Lords Sitting of 5 March 1925

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (EQUIVALENT PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Peel I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the exemption in certain circumstances of foreign ships and British ships registered outside the United Kingdom from certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

DOGS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to prevent the vivisection of dogs; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Bill read 1a: and to be printed.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is a very modest measure. It has been passed through this House already on three occasions, but each time has been lost in the House of Commons, although last year it reached almost the penultimate stage in that House and was only lost in consequence of the Dissolution—an untoward event which is not
412
likely to occur this year. The Bill is supported by every kind of public body ranging from artistic, touring and motoring associations down to associations of municipalities and county councils. Most elaborate pains have been taken to conciliate every interest, and in that connection I might mention that even the advertisement section of the London Chamber of Commerce has been placated.
But perhaps the strongest evidence of its uncontroversial character is the fact that there is no notice of objection on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam. Every one who has had any experience of politics will realise that any Bill unopposed by my noble friend must be of an extremely harmless and uncontroversial nature. There is no direct opposition to the Bill. The fact is that in the process of conciliation we—when I say "we" I mean the promoters of the Bill—have gone so far that there is really very little left in it, and all that it does now is to preserve the amenities of rural scenery and places of historic interest.
Everyone knows the history of this movement, and everyone will admit that enormous progress has been made in public opinion during recent years. The principle is becoming more and more accepted that persons who use public roads for which they themselves partially pay are entitled to be protected from the more blatant advertisements with which we are afflicted. One very instructive sign of the progress which has been made is the attitude of the advertisers themselves, who have at last begun to realise that it does not pay, from the commercial point of view, to irritate the public by advertisements of an objectionable nature displayed in the wrong places.
I may mention, as an instance of the growing feeling in favour of diminishing this nuisance, that the great oil companies have, of their own accord, voluntarily suppressed their field signs. An advertisement to which I drew particular attention, I think, last year on behalf of gripe water, whatever that may be, has been entirely withdrawn because the persons responsible for its production were so much pained by some observations which I made in this House upon their product. One of the Government Departments, the Ministry of Transport, has

413
adopted the principle and has let it be known to local authorities that the arterial roads which have recently been constructed were not made primarily with the object of turning them into a kind of corridor for the benefit of advertisements of the kind of which I have spoken.
Lastly, I may quote—although I am not in the habit of doing so—the Press. The amount of approval with which this proposal has been received by the Press generally is astonishing, and were I of a vain disposition my head might possibly tic turned by the praise which has been lavished upon this particular measure. But I am under no illusions whatever with regard to the attitude of the Press, because it is plain to me that the Press is not influenced solely by æsthetic considerations but also by a very well-grounded belief that when these advertisements disappear they will be Transferred to the columns of the newspapers, which, after all, is the right place for them. I might add that in view of this increasing volume of support, which proceeds from all quarters, it seems to me that this measure is one which I might, describe as of a vote-catching character, and therefore it might with propriety be adopted, or at all events assisted, by the present Government. Various promises have been made in the past with regard to Government assistance, but no such assistance has been forthcoming. On this particular occasion, however, I expect rather more from the Government than in the past. My noble friend Lord Desborough, who, I understand, will reply, deserves great credit, in my opinion, for the firm stand which he, as Chairman of the Thames Conservators, has always taken upon this matter. He always steadfastly resists the attempts of people to advertise upon the Thames, and I think he is much to be congratulated upon his attitude.
Before I sit down, I should like to refer to a case which has probably attracted the attention of persons who are interested in this movement. I refer to a prosecution which recently took place at Brighton. Not long ago the society of which I am a member was informed that there were some advertisements of a particularly objectionable type on the South Downs, just to the north of Brighton, and in company with two or three of my
414
colleagues I went down and inspected these advertisements. It was fortunate that we went, because we were able to give the local authority advice as to how best to proceed in the matter. We found that there was nothing in the least exaggerated in the complaints that were made with reference to these advertisements, and if anybody cares to inspect them samples of them may be seen in the room outside. These advertisements consisted of gigantic structures covering a hill in the neighbourhood of Brighton—one of these structures was actually more than 170 feet in length—and they were adorned with enormous letters visible at a distance of several miles, as was, no doubt, the object of the person who put them up. One of these advertisements deserves special mention, because it was an advertisement of a religious character. It contained in colossal letters these words which I recommend to the notice of the most rev. Primate:—
"Watch and pray. The time is short and man brings about his own destruction. The air battle will be the end of the world."
I should be inclined to think that an advertisement of this nature would do more to create unbelievers than all the harangues which are uttered by agnostics and atheists in public parks, usually on a Sunday afternoon.
The local authority took proceedings against these advertisers and a conviction was obtained. The magistrates, however, very wisely, in our opinion, determined not to ask for too severe penalties, but intimated that if these advertisements were removed the penalties would be merely nominal. Upon the adjournment of the ease, which took place for a month, all the advertisers except one agreed to withdraw their advertisements. The sole exception was the religious gentleman in whose tenets apparently obedience to the law of the land is not included. He continues to defy the law and is accumulating a daily penalty of a considerable amount. It was satisfactory from one point of view that a conviction was obtained, but it has to be pointed out that this prosecution revealed something which I suppose some would call the subtlety, but which I should describe as the futility, of the law, because it appeared that, although there was power to remove the advertisement itself, there was no power to remove the structure. That seems to be more or less of an absurdity, and perhaps it may

415
be necessary to introduce an amendment into the Bill to deal with this particular point. Fortunately, these advertisements, as a rule, are not placed upon huge concrete buildings, as in this particular instance, erected expressly for the purpose. They are generally found upon structures of a perishable description, which would probably fall down if they were not maintained in a proper position, or would be used as firewood. At any rate, this is purely a Committee point, and perhaps some noble Lord who is interested in the matter may think it advisable to raise it when we reach that stage. I have nothing further to say, but I hope that the Second Reading of this Bill will be agreed to without a dissentient voice.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, my noble friend has alluded to me personally and the views which I have previously expressed regarding this Bill. There is, however, one point upon which I should like to make a slight correction. He remarked that the Thames Conservancy had prevented the display of these obnoxious hoardings on the banks of the river. Unfortunately, the Thames Conservators do not own the banks of the river, but they do own some forty-seven locks and weirs, and they have here prohibited the annoyance of the public, when they are absolutely unprotected and cannot escape, by the display of hoardings advertising articles, which, it they followed my example, they would immediately make up their minds not to buy. With regard to this particular Bill, I must congratulate my noble friend on the pertinacity and success which have hitherto attended his efforts in this direction. He is following up an effort which has been displayed for a considerable number of years. The first Bill on the matter was introduced in 1913, and was followed by a Bill in 1919. In 1920 Lord Balfour of Burleigh introduced a very stringent measure. In 1921 Lord Askwith introduced another, and in 1922 my noble friend came upon the scene with his usual eloquence and introduced a Bill which now has received a very considerable amount of public and political support.
The only difficulty about my noble friend's Bill is that the Courts of Law
416
held that it is difficult to allow public authorities to frame by-laws without specifying exactly the limitation of powers proposed to be exercised under those by-laws; that is to say, the by-laws must be of such a character as to specify the nature of the offence and cannot be drawn up generally so as to enable local authorities either to grant or to withhold permission to put up advertisements at their own sweet will. Speaking on behalf of the Government, we view this Bill with all the favour that my noble friend would like us to bestow upon it, and we certainly support the Second Reading. If the Bill gets to another place in its present form and in sufficient time, the Government will certainly take it on its further stages into most favourable consideration.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, of course we are always grateful for anything we can get from the Government, and there are many of us on this side who feel that beauty is one of the most precious assets of this nation and who will be very disappointed that we have not had a more definite promise of facilities in another place. Many of us go further and are greatly disappointed that the Government have not seen fit-to take hold of this principle and to treat it with the importance that it deserves. It is perfectly true that the last Government was unable to promise facilities, but the circumstances now are very different. Nobody, not even the worst enemies of this Government, could accuse it of attempting to carry on the affairs of the country with a minority in either House of Parliament. For myself I find it very difficult to understand how it is that a Government which contains the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who is so well known as such a tremendous champion of the æsthetic, has not taken hold of the matter and treated it with that importance which it deserves. All of us, whatever we may think of the rights or wrongs of the case, cannot help admiring the great stand which he has taken in defence of Waterloo Bridge and against the spoliation of the beauties of the countryside.
The present Bill, as it stands before us, is of very little practical value, as the noble Lord who introduced it implied.

417
Being a Private Member's Ball it has had to be so cut about to obtain agreement that very little will be able to be done under it, and I may take this opportunity of telling the noble Lord that we hope on this side of the House to move Amendments that may help and strengthen the Bill. Whether these Amendments are carried or not, this Bill represents to us an assertion that the beauties of England are a great national heritage which no individual has a right to despoil. As such it gives expression to a principle of which those of us who sit on this side of the House must approve, and that is the right of the public to control the essentials of life, and beauty, in our view, is just as much an essential of life as any other thing. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ANGLO-ITALIAN TREATY (EAST AFRICAN TERRITORIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, this Bill arises under Article 13 of the Agreement of April 26, 1915, between this country, Russia, France and Italy. It took place just before Italy came into the war on the side of the Allies. That Article reads as follows:—
"In the event of France and Great Britain increasing their Colonial territories at the expense of Germany, those two Powers agree in principle that Italy may claim some equitable compensation particularly as regards the settlement in her favour of the questions relative to the frontiers of the Italian Colonies of Eritrea, Somaliland and Libya and the neighbouring Colonies belonging to France and Great Britain."
After the war negotiations took place during the years 1919 and 1920, and an Agreement was reached for the cession of the territory which is mentioned in this Treaty to Italy.
This territory covers about 33,000 or 34,000 square miles and comprises all that land east of the Juba River (which now forms the boundary between Kenya, and Italian territory) bounded by a line drawn from the confluence of the rivers Ganale and Daua on the Abyssinian frontier to a point near El Bern on the
418
main caravan route to Abyssinia. This line goes straight due south to a point where the Jubaland and Tanaland boundary meets about three-quarters of a degree south of the equator and then turns eastward and terminates at the coast at Dick's Head. I may say that the whole of this country is inhabited by a small population of nomad Somalis, and the line has been drawn as closely as possible in accordance with racial divisions. It is, however, subject to final adjustment after examination by the International Commission which, is to be set up. Of the total area of this territory about 157 square miles form part of the mainland territory of Zanzibar, leased by the Zanzibar Government to the Government of Kenya. The rights of the Sultan of Zanzibar in this territory have been preserved as fully as possible by the Treaty, and his concurrence in the arrangement has been signified. As regards the rest of the territory which falls within the present boundaries of the Kenya Colony, arrangements have been made under the Treaty that the Colony shall not have any burden placed upon it in connection with the transfer, and I am sure your Lordships will recognise that that is fair, since the transfer is a commitment of the Imperial Government, under the quadrilateral Agreement of 1915.
It will be seen, turning to the other Articles of the Treaty, that provision is made for the indemnification of the Government of Zanzibar by the Italian Government for any loss of revenue, and for the recognition as valid of all concessions or rights to properties which were recognised as valid by the former Government. Also, under Article 6, the rights of British subjects who opt to remain British, and also those of the natives, are carefully safeguarded. There is also a provision in Article 11, that the two Governments should consult together to frame and put into force reciprocal measures for the control of the illicit ivory traffic. About twenty years ago there were very large herds of elephants in East Africa, and, owing to the illicit traffic in ivory, or, at any rate, to the destruction of the elephants, these, herds dwindled very considerably. It is hoped that opportunity may be taken under this Article to preserve such of the herds as remain. I do not think I need go any further into detail on the subject of this

419
Treaty, which was concluded when noble Lords opposite sat upon this side of the House, but if any question is raised I shall be very glad to answer it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Do we get anything for this land which is surrendered, or is it a free gift?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think I explained that. It is ceded under Article 13 of the quadrilateral Agreement of 1915, made between Italy. Great Britain, France, and Russia, before Italy came into the war.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Earl, who moved the Second Reading with his customary lucidity and completeness, has put the main facts before your Lordships. As he indicated, the Bill really is the outcome of a Treaty, or Draft Treaty, which was made last year by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, and I think Mr. MacDonald did good work in bringing this long outstanding question to a settlement. In regard to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, raised, perhaps I might further explain that under the Anglo-Italian Pact of 1915 various things were promised to Italy, some of which, for certain reasons, have not materialised. This undertaking with regard to the cession of Jubaland could materialise, and I submit that it ought to materialise under the terms of the Pact. I believe that this Treaty can be ratified without any real injustice being done to anybody. The whole matter was most carefully considered last summer in all its aspects, and I remember that, in order that certain boundary questions might be fully discussed, representatives of the Italian Government came over to London, and were here for some days in conference with representatives of His Majesty's Government.
It is quite true that various questions have been raised about the Treaty, and one or two criticisms have been passed upon it, but not, I think, criticisms of any great substance. I will deal with one or two of the points. First of all, the interests of the natives are a matter which, I am sure your Lordships will agree, ought always to receive the fullest
420
possible consideration. I think that, under this Treaty their interests are completely safeguarded. The number of natives concerned is not great. That, it is true, has nothing to do with the matter, because, whether they are many or few, they ought to have proper treatment. But in this wide territory I believe the number is only 15,000 or 16,000, and, as the noble Earl explained, they are nomadic tribes who wander about from place to place between the water and the grazing land. I honestly believe that their life, when this Treaty is in force, will go on practically the same as it did before, virtually unaffected. Probably, indeed, many of them will scarcely know that there is any change. I do feel, therefore, that the interests of the natives are fully safeguarded.
As regards the Government of Zanzibar, the noble Earl explained the position. Part of this territory is really the territory of the Government of Zanzibar, but, as they have signified their full consent and concurrence, I do not think that is a matter that we need take any further into account. There is also one last point upon which I will touch—namely, the question of the economic rights of British subjects, or other subjects, in this territory in the future. There, again, there is complete assurance, because the total area which is being ceded to Italy comes within the international basin of the Congo, and the trade and other economic rights of British and other subjects are fully protected. There can, as I understand, be no discrimination. I think, then, that there will be agreement, certainly as regards these three matters on which I have touched, that there is little or no ground left for criticism. I will not speak longer, but I will add that I regard this Bill as the fulfilment of an honourable obligation, and I think that when this Treaty is ratified it will forge another link in the long chain of Anglo-Italian friendship.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WILLIAM PRESTON INDEMNITY BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
THE LOUD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX so that the remaining stages of the Bill can now be taken.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Hill read 3a, and passed.

FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH IRISH FREE STATE.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had the following Notice on the Paper:—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the fact that by Command Paper 2160 of 1924 it appears that on 1st April, 1924, there was due to the British Government by the Irish Free State the sum of £1,204,830, and from the British Government to the Irish Free State the sum of £123,446, leaving a balance due from the Irish Free State of £1,081,390; whether the Free State have paid over this sum to the British Government; what steps have been taken by the British Government to ascertain what is due by the Free State to the British Government under Article 5 of the Treaty in respect of the sums due by the Free States since 6th December, 1921, for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom and towards the payment of War Pensions; and whether they will issue a White Paper in continuation of Command Paper 2160 of 1924, showing the Financial Position between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main object of the Question which I have placed on the Paper is to ascertain the amounts which are still due and payable to the British Government by the Irish Free State, and to obtain some information as to the probable date and the mode of repayment of these sums. This, to my mind—and I hope your Lordships will agree with me—is a question of very considerable importance to the British taxpayer. It may be tight, and I dare say
422
it is, to be generous to the Irish Free State, but generosity to the Irish Free State should not supersede justice to the British taxpayer. The British Government has, indeed, been extraordinarily generous to the Irish Free State since the date of the Treaty—generous to an extent far beyond any obligation which the British Government undertook under than Treaty. I doubt whether the public of this country have the least idea of the extent to which that generosity has gone. They would, I believe, be surprised—possibly I might use a stronger word—if they knew how generous we had been.
Will the House permit me to give one illustration of that generosity? point because it is of some importance Within a few months of the completion of the Treaty, the British Government transferred to the Free State Government, entirely free of charge, millions of pounds worth of property situated in Southern Ireland and belonging to the British Government. That property included the buildings, furniture, equipment and assets of Departmental offices in Southern Ireland, the Chief Secretary's lodge and other official residences, military and police barracks and their establishments, and vast quantities of military and police stores. It is somewhat interesting to remember that on July 19, 1923, I asked the Government in another place what was the authority for the transfer of this very large amount of property free of charge, and I was informed that it was to be found in Section I of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922—that is the Act ratifying the Treaty—and an Order in Council made under that Act. I was informed also that the British Government—and this, so far as I know, is the sole authority for this transfer or gift of property—were authorised to transfer to the Provisional Government the powers and machinery necessary for the starting of that Government. I think the House of Commons would have been surprised had they been told when they passed the Act of 1922 that when they authorised the transfer of the powers and machinery of government they were authorising the free gift by the British Government of many million pounds worth of property belonging to the British Government to the Free State Government. However, that is past and gone, and I suppose we cannot help it. I think it is important in dealing with the question of the

423
present indebtedness of the Free State, that we should know how far our generosity has already gone.
As to the financial relations, or rather the financial position as between the two Governments, we have had up to now two statements, and only two. One was published in 1923. If your Lordships desire to refer to it, it is Command Paper No. 1930 of 1923. The second financial statement was published in April, or shortly after April, 1924, and is Command Paper No. 2160 of that year. Dealing for a moment with the second of those statements, it appears that on April 1, 1924, something over £1,000,000 was advanced to the Irish Free State by the British Government. I would ask the noble Earl who, I understand, is to reply for the Government, if he will kindly tell us whether that money has been repaid by the Free State to the British Government, and whether the Government will issue a further financial statement bringing the position up to date.
Two somewhat important questions arise upon these financial statements. The first is a good deal the more important. It appears from the first statement that a very large amount of property, of the estimated value, according to the statement itself, of about £4,750,000, formerly belonging to the Admiralty, the War Department, the Air Force and other Departments had, in fact, been transferred by the British Government to the Irish Free State. Part of this property—again my authority is the financial statement of 1923—the value of which was to be subsequently ascertained, was to be transferred and was, in fact, transferred to the Free State entirely free of charge. The rest of that property was to be, paid for by the Free State. It is a somewhat remarkable fact, and I think it requires a little explanation which no doubt the noble Earl will give, that in the second financial statement no mention whatever is made of that £4,750,000 worth of property, and we are not told how much of it was to be transferred free of charge and how much the Free State would pay for.
I venture to ask the noble Earl whether the amount to be paid by the Free State Government for this property has been ascertained, and whether the amount has been paid. If it has not been paid, I hope he will be able to satisfy your Lordships
424
that there are valid reasons why it has not been paid. Further, I would ask the noble Earl whether any valuation of this property has been made. It is a somewhat serious matter to transfer free of charge, or to be paid for here, an enormous amount of property belonging to the Government of this country to another Government without a valuation. I cannot conceive of it having been done, and therefore I trust that the noble Earl will be able to tell your Lordships that a proper valuation was made and that the property in question has been paid for. That is the first point which arises out of the statements.
The second point is one of less importance, because the amount of money involved is much smaller. In both financial statements there appears an item of £'40,000, which the Free State were to pay and which they undertook to pay for military stores supplied to them on terms of repayment. On looking at the statement I find that only £5,000 has been repaid so far, and the question I ask the noble Earl upon that is whether the Government will give your Lordships some details—at present we have none at all—as to what these military stores so handed over were. Were they aeroplanes, or motor lorries, or rifles, or guns, or what were they I There is a further point about which I think your Lordships would like to know something: By virtue of what authority were these military stores handed over to the Irish Free State? Constitutionally speaking, I imagine that no British Government has the right to hand over military stores, or any other property, without some authority either from the House of Commons or from Parliament; but so far as I know, no authority for handing over those stores has yet been produced.
So much for the financial statements. I pass now to what is, perhaps, an even more important matter—that raised by the latter part of the Question which stands in my name on the Paper. It is as to what steps have been taken by the Government of this country to ascertain the amount due from the Irish Free State under Article 5 of the Treaty in respect of the contribution which they promised to make towards the service of the National Debt and the payment of Pensions. Your Lordships will allow me to read the Article which bears upon this

425
point because it is of some importance.
It is Article 5, which provides that—
"The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof"—
that is to say, December 6, 1921, more than three years ago—
"and towards the payment of War Pensions as existing at that date in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set off or counterclaim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by … arbitration …"
It is quite obvious that the amount paid under that Article of the Treaty must be a very large sum indeed. As a matter of fact, the amount of the contribution which was payable by the free State under the Act of 1920, which only, as we all know, came, before us as regards Southern Ireland, was something like £10,000,000 a year to begin with, and certain sums to be ascertained hereafter. If we make, as I think we must make, some allowances for the financial changes which arose under the Treaty as compared with the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, it is estimated—and I have taken some little trouble to obtain this estimate—that the annual payments under Article 5 by the Irish Free State would be somewhere about £8,000,000 a year.
I do not know whether all the taxpayers of this country realise that up to the present, date not one shilling has been paid in respect of that very large liabililty of the Free State Government to the British Government, and that there are now three and a quarter years of arrears since December, 1921, due from the Free State. If my estimate is correct, the amount now due from the Irish Free State to the British Government would be about £26,000,000. Even in these days of portentous figures that is a substantial sum. It is a sum which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably do well to try to get for the benefit of the taxpayers, and for which the taxpayers of this country would be exceedingly grateful. I ask my noble friend who is going to answer whether he will kindly tell us what steps have been taken by the British Government to ascertain the liability of the Free State under Article 5. I presume that some correspondence has taken place between the British Government and the Irish Free State, and I hope
426
he will be able to lay that correspondence on the Table. But if we are to be told that no steps have been taken to ascertain this liability of the Free State, I think it is only right that we should be given the reasons for that abstention.
In another place, in May of last year, when the Labour Government, then in power, were being pressed upon this point, they gave to my mind an amazing excuse for their inaction. They said that the liability of the Free State under Article 5 could not be settled until the boundary question was settled. I hope I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that this is an abolutely unreal, unsubstantial, and flimsy excuse, and I trust that His Majesty's present advisers will not put forward so fallacious a pretext. Let me first remind your Lordships that the Irish Free State are claiming a very largo accession of territory. If they were to get it (which I do not think is very likely) so far from their contribution being diminished it would be increased. If they did not get any extension, matters would remain as they are. If, on the other hand, anything was taken from the Free State (which, again, I think is not likely) then it would be a matter for adjustment hereafter. But this question of the Boundary Commission appears to me to afford no excuse whatsoever for the British Government not doing their duty under the Treaty and ascertaining the liability to which I have referred.
The matter does not quite rest there, because I shall suggest to your Lordships that this pretext for not carrying out the duty of the British Government under Article 5 is a pure afterthought. There was not one word of such a thing in the Treaty. The Treaty contains no provisions for postponing the ascertainment of the Free State liability until the boundary question is settled, although in the Treaty the existence of the boundary question was foreshadowed, and everyone knew that there would be a boundary question. We were told over and over again in another place, while the Treaty Act was passing through the House of Commons, that the Treaty was sacrosanct, that not one line or comma could be added to it, and Amendments, which in the opinion of many people were most desirable, were rejected on that ground. Are we to be told now that the Government

427
are going to introduce a new provision into this sacrosanct Treaty—a provision greatly to the detriment of the British taxpayer—by which we are compelled, and have been for three and a half years compelled, to take no steps to ascertain the liability of the Free State and to enforce payment? Something new is to be introduced into the Treaty. The new and important pro vision is introduced, so far as I know without a shadow of any Parliamentary sanction, that no steps can be taken under Article 5 for ascertaining the liability until the boundary question is settled.
The matter does not even rest there, because in January, 1922, a most elaborate Agreement was come to between the two Governments, the British and the Free State, providing for many things, but you will not find in that Agreement one single word about postponing the ascertainment and payment of the moneys due under Article 5 by the Irish Free State until the boundary question is settled. On the contrary, there is an express clause—Clause 43—in that Agreement which refers to these payments to be made by the Free State under Article 5, and states that the payments should stand over, not till the boundary question is settled but until the amount has been settled in accordance with Article 5 of the Treaty. When that amount has been settled that clause in the Agreement makes express provision for payment of all arrears.
I think I ought to remind your Lordships of one other matter in connection with this pretext of postponing action under Article 5. If that was a valid excuse for not ascertaining and obtaining payment of the Free State liability, why was it not equally a valid excuse for postponing the payment of the contribution from Ulster? If large territories are to be taken away from Ulster in satisfaction of the Free State claim then there might be some justice in saying that we would not proceed against Ulster to get her to pay her contribution under the Act of 1920 until the boundary question is settled. But no such claim was ever put forward by Ulster, and I thank her for her honesty in this matter. Indeed, no suggestion was ever put forward on behalf of His Majesty's Government that there should be postponement
428
in the case of Ulster. So far from their being any postponement, Ulster has had her contribution under the Act of 1920 ascertained and settled every year that has passed since the Northern Ireland Government was set up, and the sums which she has paid are somewhat remarkable. From November, 1921, when the Northern Government was set up, until April of last year, Northern Ireland paid in respect of her contribution under the Act of 1920 a sum of over £13,500,000. The contributions for the present year have not yet been settled, but they are estimated to amount at least to £3,600,000. There, I think, you have a very substantial and unanswerable precedent for asking the Free State to have their contributions settled and to pay them.
It is true, and it is only fair to say, that since the Government of Northern Ireland was set up considerable grants of money have been made by the Imperial Exchequer to Northern Ireland for such things as special constabulary, and other purposes. Those grants were wholly outside any question of the contribution of Northern Ireland under the Act of 1920 and were made for special purposes which commended themselves to successive Governments in this country. But even if the whole of these special grants made to Northern Ireland were taken into consideration the sums already paid by the Government of Northern Ireland, and which will be paid in the course of the present year to the Imperial Exchequer, would show a net payment of something like £10,000,000. That is a sum of £10,000,000 paid by Northern Ireland compared with not a single shilling paid by Southern Ireland.
I venture most respectfully and most urgently to ask His Majesty's Government to take these matters into consideration, and to take immediate steps to ascertain what is due from the Government of Southern Ireland to this country under Article 5 of the Treaty. I ask His Majesty's Government not to be oblivious to the pressing needs of the taxpayers of this country, and I hope that if they can secure payment of the money it will mean a substantial reduction in the taxation of this country. The Papers I move for are, in the first place, a financial statement in continuation of the two previous financial statements; in the second place, a statement showing the value of the property transferred to the Trish Free State free

429
of charge, as mentioned in the two previous financial statements, and the value of the property transferred to the Free State for which they undertook to pay. I should also like a statement showing the details of these military stores, estimated at £40,000, which were handed over to the Irish Free State on terms of repayment, and an actual valuation of these stores. Lastly, I ask for any correspondence which has passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Free State as regards the enforcement of Article 5 of the Treaty. It may be— I do not know—that the Irish Free State Government were able to discover certain grounds for postponing a statement of their liabilities and for an exemption from payment of certain grants which could not well be stated in Parliament. If there is any such correspondence, if any pretext was put forward by the Irish Free State Government. I am sure His Majesty's Government would wish to lay these Papers before Parliament. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, in reply to the Questions put to me by the noble and learned Lord it would perhaps be convenient if I divided my reply into two parts; and for this reason. The noble and learned Lord has asked for information on what I may call two supplementary points which were not included in the Question as printed on the Paper. Before I proceed any further I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him most sincerely for having given me private notice that he intended to raise these two supplementary points in asking his Question to-day. In regard to the sum of £1,204,830, stated to be due from the Government of the Irish Free State to His Majesty's Government on March 31, 1924, £692,542—I am giving these amounts in round figures—has since been paid by the Irish Free State. A sum of £6,248 has been withdrawn from the British claim by agreement, leaving a balance of £506,045 which has not yet been paid. Of a sum of £123,446, stated to be due by His Majesty's Government to the Irish Free State Government, £65,260 has since been paid and £29,219 has been withdrawn from the claim by agreement, leaving a balance of £28,965 which has not yet been paid.
If the noble and learned Lord will turn to Command Paper No. 2160, there are one or two words I should like to say
430
in reference to some of the items which appear there. With regard to item 5—balance of payments in respect of military stores supplied to the Irish Free State on repayment terms—I should like to come to that in the second part of my reply. But with regard to all the other matters, with the exception of item 3, on page 2—land purchase annuities—an item under the heading of C on page 4 (Adjustment of Attributable Revenue), and a small sum of £1,000 odd under item B1, the Free State Government has discharged its debts. There is only one other item to which I need draw attention, and that is item 7, on page 3, which is a small claim amounting to £245. That has been withdrawn by agreement.
With regard to the first of the two larger items to which I have referred—land purchase annuities—I should like to inform the noble Lord that this matter has been discussed not only by means of correspondence, but also by means of various interviews between members of the respective Governments, but so far it has been impossible to reach agreement. I should like, however, to inform my noble friend that the Treasury have hopes of arranging a further conference at an early date with a view of reaching some sort of agreement. Failing that, the matter will be referred to arbitration. With regard to the adjustment of attributable revenue this matter again is sub judice, but I may inform the noble Lord that there has been considerable difficulty in reaching any agreement on this question. The main difficulty, of course, has been owing to the Customs barriers which have been set up between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Which question is that?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: That applies to the adjustment of attributable revenue, which comes under paragraph C on page 4 of Command Paper No. 2160. Considerable difficulty had arisen. The reason of the difficulty was that these Customs barriers had been set up between the Governments of the Irish Free State, Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I should like to inform the noble Lord that meanwhile the Free State Government have paid over 80 per cent. of the amount due, and the balance will, of

431
course, be subjected to such adjustment as may be necessary when the figures are finally reviewed.
LORD DANESFORT: Will the noble Earl allow me to ask him what is approximately the balance due in respect of that attributable revenue?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: The approximate balance is £56,163. With regard to that which I may perhaps describe as the most contentious matter in the noble Lord's speech, that which applies to the share of the Free State in the Public Debt and War Pensions, I have to inform him that the present Government have come to the conclusion that this is not the appropriate moment for the settlement of this question. The noble Lord has quoted a speech which was made in the House of Commons on May 31 by Mr. Thomas, who was then Colonial Secretary, and it appears to us that the position has not changed since that date. I should like to inform the noble Lord, however, that the formulation of the British claim is now under consideration; the Treasury is engaged at the moment in preparing it. With regard to the last part of the Question as printed upon the Paper, I should like to inform my noble friend that the Government will, at the earliest possible moment after the conclusion of the present financial year, issue a further White Paper which will disclose the financial position existing as on March 31, 1925, between the Free State Government and the British Government.
Now I turn to that which I described before as the two supplementary questions which the noble Lord asked me, and which were not embodied in his Question as it is printed upon the Paper. Let me first of all take the question of the military stores. If I remember aright, the noble Lord in his speech asked for certain details in regard to those stores. The stores consisted of machine guns, rifles and ammunition supplied to the Free State on repayment terms. The total amount originally involved was a sum of £145,000. A sum of £116,000 has since been repaid by the Free State, leaving a balance still unpaid amounting, in round figures, to £29,000. What has happened in regard to this matter is that a slight disagreement has arisen as to the price charged for these articles supplied by the
432
British War Office at the urgent request of the Free State Government in 1923. The matter is now under consideration. The practice that the War Office adopted in regard to the sale of these military stores was simply this: They charged the Free State Government the same price is they would have to pay for similar material purchased elsewhere to replace that which was taken from stores at the disposal of the War Office. The amount is not a very large one, and it is hoped that before long the matter will finally be settled.
With regard to the other property which the noble Lord mentioned in his speech, reference to it will be found under Part II of the earlier Command Paper, No. 1930. With regard to the question of quit rents, let me make this observation. It has been ascertained on expert legal advice that the capital value of these quit rents which amounts, as shown in the Command Paper, to a sum of £247,420, must be deemed to have been transferred unconditionally to the Free State owing to the fact that the grant of Dominion Government had been made to the Free State. With regard to the rest of the property which is enumerated on page 4 of the Command Paper under headings A, B. C, D and E, the noble Lord will. I think, bear in mind the note which is printed under Item E, which states that "no immediate cash payment is due from the Free State Government in respect of the above property, but the proportion thereof that should be recognised as transferable to them free of charge will be arranged in the ultimate financial settlement" which will take place in due course. That, I think, is all the information that I can give at the moment to the noble Lord, and I hope that he will consider that the reply that I have been able to make on behalf of the Government is a fairly satisfactory one.
LORD DANESFORT: Before my noble friend concludes his speech, could he tell us whether any valuation has been made of that £4,750,000 worth of property; first, that which was to be handed over free of charge, and second, that which was to be handed over on payment?
THE EARL OF CLABENDON: Does it come under Article 5 of the Treaty?
LORD DANESFORT: No, it comes under that paragraph of the first financial statement which says—
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I am afraid I have no information on that point at the moment, but if the noble Lord likes I can give him that information privately.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to congratulate the noble Earl upon the extremely clear speech that he has made. Not only was it extremely clear, but one could hear every word, which cannot always be said of the speeches of the great people who sit on the Front Bench. I should like to make one observation, if he will allow me, upon his statement. He said that since April, 1924, when a million of money was owed according to the financial statement, something like £500,000 had been paid off, leaving in round figures some £500,000 due. He further went on to say that there was a sum—I forget the exact amount—of roughly £26,000 which was owing by us to the Free State.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: It is roughly £29,000.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I point out that in an ordinary business undertaking if A is owed £500,000 by B, and owes B £29,000. he does not pay that £29,000 to B, but deducts it from the half million that B owes him.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: That sum has not been paid by the British Government, but is still owing.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My point is that it should be deducted from the £500,000—that a balance should be struck and that the Free State should pay the £500,000 less the £29,000. Then I would like to make one or two observations upon the statement with regard to the sum mentioned by my noble friend, of £26,000,000, being the amount due for the Free State's share of the British Debt and War Pensions. My noble friend, I think, referred your Lordships to the statement made by Mr. Thomas in another place, and that statement was, as far as I remember, that until the Boundary Commission had functioned
434
and the boundary question had been settled nothing could be paid. With all due deference to Mr. Thomas—he is not, I think, a business man—that seems to me to be a most extraordinary statement. Here is an agreement made between the Free State and Great Britain, that the Free State should have certain territory, subject to alterations later on, and should pay a certain amount towards the payment of British Debt and War Pensions. What has territory got to do with it?
Presuming, for the sake of argument, that the Free State territory is increased, then their liability will be increased and they should pay more than £26,000,000. Presuming it is decreased, then the liability is decreased, but the liability before the territory is decreased is not touched. Their liability until the territory is altered remains the same, and therefore if, under the present arrangement of territory, £26,000,000 is due, that £26,000,000 will always be due whether territory is extended or diminished. It seems to me that it is a matter which cannot be questioned. Now £26,000,000 of money is a very large sum even in these days. I think Lord Arnold last year described four or five millions as a small sum.
LORD ARNOLD: Not in that way.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: But I think that even Lord Arnold would consider £26,000,000 to be a large sum, and one which we should be anxious to obtain. The present Government is not to blame for what has happened in the past. If the Free State is unable to obtain these £26,000,000 why do they not say so, and if they are bankrupt why do not they come pleading bankruptcy and saying what they can pay? Surely that would be the proper course. I think I have already said that I have every confidence in the present Government. I sincerely hope that they will take this question up, will remember that the British taxpayer has a claim upon this money, and will see that steps are taken to enforce payment, or if the Free State cannot pay, that they make some arrangement by which the amount may be reduced or written off.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to say two or three words in reply. I join most heartily

435
in what Lord Banbury has said as to the clear and lucid statement which the noble Earl has made, and I have no doubt that he has given us all the information which the Government, perhaps, is able to put in his possession. There are two points to which I should like to refer which were touched upon by Lord Banbury. The Free State at this moment, apart from any liability under Article 5, owe us half a million of money. It was a million but has been reduced to half a million. We, it appears, a year ago owed them £123,000. By some extraordinary process, which I confess I do not understand, of that £123,000 which we owed them we paid nearly £100,000 when they owed us £500,000. I hope that was not the action of the present Government. If my debtor owes me half a million and I owe him £100,000, why should I pay him when he does not pay me? I say it is most insane finance, and most unjust to the people whose interest we are bound to consider—namely, the British taxpayer. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the strong feeling which some of us have, that, that £l00,000 having been paid, we should press for the immediate payment of the £500,000.
The only other question is with reference to Article 5. I confess I had hoped that when we got a new Government in power, and a Government of business people who are desirous of protecting the interests of the British taxpayer, they would not have adopted the extraordinary, fallacious, and I will add stupid, excuse given by the late Labour Government for not ascertaining and enforcing the liability of the Free State under Article 5. I have endeavoured to show why it is a stupid and unfounded pretext, and I am not going to repeat my remarks, but I hope that the noble Earl will take steps to represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to anybody else concerned, the view which we have expressed to-night, that steps should be taken to ascertain and enforce payment. I understand that the noble Earl is going to give me further information at the end of the present financial year, and I suppose he will also give us the correspondence, which deals with the subject of Article 5. If I understood him rightly, the valuations have not been made of the large amount of property, worth £4,750,000,
436
which had been handed over to the Free State Government, but when the valuations have been made I hope he will lay them on the Table.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: That is my intention.
LORD DANESFORT: I beg to move for Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think probably the more regular plan, having regard to the promise given by my noble friend, would be to withdraw the Motion. My noble friend has promised to give a selection of Papers, and that selection, although important, does not correspond exactly with the Papers asked for in the Motion.
LORD DANESFORT: If the noble Marquess assures me that that is the better course, I am content to adopt it, in view of the promise of the noble Earl, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURAL RATES (ADDITIONAL GRANT) CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:—

War Charges (Validity),

William Preston Indemnity.

Buckhaven and Methil Burgh Order Confirmation,

Dumfries and Maxwelltown Bridge Order Confirmation,

Dundee Corporation and Water and Gas Order Confirmation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.