Lords Sitting of 18 October 1932

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR having summoned their Lordships in accordance with the Resolution of July 13 last, the House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Dudley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to make provision with respect to the Forces of His Majesty from other parts of the British Commonwealth when visiting the United Kingdom or a Colony; with respect to the exercise of command and discipline when Forces of His Majesty from different parts of the Commonwealth are serving together; with respect to the attachment of members of one such Force to another such Force, and with respect to deserters from such Forces; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to appeals from decisions of official referees, to amend in certain particulars the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and to make provision for the costs of applications under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act, 1925; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE IRISH FREE STATE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, whether he has any statement to make with regard to the negotiations between the Secretary of State for the Dominions and Mr. de Valera.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity of making in this House the same statement as I understand is being made in another place by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions. My right hon. friend is making in another place a statement in these terms: As stated in the communiqué issued on Saturday night, it was unfortunately found impossible to reach an agreement and the negotiations came to an end. I will not take up the time of the House with details, since by agreement the documents exchanged during the negotiations will be published shortly as a White Paper. These will indicate the points raised by the Irish Free State representatives and our replies thereto.
But the House will expect a brief account of the circumstances which led to the negotiations and of the issues discussed. Prior to the meetings of last week the position was that we had offered either arbitration on the validity of the Irish Free State obligations to the United Kingdom Exchequer, or direct negotiations, provided that there was a prospect of finality. Mr. de Valera agreed to negotiations on this basis. Negotiations were directed to the financial matters outstanding. The case of the Irish Free State delegation was presented from the historical, technical and legal point of view, and was directed to three main issues. First, they denied the validity of the Agreements from which result the payments claimed by us to be due. Secondly, they asserted that no ultimate financial settlement between the two countries was ever made. Thirdly, on this basis they claimed that a new settlement should now be made covering all outstanding financial matters between the two Governments. In this connection they put forward claims not only in respect of pre-Treaty matters, such as the alleged over-taxation of Ireland, since the Act of Union in 1801, to the extent of

801
some hundreds of millions of pounds, but also in respect of matters arising since the Treaty, including an unspecified loss said to have been sustained by them in consequence of our departure from the gold standard last year.
There was a free and frank exchange of views; but we were unable to find that any new point was brought forward affecting the validity of the Agreements of 1923 and 1926. These Agreements were, in our opinion, made in complete good faith and have in fact been acted upon, up to this year, on both sides. We again expressed our readiness for arbitration on the legal issue; but this Mr. de Valera was unable to accept since he maintained his previous attitude towards an Empire tribunal. Basing ourselves on the view that the Agreements of 1923 and 1926 were, as I have said, made in complete good faith, and that the 1926 Agreement was intended, and stated in terms, to be the Ultimate Financial Settlement, we obviously could not accept the claim of the Irish Free State that they were entitled to reopen that settlement unless some manifest injustice was disclosed in its terms. So far from that being the case the discussions confirmed our view that the settlement was advantageous to the Irish Free State.
We expressed the view that there was neither a legal nor a moral basis for the Irish Free State claim in respect of over-taxation in the past, and we supported this view by illustration and argument. Further, we made it clear that we could not accept for a moment the Irish Free State claims in respect of any matters arising subsequently to the Treaty and the Agreements. It became plain in these circumstances that the continuance of the discussions could serve no useful purpose. I ought in fairness to add, on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, that in agreeing to these negotiations we were actuated by a sincere desire to bring to an end this unhappy dispute. But it was obvious from the two days' discussions on Friday and Saturday last that the Irish Free State representatives had no intention of admitting either the validity or the justice of the previous Agreements.
That, my Lords, is the statement which, I understand, is being made in another place, and your Lordships will appreciate that I can only repeat in this House the
802
statement which is being made elsewhere by the Minister who is directly responsible for that Department.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBEEDE: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for making that statement to your Lordships.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I now ask whether the noble Viscount can give spine indication with regard to our business in the concluding part of this Parliamentary Session? I have already communicated to him that my noble friend Lord Arnold is putting down a Motion for to-morrow week, October 26, with regard to the decisions of the Ottawa Conference and the consequences that have ensued from them, and, although not desiring to trouble your Lordships to come up for that day, I understand now that other business has arisen for that week. Our object in putting down the Motion was to allow a full debate at an early stage on what has amounted to a governmental crisis. We on this side of the House feel that when the Bills come before us, not only is the debate restricted, but your Lordships' House has not the right to interfere with or oppose Money Bills, and very likely Standing Orders may have to be suspended in order to get these Bills through with the greatest possible expedition. We therefore thought it would be for the convenience of your Lordships to have a full and free debate at an early stage, when there would be ample time for discussion. For that reason my noble friend Lord Arnold has put down this Motion, which we shall be free to divide on if necessary. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount could say whether there is any other business in the next few weeks? I may say that we have put down a Motion for the following day, October 27, on the Board of Education's Circular No. 1421.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, so far as I know at present, and subject to anything unforeseen arising, the remainder of this Session will be occupied, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, with the discussion of the Ottawa Bill or Bills. I rather anticipate that those will not be Money Bills. That is a matter which

803
does not he within the scope of my decision, but I think at any rate it will be found that they do not fall within the definition of a Money Bill; and that there will be no need, therefore, for any restricted discussion when they come before your Lordships' House for decision. So far as next week is concerned, I understand that my noble friend Lord Buckmaster wishes to raise a matter with regard to road transport, and that he proposes to put down a Motion on that subject for next Tuesday. I think that probably, in that event, it may be convenient to take the Second Reading of the two small Bills to which your Lordships have just given a First Reading, neither of which, I think, raises any matter between the two sides of the House.
On Wednesday of next week, as the noble Lord has indicated, there is to be a Motion from the opposite side of the House on the merits of the Ottawa proposals, on which, as he truly says, your Lordships' House will be free to divide. That, of course, is a matter entirely for his decision, and, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, naturally we can only accept that decision, and invite our supporters to come and register their view on the Ottawa proposals on Wednesday of next week. Perhaps we shall not be sorry to have an opportunity of stating those views as emphatically as possible and as early as possible. Then on the following day there is the Motion on education which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, is moving; and that, so far as I know, concludes the business for that week. I would suggest, therefore, that probably the convenient course would be to adjourn to-day until next Tuesday, then to have those three days occupied with business, and then again to adjourn till the following Tuesday when, if there is any other Motion which it is desired to bring forward, we can deal with it, and, if not, we can adjourn until such date as we are able to have possession of the Ottawa Bills from another place.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount did not give any indication as to when the Motion for the carrying over of the London Passenger Transport Bill will be taken—whether it will be taken in this House before it is dealt with in the Commons.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give any more information than this. Obviously there will have to be a carry-over Motion, and it would not be reasonable to ask the other House to deal with the Bill in the remaining period of the Session. I think the probability is that it will come to us from another place. I understand that is what happened previously, and my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Onslow) indicates that that is what he expects. I am afraid I have not an exact date for it in my mind at the moment, but probably it will be convenient, if it comes up in time, to deal with it before we proceed to the Ottawa Resolutions.
There is one matter in regard to which I have just been informed. The Transport Motion by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster is naturally one which I should like my noble friend Lord Plymouth to deal with, because he has been familiar with the Transport Department during the last twelve months. Unfortunately my noble friend (the Earl of Plymouth) is compelled, owing to a public engagement, to be absent next Tuesday, and there may be a difficulty, therefore, about taking the Motion on that day. Would your Lordships think it unreasonable if I were to suggest, in these circumstances, that we adjourn until next Tuesday? We will communicate with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, and afterwards cause an intimation to be published as to whether his Motion will he effective for next Tuesday, or whether he is prepared to put it off till a later day.
House adjourned at half past four o'clock.