Lords Sitting of 27 June 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MAIDSTONE WATERWORKS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE COR- PORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
COTTON MANUFACTURING IN- DUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVI- SIONS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons, to acquaint the House that they concur with the Lords in the Resolution of May 9 last, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

SHERIFFDOM OF PERTH AND ANGUS ORDER, 1934.
Message from the Commons, to acquaint the House that they have given
172
leave to the Right Honourable Wilfrid Guild Normand, K.C., Lord Advocate, to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
ST. HELEN'S CORPORATION (TROL- LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVI- SIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

THE ARABS IN PALESTINE.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now prepared to act upon the Pass-field Declaration in recognition of the Arabs and their rights as a nation; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in asking the Question which stands in my name I do so believing that Great Britain in her long history stands for justice for all races. Persecution either of the Jew or Arab is a doctrine totally alien to all our traditions. I raise the question primarily because it closely affects Great Britain's duties to those who are connected with her, and because the whole position of the Arabs, who are 81 per cent. of the Palestine population, not only affects Great Britain's prestige in world affairs, but in a most vitally significant manner affects the whole Moslem world and our long and honoured relation to it.
For the last decade Palestine has been a land of tragedy. It has become the centre of a world struggle. Here our solemn pledges are being put to the test. Are we to honour them or are we to

173
leave the Arabs in the lurch because they are the weaker party? Our own destiny and the future of the Arabs and the Jews rest on the answer to this question. The Arabs have many grievances against us. The strongest is that the Passfield Declaration, which recognised their rights as a separate race in Palestine, only lasted three weeks owing to Zionist pressure on the Government, so I am told. The Arabs have protested and argued since 1918. There have been many serious riots and they have sent five Arab delegations to England. Six Commissions of Inquiry have recommended in favour of the Arabs. They are taxed, they bear the burden of the Budget. The figures are as follows: Police and prisons, £520,468; Trans-Jordan Frontier Force, £176,262; defence, £168,500—or a total of £E865,230.
The fellah is in a pitiful and distressed condition. Thousands of Arabs have been made landless. Here is a cable just received from the Arab Executive; I have it in my pocket. It says:
"Government has no statistics for unemployed. Private investigation shows figures over thirty thousand. Unemployed among distressed fellaheen hard to determine.—Arab Executive."
The Arabs are now subjected to the pressure of an immigration against which they have continually protested. In 1933 many thousands of Jewish immigrants entered Palestine, many of thorn of an undesirable type. Against constant Jewish immigration there are 30,000 Arab immigrants who, though men of a sturdy and independent type, are not allowed Palestinian citizenship. I ask the Government how much longer the Arab, with his long tradition of culture and independence, is to be maintained in a position of political inferiority while immigrants from Russia, Poland, and Eastern European countries are admitted to full rights of citizenship. I ask also for a clear statement from His Majesty's Government as to their final intentions. Will they not emphasise the fact that while Palestine may be regarded as a home for the Jews, it will never become a Jewish State? As Sir John Hope-Simpson said in his report, no Jew is allowed to employ Arab labour.
This persistent and deliberate boycott of Arab labour in Zionist colonies is contrary to Article 6 of the Mandate and a menace to the country. The Arabs do
174
not possess any constitutional means of putting their views on social and economic matters before the Government and, though fulfilling the duties of citizenship, are totally without its rights. In a letter to me received this morning, dated June 26, which with your Lordships' permission I shall read, Lord Islington says:
"I regret my health prevents me from attending the House of Lords on Wednesday next, otherwise I should have come to support your Question to the Government as to what policy they intend to pursue in Palestine. If the present policy continues, there can be no hope of a peaceful settlement. In his statement of 1930 Lord Passfield makes it clear that the administration of the Mandate by Great Britain requires stringent and early revision if justice is to be secured to the Arab and Jewish races alike. Since 1930 Jewish immigration has been increased extensively, especially since the German exodus, the result being that the Arab agrarian, dispossessed of land, has seriously increased.
"Article 6 of the Mandate directs that protection in their civil rights should be secured to the different races. Unless this Article is given effect to, disturbances will continue to develop and the position of the Mandatory Power will become even more invidious than hitherto.
"Some years ago a Motion was carried by a large majority in the House of Lords dealing with the Mandate. If the decision had been given effect to, the position in Palestine to-day might have been different. Lord Balfour, in the course of that debate, and speaking as author of the Balfour Declaration, described the establishment, of a Zionist home as an ' interesting experiment.' The 'experiment' has now been tried for over 10 years. If the Jewish settlement has been a success, equally Arab security has been a. failure. This has proved dangerous both to the Jews and to the Arabs.
"The Government is confronted with this extremely difficult task of trying to reconcile justice to the Arabs with a continuance of a Zionist home. Hitherto this has not been accomplished. If the present scheme of administration in Palestine cannot be carried out effectively, it is clear that it requires revision. I trust that the Government will give this subject the attention it demands and that they will act with precision and courage, so that future trouble, which might develop into disaster, might be averted."
I shall give a few figures to your Lordships and will then not trouble you further. The first is a copy of a cable from the Arab Executive dated June 9, 1934, which says:
"Arab agriculturists not possessing land estimated thirty thousand families and Arabs dispossessed of land by Jews while not finding other occupation five thousand families."

175
I will give just one other figure from the Arab Executive. This cable, which is dated June 21, reads:
"Government has no statistics for unemployed. Private investigation shows figures over thirty thousand. Unemployed among distressed fellaheen hard to determine."
I beg to move.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I ought to make it clear at the beginning that in what I say to-day I am speaking for myself alone, and my noble friends behind me are not at all committed to what I say. So far as I was able to understand what the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-town, said, it was that the Arabs in Palestine suffered under some very special grievance which had been caused as a result of what had taken place since the time of the Balfour Declaration. The Notice which he put upon the Paper of your Lordships' House was to ask whether the Government is now prepared to act upon the Passfield Declaration in recognition of the Arabs and their rights as a nation. I would not for the world say a word against the Arab people. I have the greatest regard for them, but it is important that your Lordships should begin to consider this question with some sense of proportion, and to ask yourselves whether there has in fact been any grievance inflicted upon the Arab people.
We are asked to consider the rights of the Arabs as a nation. What are those rights in actual fact? Before the War took place, Palestine was not a country in any political sense. It was known to the Arabs themselves, and to the world generally, as the southern part of Syria. When the War occurred the Turks were in alliance with the Central Powers. They had possession of the hills of Judea and they menaced thereby the Suez Canal, which was the commercial throat of the world. It became, therefore, necessary on military and other grounds to dislodge the Turkish forces from the hills of Judea, and it seems strange to assume, after a military campaign had been conducted and the whole land was delivered from one particular menace, that the canal should be handed over again to a danger from which it had just been rescued. There is no doubt that the Arab peoples hoped to found a free Arab nation in Palestine. They say that certain promises were given to them to that end, but promises were made in the War in many ways, and, assuming that, such
176
a promise was made to the Arab peoples and was not fulfilled, they are sufferers in what was a more or less common affliction. We, too, were promised that our country should become a land fit for heroes to live in. It has become a land of slums and of the application of a means test.
But let us ask ourselves whether in actual fact promises were made which have not been fulfilled. What the Arabs got out of the War was a great Arab kingdom of immense potentialities and extent, and so far as we can see, what they got did very great honour to their bargaining powers, but it left them, in my judgment, without any real grievance in regard to the position which the noble Viscount has put forward. The problem arose: Were the Jews a nation? They, too, had 14,000,000 or 15,000,000 of people scattered about the world, and they, too, had fought for the Allies. When the statesmen of the world came to consider the problem, they had to ask: Were the Jews a nation? Were they entitled to have a land of their own on which their culture should flourish? Rightly or wrongly—it is not for me here to say—the statesmen of the world came to the conclusion that the Jews were a nation, and that Palestine was the soil on which their nation should be re-united, and they were to go there, as the Mandate says, as a right and not on sufferance. This country was entrusted with the administration of the Mandate. The noble Viscount would suggest that England was alone, that she was in Palestine out of mere malevolence to the Arab peoples. Great Britain is in Palestine by the order of the civilised world to which she is bound to give an account of her stewardship. So we have to remember that the Jewish people were given this little spot of precious land, about the size of the Principality of Wales, whereas the Arabs had their Zion in the vast hinterland beyond the Jordan, and that left them, I repeat, without any real grievance that should impress your Lordships as against the claims of the Jews.
The noble Viscount, in his speech this afternoon, said that the Arabs had been in a very dreadful state for some considerable time, that they were subjected to the evils of immigration by another race, that they contributed the greater portion of the Palestine Budget, and so

177
on. It is sufficient to say that, unsatisfactory as the position of the Arab people may be at this present time, they have made more progress during the last fifteen years than they made in the previous 500 years, and we must remember that whilst they are a lovable, a generous, a brave and chivalrous people they were associated with methods which do not belong to the modern world. Speaking for myself—and I hope the Arabs will regard me as one of their friends—I want them to be free, not merely from Jewish capital, but from the landlords and usurers of their own race. If they would accept advice from one who speaks as one of their friends they would seek association with the Jewish Federation of Labour in Palestine, one of the strongest and one of the sanest organisations in that land, and through co-operation with that organisation their economic condition might be vastly improved.
The noble Viscount spoke about the Passfield Declaration. I cannot go into that this afternoon, but your Lordships are aware, of course, that the Declaration was subjected to very close and prolonged examination, with the result that on February 13, 1931, there was an authoritative interpretation of it issued in the form of a letter from the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann. In that interpretation the words of the Mandate were clearly stated. The reference to the rights and position of the Arab people meant that their position was not to be made worse, was not to be jeopardised. It did not mean that there should not be the establishment of the Jewish National Home because that was an important obligation of the Mandatory Power.
But it seems to me that the noble Viscount should have remembered when he was presenting this case this afternoon what the position of the Arabs was before the Zionist movement began to influence Palestine. In my judgment it is simply not correct that the Arabs are in a worse position than they were. They are in a vastly better position. Zionism has not impoverished Palestine. It has enriched it. It has not made the Arabs more subject to the exigencies of poverty. It has given them an assurance which they never previously possessed. We ought to remember that they enjoy a security to-day against those conditions
178
of poverty which no other of the Arab peoples have at this time. We ought to remember, too, that if they are tolerably prosperous to-day that is a result of what has taken place in this terrible decade to which the noble Viscount refers. I do not desire to pose as a prophet before your Lordships' House, but I say that it is extremely likely that had the Zionist experiment not been in operation in Palestine the position of the Arabs during this period of world depression and financial stress would have been desperate almost to the borderland of famine. I very much hope that the Arabs, instead of seeking to stimulate the emotional sympathies of English politicians, will at length accept the fact that Palestine must be a land of two races and settle down to the exploitation of a very great opportunity.
I would wish to say one or two words in refutation of the general statement that the Arabs are in a worse position than they were in an economic sense. The actual facts are that the Arab population has increased out of all proportion in precisely those quarters of Palestine where the Jewish enterprise is most advanced. If you take three of the great towns, Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, you will find that the non-Jewish population in those three great centres has increased as follows: In Haifa in 1922 the non-Jewish population was 18,400; in 1931 it had increased to 34,200, or an increase of 85 per cent. The population of Jaffa in 1922 was 27,400; in 1931 it was 44,200, or an increase of 66 per cent. In Jerusalem the population was 27,600 as against 38,900, or an increase of 43 per cent. If you take the figures of non-Jewish population in those areas not affected by Jewish development, such as Nablus, Hebron and Gaza, you find an increase of only 9 per cent. in Nablus and 8 per cent. in Hebron, while in Gaza there has been a positive decrease. Any of your Lordships who have been in Palestine and have kept in touch with the facts know that one of the problems is that Arabs on the other side of the Jordan consider conditions in Palestine so favourable that they are constantly invading the territory—and even the Arabs are wise enough not to do that if in crossing the Jordan they were going to such distress as the noble Viscount has suggested.

179
I should like to deal with the question of immigration in its present aspects for a moment or two. There has been for long a considerable shortage of labour. Indeed, the prosperity of Palestine is held up to-day because labour is not available for economic processes to be developed. The policy of His Majesty's Government has been, and quite rightly has been, to consider immigration only in relation to the absorptive capacity of the nation. That means, as the Prime Minister's letter to Dr. Weizmann painted out, the economic absorptive capacity. Yet, when as the result of the most careful examination the Jewish people applied for certificates for 24,000 immigrants, only 5,000 were permitted. It was alleged by His Majesty's Government that there had been 9,000 illicit invasions into Palestine of Jewish people. Let us assume that that was so. The fact remains that after these 9,000 people have been absorbed there is still an acute shortage of labour, and that means, if it means anything at all, that to that extent at least His Majesty's Government have miscalculated what is the real absorptive capacity of Palestine. Without in the least desiring to be hypercritical, I cannot help feeling that there has been in Palestinian government a tragedy of inertia and a disregard of a very great opportunity. I hate even for a moment to criticise the administration of the Colonial Office, with which I have worked closely and for which I have the highest regard, but I cannot help feeling that with regard to this matter its record is continuously disappointing—correct, but an uncreative routine, best describes it. I believe, my Lords, that the time may come when we shall have to discuss that matter with considerable frankness.
I desire to conclude by expressing my own opinion, based upon a very close and intensive study of conditions in Palestine, that whilst the Arab people may have grievances they are not greater than those of the working classes of other countries, and that those grievances, whatever they may be, have not been intensified by the endeavour to establish in Palestine a Jewish National Home. In any case, we as a nation have had imposed upon us the duty of the administration of this Mandate. It is not in our choice to do what the
180
noble Viscount has asked. We must either do what we are ordered to do by the Mandate or we must return it to those who gave it. Speaking for myself alone, having got that Mandate I want with all my heart to make it a success—a success which shall do no injury to the Arab people but shall carry out the desire of the nations, made in solemn assembly, to establish a Jewish National Home.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount who introduced this subject raised a number of political issues of a more or less controversial nature. I do not desire to say anything about those issues. I only wish to mention one or two facts about the present labour position in Palestine, which was raised by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I am quite aware of the difficulty of the Mandatory Power in Palestine. As Lord Snell has said, we are not entirely free agents. We have to carry out the terms of the Mandate, which contains so many conditions, some of which appear to be in conflict with others. Consequently that places the High Commissioner of Palestine in a quite exceptionally difficult position. Not only is it impossible for him to please everyone, and in that the High Commissioner is not alone—it is the experience of every administrator, and not even His Majesty's Government can hope to please everyone—but the High Commissioner, in the circumstances in which he is placed, must find it extremely difficult to please any one. There are conflicts of interests which he has to reconcile. I feel that if any man could succeed in that very difficult position and reconcile these conflicting duties, it would be the present holder of that office, for he is a man who has very wide sympathies and no prejudices, who is equally friendly to both the races whose interests it is his duty to watch over, and a man of infinite tact as well as great ability. I am sure that if any man could succeed in that difficult position it would be the present High Commissioner.
One of his responsibilities, and one of the most difficult perhaps of his duties, is to decide annually the extent of the Jewish immigration. It is inevitable that that subject of the immigration of Jews into Palestine should be approached somewhat differently by the Jewish Agency, on the one hand, and by the

181
Government of Palestine, on the other. The object of the Jewish Agency is to find a home for their co-religionists, who naturally look to Palestine as the home of their race, and from that point of view the need for increasing the immigration is greater than ever, because the large expulsion of Jews from Germany and other countries has rendered an unusually large number of these people homeless, and Palestine is the only country to which they can go as of right. In other countries they may receive asylum, but they can only do so on sufferance. There they may or may not be received hospitably, but, as the White Paper of 1922 laid down, the Jews can go to Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. To enable the Jews to found a National Home in Palestine was one of the objects of the Mandate, and is one of the conditions to which, as Lord Snell rightly said, it is the duty of the Mandatory Power to give effect. There are, of course, limitations of that condition—I am aware of them—but the needs of that National Home are necessarily the primary concern the Jewish Agency. The Government of Palestine, on the other hand, have to approach the question from quite another point of view. They are concerned with the welfare of the people of Palestine as a whole, and His Majesty's Government have laid down that the right of immigration should be governed by the absorptive capacity of the country. The High Commissioner has to decide every year how many fresh immigrants the country can absorb. That is his responsibility, and I am quite sure that His Majesty's Government would be very reluctant to override his opinion on such a matter. I am certain they have confidence in the advice he tenders to them on that matter.
At the same time, I am sure that both the High Commissioner and His Majesty's Government would at all times be ready to listen to representations on this matter made to them by persons qualified to speak with authority, and it is in this sense that I venture to use the opportunity afforded by the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, to mention to your Lordships, thereby bringing to the attention of the Government, certain facts about the present labour situation. I happen to be the chairman of a company which
182
is developing a new industry in Palestine, one in which the Government of Palestine has a very great interest, and since my company employs both Jewish and Arab labour, I speak on this question from an entirely impartial point of view. Our industry is an export industry. All the products which are manufactured at our works on the Dead Sea are sold in foreign markets, but they pass over Palestinian railways and are shipped at Palestinian ports. One of the most urgent requirements for the success of this undertaking is a plentiful supply of labour. As the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has quite rightly said, Palestine is at this moment in the somewhat exceptional position of having no unemployment problem. On the contrary, Palestine is suffering from a shortage of labour. That position was revealed in the late summer of last year. By the end of last year it had become acute, and at this moment it is causing us the gravest anxiety.
Let me give your Lordships certain facts. Seventy per cent. of the cost of production of the company about which I am speaking is incurred in the two items of labour and power. We are, of course, only at the beginning of our enterprise, but already we are employing some 500 workmen, both Jews and Arabs, and we are contemplating large extensions in the near future which will necessitate the employment of additional numbers. It is therefore a matter of great interest to us that not only are we finding it difficult to get new labour but, owing to the abnormal conditions in the country and the great rise of wages in the building industry, our existing labour is being drawn away. For instance, out of 256 Jews in our employment we have in the last ten months lost 132, which is more than 51 per cent. The importance of that is that those men have been in our employment now for three years, and are skilled or semi-skilled men whom we have been at pains to train. Even supposing new men are available, we have to train them in the business from the start; and as the result of this draining of our labour resources the rate of harvesting of our raw material has fallen to one half in each shift owing to the fact that we are now employing men who are inexperienced. But if we are to carry out those new extensions, we

183
shall require not merely the men whom we at present employ, but additional numbers, and in the present circumstances we look around and fail to find them.
There is to-day a shortage of labour, both Jew and Arab, and as I say, it is a matter which is causing us the very gravest anxiety. I speak only for one industry; the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, I have no doubt could supplement what I have said from his experience of another industry, and from all that I can learn, most of the big industries in Palestine are to-day experiencing the same thing. I mention these facts only to show that Palestine is crying out for labour, and not, as was suggested by the noble Viscount, being made to suffer by the introduction of people who are not wanted and who cannot be absorbed. Even judged by the standard laid down by the Government itself, the standard of the absorptive capacity of the country, there is to-day need, and urgent need, not for less but for more immigration. Of course in saying that I am not in any way criticising the High Commissioner. He knows quite well the facts which I have mentioned and I have no doubt that he will bear them in mind when he makes his orders. I have every confidence in his judgment, but it is necessary that the Government, and your Lordships as the matter has been raised here, should know what are the actual facts.
It is unfortunately so often the case that this question of immigration is discussed from a political point of view. There are those who have a political object in representing that there is no need for any more immigration of labour. I have seen assertions made, always with a political motive, over and over again that there is no labour shortage in Palestine and that there is no need for further immigration; and on the other hand, also with a political object, it is often asserted that the country could easily absorb all those who want to go there. I have no political motive whatever in bringing before your Lordships' notice the facts which I have stated. I merely say from actual experience that there is to-day a shortage of labour in Palestine which is becoming serious, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will not allow themselves for any political considerations to fail to regard the true economic interests of Palestine.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, it was my misfortune, owing to my having to attend a Committee in your Lordships' House, not, to be present to hear the noble Viscount who moved the Motion which is now before your Lordships, and I do not desire to take part in a political debate, especially to-day. All I desire to say, having regard to the terms of the Notice, is that, as I suppose, His Majesty's Government will reply to the noble Earl—of course they will use their own language with regard to it—that the rights of Arabs and Jews are to be regulated by the terms of the Mandate. There may have been interpretations of that Mandate by Declaration, into which I do not want to enter; I am perfectly content to leave this matter in the hands of the Government. But I have heard what fell from the noble Earl who has just spoken, and I have heard also (though I was not present) of what my noble friend Lord Snell said, and I desire to emphasise as strongly as I can what has fallen from them with regard to the shortage of labour. So much has already been said upon it that I do not wish to go into particulars. I am speaking now entirely apart from the political aspect, and am merely regarding the economic aspect of affairs in Palestine.
I have had an opportunity of discussing the question with important persons in industry in Palestine who have just returned from there, and who are very seriously concerned about the condition of things owing to the shortage of labour, affecting both the Jewish and the Arab population. It cannot be considered that this is to the advantage of the Arab population, inasmuch as, according to all that I am told, the rates of wages have gone up quite considerably, and apart altogether from that, there is disturbance of the economic conditions which is really very serious. What has been attempted in Palestine very largely, certainly amongst those who are interested in the Jewish population, is the development of agriculture. I could give instances which show quite clearly what is happening there: the temptation to go into the towns and the higher wages paid in agriculture occasion real disturbance. I am making this statement with knowledge and experience, as I am suffering from these conditions in my capacity as chairman of the Palestine Hydro-Elec-

185
tric Corporation and in connection also with Imperial Chemical Industries, which have developments in Palestine. So I am very well aware of the conditions. I do not want to press the noble Earl further to-day than to beg of him to do everything that is possible to avoid what otherwise will be serious economic trouble in Palestine. Fortunately, under the Mandate, during this period of great depression Palestine has managed throughout to continue fairly prosperous, and during the last year or two there has undoubtedly been a great increase in the prosperity of the country. All this will be very seriously changed if the present conditions continue. Houses have to be built, works have to be constructed, and industries to be started, and those developments which should take place are stopped because of the shortage of labour.
I have the greatest confidence in Sir Arthur Wauchope, the High Commissioner. I had the advantage of seeing him and talking much with him when in Palestine, and I think that we in this country have every reason to be proud of the work which he has attempted to do in Palestine. Ha has done that work with due regard to the Mandate and to the high character of the administration for which this country is famous, and every credit should be given to him. But for some reason he does not seem to regard this question of labour shortage as serious enough to induce him to make some new development at the present time. I really am unable to understand why that is so. Perhaps the Government will tell us, and t hope that they will take every possible step, in discussing the matter with the High Commissioner, to remove this shortage of labour and thus enable the prosperity of Palestine to continue.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the noble Marquess opposite and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have changed the discussion to economics rather than policy. It is satisfactory to know that there is room for labour still in some parts of the world, and no doubt the High Commissioner, who has the very difficult task of determining what amount of immigration ought to be allowed, will try to ease the situation if the shortage continues. I should like to know what other races besides the Jews are to be allowed to enter freely into Palestine to
186
get employment. I am informed that about 30,000 Arabs scattered about the world at the present time are more or less denationalised, and they cannot get into Palestine except on very stringent conditions. If there is a shortage of labour I hope their claim will be considered, and that they will be allowed to enter.
A remarkable letter by a Mr. Rosen, a Jew, appeared in The Near East and India magazine, which is a very good production from a literary point of view. He thinks that the indiscriminate immigration which has been allowed into Palestine is a great mistake, and he refers to some of the subversive organisations which are allowed. He asks why these organisations, the Blueshirts and the Brownshirts and others, are allowed, and he says that meetings of these organisations are held openly condemning British rule. "It is regrettable," he says; "that they dislike their pre-War brother almost as much as they do the Arab." The pre-War brother referred to is the Jew who was already there prior to the War. Apparently he has not got such a high opinion of these immigrants into Palestine as the noble Marquess has. He says:
"On the whole the original settlers remain on very friendly terms with the Arabs and have endeavoured to see eye to eye with them. Many Orthodox Jews eye prefer Arab friendship to those of their new compatriots, and I do not wonder."
I hope that whatever restrictions there may be on the immigration of labour which is necessary for the development of Palestine will be removed, so that this shortage can be overcome. It has been very well advertised this afternoon, and I should imagine that there would be a great demand to take a share in the increasing prosperity of Palestine, which is the cause of this shortage.
But, after all, the Motion on the Paper refers to the Passfield Declaration, and apparently the noble Lord, Lord Snell, gives the go-by to that; he pays no attention to the advice given in the Declaration, but refers to the letter published by the Prime Minister in 1931. That practically cancelled the idea of the granting of a Constitution to Palestine owing, I understand, to the dislike which the Zionists feel to taking a share in the Constitution of a country in which they would not have a majority. That, I understand, was the reason given at the

187
time for the Prime Minister's action. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, referred to the benefit that had accrued to the Arabs from the Balfour Declaration. That may be quite true. According to a pamphlet by Mr. Cohen—I dare say a copy was sent to the noble Lord as well as to me—at least £50,000,000 have been forwarded to Palestine since the Palestine Declaration. No doubt that has been an enormous benefit to all those who live in Palestine—chiefly, of course, to the Zionists, but no doubt a certain amount would percolate to the Arab population as well. I would not deny that. What would happen if these beneficent supplies of money were to cease to pour into the country I am not quite so sure. Perhaps they will not cease. Perhaps the various Jewish Agencies throughout the world will always be ready to contribute largely to the welfare of their compatriots in Palestine. But still there is a certain risk that some day or other they may find themselves stranded for lack of money.
The difficult and serious question to my mind is the deep feeling of hostility which prevails among the Arab population against this great influx of Zionists. It is not a racial question. The Jews and the Arabs lived in perfect harmony together before the Balfour Declaration. As I have shown from Mr. Rosen's letter, there is still a great feeling of friendship between those two races, but it is the political aspect of the matter which concerns the Arabs. They fear that they are going to be submerged or handed over to Jewish or Zionist domination. How are they to be freed from this terror, which is an honest terror though it may be uncalled for? Whatever benefits they may receive from the influx of Zionists and their money, they dislike the idea that their land may be taken away from them. In that connection I may say that in the Report of 1930 it is distinctly stated that there is no more land available to be handed over to Zionist agencies. It is definitely stated, on page 16 of the Report, that at the present time and with the present method of cultivation there is no more land available for settlement by new immigrants. That ought to be one of the tests regulating the number of people who are allowed into Palestine, this question of the land which is available for them. Jewish Agencies go in for a more intensive cultivation, and they
188
have more land in reserve, but still there is a limit to the number of people who can be settled on the land, and it ought to be known to all Zionist organisations that the Government of Palestine do not consider that there is any more land for agricultural settlement. If that was the case in 1930 it must be still more the case to-day.
I think the British Government and those who have been exercising control in Palestine, from Sir Herbert Samuel downwards, deserve great credit for having preserved peace among these two rival peoples. It speaks well for our system of administration that this should be the case, but I think there are anxious moments before us if something is not done to free the Arab from the idea that he is to be subject to a great influx of Zionists and thereby possibly lose what he considers to be his proper supremacy in the country. The position of a referee even in the field of sport is not free from danger, and I do not think our position is free from danger in Palestine. I met the other day someone who had been for many years in Palestine, not in a political capacity but from philanthropy, and he told me that things are getting very serious indeed. The feeling was intense on the part of the Arabs that we had neglected their interests. The Zionists on the other hand, are, we know, getting very much annoyed indeed because we do not allow a larger amount of immigration. It is very difficult for the Government to maintain an equal balance of rights as between the two conflicting parties, but I think every care ought to be taken that there is not unrestricted immigration by Jews in the future whereby the fear which is now disturbing the Arab mind will be intensified.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, this matter has been very thoroughly discussed and I should not venture to intervene were it not for the fact that I returned from Palestine only four or five weeks ago. So far as the question of the high feeling in that country is concerned, I have been very intimately connected with Palestine, and I say without fear of contradiction that feeling at the moment is a good deal better than it has been for many years. That is due principally to two reasons—first of all, the excellent administration of the present High Commissioner, and secondly, the

189
fact that when prosperity comes to a country it is usually the case that people interest themselves rather less in politics and concern themselves rather more with their own individual affairs. That is briefly the position I found in Palestine when I was there a few weeks ago.
Of course this is a subject which one can attack from many different points of view. It has been very largely and widely discussed already, but there are one or two points which I still think need to be mentioned. One of them is the point raised by the noble Lord who has just spoken—namely, that there is no more land available. That is a very fallacious notion. Enormous quantities of land are available, and in any case the Hope-Simpson Report, with which I never agreed, stated there was no more land available on the basis of the present cultivation by the Arabs. These methods have now ceased to be standard. All aver the country you find the Arabs adopting very modern methods of cultivation and becoming up-to-date in a surprising way. Perhaps it is not altogether surprising in view of the fact that agricultural schools have been founded in the country which are teaching the Arab his job, and it is interesting to note, as evidence of such good feeling as exists between the two peoples, that the principal Arab agricultural school was erected with Jewish money.
I do not wish to embark on the political aspect of this question, but I wish to reinforce what has been said in regard to the shortage of labour. I also have had experience, commercially and from the agricultural point of view, of the grave embarrassment we are suffering at the present moment because of the shortage of labour. A company founded by my father embarked on very large scale orange-growing, and there we feel the effect of the shortage of labour very seriously. I went round the country and saw most of the large industrial undertakings, and the story was the same everywhere. People move from one works to another. They move round because people are offering higher wages at the next works, and a man goes off and takes this wage and someone else comes along and replaces him. Thus you have a general disturbance. The High Commissioner has the difficult task of deciding how long this will last. I clearly admit it is a difficult task, but so far
190
as I can see, and my opinion is shared by those who were with me on this occasion, there is no prospect of this activity diminishing for some years. There is an immense, an incalculable, amount of work to be done, and for my part I do not see where the people are coming from to do it unless there is a rather larger amount of immigration.
I know the High Commissioner is extremely just and extremely fair in his consideration of the matter, but there is a limiting factor which struck me when I was there, and that is that a country cannot expand at more than a certain rate. There are certain natural obstacles to the general development of every service, whether it is the Civil Service, the Medical Service, or even a commercial company itself. It cannot expand at more than a certain rate, but whether the rate at which the country is expanding to-day is anything like its maximum, I doubt. I think it could expand a good deal faster, and I see no prospect of the gloomy prediction coming true that the rate of progress is likely rapidly to diminish. There were many people three or four months ago—those also connected with the Government—who did not believe that the present prosperity would last. I am sure that that view will be falsified. Every part of the country you go to you find new undertakings about to be commenced. I think it is true to say that Palestine is now on the eve a great developments, and it would be a great mistake to believe that it has reached its peak.
THE EARL OF HAREWOOD: My Lords, I must apologise for addressing you on this subject as I was not able to be present when the noble Viscount who initiated the debate was putting before your Lordships the considerations which he has urged on His Majesty's Government. But I should like to say a word or two on a question which has already been dealt with by two noble Lords relating to the land in Palestine. Although I fully recognise that the question of more labour is of the greatest importance to the various industries, it is very difficult to conceal from oneself the fact that the greater the amount of Jewish immigration that takes place, the greater will be the amount of land which is acquired by them from the Arabs. Two hundred years ago we had in this country a

191
peasant population which was attached to the land by part proprietorship, and the same exists to this day to some extent in Palestine. Parliament was pleased during the eighteenth century to pass a number of Acts to enclose common lands which practically divorced the peasant population of the country from the land, and we, within our own memories, have at last begun to realise that it was not all gain when we enclosed the common lands and divorced thereby the peasantry from ownership of the land. I very greatly fear that the same thing is going to happen in Palestine in a different way.
The buying up of land in Palestine may not yet cause very serious alarm, and the amount of unemployment which is occasioned to those Arabs who are displaced from the land is not so far very great, but it is no good waiting until the evil has occurred. It is much better to face it in order to avoid it if it is possible to do so. Surely it would be better, even though immigration is allowed on some considerable scale, that something should be done in order to prevent the Arab proprietor from losing his interest in his land, especially the peasant proprietor. I venture to ask the noble Earl who will answer for His Majesty's Government whether it will be possible for him to give us some assurance that care will be taken to safeguard the interests of the peasant proprietor. Would it not be possible, for instance, to impose upon all land which has been bought from Arabs a special tax, which would be imposed by order of the High Commissioner, in order to cover the cost of maintaining unemployed Arab peasants, and to exempt from such a tax the land that still employed as many peasants as formerly lived on the land?
I make that suggestion because it is, as your Lordships know so well, the fact that many of the Jewish cultivators of the land occupy their land on the condition that they employ only Jewish labour. Further than that, the great immigration of Jews which has taken place in the last few years has imported with it certain labour organisations which are used not, as I should think all labour organisations ought to be used, in the interests of labour in general, but in the interests of sectional labour—that is to say, Jewish labour organisations will picket a Jewish orange grove which attempts to employ Arab labour and pre-
192
vent the Arab labour from going to be employed upon it. This is going on side by side with an outcry, which was very much in evidence during the past spring, for more labour in picking oranges. Although, as I am well aware, it is a fact that more labour is wanted in Palestine, it seems to me that the labour which exists there should at any rate be given a chance of being used before any louder cry is made for more labour to be imported.
Your Lordships no doubt are bombarded, as I am, with a great deal of literature on this particular question. Only this morning I was sent a pamphlet which contained the following sentence, which I think is rather important:
"It is significant that the increase of the Arab population has taken place most notably in those districts which lie in the immediate neighbourhood of Jewish settlements."
That is quite true. The reason is very simple. The Jew is not a builder, not a bricklayer. The Arab is a very highly skilled bricklayer. Therefore, wherever Jewish settlements are made, Arabs congregate there in order to earn a living by building for Jews. That reminds one of the story of the hedge sparrow and the cuckoo. The house is being built, and the Jewish population is being nourished in it, but I am not sure that the ultimate advantage is going to be to the poor hedge sparrow who has built the nest and nurtured the inhabitants thereof. I desire, if I might do so, to appeal to His Majesty's Government to give us some assurance that steps will be taken to safeguard the Arabs, and to prevent them from losing those lands which they at present own.
May I say that I hope that nothing I have said will be considered in any way to be anti-Semitic, because I have no such feelings in my own mind? I have made two visits, at an interval of six years, to Palestine, and the development which has taken place in that interval has been quite phenomenal and beyond all belief. I fully recognise that development is due to the influence of the Jews and the example which they have given to the Arabs who are already cultivating the soil. I should also hope that nothing I have said will in any way be considered to be an attack upon the High Commissioner of Palestine, because I am quite

193
sure that no man could fill that office with more courage and with greater success than he does. He has indeed, I believe out of his own resources, supported one experimental farm which it is hoped will be the key to the solution of the whole of this difficulty in Palestine. It is an experimental farm on the high and stony ground of Palestine. Your Lordships know that both fertile land and high and stony land exist in Palestine. It does seem to me that if things go on as they are doing at present it will not be long before the whole of the very fertile valleys will fall into the hands of the Jews, and the Arabs will be driven to cultivate the high lands. If an experimental farm is established and succeeds in discovering a way in which a livelihood can be made on the high and stony ground by the Arabs, apart from keeping goats, which is now a common practice there, then I think that a solution will be found, and that increased Jewish immigration will be able to be allowed. In the meanwhile, until a success has been made of that experimental farm, or others similar to it, I hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to give us an assurance that the land of the Arab peasants will be safeguarded.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, there is one point in connection with this matter to which reference, as far as I know, has not been made to-day. That is the question of the future Constitution of Palestine. There is undoubtedly a great deal of serious anxiety on the part of the Arabs of Palestine as to their future. I read myself from time to time Arab papers, not in the original but in what, I presume, is a correct translation, and I find that amongst other causes of anxiety undoubtedly there is this anxiety about the Constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, very properly paid a high tribute to the Arabs. He said they are a lovable, a brave and a generous people. That is a high tribute but I think not too high. It would be most unfortunate if any pledges or promises which have been made to the Arabs in Palestine were in anyway departed from or not carried out. Upon this question of the Constitution I should like to refer for two or three moments to what has been called the Passfield Declaration and I would ask His Majesty's Government whether they adhere to the policy laid down in that Declaration, which was made as recently as October,
194
1930. You will find the statement on pages 13 and 14 of the White Paper.
References have been made in the White Paper to the demand of Arab leaders for a Constitution which would be compatible with the mandatory obligations of His Majesty's Government, and the White Paper says, on page 13:
"It is … the considered opinion of His Majesty's Government that the time has now come when the important question of the establishment of a measure of self-government in Palestine must, in the interests of the community as a whole, be taken in hand without further delay."
Then the White Paper deals with some of the history of the question and on page 14 there is this statement:
"They [His Majesty's Government] have decided that the time has arrived for a further step in the direction of the grant to the people of Palestine, of a measure of self-government compatible with the terms of the Mandate."
What I want to ask His Majesty's Government is what steps have been taken during the period of nearly four years since that statement of the policy of His Majesty's Government was made. If, as I understand to be the case, no real steps have yet been taken for the establishment of that Constitution for which the Arabs are very anxious, I should like to ask whether the Government can give any assurance that the question will be taken up as soon as possible, in consultation, of course, with the Jewish people as well as the Arabs.
My final word is this. I think it is important that we in this country should do all we can to meet the legitimate demands of the Arab people in Palestine that their rights under the Mandate should be respected and rigorously observed. In our great Empire there are many peoples of the faith of Islam. The Arabs are Moslems. If we could be said to have broken faith in any degree, if we could be said not to have respected the rights of the Arabs in Palestine, we should suffer gravely in prestige not merely among the Arabs in Palestine but among the whole of the Moslem subjects of His Majesty throughout the world.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, this debate has shown that there is considerable divergence of opinion as to how Palestine should be

195
governed and administered. The actual wording of the noble Viscount's Question was somewhat vague in character and I, therefore, took the liberty of writing to ask him what specific points he was going to raise. He was good enough to reply to me and to indicate a certain number of points with which he was going to deal, but so far as I was able to understand him he only dealt with a very limited number of them. This question of the administration of the Mandate in Palestine and germane matters has been dealt with this afternoon from almost every conceivable point of view, and it is in consequence very difficult for me to extract the salient points from the debate and to deal with them at all effectively. Nevertheless I shall attempt to do so to the best of my ability.
Palestine is held under Mandate from the League of Nations, and I can only repeat what has often been said before, that His Majesty's Government intend to carry out the Mandate both in the spirit and the letter, as indeed successive Governments have done ever since we accepted that Mandate. The policy which His Majesty's Government have decided to follow has been set out from time to time in a number of public documents many of which have been referred to during the course of this debate. The most important are the White Paper of June, 1922, the White Paper, or the Passfield Declaration, of October, 1930, and the Prime Minister's letter to Dr. Weizmann of February, 1931. As I think has already been pointed out, it is necessary that these two latter documents, the Passfield Declaration and the Prime Minister's letter to Dr. Weizmann, should be read in conjunction with one another. If your Lordships look at the first paragraph of the Prime Minister's letter you will see that in that paragraph the Prime Minister says:
"This statement will fall to be read as an authoritative interpretation of the White Paper on the matters with which this letter deals."
I can say nothing new this afternoon. I can only repeat what has been said by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on innumerable occasions in another place and outside, that the Government have no intention of departing from the policy stated in those documents and they see no necessity for making any further ex-
196
planatory statement in connection with the matter.
A large number of questions have been raised this afternoon. May I be allowed to deal first with the one which was raised last—that is, the question of a further constitutional step in Palestine? As your Lordships know it has not been possible to establish a Legislative Council in Palestine for various reasons, and therefore both the Arab and the Jewish populations are on the same footing in so far as they lack constitutional representation at the present time. But, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, an attempt was made as far back as 1922 to establish a Legislative Council in Palestine with twelve unofficial representatives. Very largely owing to the refusal of the Arab population to co-operate, that had to be abandoned. Since then the Arab leaders have refused—I think I may put it in that way—two further opportunities of co-operating in some form or another in the government of Palestine. The first was the proposed reconstitution of the nominated Advisory Council, but with membership conforming to that proposed for the Legislative Council, and the second was the proposed formation of an Arab Agency.
I can only refer once again to the White Paper of 1930, in which the Government announced quite distinctly their intention to set up a Legislative Council generally upon the lines of that which was indicated in the earlier statement of 1922. As a result of that the High Commissioner, in November, 1932, informed the Permanent Mandates Commission at Geneva that steps would be taken towards the formation of such a Legislative Council when the new local government Ordinance which was then in preparation was actually in working order. He expressed the hope that the proposals which he would make would be accepted by the leaders of both Parties in Palestine, and he added that these proposals would necessarily contain definite safeguards: firstly, so that in no circumstances could the peace and security of the country be endangered in any way, and secondly, so that the carrying out of the Mandate would not be in any way hampered. That local government Ordinance—I think it is actually called the Municipal Corporations Ordinance—has now been enacted and elections are taking place. I can only say that it is

197
the intention of the Government to proceed on the lines which have been adumbrated. Naturally the whole matter requires the most careful consideration, and it will be necessary for the High Commissioner to discuss the whole subject with representatives of all communities in Palestine. I am afraid that it is not possible for me to go any further on this point this afternoon, and I cannot indicate at this stage the actual composition of the proposed Legislative Council, but at any rate I think I have made it clear that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to proceed on the lines indicated.
A number of other matters have been dealt with. Perhaps the most important of these is the subject of immigration. Both the noble Marquess opposite and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made weighty contributions to this debate, and they both paid, as indeed nearly every speaker this afternoon has paid, the very highest tributes to the High Commissioner, Sir Arthur Wauchope. I should like to take this opportunity of associating myself as closely as possible with those tributes and expressing my opinion that he has in extremely difficult circumstances carried on his work very fearlessly and without prejudice on either side. The noble Earl and the noble Marquess made reference to the question of immigration and to the shortage of labour in the country. I think the noble Earl said that there was at the present moment no unemployment in Palestine. That is not strictly correct. According to the information which is at my disposal, there are at the present moment, or rather there were at the end of April, 400 Jews and something like 14,000 Arabs unemployed.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Will the noble Earl kindly tell us where he gets those figures from? Are the figures from the High Commissioner?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I understand that that is so. I am not absolutely certain upon the point, but I believe that it is so.
LORD STRABOLGI: How many Jews are there unemployed?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Four hundred.
THE MARQUESS Or READING: And 14,000 Arabs?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: And 14,000 Arabs. I am confirmed in what I said, that those figures are provided by the High Commissioner. It is well known upon what principle immigration into Palestine has been regulated in the past. It has been made clear time after time that the admission of immigrants into Palestine must be determined by the economic absorptive capacity of the country, and the immigration laws and regulations have been based upon that policy. It has equally been made plain by my right honourable friend that it is the High Commissioner who is the best judge of that economic absorptive capacity, and that he must be given full discretion in the administration of the immigration laws. I can assure your Lordships that in coming to his decision the High Commissioner gives full weight and full consideration to the figures which are submitted to him by the Jewish Agency. These figures are gone into very carefully, and it is only after the fullest consideration of the representations which have been made to him by the Jewish Agency that the High Commissioner finally arrives at his decision. I should also say that the High Commissioner has made it plain that in making his decision he feels it his duty to consider not only the present conditions in the country but future possibilities as well.
I frankly admit that the position in the country now is perhaps an abnormal one. There is a tendency for labour to be drawn from the country towards the towns owing to the very high rates which are now paid there, but it is absolutely essential that the High Commissioner should not only take into consideration the present situation—that is his view—but that he should also consider and give full weight to what he believes may be the possibilities of the future. I can add this in connection with that particular subject, that a proposal for a statistical office in Palestine has recently been approved and funds for its establishment are to be provided this year. We hope that this will enable the Palestine Government to form a more accurate conclusion as to the extent of unemployment and the other factors upon which the economic absorptive capacity is to a large extent bound to depend.
I pass now to the question of land, which has been referred to by a number

199
of speakers this afternoon, and more particularly by the noble Earl who sits behind me, Lord Harewood. The noble Earl has made an appeal to the Government that some assurance shall be given to the effect that the position of the Arab cultivator will be safeguarded. I can only, I think, explain to your Lordships what his position is at the present moment. As your Lordships know, a Protection of Cultivators Ordinance has recently been enacted and is now in operation. It is perfectly true that there was some considerable delay in putting it into operation, but I am glad to say that as the result of certain amendments which were made, the machinery has now been set up. In March it was reported to us that the Commissions which were set up under that Ordinance were sitting two days a week and that the settlement of cases which came before them was proceeding rapidly. That Cultivators Ordinance enacts that any Arab who is likely to be disturbed as the result of land passing into the hands of the Jews shall have secured to him, either on the actual property where he was a tenant or somewhere reasonably near, sufficient land to keep himself and his family.
It is perfectly true that a certain number of cultivators who have established their claim to a subsistence area are compounding their rights for money. It is clearly a fact that a certain number are doing that, and in consequence there are a number not taking advantage of the provisions of this Ordinance who are in a position to do so; but I venture to say that this is an evil against which no legislation can really provide. It is impossible to deal by legislation or even by administration with that knd of situation, because it is impossible to trace these people. They sell their right or claim, or whatever it may be, and go away into the towns, and it is impossible to keep track of them or to trace them in any way. So far as the actual proprietor of the land is concerned I can only say this, that even if it were practicable to make provision against proprietors selling their land, the Government have never regarded themselves as under any obligation in this particular matter. In another place my right honourable friend a short time ago said this:
"The Committee will readily appreciate that there is a very clear distinction between the tenant occupier and the owner—an owner who sells his land freely at his
200
own desire and a tenant who becomes dispossessed on the sale of land by a landlord even if he receives compensation. The two are in a different category."
I think your Lordships will agree with the view there expressed. I think the Government in Palestine have, by enacting this Ordinance, taken a measure which will to a considerable extent do away with the evil which does exist, and that it is not, in the present circumstances, possible for them to take any further drastic action at the moment.
Then we had the question of Arab labour on Jewish land referred to, and it was stated that the strong Jewish labour organisation was picketing these Jewish lands or farms in order to prevent Arab labour being employed upon them. It is perfectly true that the Jewish Federation of Labour demands that none but Jews shall be employed either in picking, packing or transport, whereas I understand that the Jewish Farmers Federation, which is another body, regard such a policy as uneconomic, and unjustifiable on political grounds. The High Commissioner received a representation from the Jewish Farmers Federation last December with regard to this particular matter; that is, the intimidation of Arab workers by pickets organised by the Jewish Federation of Labour. As a result of these representations the High Commissioner recommended that certain amendments should be made in the Prevention of Intimidation Ordinance with a view to making peaceful picketing permissible only where the issue arises from causes unconnected with the race, religion, or language of employees. The Secretary of State approved this proposal in principle. That legislation has now been enacted, and it is therefore hoped that it will be effective in that particular direction.
There were one or two other points to which I wanted to refer before I sat down, but I think I have dealt with the majority of the broad points which were raised. As I have said, it is very difficult in a debate which has ranged over so wide a field to pick out salient points to which attention ought to be directed, but I think I have dealt with the major points raised this afternoon. I can only conclude what I have to say by repeating that His Majesty's Government intend to maintain the policy which has obtained ever since we accepted the Mandate of Palestine, and that they intend to the

201
best of their ability to carry out that Mandate without fear or favour or prejudice.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, perhaps before the noble Viscount winds up I might make one comment, with your Lordships' leave, on what the noble Earl has said. It certainly was, I think, very satisfactory to hear that His Majesty's Government not only stand by the original White Paper, but, I was pleased to hear, by the Prime Minister's letter of the following February as to rights. As a certain wing of the Government is becoming prominent I feared that that might be another part of the policy of the National Government to be thrown overboard. However, that is reassuring. I would like, if I may, to make two comments on the statement made by the noble Earl with regard to the question of unemployed Arabs in Palestine. Your Lordships have heard from three noble Lords associated with important enterprises in Palestine—Lord Reading, Lord Lytton and Lord Melchett—what your Lordships must have heard again and again, that there is this acute shortage of labour. Then tie noble Earl, speaking from information no doubt supplied by his Department, states that there are 400 Jews unemployed, a comparatively negligible number, and 14,000 Arabs unemployed. Yet we hear that enterprises are actually held up by the shortage of labour.
There must be an explanation of this apparent discrepancy. It seems to me, after talking to Lord Snell, who has wide knowledge of this country, and from what I have also heard for myself, that probably the explanation is this, that these are Arabs who have drifted in from the other side of Jordan, or from Syria, or who are Egyptians, who have come in, as they can do, without passports and without being subject to regulations at all, and in very large numbers indeed. The numbers that have come in from Trans-Jordan alone between the years 1921 and 1931 are 110,000, and the number of Jews who have come in at the same time is 132,900. The noble Earl said there was need of a bureau statistics, and that that want is to be supplied. I hope that one of its first tasks will be to find out whether Bedouins who have come in on the chance of work are responsible for these 14,000 unemployed Arabs.
202
Another point was about the picketing of certain Jewish estates to prevent the employment of Arab labour. That was, of course, a fact, and the reason is that the Jewish labour organisation in Palestine, and in many of the districts also Arabs belonging to the same trade union, object to Jewish employers engaging cheap Arab labour, partly in order to keep up the general level of the standard of living of the people as a whole, and partly for the very good political reason that they do not want to see in Palestine a plantation policy, where you have one race with capital, the employers, presently to become absentees, and another race, the Arabs, working on the estates at a low remuneration. That would be most undesirable in this country with our experience of colonisation in other parts of the world. I thought that those noble Lords who have great sympathy with the Arabs would have supported the policy of preventing the exploitation of cheap Arab labour brought in from the country districts outside Palestine at a very low rate of wages. That, I believe, is the explanation of picketing. None of us likes to see picketing and industrial strife, but there is another side to it.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, there is only one question I want to ask His Majesty's Government, and that is whether they are prepared to publish the McMahon correspondence. I hope I am not out of order in asking that question. It is one of the points I suggested I was going to raise.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It is one of the points which the noble Lord said he was going to raise but he did not do so, and therefore I omitted to make any reference to it. It is really rather a long story, and I can only say that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to publish that correspondence.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I am not satisfied at all, but there is such diversity of opinion that I ask permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AIR DEFENCE.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will,

203
in consultation with His Majesty's Governments of the overseas Dominions, consider the desirability of—

1, creating an Imperial Air Force for the common defence of the Empire;

2, assembling in London at an early date an Imperial Defence Conference at which this question shall receive special consideration;

and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I make no apology for raising the issue contained in my Motion and Question to-day, although I am somewhat surprised that it has not been raised before, either in your Lordships' House or in another place. In my belief the day is past when any one can really speak of aviation in terms of scepticism. We know that there are some people still who, like the ostrich, bury their heads in the sands and attempt to ignore that there is such a subject as aviation, but they are growing fewer and fewer, and no doubt in a short time they will disappear altogether. It is only twenty-five years since M. Blériot performed what was then regarded as the marvellous feat of flying across the English Channel. Since then the development of civil and military aviation has been tremendous. Physical and geographical features no longer form any barrier to human intercourse, and indeed mankind has assumed what we may call the direct, swift flight of the bird. Let me give an illustration of this. In October there will be an international flying race from London to Melbourne, and for this race there will be no fewer than sixty-four entrants. I am informed that the competitor who wins that race—and the distance is 12,000 miles—will fly at the rate of over 200 miles an hour, and will cover that distance in order to win in a time of less than four days. That will be a remarkable exploit, and it would not have been conceivable a few years ago.
In nearly all the principal countries of the world Air Forces have been formed, and in this country we have founded a Royal Air Force which is second to none in quality, however much it may lack in numbers. From some angles it may be argued that we may be surpassed in civil and commercial aviation by certain other countries, but in any case this country can claim to have established one
204
of the finest and most efficient and safest air services in the world. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, in a speech a short time ago informed us that the operational schedules of these air services were to-day 5,000 miles, but that within a very short time they would be extended to 12,000 miles, and principally within the Empire. Is there any one so simple as to expect, with these existing factors, that it will be possible to prevent the continuous growth of this new development, whether it be for peaceful or for combative purposes? Even if the people of this country and of the British Empire, with their philosophical frame of mind, are prepared to limit what I may call the functional operations of aircraft in war-time—and I believe, like many others, that we must persist in our endeavours to obtain functional limitation of the nature of which I am speaking—I am doubtful whether any really satisfactory solution will be reached along those lines.
Therefore we are face to face with certain realities—realities which I should like to sum up very shortly. To begin with, our nation, amongst all the principal nations of the world, has not yet taken any definite action towards rearmament, in spite of the fact that this country is the most vulnerable in the world. I should like to emphasise that point with regard to rearmament by quoting from a speech made a few days ago by Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell, the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the course of which he said:
"During the last eight years Italy has increased her expenditure on armaments by 9½ per cent., the United States of America by over 10 per cent., Germany by over 12 per cent., Japan by over SO per cent., France by over 100 per cent., and Russia by over 197 per cent. England is the only country to show a decrease over that period of 16 per cent. It is about time that we woke up in this country and looked to our national and imperial defences, because we could not go on pursuing an international dream of disarmament all alone."
Those are very striking words, and when we add to them the fact, as I have stated, that this country is the most vulnerable in the world, they become more important still.
Now why is this country more vulnerable than any other country in the world? For very simple reasons. First of all, it imports more foodstuffs for the

205
consumption of its people than any other country. Secondly, these foodstuffs come from all parts of the world. Thirdly, this country could not subsist for more than a few weeks if those supplies were cut off. There is one other point, which is specially important in view of the terms of the Motion which I am moving, and that is the vulnerability of the British Empire as a whole. This vulnerability is due to the fact that the greater part of the foodstuffs and raw materials that come to this country come from our overseas Dominions and from India and our Colonies, and have to be borne over thousands of miles of trade routes which have to be safeguarded in order to secure their safe transport, and also incidentally to safeguard the economic and political stability of the Empire as a whole.
These are the realities, put very shortly, of the situation with which the British Empire is face to face to-day. We have been confronted with grave situations of a similar nature in our history, but conditions of warfare were then very different. Then we increased our Navy and we augmented our Army and we were saved, but to-day we could not and would not succeed if we took those two measures only. The conquest of the air has altered the whole equation of warfare. France, Italy, Russia, Japan, and Germany, all of whom are military-minded, have recognised this, and unless we do likewise in this country and in the British Empire we are doomed as a first-rate Power, and our Empire will be in danger of falling to pieces. It is for these reasons I have put my Motion on the Paper to-day, because it is essential, not only in this country but in the Empire, that every individual who is capable of thinking upon these subjects should turn them over carefully in his mind and decide how they should be dealt with.
There was recently passed an Act designated the Statute of Westminster under which any of the self-governing parts of the British Empire can become free and secede from the Empire if they so wish; but in spite of that Act and so long as there is a British Commonwealth of Nations there is not one of the Dominions, I feel sure, who will deny the fact that Great Britain, this little Island, is the heart of the Empire and provides the pulsating stream of invigorating blood that courses through the veins of the
206
whole entity. In the course of a recent eloquent and informative speech made by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, in proposing the toast of "The United Empire" at the banquet given on Empire Day, the noble Marquess said this:
"Whatever form the universal desire to maintain peace may ultimately take, we have made up our minds that at all events the Royal Air Force, of whose efficiency the whole Empire is so proud, must be strong enough in numbers to ensure our safety and the proper discharge of all those great responsibilities which our position as the centre of title Empire imposes on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
Therefore, it is obvious that in the minds of His Majesty's Government there is no desire or intention to evade the responsibilities for defence which rest upon this country as the centre of the Empire.
The noble Marquess emphasised, as our leading statesmen always have emphasised, our willingness to shoulder the responsibility which has been accepted by Great Britain ever since the foundation of our Empire. But a new era has arisen. Defence no longer rests solely upon an efficient Navy or a strong Army. It has shifted largely to the air, and except amongst the most prejudiced it is an accepted thesis that at least the opening stages of war will be fought in the air; and who can tell whether the decisive stages may not be fought there also? What does this mean? Owing to the immense development during the last few years in aircraft manufacture and in air services, there is no country which is not within striking distance of another country, of a potential enemy, within anything from a few hours to a few days. The Channel has gone; the North Sea is but a stream between Europe and the United Kingdom; whilst the very Atlantic and the Indian and Pacific Oceans are shrinking as air science develops. London may be half-obliterated over-night; Ottawa and Montreal, Capetown and Johannesburg, Calcutta and Delhi, Sydney and Melbourne, Wellington and Singapore, may be dealt with likewise in not much greater length of time. Lightning stroke may follow lightning stroke until within a week or a fortnight at the outside most of the principal cities of the Empire may be partially laid in ruins and many of their citizens hopelessly demoralised.
It will then be too late to consult effectively as to how the damage is to be made good. I have little doubt that the British spirit of resistance and recuperation will still be there as it always is upon these occasions, but no one can prophesy what will be the result of such catastrophic circumstances as I have attempted to describe. This surely is an occasion when we should be wise and farseeing and co-ordinate our efforts before and not after the event. All this has led me and others to the belief that an Imperial Air Force should be created for the common defence of the Empire, and that this Air Force should, as regards policy, be administered by a combined Imperial Air Staff drawn from the Air Staffs of the Empire, and, further, that as regards personnel and equipment this should be provided partly by effectives drawn from existing Air Forces and partly by Imperial expansion—and this is a very important point—planned by the combined Imperial Air Staff as to machines and personnel and locations, and also, if I may venture to say so, in regard to the cost to be borne by the respective Governments. In a matter of such vital importance I suggest that the cost of an adequate Air Force is nothing compared with the risk we are running without such a force.
No one with any knowledge of the subjects on which I am talking will deny that by the interchange of personnel of such a force, the personnel would gain much useful experience in flying conditions throughout the Empire. Canada, for instance, is one of the best flying schools for experience to be found anywhere. South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and India all have their distinct air problems as well, and at the same time in Great Britain we have an accumulated experience of our own both in European and overseas air problems, in aircraft manufacture, in engine design, and in air science generally which would be of the greatest value to our kinsmen and friends overseas. I might continue for a long time expatiating on the advantages of Empire air co-ordination, but it is not my intention to do that this afternoon. My desire has been to lay before your Lordships my general reasons for raising this subject and the reasons for asking the Government to accede to my request to consult the Dominions about it. This
208
is an urgent matter; it is a matter which brooks no delay. It is indeed a matter which, as I suggest in my Motion, should be referred to an Imperial Defence Conference rather than to an Imperial Air Conference, and that Conference might conveniently be convened in this country.
The reason I suggest an Imperial Defence Conference as opposed to an Imperial Air Conference is that it is not possible to leave out of account, in considering the air problems, either the Army or the Navy. Both of those aims are intimately connected with air operations, and it would not, it seems to me, be possible to arrive at any final decisions with regard to the creation of an Empire Air Force without consultation with the other two arms of defence. So I venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government and to the Governments of the Dominions that it would be more convenient and more suitable to convene at once a Conference that would embrace all aspects of defence while at the same time paying special attention to the coordination of Empire air defence as being easiest and most practicable of accomplishment and most essential to it.
Let me say these few words in conclusion. A strong mobile Empire Air Force capable of defending the Empire from air attack and capable, if need be, of stoutly counter-attacking, is to-day not only a necessity but an assurance and a guarantee of the security of the Empire. The British Empire has neither desire nor need to fight. Its aim is peace in the world, not war. I will go even farther and venture to affirm that if this country and the Empire as a whole had ample protection in all its three forces, the Air Force, the Navy and the Army, it would be the greatest guarantee of the peace of the world that could be devised to-day. It would, in my opinion, transcend Geneva and every treaty of peace that has been signed there. I do not propose to expound that argument today, but to my mind that is the case. These then are the principal reasons for putting down my Motion. I appeal to His Majesty's Government to take this matter seriously. I appeal to the Governments of the Dominions, and to the Government of India likewise, to consider this question seriously, and, before it is too late, to take such steps as will ensure an adequate defence of our Empire. I beg to move.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE had given Notice that he would call attention to the inadequacy of the air defences of this country, and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to support the Motion that has been made by my noble friend Lord Elibank. It is more than twenty-five years since I was first summoned to the Committee of Imperial Defence and since that time I have given most of my thoughts to these problems. I now know nothing of what the Committee of Defence propose to do, but I do know something about what is happening across the sea, and I have come to a certain definite conclusion after reading all that I can read in the Press, notably in The Times, which has published a great many informing articles, and, most especially, after many visits to neighbouring foreign countries. I am quite sure that if His Majesty's Government wish to do their duty by the country, as I know they do, they ought to announce, not in a short time but here and now, if possible to-day—and why not?—two things: firstly, that they will take the people of this country completely into their confidence with regard to the danger which they run from air bombardment and the measures which can be taken to minimise it; and, secondly, that they will double the Royal Air Force.
In my judgment, for what it is worth, and, as I say, I have given consideration to this subject for twenty-five years, if they do less than this I am sure they will fail in their duty. I will endeavour to tell your Lordships in a very few moments why I am forced to this conclusion. First, as to taking the people into your confidence about the dangers from air bombardment. I have no doubt the Secretary of State for War knows that we are the only country that has not done this. I have a mass of information on the Table before me about what has been done in France, in Germany, in Poland, in Italy, in Belgium and in one or two other countries, and of course, in Russia. Information has been circulated by the different Governments of those countries. Leagues have been formed under the auspices of the Governments, and specific instructions sent through the local authorities in the case of all the countries that I have quoted, as to the precautions to be taken and the methods to be adopted to avoid the destruction either of the capital or of its inhabitants,
210
or of other centres of population, in the event of air bombardment.
Subterranean shelters are being built in every country that I have mentioned. Indeed, in nearly all of them the people will become again a race of troglodytes, unless an end is put to this folly of living in these vast subterranean shelters with which those of us who had the good fortune to serve in the great War on the Somme battlefield became so familiar. You could have put hundreds of thousands of people into those subterranean shelters, and, indeed, tens of thousands were there, nobody knows why. The whole thing is happening again. From the facts I have here, all of which I shall send to the Secretary of State and to the responsible people, and some of which, I think, are new, it would appear that the thing has gone very, very far. How much has been spent already I do not know, but I hazard the conjecture that our opposite neighbour, France, has already spent no less than £60,000,000 on defensive lines and defensive works above and below ground. Belgium has also spent a vast sum for so small a country. Everyone in this House may say: "But how foolish all this is." I agree that it is, but it is going on, and I do not think it is wise for this country, and least of all can it be wise for His Majesty's Government, to take no steps at all when other countries are taking such astonishing steps for their safety. Here we are concerned with the safety of our country and our Empire, the particular point to which my noble friend drew attention.
I challenge one word that fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. He said we were the most vulnerable of all countries and empires and he gave the reasons. I think it is true to say that Great Britain and her Empire are peculiarly vulnerable, but I am sure it is also true to say that unless we are very foolish we are the most difficult country to subdue. It is quite true that air jumps over obstacles, but we are in the extraordinarily fortunate position in the new development of warfare in that we have the Channel. It was Marshal Foch who first pointed out to me just after the War that as time went on Britain would become more and more the centre of confidence, for whereas others would have to depend on frontiers like the Rhine or the great new defensive line which France has built at such vast cost—more than

211
£40,000,000—we have given to us by Providence the Channel and the North Sea. So I believe we cannot be subdued, for though air power can do much mischief it cannot subdue unless the people are prepared to give in. During the late disturbance called the Great War the thing that impressed me most of all was the indestructible courage of the principal combatants, because there were four who entered the War at the start and carried it on to the very end—Germany, France, Belgium and this country.
LORD STRABOLGI: And Serbia.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Yes, but can we say they were in it from the beginning to the very end? They were certainly a brave people. Again and again people were met by intensive bombardment, and again and again attempts were made to make them give in by bombardment from the air. It only made them fight harder. So no doubt it will be, and I think it is folly to go on with these vast preparations as they are doing on the Continent without coming to some agreement to stop the idea that by bombardment from the air you can destroy the morale of a country sufficiently to make the people give in. It cannot be done. But they do not think so. I would appeal to my noble friend the Secretary of State for Air to tell us to-day that the Government propose to minimise the dangers to which we are exposed, so far as they can, by the methods which are well known in foreign countries.
What would happen, suppose some foolish country tries to destroy us by air bombardment and to destroy our morale? Of course if there happened to be an easterly wind and they preferred to endeavour to destroy by fire rather than to destroy by gas or explosives the result would indeed be lamentable. No doubt a great deal of London could be destroyed by incendiary bombs, most of it consisting, of course, of the humble homes of people who love those homes. If any fool on the opposite side of the Channel thinks that by so doing he will destroy the morale of this country let him now clearly understand that the only effect of that would be to make those people determine at all hazards to make the others pay to the full for the wicked deed they had done. Indeed the merit of announcing now that these steps have
212
been taken—and although I know nothing I am quite certain the matter must have been thought out—would be that you would have everybody on your side. Of course in most matters of defence there is controversy. Here there would be none. I am certain that my noble friends behind me would agree to this. Not even my noble friend Lord Snell would reject the proffered gas mask or be other than grateful for being told where it was to be found. Indeed, in that grim and awful day when the aerial bombardment came, I can hear my noble friend Lord Snell, serene as I know he would be, saying: "Well, well, one compensation is that perhaps they will hit Waterloo Bridge."
LORD SNELL: And Charing Cross Bridge, too.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Everybody would be on your side. I know that it has been said that this will produce alarm. I am sure it is not so. Our people are not built that way. Tell them just what the danger is and the best way to go about avoiding unnecessary danger. It is going to be a pretty big business. It will mean a great change in the habits of our people and their outlook if anything further is done as it has been in France and Belgium and Germany, countries which I have recently visited. But we had better face up to it. There is no need to be alarmed at all. We cannot be destroyed if we are wise. We can defy the whole world if they are wicked enough to attack us. But we had better be prepared. On the other side I say: Double the Air Force. I have not the least doubt that we ought to do that at once and announce it to this House and to the whole world. I am here to say, though it may sound a non sequitur, that I believe it is true that while everybody wants to re-arm nobody wants to fight. In fact that is why they are rearming. I am sure if the Secretary of State could announce to the House: "We will double the Air Force," his words would be greeted with a sigh of relief not only in France but in Germany too, and, indeed, in every country in Europe except, of course, the eastern country of Russia, about which I know nothing.
It may be asked, why double the Air Force? Passive defence will not do in this matter. Towards the end of the late War we learned a great deal about

213
active defence against air attacks. The noble Lord, Lord Trenchard, whom I see in his place, was in command of the most extraordinarily effective air weapon that has ever been known in the history of man. The Independent Air Force acting against a very powerful German Force did, nevertheless, manage to do immense harm to the industrial production in the Rhineland of Germany. The thing went on and on and casualties were severe, but nevertheless—I was reading the full account of it only yesterday—they did manage, to get through. That is a good many years ago, and since then a great many things have happened. A country that has a really efficient Air Force is capable of making a counter-attack upon those who attack it—I do not mean the burning down of the enemy's capital because they burn down yours—and that has become a much more formidable weapon than it was in the days when Lord Trenchard was conducting those fearful operations against, gallant Germans, who had ultimately to give in to a significant extent because of his operations. He is now, I understand, engaged in other pursuits, but I should be interested to know whether he can deny what I say, for I know he keeps track of these matters, that a doubled Air Force would give us an immense advantage in security against the kind of dangers to which I have referred.
I thought it my duty to raise these points to-day, because I am quite sure that by continued silence we are doing infinite harm to the people of this country, whose reviving confidence, which every foreigner notes and admires, is retarded only by the fear of an aerial attack and the uncertainty as to what they really ought to do. I think that if the Government would announce their policy now they world help the reviving confidence of the country, and I am sure that they would help greatly towards ensuring the peace of the world. If I may respectfully say so, it is just the vacillating policy of a Government which, with the best intentions, has refused to let the people know of their true dangers and the ways by which they can avert them, which has prevented it from carrying through the policy which it has tried so hard to achieve, of getting a more peaceful outlook amongst the nations of the world. I am sure that at this moment Great Britain, and her Empire round her,
214
can render a service to the cause of peace and good will which nobody else can possibly give. But in order that we may do it I think that we must have a people confident and calm, knowing full well that the Government have taken every possible precaution, have taken them into complete confidence, and are sure that the overwhelming majority of the people—practically all of them—are, as always, quite ready to do anything that is asked of them, to fight if need be, and if needs must, even to die, for our liberties.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, in rising to support the noble Viscount's Resolution, I would crave the indulgence of the House, as this is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships. I do so now from the point of view of one who for some time has been professionally concerned with civil aviation both as a pilot and on the executive side. It seems obvious that if civil aviation is going ahead at its present rate of speed, the world will shortly be covered by a network of air lines and air routes, much in the same way as it has been covered by railway lines, but with the difference that the air lines will probably connect places to which railways cannot get. If as an Empire we are to keep abreast of other nations, let alone exceed them, we must see to it that not only our equipment but our pilots are the best in the world. As far as air services are concerned, which means the safe flying of passengers, mails or goods, the days of hit or miss, of nosing one's way through impossible weather by the use of that rather intangible quality known as a sense of direction, are over. To-day the pilot has complicated but increasingly efficient instruments to aid him. He can fly blind with safety, he can be sure of his course, his position and his bearings, details of the weather ahead, and a lot of other little details, but important ones, which to the lay mind may not mean much, all by radio-telegraphy or by telephone. Given the necessary ground installation, he can also land blind.
But with the increase in the number of these instruments also comes an increase in the amount of technical knowledge which he must possess. Of course he can learn this out of a book, but it is quite useless to do so; he must know it with the familiarity which is born of actual use under all conditions. This

215
takes time, a lot of practice, and a great deal of patience. Climatic conditions are obviously very much involved in the use of all these instruments. No longer can an occasion when someone breaks a machine and possibly kills himself and a few passengers be put aside with a shrug of the shoulders implying that the weather was impossible and that the situation should be written off against experience. To-day, our air services are to a large extent run accurately, safely and to time. Daily the situation is getting nearer to the point when it will be not only expected but demanded that they will run accurately and safely 100 per cent. of the time, whether the operator is an Empire, whether it is a nation, or whether it is merely a private company. The three cardinal points of this efficiency are good equipment and machines, good maintenance, and good pilots, of which the pilots are the most important. Without these three, all the expert business management in the world will be quite unavailing. Without the good pilots, the good machines and the good equipment, nothing at all can be achieved.
Where do we get our pilots? The Royal Air Force has provided most of these. The old hands—they are getting few and far between—battled their experience out of the pioneering days of the War and before the War. To-day the present generation of pilots flying commercially have gained their actual flying experience in short service commissions in the Royal Air Force, afterwards gaining the necessary additional experience and knowledge for flying passengers and mails by joining the existing air companies whose business it is to fly in all weathers, at all times, and to complete their flights in safety and to time. A very few, at considerable expense to themselves or possibly to their parents, have been able to equip themselves by going through a long course at the one civil school in this country which caters successfully to meet the demands of the would-be professional pilot. But whether they come from the Royal Air Force or whether they come from the school complete with all their licences, it is necessary for them to serve quite a long time as second pilot to an old hand flying passengers and mails on regular routes before they can be considered fit to fly passengers and mails
216
themselves. It is mainly to the Royal Air Force that the commercial operator (by which I mean professional commercial civil aviation) must look to provide the pilots of the future.
Anything that may tend to increase the already high standard of teaching and experience obtainable in the Royal Air Force should be welcomed. The Motion which the noble Viscount has put forward, if adopted, seems to me to help this situation in two ways. An Imperial Air Force would mean a pooling of experience and the methods of instruction now adopted by the Royal Air Force and the Dominion Air Forces, and the pooling of knowledge has generally been found to be a very valuable thing. Secondly, would not an Imperial Air Force mean that those serving in it would have the opportunity of being posted all over the world, thereby gaining what can only be described as a perfect experience of world-wide climatic conditions, which would be an invaluable thing to the future pilot on long distance passenger-carrying lines? On these two points and for these two reasons, quite apart from anything else, I would support the noble Viscount. I recommend his proposal to the serious consideration of His Majesty's Government, and I would venture to hope that perhaps the Dominion Governments would also give it their serious consideration.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am sure I shall be expressing the views of all your Lordships present in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, on his maiden speech. He has given experiences from his first-hand knowledge, and experiences of one who, to use his own words, has nosed his way, depending on the intangible quality known as a sense of direction. The House is always eager to hear personal experiences, and we all, I am sure, hope that the noble Earl will join in our debates on future occasions.
I shall hardly be expected to take the same point of view as the noble Viscount who opened this discussion, or as the noble Lord on my right. In fact, I had not intended to intervene in the debate, and would not have done so had it not been that there was so much in the two speeches with which I found myself in such profound and fundamental disagreement, and I think in this connec-

217
tion I can speak for my noble friends who sit beside me. In both the Notices on the Paper the word "defence" occurs. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, with great experience, far more experience, of course, than I can pretend to, still maintains that there is defence against aerial attack. I never heard that really maintained by any one responsible—by any Secretary of State—and the devices to which the noble Lord referred, and which he says are being brought about in foreign countries, and the hope he expressed that further aircraft would be used also for defensive purposes, I cannot believe will be of any use whatsoever. We have not heard that further squadrons of aeroplanes are going to make this country safe from aerial bombardment or its consequences. I have never heard that view expressed by any Secretary of State.
No, my Lords, I think that to give a false impression to this country, that there is some possible defence against aerial bombardment, is doing a great mischief, because there is none, and we have got to make up our minds to it. All those devices referred to by the two noble Lords really amount to nothing. You might just as well suggest furnishing the population with new umbrellas. These gas-masks and even new squadrons of aeroplanes will not meet the purpose. When I put this point in another place, before I came here, and pointed out that whereas in the last war something like 300 tons of bombs fell on Great Britain during the four years of the War, should the awful event of another war materialise more than 300 tons of bombs a day will fall on our cities—
LORD MOTTISTONE: Does the noble Lord mean on successive days? He has just said 300 tons a day, and if we have aeroplanes as strong as other countries most of those bombers will be destroyed after the first or second day.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: That is just what I am not sure about—what will happen before that. I am afraid my noble friend Lord Snell will not have time to reach his gas-mask. As London will be the chief target, Downing Street or your Lordships' House will be the bull's eye, and I do not think there will be much time for us to think about any sort of protection. I doubt whether the Secretary of State this evening can tell us anything to the contrary, and this
218
idea of the possibility of aerial defence ought not to be put forward, because it is founded on no sort of facts. People are searching about, but the inventive genius of destructive agencies is far in advance of the inventive genius of defensive agencies. It is not like what used to go on in my old constituency of Sheffield, where they invented a shell which would penetrate any armour, and then invented an armour through which no shell would penetrate, and then went on all over again. There is nothing of that sort in this connection.
I can assure Lord Mottistone that if his policy of doubling the Air Force was taken up by the Government at the present time it would undoubtedly bring about their very quick downfall. From a political point of view I should not be sorry, but from the point of view of patriotism I should deplore that anybody should come forward in these days and advocate the doubling of the Air Force. The First Lord of the Admiralty made a deplorable speech, which has been quoted by the noble Viscount who introduced this question, in which he seemed to revel in the idea that competition was going on, and that we must go on, too. That was what happened before 1914. Everybody joins in the competition. Doubling our Air Force would only mean that France must double hers, and so the thing goes on, with ruinous expenditure, making the safety of our country still more and more doubtful.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? It is not my function to defend the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I do not see anything in the words which I read out which show that the First Lord was revelling in any idea of increasing armaments. Rather he was deploring the fact, while he said that as other countries were doing it he felt the time had come when we must do the same. So far from revelling in the idea, he was expressing a rather different view.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not wish to use too strong a word, and perhaps the word "revelling" is too strong; but his speech was taken to mean that the competition had begun and we were going to join in. Our joining in, of course, will gradually make the competition still keener, until the other nations of the world, not satisfied, will

219
test their arms on one another. Lord Mottistone said a sigh of relief would go up in this country if the Secretary of State announced to-night that we were going to double our Air Force. I wonder whether that is true. My view of the situation is entirely different. The night before last I was at a meeting in Birmingham, with Lord Cecil of Chelwood, and the Town Hall of Birmingham was full, with an overflow meeting of a thousand. We were not talking about doubling the Air Force, but in an exactly opposite direction and sense. The speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty was heartily condemned, and there was not a dissentient voice in any of the meetings. That, I think, is indicative of the general feeling of the country just now—that instead of stimulating progressive competition in armaments the lead should be taken by this country in the opposite direction.
I am quite certain that this whole question is gradually getting into a dangerous state, and that the population is beginning to be apprehensive. The very fact that such an enormous meeting should gather together in midsummer was a surprise to all of us. It was not old people who were in the audience to any great extent, it was middle-aged and young men and women who composed that very representative gathering, which had nothing to do with political Parties, and was very indicative of the general feeling that there is in this country just now—an abhorrence of the idea that we should sharpen our weapons on all sides and follow in the wake of those who are insisting on further armaments, so making the situation more precarious in all directions.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone told us of some of the devices that are being constructed in foreign countries, and he said he would furnish the Secretary of State with the description of them. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State is not fully conversant with all those devices, and, I should say, has probably had occasion to test them and to realise their complete and absolute futility. I do not suppose that he has anything to learn in that direction. But I sincerely hope that the noble Marquess—and I feel some confidence that he may—will allay our fears in the direction that there is going to be any great increase in the air arm, and will once more dispose of the
220
illusion that protection from air bombardment can be secured by a greater number of air squadrons or by the devices which are being adopted elsewhere. I trust that the Government are not going to strike any alarmist note. I trust that they are not going to make more acute the apprehensions of those in this country who are watching events very closely, and that they will do their utmost to show that the country still wants to maintain the leadership towards sanity and towards the absolute discarding of the idea that there is any gain whatever to be secured, or that there is any dispute whatsoever that can be solved, by the methods of this appalling and barbaric violence.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will desire me to join with the noble Lord who has just spoken in offering my congratulations to the noble Earl who preceded him. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said, your Lordships always welcome any one who comes to this House and speaks with first hand and practical knowledge, and I am sure that we all hope that the noble Earl will make further contributions to debates in this House in the manner in which he has delivered his maiden speech to-day. I can assure him that your Lordships will always be very glad and grateful to listen to him.
The Notices which are down on the Paper cover a very wide area, but I feel that at this time of the evening your Lordships will not expect me to wander over the whole field, which the noble Lord who has just sat down has somewhat enlarged. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, who kindly postponed this debate from the date when he originally intended to bring it forward, has made a very interesting speech, as he always does, and has shown that enthusiasm which he always exhibits in connection with those great Imperial questions of which he has made so close a study. The conception which underlies the noble Viscount's Motion is one which must commend itself to all who appreciate as clearly as he does, the great and growing importance of the air in relation to the peace and commerce of the world. The idea which he has developed is indeed one which we view sympathetically. We remember the young men

221
from the Dominions and Colonies who flowed into the ranks of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service in the days of the War, some of whom have made their homes in the Mother Country and still serve among the officers and airmen of the Royal Air Force. They were, indeed, only a part of that concord of spirit and loyalty which, drawing us all together in the perils of 1914, flung the whole weight of the Empire into the battle-line and provided an example of voluntary association in a great cause such as has never been paralleled in the course of history. It is small wonder that, when we remember this great example, there should be those who feel the strength of the case which the noble Viscount has put with such force and ability—namely, that we should forge a definite and concrete weapon to guard the freedom of the air for the whole Empire, and to be available for its defence whenever and wherever the Empire may be threatened.
Questions such as these have engaged the careful attention of successive Imperial Conferences, and the noble Viscount's proposal is indeed calculated to implement in the most valuable manner the principal Resolution that was passed at the Imperial Conference of 1923. That Resolution was as follows:
"It is necessary to provide for the adequate defence of the territories and trade of the several countries comprising the British Empire."
Nothing, in my view, is more important for this adequate defence than strength in the air. Nevertheless, my Lords, Then the Conference came to consider further the means whereby adequate defence should be obtained, it passed a second Resolution which diverts the policy into a different channel from that which the noble Viscount is seeking. This Resolution reads as follows:
"In this connection the Conference expressly recognises that it is for the Parliaments of the several parts of the Empire, upon the recommendations of their respective Governments, to decide the nature and extent of any action which should be taken by them."
These two principles of Imperial defence were the result of a very complete and thorough survey of the circumstances which they involved. They were followed by certain corollary Resolutions of which I will quote only
222
two, referring directly to the subject with which we are concerned to-day. The first Resolution affirms "the primary responsibility of each portion of the Empire represented at the Conference for its own local defence." The fifth records.
"the desirability of the development of the Air Forces in the several countries of the Empire upon such lines as will make it possible by means of the adoption as far as practicable of a common system of organisation and training and the use, of uniform manuals, patterns of arms, equipment and stores (with the exception of the type of aircraft), for each part of the Empire as it may determine to co-operate with other parts with the least possible delay and the greatest efficiency."
I have referred to these Resolutions because they show that in matters of defence the representatives of the Empire gathered in Conference were determined to maintain the general basis of free association upon which the Empire rests.
The history of the late war has shown that the policy and administration of any united force are much more efficient when they are controlled by a single authority. Yet such an authority, if instituted, must necessarily be in this case either the Home Government or some Imperial Committee upon which all interests are represented. If the Home Government were to accept full and undisputed responsibility for the control of the Empire Air Force, the Dominion Government must correspondingly relinquish the right to participate in that control. If, on the other hand, that right is to be maintained as the consequence of the contribution made by each to the general upkeep of the Empire Air Force, then the Empire Defence Force would have to be executively controlled by some kind of a Committee. Such an arrangement would be neither efficient nor responsive in time of emergency, and the reasons why it was not recommended by the Imperial Conference are not far to seek. The provision of the necessary funds to maintain such a force would raise questions of the utmost delicacy and difficulty. The self-governing Dominions, as your Lordships are aware, are autonomous in fiscal matters, and for them to undertake contributions towards a single Service over which they have no control might raise budgetary questions of grave importance. Yet without definite contributions known and decided beforehand, to cover programmes which are the outcome of long-

223
range policies extending over many years, the controlling authority—whether it were the Home Government or some Imperial Committee—would be powerless to lay its plans, however reasonable it might appear to other Governments of the Empire, from their own budgetary position, to increase or decrease the financial support given by them to this general purpose.
There might be a modification of the noble Viscount's proposal which does not go quite so far as the formation of a single Imperial Air Defence Force. That is the formation of a Central Air Force additional to the local Defence Forces maintained by the various members of the Empire under the terms of the Resolutions to which I have referred. Such a force might be supposed to constitute a mobile reserve capable of being applied at any point and therefore of reducing the total magnitude of the defences which it would be necessary for the Empire in general to maintain. We are all well aware that to hold a force in reserve which can be thrown in at the right place and at the right moment is a military axiom of the most elementary kind; but in the case of the Empire the creation of such a force and its subsequent administration would raise difficulties of the same nature, though not perhaps of the same degree, as those to which I have just referred. There would be the same material question of contribution: there would be the same problems of policy and control, and the decision to authorise the intervention of such a force in time of emergency would still have to be settled, either by the Home Government or by a Joint Committee. I see no reason for quarrelling with the decisions which the Imperial Conferences agreed to in 1923 and in 1926, nor do I feel that any argument has been adduced to-day, nor that there is any desire shown by the Dominions and Colonies for their reconsideration or amendment. The Dominions are autonomous and sovereign bodies in matters of defence, and they feel, and we feel, that it is incompatible with the self-government of each and the interests of all that any attempt should be made to set up a Central Defence Force for the Empire.
I shall no doubt be asked by my noble friend what is the alternative upon which our Imperial policy is based. My reply
224
to that query is: Co-operation, understanding, and conformity as far as these conditions can possibly be fulfilled. The nerve centre of our system of defence in this country is the Committee of Imperial Defence, of which, as your Lordships are aware, the Prime Minister is Chairman. This body not only considers questions of the defence of these shores, but also the questions of general defence of the Empire, and affords an assembly in which the voice of any Dominion Government can be heard. This arrangement, as I have had occasion to tell your Lordships before, goes back to a Resolution passed by the Imperial Conference in 1911, and since that time representatives of the Dominion Governments have invariably been called into consultation by the Committee of Imperial Defence whenever important questions affecting the defence of the Empire are under consideration.
The work of this Committee, which I think I may say without fear of contradiction is the most important Committee set up by this or by any Government, has been described in public more than once, and I will not refer to it now in greater detail, but I think your Lordships should be aware that the Imperial Conference of 1926, before it reaffirmed the principles of Imperial defence which I have ventured to lay before your Lordships, had the benefit of a careful and most able description of the functions and scope of the Committee of Imperial Defence in a statement by Mr. Baldwin, who was at that time Prime Minister of this country. It cannot be said, therefore, that in coming to the conclusion which they did, the representatives of the Empire were not fully apprised of the machinery that exists to serve their interests in the matter of general defence.
Let me turn to more detailed considerations which specially refer to air defence. I need perhaps hardly remind your Lordships of the very close co-operation which exists between the Royal Air Force and the Air Force of the Union of South Africa in the development of the air route between Cairo and the Cape, or of the facilities granted by the Australian Air Force to the Royal Air Force in developing the air route between this country and their own. As your Lordships also know, a Royal Air Force flight will be attending the centenary celebrations at Toronto in

225
Canada this year. Now, in accordance with the policy recommended by the Imperial Conferences, the training and equipment of the Royal Canadian and the Royal Australian Air Forces as well as of the Air Forces of the Union of South Africa and of New Zealand have been based on the training and equipment of the Royal Air Force. They all use Royal Air Force manuals and text books, and the aeronautical equipment and armament is standard throughout.
As regards personnel, we have the closest relationships between the Royal Air Force and its sister Services in the Dominions. I do not think my noble friend is aware of this. Periodic exchanges are arranged between junior officers. Two such exchanges are at present in operation with Canada and one with Australia. Officers of the Australian Air Force are taught to fly by the Australian Government, and are then granted short-service commissions in the Royal Air Force for five years, followed by reserve service in Australia. At present we take seven officers under this very useful arrangement each year. There is also an Australian officer under instruction at the central flying school and another at the engine repair establishment at Henlow, where there is also an officer from the South African Air Force. These numbers may seem small, but I would remind your Lordships that at the present stage the Dominion Air Forces are themselves not large and that the number of officers whom they can usefully detach for service outside their own country is naturally very limited. As regards staff work, there are at present two officers of the Australian Air Force and two of the Canadian Air Force under instruction at the Royal Air Force Staff College, where, I need hardly say, they are very welcome. Both Australia and Canada maintain liaison officers in London, who have full access to all information at the Air Ministry which may be of assistance to their respective Governments, and for the other Dominions there is a system of transmitting information upon operational and technical matters which enables them to keep in the closest touch with the thought and policy of the Air Staff.
I hope I have said enough to convince your Lordships that, as regards co-operation, understanding and conformity, every effort is being made to link the Dominion
226
Air Forces as closely as possible with the Air Force of the Mother Country. By this means we are putting into effect in a practical way the policy which has been agreed between ourselves and the other constituents of the Empire. His Majesty's Government do not believe that in any reconsideration of these principles, whether at one of the Imperial Conferences held periodically or at a special Defence Conference held as the noble Viscount proposes, there would be any general desire to retrace our steps upon the path of defence upon which the Empire has progressed so effectively and, if I may say so, with such general good will. We stand to gain more by co-operation than by consolidation. Indeed, as I have attempted to show, the latter is entirely incompatible with the principles on which our Imperial Policy is founded. I am convinced that any attempt to go against these principles will be swept away by a stronger tide of public opinion than if would be possible for us or for any one to stem. His Majesty's Government are unable, therefore, to accept the Motion of the noble Viscount, and I would express the hope that he will not press it.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone, as we would expect from him, made a very forcible speech, expressing those robust opinions of which he is always a master, and he received a reply in exactly the opposite sense from the noble Lord who sits opposite to me (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede). There was a very wide diversity of opinion between those two speeches. The noble Lord who speaks for the Opposition takes a very long-range view, and hopes that everything may come right in the end, but he nevertheless seems to be seized with the idea that the attack may be so sudden that no one in this country will escape. If he is right in that, the long-range policy which he and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, were probably putting forward at Birmingham the other night, will unfortunately not come into effect. But I am not taking such a gloomy view as the noble Lord is doing. In the speech which my noble friend delivered a few minutes ago he commended to your Lordships the view that we ought to take immediate and substantial steps to remedy the inadequacy of the air defences of this country. The noble Lord represents a body of opinion which has

227
for some time been urging the Government to take drastic action to increase the size of the Royal Air Force. We have been pressed to double the number of squadrons. The noble Lord has this afternoon pressed us to add large numbers of machines to our first line strength, and, in short, to carry out in peace time something of that rapid expansion which we all know would be necessary on the outbreak of war.
The noble Lord also told us that he did not believe that the Government were taking the country sufficiently into their confidence by explaining the situation which he very eloquently developed this afternoon. The noble Lord, with his long Ministerial experience, is no doubt aware that these are matters which have not escaped our attention. The Government are continually considering all these points. The danger to which he referred is one which, I agree, exists, but we have not deemed it necessary at this moment to develop on the lines of the education of the people which he advocated. I am not saying, however, that the warning contained in his speech is entirely outside the point we are discussing. I go a certain distance with him, and I can assure him that these matters are being very closely considered. His speech is one of those contributions which we continually get, and I assure him that I shall transmit the representations he has made to the proper quarter.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Could the noble Marquess tell us—the matter is of great importance—when the Government propose to take any action as a result of the consideration which we are told they have been actively pursuing? I think the House is entitled to know whether they do or do not intend to take the kind of educative action which I say they ought to take. If they are going to take it, I think we ought to be told so.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I cannot go into the matter raised by the noble Lord's Notice to-night. I particularly asked the noble Lord not to put it down, and I told him that I was not going to give a definite answer to any of the questions he intended to bring forward because I was not in a position to do so.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I did not move my Motion. I trust I have not been
228
guilty of any discourtesy; I thought perhaps I had acted rather the other way. The noble Lord said to me when I mentioned the matter a fortnight ago that that was not the time to make a statement, and I told him that I would not move the Motion because I understood he had something to say. That was how the matter stood.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have no intention of arguing with the noble Lord on these matters. He is well aware that I told him very definitely, in regard to the Motion he was putting down for this date, that I was not in a position to say anything. I do not think the noble Lord can contradict that. He is now asking a specific question to which I say I am not prepared to give him an answer at this moment. But to turn to the point which the noble Lord developed particularly in his speech. I think he is well aware that there are many serious difficulties which arise in relation to his policy. There are great difficulties of supply, of training and of accommodation, when you are asked to double a highly specialised Service such as the Royal Air Force in a short space of time. It could certainly be done by adopting emergency measures comparable to those measures which are utilised in time of war. But, my Lords, in time of peace the Government are unwilling from motives of economy, if for no other reason—and there are other sound and good reasons, as I think your Lordships will appreciate—to undertake an immediate expansion of the Air Force at the prodigious rate which has sometimes been publicly demanded of us.
The question is then asked, why, if it takes a certain period of preparation in peace time to obtain adequate defence in the air, do we not at once set this process in motion so that in a few years' time we may attain the numbers which appear to be required. As the Lord President of the Council has stated in another place, His Majesty's Government are determined to obtain for this nation parity in the air with any country within striking distance of these shores. The Lord President of the Council has further stated that we are making preparations in ample time. If expansion of the Royal Air Force is necessary His Majesty's Government have already begun to lay their plans for such ex-

229
pansion. We have been precluded from taking this course sooner for two very definite reasons. In the first place we have been trying our utmost at Geneva to persuade other nations to reduce their Air Forces to a reasonable level. While this discussion was going on we held our hand in order not to do anything which would appear inconsistent with the ideals which underlay the British Draft Convention for the reduction and limitation of armaments. It is only within recent months—and I regret it very much—that the other nations of the world, so far from doing anything to carry out those ideals of the British Government, have determined to secure their own national defence, not merely by maintaining armaments on the present level but, I regret to say, by actually increasing them. Therefore in our judgment it would be imprudent on our part not to meet the situation which has thus been forced upon us.
A further reason which has operated to postpone even the resumption of that modest programme of expansion which was considered necessary so far back as 1923 was that the Government have been obliged to take note of the very influential school of thought in this country which conscientiously believes—the noble Lord opposite holds this belief—that, as war is a curse upon humanity, the British nation should abjure it altogether. We should disarm and trust to the simple justice of our cause as it will be pleaded before an international tribunal. This opinion was voiced only last Sunday by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham, a member of your Lordships' House. It finds expression in a recent work by that able publicist, Sir Norman Angell. The one takes his ground upon the dictates of conscience, the other on those of prudence and economic law. These views undoubtedly commend themselves to a large section of public opinion. Until recent months the Government have had every reason to believe, and every motive to encourage the hope, that something might be achieved out of the Disarmament Conference which would render unnecessary any substantial addition to the size of our Air Force. Now, as I have already peinted out, the situation has become unhappily all too clear. We can no longer hope that an international convention will solve the problems which agitate the whole of Europe. His Majesty's Govern-
230
ment have therefore decided that they can no longer delay the steps which are necessary to provide adequately for the air defence of these shores.
I should be the last person to quarrel with my noble friend for introducing this matter, nor can I take any exception to the terms of the Question on the Paper or the manner in which he has developed his argument. But he will remember that when he informed me of his proposal to bring this matter before your Lordships, I warned him that I did not think that I should be in a position to be able to give him an answer which could he looked upon as altogether satisfactory for himself or the public. That is the reason why I asked him not to put the question. I regret very much being unable to do so, but I feel sure that he will understand that, whereas there can be no doubt in the mind of anyone that the expansion of the Air Force is in contemplation—and I can refer him to the words of the Lord President of the Council—still at this time it is quite impossible to give him the definite nature of the expansion or the lines along which it will proceed. But I will ask the noble Lord to realise that he need have no apprehensions either that the Government are taking no interest in this very important matter, or that plans and arrangements are not fully under way. While I say this in answer to the noble Lord, I regret very much that I am not in a position to say anything further.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I fully understand now the reason why the noble Marquess cannot say definitely anything in answer to the specific question I put, but I think he might tell the House and the country which view he takes—whether he takes the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that it is useless for us to expand our Air Force to make the country snore safe, or that by expansion we can add to the safety of the country. Which is right?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If my noble friend had listened to what I said I told him that the Lord President of the Council had stated that expansion of the Air Force was in contemplation.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for the courteous and lucid manner in which he has replied to the Question

231
standing on the Paper in my name, though it would hardly be true to say that I am altogether satisfied with the answer he has given. He has told us that in the year 1923 and subsequently in 1926 certain conclusions were arrived at by the Imperial Conference. I do not quarrel in any way with the conclusions which were arrived at at that Conference or with the basis upon which those conclusions were formed, because I know just as well as the noble Marquess that it is not possible for any matter of this kind to be decided except by the individual Parliaments of the Empire agreeing to do so. But since 1923 and 1926 much water has flowed under the bridges, air development has increased enormously, and the conditions which exist in 1934 so far as the air is concerned are entirely and vitally different from the conditions which existed in 1923 and 1926 when these matters were considered. The noble Marquess in the course of his remarks said something—I was not quite sure of his meaning and I did not wish to interrupt—from which I inferred that the Government had consulted the Dominions Governments with regard to the terms of my Question and that they were not prepared or had no desire to make any alteration in the present position.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think I have not made myself altogether clear to the noble Viscount. I referred him to the Resolutions which were passed in 1923, and I then pointed out all those arguments which seemed to preclude the possibility of having an Empire Air Force. I had hoped that those arguments which I put forward would have convinced the noble Viscount that such a thing is really an impossibility, but I hardly seem to have succeeded in doing so.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am afraid the noble Marquess has not succeeded in doing so. I had hoped that the noble Marquess, or His Majesty's Government, in the conditions which exist to-day, would at least have agreed to consult the Governments of the Dominions upon this subject. In the course of the speech of the noble Marquess he seemed further to indicate that, although it might not be possible to go as far as I suggested in my speech, it might be possible to set up
232
a Central Air Force which would be of a peripatetic nature, and which would be superimposed upon or separate from the local defences of this country and of the Dominions. If it were possible to do that, I should welcome such a step, and many of your Lordships would welcome such a step, as being a great forward movement towards the greater ideal set out in my Question. I hope, indeed, that the noble Marquess, as Secretary of State for Air, will further consider the possibility of taking such a step as that.
I presume that in 1935 or 1936 there will be another Imperial Conference. I hope that between the present time and that Imperial Conference, His Majesty's Government will continue to consult with the Dominion Governments with regard to the co-operative and collaborative steps which have already been taken, and, if possible, between this time and then to extend them still further. When the next Imperial Conference is held I trust that the Government will seriously put this question forward once more and see whether it is not possible to secure a greater and more unified form of control in air defence than is indicated by the speech of the noble Marquess to-day. The noble Marquess smiles. If he will only think what the condition of air development was in 1923 and 1926 and compare that with the condition to-day, and endeavour to forecast what it may be in 1936, I think he will see that there is real reason for going forward and not stopping still. I for one venture to prophesy that what I have put forward to-day, whilst it may not be of a practical nature at present, will become a practical subject within the next few years. I shall then be able, I hope, to remind the noble Marquess of this debate to-day, and perhaps to point out to him that it may have been of some advantage. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PALESTINE LOAN BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.