Lords Sitting of 29 April 1937

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

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Education (Deaf Children),

Army and Air Force (Annual),

Rothesay Water Order Confirmation,

Edinburgh Royal Maternity and Simpson Memorial Hospital Order Confirmation,

Kingston-upon-Hull Provisional Order Confirmation,

Margate, Broadstairs and District Electricity,

Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water,

Brighton, Hove and Worthing Gas.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EARSDON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT OF BOYS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, this Bill is, I believe, practically non-controversial, and it passed its Third Reading in another place without a Division. It is designed to remove an anomaly. Under the existing law boys—that is, lads under the age of sixteen—are prohibited from working at night on the surface at coal mines, but there is no corresponding provision in regard to night work underground. At present boys
70
may work at night underground if an interval, ordinarily of fifteen hours and in no case less than thirteen hours, separates two periods of work. In effect, they can be employed on night shifts underground in coal mines, but not in other mines, nor at the surface at coal mines. The Bill, which is quite short, provides simply that boys shall not be employed below ground in coal mines between the hours of ten o'clock at night and six in the morning. In the original Bill the latter hour was five in the morning, but the Standing Committee in another place substituted the hour of six. The Bill was promoted by honourable friends of mine in another place. It there had the blessing of His Majesty's Government, and I am confident that it will receive the blessing of His Majesty's Government in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, was good enough to give me some notes of what he proposes in connection with this Bill. I understand that the coal owners desire a little elasticity, but from my researches I am sorry to say that really is not necessary—it may be desirable from their point of view, but it is not necessary. I am told by my honourable friend Mr. Tom Smith, who represents the Yorkshire miners in another place, that he has been in touch with the Yorkshire coal owners, and they say there is no difficulty in regard to winding times. That was one of the matters, I understand, Lord Gainford might have raised, and in advance I assure him that I am advised there is no technical difficulty. Furthermore, I am informed that throughout the mining industry there is a tendency to start work later. That is, as your Lordships are aware, the tendency in all industries to-day. The old five o'clock or six o'clock in the morning starting time is looked upon as barbarous.
When I hear the complaints of people regarding the early hour at which they will have to rise on May 12 for His Majesty's Coronation, I would remind them of the experience of the British working man who always used to get up in darkness and be at work at six o'clock in the morning. Those ideas are now passing. Whatever we may think of full-grown men having to turn out at that time in the morning, there is a general consensus of opinion that growing lads should not do night work. When I was

71
serving a very happy period at sea I had a great many boys in my charge, and we always used to arrange that they did not keep night watch. To that extent they were looked upon as day men. We gave them a night in their hammocks, which meant six hours, for that very reason, and what applies to them might equally apply to colliery lads. I am sure your Lordships will approve the principle of this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, does, and I hope it will pass without opposition or delay.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, it is quite true that the Mining Association of Great Britain whole-heartedly accept the principle of the Bill. This Bill, if it is passed into law, will undoubtedly remove an anomaly. Boys of sixteen are not allowed to work at night at the surface of the colliery, and it is quite logical that they should not be allowed to work underground. The Bill, as originally introduced before it was amended in another place by some honourable friends of the noble Lord who has just spoken, really did not appreciate the practice which operates throughout the whole country. The practice varies, and as some shifts end at ten o'clock at night and some at half-past ten, it is necessary to amend this Bill if it is going to secure the economic production of coal and adapt itself to varying practices in the various coalfields of Great Britain. Having regard to the safety of the boys themselves, it is essential that there should be some elasticity so that we should not enact by law that at the end of a shift boys should come up whilst coal is still being drawn. Similarly, at the beginning of a shift in the morning, the boys should not be delayed in going down until coal drawing has begun through the operations underground, when the boys would have to be rushed into the pit in the danger of moving traffic and when the miners are at work.
This Bill will prevent boys underground working during seven hours of the night. The intention of the Amendment which I shall put down is that at every colliery a period of seven hours should be fixed between the limits of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. during which boys shall not be employed. This should make it possible for a colliery
72
to specify the period as from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m., or 10.30 p.m. to 5.30 a.m., or 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Your Lordships are acquainted with the motto "Early to bed, etc." Early to bed is an advantage. I believe it is an advantage to boys, and I am strongly in favour of boys going to bed early, but I do not think it will help very much if they are not allowed to go down with their fellow workmen say at 5.30 in the morning. Accordingly, while the Mining Association whole-heartedly accept the principle of the Bill, they want a little elasticity in connection with the boys going down the pit along with the men and coming up together.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I rise on behalf of the Government only to congratulate the noble Lord on moving the Second Reading of a Bill which is acceptable to the Government. It is, as has been pointed out, designed to remove an existing anomaly in the industry, and it is one to which we, on this Bench, hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SPECIAL AREAS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill is drawn very closely on the lines of the Financial Resolution which was passed in another place, necessarily so because of the close link between finance and the actual provisions of the Bill. Before turning to the conditions laid down in the Bill, I would like to call your Lordships' attention to what has been done already under the 1934 Act and under the general policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to these Special Areas. The first thing I would like to comment on is the large number of orders which have been placed under the re-armament policy in those Special Areas and also in areas where there has been acute depression but which are not included in the First Schedule of the Special Areas. A White Paper was issued in March of this year which showed

73
that contracts had already been placed in those combined areas for about £41,000,000, and of that amount about £24,000,000 had actually gone into the Special Areas. Since the White Paper was produced the figure has risen to £57,000,000 of contracts placed in those two types of area, of which £35,000,000 has gone to the Special Areas.
Then, under the 1934 Act, we have advanced considerably in the matter of land settlement. In the White Paper it was pointed out that 2,000 families had already been more or less arranged for. I cannot say that those families have actually been in occupation, but arrangements involving a commitment of about £2,000,000 have been made for 2,000 families to be placed on the land. Since then an addition has taken place to the expenditure and another thousand families, making altogether 3,000 families, are in process of being settled upon small holdings at a cost of about £3,000,000. One cannot say that that is a very large settlement on the land, but it does show that we are moving in the right direction. In regard to Scotland, the land settlement comes under a different heading. There powers were originally given to the Minister of Agriculture to settle families on the land, and that has been going on for some time. In Scotland we have 450 families being settled at a cost of £200,000.
The Special Commissioners have up to the present time, under the 1934 Act, reached commitments to the amount of £10,500,000. That is for England and Wales. For Scotland the figure is £2,000,000. I venture to say that that is no mean effort. As regards the effect of the policy of His Majesty's Government and of the 1934 Act, I may point out that unemployment has been reduced by a net figure of 119,000. That is the figure given in the White Paper in March, but since then we have had a further improvement of another 10,000 more persons at work. I think those effects themselves show that there has been a definite improvement in these unfortunate areas. In passing, I would like to refer to the fine work that has been done by various societies which are working in co-operation with the Commissioners, and especially to the very generous gift from Lord Nuffield. Lord Nuffield's Trust is working in co-operation with the Com-
74
missioners, and by this means a movement is going on in the right direction towards providing not only new industries in the Special Areas but employment in those industries. Lastly, I would like to refer to the action that has been taken in the local government sphere. Under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act of 1937, special efforts were made to equalise the burden of rates through block grants, and when that Bill came before your Lordships' House in February last it was shown that a big advance had been made in helping by means of these block grants those areas which were feeling the effect of the depression. I am not one who tries to over-state a case, but I do think that the Special Areas have improved, and that, generally speaking, the policies promoted by His Majesty's Government are at least bearing some good results in those areas.
Coming to the Bill itself, I may explain that its main feature is to provide new industries, not only to give additional work but to provide for the establishment of additional forms of industry in the Special Areas and particularly in those areas which hitherto have been confined to one type of industry. If that policy can be successfully carried out it will be a great boon and benefit to the people who work in the Special Areas. We all know the unfortunate effect of the closing down of the only form of employment in a particular area. That is especially true of the coal industry, and more particularly so in South Wales. The first clause in the Bill continues the duration of the present Act until 1939. The second clause gives powers to the Commissioners to let factories in the Special Areas at economic rents to those undertakings that are working for gain. Under the 1934 Act Commissioners were not allowed to provide financial assistance to such undertakings. This Bill not only allows trading estates to let factories working for gain, but it also allows the Commissioners themselves to do so if they so desire. Clause 3 refers to the assistance which can be given to those various undertakings in the way of meeting rent, Income Tax and rates. If your Lordships will look at Clause 3 you will find that this financial assistance can be given by the Commissioners as a contribution. The only limitation is that this contribution shall not extend longer than five years, but

75
the total amount which may be found by Parliament will be unlimited.
Clause 4 deals with two small matters. In the first place it deals with the question of grants to local authorities for the repair and maintenance of certain streets and roads. Those streets and roads have to be certified by the Minister of Transport and are not to be roads used for through traffic. The clause will allow money to be used to help local authorities in those areas which have been hard hit and which have not been able to get money from the Minister of Transport. Although the Minister is allowed to advance money for the use of these particular roads, he has not in fact been able to give these grants, and the Commissioners will be able under this Bill to give the necessary assistance. Subsection (2) of the clause deals with the matter of drainage of agricultural land. This matter largely concerns the Border area and it cropped up in Cumberland where complaint was made that across the Border the Department of Agriculture for Scotland was allowed to advance money to occupiers and owners for the draining of agricultural land. This will now be extended to England and Wales. The only condition is that the Commissioner should be satisfied that drainage would not only be for the benefit of the land but would be useful in giving employment.
Clause 5 ought to be looked at in connection with Clause 6. The two clauses are interlocked. Clause 5 permits the Treasury to provide financial assistance to a site-company in an area to which Clause 6 applies. It enables assistance to be given by way of subscription to the capital of a site-company in one of these areas in order to enable the company to get under way. There is one limit and that is that the amount to be subscribed shall not exceed one-third of the subscribed capital of the site-company, not taking into account, of course, the amount that the Treasury will find. This clause may be applied to particular areas which are defined in subsection (2). They are areas where there has been severe unemployment and where if financial assistance is provided there is likely to be a substantial increase in employment. A further condition is that employment in the area is mainly dependent on one or
76
more industries which are unable to provide sufficient employment by reason of general depression. Those areas have to be recommended by a Committee which will be appointed by the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour is not entitled to schedule these areas unless so recommended by the Committee. Once the Committee has scheduled these areas they will be treated, so far as this matter is concerned, in the same way as a Special Area under the First Schedule of the 1934 Act.
Clause 6 provides that on the recommendation of a Committee to be appointed by the Treasury—and we already know the names of those who will serve on that Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Portal, is to be Chairman—the Treasury may give financial help to those site-companies which start after the passing of the new Act by way of loan. That specially refers to the industries which will come into being under Clause 5. This assistance is limited only to the extent that at no time can more than £2,000,000 be advanced by way of loan to these site-companies. I think this meets the complaint that certain areas outside the Special Areas were deserving of help. Instead of re-drawing the original Schedule of the Special Areas His Majesty's Government decided to help in this way any additional area which, in the opinion of the Committee appointed by the Minister of Labour, is suffering severe depression. I believe it will do a very great deal of good in certain places outside the Special Areas. Clause 7 is purely interpretative, Clause 8 deals with the application of the Bill to Scotland, Clause 9 deals with the duration of the Act, and Clause 10 with the short title, construction and citation.
Such is the outline of this Bill which has been very exhaustively discussed in another place. The Government do not pretend that these proposals are a panacea for all the ills in the Special Areas, but I venture to think that they will go a considerable way towards starting new industries and the revival of old industries in those Special Areas which have suffered so severely under the depression. The Government hope that the attractions offered in this Bill to new industries will induce those new industries to go to the Special Areas rather than come under the lure of London and the

77
South. I think it is very desirable that the overcrowding of industrial works in and around London, and in the South of England generally, should not be allowed to go on increasing. The Government approach this very difficult problem with hope. We certainly are doing what we can to assist the revival of the old industries and the arrival of new industries in these areas and, supported I think by public opinion, we earnestly hope and conscientiously believe that along these lines an ultimate solution will be found. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hutchison of Montrose.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should first of all like to apologise to the noble Lord opposite for my absence from the House during the first part of his remarks. I had important public business to transact on the other side of the river, and that prevented me from being in my place as soon as I should have liked to be present this afternoon. We on this side of the House are extremely glad that the Government have decided to speed up their existing measures for improving the situation in the worst-hit areas in the country. In so far as this Bill is a contribution towards this entirely laudable purpose, we welcome it, and we anticipate gladly the help that it will afford when it comes to be administered. At the same time it is impossible to be satisfied with the removal of the ban on assistance to private enterprise from public funds, which in fact this Bill effects, as enough to alleviate to any considerable extent the plight of those who live in these Special Areas. We are glad to hear that there will be some degree of assistance out of public funds, for companies that erect factories in these areas to help them to meet certain costs such as Income Tax, rent and rates. We are also glad that it will be possible for them, whether working in these areas or in other hard-hit areas, to obtain loans from the Treasury at a reasonable rate of interest. That, however, is really all that this present Bill achieves.
I am perfectly certain that those noble Lords who will speak later in the course of this debate, and who have a special acquaintance with the situation in these areas owing to their proximity to the people there, will share my dissatisfaction
78
that more is not being done. Look, for instance, at the actual position of the unemployed in these areas. I take unemployment as the criterion by which one may to some extent judge the plight of those who live in these areas, because it is presumably the worst symptom of the economic decay that has set in owing to the inability of our present economic system to provide all those who have to work it with a decent means of livelihood. There are still no fewer than 300,000 unemployed in these areas, and this represents a figure of about one-fifth of the total unemployed in England and Wales. The Commissioner in his third Report points out that there has in fact been no appreciable reduction in unemployment in the last two years in spite of what the Government have done under their first Bill. On page 3 of his Report Sir Malcolm Stewart says:
"Nevertheless it has to be admitted that no appreciable reduction of the number of those unemployed has been effected."
One very deeply hopes that when this Bill comes into operation it may attract companies to these areas and lead to the erection of factories that will absorb some small proportion of the 300,000 unemployed. I cannot, however, help feeling that it will go a very short way in this direction.
This is due primarily to the fact that the Government have not taken into account by any means all of the recommendations made by Sir Malcolm Stewart both in his first Report on the Special Areas and in the most recent Report that he has produced. I should like to refer especially to his proposals in regard to the attraction of industry to sites in the towns of these districts. He suggests that there ought to be some sort of obligation on industrialists seeking new sites for their factories, not to go to any Special Area but to refrain from establishing their factories in the area of Greater London. Surely that is an extraordinarily sound proposal both from the point of view of the present inhabitants of London, who are undoubtedly suffering in health and well-being at this moment from the excessive size of the City and its suburbs, and from the point of view of the inhabitants of other areas in this country who ought to share as far as possible in any revival of prosperity that may be due to the Government's measures or to

79
a speed-up of private enterprise in a general industrial recovery. In the year 1935 no less than 40 per cent. of the new factories started in England and Wales were located in the area of Greater London. I suggest that the Government ought to have implemented the proposal of Sir Malcolm Stewart that this London area, at any rate, should be put out of bounds.
The second suggestion of the Commissioner for England and Wales which the Government have ignored is a suggestion that would go, not perhaps very far, but some way towards reviving the one basic industry that does not seem to have recovered to any appreciable extent as a result of the general industrial recovery, and that is the coal industry. Everyone realises now the importance of being able to extract oil fuel from coal by the hydrogenation process. This process is still at an early stage of its development and many experiments are going on in different parts of the world to make it as effective as possible. Surely the Government should have taken steps to provide funds for experiment and research in the perfection of this process, and have spent those funds on research that might have been carried out in the neighbourhood of the coal-mining areas. Later on, when the Government had found what they considered to be the best method of extracting oil from coal, they could surely have taken the further step of establishing a plant for that purpose in South Wales or in Durham or in any of the big and most afflicted coal-mining areas. I say this, not merely from the point of view of relieving unemployment in these areas, but also from the point of view of general policy. The Government are embarking on an enormous Defence programme. At present we are depending upon foreign sources for the great bulk of our supply of oil, an essential commodity in time of war. Therefore from a Defence point of view it would be consistent for the Government to insist that we should have, as far as possible, a supply of oil which would be within our own boundaries.
The third proposal which has come in previous debates before your Lordships' House, and which again is a proposal that the Government have neglected, is one that is primarily a matter of adminis-
80
tration. The Commissioner complains that there is delay in the implementing of schemes that he desires to promote because he has to work not through one Government Department but through two. His proposals have first of all to go to the Ministry of Labour, and then, if they involve the expenditure of money, they have to go to the Treasury. This means a very real obstacle, which is entirely due to the ineffective character of the machinery set up for the administration of the previous Act, which will continue to work in case this Bill becomes law. The tentative proposal of the Commissioner is that there should be a Minister directly responsible for working out the Government's policy in the Special Areas, and surely it would be possible for some Minister without a Department to assume that special responsibility. In view of the national character of the work there could be nothing more urgent, and it would expedite whatever plans the Government thought fit to put into operation in those areas.
Those are three recommendations—moderate, common-sense recommendations—of the Commissioner, after his two years experience in those areas, which the Government have ignored, and I should be very much obliged to the noble Lord opposite if, at the end of the debate, he would explain the reasons that the Government may have had in mind for not adopting those recommendations in their Bill. But there is, I think, a more far-reaching complaint that we can justifiably levy against the Government. In the first Report, produced I think it was in the summer of 1935, Sir Malcolm Stewart said that these urgent problems of unemployment and poverty were not problems which could be solved on a small scale and locally—that they were intimately connected with the whole industrial system prevalent in this country, and nothing more effective could be done unless national measures were adopted, to operate on a national scale. I should like to point out that this opinion, expressed originally by Sir Malcolm Stewart in his first Report in 1935, was endorsed by him in his third Report, on which the present Bill is based. He says, on page 5:
"I am still of the opinion that the principles then stated hold good to-day."

81
The principles referred to are the recommendations of a general nature which he made at the end of his first Report.
At bottom it is impossible to tackle unemployment in such a piecemeal fashion. The Government should consider the possibility of procuring a later entry of young people into industry by raising the school-leaving age, first of all to fifteen and ultimately to sixteen. We have expressed the view that the Education Bill, with its immense loophole for exemptions, will in fact mean that most children who have any chance of getting a job in industry will be taken away from school. It is common knowledge that employers like labour between the years of sixteen and eighteen, because it is more cheap, and there is no doubt that children of that age working in factories are keeping out a number of adults, who might be doing the jobs while the children were profiting from a longer spell of education at school. In the second place there is the question of the limitation of working hours. The Government are at present passing through Parliament a Factories Bill, but this Bill does not touch the question of the working hours of adult men. On the Continent there has already been a limitation of the hours of adult workers, both male and female, to forty-eight hours and in some cases even forty hours a week. I cannot believe that the time has not come when some degree of limitation should be imposed by Statute in this country. I know for a fact that very excessive hours of work are in operation in certain factories that find a great demand for their products at the present moment, owing to the rearmament programme, and I am perfectly certain that there could be a reduction of a reasonable kind imposed by Statute without necessitating any lowering of the wage level.
The third proposal again made by Sir Malcolm Stewart in his original Report was that the employed population could be increased by bringing about an earlier age of retirement from industry, and this is clearly to be done by increasing the old age pension, so as to make it a subsistence income from the age of sixty-five, and making it a condition of receiving this money from public funds that the recipient should retire from industry. These are measures which would affect the whole country and not the Special Areas alone, but I am perfectly certain
82
that there will be no real degree of industrial recovery, and no very considerable diminution of unemployment in those areas unless bold measures of this kind are adopted by the Government. Sir Malcolm Stewart himself says that there has got to be something "unconventional" in the measures that the Government should adopt if they wish to meet the growing need of the families living in those stricken areas. I feel perfectly convinced that that is the case, and that all noble Lords who are acquainted with what is going on there, and who may speak later in the debate, will bear out what I have said.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I can speak again only with the leave of the House, but in reply to what the noble Earl opposite has said, may I first of all thank him for his blessing of our efforts so far as they go? I quite understand his desire for more, but I might point out that our efforts so far have not been small, because the reduction in unemployment, as I pointed out, and as is stated in the White Paper, is quite considerable—119,000 up to March and now another 10,000 up to the latest date of which we have figures. It is a movement in the right direction. As regards the noble Earl's criticism that the Commissioner found it difficult to get at the fountain-head for money, or to get necessary proposals carried out, I would point out that this Bill specially eases that situation, and makes it more easy for the Commissioner to go direct to the Treasury through the Committee that advises the Treasury; that is dealt with specially in Clauses 5 and 6. Further, with regard to the additional areas to which the noble Earl would like these conditions to be applied, that matter is really provided for in this Bill, because the Minister of Labour, under the Committee which advises him on that particular subject, is able, under certain conditions laid down, to schedule areas outside the Special Areas, which is an advance on what was in the 1934 Act.
What the noble Earl suggested with regard to things like oil from coal will certainly be taken notice of by my right honourable friends who carry on this particular work. The Government are anxiously looking at experiments that have been carried out, and are examining as to how far one process or another can

83
be extended. Speaking personally, I have a great belief that much more can be done in that direction. As regards employment in South Wales, I can only say what my information is, and it is that it is extremely difficult in many of our mining districts to get miners. I do not know why that is so, but I think it is because a great many of the older men have ceased to be expert miners, and it is only the young men who come in now who are able really to fill the job. I do not know how far the Commissioner may examine those conditions, especially with the object of reconditioning those unfortunate people who have been out so long; but I am aware that in three fields that I know intimately it is very difficult to-day to get miners, which is always a sign that at least there has been a large absorption of unemployed since the very bad days.
Two other points raised by the noble Earl—the question of raising the school age and of retiring the workers rather earlier from their employment by means of pensions—are hardly matters really touched by the Bill. Those are propositions which, I know, are being continually examined as to what they mean and as to how far they affect the nation and the workers. They do not directly concern this Bill, but I am perfectly certain that the noble Earl's remarks will be examined by the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour. I will, indeed, call their attention to those remarks. Finally, the noble Earl dealt with working hours. That is a problem that has been before the political world in this country for a considerable number of years, and it is undoubtedly true to say that there is an opinion moving in the direction he suggested. I cannot, however, on this Bill say more than that. It is a point that deserves the very closest attention by those who have to consider those matters. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his helpful speech, and I hope that this Bill may do something at least to improve the conditions.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I intervene only for a minute or two to indicate what the attitude of my Party will be to the present and subsequent stages of this measure. First of all, we should like to acknowledge the courtesy of the noble Lord opposite for the way he has met my noble friend's criticism of the Bill. It
84
is a misfortune that no one on these Benches has had intimate recent experience of these particular areas, but I personally knew them well in better times, and I am dreadfully anxious about their present state. I only wish to remind your Lordships that it is not our habit to resist the Second Reading of a measure that has passed the representative House, and we shall not attempt to divide the House against this Bill to-day. What our attitude to future stages will be I cannot for the moment definitely say.
This Bill has been the subject of long discussion. It has aroused deep feeling, and it comes to your Lordships' House with a host of enemies and very few friends. The Tories themselves in the other place, in the proportion that they have not been terrorised by their Party Whips, hate this Bill and are ashamed to have to commend it to their constituents—not for what it contains but because what it contains is so inadequate to the issue with which the Bill pretends to deal. My Party in another place tried to improve it, but it was found both useless to appeal to the Government and unprofitable to argue, and no single Amendment was accepted. The Government had closed what it called its mind, and that seemed to be the end. Well, we do not resist the Second Reading, and it may be entirely useless for us to attempt to modify the Bill in the Committee stage. We can only register our deep disappointment that in an issue so great and widespread as this this Bill is so painfully inadequate.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE ADJOURNMENT: CIVIL WAR IN SPAIN.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, there is a matter which I desire to raise on this Motion, though I have to apologise for what I understand is rather an unusual course. The matter is the bombing and the destruction of the town in the Basque country known as Guernica. As I understand what happened, it was a deliberately planned

85
operation. The time selected was, we are told by the very well-informed correspondent of The Times, market day, so that the largest number of people from the country around should be present. The attack was made by a considerable number of bombing machines, apparently. The procedure was that there was first a relatively small, slight bombing. That, it is suggested, according to the correspondent, was supposed to be to drive people into their houses. It was followed up by a series, by a repeated series, of very much larger bombs, with a considerable number of incendiary bombs. The result was that the whole town was set on fire.
I understand, for instance, that it contained two or three hospitals which were all burned to the ground, and all the patients within them. One detail mentioned in the account is that a body of women and children who sought refuge in some building or other found themselves trapped and unable to escape, and were all roasted alive. The unhappy inhabitants who tried to escape by running away were shot down by machine guns. I do not gather that there were any soldiers there but, if there were any, the great majority of the people apparently were women and children. Not content with shooting the fugitives from the actual town, according to the same account, the neighbouring farm houses were also destroyed, and I suppose the population within them.
If the account is accurate, this is one of the most horrible things that have ever been clone. The reason I venture to call your Lordships' attention to it is that there are rumours—I do not know how well-founded—that this is to be followed by a similar attack on Bilbao itself. That is a very serious matter indeed. One of the matters on which I should be very grateful if the Government could give me any light is whether they have any idea as to who was actually responsible for this. General Franco, who has recently declared himself supreme ruler of part of Spain—indeed I think of all Spain, but certainly of that part occupied by the insurgents, repudiates liability, according to the newspapers. General Mola has not repudiated, but l do not know that he has accepted it. Moreover, I should like very much to know what is the position of the foreign States. According to the account, all the machines used were
86
German machines, and the correspondent of The Times says that he picked up an incendiary bomb which had not exploded and found it was marked with the mark of German manufacture. So far as I have seen the accounts, it is only an inference that these machines, were manned by German pilots, but it seems to be an inference for which there is a great deal of probability.
So far as I know, there is no precedent for anything of this kind in the history of civilised nations. My noble friend Lord Zetland, who was here a moment ago, might be able to give some instance of the same kind among the savage tribes on the borders of India, but, so far as any civilised country is concerned, you have to go back to such a horrible instance as the Sack of Magdeburg—and even that was not quite so bad as this—to find a parallel. This town is quite a small town of 10,000 inhabitants, and has no military value at all. The only military building connected with it is a barracks and that, I gather, is some distance from the town and was unhurt by this bombardment. Therefore it is perfectly plain that the operation was not designed for any direct military purpose, but was simply designed as a piece of terrorism in order to frighten the opposing party from further resisting the attacks of the insurgents. So far as I know—my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will know at once—the whole of this is illegal according to any understanding that has ever existed in International Law. To bomb and destroy a perfectly unfortified town without military object is certainly a thing which I should have thought was absolutely illegal.
What I am anxious to press on the Government—and I hope I shall not have any difficulty in pressing it—is that they ought not to allow this to pass without a protest. There ought to be a very strong protest issued by the British Government. They ought to do their best to secure the support of all other Governments in their protest, and they ought, in my humble judgment, to raise the matter at the earliest possible moment in the only international body that exists—the Council of the League of Nations. They ought, in fact, to make a most serious and energetic protest, though I may be asked, "What good do you expect will

87
arise from that?" I do not know that you can be sure of any good arising. I recognise that people who do that kind of thing are not likely to be moved by mere remonstrance, but it is just possible that self-interest will induce them, if they find this action of theirs universally reprobated, to refrain from repeating it. There seems to me just a chance that that may be so. It is even conceivable, if it be true these things have been done by German agencies, that the German Government may feel it owes it to its own reputation to recall immediately all German citizens and, as far as they can do so, all German machines that are being used for such purposes as this.
That is one thing, but there is another thing which is even more practical. If this is admitted to be a normal procedure, it opens up a very serious prospect for all of us. I have never believed you can humanise war in the end. I believe the only way of humanising war is to stop war, but I have also always believed—and I think most of your Lordships will agree with me—that it is very unlikely that horrors of this kind would be enacted at the outset of a war. They would only be possible when the passions of both sides have become very fully roused and when it is thought that anything is better than the possibility of defeat. Therefore it is of importance to try to make it quite clear that we, at any rate, and other countries do not recognise this as a legitimate operation of war. That, I hope, might make it more difficult to do this sort of thing at the outset, and whatever machinery for stopping war is left after the deplorable attacks that have been made recently on the only machinery that exists, will be given an opportunity to operate, when it will only have the chance of operating successfully, at the outset of proceedings. Therefore it is very important to put every obstacle that can be put in the way of the execution of operations of this kind which, apart from their horror and gross cruelty, may indeed inflict on such a country as this, and on any highly organised and developed country, injuries from which it would be impossible to recover.
For these reasons I have ventured to put these questions. I do not suggest for a moment that there is any sympathy on the part of the Government for opera-
88
tions of this kind, but I am anxious to be assured, if it is possible for them to assure me, that they will take every possible action, even if it is not the most regular and proper thing according to diplomatic usages, in order to protest to the utmost of their strength against proceedings of this kind, and to use every possible international machinery they have in order to make that protest successful.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, this question, as your Lordships know, was raised in another place yesterday, and I am afraid that I really have very little if anything to add o to what was said by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State upon that occasion. The fact of the matter is that His Majesty's Government have no official information regarding the bombing of Guernica, and it follows that I am therefore not in a position to confirm or deny the version of it which has been given to your Lordships by the noble Viscount who has raised this question. Nor am I, I regret to say, in a position to tell the House who actually ordered this attack or what machines were actually used in it. As your Lordships will have noticed, my right honourable friend in another place explained yesterday that the Government deeply deplore the bombardment of the civil population in the Spanish Civil War wherever it may occur and whoever may be responsible for it. I think it only right to point out that responsibility for such action in the past does not rest upon one side in the struggle alone.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I intervene for a moment? Assuming that that is so, that surely makes the thing far more serious, and not less serious, from an international point of view.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I never said it made it less serious, but some people, I think, are trying to draw conclusions from what has happened and to give the impression that one side, and one side alone, is concerned in this particular question of the bombing of civil populations. His Majesty's Government have in the past taken such steps as they thought were open to them to make their

89
attitude on this subject clear to both parties and to the world at large. I repeat that nobody can doubt that they deeply deplore the bombardment of the civil population, and they have to the best of their endevours attempted to promote agreements which would be calculated to safeguard the civil population. Your Lordships will have noticed that as far as the question of the use of gas, which some people thought to be imminent, was concerned, they were successful in seeing that agreement not to use gas was reached. In so far as this question of the bombardment of the civil population is concerned, I can assure your Lordships that they will continue to examine the position from every angle in order to see whether further steps are possible to prevent the recurrence of what are admittedly deplorable events, if the description of them that we have received from various quarters is correct.
I can assure your Lordships that if there is anything that His Majesty's Government can usefully do they will certainly do it. In so far as the threatened bombardment of Bilbao is concerned, which I understand the noble Viscount stated it was rumoured would probably be carried out, I can only say that His Majesty's Government have no official information whatsoever in regard to it. One of the noble Viscount's suggestions was to the effect that action might be taken in regard to this matter under the Covenant of the League of Nations, but the view of the Government is that we do not think that that would be the best way of achieving the object which we all have in view, which is to do everything we can to prevent a recurrence of events such as we have seen described and to safeguard the civil population. I can tell your Lordships with assurance that what has been said this afternoon in your Lordships' House will certainly be reported to the Secretary of State and that if he thinks anything can be done it certainly will be done in the future.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends think it worth while raising this question with the noble Earl on behalf of His Majesty's Government. In the newspapers this morning it is stated that preparations are being made in case of need to evacuate from Bilbao the
90
women and children and utilising His Majesty's ships for that purpose. We all admire the great work done by the Royal Navy in that respect during this terrible unheaval in Spain. Could we be assured that that report in the newspapers is true, and that if the Basque Government desire to evacuate women and children from Bilbao His Majesty's ships will be available? I would remind your Lordships that those ships are on the coast already carrying out the noble Earl's non-intervention blockade and they are, therefore, convenient to Bilbao. Secondly, I presume that we have a Consul in Bilbao. I believe we have one there; we certainly ought to because Bilbao is of immense importance to us as a trading port apart from everything else. When Malaga was threatened for some reason or other His Majesty's Consul-General was withdrawn, I am sure not at his own request; of that we can be certain. As soon as the Franco forces had established themselves His Majestys' Consul-General went back. The presence of a British official in a town that is taken—and this applies to both sides—always has a very calming effect on bloodthirsty and victorious foreign soldiery. I do hope that His Majesty's Consul-General will not be withdrawn if the advance on Bilbao continues.
Whatever we may be told about the rest of the population of Spain, the Basques are a very pious, ancient courageous and altogether an admirable people. Not even the noble Lord, Lord Newton, could accuse them of being Bolsheviks. Therefore that excuse for lack of interest in their welfare and lives cannot be put forward. They helped us when we needed help in the Great War. They were very friendly to us when much of Spain was hostile, and they have helped us in the past. We have never had occasion to complain about them in recent years, and I think they are deserving of what assistance we can give them, of course within the four corners of the Non-Intervention Agreement. That Agreement is so sacred that it must not be broken, unless perhaps we weight the scales in favour of the other side! But that is by the way. We think that these questions are worth putting to the noble Earl. They are practical questions that do not bring in the cumbrous machinery of the League of Nations and I suggest that they are worthy of consideration.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I want to interpose only to utter, if I may, a word of caution. Everybody knows, or ought to know, that news from the Government side reaches this country far in advance of news from the insurgent side. Up to now we have heard only from one side, and it is quite possible that before many hours have elapsed we shall hear something quite different. I want to introduce this word of caution because I observe a disposition on the part of my noble friend and of noble Lords on the opposite side of the House to stampede the Government into espousing the cause of the Caballero Government. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will not be led into any step of the kind. We are pledged to the only possible safe course, the course, that is, of non-intervention. If we depart from that it will only make things very much worse than they are now, and the position is sufficiently dangerous already that it ought to make us very careful of running into any further danger.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I only want to interpose one word. The Government at the moment have no official information
92
as to whether this bombardment has taken place or not. If the statements made in The Times are corroborated by official information I hope the Government then will be able to make some very strong protest against what, if it is accurately reported, is an appalling outrage against all the laws of civilisation. I do not want the Government to take sides in this war or to rush in where greater trouble would be caused with danger perhaps to the whole peace of Europe. But horror has been piled upon horror in this war, and if the reports are true that this cold-blooded bombardment was going on for hours, that this shooting down by aeroplanes of people fleeing really took place—if the Government find on official information that the facts are as stated in The Times, then I hope that in some way—leaving the Government to choose the way—the Government will express the abhorrence felt by the whole country irrespective of what view is taken of the conflict in Spain.
On Question, Motion for the adjournment agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes before six o'clock.