Lords Sitting of 3 December 1936

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
The Lord Borwick—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TRADE MARKS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to trade marks, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

ARBITRATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to arbitrations, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LLWCHWR ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1936.
NELSON ELECTRICITY(EXTENSION) ORDER, 1936.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Erne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I beg to move the
586
Motion that stands in my name upon the order paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Bill through its remaining stages.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (CARRIAGE OF MUNITIONS TO SPAIN) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, in asking you to give this Bill a Second Reading I think I ought to offer some explanatory remarks upon it. As your Lordships know, His Majesty's Government have supported a, policy of non-intervention from the very beginning of the Spanish crisis and they have repeatedly expressed their intention of continuing to do so. Their main object, as has also been frequently explained, has been to localise the civil war in Spain and to do everything in their power to prevent it from spreading outside the Spanish frontiers. I am sure the House will readily understand that if there had been no such agreement for non-intervention, and if there had been, on the other hand, an unrestricted competition in the sending of arms and war materials to Spain, the risk of the conflict spreading would have very greatly increased, and if it had spread it is quite obvious that the consequences would have been such as it is almost impossible to calculate.
It has been constantly asserted by members of the Party opposite that this Non-Intervention Agreement has worked unfairly, that it has worked against the Spanish Government and in favour of General Franco. The Government do not share this view, and they have said so on previous occasions. But members of the Opposition have taken that view; and they go further and say that in consequence of the position which they maintain exists we should have been ready—and here I am really quoting—to supply arms to the legally constituted Government and to have refrained from doing so to the other side. This is an argument

587
that was repeatedly used in another place when the Bill was being discussed there two days ago. This seems to me a really extraordinary proposition and begs the whole question. When you say that you are not going to intervene in a quarrel between two people, you surely mean that you are not going to help either of them. This is the only possible interpretation that can be placed upon the intention of the Non-Intervention Agreement. But entirely apart from this, to have adopted this suggestion would have inevitably led us into the very situation which we wish to avoid, a situation which would have been fraught with very great danger to ourselves and of very serious consequences to the rest of the world.
I confidently maintain that the policy which we have pursued has been successful in so far as it has prevented any further extension of this conflict. In order to implement this policy, to which they have adhered from the very beginning, His Majesty's Government took certain measures to prohibit the export of arms, munitions and aircraft to Spain. For a considerable time past the export of munitions, arms and war material has only been permitted under licence, and the Government have made use of this method in order now to prohibit the export of such articles to Spain. But one definite loophole does exist, as I pointed out to your Lordships when we were discussing the whole position in Spain last week. The House is aware, I have no doubt, that the Non-Intervention Agreement does not lay any obligation upon Governments to prohibit the carriage of arms by their merchant ships. It was naturally hoped, when the Agreement was originally concluded, that the strict enforcement of it by all countries—the enforcement of this arms embargo—would have made a prohibition of this kind quite unnecessary. Unfortunately, it must be admitted that it is not impossible to obtain arms in Europe for transport to Spain. We here in this country know that a few British ships have taken part in this traffic, but I would emphasise that they have been very few indeed. Admittedly, however, the objects of the Agreement have to this small extent been nullified.
His Majesty's Government therefore decided to stop this loophole and this Bill is intended to effect that purpose.
588
The present position is undoubtedly one which involves considerable risk of incidents at sea. British merchant ships have continued to trade to Spanish ports. It is certainly true that attempts at interference with them have been very rare in the past, but in the circumstances which have obtained it was the duty of His Majesty's ships to protect British merchant ships from interference. During the last few weeks the difficulty of the position has been further increased as General Franco has announced that he intends to take steps to prevent by force the arrival of arms for his opponents by sea. This at once raised a question of belligerent rights. The problem which His Majesty's Government had to face was whether to give naval support to British ships which might he carrying arms to Spain contrary to the very policy to which the Government have adhered, or whether, on the other hand, we were to allow British ships to be stopped, searched and even captured on the high seas, by warships of an authority whose status we have not yet officially recognised, a position which would arise if belligerent rights had been accorded to the parties in Spain.
After the very fullest consideration of every aspect of this subject the Government decided not to accord belligerent rights to either side in the dispute. The Government, as I pointed out in our recent debate, do not consider that the internal situation of Spain justifies any Spanish authority in interfering with British shipping on the high seas. Furthermore, recognition of belligerent rights might very easily have been misunderstood in many quarters as a departure from the policy to which we have hitherto adhered. It might have been looked upon as an attempt to help one side or the other to establish and effect a blockade of the Spanish ports. On the other hand, it would have been quite inconsistent with our policy if His Majesty's ships had afforded protection to British merchant vessels to enable then to carry arms to Spain. At present it is not an offence under British law for a British vessel to carry arms consigned to or destined for Spain from outside a port in the United Kingdom. This Bill, if it is passed, will make it illegal for any British ships to engage

589
in such trade. It would definitely be an offence against our law. Consequently, there could in the future, in the view of the Government, be no possible excuse in the new circumstances which would have arisen for any interference with British vessels by Spanish warships, and they have stated that such interference on the high seas will be resisted.
There will be, no doubt, some criticism to the effect that this Bill is being rushed through Parliament unnecessarily quickly. May I just say a few words of explanation in regard to that? So long as His Majesty's ships were instructed to defend British ships against interference on the high seas and so long as British ships were not forbidden by British law to carry arms to Spain from any port outside the United Kingdom, a grave risk of serious incidents existed, as I have already emphasised. Such an incident, if it had occurred, would have had a very unfortunate effect. In order to minimise the possibility, which might be considered to have been increased as a result of the recently announced policy of General Franco, the Admiralty have already, by direction of the Government, issued instructions to His Majesty's ships that if they intercept a British ship carrying arms to Spain it is to be taken into a British port. This Bill is necessary in order to legalise these instructions and to indemnify any naval officers who may have acted upon them. In these circumstances it is quite obvious that the sooner this Bill is enacted, and the sooner this position is regularised, the better it will be.
There is just one other point to which I want to refer before I ask your Lordships to permit me to explain the provisions of the Bill. I would like to emphasise that the action which is proposed under this Bill is regarded by the Government as a special arrangement to meet special circumstances. Let me make it quite clear that the Bill is not being brought forward because we think in principle that State responsibility ought to extend to the private carriage of arms in ships on the high seas, but, on the other hand, because we are anxious in this special and peculiar case to do everything we can to prevent the spread to other countries of the disastrous conflict in Spain, and consequently
590
to take a course which would not be considered desirable in other circumstances.
Now, if I may, I will proceed to a short explanation of the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 has nine subsections. The first subsection prohibits ships to which the Act applies from loading or carrying arms for discharge at any Spanish port or place or into another vessel at sea for the purpose of discharge at any Spanish port or place, and also, as the result of an Amendment o which was passed in another place the day before yesterday, it applies to any articles of that character consigned to or destined for any such port or place. Subsection (2) defines the articles prohibited to be carried as those which may not be exported from this country to Spain. Subsection (3) defines the ships to which the prohibition applies. It covers all ships in respect of which His Majesty's ships would be expected to extend protection, except Dominion ships in respect to which the United Kingdom does not legislate. It includes vessels registered under local laws in any Colony or in any Protectorate or Mandated Territory. Subsection (4) enables action to be taken against persons responsible for contraventions of the Act; it puts the penalties on the footing of those applicable to serious offences under the Merchant Shipping Act.
Subsection (5) enables proceedings to be taken for the forfeiture of any goods carried in contravention of the Act. This naturally strengthens the deterrent force of the other provisions and appears to us a suitable addition to the penalties that can be imposed. Subsection (6) gives certain officers, and particularly naval officers, the powers necessary to stop and search any suspected ship and, if the ship appears to be acting in contravention of the Act, to bring it with its cargo, master and crew to a convenient port for adjudication. Subsection (7) makes it an offence to resist the exercise of the powers in the preceding subsection and prescribes the appropriate penalty against the responsible persons. Subsection (8) is necessary in order to protect naval officers and other officers against proceedings in cases where it has been necessary for them, before the passing of the Act, to give effect to the decision announced by the Foreign Secretary

591
on Monday afternoon, November 23, by interfering with ships carrying arms to Spain. This procedure is, I know, unusual, but I venture to say that the abnormal circumstances which exist clearly justify it in this case. I ought to point out in this connection that there is no question of imposing the penalties envisaged in the Bill in cases occurring before the legislation is operative. Subsection (9) defines Spanish territory in accordance with the definition which is already in operation for the purpose of the prohibition of the export of arms from the United Kingdom to Spain.
Clause 2 is more or less formal and for the most part self-explanatory, but the House will perhaps expect some comment on subsections (4) and (5). Subsection (4) is included in order to enable proceedings to be taken in the Colonies and territories specified. These include all the territories to which the vessels covered by the prohibition may belong. Without this subsection it would be possible to take proceedings only in ports of the United Kingdom, and I think your Lordships will certainly agree that it is reasonable from a legal point of view that Courts in any territory should be entitled to deal with offences by vessels registered in that territory. In practice, as a matter of fact, it is proposed to take an offending ship, her cargo and her master and crew to the nearest and most convenient port for adjudication. Subsection (5) is necessary since it is clearly desirable that the Act should be brought to an end without delay when circumstances no longer call for the continuance of a prohibition on the carriage of arms to Spain in British ships. The prohibition is a temporary and unusual measure necessitated by the existing circumstances. Those may change; and it is clearly desirable for His Majesty's Government to be in a position to adjust their action as rapidly as possible. I have attempted to explain this Bill as briefly and clearly as I can, and I now ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am aware that your Lordships are anxious to carry this Bill through all its stages as rapidly as possible, and I shall therefore not detain the House any
592
longer than is necessary to state the case of the Opposition. I have no complaints to make, as I think the noble Earl suggested I might have, about the speed with which this measure has been put through its initial stages. I do not feel that the Government have not given the Opposition in both Houses an ample opportunity to voice its views. I think that probably there is no reasonable person in this country who would disagree with the fundamental principles underlying the policy pursued by the Government. I do not think that any average Englishman in any political Party is anxious to see the war in Spain spread farther afield, and I am perfectly certain that the great majority of our fellow-countrymen welcome any attempt to confine the conflagration within the limits of the Iberian Peninsula. Nothing could be more fatal than for the flames of war to spread eastward and to sweep across the Continent of Europe. I think, besides, that every reasonable person will sympathise with any efforts that are made to mitigate the cruelty and suffer-in; inflicted on the Spanish people by both parties in the terrible struggle that is now being carried on in Spain. If I am not mistaken, these aims lie behind the policy of the Government and they are making the very sincerest effort to promote them by the measures they are laying before Parliament.
But I imagine that the tribunal of history will judge the Government and the policy not so much by their intentions as by their achievements. There is an old proverb about the paving-stones cm the path to hell, and I sincerely hope that it does not apply to the line taken in the past months, and leading up to the present Bill, by the British Government. I have had to dwell at some length on the broader lines of the policy towards Spain adopted by the Government, because it is from that starting-point that this Bill has been approached. It is because we feel that the machinery adopted by the Government for implementing its broader views on policy has been extraordinarily inadequate that we are opposing this Bill on principle as well as later offering our criticisms on certain of its clauses.
The only achievement of the Government with which we are satisfied is the refusal to recognise the contesting parties as belligerents. We feel that, as the

593
noble Earl has just said, to do so might give a false impression of the line we should adopt in the case of a blockade of ports on the Spanish coast; and we also feel that we should very much object to any suggestion fiat a legal Government should be treated in exactly the same way as the conspirators who are doing their best to overthrow it. We disagree, on the other hand, with the policy of non-intervention or neutrality as it has actually been carried out since the end of August by the Government. We were always in sympathy with what we considered to be a genuine policy of non-intervention and neutrality on the part of all those great Powers and small nations affected by this civil war in Spain. We were perfectly ready to accept the view that a genuine neutrality, resulting in the complete aloofness of all the neighbours of Spain, whatever their public or private sympathies may have been, would have left the Spanish people to settle their own difficulties in the way that they thought best. That was a policy which we considered to be both desirable and happy if it succeeded, but the actual practice, if I may so put it, of non-intervention, as it has been conducted by the British Government, has been to afford a very considerable advantage to one Party in the Spanish Civil War, and to impose a very considerable handicap on the other.
Having regard to the impossibility for the Spanish Government to obtain the military supplies that it required to deal with the revolt in its territory, from quarters whence those supplies might naturally be expected to come, and to the extreme facility with which, apparently, the rebel movement has secured whatever supplies it required from other sources, I do not think that this state of affairs can be observed without anyone who contemplates is being forced to the conclusion that practical non-intervention has meant the stopping of supplies for the Spanish Government, while the Spanish rebels have been able to secure what they wanted.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think there is a very real objection to what I have just said, and I dare say it is in the minds of noble Lords opposite. They will say that while there is an allegation,
594
which is borne out by many reliable newspaper correspondents and many people who have been to Spain, that certain Powers are helping the rebels, other Powers are supplying similar assistance to the Spanish Government. I think the answer to that is that up to the middle of October the one great Power which it is alleged has given active assistance to the Spanish Government, in spite of its agreement at the end of August, abstained very rigorously from doing anything to infringe its pledged word. I have on the most reliable authority this statement, and I shall be very glad if any noble Lord sitting on the Government Benches would bear it out or contradict it. That being so, the Powers which were helping the rebel side had a start of a good two and a half months, not to mention the period before the Non-Intervention Agreement, when they were able to send in any arms that they thought fit to supply.
I am not excusing any Government for breaking its agreement or pledged word. I am merely saying that any Government which it is alleged has come to the assistance of the Spanish Government did give a fairly large span of time before it decided that the agreement was being broken by other Parties, and that therefore it was obliged to do the same thing. I do not think that this can be said in any sense to have redressed the balance, but I think it supports my original argument, that the balance of intervention has been on one side because, in view of the recentness of the intervention on the Government's side, it cannot have been conducted on so large a scale as the steps which were taken to help the rebels. I would suggest that quite apart from actual infringement of the Non-Intervention Agreement, the forms of moral support which gave very definite encouragement, and official encouragement to one party in the dispute cannot be said to afford any evidence of real impartiality or neutrality. I would say that recognition of General Franco's forces before they were in command of half the territory of Spain, and before they had under their rule anything like half the population of the country, was an action which has no precedent in the civil wars which have broken out in European history and was a very definite moral breach of the attitude of impartiality or neutrality.

595
I should like to ask the noble Earl if he can give us any information, when he replies, as to the 5,000 recruits which it is said have been landed at Cadiz for the use of the rebels. If they come from Germany, as it is said, one doubts very much whether the claim that they are volunteers can hold, because forces in such numbers could scarcely leave a territory ruled by an autocratic Government without the approval and blessing of that Government. I would also ask whether the statement as to equipment of rifles and ammunitions with which they are alleged to have left their port of departure, is accurate, and, if so, whether it does not constitute a very open infraction of the Non-Intervention Agreement. I mention this not merely because it is an instance of alleged intervention, both moral and material, but because it is the most recent, and we have it most clearly in our minds. But I do feel that if one looks back over the past few months there can be little doubt that the abstention of democratic Governments from doing anything to help the Government of Spain has given very substantial advantage to the other side in this conflict.
I think that we are entitled to ask our own Government to look at this thing from a long point of view, and from the point of view of our British national and Imperial interests, because if it is the case that the rebel movement has made definite progress as a result of the actual policy which our Government has carried out, we should consider the consequences for our country and for the Empire of a new Government in Spain which would consist of a military dictatorship under the auspices of those who are at present occupying a large part of Southern Spain. A State of this kind would clearly be a puppet State dependent in all essentials on its dictatorial neighbours, and with little more vitality of its own than Manchukuo in respect to Japan. This being so, what would be the effect on our own strategical and commercial interests in the Mediterranean? It is perfectly clear that the rebel forces have no money with which they can pay those who are assisting them. It is equally obvious that no foreign Power would call in men and munitions, arms and equipment of every kind, without expecting
596
something in return. I am well aware that the rebel General has given a p edge that he is not handing over any territory to the Italian Government. But I think we are entitled to ask ourselves whether it may not be possible to establish submarine or air bases either in the Balearic Islands or in Spanish Morocco opposite Gibraltar without any territorial concessions being made. In view of the possibility of the western gate of the Mediterranean being closed to us in time to come, I think we should very seriously consider the consequences and repercussions of a certain eventuality in South-Western Europe which certainly has been brought nearer by the policy of the Government in the past few months.
As I said at the outset, we have always been in favour of genuine neutrality and genuine embargo applying equally to both sides. That policy has not been carried out, and we can see only one alternative, and that is for the Spanish Government to be treated in exactly the same way as other Governments would be treated in similar circumstances. I am not for a moment, as I think the noble Earl suggested, saying that we believe in anything that might be called intervention on the part of the British Government in Spain. We certainly do not support any view that would suggest that our Government should send a single man, a single ship, a single round of ammunition to Spain. We are well aware that that would be completely contrary to our British national interests, and to a policy that must necessarily respect the domestic affairs of other countries. We are, at the same time, unable to see why a Government should not be able to buy what it likes from private firms in any friendly country, wherever they may be. And, failing the success of the Government in bringing about a genuine policy of neutrality and non-intervention, we believe that our Government, in con-junction with the French Government, should restore to the Spanish Government the normal rights that a perfectly friendly and legally constituted Government expects to enjoy in such circumstances.
I cannot imagine that His Majesty's Government would be anything but wildly indignant if, supposing there was a strike in munition factories here and

597
he beginning of a rebellion, they were unable to obtain the supplies on which they relied from France or any friendly country in their neighbourhood. That is why we object to the actual policy the fulfilment of which has led up to the present Bill, and of which indeed this Bill is a part. We further feel that the Bill itself is yet another obstacle in its present form in the path of the Madrid Government. We have heard certain assurances about other countries that are willing to take the same line. We have heard that Norway has forbidden its shipping to carry arms to Spain, and that France is likely to follow our example. But this only means that the democratic Governments are again taking isolated and independent action. What about other Governments? What about the Government of Germany, what about the Government of Italy? Have they given any assurance that their ships will not carry arms?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Or Russia?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Or Russia. Certainly. I am most obliged to the noble Lords for simply reinforcing my argument, which is that those countries most concerned with the Spanish dispute should agree to the operation of a measure of this kind; that is to say, should forbid their merchant vessels to carry arms to Spain; and that this agreement should be obtained before any independent action is taken. There is a sad analogy between this and the original Non-Intervention Agreement. We are most anxious that the Government should take an initiative and give a lead in foreign affairs, because we feel that our country still has immense prestige in the world, and immense opportunities to pacify nations, both in Europe and further afield. At the same time, we do not feel that we can support a lead which is taking us in the wrong direction, because it would give undue advantage to one side in the Spanish conflict, and because there has been no guarantee that other Powers working on the Non-Intervention Committee will come in immediately this Bill has passed through Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I feel most strongly that His Majesty's Government are in this matter in a position of great difficulty and of great delicacy, and I think it is incumbent upon
598
us all not to say or do anything which could add to their difficulties in this respect. So far as the contents of this particular Bill are concerned, I have no comments to make upon the details, for I feel sure that in the main the Bill carries out to the full the purpose to which it is directed. Therefore I have no doubt it will pass through your Lordships' House, and I do not think that it is in any way necessary to comment on its provisions. At the same time, I think there are one or two general observations which ought to be made from these Benches.
The noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, who introduced this Bill with a most complete clearness and moderation, stated in the early part of his speech that the Opposition had regarded its provisions as dealing unfairly with one of the two contestants in Spain. That is quite true, but that criticism was by no means confined to the Opposition. When this Bill was being discussed in another place there was more than one speaker sitting on the Government side, and in ordinary circumstances strong supporters of His Majesty's Government, who took that particular point—namely, that though the purpose of the Bill, as stated in words, is one of a completely neutral character, yet in its operation it would work out far more hardly on one side than on the other. That is a point which cannot altogether be ignored. It might be taken as a general proposition that when two parties are in dispute, if you cannot be fair to both, it is better to be unfair to both than to be fair to one and unfair to the other. It is no doubt always difficult, when the effects of a neutral policy are examined, to be sure that they will operate with complete fairness to both sides.
It can hardly be disputed, I think, that the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will work out with greater severity to the Government at Madrid than to the insurgent forces, for reasons on which I shall say a word later and with which your Lordships are well acquainted. I will just mention in passing, though it is not exactly relevant, that the whole question of the desirability, or the contrary, of the private manufacture and export of arms does not arise on this question, because all the countries who are alleged to be sending arms and munitions in large

599
quantities to Spain are under dictatorial Government control, so there is no question of illicit profits on a large scale being made by private manufacture. I am in no sense, as I pointed out, against the whole policy of non-intervention, and the noble Earl who spoke from the Labour Benches has equally explained that that is the policy of himself and his friends, but the point is whether in this case non-intervention will work out fairly to both sides. On that it seems to me that the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, only stated half the case. He did not touch on what has passed in the International Committee in which he has taken so prominent and so leading a part. It does seem to me to be thoroughly germane to this discussion to consider whether the action which His Majesty's Government desire to take in this matter is likely to be generally followed. If it is not, I do not see how His Majesty's Government can escape from the charge of doing something which operates more severely against one side than the other.
We have seen in this morning's newspapers some account of what occurred at the meeting of that Committee yesterday. It did not seem to take anybody very far. We all know that the operations of the Concerts of Europe, and even of the League of Nations, are apt to be what, to an ordinary observer, appears dilatory, but there does not seem to be any very definite prospect that the action which is being taken by His Majesty's Government to-day is likely to be followed by the important part of the great countries who have been engaged in supplying arms and munitions to Spain. That, I confess, points in my opinion to the absence of urgency in this matter. It was proposed in another place that the wisest course would be to pass this measure, but not bring it actually into operation until its operation became effective through an Order in Council. That seems to be in itself a reasonable proposition. The noble Earl opposite will no doubt be able to say whether there is really such desperate urgency in this refusal to allow British ships to carry munitions as to make it necessary to bring the measure into force before other countries have taken similar action. If he is able to prove that, there is, of course, nothing more to be said, but until he
600
does I confess I should like to see the operation of the measure postponed as far as possible.
Only one word on the question of volunteers who have apparently flocked into Spain from all quarters and on both sides. I should not otherwise have mentioned it, but it was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in his speech. This is a matter which no doubt may have to be considered later on grounds of urgency. For instance, the noble Earl mentioned the landing of a large force of German troops. Germans will be killing Germans, because I happen to have been told on good authority that there are a number of Germans, obviously not at home in Germany, who are fighting on the side of the Government of Madrid. I heard the number put as 2,000; and I have no doubt that in addition to Russian volunteers, there are volunteers in sympathy with the communistic or anarchical movement which the Government of Spain, Republican in itself, has to adopt, who are fighting for the Government of Madrid. On the other hand, it is believed that the Foreign Legion from Morocco fighting on the side of General Franco is mainly officered by German officers. That is a most lamentable state of things, and of course complicates to an indefinite degree the whole position in Spain. I only mention it because the point was alluded to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and I will not dwell upon it. I will merely conclude by saying that I do not feel convinced of the urgency of this measure, and I shall await with interest to hear what further statements His Majesty's Government may have to make on this subject.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, this de gate, although there have only been two speakers, has covered a fairly wide range of ground, and yet I think the issue here really lies in a very narrow compass. Indeed, as the noble Earl who spoke first for the Opposition said, all that could be said on the one side or the other could be fairly said in a day's debate, and therefore, whatever we ought to do, it was reasonable we should do to-day. I think all your Lordships will agree that if action is right in this matter, there never was an occasion when the aphorism more truly applied: "What thou doest do quickly." A great deal has been said, and I will reply to it in a word or two,

601
about whether the policy now proposed in the House is going to serve the interest of one side or the other in Spain. May I put this to your Lordships: it is important to be fair. I think we have been scrupulously fair in everything we have done and are doing. Faced with the sombre, tragic fact of the civil war which is raging in Spain, are there not two other interests which we have got to keep always in our minds, the interests of this country and foe interest of keeping the peace of the world and localising this conflict within as narrow limits as possible? It seems to me that these two vital considerations are the considerations which must weigh with us in the action which we take over this Spanish conflict.
Indeed, at the outset of his speech the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, really accepted that. He told us we were right to have done all we could to localise the conflict in Spain. That was the whole basis of the Non-Intervention Agreement. And let the noble Earl observe that though we whole-heartedly supported non-intervention, and do to-day, even if it be broken here or there—and the breaks are not all on one side—it was the Govern-merit of France which with great vision and wisdom proposed non-intervention and is supporting non-intervention to-day. We were very glad to join our friends in carrying out that policy. But what does non-intervention mean? It must rest with each country a party to that pact to carry it out according to its own conscience, but it is no excuse for us not to carry out non-intervention strictly and impartially because it is said, and no doubt said with truth, that some other people are not carrying it out equally well. That would not be honest or fair on our part, and certainly it would not add to securing the peace of Europe.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that non-intervention as conducted by the British Government has benefited one side and handicapped the other. I flatly deny that there is a vestige of truth in that observation. I challenge the noble Earl to give a single instance in which the British Government have done anything which benefited either one side or the other. I challenge him to show or to allege that there is a single case in which we have not absolutely impartially done our best to stop munitions going to one side or the other. The noble Earl made two extraordinary observations.
602
One was, apparently, that now we should break our non-intervention. What does that mean? Does he seriously mean that we should go back on this policy, that we should send arms to both sides equally? I presume that at any rate he is not suggesting that we should take sides in this conflict and send arms to one party and not to the other. That is not the suggestion? The suggestion then is that we should either ourselves send arms to both sides or that we should facilitate their going there.
Another most extraordinary suggestion was made by him. I think he saw the difficulty of the proposition he was putting and he then said, in effect: "Well, you ought at any rate to let these people get arms from private sources where they can." What an astounding proposition to come from a Party which has always denounced the private manufacture of arms, which has always said that one of the dangers of the private manufacture of and trade in arms; was that when you got signs of trouble in the world the private manufacture of arms might lead to war spreading! If we were to take the advice of the noble Earl who has spoken for the Opposition to-day, to encourage and facilitate anybody going to any quarter, however irresponsible, to get arms, then indeed—I think a great deal of nonsense has been talked in the past about the private manufacture of arms—for once the case might have been proved, and the private manufacture of arms might have been a real peril for the first time to European peace. That really is not the way.
The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, asked what was the urgency. The urgency is the situation with which we are faced. We are faced with a position in which British ships might be stopped on the high seas. British ships have the right to protection from the British Fleet, but the right to protection while they are on their lawful occasions. We have the right, and indeed the duty, to say to either side in Spain that British ships must be allowed to pass upon their lawful occasions, and in order that we may be able to say that with full right and with a clear conscience, surely it is our duty to see that the British ships which proceed on the seas are proceeding in the spirit and in the letter of their lawful occasions, and that they are

603
not transgressing either the spirit or the letter of the Non-Intervention Pact to which we have set our hand. That is the urgency of the case. It is the position of our own ships, the position of our own country, which makes it urgent for us to legislate to-day. And in a situation getting always more difficult, I do not think it is a bad thing that, having stood for non-intervention, we should make it plain that as far as we are able to carry out our word and our bond we shall see that all our subjects by land or sea carry out the obligations which we have undertaken on their behalf. I suggest that that is our plain duty, and if it is our plain duty the sooner we discharge that duty the better both for our own honour and for the peace of the world so far as the peace can be kept.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Viscount is in good debating form this afternoon. He seemed to revel in the chance of a good cut and thrust encounter with my noble friend who spoke for us in the first place. He was good enough to put certain challenges to us, quite fairly, and I shall endeavour briefly to answer them, because this is a very important matter. The noble Viscount, I am sorry to notice, is not as fully informed on the legal side of this question as he usually is on most subjects in my experience of his public work. He asked whether it is really suggested by the Opposition that we should allow one side to buy arms and not the other. The answer is, Yes. That is exactly what we do propose, and I will give the reasons to your Lordships without any equivocation.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Is that non-intervention?
LORD STRABOLGI: I am not arguing for non-intervention. I am arguing for the observance of International Law, which is the policy of my Party. We supported the Government at first, for reasons which I shall explain, but, the Government's attitude has now become such a farce that we want the nations, including our own, to return to the practices of International Law. That law was very clearly stated by the Secretary of State of the United States of America in 1930 in similar circumstances, and I suggest that the action then taken by America should have been taken by His Majesty's Government on this occasion. There was a rebellion in Brazil and some
604
American citizens seemed to be favourable to the rebels. I dare say it was a question of oil concessions. The American Government of the day was criticised for rat allowing these people to send arms to the rebels, and the Secretary of State Lade a perfectly clear re-statement of International Law which exactly applies to the present position in Spain.
With your Lordships' permission I will read the passage, which was quoted very usefully by an honourable friend of mine in the debate last Tuesday in another place. It is as follows:
"There is nothing unprecedented in the principle which we now apply, which we have applied many times before. It is very important that people should not misunderstand it as a new principle. It is important for the reason that the revolutionists, who may be hurt by our action in placing an embargo, may assert that we are taking sides for some ulterior reason with one or other of the combatants. Instead of that we are acting according to general principles of International Law. Those principles declare that where we are in friendly relations through diplomatic channels with a Government which has been recognised as the legitimate Government of a country that Government is entitled to the ordinary rights of any Government to buy arms in this country [meaning of course the United States of America], while the people who are opposing and trying to overthrow that Government and are not yet recognised as belligerents are not entitled to that right. It is not a matter of choice on our part, but is a practice of mankind known as International Law. We have no personal bias, and are doing nothing but attempting to carry out the law of mankind."
That, I think, is an admirable statement of International Law by the American Secretary of State in 1930 in almost precisely similar conditions to those prevailing in Spain to-day.
The noble Viscount, I am sure, will not controvert that opinion and that is the present policy of the Labour Party as approved at our Conference in Edinburgh, to which we adhere, which was reaffirmed in another place, and which my noble friend the Earl of Listowel has reaffirmed to-day. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, declared with great emphasis that he and his colleagues have been perfectly fair in this matter—"scrupulously fair" were his words. We say they have not been fair, and I will explain why we say that the Government have been most unfair. They always act with great speed in anything that is calculated to injure the present Government in Spain—always. There

605
was the very early ease at the end of July or the beginning of August when, without waiting for any other Power to act, they clapped on an Order preventing any British munitions being sold to the Spanish Government. May I say that we do not want the Government to supply the Spanish Government with arms? We only want to give the Spanish Government the, ordinary legitimate rights which they have, and should always have, of buying arms in the open market. We do not want the noble Earl's chief in another place to ask for an Estimate in the House of Commons for the supply of arms to the Spanish Government. We only want the Spanish Government to be allowed to buy in the open market.
His Majesty's Government, weeks before Italy or Germany or other States concerned made any move, while they were still haggling and arguing and manæuvring, clapped on this ordinance preventing anything being purchased on behalf of the legitimate and recognised Government of Spain, a Government which is a fellow Member of the League of Nations, a Government which is represented at the Court of St. James's. The other example of their speedy action is this Hill. As the noble Marquess who spoke from the Liberal Benches pointed out, there is no guarantee that other States will act in this way. Therefore this action is likely to have a one-sided effect. As long as the reactionaries in Spain can buy all the arms they require, and more than they can use, what effect can this action have but to injure to some extent the legitimate Government in Spain? In another case the Government would not move at all until other States also acted. In the case of Italian aggression last year the noble Lord who spoke then for His Majesty's Government said we could not move at all until other States moved with us. That was a case of a small people struggling against a Fascist Power. Now when it is a case of helping a legitimate Government, or rather of doing nothing to hinder them, His Majesty's Government rush in with this Bill which we say is precipitate and unnecessary.
I wonder if the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, will be offended if I make a small complaint. We had a debate last week on this matter and I asked for certain information. The noble Earl did not reply at the time, but I requested him
606
to let us have the information in some other way, and I should like now to repeat my request for information. I am not referring to the case of Majorca in regard to which information was sought by three noble Lords. The question I raised was one of piratical action against British subjects. We hear brave words from the Secretary of State for Air and from, the noble Earl about defending British ships on the high seas, but they have not done it in the past. I quoted a case, referred to in the newspapers on November 7, of a cargo of British goods—potatoes to wit—carried in a Norwegian steamer. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Air laughs, but those potatoes were the property of hardworking British farmers. They are people who are as much entitled to protection as anyone else. Those potatoes were being carried in a Norwegian steamer to Valencia, and a Spanish rebel gunboat stopped this steamer, took her into Vigo, and discharged the potatoes, to the loss of the British farmers who had sold them or the British merchants, as the case may be.
That was an act of piracy. That ship was not condemned in a prize court, a court of law. That rebel was acting as a buccaneer in International Law, as every lawyer will agree. I have not heard of a single protest by His Majesty's Government—not a word. Then there was the other case, of a British ship this time, the Newcastle steamer "Thornhope," which was stopped by another gunboat flying the piratical flag—because these people, in International Law, are pirates. She also was taken into Vigo. She had no munitions on board; she was on her lawful occasions—to quote the words of the Minister. When they found that she was bound for a French port in Algiers they graciously let her go. These are the Press reports giving the names of the steamers, and I asked the noble Earl about them. He is the Chairman of the Non-intervention Committee and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; why cannot we have the information? What is happening? If it is true, what are the Government doing and what have they done? There was the earlier case of which the Leader of the House has knowledge and to which I drew his attention in the Recess: there was the earlier case of these rebel forces declaring a blockade at the port of Bilbao,

607
a port of the greatest importance to British merchants and shipping. Bilbao is one of the greatest supply ports of iron ore, and they put down a minefield outside it and declared that any British ship going near Bilbao would be attacked and prevented from trading. I never heard of any action by His Majesty's Government, none whatever.
I should like to give another example of the Government's unfairness and their partiality. Right back in August, a Spanish Government cruiser stopped and visited a British merchant ship on the high seas. Immediately a battle cruiser—already under steam, presumably—left Gibraltar, cleared for action, warned off the Spanish cruiser and rescued the British merchant ship. That was a Spanish Government cruiser. The Government did not ask for a Bill to enable them to do that; not at all. I say that those are just a few examples of their partiality. They have acted unfairly—I repeat what my noble friend Lord Snell said last week—towards the Spanish Government.
I also resent very much the fact that from the beginning there has been no word of sympathy from any member of His Majesty's Government, that I am aware of, with the Spanish Government in this case—not one word of sympathy. Indeed, the First Lord of the Admiralty went so far in a public speech as to talk of "the two factions," putting them entirely on an equal level. It is the fashion nowadays—to come back to this question of International Law—to talk as if International Law were of no further account, that it does not matter, that it has no force. If that attitude is accepted, it cuts at the very basis of civilisation. There is a law of nations that has grown up during centuries. I was always taught—and I see noble Lords who have had an early maritime training in the House, and they will bear me out—we were always taught in our early days that there was a recognised law between nations at difference and that it had to be observed; that it had grown up through the centuries, long before the League of Nations was established; that it was the basis of communication between civilised States, and that there were certain conventions that had grown up and could be recognised as a kind of common law between nations. If we are to pretend now that this law
608
cannot be carried out, it is, I submit to your Lordships, giving over the world to anarchy and the rule of the bully.
We are told that the Government thought that the best policy to adopt was this policy of so-called "non-intervention "—a very unfortunate word, if I may be allowed to say so. I believe the French call in "non-interference." It is not a question of intervening at all. If I may examine the word for one instance, it has really acted, as my noble friend Lord Listowel says, from the very beginning against the Spanish Government. Why did they do this? We are told, because there was a danger of this conflict in Spain spreading. I have watched this matter very closely from the beginning and I can find no trace of any one talking about the danger of war except His Majesty's Ministers in this country—no one else. Who threatened war? Is it really supposed that we were in danger of being attacked, or our French neighbour was in danger of being attacked, if we stood by the law of nations? That law is that the recognised Government of a country, as stated in the declaration I have read out from the American Secretary of State, is entitled to buy arms and that the supply of arms and other assistance to insurrectionaries in that country is an act of aggression. If we had stood by the letter of the law of nations, is it really seriously suggested that a war would have started? I can find no trace of it, and I say that the only talk of war from the beginning came from His Majesty's Ministers. Of course, if they took that attitude, they were inviting breaches of the law of nations by those who are now helping the Government in Span. I can only suppose that they were actuated by one of two reasons, or, it may have been, by both. One is that they were afraid to carry out the law, afraid of attack, and the other is that they were actuated by malevolence towards the Government in Madrid. Both motives are equally reprehensible, and I should not be a bit surprised if both were the cause of their action.
I understand now that a meeting of the League of Nations will take place at the request of the Spanish Government and that His Majesty's Government will be represented on the Council. I should have thought that it would be better to delay the passing of this Bill until we

609
could have seen whether it were possible for action to be taken through the League of Nations. May I echo some words which fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, on the Liberal Benches, when he asked whether nothing further could be done to mitigate these horrors in Spain? The noble Viscount spoke of the interests of this country in not seeing the war spread. There is a third interest, which I am sure he shares, and that is the interest of humanity. Can nothing be done at all? Can His Majesty's Government concern themselves—I am sure that they do concern themselves, but are they really working at some policy, in conjunction with other Powers, to stop this horrible business in Spain of the slaughter and torture of so many innocent people? If so, why, with the greatest respect, do they not let the country and other countries know what they propose to do? It is not a question of two factions fighting it out, as the First Lord of the Admiralty says; it is a most horrible business, and I am sure that there is no decent person in any country—I do not care what country he is in—but must deplore it.
I should have thought that, this policy having so obviously failed, the other policy might be tried, and I should have thought that the League of Nations in this case was the proper body to act. I personally am not a defeatist about the League of Nations; I think it is a great misservice to the world to pretend that the League of Nations is of no more account. I believe it could be revived to-morrow. The whole of the machinery is there; it is the spirit behind it that counts. I believe that if a great appeal were made to all nations through the League of Nations, even to those nations which do not belong to it, something might be done to intervene and stop this barbaric slaughter. I am told that in the event of the rebel cause winning in. Madrid, the best opinion expects another two years of fighting in that country before the rebel cause can succeed. I have not heard the estimate if the rebel cause loses, but I should think that the fighting will then come to an end more quickly. It will mean the most terrible' slaughter in either case. You have a large army of Moors in Spain to-day who, I suppose, when they find their cause is losing, may turn upon Spaniards of all political creeds, and then you will have another cause of
610
suffering and wholesale murder in that unhappy country. I should have thought that His Majesty's Government would have strained every nerve at the present time and have used every kind of influence they possessed to attempt to get the nations of the world to take joint action to end this horrible situation.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with, Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now go into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Prohibition of the discharge in and transhipment for Spanish territory of munitions of war from certain ships.
1.—(1) No article to which this Act applies shall be discharged at any port or place in Spanish territory or within the territorial waters adjacent thereto from a ship to which this Act applies, and no such article shall be transhipped on the high seas from any such ship into any vessel bound for any such port or place, and no such article consigned to or destined for any such port or place shall be taken on board or carried in any such ship.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: There are no Amendments on the Paper, "but a manuscript Amendment has been handed in in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. It is an Amendment to Clause 1, on page 1, line 6, at the beginning to insert:
"If at any time the Secretary of State certifies that foreign Powers (represented on the Non-intervention Committee) in sufficient numbers to have decisive effect, have adopted measures similar in substance and effect to the provisions of this Act, His Majesty may by Order in Council declare that "
and then follow the words of the clause.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I must apologise, my Lords, first of all, for the fact that you have not been able to have copies of this Amendment, but I have no doubt you will understand that the position is one for which we on

611
these Benches are not responsible. I am not going to repeat the arguments to which you have already listened, and I merely wish to explain that the intention of the Amendment is to postpone the operation of this measure until other countries represented on the Non-intervention Committee have agreed to do the same thing. The analogy of last August is one that may hold again in this instance. There we put an embargo on munitions for Spain on the 19th of the month, and Germany and Italy did not come in until the end of the same month. There was therefore a time lag, which definitely gave an advantage to one side in this conflict. We are exceedingly anxious that there should not be another time lag in this instance. We are afraid that it might be even longer. The noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party said he was in substantial agreement with the intention of this Amendment, and I hope that noble Lords on the Liberal Benches will be able to represent their points of view. I would like to add that I am not certain whether the actual words or the drafting of the Amendment cover my point, but naturally I should be willing to accept any alteration which the Government might wish to make if they approve the principle of the Amendment itself.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, at the beginning insert ("If at any time the Secretary of State certifies that foreign Powers (represented on the Non-intervention Committee) in sufficient numbers to have decisive effect, have adopted measures similar in substance and effect to the provisions of this Act, His Majesty may by Order in Council declare that)"—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: As the noble Earl has explained, the object of this Amendment is to make the entry into force of this legislation dependent upon similar action on the part of an unspecified number of other countries who are parties to the Non-Intervention Agreement. The noble Viscount who sits on the Front Bench, and who spoke on behalf of the Government, explained, I think quite clearly, why urgency was of the utmost importance in this respect, and I say straight off that I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. The prohibition of the carriage of arms in British ships forms in our view an essential part of the policy which His Majesty's Government
612
have found it necessary to adopt, to meet the naval problems which have resulted from the situation in Spanish waters. Though I admit that this is not actually a part of the Agreement, it is entirely in conformity with our policy. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment spoke of the question of a time lag, which would work in favour of one party and against another. I cannot accept this point of view, because on his own showing, and on his own admission, the time lag would operate not only in favour of countries which may be supporting the insurgents in Spain, but also in favour of countries that may be supporting the Government party in Spain. He admitted himself, and it is generally recognised, that war materials were entering Spain destined to help not only one party but both parties in the conflict there. Therefore I cannot admit for a single moment that the effect of this Bill is going to be to help one party in Spain at the expense of the other.
I repeat, in spite of everything said by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Strabolgi—and I think it is a view which would be supported by every fair-minded person—that we have acted scrupulously fairly in carrying out our policy of non-intervention, and we intend to pursue that policy and not be deterred by speeches such as that which was delivered by the noble Lord opposite. We do not believe that this Bill is going to help one side as opposed to the other. We ask your Lordships to pass it because we believe it to be an essential and logical part of our policy of non-intervention. The Amendment asks that we should not put this measure into operation until similar legislation has been passed by other members of the Non-Intervention Committee. We have, it is perfectly true, drawn the attention of the members of the Non-Intervention Committee to the fact that we were introducing legislation, and we have asked them to consider whether it would not be possible for them to take similar action themselves; but I venture to say that as this case is so urgent we could not possibly expect that effective action would be taken by other countries with anything like the speed and expedition that we think we ought ourselves to use in the matter. I cannot believe that it is necessary or desirable for us to make our action depend upon action taken by other countries. I cannot think that

613
your Lordships wish that arms which cannot be sent from this country to Spain should at the same time be allowed to be taken from any country to Spain by a British ship. The object of the Bill is to prevent that being done, and I repeat that it is a logical and sensible policy to pursue. In those circumstances I very much hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment which is proposed.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I cannot say that I am by any means satisfied by the assurance of the noble Earl opposite that in the event of a time lag the interval would be used equally in favour of both sides in the Spanish conflict. I am sure he will agree with mo that there have been already indications that certain countries that would naturally sympathise with the Spanish Government are willing to enter a similar agreement. The Government of France, for instance, which has worked very closely with our Government, has already expressed the view that it is likely to present a Bill of very much the same purport as the one which we are considering at this moment. It therefore looks as though again it were the democratic countries, which would be approached naturally by the Spanish Government if it desired support and material, that are going to take the first action to prevent support being carried in merchant vessels to Spain.
There is no assurance, so far as I am aware, that either Germany or Italy, which are the two principal Powers likely to favour the opposite side, the rebel side, are prepared to take similar action and to forbid their merchantmen to carry munitions of war to Spanish ports. That is a point of absolutely first-rate importance. It is a plea that has been made by both the Liberal and the Labour Oppositions in both Houses of Parliament, and it is not because I am the least satisfied with the answer that has been offered by the Government, or that I feel that this is a point that can be waived, but simply because I have not as solid backing as noble Lords opposite have the good fortune to possess, that I am obliged to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
House resumed.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before we finally part with this Bill I wonder whether the noble Earl would find it convenient to give some information on the points raised last week by my noble friend Lord Snell and myself, and again to-day? Could he say something about the position in Majorca, or in any case about the other action taken against British ships with British cargoes at sea?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am afraid I am not in a position to make any statement on the point that was raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition when we discussed Spain last week. This, as I think your Lordships will understand, is a measure that had to be brought forward quickly and that was intended to make special arrangements to deal with special circumstances. I know your Lordships' Rules of Procedure are very wide, and consequently the opportunity has been taken to refer to every aspect of the trouble in Spain, but I am afraid that I am not in a position at present to deal with the question that was asked by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition last week, or indeed with a number of points that have been raised during the course of this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made great play with the particular case of a ship that had been stopped on the high seas by one of General Franco's cruisers, which was a Norwegian ship carrying a cargo from Aberdeen, and he asked why we have not done anything about this. The answer seems to be simple, that as this cargo was being carried in a Norwegian ship and not a British ship, it was clearly not our business, or indeed possible for us, to interfere in the matter. For the rest, all that I understood the noble Lord to say was that we acted unfairly in taking action in certain cases which happened to be cases in which the Spanish Government was concerned, and not having taken it in others. I can only say that we have been actuated by a motive which is one that I think all members of your Lordships'

615
House would gladly support, and that is a desire to act scrupulously fairly in all cases. I cannot admit for a single moment that we have acted in favour of one side or the other. Although I am afraid I am not in a position to deal with all these specific points which have been raised during the course of this debate, I can assure noble Lords that those have been the objects of His Majesty's Government, and I think that the great majority of your Lordships would agree that we have been successful in achieving those objects.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate, for the issues have been clearly stated and are in the minds of your Lordships, but in parting with this Bill I think it is my duty on behalf of the Opposition to express our very keen disappointment at the lack of response by His Majesty's Government to the request for information. I hope His Majesty's Government will not get into the way of ignoring the requests of the Opposition for information on public matters. The fact that we are few in this House tempts His Majesty's Government to treat us with less consideration than would be the case if we were more numerous. If the noble Earl had said first, "We have not any information," or that it would not be to the public interest to expose it, we should accept that in a moment as being satisfactory, but in parting with the Bill I do wish to say that, as far as we see our duty in this House, we have certain responsibilities and we shall have to try to carry them out with or without the co-operation of His Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is so unlike his usual self, if I may say so, that I think on reflection he will agree that his strictures are really undeserved. No one knows better than he does, and no one has acknowledged more frequently, the readiness of the Government to meet him on all occasions in the fullest way in debate. He has paid me more than one compliment in that respect, and certainly there is no reason why I should be singled out above my fellows. It is exactly the same with everybody on this Bench. But I do want to put this to my noble friend. There is not the least
616
intention to keep any information from him, but my noble friend the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs was, I think, in a very genuine difficulty to-day. I should have been in exactly the same difficulty, and I should not have had the least idea what was the answer to two or three of the points that were thrown out.
We have here a Bill on which the issues are in a very narrow compass, dealing with certain specific things. I think the House will agree that on everything that is relevant to the Bill we have given the fullest possible information and answered every argument. As we all know, the Rules of Order in this House—well, there is only one rule of order and that is that there is no order, and I think it is rather a good plan, and in that way alone we are like a Soviet State—the Rules of Order in this House enable noble Lords to raise almost any question, however irrelevant to the particular subject in debate, and we have done our best—and I think we have succeeded in a good many cases—to answer questions which in another place would not be in order for discussion at all. My noble friend has been unable to answer one or two of the questions which were raised because, without the whole of the Foreign Office archives and others of many other Government Departments before him, he could not have given an answer. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is much better that he should say so frankly than attempt to produce an answer, so to speak, out of the hat. I hope that on consideration my noble friend will not think any discourtesy was intentionally offered to him, and that he will agree that we have dealt as fully as we could with all the subjects in any way relevant to the debate.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bill.
Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain).
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, DRAFT INSTRUCTIONS TO THE GOVERNORS OF INDIAN PRO VINCES.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQITESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I have to submit to your Lordships for your consideration, and I hope your approval, the text of certain Instruments of Instructions which it is proposed to issue to the Governors of Indian Provinces and, in due course, to the Governor of the separated Burma. The Draft of these instructions is laid before Parliament in pursuance of the pro-visions of Section 53 of the Government of India Act which, while it does not permit Parliament to amend the text, does nevertheless require that no further action should be taken with regard to the Instruments until the assent of both Houses has been given.
Instruments of Instruction are no new thing. The Governors who are at present functioning in India are carrying on their administration in accordance with Instructions conveyed to them by His Majesty similar in kind to the Instruments which are now before your Lordships' House, and those Instructions have been valid without having been referred in any way to Parliament. It will be seen, therefore, that Section 53 of the Government of India Act is introducing a novel feature into our constitutional practice and one which, it might be argued, runs counter to the division of functions normally recognised under our Constitution between the Legislature on one side and the Executive on the other. I suppose it would be generally agreed that, broadly speaking, the functions of the Legislature are the determination of policy and the passing of Acts to give effect to the policy when it has been decided upon, and that, on the other hand, the functions of the Executive are to carry out the policy decided upon by Parliament and to administer the Acts. If the Legislature is dissatisfied with the manner in which the Executive is discharging its functions a remedy is, of course, open to it. It can dismiss the Executive.
These Instruments of Instruction are Letters drawn up by His Majesty on the advice of His Ministers instructing his representatives in India as to the manner in which they should discharge those duties, and bearing in mind the division
618
of functions between the Legislature and the Executive to which I have referred, it will seem obvious at first sight at any rate that the drafting and the issue of these Instructions is essentially the prerogative of the Executive. How then does it come about that in this case Parliament and the Government have agreed to share responsibility for the issue of those Instructions? For an answer to that question we must turn to the Report of the Joint Select Committee in which it was pointed out that it would be possible to effect considerable developments in the constitutional advance of India by means of these Instructions without infringing the actual provisions of the Act. They went on to stress the importance of the different stages of the advance along the road towards full self-government in India and added that in their opinion it would be neither wise nor safe to deny Parliament a voice in the determination of those progressive stages.
This, then, explains why it is that I am submitting to your Lordships for your approval the text of these Instruments of Instructions. The Instruments themselves have been before your Lordships since February, 1935. The present text varies to some extent from the original text, but, broadly speaking, the only changes which have been made in the text have been made to meet points which arose in the course of discussions, either in this House or in another place, of the provisions of the Bill which eventually became the Act of 1935. Let me just say before I touch upon the actual paragraphs of the Instruments something with regard to the form of them. They have not been couched in the detailed and precise language of an Act of Parliament. The reason for that is obvious. The letter of the law is to be found in the Act itself. These Instructions convey to His Majesty's representatives in India, the spirit in which he desires that the letter of the law should be administered.
Let me turn for a moment to the first of the two Instruments of Instructions—namely, that which it is proposed to issue to the Governors of the Provinces in India. The first six paragraphs are purely introductory. Section B deals with the manner in which the Governor shall discharge his executive authority. In paragraph VII, which is the first paragraph of Section B of the Instrument, it is laid down that the Governor

619
shall follow a certain course in appointing his Cabinet. One of the matters which he has to bear in mind in appointing his Cabinet is the inclusion in it, so far as may be practicable, of members of important minority communities. It is quite true that in the course of the discussions of the Joint Select Committee some doubt was at one time expressed whether that would not be unduly restricting the Governor in his freedom of choice, but the representatives of the minority communities have, from first to last, made so great a point of an instruction of this kind that it was considered impracticable now to omit it. Indeed, the representatives of the minority communities urged in the course of the Round-Table Conferences that it should be made a statutory obligation upon the Governor to appoint members of the important minorities in his Government. That, of course, would have been going too far.
Paragraph VIII embodies really the keystone of the Act so far as the Governor is concerned, for it defines his relations with his Ministers in the exercise of his powers in three different categories—first of all, acting in his discretion, and I need not at this stage delay your Lordships by describing what is the meaning of those words; secondly, acting in his individual judgment; and thirdly, acting without restriction upon the advice of his Ministers. Paragraph IX deals with the manner of the discharge by the Governor of his responsibility—his "special responsibility," that is to say—for the minorities. In the second part of paragraph IX it will be seen that certain instructions are given to him to observe any policy which may be in force at the time of the coming into operation of this part of the Constitution with regard to the inclusion of representatives of the minority communities in the public Services. It may perhaps be of interest to those of your Lordships who are interested in this particular aspect of the case and who from time to time have championed so eagerly the claims of the minorities in this respect, if I give you an example of the kind of arrangements which are as a matter of fact already in existence in connection with this matter.
Take the case of one of the largest of the Presidencies, the Presidency of
620
Madras. In Madras there is already a system of communal rotation; that is to say, that out of every twelve appointments five go to non-Brahmin Hindus, two to Brahmins, two to Moslems, two to Anglo-Indians, Christian Indians and non-Asiatics, and one to other communities, including the Depressed Classes. That is the general rule which is in force in Madras. The system is inevitably modified in the case of certain of the Services and certain posts for which technical or special qualifications are required, and it does not apply to the judicial branch of the Madras Civil Service, since the High Court object to being bound in this matter by any hard-and-fast rules. But I hope that example of what the practice is will satisfy your Lordships that under this Instrument of Instructions every care will be taken to see that minority communities are treated fairly in the matter of representation in the public Services.
If any of your Lordships wish to ask any question in the course of debate in regard to the paragraphs which I am passing over, of course I shall be only too pleased to endeavour to answer them; but let me now pass on to paragraph XIII, which deals with the rules of business which are to be made by the Governor. I will call particular attention to the last part of that paragraph, since those words have been inserted in the Instrument in order to meet the point which was pressed upon me in the course of our discussions on the Bill by my noble friends Lord FitzAlan and Lord Rankeillour.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: And the most reverend Primate.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I am obliged to my noble friend for reminding me; and by the most reverend Primate. These words, taken in conjunction with paragraph XVI and also with paragraph XX, are designed to secure the object which those noble Lords had in view when they were championing the cause of the minorities in the Legislatures. Then I pass to paragraph XV since that was introduced as the result of an Amendment to the Act which was made in answer to representations by those who took a special interest in the welfare of the primitive communities in India. They would have liked to see the introduction into the Act itself of a statutory provision calling upon the Governor to appoint a

621
special officer to advise him with regard to the interests of these primitive peoples. Certain of the Governors were unwilling that that should be done, since they were of opinion that they could best look after the interests of those peoples through the ordinary administrative machinery of Government. This instruction, however, calls the attention of the Governors to the advantage of appointing a special officer should they, after experience, find that this was a, desirable course to pursue.
Paragraph XVI, to which I have already referred, was also introduced to meet the point made by the most reverend Primate, Lord Rankeillour, and Lord FitzAlan. I think that there is little that I need say beyond those points until I come to paragraph XVII, but there is one point in paragraph XVII to which I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships. It lays down that the Governor shall not assent to certain measures but shall reserve them for the consideration of the Governor-General. Amongst these are measures which deal with the compulsory acquisition of land This was added to the Instrument of Instructions to give effect to an undertaking which was given in another place in April, 1935. This paragraph refers to any Bill which would alter the character of the Permanent Settlement. There is this proviso in that case:
"And in view of the provisions in this clause of these Our Instructions, it is Our will and pleasure that if his previous sanction is required under the Act to the introduction of any Bill of the last-mentioned description "—
That is to say, a Bill affecting the Permanent Settlement—
"Our Governor shall not withhold that sanction to the introduction of the Bill"—
but shall, of course, say that if the Bill is passed it is reserved for the consideration of the Governor-General.
I think there is nothing which, in the absence of questions, I need add to the brief description which I have given of the more important paragraphs in the Instrument itself. I would, however, like-to say a word—because I know that some of my noble friends are interested in this matter—with regard to the recommendation which is contained in paragraph 9(3 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee. The recommendation contained in that paragraph was to the effect that there should be included in the Act
622
a power under which the Governor in certain circumstances, if faced with certain movements of a subversive character, should be entitled to take into his own hands the administration of such Departments of the Government as he-considered necessary in the circumstances. That recommendation is not mentioned in the Instrument of Instructions because it was embodied almost verbatim in the Act itself—namely, in Section 57—and the Governor of any Province is therefore authorised in those circumstances to take into his own hands the administration of any Department of Government which he may consider necessary.
But it will be pointed out to me that there was a further recommendation contained in paragraph 96 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee to this effect, that if at the time of the coming into operation of Provincial Autonomy the situation in Bengal, so far as the terrorist movement was concerned, had not shown substantial improvement, then the Governor of that Presidency should be instructed forthwith to take into his own hands such Departments as he thought desirable. I am happy to say that since the Joint Select Committee had this matter under their consideration there has been a substantial improvement in the situation in Bengal. The year's statistics of terrorist crime are sufficient to show that. Crimes which are ascribed to the activities of the terrorists have fallen from ninety-four in 1932 to thirteen in 1935, and to three, so far, during the present year. The question is whether that constitutes the substantial improvement which the Joint Select Committee had in mind when they were dealing with this matter. In the opinion of the Governor of Bengal, Sir John Anderson, to whom I am glad to take this opportunity of paying a tribute for the extraordinary wisdom, forbearance and at the same time strength with which he has administered this very difficult Province, the alteration in the situation in Bengal is certainly sufficiently great to justify your Lordships in treating Bengal, in the matter of the transfer of law and order, in precisely the same manner as you propose to treat the other Provinces of India.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I have never myself believed that this terrorist movement, which has now been rooted in

623
Bengal for something like thirty years, will be really finally eradicated except under pressure of public opinion in Bengal itself, and with the assistance of the people of Bengal. What is essential is a complete change of outlook on the part of the public in Bengal, a complete change, that is to say, from the outlook which was prevalent in Bengal not so many years ago, and I consider that one of the most hopeful features of the situation in Bengal, to-day, is the fact that there are quite definite indications that that change of outlook on the part of the people of Bengal is actually taking place. That is certainly very definitely the opinion of Sir John Anderson himself, and it might interest your Lordships if, by way of illustration of this change of attitude which is taking place, I gave you an experience of my own.
In the earlier days of this movement one of the most effective, and one of the most violent, prophets of the most extreme form of nationalism in Bengal which degenerated into the terrorist movement was Mr. Birendra Kumar Chose. I had occasion to describe him publicly once as one of the most fiery prophets of this movement. The appeal which he made to them in those earlier days of the terrorist movement, somewhere about the year 1910 or 1912, was for men, hundreds of thousands of men, who would be ready to wipe out with their blood the stain of India's age-long subjection. So effectively did that appeal strike the people of Bengal that it was said by an Indian observer, who was certainly very familiar with the motives which lay behind this extreme form of nationalism, that his appeal to the people of Bengal:
"smote on the heart of the people as on a giant's harp, awakening out of it a storm and a tumult such as Bengal had never known through the long centuries of her political serfdom."
In other words, Mr. Birendra Kumar Ghose was one of the most inspiring personalities behind what became the terrorist movement.
Some months ago I received quite unexpectedly a letter from Mr. Birendra Kumar Ghose. He told me that his view of this question had undergone a complete change. He told me that he realised the essential importance, from the point of view of Bengal nationalism itself, that this terrorist movement should
624
be brought to a close, and he explained to me that whereas official literature and appeals to the people had little effect, appeals couched in a powerful nationalistic and idealistic tone to the people themselves would have a dramatic effect. He not only wrote me in that sense but he himself wrote a powerful appeal from the nationalist point of view, which was published both in English and in Bengali, End which he himself described as "a powerful indictment from the national point of view of a movement which came only to wake up a dormant India and an apathetic Government to the new forces beginning then to be dynamic."
I will give your Lordships one other example of the change of outlook on the part of the people of Bengal with regard to this matter. A few weeks ago a political prisoners' or a political sufferers' day was launched in Bengal under the auspices of Jawaharlal Nehru, President of the Indian National Congress, who is certainly not remarkable for the moderation of his views. In spite of the fact that this political sufferers' day—which is the kind of thing which usually makes an immense appeal to the peoples of Bengal—was launched under these auspices, it attracted singularly little attention from the people themselves. In Calcutta the day was observed by three meetings only, the audiences at which were estimated to be 200, 100 and 50 respectively, and in Chittagong, one of the centres of the revolutionary movement in Eastern Bengal, the non-observance of this day was even more remarkable. The resolutions which had been drafted for passage at these meetings, which were to have been held all over Bengal, were read in Chittagong to an assembly of three persons in the verandah of the local Pleaders' Club. They were read by the chairman of the meeting and passed by the other two. A few years ago a political sufferers' day in Bengal would have attracted all over that Province meetings of thousands of people.
I think I have perhaps now given your Lordships two examples, both striking in their own way, of the extent to which the outlook of the people of Bengal has changed with regard to this matter. I would urge your Lordships therefore to accept the view which, as I have said, is so strongly held by the Governor of

625
the Province, as well as by the Government of India—a view which I fully share myself—that it would really be disastrous to-day if we were to attempt to discriminate against Bengal by reserving, in that Province only, the administration of the portfolio of law and order. To do so would be to display an extraordinary lack of trust in the good sense and the patriotism of the new Government in Bengal, and, in the case of a sensitive and emotional people such as the Bengalees are, would do nothing but check the improved outlook on the part of the people at large.
But, having said so much, I would not have it supposed for one moment that it is not necessary to maintain an attitude of constant vigilance with a view to preventing any recrudescence of this movement, which is for the time being at any rate dying down. I have had far too much experience of movements of this kind in Bengal myself not to realise that if vigilance is relaxed there is always the danger of a movement, of this kind springing up again; and Sir John Anderson himself, in informing me that he would be strongly opposed to any reservation of the portfolio of law and order in Bengal at the present time, said he would certainly consider it his duty to furnish me with a further appreciation of the situation at any future time should there be any indication of a deterioration of the Province in that respect. I think that that covers the ground covered by the Instrument of Instructions to the Governments in India, and I beg to move the Motion with regard to them which stands in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 53 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that His Majesty may be pleased to issue Instructions to the Governors of Governors' Provinces in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I would not delay your Lordships on this matter were it not that it would seem inappropriate that these Instructions should go forth without some commendation from other members of your Lordships' House than those who belong to the Government. It is of the utmost importance, as I see it, that these Instructions should commend themselves to the Indian people,
626
and therefore it seems appropriate that we should send them with our own commendation. Many of us have worked for so long and so hard on this Indian problem at the Round Tables and the Indian Joint Select Committee that it, is almost tragic to have to say good-bye to the work that we have done together, and the interest we feel in it is testified to by the numbers of your Lordships who are present who shared the burdens of the Round Tables and the Joint Committee. I do not wish to say much on this matter except that these Instructions seem to me to assure the Indian people that the Governor of a Province, while being its ruler, will also be in some measure the chief servant of the people. He will have a paternal responsibility for their welfare, and one will learn a great deal from both his actions and the response of the Indian people to what he suggests.
There are one or two comments I would like to make in regard to the separate paragraphs. First of all paragraph IX, which seems to me to be very important, lays down that the Governor should have the responsibility of watching over the legitimate interests of the minorities. There is, however, at the end one phrase which perhaps the noble Marquess would be good enough to explain:
"But he shall not regard as entitled to his protection any body of persons by reason only that they share a view on a particular question which has not found favour with the majority."
I do not know what those words may mean, but if they meant that people holding an unpopular view—such as the view I hold for instance—would be entitled to no kind of protection from the Governor, I should think that these Instructions were not as perfect as they could be made. I will pass that over with just that comment, because in all probability the noble Marquess will relieve my difficulties about it.
There is just a word about paragraph XIX, which says that it shall be a responsibility of the Governor, as he sees fit and according to the situation, "to redress so far as may be, inequalities of representation which may have resulted from election." Well, I have on previous occasions expressed the limitation of approval of my noble friends on these Benches on these matters, and we have expressed certain very definite

627
wishes which cannot at present, I understand, be conceded; but I do hope that the Governor will take very seriously this trust which is placed upon him. There is only one other paragraph, and that is paragraph XX, which seems to me to be excellent, both in its phrasing and its responsibilities. Its seems to me that if this paragraph is understood by the Governors and they feel a sense of responsibility in regard to it, an immense amount of value will result to the Indian people throughout the various Provinces.
That is all I wish to say on this matter. We see what has happened so far in India as the result of this promise of self-government. The noble Marquess has expressed his pleasure with the progress towards the acceptance of peace in Bengal. I always felt sure that that would happen. I hope and believe that now henceforth the Indian people will be drawn together on another basis and find unity in the common task of nation-building, and that these reservations in regard to disorder will gradually pass out of our minds. I most sincerely hope that these Instructions, with limitations that I should not have placed in them myself, will be accepted by the Indian people, and that they will now feel that their work of nationhood has really begun.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, like the last speaker, I feel it is necessary for one who has sat on all the Round-Table Conferences as well as in the Joint Select Committee just to say a word or two of approval of the Draft Instrument of Instructions under the Government of India Act. I have read the Draft as carefully as I can, and I think it is a full expression of the multitudinous understandings and agreements which were gradually reached at one Round-Table Conference after another and finally embodied in the Joint Select Committee's Report. The very essence of this document, as I see it, is contained in Section B, where you get an instruction to the Governor, in effect, to introduce a system of full responsible government as rapidly as he can, subject always to those special responsibilities which will only come into operation if responsible government does not rise to the true level of its responsibility.
628
I confess that the actual phrasing used is a little curious, but I think that phrasing did arise out of the earlier discussions. Paragraph VII, after saying that it will be the Governor's business to select his Ministers "in consultation with the person who, in his judgment, is most likely to command a stable majority in the Legislature," goes on to say:
"In so acting he shall bear constantly in mind the need for fostering a sense of joint responsibility among his Ministers."
A few lines later on, in paragraph VIII, are the words:
"Our Governor shall, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him, be guided by the advice of his Ministers,"
which I believe is the ordinary constitutional form of referring to collective advice on the joint responsibility of his Ministers. I gather that is really the intention. It is not the intention that he should be able to select from conflicting advice by different Ministers. He is going to call upon his Ministers to give him joint and collective advice, because that is the essence of responsible government. As the Secretary of State nods his head, I take it that is really the intention of this section—
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Oh, yes.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: —though, as I say, the end of paragraph VII seems to imply that that may not be fully the case. I was particularly glad to hear what the Secretary of State said about improved conditions in Bengal, and I cordially endorse everything he has said about the very remarkable record of Sir John Anderson. I would further say that there is another fact which I hope will tend to eradicate terrorism, at any rate in its traditional form, and that is the introduction of responsible government itself, because after all, terrorism in its ultimate object is concerned to get and of the British Raj, and if the system on responsible government operates in Bengal with the success which I hope, the fundamental argument on which that terrorist movement has rested will disappear. I hope, therefore, the necessity for that vigilance for which every Government has got a mandate will disappear as far as the Governor is concerned, and that it will be the business of the elected representatives of the people so to conform their policies that the argument for terrorism will once and for all disappear

629
from the soil of Bengal. These are the only comments I wish to make on this subject, but I would, in conclusion, like to congratulate the Secretary of State on carrying this great act, as I believe, of emancipation in India one stage nearer to its final fulfilment next April.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, in the absence through indisposition of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, I trust you will allow me to say a few words on this Draft Instrument of Instructions. Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend, and those who acted with him, did not oppose in principle that part of the Act to which this Instrument of Instructions refers. If the Act had only been concerned with Provincial Autonomy, though we might have had our misgivings—indeed we had our misgivings—I do not think we should have opposed the Second Reading. But we did attach great importance to the powers of the Governor in respect of law and order, and undoubtedly it came upon some of our friends with rather a shock that the particular recommendation of the Report with regard to Bengal was not carried out in the Instrument of Instructions. This was the more so because, even in this year, some leading officials in the Bengal Council have spoken words of warning, particularly against any proposal for a general release of political offenders, and also called attention to the still subsisting dangers of terrorism, with the new danger of Communism, and have found it necessary to apply special legislation by Order to the area of Calcutta itself. Therefore, there was some legitimate ground for apprehension, but I am bound of course, to accept the assurance of that great civil servant, Sir John Anderson, as announced by the Secretary of State, that he believes there has been so great an improvement that the recommendation need not be carried out, though I very much welcome the Secretary of State's declaration that the utmost vigilance will still have to be exercised.
For the rest, one could say perhaps a good deal about the position of the Governor in forming what I may call his Cabinet. How he is to combine Ministerial responsibility with the due representation of minorities, how he is to breathe into them a sense of joint responsibility, is a little difficult to see, but as to that I suppose we must wait until we
630
have had experience. On one thing I sincerely congratulate the noble Marquess, and that is the words he has found by way of amending the Instrument of Instructions in its original form. They carry out the assurances that were given, and I believe that will be a great source of satisfaction to those who are interested in the protection of minorities. I happen to know that the particular words he quoted with regard to the assurances given to the most reverend Primate and my noble friend Lord FitzAlan and myself are welcomed by all of us as affording such protection as words can give. I sincerely thank the noble Marquess. As to the general situation, what I think some of us at the time of the Third Reading of the Bill said was that though we saw great dangers in it we would do nothing to obstruct the fair working of the measure, and I can only conclude by saying we hope for the best.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble Lord who has just sat down for the generous way in which he has acknowledged my attempts to meet the points which were raised by him and his friends in the course of discussion on the Bill. I have duly noted what he said with regard to law and order in Bengal, and I can only hope, as I know he does, that occasion will not arise for the Governor to exercise his special powers, though I can give the noble Lord an assurance once more that if the occasion does arise the Governor will certainly discharge the duties which are imposed upon him. I quite appreciate the difficulty which the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, feels in connection with the joint responsibility of the future Governments, and this was felt by my noble friend Lord Rankeillour also. No doubt in some cases there may be some difficulty in a system of joint responsibility in the case of a Cabinet which contains the representatives of different communities; but what we have set forth in the Instrument of Instructions is the ideal which we desire the Governors to aim at, and we can only hope that with experience the system which has gradually grown up in this country of the joint responsibility of the Cabinet will gradually take root in India also.

631
May I also express my profound gratitude to the noble Lord who leads the Opposition (Lord Snell) for the generous words which he has used in regard to the particular documents. I can assure him that the support which he has given to the Government, consistently with the maintenance of his own views on certain matters, is of real value in India itself. It is a proof that the people of this country, and not merely the Government, are behind this measure of self-government which is now being conferred upon the Indian peoples. With regard to the points which he raised first of all in connection with paragraph IX, those words which he was a little inclined to question were really inserted to meet the views which, I imagined, the noble Lord himself would have held. Those words are included to ensure that the Governor does not disabuse his powers in connection with the protection of minorities. That is to say, he is not entitled to take a mere political group which may differ from the majority of the Legislature on some political question and say that, because they are a numerical minority, therefore they come within the purview of his special responsibilities. The intention, as the noble Lord of course knows, was that these minorities should, broadly speaking, be regarded as the racial and communal minorities of India and not political groups, and that is why those words were actually inserted in the Instrument.
I may add how gratified I am to find that the noble Lord selected paragraph XX for his special commendation, because I can assure the noble Lord, strange though it may appear, that that was the one paragraph of the whole of the Instrument of Instructions which gave me more trouble than any other and to which I devoted, so far as I possess any, my own personal drafting capacity. Therefore I feel specially pleased the noble Lord should have selected that particular paragraph for his kindly commendation. That I think covers the ground raised in the course of the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935, DRAFT INSTRUCTIONS TO THE GOVERNOR OF BURMA.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I have now to ask your Lordships to approve the similar Instrument of Instructions to the Governor of Burma, and there is little that I need say in connection with these Instructions because, for the most part, they cover the same ground as the Instrument of Instructions to the Governors in India. But, since Burma will be a separate entity, the Governor of Burma will discharge certain functions which are not discharged by the Governors of the Indian Provinces and which will correspond more to the functions discharged by the Governor-General of India. I would, therefore, briefly call your Lordships' attention to the special passages which are peculiar to the Governor of Burma.
The first paragraph that differs from the corresponding paragraph in the Instructions to the Governors of India is paragraph VII. The reason for that is that there is not the same need in Burma for minority representation as there is in India because, happily, in Burma there are not the same communal difficulties. Therefore paragraph VII differs somewhat from the corresponding paragraph. Then paragraph IX finds no place in the Instrument of Instructions to the Governors of the Indian Provinces because it deals with the financial stability and credit of the country, the governor of Burma being charged with a special responsibility for the financial stability and credit of Burma. Paragraph X provides, as in the case of the Indian Instructions, for the representation of minorities in the Services, but it is drafted differently from the Indian paragraph because the problem in Burma is a somewhat different one. It actually in one ease provides for the adequate representation of the majority of the people—namely, for the representation of the Burmans themselves in the subordinate medical services. Then paragraph XIII is peculiar to the Governor of Burma because it deals with tariffs and instructs him how he is to act with a view to preventing discrimination against the nationals of this country. Paragraph XVI deals with defence and corresponds to what will be a similar paragraph in due course in the Instrument of Instructions

633
to the Governor-General of India. Paragraph XVII also deals with the finance of the Defence Portfolio and, therefore, is peculiar to Burma.
Finally there is one word I must say with regard to paragraph XX which deals with the question of the immigration of Indians into Burma. I am well aware that some at least of your Lordships have received rather voluminous cables from Indians who seen to be disturbed at the arrangements which are made for restricting immigration into Burma. I think their fears must be based on a misunderstanding. Under the Act the Burmese Legislature will be entitled to deal with the question of immigration from India, and necessarily so, since the question of the immigration of unskilled labour from India into Burma is one which has sometimes created a difficult, problem and in the future may very likely create a difficult problem. Far from this paragraph of the Instructions making it easier for the Burmese Legislature to restrict Indian immigration it makes it much more difficult for them. What we have done is this. We have said that any measure introduced in the Burmese Legislature affecting immigration from India requires the prior sanction of the Governor of Burma. That is in the Act. In this paragraph we say that before he gives his sanction he must consult the Government of India, and since the Government of India will necessarily have the interests of the Indian people very much at heart it is obvious that this is a safeguard for the Indian people.
The real difficulty, of course, with the whole of this question of Indian immigration into Burma arises from the fact that you cannot in an Act of Parliament define exactly what is meant by unskilled labour. It was because of that difficulty that the Burmese Legislature had to be given the right to legislate in regard to immigration generally. I should like to assure my absent Indian friends and correspondents—for I, too, have received telegrams as well as other members of your Lordships' House—that really the object of this paragraph in the Instructions is to give them greater protection from injury by largely restrictive legislation in the matter of immigration into that country. With these observations, my Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 9 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that His Majesty may be pleased to issue Instructions to the Governor of Burma in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

PROTECTION AGAINST GAS ATTACK.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY rose to ask His Majesty's Government what protective measures against an air attack by poison gas on large cities are at present provided; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Question which stands in my name is of vital importance. I read with considerable horror a paragraph in one of the newspapers last week which was headed "Thirty million gas masks to be made for the civilian population." The paragraph went on to say that they would be of no more use than thirty million bowler hats. Unfortunately, that is absolutely and completely true. A gas mask is of no value whatsoever. You cannot possibly design any gas mask unless you know what is the gas that you want it to protect you against. We do not know what gas we are going to have in the next war, but anybody who considers the matter will realise that certainly it will not be the gas used in the last War, and therefore any gas mask used in the last War will give no protection.
I am not talking simply about what I think on this subject; I am going to give your Lordships certain facts. In 1917 America came into the War and some American troops were put into the St. Mihiel salient. They were warned both by us and by the French that the gas masks with which they were provided were of no use against the particular gas that the Germans had just begun to use. They did not take that warning. Whether it was because they did not think we knew enough, or whether it was because it was impossible at the time to change them I do not know, but the fact is that they did not change the gas masks. A gas attack was made by the Germans. It is impossible to say what exactly was the result of that attack

635
because the Americans have never cared to publish the number of their casualties. That they were enormous is without doubt. The ordinary text-books on gas published in America always refer to them as the 10,000 martyrs, and that figure is probably not far out. A book was published two years ago by General Foulkes, who was Director of Gas Services in this country during the War. It has the short title "Gas." He tells us that at the end of the War a new gas was discovered which could penetrate any gas mask that at that time had been invented, and he goes so far as to say that its use would have put an end to the War within two or three weeks. That gas was never used because the Armistice came just before it was about to be launched.
Does anybody suppose for a moment that countries throughout the world have not been going on experimenting to see what gases could be produced, new gases against which present masks would be no protection? I do not think anybody could for a moment conceive such a thing. We know that there is a particular place in this country where such experiments are being made. I know of one in Germany and of one in France, and I know also that there is one in Italy. Only a fortnight ago an attack was made by the Red Army against General Franco's forces in Spain. It was made by a new gas which penetrated all the masks and caused casualties somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500. Test quantities of poisoned air were taken in the ordinary way and sent for analysis by chemists from Germany, from Italy and from Spain. Up to forty-eight hours ago—since then I have had no information—that analysis had not been completed, and until it is completed no gas masks can be thought of which could possibly protect men against that gas. Need I say any more with regard to gas masks than that they are an absolutely broken reed to rely on from beginning to end?
Now there is another possibility of protection, and that is by making your house gas-proof. That has been gone into very carefully by Hanslian in his Chemischer Kreig, and he, I believe, is supposed to be the greatest authority on gas throughout the world. He particularly brings forward the work done by Pavlov, the Russian, and puts that
636
down as the best. Pavlov had an idea which has not occurred to the people in this country, and it is this. You have to have some place where your people are going to be, in the house that you are protecting. He gave as the best place the main staircase. His idea was, seal your windows by strips, which we all know is a very common thing to do; then seal the doors from those rooms into the main staircase, so that you have a double seal. The windows on the staircase are specially made so that they do not need sealing, because they are gastight, and the door into the street is to be specially made for the same purpose.
The air in the house is to be kept sweet and renewed by sucking it down through a pipe above the roof, where there would be less likelihood of the gas being present in large quantities than down below, and then filtering it through a liquid—water or something of that kind—and filters. That was to be driven by an electric pump, but there was also to be a hand winch to do it in case the electric current was cut. It was suggested that by doing it in that way you got a slightly higher pressure in the sealed part of the house than outside, and therefore there would be more chance of air passing from the inside to the outside than of the tainted air passing from the outside to the inside. That may or not be a good solution; but assuming it is a solution at all, what is it? Nothing more than a palliative for a short time. People cannot go on living in place of that kind for perhaps weeks on end without going out. Nobody has suggested that you are going to have a food supply stored in every house in case you are kept inside it.
Let us see against what you have to provide. It is an attack by poison gas on a big town. Poison gas has always to be heavier than air, or it would go right up and nothing would be seen of it. Being heavier than air it stays down and, not in exactly the same way but on the same principle as water, it will go down a channel—what is popularly known the gas world as "canalising." Take London and let us see where we are. We have a long line of hills on the south, generally known as the Surrey Hills, and we have a long line of hills on the north—Hampstead, Tottenham, and that way. In between the two there is a big channel.

637
Down that channel the gas will go, and it will go through London. I saw in a newspaper the other day that it was suggested that they were going to make experiments by putting up smokes to see which way the smoke was carried, and therefore exactly how the gas would go. A few years ago I made some scale models of parts of London and tried them. I got certain figures which I think to a certain extent were interesting, and these I gave to the authorities to make of them what they could. However, I came to the conclusion that you would get very little result from that kind of experiment more than you would get by a consideration of contour maps and street plans. If you look at your contour maps and street plans and think of canalisation, you can see how the gas is going to go without having to try any experiments about it at all.
Furthermore, the smokes which are suggested may give you a very false result. They are definitely much heavier than gas, and they would tend to drop and you would get a false idea that your gas attack would not last over more than a certain amount of space. Let us see how far in fact it may last. In 1917 there was an attack against the French by the Germans at the Suippes. The gas canalised up the Suippes valley and there were deaths thirty miles away from the source. A few years ago there was an accident at Hamburg; a poison gas factory blew up, and Hamburg was very lucky! That poison gas factory happened to be the last house on the south-east corner of Hamburg, actually on the banks of the Elbe, just where the Elbe turns due south. There happened to be a north wind blowing, the result of which was that the gas was blown away and canalised up the Elbe. What that gas was do not know. I went out personally and saw the sole eye-witness of that accident before he died. From what he told me, and also from the symptoms of the victims later, I guessed that it was a mixture of chlorine and phosgene, but I do not know. That is only a pure guess, but it is rather likely to have been that. So that gas canalised up the Elbe, and when it had gone to a certain distance the wind suddenly veered round from north to east and it was then carried right through the outskirts of Harburg. Harburg was very lucky; it happened to be election
638
Sunday in Hamburg, and practically everybody from Harburg was in Hamburg, so that there were very few casualities in Harburg. But then the gas went on and canalised through the ravines of the Fischebeckeheide and there were deaths there thirty-five miles from the source.
Now just consider the size of London; and take a gas attack in London. It is going right through from the west, the whole of the way through London, right out to the east and even beyond it. Does it not occur to one that something has to be considered on this? It is not like a high explosive shell which, once it has exploded, has done its damage. It is an absolute wave of death going on and on right through London, taking victims on its way and still going on for more victims right through to the end of London; and nothing is going to stop it. That is what you have to face, and that is what you have to feel is the real danger that must be faced somehow. Now, my Lords, let us see how much you want. I am going to take a fairly long trail; I am going to start from Richmond in the west and go to Barking Creek in the east, and between the two lines of hills that I have mentioned, the whole of that rectangle going down, how much gas do you want, in order to put the whole of it under a lethal atmosphere up to thirty feet high? I will tell you the answer: it is under forty tons. Nowadays all your gases come down in liquid form and go up in the form of gas. It was more than ten years ago that I gave your Lordships that figure of forty tons. I was then reproved for doing so by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, as having given figures that would unnecessarily frighten the whole country, and which were obviously wrong from beginning to end. I had to point out to the noble Marquess that my figures were taken from the Manual issued by the War Office. I hold the same book in my hand, to-day, and therefore it is no use suggesting that a figure of that kind is fantastic, or anything of the sort.
Now see where we are. We know perfectly well what is the possibility of aircraft to-day. There are plenty in the possession of other countries which could quite well come over to this country with a load of four tons, and ten of them are enough to obliterate London. Consider

639
now what I think would happen. You would get a raid of that kind coming over London, and you would get such a raid coming over London every hour of the night and day for six weeks. What are you going to do about it? Even assuming you can shoot down 10 per cent., what are you going to do about it? The whole of this town would be obliterated, without any hope of any kind whatsoever. That is the position which we have got to face. There are many of us who have considered this question for a great many years. All of us—I mean the people I have in my mind—are certainly experts in the sense that we do know what we are talking about. We had a great deal to do with the matter during the War, and therefore we are not talking simply from guesswork. We have all tried to consider this question and not one of us, in any country, has ever succeeded in getting out any idea of a defence against attack by poison gas. There is not any. The only safeguard you have against it, is this. You must be so strong that you can make other people realise that if they do such a thing as that to you, you can go and do the same thing to them. Then perhaps, if we are happy and if we are lucky, neither side will undertake such an attack. Until you are strong enough to do that you can do nothing. At the present time we are not strong enough to do that.
As I pointed out to your Lordships last week, under our programme we have not got a single heavy bomber. There is not one in this country, even designed or about to be made. There are plenty in other countries, but at the present time I doubt whether, with one exception, they would release any to us. Nobody is going to believe that this country should be beholden for such things to another country, but when one Government after another lets this country drop into the position in which it is to-day, where we are right down below other nations and we have not got the machines with which to fight other countries, we ought not to be too proud to get help from other nations in any immediate danger. Until we are in a position to defend ourselves it is of no use talking about reprisals, because it is no use talking about a thing which you cannot do, and at the present time, unfortunately, we can do nothing against
640
other nations, which can do everything against us. It is the most deplorable situation that one can imagine and for these reasons I ask the Government to let the people of this country know what steps they are taking to protect them and their wives and children. I move for Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I am sure I am speaking all your minds when I say that we are grateful to the noble Earl for having brought up this question this afternoon, because undoubtedly it is one of considerable importance, and although the hour is late I shall, with your Lordships' permission, take some little time to explain precisely what the Government are doing and propose to do with regard to this menace of gas from the air. I hall do so all the more readily because I would very much dislike for any of your Lordships to leave this Chamber thinking, or for any outside this Chamber to think, that the problems which the noble Earl has raised have been in his mind only. They have also been in the minds of the Government for many months. As your Lordships know, the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925 abolished the use of gas in wartime, and it is the sincere hope of His Majesty's Government that in the unhappy event of war at any rate resort will never again be had to that particular weapon. Nevertheless it is quite obvious that the risk of gas being used is one that cannot be disregarded, and precautions must therefore be taken against that eventuality, because it is obvious that nothing would be more calculated to encourage the use of gas in an attack on this country than tae fact that we were unprotected against it.
It is my purpose to show your Lordships teat in fact we are so protected, and that much of what the noble Earl has said is exaggerated and not accurate. In a the event of a gas attack, as has been suggested by the noble Earl who moved this Motion, the general advice to the public will be to get themselves into a gas-proof room as quickly as possible, and to stay there until told that the d anger of gas is passed. As I was listening to the noble Earl I could but think that he rather exaggerated the rather practical difficulties of making your own gas-proof room. There is no need of the

641
elaborate precautions which he suggested. All that is necessary to make a room gas-proof is to prevent the passage of currents of air through it, and this may simply be done by the use of wet newspapers for the windows and brown paper across the fireplaces, and so on. The vast majority of houses in London and the great cities are in fact easily made gas-proof by these very simple devices.
That is the first and very important safeguard against attack by gas from the air, but the Government are not satisfied with that. On the contrary, as has been said, they have devised for the householder a second line of defence—namely, respirators—and it is proposed to provide respirators free of charge to any person who can conceivably be in danger from gas from the air. We do not stop at the figure of thirty millions. These respirators that we are going to issue will provide protection against any known form of gas. The filtering material, which consists of activated charcoal to absorb the true gases, such as chlorine or mustard gas vapour, and a pad which will stop the arsenical and other toxic gases, will provide the same protection as the ordinary Service respirator will do. The only difference between the Service respirator and the civilian respirator is that the Service respirator will last rather longer and is also more suitable for people who have to undergo strenuous exertion.
Of course, as I expected, the old bogey was raised of an unknown gas that will pass through these respirators and, as your Lordships will have noticed, as in all previous suggestions of this kind no gas was named. I would like to say to the noble Earl that if he cares at any time to bring any gas to the Air Raids Precautions Department they will put it through the most difficult tests possible. But it is always forgotten that the gas that is suitable for use in war has to have some very peculiar properties. It has to be toxic in action on the human body; it must be chemically stable at extremes of temperature; it must withstand the disruptive effects of a bomb explosion.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Why disruptive?
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: The effect a bomb has when it drops. It must also vaporise easily at
642
normal temperature. The chemicals which belong to groups which afford these properties are perfectly well known to our chemists, and they at any rate cannot believe that any new gas can be used profitably in warfare of whose properties they are not aware. And your Lordships will not forget that in so far as these respirators which we issue to the public prevent all other gases from passing through, this mysterious new gas has not merely got to fulfil all the other tests, it has also to have this peculiar property of resisting the antiseptic qualities of the respirator. I say that because it is perfectly obvious that a very great public disservice is done by people who talk about thirty million bowler hats in that loose way, and alarm the public without the slightest foundation for what they say.
Is it really suggested that the Government are spending these millions of money in providing respirators which their chemists do not consider to be effective? I ask the noble Earl therefore as sincerely as I can to hesitate long before he raises this bogey of the unknown gas again. I have given him a straight denial and a straight affirmation, moreover, that as far as the Government know there is no gas o against which this respirator is not proof. As I said, we are going ahead as fast as may be with these respirators for the whole of the civilian population. Very soon production will reach half a million a week. Furthermore, elaborate arrangements are being made for their distribution through the country as quickly as may be; but in order to prevent their deterioration when not in use the Government propose to keep them in store and only to distribute them when they are needed, and not before.
Now I think I should say a word about the other precautions that the Government have in train for the protection of great cities against gas. In the first place a service for protection from gas by trained chemists is now in process of being organised. Their duty will be as soon as the gas is dropped to go and find out where it is, pick out the danger areas, and decide in order of priority which area should first be decontaminated if decontamination is necessary. In addition to this service, the local authorities are

643
organising rapidly the services which will be necessary for the practical clearing up of any contamination that may have been caused by gas. Moreover, the police, fire brigades, first aid parties and other services engaged in air raid precautions are all receiving a thorough training in anti-gas measures. They go to the Civilian Anti-Gas School at Falfield, Gloucestershire, set up in April of this year. Through that school about 500 instructors of all these various services have passed, received their instructions, and gone back to their services to instruct in their turn those who are under them. We have just doubled the accommodation of that school, and it is proposed to set up another school for the same purpose in the North.
I therefore suggest to your Lordships that in view of these very elaborate and far-reaching proposals of the Government, the danger of gas, as such, can probably be mastered. The danger of gas, it seems to me, lies not so much in the physical damage it may do, but in the panic which may ensue from it. The Government are trying to spread the knowledge of gas as far as possible by instruction, by pamphlet and the like, but I do feel that everyone who over-estimates the danger of gas is really doing the public a disservice. Suggestions that forty tons of gas are going to exterminate London are mischievous and ridiculous. They presume that forty tons can be precisely distributed without reference to other aircraft. No one knows better than the noble Earl that if he were going to train an army of a million men he would not imagine that it could be exterminated with a million bullets. It will be impossible to distribute the gas accurately, and when it has fallen on London it certainly will not hang about in this great noxious cloud which the noble Earl imagines. The crosscurrents in a closely built-up area, as he knows very well, dissipate it.
Therefore I would ask the noble Earl and your Lordships to keep a very close sense of proportion between the dangers of gas and the other dangers from the air, such as incendiary bombs and the like. No good can be done by frightening the population, by telling them that London can be exterminated by a very small quantity of gas, or by telling them that the precautions the Government have taken are no good. On the contrary, the
644
Government are confident that the precautions they are taking will make gas attacks so unlikely to succeed that no Power will care to attempt them. Therefore, with all respect, I would ask the noble Earl to withdraw his Motion, and if he refuses to do so, I would ask your Lordships to reject it.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I was very much interested to hear what the noble Marquess said in reply to the question of the noble Earl, because in the first place it so happens that it was my duty as British delegate to sign the Gas Protocol at Geneva in 1925, and when I did so I had considerable misgivings as to whether my action on that occasion would be the final end of possible danger from gas. I rejoice to hear that, while His Majesty's Government piously hope that the Protocol may solve the problem, they are not so unwise as not to look on the other side of the question and to make preparations for a gas attack, should one occur and the Protocol not be as useful as was hoped at the time might be the case.
I agree very heartily with my noble friend in deprecating the over-estimation of the danger from gas attack. On the other hand I should very much deplore an attitude of ignoring the possibility of such a danger. My reason for saying that is this. If you over-estimate the danger—if you say that the whole of London will be destroyed in an afternoon, and Birmingham as well—people will say: "Then, what is the good of even trying to protect curselves?" On the other hand, if you say there is no danger and ignore it, people will not set to work to learn how to protect themselves in case of danger. I suggest that we should follow the motto "Aequam memento reous in arduis servare mentem." I am glad to hear what the noble Marquess has told us about the precautions the Government have taken. There is one point I would like to mention, and that is that the distribution of gas masks or respirators will need considerable rehearsing beforehand. The noble Marquess will remember how, during the War, many excellent schemes were adumbrated at the beginning, and how difficult they were to carry out smoothly later on. I think it is of the highest importance that the distribution of respirators should go smoothly from the beginning. I do not see any great difficulty about it, because,

645
I rejoice to know, very considerable efforts have been made to enlist the support of local authorities, the Red Cross, the Order of St. John, and various other people who deal in first aid, to give instruction in anti-gas methods. I imagine that these authorities will have a full organisation, and will be in a position immediately danger is announced to make the issue of respirators to the public. I hope that the method of distribution is being very thoroughly and carefully rehearsed, because without it all your precautions would be useless.
Again I would congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken to give instructions in anti-gas precautions and also first aid in case of injury or damage through gas attack. There is one other point. It was put by my noble friend, but not at any great length, and that is the question of other means of precaution. He told us what steps have been taken to sweep up gas, if I may so describe it, and disinfect an area which has been gassed. He has told us that this matter is being carefully considered. There is one point on which he did not touch, perhaps for the reason that it was beyond his province, as it is a military matter, and that is the general question of anti-aircraft. I happen to have been connected with an anti-aircraft-searchlight group for a long time as Honorary Colonel, and I am very doubtful whether the training which is available now for anti-aircraft searchlights is adequate and sufficient. For example, Territorials only go out for short camps. It may be that the weather is bad and the aeroplanes cannot go up, and it is impossible to practice with the searchlight which, as the noble Marquess knows, is a very complicated affair requiring a great deal of practice. Now that we have taken considerable steps in the matter of antiaircraft, I hope that the question of training the anti-aircraft forces will be taken in hand very seriously. In conclusion, I think you Lordships will be grateful to the noble Earl for raising this question, and to the noble Marquess for the full manner in which he has answered it, for it is a matter of deep interest to your Lordships and to the public outside.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, in reply to the noble Marquess, there
646
are one or two little things I would like to say. First of all, when he says you can get a gas-proof room by simply putting damp newspapers round the crevices, I can only tell him, from actual personal experience, that you can not. You can keep out something, but you will not keep out all the gas, and when you are dealing with a gas where you get a lethal dose of one in five million, you cannot afford to have a little tiny crevice open to it. When the noble Marquess doubts the figures I gave, I may say I got them from the Manual supplied by the War Office. It is called "Manual of the Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare," and it is published by the War Office.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: What date?
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: 1926.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Pretty old.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Pretty old! It does not give the gases discovered since then. Since then they have had much worse ones. I am only giving you the figures of the comparatively mild types they had in 1926, not all the very lethal ones they have in 1936. That, is the first thing I should like to point out. Now it was stated that gas respirators will keep out any gas. I gave it as a fact that a fortnight ago they did not keep out a gas. It was activated charcoal and a pad they were using, because I took the trouble to find out what they were using, and they did not keep out that gas. Where that gas came from we do not know, but it is one that has not been known so far. Speaking just as a chemist, if I may, the noble Marquess asked me for any gas that can be tested against his mask. I will give him one right away.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: Can it be used in warfare?
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It can be used in warfare. I will give it him at once. It is one of the methyl arsenes. He will find that that will get through his gas mask, and very quickly, and that it is also pretty horrible when it gets through. He says they have to look out for a gas that is not going to be hurt by a bomb explosion. There is going to be no bomb explosion at all. The modern

647
method is for an aeroplane to fly very low, about twenty feet above the housetops, and the gases are sprayed out at the back of the aeroplane. The noble Marquess says you cannot think a 1,000 bullets are going to kill a 1,000 men. That is just the difference between gas and bullets. The gas comes down and goes on by itself without hitting anybody, but gradually taking victim after victim, and going on the whole time. That is the difference between gas and an attack by bullets.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am now advised that our masks are particularly good against methyl arsenes.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I should like to see the mask, because I do not know of one that has been used against this gas. I think I shall send some down to the noble Marquess, and perhaps he will be prepared to try his own mask against it. Quite frankly I would not risk it in any circumstances whatever. We have talked about decontaminating and mustard gas, but anyone who knows anything about mustard gas knows the time it will hang about any sort of soil for weeks on end. No matter what you do to try and get rid of it you cannot get rid of it for weeks. It gets six inches into the soil and you apparently lose it; then you get a change in temperature and it begins to come up again. Those who had anything to do with "mustard" during the War know that you cannot deal with it. Quite candidly—I am only speaking for myself and giving my personal opinion—"mustard" would never be used in the next War. It was not, as a matter of fact, one of the worst gases. It was one of the most annoying but not one of the worst. I think they have something much worse to use in the next war.
I do not know anything about the question of schools for teaching people what to do, but I do know one thing that they teach, and it is that if a person is suffering from gas he ought to walk at once to the nearest station in order to receive first aid. The person who gave that fool idea never understood anything about phosgene or knew anything about what happened in the War. The number of phosgene cases that walked to the nearest station and dropped dead
648
on the doorstep was perfectly appalling. With phosgene poisoning and with a great many other poisonings the one thing that was never allowed was to permit the person who suffered from it to walk or move. He has to be carried and is not allowed to move, otherwise there is a very grave danger that he will drop dead. That is only one thing that does not make me any too hopeful for the wonderful success that I know the noble Marquess ought to have in his methods for protecting the people of this country.
I said last week, and I said the week before, and I have said to-day, that the one thing we want is protection by hiving a sufficient Air Force to do to others what they would desire to do to us. I said we have not got it, and it is not the Government programme that we should have it. That has never been denied by the Government. I do say that it is very lamentable that nothing should be done in order to make our Air Force strong enough to be on a parity with any other Air Force in the world. Nothing is being done to do that. No heavy bombers are being put in the programme—none. We know what is being made in England, we know what is being made abroad, we know what can be released from abroad. None are in the programme of the Government. For that reason I beg to press the Motion for Papers.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, before the Motion is put I only want to say that I do not know how the noble Earl knows what the programme of the Government is. I do not know. It has not been published. Therefore I hope the House will understand that, when the noble Earl says that nothing has been done, that is not to be taken as an accurate statement.
On Question, Motion for Papers negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I have to acquaint your Lordships with the fact that there will be a meeting of the House at eleven o'clock to-morrow in order to receive from the Commons the Trunk Roads Bill and read it a first time.