Lords Sitting of 29 July 1935

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
HOUSING BILL.
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Lords Amendments agreed to without amendment and certain others agreed to with amendment, and with a consequential Amendment to the Bill.
ASSURANCE COMPANIES (WINDING UP) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WATFORD) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
CROYDON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFI CATION (DECLARATION OF LAW) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Viscount HAILSHAM): My Lords, the Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading is, as its terms state, a Bill for the avoidance of doubt. Its purpose is to make it clear that certain recent appointments do not affect the right of the respective holders of those appointments to continue to sit in another place. The two members of the Government whose positions are affected are my right honourable friend Mr. Anthony Eden and my noble friend Lord Cranborne. With regard to Mr. Anthony Eden the position is this. By the Succession to the Crown Act passed in the year 1707 any person who is appointed by the Crown to a new office is thereby disqualified from sitting in the House of 'Commons. In the year 1919, after the War, it was thought desirable to have certain Ministers without Portfolio, as I think the current phrase is, and an Act was passed entitled the Reelection of Ministers Act, which provided in its second section that where a member of the Privy Council is appointed to be a Minister of the Crown at a salary, without any other office being assigned to him, he is not to be disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons. My right honourable friend Mr. Anthony Eden is a. member of the Privy Council who has been appointed a Minister of the Crown. His appointment is described as that of Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs. If ever the matter were litigated the question that would arise would he whether that is an appointment with an office assigned to Mr. Eden beyond that of being Minister of the Crown. If he were merely described as Minister without Portfolio the question would not arise, but since he is described as Minister without Portfolio for League of Nations Affairs the question might conceivably be raised as to whether he had an office assigned to him within the meaning of that section.
With regard to Lord Cranborne the position arises under a different Act of Parliament. In the year 1742 a Statute
874
was passed by which, after declaring that certain officers were. not admitted to Parliament, it was provided in Section 3 that nothing in the Act should extend to exclude the Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretaries to the Admiralty, or the Under-Secretary to any of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, or the Deputy Paymaster of the Army from sitting in the House of Commons. Your Lordships will observe that the words there used are "the Under-Secretary of State to any of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State," and the doubt which might be raised is whether that allowed two Under-Secretaries of State to one principal Secretary of State to sit 'at the same time in the House of Commons. There are very good arguments either way. There is a Statute providing that no more than six Secretaries of State shall sit in the House of Commons. That still remains the law, and there are good constitutional grounds for saying that the office of Secretary of State is indivisible and that it is only a matter of arrangement between the different Secretaries of State as to who shall have which particular sphere of activity.
There have been no exact precedents, but some twelve years ago Mr. Amery had two Under-Secretaries of State sitting with him in the House of Commons. Then he held the dual office of Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and Secretary of State for the Colonies. Therefore, although he had two Under-Secretaries they might each be assigned to him in his capacity as Secretary of State for one or other of these two offices. These are points which obviously might employ lawyers profitably for quite 'a long time. His Majesty's Government thought that if there was any doubt in the matter it was far better to have it cleared up at once instead of to wait until some ingenious person brought some form of proceedings in the Courts to challenge the validity of what was happening. The Bill, of course, has nothing to do with the creation of those two offices. The Bill does not alter the existing legislation as to the number of Ministers without Portfolio whom it is -permissible to have, or as to the number of Under-Secretaries of State who are eligible for the House of Commons at any one moment. The question of the salaries of these two

875
respective officers will no doubt be raised in another place at the proper time. The function of this Bill is confined to regularising and putting beyond question their position as members of the House of Commons, and it is brought forward for that and for no other object. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am sure we are very much indebted to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for having so clearly stated the position which is concerned with the introduction of this Bill. These intricate matters have led to a certain amount of confusion and, as he rightly says, to the possibility of somebody outside calling attention to an irregularity which the Government and Parliament have been unconscious of committing. I think I owe my presence in your Lordships' House to a certain confusion which was caused in 1929. However that may be, I do not want to enter into the arguments that were brought forward in a previous debate last week with regard to the necessity of this Bill caused by the appointment of a second Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office.
Whatever may be said with regard to the need for a very full representation of the Government in the Foreign Office, we, on this side of the House, feel that the Government have gone too far, that there is no real need for two Under-Secretaries, and that the confusion that arises from having two Cabinet Ministers in the Foreign Office might conceivably lead to a certain division of responsibility which we should deplore. But the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, in the previous debate assured us that that would not be the case, and the only remaining point therefore is as to the need for two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. That still appears to us to be unnecessary. I rise only to emphasise that point because we have no desire in any way to object to the passage of this Bill.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to say a few words on this Bill in order to ask His Majesty's Government, when future opportunities arise, to relax further such disabilities as may exist from the point of view of the Colonies. Every step which tends to bring the
876
Empire and this country closer together should have sympathy. As the law stands at present, if a member of the House of Commons accepts an office of profit under the Crown in the Colonies, because the Crown is one throughout the Empire, he is interpreted by some lawyers as having accepted an office of profit under the Crown which disqualifies him under the Act of Queen Anne. That Act of Queen Anne applies only to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as it was then united and to the Plantations beyond the seas. To-day there are parts of the Empire which are not Plantations beyond the seas and are not part of the United Kingdom. Therefore I do not think that that Act applied to Malta.
Nevertheless, when I had the honour to represent Lancaster in another place and became head of the Ministry in Malta, I was invited not to sit and vote in the House of Commons because, on the precedent of Sir Timothy O'Brien, who accepted the office of Attorney-General for Victoria, I was liable to be called before a Committee of the House of Commons to defend my seat. These are anachronisms not suitable to the present development of the Empire or to the present day, when the bribery and corruption which distinguished our politics in the days of Queen Anne are no longer to be found amongst us. I think these disabilities should be further relaxed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in reply to the two speeches which have been delivered I should like to say that the Government of course recognise that the Opposition do not accept the necessity for these appointments. On the other hand, I do not think they will wish me to argue at length whether or not the appointments are desirable. The Government have very definitely formed the view that it is necessary for the efficient discharge of the duties of the Foreign Office under existing conditions that these appointments should be made. I know noble Lords opposite, although they quarrel with that premise, would not dispute the conclusion that arises from it—namely, that it is essential that whatever is necessary for the proper administration of the Foreign Office should be approved by Parliament. So far as my noble friend Lord Strickland is concerned, he was not concerned to

877
challenge the necessity for this Bill but he wished to call attention to another anachronism, as he terms it, with regard to people who hold offices of profit under the Crown. It is a remarkable illustration of the doubt and difficulty which may arise that the two speakers, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and my noble friend Lord Strickland, respectively owe their presence in this House to the fact that confusion has been created in the past for one reason and another. I am sure that that fact only reinforces the wisdom of the Government in making sure that no such contingency should happen this time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL, DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It provides for the extension for a further period of the help that was given to beef producers under the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1934, and subsequent legislation. Your Lordships will recall that on June 27 you gave approval to an Order extending the period during which the subsidy payment could be made until September 30, 1935. This Bill provides for a yet further continuance of this payment for another nine months, that is, until June, 1936. It also provides for the possibility, by Order approved by the two Houses of Parliament, of extending the subsidy for four months after that, bringing us to the end of October, 1936.
I should like to make it clear at once that the provisions of this Billl do not indicate, as has been suggested elsewhere, a breakdown of the negotiations which have been taking place and are still taking place with the Governments of the Dominions and Argentina on the longterm proposals outlined by the Government in the White Paper of March this year; nor indeed do they indicate that the Government take a pessimistic view of the outcome of these negotiations.
878
But your Lordships are aware that the industry with which we are dealing is a very large and important industry in this country, going into many millions of pounds worth of production per year. The interests concerned, not only in this country but also abroad, are vitally important, and I think your Lordships will agree that it is therefore right that in settling the long-term policy we should give ourselves full time for negotiation and arrangement between the various interests concerned. That does not mean to say that the policy of His Majesty's Government is not perfectly clear and definite. It has been already stated in the White Paper of 1935, and we adhere to that policy. Briefly, it is an earmarked tariff on meat imports, the proceeds of which should go to the home industry; with the addition of the reorganisation of our system of marketing, distribution and slaughtering which we would hope to obtain by general agreement.
The provisions of this Bill lead towards, and indeed interlock with, the arrangement which the Government hope to bring into operation as soon as agreement can be reached, or, failing agreement, as soon as our treaty obligations permit. There is no doubt, as I have ventured to state to your Lordships already, of our objective, but it is not within my power at the moment to say whether that objective can be reached in a few! months time or whether we shall have to wait until next autumn. I think, however, that we shall all be agreed that there is nothing worse for any section of the agricultural industry than a sense of insecurity, uncertainty and doubt as to the immediate future. This applies particularly to the livestock industry, which has to plan well ahead. The subsidy, to be of full value to the livestock industry in this country, must snake its effect felt right through the industry down to the breeder. There is no doubt that the emergency measures, apart from helping the beef feeder in a weak market, hive already helped to some extent to maintain the price of store cattle. In spite of low beef prices and uncertainty as to how long the subsidy will last, some classes of store cattle this spring have been realising £1 per head more than they did a year ago, but since last autumn the natural tendency has been for feeders to take a short view of the situation and to concentrate their

879
purchases on those forward animals which could be finished before the expiration of the subsidy.
The measures now proposed will give to beef producers a degree of security for a further fifteen months, and it is expected that confidence in the future will bring about better prices for younger store cattle. It is at least significant that within the last month or two yearlings were about 5s. per head dearer than a year ago. We are passing through a transitional stage in the beef industry and, quite admittedly, these are transitional measures. We are slowly resolving into order the chaos of the autumn of 1932. We can see quite clearly the point at which we are aiming; our policy is clearly defined, but we cannot bring that policy into operation by a wave of the wand or even, owing to our treaty arrangements with other countries, for some time by Act of Parliament. The one thing certain is that the Government will hold to their undertaking to safeguard the position of the United Kingdom livestock industry. The Government have given anxious consideration to the whole problem, and are of opinion that this undertaking can best be implemented in the present circumstances by an assurance which will enable the industry to plan ahead for at least a year and a quarter. That assurance is contained in the provisions of this Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
EARL PEEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl—I did not hear the first few words of his speech—whether the subsidy is going to be continued at exactly the same rate as it has been during the next twelve months, and, if so, what the amount of the subsidy is estimated to be?
EARL DE LA WARR: It will continue on exactly the same basis. It has been 5s. up till now, and presumably the Cattle Committee will continue to pay at the rate of 5s.
EARL PEEL: That is, roughly, about £1,000,000 every three months, is it?
EARL DE LA WARR: Approximately.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
PUBLIC HEALTH (WATER AND SEWERAGE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD rose to ask what is meant by the abandonment of ratios and the substitution of a policy of programmes in reference to naval limitations; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I desire to put the Question and make the Motion which stand in my name.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I venture to give the noble Viscount the reply to the Question of which he has very kindly given me Notice, which is on the Paper and is more or less in the nature of a starred Question. During the conversations with the United States of America and Japanese representatives, beginning in October, 1934, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom reached the conclusion that it would not be possible to make any agreement in replacement of the Washington and London Naval Treaties which contained an expression of the principle of ratios of naval strength. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government the only hope of preserving some form of quantitative limitation lies in eliminating from any future treaty figures which appear to constitute a ratio as between the various signatory Powers, and to substitute for these existing treaty engagements on this point a system under which each Power would make a voluntary and unilateral declaration of its construction programme for a period of years, say, 1937–1942.
It was proposed that these declarations should not have the force or form of contractual obligations. Nevertheless, the

881
construction figures appearing in the programmes would require to be concerted beforehand between the Powers, and it would further be necessary that each Power should undertake in its declaration not to modify its announced building programme without giving previous notice of, say, at least one year, to other Powers making similar declarations. This proposal was made to the Japanese and the United States of America's representatives before they returned to their countries and has also been described to the other signatories of the Washington Treaty.
There has been no change in the policy of His Majesty's Government, who, so far as they are concerned, would gladly see a continuation of the system of limitation embodied in the Washington Treaty, but if we are to avoid a race in naval armaments after Naval Treaties come to an end in 1936, account must obviously be taken of the desires and susceptibilities of countries holding other views. The purpose of His Majesty's Government in recent negotiations has been to evolve, in consultation with those Powers, a system of limitation which, while avoiding the expression in contractual form of a definite relationship of naval strength between the various naval Powers, would offer certain guarantees against the resumption of unrestricted and competitive building. In addition to this proposal for quantitative limitation, His Majesty's Government consider it to be of the utmost importance to reach agreement on qualitative limitations to replace those in the Treaties which expire on the 31st December, 1936.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for his answer. I understand that the Government think it would not be in the public interest to debate the matter any further, and therefore I ask leave to withdraw my Motion, but I hope my noble friends will not understand that as any profession of satisfaction with the policy which the Government are pursuing.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. M. R. MASANI'S PASSPORT.
LORD EARINGDON LORD EARINGDON had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government for the reason for impounding the
882
passport of Mr. M. R. Masani, an official of the All-India Congress Socialist Party, on his arrival in England; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not going to apologise to your Lordships for asking again a Question which has been asked in another place, because I trust that I shall receive 'a rather more satisfactory answer than was given there. Mr. Masani, who left India a short while ago, on arriving in England had his passport impounded. The answer as to why this should have been done, given in another place, was that the Government of India had requested that it should be impounded on the ground that he was a Communist. Quite frankly I admit, myself, that I consider that to be no reason for impounding his passport or for denying him a passport. In fact it seems that the Indian Government have a form of "jitters," with which the Imperial Government might well reproach them, since it has caused a certain amount of embarrassment.
Mr. Masani, in point of fact, is no Communist, and I will give your Lordships his career, because I think that the Government have not been properly informed. He is a barrister, a councillor of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, a member of the Executive Council of the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee, joint secretary of the All-India Congress Socialist Party, and also a member of the British Labour Party from 1925 to 1928. None of these particular affiliations in point of fact would permit of his being a Communist. For membership of the All-India Congress Socialist Party it is essential that members should be members of the Indian National Congress, and every member of the Congress must subscribe to the attainment of the ends of Congress by all legitimate and peaceful means. The Party is functioning legally and openly throughout India. The Communist Party is illegal in India. The Congress Socialist Party is constantly denounced by the Communists both in India and in England as a "sham Socialist" and a "National Reformist" Party. If it is the Government's objection that Mr. Masani is a Communist it cannot possibly be upheld, and I should like very much to know on what possible pound his passport has been taken away from him. I beg to move.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STAN-HOPE): My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord opposite, but this Motion came on much sooner than was expected. We have sent for my noble friend, the Secretary of State for India, and I think lie is on his way down to the House. I can give to the noble Lord an extract from a paper put in my hands, but I am afraid it is not a complete answer. I understand that my noble friend has reconsidered the matter. The views expressed from India were definite that this passport should not be extended, but my noble friend is not entirely satisfied, I think, with the reason given, and therefore in view of the representations made to him on the subject, and having reexamined the case, he is prepared to grant a passport for a year, at the end of which the matter can be further considered. I am afraid that that is the only information I can give at the moment, and I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with this concession and overlook the fact that the answer is somewhat brief.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am not sure that my noble friend behind me will think that it is a sufficient reply, but I really would call attention to the proceedings to-day with regard to the Government Bench. We had a very long pause before the first Question was answered, and unless the noble Earl had come into the breach we should have had no reply to this Question. When the House sits at three o'clock I think members of the Government at any rate might realise that that is the time for the House to meet, and they should be ready to reply to Questions. I do not know whether my noble friend will think it worth while to put his Question down again for to-morrow, or whether he will accept what the noble Earl has been good enough to tell him.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I certainly accept what the noble Lord has said. I apologise for not having been in my place, but I had a very urgent call at that moment and was under the mistaken belief that the business before the House would give me a quarter of an hour. I am not putting that forward as an excuse, but merely explaining the situation which arose,
884
The Question which the noble Lord opposite has asked ought to have been answered by the Secretary of State for India, but I understand that he is engaged at the present moment. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was quite right when he called attention to this matter of procedure, and I can only on my own behalf apologise to the noble Lord.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, in order to allow the Secretary of State for India, who is now here, a breathing space, my noble friend behind might perhaps repeat his Question.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for not having been here when this Question was asked. I was, un-, happily, detained on other business, and I was under the impression that this Question was not likely to come before your Lordships quite so soon. I am under the disadvantage, therefore, of not knowing precisely what has been said by my noble friend opposite. But I have looked into this case, and the impression which has been left on my mind by a study of the previous history of Mr. Masani, whose passport is in question, is that he certainly has given great grounds for suspicion that, if he is not actually a member of the Communist Party in India, he has been very closely associated with members of that Party, and his action has been such as to suggest that he realised himself that his activities had laid him open to considerable suspicion. The noble Lord will remember, as I think I recall myself, that on one occasion at a meeting, I think it was of the Congress Party in India, Mr. Masani moved an amendment to the proposal of Mr. Gandhi, who was in favour of non-violence, in favour of violence in the event of Mr. Gandhi's non-violent proposals proving to have been unsatisfactory from his point of view. The noble Lord will, I think, agree that a man who, at a public meeting of the Congress, moves an amendment of that kind at once lays himself open to the suspicion that he is entertaining in his mind the intention of endeavouring to subvert the Government by violent movements.

885
Now, I admit it has been suggested to me since then that too much attention should not be paid to a thing of that kind, and that at meetings in this country, and particularly meetings of debating societies of undergraduates and so on, motions of that sort are sometimes moved without very much being really intended. In all the circumstances, if the noble Lord is prepared to assure me—and I would like to discuss the matter with him—that Mr. Masani is not indeed a member of the Communist Party, then I certainly would be prepared, in my turn, to recommend that, he should now be given a renewal of his passport for a specified period. I do not know whether the noble Lord is himself acquainted with Mr. Masani, but if he is not, perhaps some of his friends, who I know are acquainted with him, would be prepared to come and discuss the matter with me.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess very much indeed for his offer, which I am delighted to be able to accept. If the noble Marquess had been in his place a little earlier he would have heard that exactly what. he says is the case—that Mr. Masani, whom I do know personally and knew in India—and, incidentally, I have asked to 'have his passport extended because I have asked him to come and stay with me—has no connection whatever with any Communist Party and, in fact, belongs to Parties which are definitely abused by the Communist Party. It is a matter of considerable personal interest to him should he contrive to get badly tarred with the Communist brush. But I may say that there is no reason why Communists should not be given passports. Indeed, I should have thought the Government of India would have been glad to get rid of them, because who knows if they are not preparing a Communist coup d'Etat?
But he is not a Communist. He belongs to Parties which are detested by the Communists and are attacked by them. He himself has been attacked both by the Indian and the English Communist, Press, and I think there can be hardly any doubt that he is, like my noble friends who sit on these Benches, a mere Socialist—I hope the more dangerous for that. I am delighted that the Government have reconsidered their opinion, or perhaps have insisted on further and
886
better information, because this question is, I fancy, very largely a question of pique on the part of the Police of Bombay. The noble Earl who answered for the Secretary of State said that the passport would be extended for a year. I do not know why it should not be extended in the way that passports are ordinarily extended, and simply renewed. But we must all be thankful for the small mercies which the Government of India allow the Government of England to give.
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, this short debate has been very interesting for many reasons, but it leaves me in considerable confusion of mind. I need not assure the House that I have no sympathy whatever with Communists or people who wish to upset our Government by violent action. But it is news to me that the holding of Communist views, or being a member of a Communist society, is sufficient reason for excluding from our shores a man who holds those views.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord is quite wrong. He is not excluded from our shores; he is here now.
LORD FARINGDON: Only by luck—or good management!
LORD RHAYADER: I understood that on information received from India this gentleman—of whom I never heard before this Question was put down—had not been allowed to have his passport extended to come to this country, as had been arranged, because he was a member of the Communist Party. But that is not so?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: No, that is not so.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, before the Motion is withdrawn, may I say this? Lord Rhayader seems to think, and the belief is apparently shared by other members of your Lordships' House, that members of the Communist Party believe in change by violence. Now, I am not a, member of the Communist Party, and I do not know a very great deal about it, but as I understand the position, the ordinary member of the Communist Party says that he believes in change of Government by peaceful means, but the change he desires is so far-reaching that those who are going to be changed will resist by violence, and therefore he may be

887
compelled to fight to put through his beliefs. That may or may not appear odd, but nevertheless I understand that is the belief held by members of the Communist Party. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, will not say that because a man is stated to be a member of the Communist Party therefore he believes in violence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, since the noble Lord makes that statement, may I say that I do know a little about the views of the Communist Party, because it was my privilege to prosecute them ten years ago. It was then proved to the satisfaction of a jury that the Communists held quite different views from those which the noble Lord now imputes to them, that they did intend to overthrow by violent and unconstitutional means the form of government lawfully established here.
LORD MARLEY: The noble and learned Viscount has the advantage of me in years, but, whatever may have been the case ten years ago, that is not the case to-day.
LORD RHAYADER: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but my point is that I do not think the views a man holds should be made use of to exclude him.
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD RHAYADER: Until now it has been quite open to a man to advocate any views in this country, provided he
888
was not advocating disorder. Therefore I am glad it is not for that reason that this gentleman has been excluded from this country or not allowed to come in.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with-drawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
Moved, That this House do now adjourn.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in order to avoid any strictures tomorrow, may I say that I am unfortunately presiding judicially in the Privy Council and therefore I shall not be in my place at three o'clock; but I have made arrangements for the Woolsack to be occupied, and I hope to be free at four o'clock. I only say this because I do not wish to run any risk of disapprobation from the Front Opposition Bench.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am sorry that for the first hour to-morrow we shall be deprived of the presence of the Lord Chancellor, but I must say I think there was no need to call attention to my having made my observations, because I think I was well justified this afternoon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes before four o'clock.