Lords Sitting of 15 March 1934

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

ABERDEEN AND DISTRICT MILK MARKETING SCHEME, 1933.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 22nd of February last, be approved.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDICIARY (SAFEGUARDING) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Application of future Statutes relating to servants of the Crown to certain, holders of judicial office.
1. No reference in any Statute hereafter enacted to the rights, duties, salaries or emoluments of any persons which arise from the service of His Majesty or from the holding of any commission or office shall, unless expressly stated, be deemed to apply in the case of the holders or past holders of judicial office whose salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund.
LORD HANWORTHmoved to leave out "No reference". The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is one which really does not make any substantial alteration in the effect of Clause 1. Those who are, however, the most competent to advise on the drafting of a clause have suggested that the word "reference" in Clause 1 is a word of wide meaning and possibly of very

213
loose construction. It appears to me that that observation is well founded, and that it would be much better to use words of greater precision. Therefore I have endeavoured in the Amendments I have suggested, should they be adopted by the Committee, to provide words which may be more definite. The two lines which I refer to are lines 21 and 22, and I propose to leave out certain words and to insert others. If my Amendments are accepted the clause will read in this way:
"In any Statute hereafter enacted no provision for the alteration or diminution of the rights, duties, salaries or emoluments of any persons which arise from the service of His Majesty or from the holding of any commission or office shall, unless expressly stated, be deemed to apply in the case of the holders or past folders of judicial office whose salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund".
It is quite clear that that provision is a definite and affirmative action. Reference might be a sidewind, and I think that the clause would be improved and made more direct if the words that I have suggested were adopted.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("No reference").—(Lord Hanworth.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I feel the force of the difficulty to which my noble and learned friend has alluded and I certainly will agree to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HANWORTH: I beg to move the next Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, 1eave out (" to ") and insert (" no provision for the alteration or diminution of ").—(Lord Hanworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODmoved to add to the clause:
"Any Statute dealing with the salaries of the holders or past holders of judicial office shall be preceded by and founded upon an Address of both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: This is a very simple Amendment. The point of this Bill is to free the Judges from any chance of political pressure being exercised upon them. That was the object of the clause in the Act of Settlement, to which in an Amendment of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour reference is made, and was one of the great achievements, no doubt,
214
of the Revolution. At that time the fear was of political pressure being exercised by the Crown, and accordingly those provisions were there made in order to prevent that happening. That is not the danger any longer, happily, in this country. But some of us (I am one of them) feel that under our electoral system, it is conceivable, though I do not think it is very likely, that you might have a House of Commons elected under stress of some considerable feeling—we had an example to some extent in 1931—with a very large majority, and then a revolutionary attempt being made to affect the position and impartiality of Judges. Undoubtedly, the impartiality of Judges has been a great safeguard of liberty both in this country and in other countries, and it is conceivable that under such circumstances you might have pressure of that kind. Indeed, to avoid that is the purpose of my noble friend's Bill, and he has proposed therefore that at any rate it shall not be done by a side-wind: it shall only be done if a definite proposal to alter the salary of a Judge is made in an Act of Parliament.
Well, there is a difficulty which I thought it was right to bring before your Lordships in case you thought there was anything in it. It is this, that an Act of Parliament altering the salaries of Judges might be held to be a Money Bill. Of course, it is not a Money Bill in our sense of the word because it would have great constitutional implications; but the direct and immediate effect would be purely a monetary effect; and it occurred to me that it would be right in a matter of that great importance that both Houses of the Legislature should be consulted before any alterations were made in the salaries of the Judges. My Amendment is designed to give to your Lordships the certainty of being consulted before any such provision is made. I hope that a provision of this kind inserted in this Bill would ensure that no alterations in the salaries of the Judges could he made without two things being done: in the first place either compliance with the provision, and an Address from both Houses, which would give your Lordships the opportunity of being heard, or definite repeal of this provision which could scarcely be treated as purely a Money Bill. In either case there would be an opportunity for the Second Chamber to have its say.
The second step would be the actual alteration of the salary, upon which I can well understand its being contended that your Lordships would not be entitled to be heard. It seems to me that if we are trying to set up a safeguard against the possible misuse of power in order to bring political pressure to bear upon the Judges, we ought to do our best to see that that provision is effective. To set up a provision to safeguard the Judges which should be absolutely at the mercy of the only source from which such oppression might issue—namely, the lower House of Parliament—does not seem to me to be an altogether effective way of accomplishing the object which my noble friend Lord Rankeillour has in view.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 27, at end insert ("Any Statute dealing with the salaries of the holders or past holders of judicial office shall be preceded by and founded upon an Address of both Houses of Parliament").—(Viscount Cecil of Clelwood.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I have the greatest possible sympathy with the object of my noble friend in bringing forward this Amendment, and I wish I could see the possibility of incorporating some such provision in the Bill, but I am bound to say I see very strong objections to it on various grounds. The least of those objections is that it would require an extra stage in each House to reinstate the salaries of the Judges at their former level. That may be an objection of no great substance. But in the second place I cannot myself think of ally precedent whereby the two Houses of Parliament put restrictions on their own actions and powers with regard to legislation by a Statute. There are such restrictions, of course, in the House of Commons, whereby in certain cases, financial cases, His Majesty's consent has to be obtained, or His Majesty puts his interest at the disposal of Parliament and the King's consent is signified to the House before the Bill can proceed. The House of Commons has itself laid down that any request for Supply or charge in Ways and Means has a stage of Committee and Report before the Bill comes in, but that is a very different thing from saying that the two Houses of Parliament, if they proposed to do something by their own legislation, should have to ask preliminary leave from His Majesty to do it.
216
I confess I feel that before we set a precedent of that kind we should have very carefully to consider the matter. As to the protection that is given, on the face of it, apart from the Money Bill question, to which I will come in a moment, it does not appear to me to afford any extra protection. The Judges at present are protected by a section of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and before their salaries could be interfered with an Act of Parliament would be necessary. An Act of Parliament was necessary in 1931. My complaint is that the Houses did not fully appreciate what they were doing then; but an Act of Parliament was necessary, and an Act of Parliament will be necessary to reinstate them in their former position or to deal with their salaries in the future. When it came to repeal nothing would be easier than to say that "Notwithstanding anything in the Judiciary (Safeguarding) Act, 1934, the salaries of His Majesty's Judges shall be as set forth in the Schedule. "Therefore, apart from the Money Bill question, do not think this provision would give any extra protection.
With regard to the Money Bill question, I speak with great diffidence, but I am prepared to argue that a Bill to reduce the salaries of the Judges would not be a Money Bill now under the definition contained in the Parliament Act. Under Section 1, subsection (2), of the Parliament Act there is a definition of a Money Bill, and it says:
"A Money Bill means a Public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges."
Now the words "imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes" must have some meaning other than merely that a charge is made. Of course every charge on the Consolidated Fund has a financial purpose simply because it is a charge, but the juxtaposition of these words, "for the payment of debt or other financial purposes," means, I submit, that the "other financial purposes" must not be a mere charge by itself but a charge with some

217
object of a financial character like the payment of debt. For instance, if it were a Conversion Bill authorising the conversion of a Statutory Loan and a bonus were to be paid under that Bill, that would be "other financial purposes."
Therefore, unless you bring the Bill under these words, I do not think that any Bill dealing with the Judge's salaries would be a Money Bill. If it is not a Money Bill this particular Amendment would give no further protection than the present law gives. Finally, I feel that, whether I am right or wrong in this and other arguments, acceptance of this Amendment would make the passage of this Bill considerably more difficult in another place, and, even if I cannot get all that I should like in this Bill, I do want to ensure if possible that the essence of it should be passed, and passed by agreement. On all these grounds put together I am afraid I cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If my noble friend will forgive me, I was not very much moved by his earlier argument, but I agree that the whole thing depends on whether a reduction of the salaries of the Judges can be carried through by a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act. I think it is a rather delicate point, but I should have thought it was more probable that the Speaker would feel bound to certify that it was a Money Bill. I do not know whether it is possible to be told at this moment what happened in 1931. Was the Bill on which the Order-in-Council was founded treated as a Money Bill or not? I suspect it was treated as a Money Bill. The Bill was designed merely for the saving and reduction of expenses, and therefore I imagine it would be a Money Bill, but I do not know whether I am right on that point. If it were so, that would seem a conclusive argument on the point put forward by my noble friend. I am very anxious not to impede the passage of this Bill, but I confess I should have been very grateful if the Lord Chancellor had felt able to enlighten us as to the legal aspect of this matter—namely, whether a Bill to reduce the salaries of Judges might be so framed as to be treated as a Money Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): I had not intended to speak on this particular Amendment, and it would be idle for me to tell the noble Viscount whether the 1931 Act was treated as a Money Bill or not. I do not know. But I would put it to the noble Viscount that he is rather on the horns of a dilemma, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, when he says that if we are to get this Bill through the House of Commons—as to which I say nothing at all—we should get it as a non-controversial Bill here. The horns of the dilemma are these. I dare say sometimes one misses some point or other, but it is either a Money Bill or it is not. If it is a Money Bill, you are going to have very great controversy in the other House if this is left in this way—if the Amendment passes. On the other hand, supposing it is not a Money Bill, I do not think you want this Amendment. Therefore it is either otiose or it is dangerous to insist upon it. Without pledging myself on the point of whether it is or is not a Money Bill, I would appeal to the noble Viscount to consider whether or not he should press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I shall not press the Amendment at the present stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Meaning of "judicial office."
2. The expression "judicial office" in this Act includes the office of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, of a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature, of the Judge of a County Court and of a Metropolitan Police Magistrate; in Scotland of a Judge of the Court of Session or of the Land Court, and of a Sheriff or Sheriff Substitute; and in Northern Ireland of a Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, of a Judge of the King's Bench Division, of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and of Recorder of Belfast and Londonderry.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGmoved to leave out "includes" and insert "means". The noble Marquess said: The Amendments that stand in my name on Clause 2 all cover the same point, and I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord to accept them, because the proposals I am making are not in the

219
slightest degree intended to reduce the effect of this Bill, but rather to give more effect to the purpose he has in mind. As I understand the noble Lord's proposal—and he has framed the measure with great thought and care—he desires to secure for the Judges their position as already safeguarded by the Act of Settlement, so that no change shall be made in their salaries or emoluments save as expressed in the Bill. In the clause defining those to whom the Bill will apply he has included a number of Judges who do not come within the Act of Settlement and whose tenure is of a different character. I suggest that in introducing them he has introduced complications, and I suggest to the noble Lord that it will make the Bill more difficult to pass, because it does change the position of Stipendiary Magistrates, County Court Judges, Sheriffs Substitute, and so forth.
As I understand the purpose of the Bill, it is to meet the difficulty created by the Act which was passed in 1931 and in order to safeguard that no reduction shall be made in the salaries of His Majesty's Judges save by express reference. By extending the meaning of the words "judicial office," the noble Lord has gone considerably further. I agree that the salaries of these other Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund—and I suppose it was because of this that he has included them—but I venture to put it to him that that does not change the position of County Court Judges, Stipendiary Magistrates and others so as to bring them within the terms of the Act of Settlement, which only applies to His Majesty's Judges in the sense in which it is usually applied. What I am proposing by this Amendment is to confine the Bill entirely to those holding high judicial office, and those are the very Judges whose position is sought to be protected by the noble Lord. I would refer especially to the recital:
"Whereas it is provided by the Act of Settlement, 1700, that His Majesty's Judges"
and so forth. That is really the purpose the noble Lord has had in view, and the one which, so much to our advantage, he has put into a Bill introduced to your Lordships. My proposal is to leave out those who are not His Majesty's Judges, and to confine the words "judicial office" entirely to those who are His Majesty's Judges.
220
There is no necessity for me to deal with each of my Amendments, but if your Lordships pass the Amendments the clause will then read:
"The expression 'judicial office' in this Act"—
I have substituted the word "means" for "includes" which I am quite sure the noble Lord would not object to. I think it is a better word for the purpose, as it is purely interpretative—
"means the office of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, of a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature…"
I leave out the words "of the Judge of a County Court and of a Metropolitan Police Magistrate" and proceed:
"in Scotland of a Judge of the Court of Session or of the Land Court …"
Here I leave out the words "and of a Sheriff or Sheriff Substitute" and go on:
"and in Northern Ireland of a Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal and of a Judge of the Kings Bench Division."
Again, I leave out the words "of a Chairman of Quarter Session and of Recorder of Belfast and Londonderry."
The only reason there could be for introducing some of these offices is that they are charged on the Consolidated Fund. I gather particularly that is why the Recorders of Belfast and Londonderry are mentioned and the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. Notwithstanding that they are charged to the Consolidated Fund, they are not within the Act of Settlement. I would suggest to the noble Lord that it is better for the purposes of his Bill, if he will allow me to say so, that he should confine it to his Majesty's Judges in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, in order that he may give the protection which he is seeking to give. He is seeking to make it more difficult to pass any Act which would reduce the salary of a Judge who comes within the Act of Settlement. That is in accordance with the Preamble. I cannot but think, therefore, he would carry out more effectively what he has in mind by not introducing these other officers. May I point out also that it will be rather difficult to get a Bill passed if these Magistrates and County Court Judges are included, because it would give a protection which hitherto has never been applied to them? There has always been a difference between Judges of the High Court, using

221
a compendious term—that is those holding high judicial office—and Judges who hold offices of an inferior character, however important they may be. I am not suggesting that there should be any difference in the way in which they are treated ordinarily; nevertheless it would be introducing them to the protection of the Act of Settlement which has never been given to them and which, if given to them, would, I think, lead to difficulties. Consequently my suggestion is that they should be left out, and that we should deal only with the High Court Judges.
I will make one observation with reference to the words applying to Scotland. I do this for the purpose of an explanation. If your Lordships approve of the Amendments the clause would read:
"in Scotland of a Judge of the Court of Session or of the Land Court."
Either now, or on the Report stage—if your Lordships are agreeable it may be convenient to do it now—I would move an Amendment to make it read:
"or of the Chairman of the Land Court."
It is only the Chairman of the Land Court who has the special position of a High Court Judge. There are four members of the Land Court, but it is only the Chairman to whom the tenure of a Judge applies. The other three have not the same tenure. Therefore the words ought to be:
"in Scotland of a Judge of the Court of Session or of the Chairman of the Land Court."
If your Lordships agree, I would insert between "or" and "of" the words "of the Chairman" of the Land Court. It is merely introducing three words "of the Chairman." In the case of Northern Ireland after the words "Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal" there should be inserted the word "and" before the words "of a Judge of the King's Bench Division." I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept the Amendments as I suggest them.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("includes") and insert ("means").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether noble Lords would like me to read out the clause as it will be if the Amendments suggested by the noble Marquess are agreed to. Really it is
222
only one Amendment and the clause would read:
"The expression 'judicial office' in this Act means the office of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, of a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, of a Judge of the Court of Judicature, in Scotland of a Judge of the Court of Session or of the Chairman of the Land Court, and in Northern Ireland of a Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal and of a Judge of the King's Bench Division."
There have been two manuscript Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to join in the appeal of my noble and learned friend to Lord Rankeillour, to accept these Amendments for this reason. This very unhappy and very unfortunate controversy, which has now been going on for over two years, arose out of the fact that many people thought that in the hurry of the crisis of 1931 a mistake had been made, and that the result of that mistake was to depreciate the authority of the Judges and to interfere with their independence. I do not propose to comment upon that, but that that is so I think appears from the proposed Preamble to this Bill. It begins by saying—although there is going to be a slight Amendment to it—
"Whereas it is provided by the Act of Settlement, 1700, that His Majesty's Judges shall not be removed from their offices…"
and the whole of the controversy has been with regard to the position of His Majesty's Judges.
The County Court Judges have never been introduced into the controversy, the Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates have never been introduced into the controversy, and I hope very much an endeavour will be made to keep them out of a controversy which does not affect them at all. They are not within the terms of the Act of Settlement. No difference was made in the year 1931 to their tenure or to their salary. In the result the object of this Bill is simply to deal with the mistake which it is thought had been made with regard to the High Court Judges, and it is rather unfortunate now if an opportunity is taken on this occasion to introduce into the controversy a different class of Judges, altogether who were not affected by what happened in 1931 and who do not come within the terms of the Act of Settlement. I really very much hope that this Amendment will be accepted.

223
May I say one other thing? One of the main difficulties of the controversy has been that the Judges, the High Court Judges, His Majesty's Judges, have always contended, and in my view have rightly contended, that they stand in a position quite apart from all other subjects of His Majesty and from all other Judges. I think it will not make for peace among the Judges if the Amendments are not accepted because then the Judges, instead of being in the separate class in which they are entitled to remain and which is their real position, are put into a class with a great number of other judicial officials who, no doubt, have extremely high qualifications but who are not His Majesty's Judges, who are not affected by the Act of Settlement and who are not affected by the mischief, if it was a mischief, of the 1931 Act. I therefore appeal with all the strength I possibly can to the noble Lord to let these Amendments go through.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I said on the Second Reading that the proposal to include these other descriptions of holders of judicial office was not of the essence of the Bill and should your Lordships see fit to accept the Amendments I certainly shall not withdraw the Bill. But I do submit that there is substance and logic in including them. Although ultimately and historically this Bill is based on the Act of Settlement, immediately it has not been drawn on the basis of the Act of Settlement and, indeed, it could not be for very good reasons. At the time of the Act of Settlement there was no union with Scotland. Therefore, Scottish Judges could not be brought in. There was no union with Ireland. Therefore, Irish Judges could not be brought in. There was no Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, there were no County Court Judges, and I may add that there was no Consolidated Fund.
This Bill was not drawn on tenure and it does not affect tenure at all. Perhaps I ought not to say that it does not affect tenure, but it was not based on tenure. If it were based on tenure in the sense that the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, desires, then I suggest that he should also move to strike out the two salaried members of the Judicial Committee because they have not the tenure of Judges of the High Court. His Majesty could strike them out of the Privy Council at any moment and if they
224
were struck out of the Privy Council their salaries as judicial members would cease and determine. I do not want them to be struck out, but if the question of tenure as it existed at the time of the passing of the Act of Settlement is the basis of the Bill, then they ought to go, too.
The way I tried to proceed in drawing this Bill was as follows: It was evident that if the Judges of the High Court had to be included, then the Lords of Appeal had to be included, and wondered what others should be included in the same position and where to draw the line. I could only draw it at the point at which Parliament had drawn it in the past by the many Acts of Parliament by which, at different times—particularly the Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1925—certain classes of Judges and others holding judicial office were placed upon the Consolidated Fund. The effect of placing them on the Consolidated Fund is rather far-reaching because when they are on the Consolidated Fund their salaries are absolutely safe apart from the convention and tradition of both Houses of Parliament. In any case their administration cannot be questioned. But, more than that, as they are put on the Consolidated Fund and not on Estimates, their salaries are absolutely safe without an Act of Parliament to take them away or diminish them. As Parliament has chosen to segregate these various classes from His Majesty's Civil and Military Service and make their salaries safe, it seemed to me that in a Bill dealing with salaries it was right that they should all be included. As I have said, it is not of the essence of the Bill and if your Lordships see fit to accept the Amendment, that, as far as this House goes, I presume will end the matter, but I submit that a decision should not be taken without it being borne in mind that Parliament has for the purpose of their salaries given them all an equal security.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think many of your Lordships will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord who is promoting this Bill for his resistance to the Amendment which has just been moved. With the greatest possible respect for the two noble and learned Lords who have sponsored this Amendment I think it would not be unfair to say that they approached the question rather from the point of view of the legal profession as

225
distinct from the point of view of the ordinary layman and the point of view of the ordinary citizen of the country. For them the different strata in the legal profession are extraordinarily important and the emphasis they lay on the distinction between a Judge of one of the High Courts and a Stipendary Magistrate or a County Court Judge is sufficient to warrant the exemption of these lower dignitaries from the guarantee that is being afforded by this measure to the more eminent members of the legal profession
But may I try to put what I think is the reaction of the ordinary layman? Surely it would require a very forcible reason to deprive Stipendiary Magistrates and County Court Judges of a security that is being afforded to the higher and more eminent dignitaries of the legal profession. I do not hesitate to say flat the work of County Court Judges and Stipendiary Magistrates is even more important from the point of view of the people as a whole than the work of the Judges in the High Courts, because they consider a far greater number of cases and their decisions therefore affect the lives of a far greater number of people. The real distinction is that. the higher type of Courts deals with cases where a larger sum of money is in question and therefore with a richer clientele, whereas the lower Court deals with the great majority of people whose means are not so substantial as those of people who are able to go to the High Court or to the Court of Appeal or to your Lordships' House. I therefore beg your Lordships to consider this Amendment from the perhaps wider point of view, and to reject it in order that Stipendiary Magistrates and County Court. Judges may have the same security and the same guarantee that they will he free from political pressure, which is one of the greatest features of our English legal system. That is the guarantee that the noble Lord has provided in this measure and it is one which I myself believe should be extended as widely as possible.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: In reply to the noble Earl who has just spoken, I would remind him that nothing in this Bill, if it were confined to the judicial officers mentioned in the proposed Amendment, would affect in the slightest degree the position of either Country
226
Court Judges or Stipendiary Magistrates. It has already been pointed out by my noble friend the Lord Chancellor that they were not affected by the original Act which has led to the introduction of this Bill. The position which they hold, I agree—and I thought I took special care to state it when I was moving the Amendment—is naturally of great importance, and I would agree that it is of especial importance when they are dealing with what I may call the poorer classes of litigants. If there were anything in the Bill which would at all affect their position if my Amendment were carried, I would see much greater force in the proposal; but what I am anxious to have understood is that it does not affect them at all. The independence which they have at present is maintained, and there is no necessity to deal with their case because the Act of 1931 never did affect them or touch them.
The reason for the introduction of this Bill is to resolve doubts which were introduced as to the meaning of certain terms used in the Act of 1931, and because the Judges who were affected by that Act—that is, the Judges of the Supreme Court, whom we may for convenience term His Majesty's Judges—were the Judges whose salaries were reduced by that Act. What was intended was to prevent any Act being passed hereafter which would leave it doubtful as to whether or not there was to be a reduction in the salaries of those Judges, and consequently this Bill, if passed, would have the effect of preventing any implication which was not clear on the face of it as affecting His Majesty's Judges. I cannot but think that it would be a great pity to extend the Bill to something which is far more important in this sense, that it would extend the protection given by the Act of Settlement. That protection has been repeated, or rather re-enacted in other language, in later Acts, after the Union of Scotland and of Ireland, but it has always proceeded upon that particular independence in the Act of Settlement, which has never been held to apply to County Court Judges, Stipendiary Magistrates, Recorders, Sheriffs, Sheriffs Substitute or other Judges.
Therefore in the interests of the Bill, because I want to see the Bill passed—I am anxious to support the noble Lord and I do want to see a provision

227
introduced which will prevent in the future any such doubts as have arisen before—I have moved this Amendment. It is not because I am against the County Court Judges or Stipendiary Magistrates—quite the contrary—but because I want to give effect to removing the doubt which has been introduced by confining the Bill as I suggest, and consequently, I think, going much further towards securing its passage than by introducing wide extensions of it as regards those who are not affected. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will pass the Amendment, which does in terms do all that your Lordships intended when you passed the Second Reading of the Bill—namely, preserve the independence of those Judges who thought that their position was affected by what had taken place, and make it impossible for that to happen except by express enactment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I confess that I am not moved by any of the arguments which I have heard, but purely for tactical reasons I consent to the immolation of the lower judiciary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("of the Judge of a County Court and of a Metropolitan Police Magistrate").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after ("the") insert ("Chairman of the").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("and of a Sheriff or Sheriff Substitute").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, after ("Court of Appeal") insert ("and").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out from ("Division") to end of line 11.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Preamble:
Whereas it is provided by the Act of Settlement, 1700, that His Majesty's Judges shall not be removed from their offices save in pursuance of a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament; and that their salaries shall be ascertained and established;
And whereas it is provided by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, and previous Acts that their salaries shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund;
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in the first paragraph, to leave out "is" and insert "was". The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment. I am told that where a section has been repealed and re-enacted in another Act, you should use the past tense, and therefore that "was" should be substituted for "is". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 1, leave out ("is") and insert ("was").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RANKEILLOURmoved to omit all words in the first paragraph after "His Majesty's" and insert "Judge's commissions be made during good behaviour and that their salaries be ascertained and established, but upon the Address of both Houses of Parliament it might be lawful to remove them". The noble Lord said: I am advised that when in a Preamble there is a recital of the provisions of a former Act it is of importance to use the exact words, and I therefore use the exact words in the Act of Settlement, except for the common translation of "quamdiu se bene gesserint" into "during good behaviour". Otherwise the words are identical. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 2, leave out from ("Majesty's") to end of line 5 and insert ("Judge's commissions be made during good behaviour and that their salaries be ascertained and established. but upon the Address of both Houses of Parliament it might be lawful to remove them").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODhad given Notice that he would move, in the first paragraph, to leave out "a Resolution" and insert "an Address." The noble Viscount said: I do not propose to move this Amendment; it is covered by the Amendment already passed.
LORD RANKEILLOURmoved, in the second paragraph, to leave out "it is provided by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925," and insert "these provisions have been repealed and are now replaced by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and it is provided by that Act." The noble Lord said: This is really consequential, or partly consequential, on the substitution of "was" for "is." The provisions alluded to in the Act of Settlement are replaced by the provisions in the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and it is by that Act, confirming other Acts, that their salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund. There is no difference in substance between those words and the words of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out from ("whereas") to ("and") in line 7 and insert, ("these provisions have been repealed and are now replaced by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and it is provided by that Act").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Preamble, as amended, agreed to.

BRITISH HYDROCARBON OILS PRODUCTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill is designed to give effect to the decision and policy of His Majesty's Government that was announced by the Prime Minister on the 17th July last year—namely, to guarantee a preference over a period of years of not less than 4d. per gallon on all motor spirit produced in this country from coal, shale or peat indigenous to this country or from products thereof. The sole object is to increase the production of motor spirit in this country. Although home-produced motor spirit has in fact been exempt from payment of duty ever since the petrol tax was instituted and has thus enjoyed a preference equal to the full amount of the tax, one of the difficulties of securing the development of processes for the extraction of oil from coal has been the fact that there was no certainty that the preference would con
230
tinue, the petrol tax, as your Lordships know, being voted annually in the Budget, and consequently the heavy capital expenditure involved could not be faced.
Immediately following the announcement by the Prime Minister, Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, issued a statement that they proposed to proceed at once with the erection of a plant at Billingham designed to produce 100,000 tons, or thirty million gallons, of motor spirit by the hydrogenation of coal. The Chairman of Low Temperature Carbonisation, Limited, has also stated that partly because of this guarantee his company proposes to erect two new works. Some large gas companies are also installing benzol recovery plants, while the adoption of improved processes for recovering benzol are being considered by companies owning coke ovens.
Now I come to the provisions contained in the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the grant of a preference of not less than 4d. a gallon for ten years from 1st April, 1934, on all light hydrocarbon oils made in the United Kingdom from indigenous coal, peat, shale or their derivatives, and should like to impress upon your Lordships that this preference is certainly no new policy for, as already pointed out, home-produced motor spirit has been given a preference for some years. Neither is it a form of assistance granted to a particular industry for it applies to all processes whereby light hydrocarbon oils are produced, whether manufactured by scrubbing the gas at coke ovens, gas works, or low temperature carbonisation works, by refining tar in tar distilleries, by manufacturing spirit from shale oil or by any other process. Clause 2 gives power to the Board of Trade to collect information or to have the necessary information concerning the output of light oils furnished to them. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 is the usual provision to safeguard the disclosure of information relating to individual concerns. Subsection (1) of Clause 3 is the short title of the Bill.
With regard to subsection (2) of Clause 3, there might be some difficulty in understanding the formula as it is placed in the Bill. The subsection provides that the preference of 4d. per gallon shall continue in operation till the 31st March, 1944, or ten years from now. The

231
proviso to this subsection requires the period to be reduced each half-year after the 1st April, 1935, by one and a-half months for each penny by which the preference actually accorded exceeds 4d. per gallon, and the Act is to continue in operation until it is certified by the Treasury that the preference provided has been equivalent to 4d. per gallon for nine years from April 1, 1935, and shall expire on such certificate being given. At the present time there is a Customs duty of 8d. per gallon on motor spirit imported into this country, and no Excise duty on home-made products. The Bill provides that at all times there shall not be a difference of less than 4d. per gallon between the Customs and Excise duties. Therefore presuming the Customs duty remains at 8d. per gallon, and there is no Excise duty during the operation of this Act, the guarantee would expire in four and a half years from 1st April, 1935. The object of the formula is to enable the period to be adjusted proportionately to the actual preference given within these limits of four and a half and nine years from that date.
One word upon the plant which is to be erected at Billingham. It is estimated to cost something in the neighbourhood of £2,500,000 sterling, in addition to plant already in existence which will also be used. On last Monday morning, March 12, it was estimated that 2,080 men were employed at Billingham and that a further 11,000 men were employed by manufacturers of machinery plant, etc., so that the total number of men directly employed on the Billingham hydrogenation plant and equipment was 13,080. When this plant is in full operation it is estimated that it will provide permanent employment for about 2,500 men at the plant or in secondary employment, while the coal required each year will represent the employment of about 1,400 miners. It is anticipated that the plant will be working by March, 1935, and I feel confident that any members of your Lordships' House who know the conditions of unemployment existing in the North-Eastern area will be gratified with the results that we hope will be obtained.
The Bill binds no future Parliament of whatever denomination to accept the Act, although its amendment or repeal will require definite action by both Houses of Parliament, just as is involved by the
232
passing of the present Bill. The main object of the Bill is to try out the hydrogenation of coal and other substances on a commercial scale, and, although I cannot with certainty give your Lordships any indications of the results that will be obtained, I can say that if the scheme is, as I anticipate it will be, a success, the future potentialities of the industry are unlimited, and it might well add a new life to the coal industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Temple-more.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Issue of capital by undertakers.
1.—(1) The Board or Trade may, on an application made in that behalf by any undertakers being a company, authorise the applicants, notwithstanding anything in any enactment relating to them but subject to such conditions as the Board think fit to impose, to offer for subscription by the public any share capital to be issued for the purposes of their gas undertaking after the commencement of this Act before, or in lieu of, offering that capital by public auction or tender.
(2) Where, on an application under this section, it appears to the Board that the share capital of the applicants, being capital of the same class as that to which the application relates, is quoted on the London Stock Exchange and has been dealt in on that exchange during the month immediately preceding the application, the Board shall not authorise the capital to be offered as aforesaid at a price less than the average market price of the applicants' share capital of that class during that month, and, in ascertaining the said average market price, the mean daily quotation recorded in the London Stock Exchange daily list of officially quoted securities shall be taken, but due allowance shall be made for any accruing dividend.
LORD TEMPLEMOBEmoved, in subsection (2), before the first "quoted,"

233
to insert "officially." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to make it clear that only stocks or shares which are officially quoted on the Stock Exchange fall under the procedure in subsection (2).
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, after ("is") insert ("officially").—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I have been asked by Lord Bertie of Thame, who is unfortunately unable to be present, to move his Amendments for him, and therefore if my arguments are not as cogent as they should be I hope your Lordships will excuse me. On the Amendment moved by Lord Templemore, to insert the word "officially," might I have a little more information as to why unofficial figures are not to be allowed to count? I have later on an Amendment to put in "unofficial," and if the noble Lord will give me some good reasons now why the word "official" only should stand I shall not be obliged to move my Amendment.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I hoped that the noble Lord would perhaps take this course. The reason why I propose to insert "officially" and why I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord is that the share capital of the gas companies which are included in the Supplementary List, that is, the list of securities which are not officially quoted on the Stock Exchange, is very infrequently dealt in. It appears from a Supplementary List of March 3, for instance, that in many cases dealings, not only of gas companies but of other companies, had not taken place for many months and in some cases for nearly a year. His Majesty's Government are accordingly inclined to think that in these cases the Stock Exchange dealing is not a reliable guide as to the actual price of these shares. Therefore, they prefer that they should fall under the procedure of subsection (3).
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I understand the noble Lord to say that the reason for his Amendment is that they want the figures to be as up-to-date as possible, and not possibly, six or three months old.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Yes, that is the reason.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Limits of renewal fund.
4.—(1) Where any undertakers, being a company, are authorised by any enactment to establish and maintain a renewal fund subject to certain limitations, the annual contributions to, and the amount of, the fund shall, instead of being limited as provided by that or any other enactment applying to the undertakers, be limited as follows, that is to say,—

(a) the aggregate amount contributed to the fund in any year shall not exceed one-half per cent, of the capital of the undertakers; and

(b) subject to the provisions of this section, the amount of the fund shall not exceed five per cent, of the capital of the undertakers.

(3) In this section the expression "capital," in relation to any undertakers, means the aggregate amount of the paid up share capital of those undertakers, created and issued for the purposes of their gas undertaking, of any premiums paid in respect thereof, and of any sums which have been raised by the undertakers for the said purposes on mortgage or by the creation and issue of debenture stock and have not been paid off.
(5) Nothing in this section shall apply to any undertakers who carry on, or are authorised by any enactment or by their memorandum of association to carry on, any business in addition to that of a gas undertaking, unless the accounts of the undertakers are in the opinion of the Board of Trade so kept as to enable the amount of their capital, as defined by this section, to be ascertained.
LORD TEMPLEMOREmoved, in subsection (1), after "shall," to insert "subject to the provisions of this section." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on my Amendment to subsection (5) of Clause 4, which I will explain, if your Lordships agree, when I get to that Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, after ("shall") insert ("subject to the provisions of this section ").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMOREmoved, in subsection (3), after "undertaking," to insert "and not redeemed." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is required to make it clear that any share capital which has been redeemed shall not be included in the expression "capital" for the purposes of this clause. Such capital, although it has been created and issued, has been redeemed either by paying off or by the issue of other capital

235
in place thereof, and is not live share capital of the undertakers unless it is reissued under the provisions of Clause 3 and the First Schedule to the Bill, and ought not to be part of the capital on which the contribution to, and maximum of, the renewal fund is based.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, after ("undertaking") insert ("and not redeemed").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMOREmoved, in subsection (3), to leave out "thereof" and insert "of share capital created and issued for the said purposes." The noble Lord said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, leave out ("thereof") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMOREmoved, in subsection (5), after "Nothing in this section," to insert:
"(a) shall affect the right of any undertakers under any enactment to contribute to their renewal fund in any year, or to maintain the fund at, an amount larger than that authorised by the provisions of this section; or
(b)"
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment to which I referred just now. It proposes that nothing in Clause 4 shall affect the right of any undertakers under any enactment to contribute to their renewal fund in any year, or to maintain the fund at an amount larger than that authorised by the clause. The Wrottesley Committee were insistent that their proposals shall not restrict powers which undertakers already possess, and, although it was not clear from their Report that this general principle applied in the case of contributions to, or the maximum of, the renewal fund, the Board think it is desirable that any existing powers in excess of these granted by the clause should be saved.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, after ("section") insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Publication of prices by undertakers and consequences thereof.
5.—(1) Any thermal unit undertakers may, at any time after the commencement
236
of this Act and from time to time thereafter, give notice in writing to every local authority stating the price per therm at which they are prepared for the time being to supply gas to persons who do not enter into a special contract for the supply thereof:
Provided that—
(3)Where a notice has at any time been given under this section by any thermal unit undertakers, the following provisions of this subsection shall apply to them, that is to say,—

(b) the undertakers shall exhibit and keep exhibited in all their showrooms and offices which are open to the public a copy of the latest notice given by them to the local authority or local authorities under this section, and shall, whenever they publish any general statement of their charges in respect of gas, include therein the price or prices stated in the said latest notice;

(c) if the undertakers fail to comply with the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph, they shall for each offence he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds or, in the case of a continuing offence, five pounds for each day during which the default continues;

LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), after "who", to insert "are entitled to a supply of gas from those undertakers and". The noble Lord said: Clause 5 (1) permits thermal unit undertakers to publish a price at which they are prepared to supply gas, but there are usually some potential consumers of gas within the authorised limits of supply of undertakers who are a considerable distance from existing mains and who cannot demand a supply under the provisions of Section 11 of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1871. Without this Amendment such persons might acquire a right to demand a supply if the undertakers publish a notice that they are prepared to supply gas at a certain price, and the Amendment is proposed to make it clear that any such person who is under the existing law unable to demand a supply shall not acquire such a right by reason of the publication of the notice.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 15, after ("who") insert ("are entitled to a supply of gas from those undertakers and").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMOREmoved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (3), after "in",

237
to insert "a conspicuous position at".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is proposed to make it clear that one copy only of the notice, exhibited in a conspicuous place, shall be necessary in each set of showrooms and offices. Fears have been expressed that under the clause as it stands a copy of the notice would have to be exhibited in every room of a showroom or office to which the public have access, which would, of course, be an intolerable nuisance to the concern that had to do it.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 5, after ("in") insert ("a conspicuous position at").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLEmoved to add to paragraph (c) of subsection (3) "after conviction therefor." The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the "Publication of prices by undertakers and consequences thereof", and the paragraph which I wish to amend says:
"(c) if the undertakers fail to comply with the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph, they shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds or in the case of a continuing offence, five pounds for each day during which the default continues."
As I read paragraph (c), unless my Amendment is accepted undertakers who are found to be guilty of a continuing offence may have to pay not only from the date of conviction but from the date at which the offence is alleged or proved to have begun. Is that quite fair?
First of all, an undertaker may quite genuinely think he is keeping within the law. It may be a border-line case, and he may consider that he is complying with all the rules and regulations. It would be very hard in such circumstances that he should suddenly find himself liable to a penalty of perhaps £5 a day for some months from the beginning of the offence. It might be also that the case against him was for some reason delayed over some weeks or even months, and he might be liable to this continuing penalty for a considerable period of time. No doubt the noble Lord will say that we must trust the Court. I am all for trusting the Court, but I think it is much better to put it into an Amendment like this, which, after all, does not largely diminish the option of the Court, and
238
certainly may prevent an undertaker from being unjustly convicted.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, at end insert ("after conviction therefor"). — (Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. This is the usual form of such a clause, and if examples are required I could give the noble Lord a good many. For instance, Section 7 of the Business Names Act, Section 15 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, and a certain number of others. The result of the Amendment would be that the penalty for a continuing offence would only apply where, even after a conviction for failure to exhibit the notice, still no notice was exhibited. A clause in this form is found more rarely, for example, in Section 6 of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, and Section 8 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920. I also resist the Amendment on its merits, as its effect would almost certainly be to multiply the number of prosecutions required to ensure compliance with the Act.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: If the noble Lord will not accept the Amendment I am afraid I must ask leave to withdraw it; but I thought your Lordships' House was an institution to make precedents, not to follow them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Imposition of statutory powers and duties on non-statutory undertakers.
(4) If any non-statutory undertakers upon whom a notice has been served under this section fail to make an application as required by the notice or withdraw or fail to proceed with the application or submit an order which is not approved by the Board of Trade, the Board—

(a) shall themselves prepare a special order containing the provisions required by the notice and such other provisions (being provisions which those undertakers could have included in an order submitted in pursuance of the notice) as the Board may think necessary or expedient; and

(b) shall send by post to those undertakers a copy of the draft order prepared by them and take steps to make the order as if those undertakers had applied for it to he made under Section ten of the principal Act;

239
and the provisions of subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the said Section ten shall apply accordingly, except that the reference to the undertakers concerned in Section eighty of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, as applied by the said subsection (3) shall be construed as a reference to the Board of Trade.

(5) Where a notice under this section has been served on any non-statutory undertakers, the Board of Trade may—

(a) serve upon those undertakers a demand in writing requiring them to furnish the Board with such returns and other information relating to their gas undertaking as the Board may think necessary or expedient; and

(b) authorise in writing any person to enter at all reasonable times any premises occupied by those undertakers for the purpose of inspecting any works used by them for the purpose of their gas undertaking.

LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next three Amendments are drafting Amendments. The order is a draft order until it has been made by the Board of Trade after approval by Parliament.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: With your Lordships' permission, I shall put the following three Amendments en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("special") and insert ("draft")
Page 11, line 20, leave out ("an") and insert ("a draft")
Page 11, line 23, leave out ("special") and insert ("draft").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection 4, after "by," to insert "registered." The noble Lord said: The clause as it stands at present says that the Board shall serve upon those undertakers connected with the draft order a notice by post. The post is very efficiently run by the present Government, but letters do not always arrive, and if you are going to send the copy of a draft order to undertakers you should send it, surely, by registered post and not by ordinary post. That is the purpose of the Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 30, after ("by") insert ("registered").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The Government do not think there is any necessity
240
in practice for proof that this draft order has been sent, but I have been rather unkind to my noble friend up to now and he is so persuasive that I shall be glad to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection 5, after "person," to insert "after production of his authority if so requested." The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment is that, where a notice has been served on any non-statutory undertakers, the Board of Trade may
"authorise in writing any person to enter at all reasonable times any premises occupied by those undertakers for the purpose of inspecting any works used by them for the purpose of their gas undertaking."
What I wish to do is to insert after the word "person" the words "after production of his authority if so requested." I think it is not unreasonable, if someone says "I want to inspect your premises, and I am so and so," that you should take some steps to find out whether he is the person he declares himself to be. People might come in with bad intent to facilitate a burglary, and I think that if a person is asked for his credentials he should have some sort of card in his pocket to show he is the person authorised in writing to enter these premises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 9, after ("person") insert ("after production of his authority if so requested").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid my noble friend is not going to be so successful this time. This Amendment appears to be unnecessary, and I am afraid I cannot accept it. Anybody who came around to inspect premises would no doubt produce a card or letter of some sort to show who he was, and I submit that no offence would be committed by refusing to admit a person until he had furnished evidence that he was the person authorised to enter by the production of his written authority.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: In answer to my noble friend my distinct recollection is that in some Motor Acts it is distinctly stated that no one may enter your garage and inspect a car for the purpose of seeing if an offence has been committed unless he produces authority for so doing.

241
With that excellent precedent before him, my noble friend who is so fond of precedents should accept this Amendment, but since he does not accept it I would ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: The next Amendment is consequential on the one which has already been accepted and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 31, after ("by") insert ("registered").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Appointment of gas examiners.
(2) on the application of not less than five consumers of gas supplied within the area of a local authority, being gas which is required by any enactment for the time being in force to conform to certain standards of calorific value, purity, pressure or composition, Quarter Sessions, if satisfied that no gas examiner has been appointed for that area or that the testing of gas in the area has been imperfectly attended to, may appoint a competent and impartial person to be the gas examiner far that area for such period and on such other terms as they think fit.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, in subsection (2), to substitute "twenty-five" for "five." The noble. Lord said: This Amendment deals with the appointment of gas examiners. The local authority may
"appoint a competent and impartial person to be the gas examiner for their area…."
and the Bill goes on in subsection (2) to say:
"On the application of not less than five consumers of gas supplied within the area of a local authority…."
there can be put up to the local authority a demand that "a competent and impartial person" be appointed gas examiner for that area. I submit, in view of the thousands and thousands of gas consumers in an area, that to put the number at five is putting it unduly low. For the sake of the local authorities themselves the number is too low. They are going to be approached by every five people who have a fad or think they have a grievance, and for that reason
242
I am moving to insert "twenty-live" instead of "five." It might be that fifteen or twenty would be a better number, but I submit for the noble Lord's consideration that five is an unduly small number, and will lead to a great deal of correspondence and some expense.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 24, leave out ("five") and insert ("twenty-five").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. We consider it is very desirable that gas should be tested to ensure that gas consumers get the full measure of heating value for which they pay and that there should be an appeal against the failure of a local authority to appoint a gas examiner or to see that he makes a proper number of tests. It is obviously much easier to get five consumers to join in such an application than to get five times that number. In fact, it may be very difficult to get twenty-five consumers to join in and the Board of Trade think that the present number should be adhered to. Your Lordships know how difficult it is in any community to get people to join in any matter. In answer to the noble Lord's remark about such a lot of gas examiners being appointed, I may say that in the last report received from the gas referees it appears that gas examiners have been appointed in only 881 local authority areas out of the 1,633 areas in which examiners should be appointed. I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment, leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Amendment as to deficiency in calorific value.
(2) Whenever, for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection, the average calorific value of the gas supplied in any quarter in an examination area by any thermal unit undertakers is to be ascertained, it shall be ascertained by the gas referees or (after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine) by the Board of Trade from the reports of tests prescribed under subsection (1) of Section five of the principal Act or specially prescribed by them for the purpose:
Provided that, where separate tests of samples of gas taken on separate occasions are prescribed, no average calorific value shall be deemed to be ascertained, unless it is ascertained from the reports of not less than six such tests made in that quarter.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "are," to insert" the only test for calorific value.' The noble Lord said: This Amendment is necessary to make it clear that six tests in a quarter shall not be the minimum number for the determination of an average calorific value in cases where means other than "separate tests of samples of gas taken on separate occasions" are prescribed. There are means other than by separate tests by which the average calorific value of gas supplied can be ascertained and if such means are prescribed in conjunction with separate tests the proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 12 should not operate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 34, after ("are") insert ("the only tests for calorific value").(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 (Notice to be given by gas consumers before quitting premises):
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which was accepted in Clause 7. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, after ("by") insert ("registered").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Use of anti-fluctuators and valves.
21.—(1) Where a consumer of gas supplied by undertakers uses the gas for working or supplying an engine gas compressor or other similar apparatus (hereafter in this section referred to as a "compressor") he shall, if so required by the undertakers by notice in writing, fix in a suitable position and keep in use an appliance provided by him which will effectually prevent pressure fluctuation in the supply mains and any other inconvenience or danger being caused to other consumers of gas by reason that they and the first mentioned consumer are supplied with gas from the same source.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, in subsection (1), after "fix," to insert "not less than eight weeks after the service of the notice". The noble Lord said: Clause 21 says:
244
"Where a consumer of gas supplied by undertakers uses the gas for working or supplying an engine gas compressor ….he shall, if so required by the undertakers by notice in writing, fix in a suitable position and keep in use an appliance provided by him which will effectually prevent pressure fluctuation in the supply mains ….
That may be an excellent proposal, and one which is legitimately in favour of the undertaker, but in the clause as it stands there is no time-limit—that is, they could say if they liked: "Within a week or three days you have to fix one of these compressors". It is rather a complicated form of instrument, and I want to ensure that a little breathing space is given to the consumer of gas who is using it for supplying an engine. I suggest that after he has received the notice he should have two months' breathing space before he is liable to a penalty for not having fixed the compressor in position. I do not set any great store by eight weeks more than any other particular time, but I think something ought to be put in so as to enable a man to make his arrangements. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 11, after ("fix") insert ("not less than eight weeks after the service of the notice").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. In the circumstances contemplated by the clause the necessary apparatus to prevent inconvenience to other consumers or danger to life and property should be fixed as soon as practicable, and this is the effect of the common form clause now frequently inserted in Gas Bills and Orders. My advisers are not aware of any complaint with regard to the operation of this clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Expenses and powers of the Board of Trade]:
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) For subsection (2) of Section sixteen of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following subsection:
"(2) Any rule made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such rule is laid before it praying that the rule

245
may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new rule."
The noble Lord said: I believe the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, is going more or less to accept this Amendment, but he prefers the form in which he has put it down in his own name. I am very glad that he has agreed to the substance of this Amendment which is of considerable importance, and I thank him.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 4, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The Amendment which I have put down is in words which we consider the best for the purpose, and I hope my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) For subsection (2) of Section sixteen of the principal Act, there shall be substituted the following subsection:
"(2) Any rules made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and shall cease to have effect if either House, within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after the date on which the rules are laid before it, resolves that the rules shall be annulled, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new rules."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to the control to be exercised by Parliament over rules made under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920. By Section 16 (2) of that Act any rules are to be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and shall have the same effect as if enacted in that Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 4, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Interpretation.
25.—(1) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them:—
"Non-statutory undertakers" means companies, bodies or persons who, though not authorised by any enactment (other
246
than the Public Health Act, 1875) to supply gas, are engaged in supplying gas to the public, and for that purpose make use of pipes or mains laid in any street as defined by the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847:
Provided that if any such companies, bodies or persons, not being local authorities or rural district councils, show to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that they are not primarily engaged in supplying gas, or gas and water, or gas and electricity, or gas, water and electricity, to the public, they shall not be deemed to be non-statutory undertakers;
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in the definition of "non-statutory undertakers," to leave out "street as defined by the Gas Works Clauses Act, 1847 "and insert" highway." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really a drafting one. It is necessary because the definition of "street" in the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, is not appropriate to non-statutory undertakers who have no authorised limits for the supply of gas. It is thought that the inclusion of the word "highway" is sufficient for the purposes of this definition.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 19, leave out ("street as defined by the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847 ") and insert ("highway").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

AIR FORCE RESERVE (PILOTS AND OBSERVERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the Bill to which I venture to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is introduced for the purpose of enabling airmen-pilots of the Reserve to, be given the same course of training as that which is given to officer-pilots. At present the maximum period of reserve training is, for officers twenty-four days and for airmen twelve days. For the ordinary airmen reservists it is considered that a period of twelve days is sufficient, but that period of twelve days is not considered to be sufficient for the training of airmen-pilots. The need for the increase in this period is due to the

247
introduction in April, 1933, of a more intensive flying training course. This new scheme is an economical one and will mean a substantial saving in cost. The training has certainly been generally improved. That training has been carried out for the most part in light aircraft, but the full benefit of the courses cannot be secured for airmen pilots if the period of training is restricted to twelve days. Last year six out of the twenty-two airmen were unable to complete their training in tins period. The proposed period of twenty-four days is a maximum and the full period should not, as a rule, be needed. I think your Lordships will realise that it is necessary that there should he a margin in case the course of training should be interrupted by bad weather or by some unforeseen circumstance.
The additional cost, which is based on the present number of reserve airmen, is £120. The Bill gives the Air Council power to make certain other changes in the organisation of the training of the Reserve. Those changes are, first of all, a provision for a new class of airman-observer. These men will need the same maximum period of training as pilots, which is twenty-four days. In addition the Bill provides for a system from the very beginning of training for men who are not already qualified as pilots or observers. They will want a longer period of training than men who are already qualified. The Bill allows a maximum period of six months for the first year of training, and for subsequent training twenty-four days. I should like to inform your Lordships at the same time that the extended periods of training will not be applicable, unless they are accepted voluntarily, first of all to men who are already in the Reserve, and secondly, to men who are in the regular Air Force at the date of the passing of the Bill and may be transferred subsequently to the Reserve.
The number of airmen pilots in the Reserve is determined by the number of airmen pilots who pass to the Reserve each year from the active list. At present the total number in the Reserve is only about fifty-five, of whom not more than about thirty-five are expected to do their training this year. The number, of course, will tend to increase as the years go by. The training scheme for airmen who are not already
248
qualified as pilots or qualified as observers is not expected to come into operation before the end of the coming financial year. The reason for this is, generally speaking, that various details still have to be settled. Those details are, for instance, the localities where the men are to be trained, the total numbers who are to be trained, and similar considerations. The extra cost for the coming financial year is therefore limited to £120, the additional cost involved by the extra clays of training for which the Bill provides. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARBITRATION BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).
Clause 5:
Provisions relating to umpires.
(3) At any time after an umpire has entered on a reference in lieu of the arbitrators, whether under the provisions of this section or otherwise, any of the arbitrators may give evidence or act as an advocate on behalf of any party to the reference.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, In consequence of opinions expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin, I proposed in this clause to insert some words showing that in cases where an arbitrator having shed his power of arbitration gave evidence he should be allowed to do so, and to leave out the words "or act as an advocate"; but on consideration of the whole clause it appears that it would be unwise to throw doubt on the decision which was given in the case where he was allowed to appear as an advocate or to separate the two commercial cases which were then tried. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the subsection so as to leave the existing law, whatever it may be, to continue in those cases until or unless one or other of them is overruled in another Court. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3. line 38, leave out subsection (3). —(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Statement of case by arbitrator or umpire.
9.—(1) An arbitrator or umpire may, and shall if so directed by the Court, state:—

(a) any question of law arising in the course of the reference; or

(b) an award (including an interim award) or any part of an award,

in the form of a special case for the decision of the Court.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "including an interim award." The noble Lord said: My Lords, This is really anticipating an addition which I propose to move to Clause 20 to show that a reference to an award shall mean also an interim award. It would be ludicrous otherwise, because in many cases a large amount of the claim may not be in dispute and the rest may have to go to trial. If the award was to be held up until the final settlement was made the arbitration might become almost futile. Attention was called to the matter in an Amendment which was put on the Paper by my noble friend Viscount Bertie, but he was not here to move that Amendment. Therefore, I now move to leave out the words "including an interim award" with a view to clearing the way for a later Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out ("including an interim award").—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Limitation of time for commencing arbitration proceedings.
(5) Any such notice as is mentioned in subsection (4) of this section may be served either:—

(a) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served; or

(b) by leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode in England of that person; or

(c) by sening it by post in a registered letter addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode in England;

and where a notice is sent by post in manner prescribed by paragraph (c) service thereof shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (5), immediately after paragraph (c), to insert" as well as in any other manner provided in the arbitration agreement." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move that these words be inserted to prevent the possibility of a submission to arbitration where it was agreed that reference should be made for certain purposes being overruled by the precise terms of the clause. Therefore, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and I myself, made statements that the proper manner in which to provide for this was in the agreement itself, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 23, at beginning insert ("as well as in any other manner provided in the arbitration agreement").—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, the next Amendment on the Paper is to correct a clerical error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("applied") and insert ("applies").—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Citation, interpretation, application, repeal and commencement]:
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to insert after subsection (2):
"(3) References in this Act and in the principal Act to an award shall include references to an interim award."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the subsection to which I have already alluded. I beg to move the insertion of the words on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 10, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

DISARMAMENT NEGOTIATIONS.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD rose to call attention to the present situation of the disarmament negotiations, with special reference to the need for expediting a

251
Disarmament Convention by the offer of a collective guarantee on the part of all signatories thereto: and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not easy for me to ask your Lordships' patience for further debate at this late hour and I only do so because of the debate which took place in another place last night. I think it is perfectly clear from the nature of that debate, and from the statements that were made by the Lord Privy Seal and by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that the position in regard to disarmament is graver at this moment than it has ever been before. That debate, taken part in by Ministers, evoked a series of statements to which very few people can take exception, but neither of the Ministers concerned, speaking on behalf of the Government, was prepared to draw, in practice or in fact, any conclusions which ought to have followed the statements which they made.
Yesterday in this House—a crowded House, if I may say so—your Lordships spent three hours in discussing how to make war; to-night I ask you for a short time to discuss how to make peace. I do not expect that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, will be able to make any full statement with regard to the return of the Lord Privy Seal, but I do ask him to permit pressure to be brought to bear upon the Government as to the verdict which they will have to give during the next few weeks. I think it is sometimes better to bring that pressure to bear before the verdict is given than to let the Government arrive at a final conclusion and then try to bring pressure when it is too late. If the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is unable to make any further statement as to the nature of the negotiations in which the Lord Privy Seal has taken part, I am sure he will forgive me for saying that we shall expect him, as representing the Foreign Office in this House, to be able to interpret to us clearly and unmistakably the meaning of the British Note which was issued in January of this year. I propose to draw his attention, if I may, to certain statements which are made in that Note, and to ask him if it is possible for us to have further amplification of its meaning.
I do not propose to roam over all the details of the Disarmament Convention. I shall have nothing to say with regard to
252
the size of guns or tanks or any of the instruments of war. I propose to narrow my remarks to one issue and one issue alone, which seems to me to form the key problem of the disarmament question. That is the issue of security. I shall put it to the noble Lord that the debate in another place last night has made it perfectly clear that security now takes precedence of disarmament. There is no reason that I can see why the Government, having made the speech which it has made through the mouth of the Lord Privy Seal last night, pointing out the folly of competitive armaments and pointing out the disaster which will result if no Disarmament Convention is signed, should not be prepared to make a further advance towards proposing a collective guarantee of this Disarmament Convention, which is now being held up because there is not sufficient confidence amongst the nations to enable it to be signed. If any such reason exists I hope the noble Earl will tell us what it is.
I say frankly that I welcome the second British Note which has been issued; but I do not know why the contents of that second British Note should not have appeared in the first British Note. It seems to me that valuable time has been lost between the publication of those two Notes, and dangerous political events have occurred in Europe during that time, which events could have been prevented if the British Government had included in the first Note the contents which appeared in the second. The plea which I want to enter in this House to-night is this: Is it not possible, with regard to this question of guaranteeing a Disarmament Convention, to act this time before it is too late? During the last fifteen years repeated mistakes have been made in the international world owing to the fact that over and over again wise political policies have been adopted when it has been too late for them to be of any advantage. The case of Reparations is known to everyone. We brought political confusion upon Europe, and we brought economic tragedy upon our own nation and upon the whole world, by acting in respect to Reparations when it was too late for good consequences to result. Precisely the same thing has happened with regard to granting equality to Germany. It has been abundantly clear throughout that, unless the principle of equality were

253
conceded to Germany, there could only result a further tightening of the complication of the European situation. Yet in this House, in the month of May of last year, the noble Viscount who leads this House made a statement which has had, I think, the most disastrous political consequences.
I propose to read the statement which he then made; and I wish he were here, because I feel it difficult to make a reference to his speech in his absence. Speaking on May 11 of last year, the noble Viscount said:
"It is not our view that the right way to achieve equality of status is to let Germany come half-way up the stairs and the other countries go half-way down and meet on the landing"
—a disastrous statement which had some of its consequences in the leaving of the Disarmament Conference by Germany. Now in the British Note nine months later we have a statement directly contrary to the statement which was made by the noble Viscount in this House. The British Note now says:
"⁢. having regard to the principle of equality of rights, agreement is found to involve alongside of disarmament in some quarters some measure of rearmament in others."
That is a statement made on behalf of the same Government within nine months of the speech which was made by the noble Viscount, which proves the infinite danger of this Government taking steps, which have been clearly right throughout, but taking them too late for those steps to have any good consequences.
Is the same thing to happen in this case with regard to a guarantee? Are we now going to have a position in which the guaranteeing of this Disarmament Convention—which, if it were offered at this moment, would bear fruitful results for the peace of the world—is going to be contemplated only when the guaranteeing of the Convention will be too late? Whatever step is taken at the present moment, it must involve all the nations, including our own, facing up to this question of the collective security of the world. I am not pressing the question of collective security upon His Majesty's Government at this moment in relation to questions of law and order. I am not asking the Government to make a statement developing the principle of security in relation to
254
Manchuria, the South American frontiers or matters of that sort. What I am asking the noble Earl is that he shall make some statement as to why it is that the Government are not prepared to take the initiative in offering a collective guarantee of this Disarmament Convention.
May I refer him to the actual clauses which occurred in the British Note? First we start with supervision. Therein we have made some headway. In the first British Note what was stated with regard to supervision was vague and unsatisfactory. That was pointed out to the Government at the time, and now in the second Note the clauses which deal with the supervision of, armaments nave been strengthened and improved; but strengthened and improved when a great deal of disquiet has been created between nations, which need never have occurred. But supposing you do supervise armaments by international consent, and supposing a moment of time comes when the Preparatory Commission has to report that there has been a breach of the Disarmament Treaty by some nation or other, what then is to take place, if we do not grasp the opportunity at this moment? We say to France: "We ask you, and we ask other nations, to do something now—to disarm, to remove from yourselves that quality of security upon which you previously relied for the organisation of your nation," and then we give her no guarantee that in the event of her taking a step towards disarmament now, we shall aid her if need be. There is a neighbour of France under a régime which France and many other countries of the world view with grave distrust, but we make no guarantee that in the event of the Preparatory Commission reporting a breach of the Treaty, any kind of security will be available.
Look at the words again. First we concede the principle; then we say in Clause 9 that we are willing to extend some kind of consultalive action from breaches of the Pact of Paris to breaches which may occur of the Disarmament Convention itself. We even go so far in Clause 9 as to envisage that not only shall we consult, but that we shall keep in close touch in order that we may do whatever is right and possible to prevent or to remedy any violation of so important a Treaty. These words to-day

255
offer some hope, until we come to consider in what way the Government proposes to interpret that phrase. First we come to a clause in the Disarmament Note which refers to the Treaty of Locarno, and I should like to ask the noble Earl if be will tell this House in what way the Government intend the Treaty of Locarno and the principle for which that Treaty stands are to be applied to the Disarmament Convention.
Clause 9 says that nations should
"expressly reaffirm existing obligations to maintain peace under such instruments as the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Pact of Paris and the Treaties of Locarno."
It goes on to say:
"His Majesty's Government cannot doubt that if such Pacts were expressly entered into "—
that is, including the Locarno Treaty—
"in connection with the Convention…their practical value for the purpose of creating a sense of security will not be disputed."
What exactly is the significance of including the Treaty of Locarno as one of the Pacts, the principles of which are to be applied to this Disarmament Convention? If it has any real meaning it might be a meaning of good, because the Treaty of Locarno does definitely envisage the taking of forcible action in the event of a breach of the Treaty. Therefore if any significance is to be attached to the inclusion of the Treaty of Locarno, it might be some good. The clause goes on to say:
"They (the Government) have a right to expect that⁢any violation of them (the pledges given) would be met in the most practical and effective way by immediately assembling Governments and States in support of international peace and agreement against the disturber and the violator."
All those phrases begin to offer some hope until we come to the interpretation placed upon them by our own Foreign Minister.
I ask any of your Lordships to consider yourself as a Frenchman reading these paragraphs from which I have quoted, hoping thereby to get some indication of the intention of the Government of this country in the event of a breach of the Disarmament Convention being reported, and then in a few days reading this speech by our Foreign Minister. Sir John Simon, following upon those clauses that I have read, says this:
"I may be asked, is this a new commitment? If by a new commitment' is meant
256
a new undertaking given in advance to adopt a definite repressive action in ignorance of the circumstances hereafter arising which may be alleged to call for it, the answer is 'No.' This country will do its utmost faithfully to fulfil any obligations…but it is not the Anglo-Saxon habit to make defined engagements for undefined circumstances. We are entitled to say that our past history shows that when the occasion arises this country has not been found wanting."
A report by a Preparatory Commission, set up to supervise the armaments of the world, that there has been a breach of the Treaty, is no undefined circumstance at all. It is a perfectly clear breach of the Treaty. What interpretation can France and other countries place upon the clauses which appear in the British Note, if that be the interpretation placed upon them by our own Foreign Minister? Did we not have that consultation in the Sino-Japanese dispute? Did not the nations spend months of time in reasoning together as to what they would do? Did they not come to an unanimous verdict as to where the guilt lay with regard to that dispute? And what was the good of that consultation, and what help has it been to China, or to law and Order?
Did not the nations consult together in 1914, and has not Mr. Lloyd George made it perfectly clear that the Anglo-Saxon policy of keeping our hands free, and of refraining from defining, in advance, what this nation would do, was one of the contributory factors why that war came about? There was uncertainty as to where this country stood with regard to the obligations into which this country had entered. With that experience in the past, and the Sino-Japanese experience, how can you expect the other countries of the world to feel sufficient confidence in the interpretation placed upon the Convention by Sir John Simon, to bring about any hope of disarmament at all, far less of their signing a Disarmament Treaty? It is a matter of great congratulation to the whole world at the moment that both America and Russia are nearer to the League of Nations to-day than they have been at any time. I have little doubt that it is increasingly possible to bring about a modus vivendi with those two great nations, so that we may have some means of definitely guaranteeing, not necessarily at the present time all the law and order

257
of the world, but this particular Treaty, which if it be not signed must have such disastrous consequences, as was pointed out by the Lord Privy Seal in his speech on the subject last night. If there is no collective guarantee of this Treaty there can be no hope of disarmament whatever.
The word "failure" has been spoken by the Lord Privy Seal and other Ministers in the House of Commons in the last few days. I do not personally believe that there is any reason to expect failure, but I am confident that it will occur unless this step which I am arguing for is taken—namely, that we will give precedence to security over disarmament, and with respect to this one Treaty alone we will, at the moment, give a collective guarantee. I only wish to say one other thing. When I beg for security as precedent to disarmament I am not merely thinking of the security of other nations. I am thinking equally of the security of our own nation. The Lord Privy Seal, speaking last night, made this statement:
"If the Conference fails it will not only be the security of this or that Continental country which is at stake, but our own security. If that ho so, how many of us believe that even the manifold increase in our existing armaments in this country would alone suffice to ensure our national security? I myself have no such belief and no such faith. Competitive armaments in themselves are no security. We had competitive armaments before 1914, and they availed us nothing as a preventive of war."
It is this country as much as the other countries of the world that requires the security that would come from a collectively-guaranteed disarmament. Geographically and economically we require it, and we cannot afford to enter into competitive expenditure with other countries in order to build up armaments. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl, who replies for the Government, will explain what significance is to be attached to the quotations I have given from this Disarmament Note, and I beg that when the Government give their final decision on receiving the Notes from other countries which they are at the moment expecting, they will no longer hesitate to place our guarantee behind this Disarmament Convention.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I think the House ought to be grateful to my noble friend for his energy
258
and tenacity in bringing this question before our notice. Undoubtedly, the position is serious, though I think there are some features in it which are less serious than they have been. I confess I was very much cheered by the debate in the other House to which he has referred. I thought there was a more general diffusion of the point of view which some of us have pressed over and over again for the last few years. I thought there was a decided advance even in the quarters which have hitherto been least friendly to the views we take, and it is only if such an advance as that takes place that we can hope for a really satisfactory policy in this matter.
The present position, if I understand it rightly, is that we have made certain disarmament proposals. I am not going to discuss them now. They are not, from my point of view, satisfactory proposals. I think myself the Government would have been well advised to make much more drastic proposals. I believe that they would have got much more out of it if they had done that. I believe that the difficulty of reaching an agreement on those drastic proposals is greatly exaggerated, and I am quite sure that if you desire to lead opinion in this matter it is not sufficient merely to seek what you believe will be acceptable to others; it is much more important to state, and state plainly and clearly, what you believe to be essential yourself for the situation.
Still, though these proposals are not satisfactory—indeed, I think they are not even what the Government would desire, if I understand their spokesmen rightly —they are something, and the question arises whether they will be accepted. Great steps have been taken to induce the Germans to accept them. Very considerable advances have been made towards the German point of view. My noble friend has just quoted the observations of the Leader of the House, in which he repudiated the conception of reaching equality by German rearmament. Of course that was a commonplace. It was not my noble friend only who said that, it was said repeatedly by other spokesmen of the Government at that time. I do not complain of their changing their view: that must always happen when you are dealing with a changing situation. Still, you have in fact made this very considerable bid, if I may call it so, for German acceptance; and though I did not

259
agree with almost anything in the speech of the right honourable gentleman who sits, I think, for the Epping Division in the other House [Mr. Churchill], I did have some sympathy for his proposition that there was a danger of the Disarmament Conference resulting in nothing more than the rearmament of Germany. I hope that that will not turn out to be the case.
Well, in order to ascertain what the views of the Governments are on these subjects we have had the journey of the Lord Privy Seal. I am quite certain that the Government were extremely well advised in selecting their emissary for that purpose. No one could have been better, and we shall hear, I suppose, ultimately what have been the definite results. But whatever they have been, I feel extremely sure that no one else could have got any better results than he has got. We are not told what the results are, but it is admitted that they are precarious at present. I am not quite sure whether he said anything—he was very careful, naturally, as to what he would say until he could speak fully—but I rather think he intimated that it was not certain that the Germans were satisfied. That is a very astonishing proposition. No doubt one may have doubts about the reasonableness of those who direct German policy, or some of them at the present moment—and certainly General Goering's recent speech has greatly increased those doubts. At this time of day for a gentleman to get up, even in Germany, and rejoice, as he apparently did, in Germany being not only a military nation but a militarist nation, is certainly a very astonishing proposition. I really cannot understand the complaints that you so frequently hear from Germany that she is so misunderstood, and that people so misjudge her, and that we are always ready to take the worst view of everything she says and does, when we have a speech of that kind which, if it had been dictated by the enemies of Germany, could not have been more calculated to produce a thoroughly had impression on the public mind of the world.
Therefore, I admit it is a doubtful question as to what the German attitude is going to be. I must admit also that our treatment of the Germans during this controversy has not been one to en
260
courage moderation. We have apparently never conceded to argument what the Germans want, only to threats of some kind. In the first six months of the Conference the Germans pressed constantly that the question of equality should be considered, and then finally, at the very end of that session, the spokesman of the British Government—I think it was the Foreign Secretary himself—said that he did not think it was possible to deal with the question of equality, or some phrase of that kind, whereupon the Germans left the Conference. For months there were negotiations of various kinds going on in order to induce them to come back and, ultimately, they did come back on the terms that the very point that they had urged in the summer should be conceded to them. In the same way last year a new proposal was put forward. We are still ignorant of the exact circumstances under which it was put forward or exactly what it was, but apparently it included a statement that no disarmament was to take place until there had been a period of probation of two or three or four years during which it would be seen what attitude the Germans were going to take. Well, the Germans vehemently protested against that, indeed, that was the cause of their quarrel, and they again left the Conference, and this time left the League and the International Labour Office and all sorts of other bodies—quite unreasonably, as it seems to me—and the consequence was that the proposal has been dropped.
Well, that is not the way generally to secure moderation in a negotiator, if you only yield when you are threatened with some violent action. I hope very much that, none the less, the Germans will in this case take a reasonable Attitude and accept, as far as they are concerned, the very considerable concessions which have been offered to them by His Majesty's Government. I think the great hope that they will do so is that there seems some ground for thinking that they really are very definitely anxious for some kind of Disarmament Treaty. They have said so over and over again, and it seems to me the case that that represents their settled policy at the time. And let me acid that I am quite sure, in spite of Mr. Churchill, that it is also the settled policy of the best minds in France. I am quite sure that they desire also a Disarmament Treaty. I know Mr. Churchill thinks that

261
we are driving the French unwillingly into a Disarmament Treaty. I do not think that is the true view at all. They want it on terms which they think satisfactory, but that they want some kind of Disarmament Treaty is, I believe, certain; and indeed it is difficult to imagine how they could wish for anything else. And so do all the other countries in the world, I believe without any kind of exception.
There is not one country that does not want the success of this Treaty. It is true they see great dangers and difficulties in this or that proposal, but they all want success. That is true even of the Governments, and I believe it is ten times true of the people of the world. Therefore, when Mr. Churchill and others press on us the folly of disarmament and describe us as pursuing a policy which is unreasonable in itself and likely to produce disaster, I am sure they are wrong as to the general wish of the public opinion of the world. I am amazed to find that he and all those who think: with him absolutely ignore the positive obligation that unquestionably rests upon us and others to do our utmost to secure disarmament as part of the general settlement of the Treaties of Peace. The obligation is quite clear. I need not quote it to your Lordships because you know it very well. There is something a little shocking in a statesman of experience snaking these speeches in which he definitely repudiates the whole policy of disarmament without any regard at all to the Treaty obligations into which we have entered.
That seems to me the position as far as the German side of the thing is concerned. Now what is the position as regards the French? That is the point mainly raised by this Motion this afternoon. So far as the French position is concerned, there is no change that I can see. They have always taken the same view from the very outset of this controversy, long before the meeting of the Disarmament Conference. They have always taken the view that at the moment, and for the time being, they are in an unassailable position militarily. If we want them to reduce that position we must in fairness give them some kind of alternative security. That is the position they have always taken. That was the position wren the proposal was purely one for disarmament, and it certainly is not less strong now when the
262
proposal includes a considerable permitted rearmament by Germany, and they have asked quite definitely for guarantees. I dare say it is quite impossible for my noble friend the Under-Secretary to tell us what is the attitude of the Government with regard to these guarantees. I have no doubt the Government are considering them and have by now—at least I hope they have—quite definitely made up their mind what their policy on the point is to be.
The guarantees are quite well known. They ask, first of all, though not so insistently as they did, for the reaffirmation of our existing pledges. I understand nobody, except perhaps Lord Beaverbrook, has any objection to that. They ask, secondly, for the establishment of the Permanent Disarmament Commission which will have the right to examine how far any Treaty of Disarmament is being carried out. That, as my noble friend justly said, does not take you very far, because if the examiners were to report that in certain respects the Disarmament Treaty was not being carried out, it would not be much satisfaction to have that fact definitely established if nothing further was to be done. Therefore they ask, though not quite so specifically as personally I wish they had asked, for certain definite guarantees as to what is to be done in the ease of the Disarmament Commission finding that some country, in breach of its obligations under the Disarmament Treaty, is rearming in some respect or another. They say: "What is going to happen? Are you then prepared to take any action against the country that does that, because, if you are not prepared to take any action, then, from the French point of view, we are left defenceless."
Every country believes it carries out its Treaty obligations and that other countries do not, and that view is as strongly held in France as it is in this country. "We shall carry out our obligations but other countries will not. We shall be left in a hopeless position or in a very much more dangerous position than we are in now. We want to know what is to be done in the case of some other country not carrying out its obligations." To my mind, I must say, I think the case is unanswerable. I cannot see what case we can put up against an observation of that kind. I know there are certain gentlemen, for some of whom I have the

263
greatest possible respect, who say that the French ought to trust us, that we always carry out our obligations. That is not really the view held of this country in all quarters abroad, and, even if it were, it is asking a great deal of a French Ministry to go to its people and say:
"We are entering into engagements which may seriously weaken us in the case of war. We have not got any definite plan as to what is to be done to see that the Treaty is carried out, but we are asked to accept a general promise that the British Government will do whatever is necessary."
In the circumstances, I really do not think that that, particularly to the Latin mind, is a reasonable proposition to put forward. I am sure we ought to say that in such a case as that we would take, in the first place, whatever economic measures are necessary in order to put pressure on any country that has done such a thing as that. My own view is that if these measures were taken in common with all the other countries in the world the pressure would be so great that, practically, there is no country that would resist them. Theoretically a country of the most desperate character might do so, but I am certain that no country would in fact resist, and if they did they would suffer so severely as to cripple them completely in a short space of time. I do not go further into the detail of this matter, because it is not my business to do so—detailed policy must be left to the Government of the day.
There is one other proposal which the French Government have put forward with greater earnestness, and one which I have come to believe they should certainly be given the opportunity to develop, and, if they can do so, establish its practicability. That is the creation of an International Air Force. That rests upon one preliminary as it seems to me—namely, the abolition of all national Air Forces. I do not think it would be practicable as far as I can see, with any chance of success, to create an International Air Force unless you begin by abolishing all national military and naval Air Forces. That, of course, is a policy which seems to be demanded by our own position and our own safety, and therefore I gladly welcome it, but that I think is a condition of any International Air Force because the real
264
purpose of an International Air Force is to take care that civil air machines are not used in order to make this sudden raid, deliver the "knock-out blow" which we have heard about so often, and which is a very serious thing indeed. Therefore, if these civil machines are to be kept in order, one of the circumstances which the French desire—they desire others in connection with the internationalisation or international control of civil aircraft—is the creation of this International Air Force.
I think it is a thing which the French ought to be encouraged to develop and explain exactly how they propose to carry it out. They are in a position to discuss an International Air Force with more experience than any other nation in the world because they have their Foreign Legion which, at any rate, has had to meet and overcome some of the difficulties of an International Air Force. I think they ought to be allowed to do it, and, personally, I should be very glad to see the experiment tried of an International Air Force used solely for the purpose of preventing the use of civil aircraft for military purposes. If that were offered to the French, if the Government would say they were ready to discuss that, even with an open mind, I believe it would do more to soothe French fears than almost anything that we could say.
I am sorry to have detained your Lordships at this hour on this occasion so long. I have very little more to say. The real point is, are we going to rely—that really is at the bottom of this question of guarantee—on the collective system or not? It is an example, I agree only one example, of the collective system, but it is a vital and essential example, and the controversies that have been going on for the past few months have made it more and more clear that the real issue between the different nations is just that. Do we think that we can go back to the old pre-War system, each nation for itself and the devil take the hindmost, or are we going to try the new system of collective action, making it the duty of all nations to cooperate in order to preserve the peace? To my mind that is the broad issue before us, and when you read the debate in another place you will see how that is brought out, Mr. Churchill, to quote

265
him once again, has an alternative policy. What is it? He puts aside all this idea of guarantees and sanctions and all that kind of thing. What he thinks the right policy is that there should be an alliance formed—he says, I do not know why, under the aegis of the League of Nations, whatever that may mean. But it is to be, as I understand him, just the old offensive and defensive alliance by certain Powers who would then have so great a strength that, in his view, they would. be able to command the world. I have no belief in that conception at all. That is the old policy of each nation for itself, or, if it cannot stand absolutely for itself, three or four nations to come together always to act in their own interests and not with regard to the general benefit of the world and the general maintenance of peace.
That is one policy. On the other side is the policy put forward by the Opposition in the other House. Mr. Attlee, both last right and previously, speaking on behalf of the Opposition in admirable speeches, put forward the other case, I thought with great force, but not with greater force than it was put forward by Captain Eden himself, for Captain Eden quite definitely says: "I do not believe there is any security short of the collective system; I do not believe in this conception that by competitive armaments you can ever reach security." He said it in the most precise and express language, most refreshing for me to read. That is his theory. Captain Eden is a definite, absolute, 100 per cent. supporter of the collective theory, and I understand the official view of the Government is the same. He was speaking for the Government, and he did not say anything essentially different from other members of the Government. If that is their policy, do for Heaven's sake go on with it with all your strength Do not let us have any more of this feeling about and seeing what you can do here and what you can do there without setting forward, with all the conviction possible, what you, representing this gigantic Empire with all its force and all its influence, think ought to be done.
I assure the Government, if I may be allowed to do so, that I never meet a foreigner, I never go abroad, without being perpetually asked "What do
266
your Government mean? What is really their wish in these matters?" It may be that foreigners are very stupid, but it is not only foreigners who ask that question. I do beg the Government to have done with this kind of "pussyfooting," as the Americans call it, and go forward with all their strength. I observe that the Foreign Secretary, when he is dealing with this kind of proposition, says: "Oh well, the people who want that we must ask to make a gesture." It is not so, it is not a gesture. What I want is that, we being more interested than any country in the world in peace if not in the best position in the world in order to enforce peace, the Government should not be merely seeking about to see what this country or that country would want but should state to the world what they think is right, not, of course, with a view to adhering absolutely to that if they find it is impossible, but to be ready, necessarily ready, to make concessions in order to get an agreement. But they should begin by a clear, definite, courageous statement of their own policy. If they will do that I believe that, even at this last moment, even in the face of the very great difficulties we have reached and the tremendous deterioration of the situation from what it was two years ago, a successful solution might he reached.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I will not detain you for more than a very few moments at this late hour. I am glad that the noble Lord opposite has taken this opportunity to raise this question once again, and of course it will not be the last time it will be raised. I think it is as well that the Government should realise what is being thought while they are proceeding on the next step in their policy. I listened most attentively to the whole of the debate yesterday, and I have been listening to the debate to-day. Yesterday we heard what the war machine consisted of. The noble Marquess, in a very striking speech, told us that they had in preparation Conferences and Committees, Committees of the Cabinet and Sub-committees, and Sub-committees of the Staffs, and, when I thought he was going to leave off, again he began telling us of all the intricacies of this well-balanced and carefully co-ordinated war machine. If I were to ask the noble Earl who is to reply this evening what is the peace machine, he would say that up the back

267
stairs of the Foreign Office they have a room about the size of a large bathroom with two clerks and a typist. And yet peace is so infinitely more difficult to prepare for and to secure than war!
The policy that ought to be adopted by our Government is one which was well described by my honourable friend in another place last night as a long-term policy, whereas it would seem to us that the Government are always just deciding what their next step shall be. I personally am very glad that Mr. Eden has been added to the peace machine. I think he has a talent for negotiation, and I think he is as good an emissary as could be found. I in no way disparage the sending of him on this mission. But the Government are hesitant; the Government do not see far enough ahead. The speeches that we get sometimes give us hope and encouragement, and then we find a sentence at the end—that damaging sentence which has occurred in speeches of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Air, and occurred the other night in Mr. Baldwin's speech, and I think has occurred in the Foreign Secretary's speeches—which declares to the world that if these negotiations fail then we are going to build up to the full strength. It is that belief in force which we seem to have, and which we cannot suppress, and which we keep in the background as a threat, which destroys all the peaceful negotiations that might take place between the nations.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, deplored such a speech as that made by General Goering. Of course we deplore it. The clumsiness of the Germans is proverbial. But I must say that there are speeches by our own Ministers which I deplore just as much. So long as this question resolves itself into these equations with figures you will find it very difficult to get any settlement. A language has grown up which we use very easily without being very clear as to what we mean. I am afraid the views I express on this subject do not represent anybody but myself, but I do feel that we really ought to understand what we mean and how far we can get what we ask for. Take the word "collective." It has been used by both the noble Lords who have spoken, and it is used very frequently and it sounds very well. Collective opinion—that you can get. Collective guarantees—those you can get,
268
but you have to be certain that they will be followed by collective action. A guarantee which has not got a certainty of action behind it is no real guarantee. When we come to collective action I suppose I differ from most people. I have always said ever since the sanctions were put into the Covenant that when you get a breaker of the peace, when you get somebody who disregards the verdict of the Council of the League, that culprit, if you so call him, is not regarded from the moral standpoint but is regarded by each nation according to its self interests. That is what makes collective action so difficult. There was no question about collective opinion with regard to the Far East and the action of Japan, but when it came to collective action the nations differed because they had got different interests to consult.
I do not want to detain your Lordships now by bringing forward matters which are rather extraneous to the particular line that the debate has taken, but I do believe that a long-term policy is wanted, a long-term policy which takes into account all the possible eventualities, a long-term policy which envisages not only the question of security but why the nations feel that they are insecure, and takes into account the question of the grievances that the nations have and the vexed question of revision of Treaties. I do not believe that these questions ought to be taken in an isolated way. These great international questions are not going to be settled on the principle of one step at a time. I believe that we want a highly-trained body connected with the Government that envisages the whole of these problems from a very far-reaching point of view.
Before I sit down there is one plea that I would like to make to the Government. We cannot see what is coming, and people are talking—rather foolishly, I think—in terms of war. But we must envisage the possibility of a complete breakdown of this Disarmament Conference. The plea I would make to the Government is that in the event of failure to get agreement the Disarmament Conference should be kept in being. It should riot be broken up. Time must be allowed for a different disposition and a different atmosphere. I would plead that every effort be made to keep a Disarmament Conference in being so that it can be called to

269
gether at a perhaps more favourable moment. I would also plead with the Government that every effort should be made to strengthen the League of Nations, to draw in Russia, to bring in America, to bring back Germany. I would plead with them to concentrate their efforts upon that. When Disarmament is not being discussed I do not see why these nations should not be brought into the League. The attitude of the Government gives this country and the people here and the people in Europe the impression that they are just picking up the next problem, cleverly seeing how they can put their case best, and very often how they can pick holes in the other nation's case, and that then they drop that question and wait till something else arises. I am quite convinced that this is a far larger question than is generally realised. It is not just a matter of the British proposals at the Disarmament Conference. It is a complex matter of international relations which requires far more studying, far more personal contact, and far greater diligence on the part of the Government to-day, with larger Departments at their service, in order, not that we may come to a solution—of course there is no solution—but that we may prevent the grave eventualities which so many people fear.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships long, but I should like to add my support to what has already been said and to plead with the Government for the policy which the noble Lord who has just sat down has so eloquently advocated. After all, if the League is going to be, as some statesmen have called it, the corner stone of British foreign policy, we must endow it with the organisation and with the machinery which will enable it to carry out its duties. I should have thought it was obvious to everyone that we cannot expect the League to carry on the functions imposed upon it by the Covenant or to carry out its elementary duties and try to prevent war, unless we give it those organisations which every civilised community has found it absolutely necessary to maintain within its own borders. Therefore, I would emphasise the point which the noble Lord made just now that we must take a broad view of these questions. We cannot expect the League to set up an International Police Force, or an International
270
Air Force, as suggested by my noble friend Viscount Cecil, unless, at the same time, there exists machinery to alter the status quo. Nobody can expect that the status quo, which is now expressed in different Treaties, can go on. The position has to be reviewed in accordance with the new conditions that arise from time to time and which make all Treaties inapplicable.
Therefore, I would plead with the Government to consider the establishment of an International Air Force and I would ask them also to consider the whole question of a tribunal of equity, a tribunal constituted on the lines of the Lytton Commission—not merely a judicial tribunal, but a tribunal which is able to settle all disputes which may arise, at any rate in Europe. Surely this is an opportunity for the Government to build a bridge between the revisionist group in Europe and the anti-revisionist group. We want to build a bridge in order that Germany may get what is due to her and fair to her in the matter of the revision of the Treaty of Versailles, and at the same time to guarantee to France that security which she is bound to have, and of which not only France but our own country still stands so vitally in need at this moment. I plead with the noble Earl who is going to respond on behalf of the Government to give us some hope that the Government are at least prepared to consider these matters.
The Lord President of the Council, in his speech the other day, said that the question of an International Air Force had not even been considered, and had never been gone into. At any rate it has been gone into by the French Government, and the French General Staff did produce a plan at the Disarmament Conference. What has our Government been doing all these years ever since the Armistice, ever since the Covenant was signed, what has it been doing during the last two years, during the proceedings of the Disarmament Conference, if this obviously vital matter has not even been looked into by our experts—by our naval, military, and air advisers? The Government apparently have never even taken the trouble to look into the matter at all. That is, I think, a very serious indictment coming from the Lord President himself. This is a matter in which surely we should not delay in making up for lost time, and in going into the matter

271
with the other Members of the League who are prepared to assist in setting up a collective system.
France made an offer. France, which has at the present moment the strongest Air Force in the world, offered to place that Air Force at the disposal and under the control of the League of Nations. We said: "No, we do not want to set up any system of that kind." We never even took the trouble to ask the smaller nations in Europe. After all, there are 23 small nations in Europe who contribute 360 units towards the maintenance of the League whereas the Great Powers contribute 326 units—practically equivalent. If those smaller nations were prepared to come into this collective system and to contribute upon the same basis as that upon which they now contribute to the maintenance of the League, a very large share of whatever money was necessary for the maintenance of such a force would be forthcoming from the smaller countries in Europe alone. Therefore I do ask the Government to say that all these questions shall be carefully gone into. After all, we have come to the parting of the ways. The Disarmament Conference, as I always thought it would do, has broken down, and we are faced now with the alternatives either of going back to the competitive system or of launching out into a co-operative system which alone expresses the right use of force by the Governments of the world.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STAN-HOPE): My Lords, the noble Lord who initiated this debate realised, I think, that I was not in a position to make any very definite statement at this moment. Your Lordships are aware that my honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal has only just returned from his tour, and that at present we are not in possession of the replies which have to be made by the three Governments which he visited. I think the noble Lord, Lord Allen, seemed to think that the French were going to apply solely for security. I am not going to pre-judge what the French are going to say. They may ask for that; they may ask for other things also; but I would point out to your Lordships that this Memorandum is quite clearly stated to be a compromise, and as a compromise it is, of course, not entirely popular with anybody. Therefore it by no means follows that supposing that the French
272
were to ask for security only, we should even then find ourselves in a position to agree with everything that has been put forward elsewhere. The Government were, I think, rather criticised by the noble Lord for having delayed so long after our original draft Convention before this Memorandum was produced. We make no secret of the fact that this Memorandum is not such as we should like to have had. It is the utmost that we think we can get, but we prefer the draft proposals which were put forward by the Prime Minister last year rather than our Memorandum. Those proposals, of course, as noble Lords all know, have proved to be unacceptable, and therefore we had to find some other proposals, to see if then we could bridge the gap.
As my honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal said last night, he has at any rate narrowed the gap by the information which he has received in going to the three capitals which he visited, although he cannot say that he has bridged it. As noble Lords know, the Lord Privy Seal was asked to go and explain our Memorandum and to see what replies these three nations would give to it. He was not sent in the position of a negotiator nor in fact did he attempt in any kind of way to negotiate. He was going merely to find out the opinions of those three countries and then to report to His Majesty's Government in order that if necessary further action could be taken. I can assure the House—and I am sure your Lordships need no such assurance—that the moment those replies are received His Majesty's Government will delay not one moment in considering them and seeing whether it is possible, by some slight change in our Memorandum in one particular and another change somewhere else, then to obtain agreement.
I think it is often forgotten that these Disarmament proposals do not depend on ourselves alone; it is sometimes thought that provided we agree, then the thing must go through. Of course the position is nothing like that. Not only are there the leading nations which have just been consulted, but there are 64 nations who have been attending this Disarmament Conference, and a great many of them are extremely jealous of their own particular points in a Disarmament Convention. They have to be consulted, unless we are going to take the line that only

273
the more powerful nations shall be considered and that the smaller nations shall be brushed aside. I think every one of your Lordships will agree that that is entirely contrary to the whole spirit of the League of Nations, and would be an entire change in its procedure and its outlook.
The noble Lord who instituted the debate, Lord Allen, criticised the Leader of the House for having said in May of last year that it was not our policy that Germany should come half-way up the stairs in order that other nations should go half-way down to meet her. I think that if he will cast his mind back he will remember that the whole spirit of this country, and of course of the Government too, was that a Disarmament Convention should not mean rearmament. As time went by it was realised that the more heavily armed nations, as they are called, were not prepared to come down so far that there should be no rearmament of those that were less heavily armed. By experiment and error, if I may call it so, we have had gradually to change our proposals until they have come to the stage found in our Memorandum which was published in January last. It is a considerable advance on What was done before; in many ways, I was going to say, an Irishman's advance, because it is retrograde. The calibre of guns is heavier than was originally proposed, and various other proposals have been modified. I think the number of effectives has been increased. Therefore from the point of view of disarmament it is less favourable than was the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister last year. As I have said, the reason we did it was that we recognised, after the long discussion which had taken place at Geneva, that although the draft proposals put forward were accepted by everybody present at any rate as a basis, there was no hope of obtaining a definite agreement upon them.
The noble Lord asked me with regard to security, and that is a matter which was discussed, I think, by almost everybody who took part in the debate in another place last night. The proposals in the Memorandum are a considerable step forward from anything that has been suggested by this country before. As the noble Lord knows, there are quite definite guarantees in the Treaty of Locarno,
274
and of course those are reintroduced and carried on in this Memorandum; but we go a good deal further. Instead of simply giving guarantees for the Pact of Paris we now propose that if there is any breaking of the terms of the Convention then there are at once to be consultations. I admit that that is, of course, not a complete guarantee, but those who have taken part in these consultations and discussions at Geneva must realise how very difficult, it is to get a definition which shall be clear, and not involve. more than this country is prepared to undertake or which any of us may feel to be justifiable.
I need only take, as an illustration, the definition of "aggressor." My noble friend on the Cross Benches has taken part in these discussions, and knows how extremely difficult it is to get a definition of "aggressor." So far no definition has been found which would fit in with the outbreak of the War in 1914. Therefore, when it comes to giving guarantees, it is essential that in the first instance we should define exactly what we are going to guarantee, and then consider what that involves. Until we have got replies from those nations whom we have consulted, of course I can make no statement on the point, and noble Lords will not expect me to; but I might point this out. I think the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, said that the Government were hesitant, and that we ought to give guarantees, without which collective action was not effective, and he went on to say that it was our duty to strengthen the League of Nations. Once you come to the question of guarantees it is difficult, I would point out, to get the United States altogether in step with us, and therefore if this country is going to give guarantees it may become even more difficult to get great nations which do not belong to the League of Nations, or which have ceased to belong to the League of Nations, to join or rejoin the League.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think that was more the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, than mine. I pointed out the difficulty of giving guarantees.
EARL STANHOPE: I am sorry that I misunderstood the noble Lord, but at any rate it is what has been said by a great many people, and that is one of

275
the difficulties that the Government have got to face. We recognise that we have got to be definite, in order to get the support of the nations to any form of Arms Convention. On the other hand we desire to strengthen the League of Nations to the utmost of our power, and to get these great nations back to the fold. That is one of the great difficulties that we have to face. I might perhaps remind your Lordships that the Secretary of State last night said quite definitely that in his view even a bad Arms Convention was a hundred times better than none at all. That is quite definitely the view of the Government. We intend, so far as it is possible, to see if we can reconcile the views of these various nations, and if it is necessary to make such a change in our Memorandum as to alter it even somewhat in its fundamental principles, we should not hesitate to do so if we believed that it was the right policy for this country, and ensured the peace of the world. We recognise clearly that an Arms Convention, even if it gives rearmament in some instances, means regulated armaments, and not unregulated armaments, which in the view of everybody would be disastrous.
The Leader of the Opposition said he thought that there were only two clerks and a typist engaged in peace work at the Foreign Office. I have not been there long enough to know how big the staff is, but I have been there long enough to know that it would be very difficult to find any one who was not definitely working for peace and security. So far from their being confined to a place the size of a bathroom, my answer is that those engaged in League of Nations and disarmament work cover the whole of the purlieus of the Foreign Office.
LORD PONSONBY or SHULBREDE: I was talking really of the League of Nations.
EARL STANHOPE: I had in mind the whole Department in so far as it was dealing with League of Nations and disarmament work. Having served for a very long time with Service Departments I can say that the question of agreement on disarmament is by no means confined to the Foreign Office, and that it is by no means the desire of the Service Departments to plunge into war. They understand very well that we are in no
276
condition to plunge into such a rash experiment, and I can say from personal experience of the last War that no one wishes to have another experiment of a similar character. I am told that the League of Nations Department has nine members, of which three are special experts. Whether those are the two clerks and a typist I should doubt. I should imagine that they are of considerably more importance than that. As I have said, the Foreign Office as a whole is dealing with this question, from the Secretary of State downwards, and we are doing our utmost to see if a Disarmament Convention can be agreed to between the nations of the world.
I think Lord Cecil of Chelwood talked about a period of probation having been put into the previous Agreement with regard to Germany. That, as I understand it, was not what occurred on that occasion. As he knows, the Agreement was to last for something like ten years. The idea was that every nation should first of all have this inspection of its armaments, and that only later on should come the reduction of arms which was to be made by the more heavily armed nations. It was not a question of testing Germany to see if she was going to fulfil expectations, because the nations who signed were going to be asked quite definitely, on and from a certain date, to reduce their arms, and unless the thing broke down because the nations failed to fulfil their signed word, quite definitely everyone would from a certain year begin to reduce armaments.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I did not want to go into details of the Agreement, but I described it in the way in which it is described in Germany, and I am afraid sometimes in France also.
EARL STANHOPE: It does not follow that what an agreement is described to be in Germany is accurate, any more than descriptions one hears in this country. Do not let us take what is said in any country as being necessarily true. We know from our own experience in this country that statements are made which very few of us would be prepared to say were accurate. I do not think I can give your Lordships any more information which is of real value at this moment, and therefore at this late hour perhaps I had better say no more. But in

277
reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, may I say that I do not think he quite accurately quoted what was said by my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council. What he was referring to was an International Police Force and not an International Air Force, and when the noble Lord said that it had never been considered I think your Lordships will remember that my noble friend sitting behind me [Lord Londonderry] took part in discussions at Geneva when that was under dismission for, I think, many weeks together.
LORD DAVIES: I think what he said was that it was never worked out.
EARL STANHOPE: Exactly, but "worked out" is a, very different story from being considered; and if the noble Lord, who had a Motion down last night, had raised the question I was quite prepared to deal with that subject at considerable length and to point out to him that it is not merely a question of setting up an International Police Force—in fact, it is not a police force at all but an International Army—but that you have to set up a super-State which would give its orders and make its plans. That, of course, is rather outside what we are discussing to-night, and therefore I do not want to follow it further. May I once again repeat that as soon as we have got replies from these various nations His Majesty's Government will lose no time in considering them and in threshing out, not merely a short-term policy, but a long-term policy for our own security and for the peace of the world?
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: My Lords, it would be ungracious for me at this late hour to reply in any detail to the points that the noble Earl has put before us. There is, however, just one point that I should like to make. He stated that it is sometimes asserted and believed that if only this country would agree to this or that proposition everything would go through. Well, I am not one of the people who take that view on all questions, but so far as this question of security is concerned, I do believe that it is more true on that question than on any other. Noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench and who are members of the Government are far too inclined in dealing with international affairs to lay the blame on other countries. The noble Earl
278
himself has referred to the difficulties with America. I know those difficulties perfectly well. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, when he was dealing with air policy, laid far more blame than he was entitled to do on the attitude of other nations. So far as security is concerned, it is true that if on that question this country would make clear its view and come down on the right side, it would enormously assist the solution of the main issue which confronts the world at the present moment. In this case you cannot lay the blame on other countries. It is upon our own country, and our own country almost alone, that the blame must be laid. I thank the noble Earl very much for the courtesy of his reply, apologise for my onslaught and ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, if he can give some statement about business next week?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I will endeavour to give the information required. On Tuesday, March 20, the House will be asked to consider the Third Reading of the Contraceptives Bill, the Third Reading of the Supply of Water in Bulk (No. 2) Bill, the Committee stage of the British Hydrocarbon Oils Production Bill, the Committee stage of the Air Force Reserve (Pilots and Observers) Bill and the Second Reading of the Rural Water Supplies Bill. The Motion standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, for that day is postponed till April 11. On Tuesday will also be taken the Third Reading of the Arbitration Bill. On Wednesday the most reverend Primate has a Motion in regard to housing, Lord Olivier has a Motion in relation to the Discovery Expedition Committee, and there is also the Second Reading of the Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Bill. On Thursday, the 22nd, there is the Committee of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill and the further stages of the Bills which I have named as being taken on Tuesday. There will also be on that day the Second Reading of the North Atlantic Shipping

279
Bill which is to be introduced and read a first time on Monday. The programme sounds a formidable one, but I think when we go into it it will not be found as formidable as it sounds.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I understood that the Second Reading of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill is being taken on Thursday. Is that so?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Second Reading of that Bill is being taken on Thursday.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, did I understand the noble Marquess to say that there would be a sitting on Monday?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: There will be a formal sitting on Monday, the 19th, for the purpose of receiving the North Atlantic Shipping Bill and giving it a First Reading.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.