transhipped except on the high seas.
12.28 a.m.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My point of view—I do not wish there to be any mistake about it—is quite contrary to that of hon. Members opposite who opposed the Second Reading of the Bill. I regret very much that what I thought was an important engagement prevented me from recording my vote on the Second Reading. My whole purpose in returning to the House was to support the Government in what I believe to be the right policy, and it is from that point of view, of the effectiveness and complete success of the policy which the Government avow and support, that I intervened earlier in the Debate. I do not think my hon. Friend has entirely met the case which I put, or which was put by my Noble Friend.
The case of the Government is this: We have prohibited the merchant navy of this country, and our own citizens of this country, from selling or carrying munitions of war to Spain. We are now applying the same law to British ships starting from a foreign port and not touching at a British port, but with a Spanish destination. My hon. Friend says we do not prohibit the shipment of arms to Portugal, and why should we prevent the carrying of arms from a foreign port in a British vessel to Portugal? I am not sure it is fair to put an important argument to him; perhaps I ought to put it to the Cabinet Minister in charge of the Bill, because when you come to a question of a certain magnitude I, who have been an Under-Secretary myself, know that Under-

1201
Secretaries have not the same degree of authority as has the Cabinet Minister in charge of a Bill.
I put it to the Government that they have overlooked one feature of the case. If a British firm in this country applies to-morrow to the President of the Board of Trade for a licence to ship arms to a private company in Portugal, will he grant it? He licenses the shipment of arms to the Government of Portugal but not to some irresponsible person. Why should you allow British ships to engage for profit in a trade in which you will not allow any resident in this country to have a share? I really think the Government are getting themselves into a quite unnecessary difficulty. They appear to be afraid, on the one hand, that this, might be considered as an unfriendly act—and I am using the word "unfriendly" in the sense in which we use it in private life, and not in the full sense which is attached to its use in diplomatic language. They are afraid that France or Portugal might consider this an unfriendly act. How is it conceivable that Governments which have definitely undertaken not to allow arms to pass should treat it as an unfriendly act on our part to say that if any British citizen attempts to pass them through their country, we shall hold him responsible in our own courts as we would a man resident in this country for the same thing? I cannot see it. The original plea was that this opens so vast a field, that we should have to examine every ship that traverses neighbouring waters; but you cannot examine every ship that passes near Spanish waters. Are you going to take into Gibraltar for examination every vessel of the P. and O. or other lines travelling through the Mediterranean out to India or Australia?
Mr. MAXTON: If Franco tells them.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course not. You are not going to assume that every British ship is breaking British law. You are going to act only when you have a prima facie case to suspect that some British citizen is infringing our municipal law. Really, that is my case. I am putting it as a hearty supporter of the Government's policy and not as a critic, like hon. Gentlemen opposite. They really ought to examine it and not be frightened by imaginary bugbears of their own creation.
12.35 a.m.
Mr. MAXTON: Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will save the time of the Committee by allowing me to put my point before he answers. I am profoundly dissatisfied at being fobbed off by the reply the hon. Gentleman gave me in reference to this question of naval forces. I must say, in this instance, that he should have given me the most cowardly of all answers, about it not being in the public interest, is a complete misuse of what is admittedly a right and proper thing to ask. If one asked a question about the disposition of forces in reference to a nation with which we were at war, I would say that would then be a legitimate and proper answer to give, but when I am asking for some information as to the call that will be made on the Navy to operate what is a bit of police duty with reference to our own citizens, to tell me it is not in the public interest to answer is only treating an hon. Member of this House in a contemptuous fashion. I want from the Minister some statement as to whether any calculation has been made as to the portion of the Navy which is required for this purpose, and how much more will be required if the Amendment here proposed were accepted. I think that is a reasonable thing to ask, and that an hon. Member is entitled to an answer, and not an evasion.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I say, before the right hon. Gentleman answers, that I do not commit myself in any way to the wording? It may not be an appropriate wording. I confine myself to the case I have stated, which I hope the Government will consider.
12.38 a.m.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: The reason why I have not intervened before in the Committee stage is that my hon. Friend has been handling this, as he always does, with very great skill. As long as he and I work together at the Board of Trade I wish to see a proper division of duties, and on the Committee stage on an important matter in which legal knowledge and acumen are needed, I prefer to leave him to deal with the details which come up from time to time. The question put to me is whether I, as being a person of greater responsibility than an Under-Secretary, will be prepared to give a

1203
different interpretation from that which he has given of the proposal at present before the Committee?
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I did not ask for a different interpretation, but for a reconsideration of the attitude of the Government. I thought it unfair to press the Parliamentary Secretary unduly because, after all, an Under-Secretary has not, unless he is expressly empowered to do so, the same authority to accept an Amendment as the result of discussion in this House as has a Cabinet Minister.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will not pursue that point. We are asked whether we can, on this very difficult subject, meet legitimate requirements expressed in various quarters of the House? My right hon. Friend has stated very clearly to the House, and I think the House fully appreciates, the point of view which has actuated those of us who are trying to make this as nearly as we can watertight. That really is what we are all naturally driving at. It is not an easy thing to do. It is extraordinarily difficult to handle. We are dealing with what is, to some extent, a departure, and we must naturally consider every detail of it with great care. That has been done before the Bill was submitted.
With regard to the points which have been put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and by others in this House, I think I can say that while at the present time we do not see the necessity for making the change which he has suggested, we are quite prepared to look into the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] At once, between now and the stage in the House of Lords. We must get the Bill now. Before the next stage is taken in the House of Lords, I will undertake that we shall look into the matter. The various Departments concerned will examine it with great care, and we will do what we can. If necessary, we will alter the wording, but we will do what we can to satisfy the quite legitimate objects of my right hon. Friend and those for whom he speaks.
12.42 a.m.
Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
1204
Surely this is a very vital matter which goes to the root of the whole Bill, and if this is a matter for reconsideration, the Bill ought not to be rushed through at this time of night. I cannot believe that a day or a day and a-half would make all the difference, and the right thing is surely that we should report Progress so that the Government may have time to look into these considerations, which did not seem to be present to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade before they were raised in this House.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this point If he really wishes to see the Bill go through, I am sure he will regard it as necessary that we should get it.
Mr. ATTLEE: I put it that the right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the point, which is that here is a very vital matter affecting the whole policy of the Bill. It now appears that it has not been considered, and we have not had a word from any Minister to-day or any day to say that this Bill is so urgent that it should be passed in a day. In those circumstances I shall certainly press the Motion.
12.44 a.m.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this Motion. I quite frankly voted against the Bill, and I am not trying to fly under false colours and say I am a friend of the Bill. At the same time, this Clause is one of the reasons why I voted against it, because I saw that unless the Clause were amended we should prevent munitions going direct to the Spanish Government but not from going to the rebel forces through Portugal. Now this objection would be very largely met if the suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy)—made in the first place by the. Leader of the Opposition and supported by those right hon. Gentlemen—were accepted. But the important thing is that if we part with the Bill on the basis which the President of the Board of Trade has suggested, we leave this vital Amendment to be made or rejected in another place. We shall have no power to move and

1205
shape the Amendment. It is not as though the President of the Board of Trade had said, "I am very much impressed by the force of what the Leader of the Opposition says. I see there is a strong case for this Amendment." On the contrary, he is not convinced there is any necessity. He has not said, "I should like to be able to make the Amendment, but there are all kinds of technical difficulties, and it is a very difficult matter for me to decide whether it will be possible, and we must have time to consider it." He is not even yet convinced of the necessity, and therefore I think it would be very wrong on the part of this House to allow this question of the necessity, or even the technical feasibility, of the Amendment to be discussed and decided in another place. The Bill has, in fact, been in operation, I think I am right in saying, for four or five days. It really should not make any great difference to the police of the Government if the endorsement of that policy by Parliament were delayed for one or even two more days. If we are to keep control of this Measure I do hope that the Government, out of respect for the rights and responsibilities of this House, will agree to the Motion for the postponement of this Debate and for the decision on the Amendment to be made by this House either to-morrow or the day after.
12.48 a.m.
Mr. EDE: I hope that the Committee will adopt the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend, because only after a most pointed appeal by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) did the Minister in charge of the Bill rise. Then he addressed the Committee for the space of only two or three minutes and it was only after an appeal from the right hon. Gentleman that he rose to say, not that he was going to accept this, but that after we had parted company with the Bill and were no longer in a position to make any effective steps towards amending it he would consider whether he would put in some words in another place if he was then convinced of the necessity of them. It is true that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said he was not tied to our form of words. I do not imagine we are either. If we can get the substance of the matter, the exact form of words does
1206
not matter at all, but if we let this Measure go and the Minister then decides that he will not put in the words, neither the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham nor the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) nor anyone else can get the words in after that stage. If the Lords put in some words, we may suggest an Amendment to their Amendment, but if they do not put in any we are powerless to prevent the further passage of the Bill. We shall have parted with it.
I do suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman can meet his right hon. Friend the two sides of the Committee will be so nearly in agreement that it might very well be a matter of great advantage to the Government, in presenting this Bill to the Non-intervention Committee, that they would have a far more nearly agreed Measure than they are likely to get if they insist upon the attitude adopted by the Government up to this stage. I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) that there was not a single word in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade to indicate that he was really going to do more than push off the opposition from behind him until he had got the Bill to the other end of the corridor, where he did not anticipate there would be very much trouble. This, after all, is a matter of the greatest delicacy for those of us who represent seaport towns, because no attempt has been made to answer the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who asked what is to happen if an ordinary British seaman—and the hon. Member himself has been a seaman in his time—is called upon to heave to?
I see conversation is going on. I have no desire to interrupt the conversation; in fact, I was going on in order that the conversation might continue. I have noticed, in the course of a somewhat chequered career in this House, that such conversations are frequently snore fruitful than speeches from this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is a native of my constituency and he knows the position that may arise in a shipping town if a British ship, proceeding on the high seas, is ordered by a ship under the command of someone holding his commission from General Franco to stop. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is an act of piracy.
The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that we are now discussing the question that I "do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
Mr. EDE: I was suggesting that this was a reason why we should have time to consider the Bill and the issues of principle raised. If the Bill is likely to be more an agreed Bill than it is at the moment, it will reinforce every Department of the Government in dealing with this matter. I hope that the Government will realise the desire that this Bill shall be a watertight Bill.
12.52 a.m.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I would like to reinforce the Motion to report Progress. There are matters to be considered. The first of these is that the Bill is not like a great deal of our legislation, domestic in character. The effects of this Bill, more perhaps than any other Bill we will have to discuss this Session, will be felt in almost every part of the world. For the sake of its reputation the Government should try to carry with it as large a section as possible of the House of Commons. When to-morrow it is read internationally that the Government only got the Bill after tremendous hostility and possibly an all-night sitting, the force of the Government's action is lost. I am not an international expert. I have never done more than journey from here to Glasgow, but anybody I have listened to on these matters has told me—and good sense tells me the same thing—that it will be bad for the Government if to-morrow it is read that sections of the Opposition and supporters of the Government are dissatisfied and that, for good or ill, an all-night sitting was the result. I have been here for a good many years and, even in domestic legislation, the Government has not gained either in reputation or stature by having an all-night sitting. It may be that on such an occasion the Government has got its Measure and rushed it through, but looking over the matter some time afterwards it has always been questionable whether the Government gained anything.
Here is this important Amendment. When we are endeavouring to show dictator countries how we can do things, the Government's action creates an almost impossible position. We are told
1208
that this Bill cannot be amended in this House, but that another place can amend it. This House seems to be getting into a position in which it is really second to another Chamber. The House of Commons is entitled to protest. I understood from the Foreign Secretary that there is a meeting of the Non-intervention Committee to-day. Assume that the Government do not pass this Bill. Are they not in a much stronger position when they go to the Non-intervention Committee? With this Bill passed, and no Amendment made, what is their position? The Government will be faced with the position that the Non-intervention Committee take the view that the House of Commons is not backing the Government; that it is only a section of the House that is backing the Bill on party lines.
If the Bill is held over the Government can say to other countries, particularly France, that they are holding the Bill over for the purpose of making the British system more watertight than it is now. The effect of the Amendment would be that not only were our ships not to carry munitions to Spain, but that they were not to go to Portugal either. If the Debate is adjourned the Government would be able to say to France that we were not weakening in the matter. The Government have everything to gain by delay. I have been through my fair share of all-night sittings and I suppose I shall enjoy it as much as the others, but I am not anxious on this matter to go through with it, as this is a very important matter. I have never kept from my mind the gravity of the issues raised, or the complications. I have felt the gravity of the sailors' position. I think that the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman ought to endeavour to carry the Members of the House with him as much as he can. It is on that account that I make an appeal that the Debate should be adjourned. The right hon. Gentleman will lose nothing by it and the Government will gain in every possible way. At the end of the day they will be very much stronger as a result of listening to the appeal made to them. I do not want such grave issues as those which Conservative speakers have pointed out—those of war and peace—discussed through the night in the atmosphere of an all-night sitting. That would not be

1209
good for the Government or for the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman would raise the dignity of Parliament if he accepted the Motion.
1.0 a.m.
Mr. MANDER: I hope that the Government will respond to the proposals that have been put forward. There are a large number of Amendments down to this Measure. I have several down myself, which will take hours of discussion if they are in order. I appreciate that when the Government hoped that they would get this Measure through by 11 or 12 o'clock it was a reasonable thing to expect to get it through to-night. But the Bill has raised serious issues and controversies which cannot be dealt with at this hour of the morning. In regard to the question of urgency, if Sub-section (8) had not been in the Bill there would have been a great deal in the contention. I do not think it should be in the Bill, but it is there and I propose to read it to the Committee in order that they might thoroughly familiarise themselves with it. It says:
"Anything which has been done before the commencement of this Act in purported exercise of any such power as is mentioned in Sub-section (6) of this Section, and which would have been lawfully done if this Act had come into operation on the twenty-third day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, shall be deemed to have been lawfully done."
They are seeking by that an indemnity for illegal action during the last few days. With the protection of that Sub-

Division No. 30.]

AYES.

[1.5 a.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Adams, D.(Consett)

Foot, D. M.

Kelly, W. T.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Frankel, D.

Kirby, B. V.

Adamson, W. M.

Gallacher, W.

Leach, W.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'isbr.)

Gardner, B. W.

Leonard, W.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

George, Megan Lioyd (Anglesey)

Logan, D. G.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Gibbins, J.

Lunn, W.

Benfield, J.W.

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

McEntee, V. La T.

Barnes, A. J.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Bellenger, F.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Benson, G.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Mander, G. le M.

Bevan, A

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Marshall, F.

Broad, F. A.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Maxton, J.

Buchanan, W.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Milner, Major J.

Buchanan, G.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Burke, W. A.

Hayday, A.

Muff, G.

Cassells, T

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Henderson. T. (Tradeston)

Oliver, G. H.

Daggar, G.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Paling, W.

Dalton, H.

Holdsworth, H.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Hollins, A.

Potts, J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Jagger, J.

Price, M. P.

Day, H.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Pritt, D. N.

Dobble, W.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Unlv's.)

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

John, W.

Ritson, J.

Ede, J. C.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

section in front of them they can perfectly well delay the passing of this Bill into law for another day, or another week. It cannot make any difference. The Government have not chosen their ground very effectively in suggesting that there is urgency. It is obvious that there is no urgency in law. In view of the way the discussion has been developing it would facilitate the passage of the Bill if the Government were now able to say that they would adjourn.
1.3 a.m.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I appeal to the Government to accept this Motion.
I have supported the Government in every Division on this Bill. I have been struck with the contributions made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). Those of us who are supporting this Bill are concerned that munitions shall not only not go to Spain directly but also shall not go indirectly. I think the right hon. Gentleman put that point plainly, and even the supporters of the Bill would feel a good deal more content if time were given to consider whether some words could be put in the Bill to meet the point he made. I make a strong appeal to the Government to reconsider the point and accept the Motion.
Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 204

Rowson, G.

Sorensen, R. W.

White, H. Graham

Seely, Sir H. M.

Stephen, C.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Sexton, T. M.

Stewart, W. J.(H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Slikin, L.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Silverman, S. S.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Simpson, F. B.

Thurtle, E.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

Tinker, J. J

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Watson, W. McL.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Westwood, J.

Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton

NOES

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Palmer, G. E. H

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Entwistle, C. F.

Patrick, C. M

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Erskine Hill, A. G.

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E

Aske, Sir R. W.

Everard, W. L.

Perkins, W. R. D

Assheton, R.

Fildes, Sir H.

Petherick, M

Atholl, Duchess of

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Pickthorn, K. W. M

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Fremantle, Sir F. E

Ponsonby, Col. C. E

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Furness, S. N

Porritt, R. W

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Fyfe, D. P. M

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M

Baxter, A. Beverley

Ganzonl, Sir J

Ramsbotham, H

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Gluckstein, L. H

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Glyn. Major Sir R. G. C.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Goldie, N. B.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Belt, Sir A. L.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Bernays, R. H.

Granville, E. L.

Ropner, Colonel L

Bird, Sir R. B.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)

Bossom, A. C.

Gridley, Sir A.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Boulton, W. W.

Grimston, R. V.

Rowlands, G

Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

Guest,Maj.Hon. O. (Cmb'rw'll, N.W.)

Runciman. Rt. Hon. W

Boyce, H. Leslie

Guy, J. C. M.

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Harbord, A.

Salmon, Sir L

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Salt. E. W

Burghley, Lord

Honeage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

Butler, R. A.

Hepworth, J.

Sandys, E. D

Cartland, J. R. H.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P

Cary, R. A.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Scott, Lord William

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hulbert, N. J

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Caralet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Hunter, T

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn, Sir A. (Br.W.)

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

Simmonds, O. E

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Kerr, Colonel C. (Montrose)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A

Channon, H.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs)

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Christie, J. A.

Lamb, Sir J. Q

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L

Clarice, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Leckie, J. A Leckie, J. A

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Leech, Dr. J. W

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)

Colman, N. C. D.

Leighton, Major B. E. P

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L

Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J

Strickland, Captain W. F

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Loftus, P. C

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Lumley, Capt. L. R

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lyons, A. M

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F

Crooke, J. S.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G

Sutcliffe, H

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

M'Connell, Sir J

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Cross, R. H.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Titchfield, Marquess of

Culverwell, C. T.

McKle, J. H

Train, Sir J

Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.

Maclay, Hon. J. P

Tufnell, Lieut.-Corn. R. L

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Magnay, T

Turton, R. H

De Chair, S. S.

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

Wakefield, W. W

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Markham, S. F

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

Denville, Alfred

Maxwell, S. A

Wardlaw-M line, Sir J. S

Dodd, S.J

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J

Warrender, Sir V

Doland, G. F.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Waterhouse, Captain C

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R

Dower. Capt. A. V. G.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Drewe, C

Mitchell, H. (Brentlord and Chiswick)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Duckworth. G. A. V. (Salop)

Moreing, A. C

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hltchin)

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H

Wise, A. R

Duggan, H. J.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)

Wragg, H

Duncan, J. A. L.

Muirhead, Lt. Col. A. J

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C

Eastwood, J. F.

Munro, P

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J

Sir George Penny and Sir James

Elliston, G. S.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Han. W. G

Blindell

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. STEPHEN: Might I ask the Minister now that he has had time to consult with his colleagues whether he is not prepared to put forward a form of words. I think, perhaps, the Government are now prepared to meet the situation pressed upon them from all sides of the House.
1.14 a.m.
Dr. BURGIN: The Government have not at any time wished that munitions of war consigned to or destined for Spanish territory should reach that destination by any indirect route. Taking into account the wishes which have been expressed by hon. Members of the Committee, I have a suggested form of words which it might be possible for the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and the Committee as a whole to accept. Perhaps I might read the Clause and then read the words which are proposed. Let me start by assuring the Committee that we all desire the same result. It is the Government's desire as much as that of any hon. Member who is moving an Amendment to see that munitions do not get to Spain by an indirect route. Clause 1, Sub-section (1), says:
"No article to which this Act applies shall be discharged at any port or place in Spanish territory or within the territorial waters adjacent thereto from a ship to which this Act applies, and no such article shall be transhipped on the high seas from any such ship into any vessel bound for any such port or place."
So far, I think, I have followed the words of the Sub-section down to the word "place" in line 11. My suggestion is that the second word "or" should be deleted after the word "place" and that we should insert these words:
"and no such article consigned to or destined for any such port or place shall."
If I may read the Clause, still going on with line 11, it is:
"be taken on board or carried in any such ship."
Then delete the words
"for the purpose of being discharged or transhipped as aforesaid from that ship."
With the object in view, which is shared by hon. Members on all sides, to stop munitions of war reaching Spain by indirect routes, Sub-section (1) now contains the new provision that no such goods shall be taken on board or carried in any such ship. I am advised that is a matter of drafting that includes goods, whether discharged or transhipped,
1214
if consigned to or destined for Spanish territory. If the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith would substitute those words for the words which he has introduced, I think he will find that they cover the same ground, and with the assurance that the Government have the same object in view, I would ask the Committee to accept that Amendment.
1.18 a.m.
Mr. PRITT: I have, of course, had very short notice, but so far as I can see those words do achieve the same result. If I find afterwards that I have misled myself, arrangements must be made in another place. I accept the Amendment, and beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.19 a.m.
Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "or," and to insert:
"and no such article consigned to or destined for any such port or place shall."
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask leave to thank the hon. Gentleman. The matter is thoroughly satisfactory, and I am very grateful to him.
1.20 a.m.
Mr. BELLENGER: Although the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment, to many of us it is obvious that the Amendment being moved by the Government may or may not meet the case which was submitted in moving our case. I hope we may take it that the purpose behind the Amendment which we moved, that is, to prohibit any munitions going through Portugal or any country adjacent to Spain, is actually covered by the Amendment which the Government now move. I should hope the assurance that the hon. Gentleman gave from the Government Front Bench is absolutely categorical in that respect.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 12, leave out the words:
"for the purpose of being discharged or transhipped as aforesaid from that ship." —[Dr. Burgin.]
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I have to point out to the Committee that I had some doubt about accepting the original Amendment standing

1215
in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). I came to the conclusion that it was within the scope of Standing Order No. 34, and I think the same applies to the Amendments moved by the Government. Under that Standing Order the Committee can make an Amendment which is relevant to the subject matter of the Bill, but not included in the Title and in each case they must amend the Title, and consequently an Amendment of the Title will be necessary under the Standing Order.
1.22 a. m.
Sir F. ACLAND: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that any such Order in Council shall not have effect until approved by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament."
The object of the Amendment is very simple and clear. The Bill says that at present munitions are not allowed to be carried from this country to Spanish ports, and it therefore proposes to add the prohibition of munitions picked up on the way. The definition of munitions to which the Bill applies is very far-reaching and all-inclusive. I cannot imagine that there will be any possibility or desire to add any article to the list of munitions, because that seems to be fully covered in every department. But the Bill says, at the top of page 2, that the Government want to take powers, under Order in Council, to add anything else —presumably in addition to munitions—by Order in Council. That seems to us to be too strong an order unless the Committee approves.
It has been suggested with some force that what one side in the Spanish civil war may want more than anything else is food and petrol. Suppose that the other side objects to our sending food and petrol, will the Government be willing, by Order in Council, to add food and petrol? I think that would be a very serious thing, because food, at any rate, is not and ought not to be regarded as prohibited under a regulation such as this. Unless we can get a real assurance from the Government that these few sentences at the top of page 2 are really intended only to enable possible small technical gaps in the list of munitions, as previously defined, to be filled up, we shall feel that
1216
we ought not to take any strong action in regard to the prohibition of things like food or petrol, unless it is not only done by the Government by Order in Council but confirmed by both Houses.
These are very serious things. We are exploring waters which are very little known, it is true, but surely that is all the more reason why we should not allow this prohibition to be unduly extended unless both Houses have consented to it? That is a matter which was not made at all clear in the original manuscript read to us by the President of the Board of Trade some hours ago, when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I move this Amendment at any rate in order to draw from the Government a statement as to what they think they intend under this provision, which enables them to add extra articles to the prohibited articles, the list of which seems already to cover all munitions.
1.25 a.m.
The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman substantially the assurance for which he asks. The scheme of Sub-section (2) is this: As he knows, the Arms (Export Prohibition) Order, No. 413 of 1931, contains a list of goods prohibited for export from this country to Spain, and the general intention of the Bill is that in respect of the articles in that Order the Bill should apply and that it should be an offence to convey these articles from ports, other than ports in this country, to Spain. The Bill had necessarily to provide for a possible addition to the Arms (Export Prohibition) Order of some article which it was found ought to be within the general category of goods covered by it, so that this could be added to the articles prohibited for export from this country.
Sir F. ACLAND: Sui generis?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes; sui generis. All that Sub-section (2, b) does is to give power by Order in Council to add to the ambit of this Bill any article which by Order in Council under the existing statutory provisions can be added to the Arms (Export Prohibition) Order. I hope, with that explanation, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way not to press the Amendment
Sir F. ACLAND: I agree that it is only to bring things in which might be

1217
prohibited under the Arms (Export Prohibition) Order. What we are afraid of is a general extension. In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.29 a.m.
Mr. MANDER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, to leave out Sub-section (8).
This is the Subsection dealing with indemnity for illegalities to which I made reference just now. I move this Amendment for the purpose of obtaining some information regarding the necessity for the Sub-section. Will the Minister who replies say what precedents there are for putting in an indemnity of this kind and why the Government find it necessary to act in this precipitate way? I ask the Attorney-General to say precisely what are the acts for which they are asking an indemnity? What orders have been given to the British Naval vessels in the Mediterranean up to the present? Some reference was made to it in the Second Reading Debate. What instructions have been given to them to take action or not to take action in accordance with the terms of the Bill? I think the Committee are entitled to further information on this point before they pass the Sub-section.
1.30 a.m.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) knows, it was on 23rd November that the Foreign Secretary announced the decision of the Government to resist any interference with British ships by Spanish warships, and it is the Government's intention to make it illegal for British ships to carry arms to any port in Spain. As the Committee know, the purpose of that policy—and I think I can state this without arousing at this late hour a general discussion of whether the purpose was a wise one or not—was to prevent incidents which might have consequences leading even to war. His Majesty's Government having come to the conclusion that such incidents might occur in the then circumstances and that their conclusion might be such as I have described, they would clearly be failing in their duty if they had not taken immediate steps to see that such incidents did not occur. They therefore took immediate steps to see that nothing of this kind should happen.
1218
His Majesty's Navy were from that date authorised to resist any attempt made, should any attempt be made, by Spanish warships to interfere with British ships. They also—and this of course is complementary and supplementary—decided as far as possible to prevent British ships with arms on board proceeding to Spain, and for that purpose, if necessary, to interfere with the movements of those ships.
Assuming, as I think I am entitled to ask the Committee to assume for the purpose of considering this Amendment, that that decision was a proper one, it clearly was necessary, if such incidents might occur and were likely to have undesirable consequences, to take immediate steps. These instructions were therefore issued in anticipation of the Bill. It would be quite wrong not to protect His Majesty's Navy; those instructions having been given in order to prevent the possibility of these incidents arising. It is quite right that retrospective legislation should always be scrutinised, but these are the circumstances. There is no question, of course, of any penalty being retrospective. It is merely to see that should any action have been taken by His Majesty's Navy on those instructions with the object of preventing incidents, those who took it would be protected from any legal consequences.
1.33 a.m.
Mr. STEPHEN: I have listened to the Attorney-General but I must say I am surprised at the indefinite nature of the answer that has been given. I would have thought he would have given some indication of what has happened since these instructions were given to the Navy. I would have thought that he would have let the Committee have some information as to how many ships were dealt with in this way, and how many ships of the Navy were despatched in connection with carrying on this work, but all he does is to say that if something has happened in carrying out this work, if something has happened in carrying out these instructions and claims are to made, we want to have an indemnity for the Navy taking that action on the instructions of the Government. Surely the Government have learned by this time that the House would like a little more information about what it is doing and what are the consequences of its action. I do not think I am putting it too high when I make that request

1219
to the Attorney-General. Already this evening various members have asked the Government what has been done in connection with this departure in policy. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade told us in the most casual way it, was not in the public interest and was never the practice. He gave us no proof that it was never the practice, and it is in the recollection of members of the Committee that such information is constantly being given in this House on various matters.
I remember, when action was taken in connection with the trouble in the Far East, that every day we got information with regard to ships of the Navy that were being ordered to the Far East. But here, all that we get is this inept remark of the Parliamentary Secretary "It is not in the public interest." Really I think the Parliamentary Secretary could do himself more justice if he would treat the Committee with greater consideration, and not avoid giving information of this character which we are entitled to have before we let this Sub-section go. The Committee ought to have some indication of what is really involved in this Sub-section. I hope that we are going to get these details from some member of the Government. My hon. friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) suggested that it was a matter for the Navy to tell us, but whether the direction of the Navy at the present time is too heavily burdened to be represented here in a matter which affects the Navy in. such a material degree, I do not know. I really think that in a discussion on a Bill like this it was the responsibility and the duty of the First Lord of the Admiralty to be here to give the Committee the information that the Committee should have. I hope we are going to get that information before this Amendment is withdrawn.
1.39 a.m.
Mr. BELLENGER: I desire to ask a question. As I understand it, this Subsection is to stop any actions that might lie by an injured party against a captain of one of His Majesty's warships in the execution of his duties. I ask whether any such incidents such as this Subsection was drawn to cover have arisen since 23rd November? Is it within the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge that
1220
any claims have been made, or are likely to arise, as a result of incidents?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I know of one such incident. I do not want to give actual details. I know of one case where a ship was stopped and searched. There may be others.
Mr. MAXTON: Stopped by one of our ships?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes.
1.42 a.m.
Mr. SANDYS: I did not mean to speak on this Amendment, but I think that one of the things the Attorney-General has said perhaps leaves the matter a little unclear. I wish for only one assurance. The Attorney-General referred to this Clause as removing the possibility that damages might be claimed against officers of His Majesty's Forces in the execution of their duties. He said that under this Clause no penalties would operate against such people who committed an offence under the Act. He specifically mentioned criminal penalties. He made no mention of civil liability. Can he assure us that no civil liability can arise as a result of this Sub-section?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 (Short title, construction, interpretation, extent, and duration) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Title.
Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in line 3, after "ships," to insert:
"to prohibit the carriage in such ships of such articles consigned to or destined for Spanish territory."
This is a consequential Amendment.
1.94 a.m.
Sir S. CRIPPS: Does the Amendment sufficiently cover the new Amendment which I understand makes it an offence to take such goods on board, quite apart from carrying? The taking on board would be an offence and, as I understand it, that offence is not covered by the new Title. The carriage has been included beside the discharge and transhipment.
Dr. BURGIN: I am obliged. The point Bill reported, with Amendments is covered by the words "for purposes amended]; as amended, considered. connected therewith. "I am advised that Motion made, and Carriage.
Amendment agreed to.

Division No. 31]

AYES.

[1.45 a.m.

Agnew, Lieut-Comdr. P. G.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Patrick, C. M.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Entwistle, C. F.

Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

Assheton, R.

Erskine Hill, A. G.

Petherick, M.

Atholl, Duchess of

Everard, W. L.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

Flides, Sir H.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Porritt, R. W.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Furness, S. N.

Ramsbotham, H.

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Ganzoni, Sir J.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Belt, Sir A. L.

Gluckstein, L. H.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Bornays, R. H.

Goldie, N. B.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Bird, Sir R. B.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Bossom, A. C.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Boulton, W. W.

Grimston, R. V.

Rowlands, G.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

Guy, J. C. M.

Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Harbord, A.

Salmon, Sir I.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Salt, E. W.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Heneage, Lieut Colonel A. P.

Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Hepworth, J.

Sandys, E. D.

Butler, R. A.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Holdsworth, H.

Scott, Lord William

Cary, R. A.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hulbert, N.J.

Simmonds, O. E.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hunter, T.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Channon, H.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Christie. J. A.

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

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Leckle, J. A.

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Colman, N. C. D.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Liewellin, Lleut.-Col. J. J.

Sutcliffe, H.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Courtauld, Major J. S

Loftus, P. C.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

Craddock, Sir R. H.

Lumley, Capt. L. R.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Cranborne, Viscount

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Titchfieid, Marquess of

Crooke. J. S.

M'Connell, Sir J.

Train, Sir J.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Tufnell, Lleut.-Com. R. L.

Cross, R. H.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Turton, R. H.

Crowder, J. F. E.

McKle, J. H.

Wakefield, W. W.

Culverwell, C. T.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Davidson, Rt. Hon. Slr J. C. C.

Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

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

Wardlaw-Mllne, Sir J. S.

De Chair, S. S.

Maxwell, S. A.

Warrender, Sir V.

Dodd, J S.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Doland, G. F.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Drewe, C.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Mitchell. H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Wise, A. R.

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Moreing, A, C.

Wragg, H.

Duggan, H. J.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Muirhead, LL-Col. A. J.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Dunglass, Lord

Munro, P.

Dunne, P. R. R.

Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Sir George Penny and Sir James

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Blindell.

NOES

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Benson, G.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Broad, F. A.

Day, H.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Buchanan, G.

Dobble, W.

Adamson, W. M.

Burke, W. A.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

Cassells, T.

Ede, J. C.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Daggar, G.

Edwards, Sir, C. (Bedwellty)

Barnes, A. J

Dalton, H.

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Bellenger, F.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Foot, D. M.

Bill reported with Amendments [Title amended]; as amended, considered.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 88.

Frankel, D.

Kelly, W. T.

Sexton, T. M.

Gallacher, W.

Kirby, B. V.

Silverman, S. S.

Gardner, B. W.

Logan, D. G.

Simpson, F. B.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Lunn, W.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Gibbins, J.

McEntee, V. La T.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Stephen, C.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Mander, G. le M.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Marshall, F.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Maxton, J.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Milner, Major J.

Thurtle, E.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Muff, G.

Tinker, J. J.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Watson, W. McL.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Paling, W.

Westwood, J.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

White, H. Graham

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Potts, J.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Jagger, J.

Pritt, D. N.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Ritson, J.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

John, W.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Rawson, G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Seely, Sir H. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November],
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Federal Court) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Federal Court) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Provincial Legislatures) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
Question again proposed.
Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in line 4, at the end, to add
"subject, however, to the following Amendments:
In paragraph 4, page 2, line 5, after paragraph eight,' insert of Part III.'
In paragraph 4, page 2, line 23, after paragraph eight,' insert of Part III.'"
1224
These Amendments were made in another place and are drafting Amendments to clarify the sense.
Amendment agreed to.
Original Question, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Provincial Legislatures) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament subject, however, to the following amendment:
In paragraph 17, on page 5, lines 28 to 30, leave out from time to time make such alterations in any pension payable out of the said funds as may in his opinion be reasonably necessary in consequence of the transfers, and insert having obtained from an actuary a report on any of the funds, make such alterations in any pensions payable out of that fund as may appear to him after consideration of the report to be reasonably necessary in consequence of the transfer of that fund:"
Question again proposed.

1225
Amendment made:
In line 5, leave out "amendment," and insert "amendments," and in line 12, at the end, add:
"On page 5, line 35, after paragraph 17, insert the following new paragraph (with a consequential renumbering of the succeeding paragraphs):
'18. The fees of an actuary appointed at any time with the approval of the Secretary of State to make a report to the subscribers to, or beneficiaries under, any fund with respect to the position of that fund may to such extent as the Secretary of State deems proper he paid out of that fund.'" —[Mr. Butler.]
Question, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Family Pension Funds) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament on 3rd November, 1936, subject, however, to the following amendments:
In paragraph 17, on page 5, lines 28 to 30, leave out from time to time make such alterations in any pension payable out of the said funds as may in his opinion be reasonably necessary in consequence of the transfer, and insert having obtained from an actuary a report on any of the funds, make such alterations in any pensions payable out of that fund as may appear to him after consideration of the report to be reasonably necessary in consequence of the transfer of that fund.'
On page 5, line 35, after paragraph 17, insert the following new paragraph (with a consequential renumbering of the succeeding paragraphs):
'18. The fees of an actuary appointed at any time with the approval of the Secretary of State to make a report to the subscribers to, or beneficiaries under, any fund with respect to the position of that fund may to such extent as the Secretary of State deems proper be paid out of that fund.'"
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November],
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act. 1935, praying that the Government of India (Governors Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft- laid before Parliament."
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India
1226
Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Governors Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November],
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Governor's Salary, Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Governor's Salary, Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November],
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
?"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November],
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma, Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament, subject, however, to the following Amendment:
In the third recital, page 1, line 26, leave out 1937,' and insert '1936'"
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in. pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of

1227
Burma (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament, subject, however, to the following amendment:
In the third recital, page 1, line 26, leave out 1937,' and insert '1936'"
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November],
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Commencement and Transitory Provisions) (No. 2) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Commencement and Transitory Provisions) (No. 2) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November],
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Defence Appointments) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Defence Appointments) Order, 1936, he made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November],
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Defence Appointments) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the pro-
1228
visions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Defence Appointments) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November],
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Federal Legislature Amendment) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Federal Legislature Amendment) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November],
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Legislature) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Legislature) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1936, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at One Minute before Two o'Clock a.m.