Lords Sitting of 26 April 1928

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LLANDUDNO URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
Read 2a.
BURY AND DISTRICT JOINT WATER BOARD BILL.
Bead 2a.

BRIDGWATER AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 8th of March last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BOROUGHBRIDGE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Motion on the Paper be agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 13th of March last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PRO HIBITION) ACT, 1921, AMEND MENT (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Danesfort.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, on the Motion for the House to go into Committee
862
on this Bill I desire to make a statement to the House. Your Lordships will remember the circumstances under which this Bill was given a Second Reading in Your Lordships' House. In 1921 an Act was passed prohibiting the import into this country of certain classes of feathers. There was nothing laid down as to existing stocks; but I believe an Amendment was moved in another place to forbid the sale of these particular classes of feathers. That was resisted, and, therefore, the Legislature deliberately intended that the existing stocks of these prohibited feathers in this country should be allowed to be sold. This Bill, brought in seven years afterwards, forbids the selling of these particular classes of feathers; indeed, it rather severely puts the onus upon the shopkeeper, or whoever is exposing them for sale and selling them, of showing that he is innocent. He is presumed in fact to be guilty of selling prohibited plumage unless he can prove himself to be innocent; that is to say, that the feathers were imported before 1921.
There was some difference of opinion and some difference in statement of fact, I think, between the Government side and those who promoted the Bill. Certain facts were brought forward by my noble friend Lord Danesfort, as to the smuggling of feathers into this country, and statements were also made as to the selling in certain places of feathers that had been smuggled: in fact the discussion really turned upon whether these facts as to smuggling were true or not. It is quite clear that if there has been no smuggling during the last seven years it must follow that only existing stocks in this country are being sold, and if that is the case no one would wish, I presume, to go any further. My noble friend Lord Salisbury, the Leader of the House, said that there was a good deal of difference of opinion upon this point and that if we accepted the Second Reading that afternoon it must be on the express understanding that we could not allow the Bill to go forward until this extraordinary conflict of evidence had been resolved. I have some further information upon that subject to-day. The matter has been carefully looked into by the Board of Trade and also by the Customs, and I am anxious to place the results of that investigation at the earliest possible

863
moment before the House. I do not desire to wait until the Third Reading, because I hope that these facts may be present in the minds of your Lordships when you approach the Third Reading. You can then decide, with all the facts before you and the additional ones which I hope to state this afternoon, what attitude you should take on the Third Reading.
We can deal, I think, with certain figures that have been published in reply to a Question by Sir William Davison in another place. Those figures set forth the number of seizures of these prohibited feathers during the last few years—1925, 1926 and 1927. When I looked at these papers I was myself a little deceived. I said: "But there seems to be a considerable number of these seizures." Then it was explained to me that seizures did not mean smuggling, that all they meant was that these were all the arrests or seizures by the Customs of any feathers—single feathers or birds or skins or what not—that came through the Customs during those years. It does not at all mean that they were smuggled. On the contrary, I shall be able to show that the great bulk—in fact very nearly all—of these feathers was brought in whether for trade purposes or for individuals, and were not smuggled but were perfectly openly brought in and declared so that no one can suggest there is any desire or determination to evade the law. I hope your Lordships will consider this question in the light of the general situation. What is the motive for smuggling? The motive for smuggling, as a rule, is that the particular article—brandy or whatever it is—has to pay a heavy duty and if you get it in without paying a duty you can very often make profit out of it, but if, as I say in this case, not only is there no duty but there is no market, and if nobody wants to buy these things when they are brought in, surely it is not very likely that people are going to take the trouble of incurring the very heavy penalties from the Customs by trying to smuggle these articles into the country.
Your Lordships showed, if I may say so, considerable knowledge on the Second Heading. Unfortunately I was not myself able to be present then, but I have read the debate. Your Lordships showed considerable knowledge of women's fashions and many points arose
864
on that subject, but it was quite clear that, as the result of change of fashion or as the result of the prohibition or as the result of the emotion which had arisen in females' minds of possible cruelty by wearing these feathers, the business fell almost dead and nobody wore feathers. It is said that that is due to some transactions going on in Paris. I would not like to be dogmatic on the subject, but at any rate from that time there was no encouragement for anybody to run the risk of importing these feathers, because women's fashions had entirely changed and there was no necessity to bring the feathers in. I may add that that change has fallen very severely on those who had imported feathers before 1921, because they have been unable to dispose of their stocks, and it is for that reason, I think, that some of your Lordships who have examined these things and have seen feathers in the shops have assumed that they must have been imported since the year 1921. Let me deal, if I may, with some of these figures. I will give the figures for the years 1925, 1926 and 1927 separating private importation from trade importation. For the year 1925 there were 171 cases of private importation, 48 of trade and the total seizures, therefore, were 219. In 1926 the numbers of private importations were 142, trade 26, total 168. In 1927 the numbers were 173 and 17 and the total 190. Dealing with trade importations—and that is really the subject upon which we are engaged this evening—your Lordships will have observed that the numbers have fallen from 48 in 1925 to 17 last year.
LORD DANESFORT: I did not quite catch what are the figures which the noble Viscount is giving.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am giving the total number of what are technically called seizures by the Customs during the years 1925, 1926 and 1927. As a matter of fact they are stated in answers and I have added them together and examined them. I am going to make this broad statement to your Lordships. You were, I think, very much impressed by certain cases brought forward by my noble friend Lord Danesfort. There were two cases especially. I think one was the grebe and the other the case of feathers being brought here in a portmanteau. Those were no doubt two bad cases of attempted smuggling during the last seven years and they were the only bad cases. I will

865
deal with them in a moment, but I want to state that, as regards the other imports, I am told by the Customs that practically the whole of the other imports and seizures were not smuggled at all, but were declared. Therefore there was no intention whatever of smuggling these articles in. I could give an account of each one but I do not want to detain your Lordships.
EARL RUSSELL: Declared by trade people in ignorance of the Act?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Declared by trade people and a great many of them sent to this country on commission by people in other countries who were not aware of the particular kinds of birds which were prohibited. That ignorance has prevailed very largely among individuals. There are numerous cases in which these feathers were sent by people to their friends, partly in ignorance of the law and partly thinking that the Board of Trade or the Customs had power to give them exemption or a licence in certain cases. But the general effect of the whole of the evidence given me by the Customs is this: they say there is no evidence except in these two cases of smuggling of any substance at all into this country. The great case is, I think, the grebe case and that was dealt with rather fully by my noble friend Lord Danesfort. That is very unlikely to occur again.
LORD DANESFORT: Why?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am going to explain. It is not likely to occur again because it was imported by a body which no longer functions in this country. It was imported by a firm called Arcos. I think your Lordships are aware that that firm is no longer carrying on its transactions in this country and therefore I think we may fairly set aside its operations.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If a Labour Government comes in Arcos comes in, too.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have two observations to make on that. One is that the Labour Party is not coming in, and the second is that if they do come in do not think that the first thing they will do is to bring back Arcos. That case occurred in 1924. The other case was in 1925. That was a case of the importation of feathers in a portmanteau with a false
866
bottom. That, no doubt, was a grievous and iniquitous offence, but it was discovered. The feathers never got to any shop in this country. The all-seeing Customs, the Argus-eyed Customs discovered the skins. They prosecuted and a very heavy penalty was paid by the gentleman who did it. That disposes of those cases. I have dwelt specially upon those two cases because, quite unconsciously no doubt, my noble friend had given the impression that they were only examples of a great number of importations and that they were typical. I show that they were not typical. They are specific examples of a bad thing that happened but they are not examples of something that happened on anything like a substantial scale. In the second case there were about 400 bundles of osprey feathers, the value of which was about £1,555. Therefore, I think your Lordships may assume, on the statement of the Customs and if you look at this Paper you will see, how few cases there are of any importance.
It is true to say that there is no attempt to smuggle these articles into this country. There was one case, for instance, of 576 millinery mounts which contained, I understand, very small portions of feathers. Your Lordships are no doubt familiar with millinery mounts. In that case a general order was sent out by a firm for millinery mounts. They did not specify any particular class and no doubt it is rather difficult for milliners in every country to remember what feathers are prohibited in this country. There was no concealment about it. The importers asked for examination to take place and it did take place. There was nothing criminal, no smuggling. Everything was perfectly open and above board. So much for the question of smuggling. I dare say that some of my noble friends who feel keenly on this subject may ask: "How do the Customs know there is no smuggling? Perhaps some of them escape." They certainly cannot escape in parcels, because every parcel is opened as it goes through the Customs. But here comes in my noble friend Lord Danesfort. He has watched these feminine fashions for years. He goes about the shops. He tells us so.
LORD DANESFORT: I certainly do not. I have much more competent persons to do that business for me.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then I think my noble friend has deceived the House. May I read what he said in his speech? He said:—
"I have seen many of these feathers which have been bought in the last few days—some of them egret feathers, some feathers of birds of paradise, and other prohibited feathers, which have been bought openly in the London shops."
Therefore my noble friend says: "I have seen them."
LORD DANESFORT: Might I explain to my noble friend, who really, I must say, is under a most ingenuous but probably very sincere misapprehension of what I have done? What I have done is this: I have got competent persons whom I can trust to go to these shops and buy some of these prohibited feathers. They have come back and shown me these very feathers which they have bought. That is exactly what I said in my speech and that is precisely what is true.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then I regret that my noble friend did not go himself to the shops.
LORD DANESFORT: Certainly not.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then it is only second-hand information. He sends other persons. He delegates his duties to other persons. I should, however, like to ask my noble friend how does he know whether these feathers were brought in before 1921 or after 1921?
LORD DANESFORT: I will tell you at once: because the persons who bought them told me they had bought them and I believed them.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was not asking when they bought them. My noble friend knows that it is perfectly legal to sell these feathers openly, if they were imported before 1921. The question asked him was how does he know or why does he assert that these feathers were brought in after 1921? That is what I want to know.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We cannot tell.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But that is the whole point, because it is perfectly legal to sell these feathers if they were imported before 1921. However, I do not want to be diverted by the personal operations of my noble friend from the point I was
868
going to make. My noble friend in the course of his activities gave to the Board of Trade the names of eleven important shops where he said this nefarious trade was being carried on; that is to say, the selling of smuggled feathers brought in after 1921.
LORD DANESFORT: My noble friend must not misrepresent me. I am sorry to interrupt, but what I said, or certainly what I intended to say, was that these articles which were in fact feathers of birds which were prohibited from importation under the Bill of 1921 were being sold. I do not say and I do not know when they were imported, but they were feathers prohibited by the Act of 1921.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend again misunderstands what I said. I did not say he said that in this House but that he gave to the Board of Trade the names of eleven places or shops where these feathers were sold. My statement is entirely correct. The most careful investigation has been made in all these cases. These are not cases selected by the Customs. They were places which my noble friend stated were places where these feathers were sold. The Customs have gone into the cases in the most careful manner and they assure me that they have gone through the books and examined them to find where they came from, and in not one single case has a single feather been brought into this country after 1921. They were all pre-1921 feathers. I take my noble friend on his own ground. I show him on his own ground that there is no evidence whatever of the selling of these prohibited feathers in shops to persons who may acquire them. I think that this really disposes of the point that he made. This error was also, I think, fallen into by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury who, speaking no doubt with considerable knowledge of these matters, told us that it was impossible that feathers could last for seven years and that if they were sold in good condition in the shops they must have been imported since 1921.
I have had a very careful investigation made into this question by persons well qualified to deal with it, as well qualified as is his Grace, and I am informed that the suggestion that feathers in saleable condition could not last for

869
seven years is really an absurdity. I have the evidence of Dr. Percy Lowe, of the Natural History Museum, and of Mr. Stuart Baker, a very well-known and eminent ornithologist, and they are both agreed that if plumage is properly taken care of it lasts almost indefinitely. There is no sign of deterioration in the plumage that has been in the Museum for many years. They say that, even where plumage is not kept under museum conditions, all that is necessary is to protect it against damp, moths and light. I think my noble friend told us of the case of the argus pheasant that had been kept for fifty years. I was given another interesting case in connection with the Crown jewels of the Russian Royal Family. There were some feathers attached to a particular sceptre which had been kept in perfect condition for about two hundred years. I do not want to go back two hundred years but I am ready to deal with ten years.
In order that your Lordships may have some opportunity of seeing the condition of feathers that have been kept for a long time, I have myself brought into this House a bird, an egret, that has been kept for forty years in the Museum. Here it is. If your Lordships care to look at it you will see that the feathers are really in perfect condition and, if it were the custom to wear feathers in hats, I am sure that many of the friends of your Lordships would be perfectly ready to use them. I place this bird on the Table. I cannot leave it on the Table because I have to return it to the Museum. That is an egret, in perfect condition after forty years. I could give any amount of evidence on the subject, but everybody who is familiar with the question of feathers and their preservation knows perfectly well that, if they are properly kept, they last indefinitely, and therefore there is no value or truth in the suggestion that, because these feathers have been prohibited for seven years, there are no stocks of legally imported feathers in this country. Indeed, the likelihood is in quite the other direction. I understand that these places that sell feathers have been in a very bad way. It has been graphically told me that dust is collecting on their ledgers and even on their telephones. That may be a great advantage as showing the effects of the Act of 1921, but it does not show
870
any particular degree of activity in the trade. So much for that aspect of the case.
As regards the powers of the Customs, they are very full indeed, because the penalties in the case of seizure and so on are extremely heavy. Further, if it is brought to the notice of the Customs that any of these prohibited feathers are being imported they have a right to go into these buildings and seize the feathers. Accordingly I do not think that any further powers of seizure are required. There are one or two other interesting points that I should like to mention. Lord Arnold, in an intervention in the debate, said that the prohibition would encourage ostrich farming. I want to say a word or two about ostrich farming. Unfortunately, that industry has fallen upon very evil days, partly, no doubt, because the change in fashion which operated with regard to most feathers has also operated in the case of ostrich feathers and they have fallen, as it were, into the same calamity. I understand that farmers in South Africa are letting their ostriches run wild and shooting them and there are at present large stocks or ostrich plumage in London which are held by South African farmers.
I am bound to place this point before your Lordships, because it has been very strongly represented to me by the High Commissioner of South Africa that these people have suffered very heavily and that a Bill like this, re-opening the whole subject, might very likely be the final blow to the ostrich trade. I am telling the noble Lord what a competent authority tells me. He may deny it and say that it is not true, but I should not be doing my duty if I did not say how strongly this matter has been pressed on my attention by the High Commissioner of South Africa. The two things seem to run together, and there is a great reaction on the plumage trade because of the prohibited birds. I will not deal further with that point, because I am only giving my information as shortly as I can to your Lordships, but when we come to the Third Reading it may be necessary to go into it in more detail.
The last point that I have to submit to your Lordships is this. If there is no evidence of smuggling, if, after all the investigations that have taken place into

871
the selling of these feathers, it is shown that those who sell them are perfectly innocent, if we consider the powers exercised by the Customs, is it really necessary to create this offence and say that anybody—not a body like the Customs, acting on the discovery in parcels and so on, but any common informer—can at any moment take before the magistrate perfectly reputable persons and put them to the task of proving their innocence with regard to the sale of these feathers? I submit to your Lordships that this is really hard dealing and a blow to a trade which is quite legitimate, because the State has decided that these people may sell their existing stocks. Naturally no reputable firm is going to put itself into the position of being brought before a court and having to prove its innocence merely because it is selling these feathers.
Real hardship, I think, would be inflicted on these people, and that fact, coupled with the case of the South African feathers, seems to suggest that it is not only unnecessary but really unjust for your Lordships, considering the whole circumstances of the case, to add this fresh and special penalty and create this offence. Those really are the facts as I have gathered them from the Board of Trade Returns. I was anxious to submit them to your Lordships at the first possible moment. I am not going to ask you to divide on this Motion, but having these facts in your minds and other facts being present to your Lordships—we want to be fair and to do justice and to prevent these feathers being imported—I thought you might possibly be in a better position to decide what your attitude would be and what the Government attitude would be on the Third Reading when we come to that stage.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, Lord Peel has made a most interesting Second Reading speech which might appropriately have been delivered on that occasion and which, with still greater propriety, might be delivered upon the Third Beading. From what he has just said I gather that he wants to make an impression upon your Lordships' minds before you come to the Third Reading.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think that is hardly fair. I said frankly and fairly that I thought I ought to put the facts before
872
your Lordships at the first possible moment. What may be the effect upon your Lordships depends upon your own minds.
LORD DANESFORT: I do not wish to have a personal altercation with my noble friend, but I merely suggest that it would have been more regular to put the facts before the House on the Second Reading or to wait until the Third Reading, which would be the normal time. It is not a personal question between us—we have been excellent friends on other occasions—and if I have exhibited an undue degree of heat in endeavouring to correct my noble friend upon personal matters, I wish to apologise to him and to the House, because it is really not a personal question at all. I am not going to follow my noble friend's example and make a Second Reading or Third Reading speech in answer to him. I am not going to do that for two reasons: firstly, because it would be more convenient to make such a speech upon the Third Reading, and secondly, because I did not come to this House expecting any opposition to the Bill on the Committee stage, and therefore I did not bring with me the papers which deal with many of the matters which my noble friend has touched upon, not expecting those matters to be raised to-day.
There are, however, one or two things which he said that I think require immediate answer. May I remind your Lordships what is the nature of the Bill? It really is simply a corollary of the Act passed in this House and the other House in 1921, prohibiting the importation of the feathers of certain birds. This present Bill simply carries out the intention of that Act, which was to protect the plumage of certain birds, and says that when you find plumage of that prohibited character being sold here you should forbid the sale, giving, of course, the person concerned with the sale an opportunity of saying that the plumage had been brought, in before 1921. The whole object of this Bill is to make the Act of 1921 effective, by prohibiting not merely the importation but the sale of these feathers. Since the Bill was before your Lordships' House some few weeks ago a list has been given in another place, to which my noble friend very properly referred, of the prohibited plumage which had been brought into

873
this country, and which had been seized by the Customs during the last three years.
The heading of the list, which I do not think my noble friend read, is as follows:—
"The following is a list of birds, the plumage of which has been illegally imported and confiscated by the Customs authorities under the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921,"
for the years in question. If you will look at that list you will see that it is a very formidable one. You will find it on columns 187 to 194 of the louse of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT for the 18th of this month. There you will find that the number of egret wings and millinery mounts is exceedingly large, numbering in some cases thousands.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Where does the noble Lord find that egret skins numbered thousands?
LORD DANESFORT: I did not say skins. They are single feathers, and the period in question is the second half of the year 1926. Birds of paradise are not numerous, but the number is substantial, right up to last year. Then kingfishers—"articles containing small pieces of feather"—are also substantial, and in the year ending December last the number of these prohibited kingfisher feathers imported was no less than 93. Then, if you look at pheasants' and peacocks' feathers, the number is very large. It is a formidable list, and naturally my noble friend was anxious to discount it as far as he could.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, not at all.
LORD DANESFORT: Shall SI then say "explain it"? I wish to give a case which my noble friend cannot discount. There was the case in 1924 of the 136,000 skirts attempted to be smuggled into this country.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is the Arcos case.
LORD DANESFORT: Yes, the Arcos case. They were captured and confiscated. My noble friend seems to think that because Arcos has been shut up no one will ever again attempt such an improper thing as Areas did, but if it was worth while for Arcos to try to smuggle in these skins in 1924, is it not exceedingly
874
likely, I ask, that some equally reckless body will try to do the same, if there is a sale for such articles?
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is not.
LORD DANESFORT: Let me ask this question. If there was not a sale for these articles in 1924, why should they bring them in? The same remark applies to all these illegally imported articles. No one would try to bring them in, knowing that they were liable to be confiscated, unless they knew that they were going, if successful, to make a profit out of it, and that there was a sale for such articles here. When my noble friend says that no one will ever again attempt such a thing as Arcos unsuccessfully attempted in 1924, I think he ignored really the legitimate inference to be drawn from that action. Then there was a very much worse case, which even my noble friend did not attempt to defend, of the importation of egrets.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord must not say that. I defend nothing which is illegal. I admitted those two wrongful cases, but I said that other cases were declared.
LORD DANESFORT: He did not attempt to defend, because it was indefensible. The facts of that last case were these. The egret feathers were seized by the Customs House authorities in June or July, 1925. They were of the value of £1,555. They are the 335 hundles of feathers referred to in this list, and to which the note was that they "formed the subject of legal proceedings against the importer, who was fined £50 in London." Those were caught. Can my noble friend say that there were no similar cases where they were not caught? In this particular case they were put in the false bottom of some box, which came from Japan, professing to bring in something entirely different. Why were they brought in? Of course they were brought in—illegally, as we all know—because there was a sale for them, or the person who brought them in believed there was a sale for them. And surely my noble friend will not contend that there has been no case in which these goods were not discovered. There is no reason to think that they were discovered in every case. My noble friend gave a list of the seizures in 1925, 1926, and 1927. He did not give

875
us the value of those seizures. It is perhaps not very important, but in the case of these egret feathers this one consignment was of the value of £1,555.
My noble friend's comment on this case was that it was not a typical case at all. I really do not know why he says that. It was a very remarkable case, but how many similar cases there were which were not discovered I really do not pretend to say. Then he says that if there is no smuggling and no sale there is probably no case for the Bill. But undoubtedly there is smuggling; in some cases the smugglers have been caught. I have no doubt that in a great many other eases they have not been discovered. I think your Lordships will be satisfied that there was a very large number of cases where attempts were made to bring these feathers into the country, and what I want to know is why, unless there was a sale for them in this country, any one should send them in. Then my noble friend says that, as regards the feathers which have been sold by firms of which I gave some names, they were in every case pre-1921 feathers. I have some important evidence which I will produce on the Third Reading—I think that the appropriate time—which will show that people are selling these feathers to-day, and stating at the time that they are feathers which have been smuggled in since 1921, the sale of which ought undoubtedly to be stopped. I really hesitate to discuss this exhibit which my noble friend produced of a bird which he says is forty years old. How does he know that? Has he watched this bird for forty years?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, but I am informed by competent authorities of the Natural History Museum.
LORD DANESFORT: I am glad he has got that evidence, because he commented with some slight asperity upon my statement and upon the fact that I did not go into the shops myself and buy the feathers, that I contented myself with looking at the feathers after they had been bought. However, that is a relatively small matter. It is possible by great care to keep feathers a lifetime—it is possible to keep clothes a lifetime. But to tell me that none of these feathers which are being brought into
876
this country and sold have been brought in since 1921 is really a draft on the credulity of your Lordships' House which I hope will not be accepted.
The last point is the question of the ostriches. The importation of ostrich feathers was expressly permitted by the Act of 1921. Ostrich feathers were taken out of the prohibition, and they are being brought into this country and sold, according to the fashion I have no doubt, without any difficulty whatever. My noble friend says he is informed by the High Commissioner for South Africa that the passage of this Bill—which has nothing to do with ostriches, but only with illegally imported plumage—would interfere with the sale of ostrich feathers in this country. I am bound to say, notwithstanding the great authority of the High Commissioner, that I find a great and almost insuperable difficulty in believing that. However, I leave it to your Lordships to make your own inferences. At any rate, what I say to-day is that my noble friend has endeavoured to put facts before your Lordships which would induce you on the Third Reading perhaps to reconsider your decision. I hope you will do nothing of the kind, and I am quite confident that when any further evidence which may be necessary is brought by the promoters of this Bill your Lordships will have no hesitation in coming to the same decision as you did on the last occasion.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I was unfortunately abroad when the Second Reading of this Bill took place, and therefore I had no opportunity of speaking upon it. I should have liked to do so, because during the last five years I have been Chairman of the Statutory Committee which was created under the Act in order to look into the whole question of the Schedule and the illegal importation of these birds' skins. I thought perhaps the best way of taking part in the debate would have been on this Motion to go into Committee. On further consideration, however, I understood that that is not a very common procedure in your Lordships' House, and therefore I thought I would speak on the Third Reading. But my noble friend Lord Peel has made what has been described as a Second Reading speech. I listened to him with great care, but I do not propose to discuss the points he has raised on

877
the present occasion, as I think it would be more fitting to do it on the Third Reading.
I thought he made a very powerful statement against the Bill, but all the facts and figures which he gave are familiar to me, because the whole of them have been before the Committee of which I am Chairman, made out at the instigation and for the information of that Committee, and I feel sure that I am not treating him with any discourtesy if I reserve what I have to say in comment on his speech for the Third Reading. I think it will be more convenient for members of the House if I do so. The speech which he made was, I thought, a much more powerful argument against the Bill than that which was made on the Second Reading by his colleague sitting beside him At the same time, as far as I am concerned it has in no way converted me from the view I hold, and I will venture on the Third Reading to express my views more fully with regard to the Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I was not present on the occasion of the Second Reading, and therefore I listened with great interest, as I always do, to the speech of my noble friend Lord Peel. I understood him to raise four objections to the Bill. The first objection was that there was no market for these feathers, and therefore the Bill was unnecessary; the second objection was that there was no smuggling.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I admitted two cases.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Yes. No smuggling except in those two cases, which were exceptional, and one of which could not occur again unless the Labour Party came into power. The third objection was that feathers imported before 1921 ought to be sold and the fourth was as to the ostrich farms. With regard to no market, what is the object of allowing people to sell feathers which were imported before 1921 if there is no market? There is evidently a market or they could not sell the feathers which were imported before 1921. As to whether there is smuggling, I am not in a position to say very much about that, but I can understand that it is easy for women to bring in feathers in their muffs and in their hats, because they have very little hair now and there must be space between the head and the sort of hat that is worn
878
nowadays. I do not see why they should not put feathers into their hats and I do not suppose that my noble friend's Custom House officials order women to take their hats off to see whether there are feathers in them or not. A man might bring feathers in under his shirt or anywhere. I should have thought it was perfectly easy to tiring in feathers by smuggling.
In regard to the sale of feathers imported before 1921, I have always held that retrospective legislation is bad. Therefore I feel very strongly that people who brought these feathers in before 1921 ought to be allowed to sell them, and I do not think there is any question about it. But as I read the Bill, it does not prevent it. The Bill provides that—
"it shall be a good defence to proceedings for an offence under this section to prove either—

"(i) That the plumage had not been imported since the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, came into operation, or

(ii) That all reasonable precautions had been taken by the person proceeded against to satisfy himself that the plumage had not been imported since the said Act of 1921 came into operation."

My noble friend did not use this argument, but it might be said that it is contrary to the principles of English law to put it upon a defendant to prove that the case against him is wrong; the case has to be proved by the plaintiff. But in this case there is an Act of Parliament which provides that you must not do certain things. One of those things is that you must not have imported feathers in your possession. Therefore, it is perfectly consistent with the principle of English law to say: "You have some feathers in your possession; you ought not to have had them in your possession unless they were imported before 1921, and you must prove that." Therefore I do not see that there is any harm done or that the people who imported these feathers before 1921 will suffer anything if this Bill is passed.
In regard to the ostrich feathers, according to my noble friend Lord Danes-fort, ostrich feathers are not included in the Bill. Therefore, instead of doing harm to the ostrich farmers the Bill will do good. If the plumage of other birds is not imported and women want feathers they will buy ostrich feathers, which are

879
the only feathers they can get. Therefore, in those circumstances, unless anything very different arises on the Third Reading, I shall support the Third Reading of the Bill.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. We have to consider the sources of supply as well as the imports into the home market. There is no doubt that in the Pacific, which is the main source of supply, the killing of birds for their plumage has been carried to very great excess in the past. Not only birds but animals like the platypus, that very interesting duck-billed animal, have been put upon the black list and the plumage and skins of animals or birds killed before a certain date are still allowed to be sold until the stocks are disposed of. There is very little doubt in my mind that a good deal of killing still goes on despite legislation. The interesting point, I think, is to secure that the stocks already held are not increased by imports of more recently killed birds or animals. I doubt whether all the feathers that come into this country are imported in cases. They come in much smaller parcels in considerable quantities and they are not always seized by the Custom House.
VISCOUNT PEEL: All these parcels, I am advised, are opened.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I have known of a great many brought into this country by many people-I do not say in large quantities, but undiscovered by the Custom House. I think it would be very desirable to come to some sort of understanding as to the approximate date at which these stocks will be exhausted. The supporters of the Bill have, perhaps, gone too, far in saying that feathers and plumage cannot be kept for a long time in perfect condition. They can be kept for a very long time and in perfect condition. I sympathise with what my noble friend has said about allowing, the stocks to be disposed of, but I hope that those who are responsible for legislation and the enforcement of it will keep a sharp eye against evasion, because I am sure that in this case there is a good deal of evasion at the sources of supply in the Pacific and, I fancy, some evasion here also.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Bill reported without amendment.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS AND JOHORE TERRITORIAL WATERS (AGREEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Clacton, Great Yarmouth, Keighley, Bingley and Shipley Joint Hospital District, Mex-borough, Port Talbot, and Slough; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA TION (SWINDON EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Swindon; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (HALIFAX AND WEST RIDING) PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMA TION BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm

881
certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Halifax and the West Riding of Yorkshire; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 1a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CANADA AND THE ANGLO EGYPTIAN NEGOTIATIONS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to a statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada, in the Dominion House of Commons, on the 30th day of March, 1928, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can give any information as to the progress of negotiations with the Egyptian Government; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that the subject matter which I am bringing to your Lordships' attention, although of much importance, is in any sense of a controversial character and certainly is not of a Party controversial character. I beg to say that so far as the Party with which I am connected is concerned they are just as jealous of our national honour and national reputation as any other Party. That, I think, has been exceptionally shown—I will not say exceptionally but it has been specially shown in the Anglo-Egyptian question.
I want to say quite clearly at the outset, as I have to deal with a statement made on a former occasion in this House by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury)—I am sure he will feel I say it with all sincerity—that I do not intend in any way to suggest, and never have suggested, that any statement he made was not in every sense perfectly accurate and straightforward, and in corroboration of that I want to call attention to what was said by the Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, in the Dominion House of Parliament in Canada. The passage which I should like to read I have taken out of the OFFICIAL REPORT which reports debates in the Dominion Parliament of Canada. Mr. Mackenzie King said:
"May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I accept unreservedly Lord Salisbury's statement to the House of Lords that the Government of Great Britain had not any intention
882
of obliging the Dominions to become a party to the Treaty, or even of inviting them to do so."
I accept entirely what the noble Marquess said and what is said by the Prime Minister of Canada, but when this matter was before the House only a short time ago the noble Marquess seemed to think I had mad some "gloss," as he called it, upon what he said. I do not think there was any gloss. I looked very carefully afterwards to see whether there was. I certainly never intended it at the time.
I should like to read his actual words and your Lordships will then see what is the importance and relevance of the topic I wish to introduce. We were dealing with the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty and the noble Marquess said that there was DO question at any time of asking the Dominions to take part in being responsible for the results of the Treaty. Their concurrence in the general policy embodied in the Treaty was asked for, but there was a distinction between asking Dominion Governments for their concurrence in the general policy of a Treaty and asking them to be parties to it. With regard to the second matter, he said, it never entered the heads of the Government here. I accept that quite frankly without any question, but what is pointed out by the Prime Minister of Canada—and this is the importance of this question—is that, although no doubt the statement of the noble Marquess may be perfectly accurate, yet, on the other hand, he was perfectly justified in the view which he had taken—the different view which he had taken—that there was an invitation to the Canadian Dominion actually to become a party to the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty.
I must explain in a few words how this arises. I do not want to go back into the forms of Treaties which were examined and explained at the last Imperial Conference, although I think that the Prime Minister of Canada—and I believe the noble Marquess will agree with this—is perfectly right in saying that, having regard to the forms and principles there laid down, the inference which he drew was a perfectly accurate one, that the Dominion of Canada was being asked to become a party to the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty. He calls attention—and I think this is the most convenient way I can put

883
it—to page 9 of the White Paper, which has been published in regard to the Treaty negotiations between this country and Egypt. He points out that under the head of "Counter-draft approved by His Majesty's Government, July 28, 1927," it is stated that this was forwarded to the Dominion Government. It is quite clear that if the form there adopted had been approved the Dominion Government would have become a party to the Egyptian Treaty. He further points out that it was because of the objection which the Canadian Government, through their Prime Minister, took, that the form was subsequently altered and the altered form was the form to which the noble Marquess called my attention the other day. It is to be found on page 36, where, in accordance with the principles laid down at the Imperial Conference, it is made quite clear that the only parties involved at a subsequent stage were Great Britain and Northern Ireland on one side and Egypt on the other. But that result was brought about by altering the form in which the Treaty was originally submitted to the Canadian Government, and it really emphasises the change in policy of His Majesty's Government between those two dates.
I would like to read a passage or two from what was said by Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, in order to make quite clear what the position was. A certain Mr. Woodsworth asked a question of the Prime Minister in order to enable him to make an explanation very much in the same way as questions are asked in the House of Commons in this country. Mr. Mackenzie King said in reply:—
"My honourable friend has it exactly. May I say to him that the accuracy of what I have stated from the Canadian point of view is conclusively borne out by the White Paper which was laid on the Table of the House of Commons of Great Britain, this year, entitled 'Papers regarding negotiations for a Treaty of Alliance with Egypt,' a copy of which I hold in my hand."
Then he refers, as I have already done, to page 9. It is quite clear that page 9, as it stands, and the Treaty form, as it stands, would have meant a Treaty between all the Dominions and Great Britain on one side and Egypt on the other, and of course the Dominions would have included Canada. He goes on to say in regard to the first form:—
884
"Under the interpretations set forth by the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee on Treaties—"
they are very detailed and of great importance—
"a Treaty so drafted"—
that is, drafted in the form in which this Anglo-Egyptian Treaty was submitted to the Canadian Government—
"without limitation, had it been signed by a plenipotentiary, would have bound Canada along with all the other Dominions. Being presented with the full text of the Treaty in this form, and being asked to give our concurrence, we interpreted that Canada was asked to be a party to the Treaty and therefore, in our reply, we were careful to state that we could not become a party to the Treaty because, for reasons given, we did not believe that this Parliament would approve of Canada being made a party thereto."
I have on former occasions asked that Papers might be laid showing what were the reasons given. I will not press that to-day, because it is not the particular point with which I am dealing. All I can say is that Mr. Mackenzie King's statement is anything but obscure. It is perfectly straightforward. What he originally stated in the Canadian Parliament is correct, that the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty was first submitted to the Canadian Government in a form which made Canada a party to that Treaty. Then he goes on to point out, what I have already pointed out, a change on a later page, which is the page to which the noble Marquess called my attention when the discussion was proceeding in this House on the last occasion. There the parties are limited. They are stated as His Majesty the King of Great Britain and so on, for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and His Majesty the King of Egypt.
It is a most important principle that is involved here. I am one of those who care immensely for the preservation of good feeling and good comradeship between the Mother Country and her Dominions. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said the other day that I seemed to forget that it is a question of parents and children. I certainly did not forget it, but I feel that as between parents and grown-up children there is more need of care and right understanding than in almost any other relationship. At any rate, the fact stands (and I think there can be no contradiction)

885
that the Treaty as first submitted would have made the Dominion of Canada a responsible party. The Treaty, as subsequently submitted to Egypt, made all the difference by eliminating Canada and the Dominions and limiting it to a negotiation which might eventuate in a Treaty as between Great Britain and Egypt.
Then he goes on to say:—
"Honourable members will notice that the Treaty as finally presented—"
that is the form I have just read, between Great Britain and Egypt—
"… is distinctly limited in the preamble, as should be the case when a Treaty applies to only one part of the Empire …"
That is a very important principle. It is perfectly well recognised that any Dominion or any part of the Empire is independent as to whether it takes part in a Treaty or not. I agree myself, and so do the Party to which I belong, with what was done at the last Imperial Conference when the Dominions were placed in the position of what is called independent sovereign commonwealths. There were certain restrictions with which I need not deal, but it was agreed on by all parties that forms of Treaty should be developed which would exclude from their operations any of the Dominions which did not wish to be bound by the proposals made.
Mr. Cahan, who I suppose is a member of the Canadian Parliament, said: "They made a very delicate suggestion," the delicate suggestion being the sending forward of a Treaty in a form which made them responsible. Mr. Mackenzie King said:—
"I agree with my honourable friend. I think it was a very delicate suggestion; and I submit that, as presented to us, the documents were not capable of any other interpretation in the light of the rules laid down at the Imperial Conference with respect to the negotiation, signature and ratification of Treaties. But I hope the explanation which I have made will remove any possibility of difference on that point as between the British Government and ourselves."
I do not fear that any serious friction will arise in this case upon a point of that sort, but it certainly is unfortunate that this misunderstanding, if I may so call it, had a foundation given for it in the Canadian Parliament by neglecting the forms of Treaty which were agreed upon at the time of the Imperial Conference
886
and forwarding one which would have made the Dominion of Canada responsible.
I will not go back to what I said the other day as to why Canada did not want to become responsible. The Prime Minister said it showed the real peace spirit of Canada, because they had determined that they would not become party to a Treaty in which they were not directly concerned but which might entail military sanctions and military warfare. I would emphasize this somewhat for another reason. I notice that it is constantly suggested that, although we in Great Britain may desire peace, yet our Dominions are not prepared to go the length that we might desire to go in a peace direction. I venture to say that the exact opposite is the case. Canada has shown from the very start more than once, and particularly through M. Dandurand, her very able representative at Geneva, that she has long been prepared to sign what is called the Optional Clause of the Statute of the International Court. That is quite right.
I had rather hoped that Lord Cushendun would have been present to-day, because I read a letter from him stating that the Dominions stood in the way of adopting the principle of the signature of the Optional Clause. I submit that that is totally unjustified. What he referred to was that at the time of the Imperial Conference it was suggested that it might be premature. That was admirably answered by Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, who pointed out, as I have pointed out to your Lordships more than once, that openly and notoriously Canada at any rate—and there were other Dominions also—were desirous, and had often expressed their desire, to promote peace by signing the Optional Clause.
Now I want to say a few words upon the point in reference to which this discusion arose. I say at once that I neither ask for nor intend to embark upon any discussion which could possibly involve any difficulty or increase, any difficulty which stands in the way of the Government in carrying out what I would call the anxious negotiations between them and the Government of Egypt. I want to say that on this point the policy of the Labour Party has been made perfectly clear for a considerable time. The question was stated really in 1922 when

887
independent sovereign power was given to Egypt, and at the same time certain reservations were made. Your Lordships may recollect a debate in this House in 1924 when the late Marquess Curzon of Kedleston classified under four heads the points for discussion—the Sudan, the protection of foreign interests, the defence of Egypt and the security of Imperial communications—in other words, the Suez Canal. I want to say how strong the support of the Labour Party has been in order not to throw any obstacle in the way of the Government but to increase their power to carry their negotiations to what I hope may be a decision fair to both sides.
So far as the question of the Sudan was concerned, in explaining at that date the policy of the Labour Party I found myself in an exceptional position of popularity. I stated that we were wholly of opinion that the obligations towards the Sudan must be preserved without change by Great Britain, and I recollect that the noble Marquess, the late Lord Curzon of Kedleston, said that my statement was entirely satisfactory, as was the additional statement that, if any change were suggested as regards either the Sudan or Egypt, the Labour Party would not sanction it until it had been sanctioned by Parliament, not merely by discussion but if necessary, by a Vote. On both those points the Conservative Party, who were in power at that time, expressed their satisfaction. I do not mention this as a personal matter, but I very strongly object to the suggestion that is heard from time to time that in some way or other the Labour Party are less zealous than the other Parties in this country for our national honour and reputation, and that in some way that I do not understand the honour and reputation of this country in questions of this sort can less safely be committed to them than to either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party.
As regards the Egyptian question generally, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has always adopted and stated one policy. His policy is this. There are certain unequivocal questions on which our country has taken up its stand, and on those questions he holds the view that they must be settled in some Treaty form before the general settlement of Egypt can be constitutionally and properly carried through. Of course the way of
888
settlement differs in different views. I have always thought that the Foreign Minister of the Labour Party was a master craftsman in building up an atmosphere of peace and good will. I should like to read to your Lordships a passage that is quoted in the White Paper from a Despatch from Mr. Ramsay MacDonald to Lord Allenby when he was in authority in Egypt. He wrote:—
"No British Government in the light of that experience—"
that is, the experience of the European War—
"can divest itself wholly, even in favour of an Ally, of its interest in guarding such a vital link in British communications [the Suez Canal]. Such a security must be a feature of any agreement come to between our two Governments, and I see no reason why accommodation is impossible, given good will."
I hope that none of us see any reason why accommodation should not be possible, given good will. As I read the White Paper, as matters stand the accommodation has not been reached, but perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us—I will not ask him more than this—where matters stand now. Do they stand as they did when the White Paper was published?
I want him to note my remarks, because this charge is so constantly and unfairly made against the Labour Party. I have no desire to embarrass the Government in its duty, but I merely remind him that these statements have been made on behalf of the Labour Party and to suggest that on this matter we are all at one. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald then went on to say:—
"The effective co-operation of Great Britain and Egypt in protecting these communications might in my view have been ensured by the conclusion of a Treaty of close alliance."
That is the policy still.
"The presence of a British Force in Egypt provided for by such a Treaty freely entered into by both parties on an equal footing would in no way be incompatible with Egyptian independence, whilst it would be an indication of the specially close and intimate relations between the two countries and their determination to co-operate in a matter of vital concern to both."
Then he adds these words:—
"It is not the wish of His Majesty's Government—"

889
he was then at the head of the Government—
"that this force should in any way interfere with the functions of the Egyptian Government or encroach upon Egyptian sovereignty, and I emphatically said so."
I think that in a matter of this kind it is extremely important that there should be no division of opinion in this country, so that negotiations of this kind may be brought to a satisfactory issue, and I must say that I regret that it sometimes seems to be suggested that the Labour Party has less regard for national matters than other Parties.
Let me say that we approach this matter from a national standpoint only, as indicated by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in the statements that I have read. There is, of course, the difference that one Minister may succeed in promoting an atmosphere of good will and peace where another Minister has not the same success. I earnestly believe that, in the words used by Mr. MacDonald when he was Foreign Secretary, with good will an accommodation is not impossible, and that with good will we may have the great advantage of a friendly Egypt and a far greater guarantee than any other of the safety of our communications through the Suez Canal. I formally move, as we sometimes do on these occasions, for Papers, but of course I shall not press that Motion if the noble Marquess tells me that there are no further communications that he can safely lay upon the Table or put before the public at the present time.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, the Motion which the noble Lord has put on the Paper this afternoon has given me an opportunity of making a few remarks on a subject in which I have been particularly interested for a number of years, as a practical student of Empire politics. I also wish to take this opportunity because I have during the last two months paid a visit of several weeks to Egypt. I do not propose to deal with the first part of the noble Lord's Notice regarding the statement by the Prime Minister of Canada in the Dominion House of Commons. I propose to confine myself to the latter portion, in which the noble Lord asks for information as to the progress of negotiations with the Egyptian Government. Perhaps the noble Lord will not be surprised if I do not approach the subject from exactly the same angle
890
as himself, because he in his missionary zeal—if I may put it in that way—for the cause of peace throughout the world, very often, I think, blinds himself to the realities of the case with which he is dealing. Therefore this afternoon, if my remarks follow along a somewhat different line of thought from that followed by the noble Lord, the House will understand why I am doing this.
It happened that during my visit to Egypt the crisis which has recently developed in the joint affairs of Egypt and this country came to a head, and consequently I found myself witnessing one of the critical political situations which arise in Egypt from time to time. To the surprise of many Egyptians, and certainly of many of the Europeans in Egypt, that agitation fizzled out very quickly, and this was owing largely to the restrained but efficient action of the Cairo Police, but also, and this is particularly interesting, very largely I think to the apathy of the Egyptian labouring classes, who are weary of the continued political upheavals, and desirous of carrying on without interruption their peaceful avocations. Attempts were made by school-boys and students to arouse public opinion, and ultimately the Wafd, the local Sinn Fein organisation, decided to call them off, as they were only disclosing the lukewarmness of the support. So the agitation died down. Then Sarwat Pasha resigned. There followed a couple of weeks of political difficulties, and comings and goings, and then Nahas Pasha, the President of the Wafd, became Prime Minister, and immediately he, as his first action, confirmed the decision of the Egyptian Parliament and rejected the Draft Treaty in unequivocal terms.
I now come to the real object of my intervention in this debate. During the past few weeks there have been various declarations by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which have been conveyed to the Egyptian Government through the medium of our High Commissioner in Cairo, Lord Lloyd, and one of the principal declarations which has been made was that we have reverted to the position outlined by the Declaration of February 28, 1922. I wish to give your Lordships' House just an extract from that statement, as it is very important. It said:—

891
"Now that conversations with the Egyptian Government have failed to achieve their object, His Majesty's Government cannot permit the discharge of any of their responsibilities under the Declaration of February 28, 1922, to be endangered, whether by Egyptian legislation of the nature indicated above"—
that is certain legislation with regard to public control and order, being passed by the Egyptian Government at the present time—
"or by administrative action, and they reserve the right to take such steps as in their view the situation may demand."
That, I submit, is an unequivocal declaration of the situation taken up by His Majesty's Government only a few weeks ago.
It is important, in this regard, to refer to the Declaration itself, from which the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, has already quoted. That Declaration said:—
"In view of this responsibility and of the vital importance to the British Empire of British interests in Egypt, the British Government had reserved by the said Declaration to its absolute discretion"
those four points which have already been quoted, namely:—

"(a) The security of the communications of the British Empire in Egypt;

(b) The defence of Egypt against all foreign aggression or interference, direct or indirect;

(c) The protection of foreign interests in Egypt and the protection of minorities; and

(d) The Sudan."

I should like to ask His Majesty's Government—I do not know whether the noble Marquess will be able to give a reply to my question this afternoon—whether the British Government have definitely gone back to 1922 or, on the other hand, whether the provisions of the Draft Treaty of 1927 are still open for negotiation with the Egyptian Government. In my judgment, and with all respect to His Majesty's Government, the reply to that question is of great importance, because there are two provisions in that Draft Treaty which in my opinion—and I think when I read them to your Lordships' House you will agree with me—conflict seriously with points referred to in the Declaration of 1922, and which were said at that time to be of vital importance to the British Empire.
I believe from what Lord Parmoor said a few minutes ago that he, too, believes that those points are of vital importance to the British Empire, and as he was
892
speaking, as he said he spoke, for the Labour Party, I assume that the Labour Party also believe that those points are of importance to the British Empire. I turn to that Draft Treaty, and I find that Article 7 of the Draft. Treaty says:—
"In order to facilitate and secure to his Britannic Majesty the protection of the lines of communication of the British Empire, and pending the conclusion at some future date of an agreement by which His Britannic Majesty entrusts His Majesty the King of Egypt with the task of ensuring this protection, His Majesty the King of Egypt authorises his Britannic Majesty to maintain upon Egyptian territory such armed forces as His Britannic Majesty's Government consider necessary for this purpose."
We find wedged in this particular part of the Article these words:—
"and pending the conclusion at some future date of an agreement by which His Britannic Majesty entrusts His Majesty the King of Egypt with the task of ensuring this protection."
Now, supposing that Draft Treaty had come into effect and had been ratified, this country would have committed itself, by virtue of those words, to entrust at some future date to the Egyptian Government the task of ensuring this protection.
I should like in that connection to quote from a Memorandum written by Sir Austen Chamberlain, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and appearing in this same White Book, dated July 13, 1927, only four or five months before he allowed this Draft Treaty to go out of the Foreign Office, and you will observe how that particular clause conflicts with the expression of opinion contained in the Memorandum. He says:—
"I had last year drawn his attention"—
that is, Sarwat Pasha's attention—
"to the reservations which we had attached to the grant of Egyptian independence and to the obligations no less than the rights which those reservations imposed upon us. The rights were vital to us. No British Government could afford to ignore them. My predecessor had asserted them as plainly as I could do. They were, in fact, so essential to the existence of the British Empire that every British Government in the future, as in the past, whatever its complexion, would be obliged to insist upon them. I was old enough to remember the circumstances of our intervention in Egypt in the early eighties. My father was a Minister at that time. I could recall the sincerity with which the Ministers of that day had declared that our occupation was only temporary—"

893
I ask you, my Lords, to mark those words that "our occupation was only temporary"—
"and that it would be withdrawn at the earliest possible moment. But circumstances had been too strong for us. The moment of withdrawal had never come, and the events of the intervening forty or fifty years had shown that neither of us could escape from the situation in which God had placed us or evade the mutual relations which that situation imposed upon us."
In spite of that very definite declaration by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in July, 1927, we find in Article 7 the words I have just read out, which foreshadow the possible assumption by the Egyptian Government of this office of protection. I submit that this should never have been inserted in that Article, and that, as the negotiations are in a state of suspension, that Article, certainly from that point of view and from a further point of view which I propose to mention directly, should be reconsidered in any future negotiations that may take place, or in any negotiations that may be taking place.
I come now to the second part of that Article, which reads:—
"After a period of ten years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, the high contracting parties will reconsider, in the light of their experience of the operation of the provisions of the present Treaty, the question of the localities in which the said forces should be stationed."
And then it goes on:—
"Should no agreement be reached on this point, the question may be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations. Should the decision of the League of Nations be adverse to the claims of the Egyptian Government, the question can, at their request and under the same conditions, be reinvestigated at intervals of five years from the date of the League's decision."
In anything I am about to say on this quotation I hope your Lordships will acquit me of any intention to attack or in any way disparage the League of Nations or its activities, for, on the contrary, I have a great regard for the League of Nations and a great respect for the work it has done in smoothing the differences between nations of an independent character, and especially the task it has so admirably performed in assisting to restore Central Europe.
But I have always contended that the League of Nations has no function in arranging or adjusting the domestic concerns of individual nations. The destiny
894
of Egypt has been entrusted to us for nearly fifty years. It has been entrusted to us by other nations, and I deprecate strongly that the League of Nations should have any say in the matter of how we carry out those responsibilities and maintain law and order in Egypt, or of how we look after the interests of the various nationals or after the capital which has been invested in that country by Europeans. At the end of that Article it says:
"Should the decision of the League of Nations be adverse to the claims of the Egyptian Government, the question can, at their request and under the same conditions, he reinvestigated at intervals of five years from the date of the League's decision."
I should like to ask what would happen supposing the question were remitted to the League of Nations and the decision were adverse, not to the Egyptian Government, but to the British Government. The British Government would find itself perhaps in a very awkward position. It might find itself compelled by the conditions which existed at the time in Egypt to come into conflict with the League of Nations, and having to tell the League of Nations that, in spite of this Article, they could not abide by the decision of the League of Nations.
I suggest that this clause is fraught with the greatest danger to the British Empire, and possibly with the greatest danger to Great Britain itself. I sincerely hope that the Government will take what I have said into, consideration, because I am perfectly certain that if this matter were debated in the House of Commons and it wits known in the country what that clause contained it would arouse the greatest feeling and the greatest opposition. If this Treaty is ever signed in this form and with the provision in it I shall feel myself compelled to vote against it if it comes before your Lordships' House. I can assure your Lordships that there is a very strong feeling in Egypt and throughout the East amongst British people that the policy of the Governments of the last seven years since the War has been most vacillating; that they are continually finding themselves let down, and that they do not receive the support which is their due and which was theirs in the past. I assure your Lordships that the various races living in and occupying those territories in the East do not regard us

895
with the same degree of respect as they were wont to do before the War, because our policy has been one of concessions. That is understood in the West but is regarded in the East as a form of weakness. Justice and firmness have been the bases of our success and of our popularity in the past. I hope that the Government will look seriously into the whole situation as it exists in the East and that they will stand firm in China, in Egypt and wherever our interests are at stake.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not complain in the least of the noble and learned Lord for having taken this opportunity of raising these questions. They are of very great importance and I only regret that owing to circumstances with which the noble and learned Lord is acquainted I must not detain your Lordships at any great length on the present occasion. In regard to Canada we have this advantage which we did not possess on the last occasion—that by reason of the lapse of time we are now in possession of the full report of what was said by Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, in the debate to which the noble and learned Lord has made reference. I have read the report of that speech with the greatest care, and may I say at once that His Majesty's Government have no reason to complain in the least of anything which the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Mackenzie King, said on that occasion. On the contrary, I should like to bear testimony to the great courtesy and consideration with which he discharged the very responsible task which was thrown upon him. I have the honour of Mr. Mackenzie King's acquaintance, and I am not surprised to read that he entered into this subject with a full regard to the responsibility under which he stands and with the circumspection which the subject demands.
The noble and learned Lord has pointed out that the gravamen of Mr. Mackenzie King's speech was the slight change of form which took place in the Draft which was originally submitted to the Canadian Government and the form in which the Treaty was ultimately signed.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Marquess means ultimately submitted to Egypt?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Ultimately submitted to Egypt. I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. Unfortunately, it was not signed; it was ultimately submitted to the Egyptian Government. I had not, when I spoke, the two forms in mind in addressing your Lordships' House, and perhaps I was to blame in that particular. I frankly admit that I had not those two forms in my mind and, undoubtedly, Mr. Mackenzie King was fully entitled to call attention to the distinction. There was, therefore, perhaps, a misunderstanding in the matter. But it is quite clear now, and let there be no doubt about it, that in the form in which the Treaty was ultimately submitted to the Egyptian Government there was no obligation thrown upon the Dominion of Canada, which was, in accordance with the decision of the Imperial Conference relating to Treaties of this description, inferentially excepted from the Treaty by the words that His Majesty only acted for Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not for the Dominions beyond the seas. That is absolutely so.
On the question as to Papers, I am afraid there are no Papers at the present moment which can be added to the White Paper which has already been laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House. On a future occasion I might be able to expand the Papers a little further; but that is the answer which I must give so far as the discussion this evening is concerned.
LORD PARMOOR: May I interrupt the noble Marquess for a moment? Does that apply to communications not only between us and Egypt but between us and Canada?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. So far as I know there are no Papers to be laid between us and Canada. I have nothing to add to what I said on that point the last time I had the honour of addressing your Lordships upon the subject. Turning to the question of Egypt, the noble and learned Lord was at pains to prove that in matters of foreign policy the Labour Party might be relied upon to take a patriotic attitude. I do not deny that for a moment. Why should I? The Labour Party consists of Englishmen and Scotsmen, and

897
we expect, of course, that all Englishmen and Scotsmen will be patriotic. Though, perhaps, one cannot say it is always the case, yet in the vast majority of cases it is so, and I fully believe and I am very grateful for the fact that in matters of foreign policy the Labour Party intend to be guided by patriotic considerations.
With regard to the position in Egypt, any one who has followed this matter knows that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a statement in another place in answer to a question on April 4. I have nothing really to add to that answer. There are no negotiations going on. Since the Treaty was rejected by the Egyptian Government there are no negotiations. The situation is as it was. My noble friend who has just sat down asks exactly what that situation is. The Treaty was a great effort on our part to come to an arrangement with Egypt. It has been rejected and the status quo ante immediately arises. We go back to the situation before the Treaty was negotiated—that is to say, we go back to the situation which the noble and learned Lord recited and which my noble friend recited, the situation which was embodied in the celebrated statement, including the four reserved points, of which both noble Lords have reminded your Lordships. The Treaty being rejected the status quo ante arises and that is the situation at this moment.
If my noble friend will forgive me—I make no complaint whatever of his speech—I will not discuss in detail the provisions of the Draft Treaty because it has been rejected. There would be no useful purpose in going into the details. If, hereafter, the subject were resumed between the two Governments, the result of last year's negotiations having been rejected, it does not in any way commit His Majesty's Government if and when fresh negotiations are undertaken. I am sure my noble friend fully realises the importance of that position, and that being so I am sure he will forgive me for not going into the matters of detail to which he very legitimately referred. My noble friend spoke in some terms of general criticism of the policy of His Majesty's Government throughout the East.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I say it was a general criticism of the policy of all Governments since 1918–19, not any particular criticism levelled at His Majesty's present Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very much obliged for that comparatively friendly assurance of my noble friend. I agree with him that anything in the nature of vacillation in policy, especially in foreign policy and most of all in foreign policy in the East, is to be deprecated. I earnestly hope it may be avoided, but there is no doubt that in administering the policy of this country in foreign affairs since the War the greatest weight must be attributed to the effect of the War. It is absurd to pretend that we are in exactly the same position as we were before the War. No man of common sense would pretend it. We must pursue the very heavy task which is before us as well as we can with that dignity and that strength of purpose which has always characterised British policy. We must avoid vacillation, but, above all, we must pursue, if we can, the paths of peace. It is with a policy of that kind we shall hope to succeed, whether it be in Egypt or elsewhere.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess very much for the answer he has given. I purposely abstained from going into the details of the negotiations, acting in consonance with what I may call the patriotic view. I have always understood when negotiations are going on or a delicate position has arisen that we must abstain as much as possible from going at that moment into the details of the question being discussed. I will not say more in answer to the noble Lord (Viscount Elibank). He knows that my views differ from his toto calo. I do not regard the pursuit of justice as vacillation. I regard it as a proof of strength and a desire to do what is right. I again thank the noble Marquess for his answer. I do not press for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

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

Army and Air Force (Annual),

Bromborough Dock,

Mersey Tunnel,

Barnet District Gas and Water.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.