Lords Sitting of 6 December 1938

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
PAISLEY CORPORATION (CART NAVIGATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the National Trust for Scotland; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, Section 7), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this Bill is a familiar one which it is necessary to pass before Christmas in each year in order to continue in force certain statutory provisions which would otherwise lapse on December 31. These provisions are detailed in Part I of the Schedule to the Bill, which is the same as last year's Schedule except that Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, has dropped out, having been superseded by the Coal Act which was passed earlier this year. There is, however, an important addition which appears in Part II of the Schedule. The Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, which amended and continued the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, is due to expire on March 31 next, and it is proposed in this Bill to continue its operation until March 31, 1940. A great deal has been done under the Special Areas Acts. The Commissioners have accomplished many useful measures and have initiated many others which have brought new hope to those unhappy districts. The Government have, however, after very careful consideration, come to the conclusion that the Commissioners' guiding hand should be retained for a further period, and that is the reason for the proposal to continue the Act in this Bill.
I may perhaps sum up the effect of the Special Areas Acts from the financial point of view by saying that the total provision made so far for payments into the Special Areas Fund is £16,000,000, and when that is exhausted further Estimates will be presented. The payments by the Commissioners up to October 31, 1938, have amounted to about £10,250,000, and in addition to these payments from the Fund the Treasury have paid out about £316,000 in assistance to site companies and industrial undertakings under Sections 5 and 6 of the 1937 Act. Further commitments provisionally or finally entered into by the Commissioners at present amount to over £11,500,000 and by the Treasury to about three-quarters of a million. The continuation of the Special Areas Act does not, however, complete the Government's proposals as regards these areas. The Acts include provisions for encouraging the establishment of new industrial undertakings not only in the Special Areas themselves but also in certain areas outside. Experience has shown that some modification of the present conditions

315
applying to the outside areas is desirable in order to make loan facilities more readily available for new undertakings, and His Majesty's Government propose to introduce legislation in due course for this purpose.
I think I need say no more about the Bill generally, but I must say a word on a particular matter in which my noble friend the Lord Chairman is, I know, interested. Your Lordships will notice that the provisions relating to compulsory purchase procedure in the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, are once again included in the Schedule, and I feel that Lord Onslow, who has mentioned the matter in previous years, would wish me to say a word on this point. I think that, in brief, the noble Earl's objection has been that the 1930 Act was a temporary one and that those of its provisions which still survive—that is, the compulsory purchase provisions—ought, if they continue to be necessary, to be dealt with in permanent legislation rather than continued from year to year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I will be quite frank and say that as a matter of principle, I think the Government quite agree with the noble Earl's view. And let me emphasize, first, that the Government have already gone a considerable distance towards meeting it. In no less than four important cases in recent years, we have included compulsory purchase procedure in permanent Acts—included it, moreover, in a somewhat more detailed form which has been suggested by experience. I refer to the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, the Air Navigation Act, 1936, the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, and the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937.
The 1930 provisions, in so far as they have not been superseded by these Acts, are now chiefly required by the Ministry of Transport for electricity purposes and by the Ministry of Health. Last year, my noble friend Lord Fortescue, who moved the Second Reading on my behalf as I had to be elsewhere, told the noble Earl that it was hoped to meet requirements by including appropriate provisions in an Electricity Distribution Bill and a Public Health Bill. I can only trust that my noble friend Lord Onslow will not feel aggrieved because the hopes raised on that occasion have been disappointed.
316
The unfortunate fact is that, owing mostly to pressure of Parliamentary time, and to other reasons, it was not found possible to introduce either of these Bills last Session. I am not going to risk disappointing the noble Earl again by renewing in any more definite form the statement which was made by Lord Fortescue last year.
My noble friend will agree that there are probably four courses open to the Government. First of all, we could simply let these provisions expire; but the Government are not prepared to do this since the Departments concerned are quite definitely of the opinion that the continued existence of these powers, which provide cheap and expeditious procedure, is very useful to them in the efficient discharge of their duties. The second—and this is probably the ideal course—would be for us to supersede the 1930 provisions by permanent legislation in the light of our experience of the 1930 Act. This is the course which the Government have been adopting wherever possible, but unfortunately I cannot pretend in fairness to the noble Earl that there is any immediate prospect of a convenient opportunity arising for completing the process, though if the opportunity should arise His Majesty's Government would certainly take advantage of it. The third course would be to make permanent the 1930 Provisions in their present form, but the Government do not consider this a happy solution. In these circumstances we are, for the moment, driven to adopt the fourth course of continuing the provisions temporarily in their present form as proposed in this Bill. I fully agree with the noble Earl that this is not an ideal method, but I hope he will agree that at the moment there is nothing else we can do.
I might perhaps say that it is by no means uncommon for the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to contain measures which are being temporarily continued pending an opportunity for comprehensive legislation. I need only mention Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, which appeared in last year's Bill and has since been superseded by the Coal Act, 1938. I have, I fear, dilated on this point at some length, but I have done so because on one previous occasion, if not two, I have given an undertaking to my noble friend that I would bring this matter before the Treasury, and I have done so.

317
As your Lordships are aware, my noble friend occupies a position of great dignity and authority in your Lordships' House, and I should not like him to think for a moment that either I or His Majesty's Government are indifferent to the many protests—too many, I am afraid—he has felt bound to make, or that his protests have fallen altogether on deaf ears. I hope he will take that from me. I hope also that he will agree, and that your Lordships agree, that on this occasion the Government could not have acted in any other way than that in which they have acted. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, if we intended to raise any matters on this Bill and I told him that as far as I knew we did not, but since then my noble friend Lord Snell has felt that we should make a protest, which I shall do very briefly, with regard to the Government's policy in continuing the Special Areas Act and delaying the introduction of the new Bill foreshadowed by the noble Lord who has just addressed your Lordships' House. We consider that their policy with regard to the Special Areas has been a failure. That is not to say that the Special Commissioners have not done very good work under their powers. I have had some experience of what they have been doing in certain parts of the country, and friends of mine who take advantage of their facilities for establishing new factories, including farmers, have expressed themselves as very satisfied with the help that has been given to them and the assistance in meeting local conditions which has been provided by the Special Commissioners. But their powers are far too limited, and the whole policy of the Government has been unsuited to the magnitude of this immense problem.
The Party for whom I have the honour to speak have always said the Government were tinkering with this problem, and we are sorry to find we have been only too accurate in our prophecies. We must draw attention to the fact that you have these Special Areas with their enormous social capital invested—social capital in the way of buildings, schools, churches, chapels, roads, houses, drains,
318
and all the rest of it—and the population for the most part unemployed or else the young men have been taken away to other parts of the country. What has been done with the £16,000,000 referred to by the noble Lord? That seems a great deal of money, but spread over Durham, Lancashire, South Wales, and parts of Scotland it is very little indeed. Side by side with that gloomy spectacle you have an immense building activity—new factories, new industries, in Greater London springing up in such quantities and enlarging the whole problems of the defence of London, the transport of London, the social government of London; and when these new factories are established, employing new workers, you have to provide the schools, churches, chapels, drains, recreation facilities, and everything else they must have. That is, we suggest, a very unfortunate state of affairs to exist—these great Special Areas with their skilled, unskilled, and willing workers derelict, and these new areas growing up in parts of the country, which are undesirable from the points of view of defence and social development. We must make our protest, and we hope that a new Bill will soon be introduced of a much more ambitious kind to deal with this growing problem.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, my noble friend has given your Lordships an explanation and excuse for the shortcomings of His Majesty's Government in not bringing in the legislation which we had hoped they might have been able to introduce a long time ago. He has, I am glad to say, admitted that the course which I have urged upon your Lordships as the one they should follow is in principle correct, and I shall not weary your Lordships by making the same speech which I have made for several years. I will only add that I trust that before very long His Majesty's Government will bring their practice up to the principle which they have admitted.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WILD BIRDS (DUCK AND GEESE) PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CROPS (PREVENTION OF DAMAGE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House on a previous occasion in regard to matters concerned with the air, but I propose now to address a few remarks for your Lordships' consideration in regard to crops, with particular reference to the prevention of damage done by rabbits, which is very expensive and very deleterious to the nation's food supply and to British farming. As your Lordships know, rabbits have enormously increased in recent years, and market statistics show a periodical fluctuation superimposed upon a very rapid overall increase in the production of rabbits. The rabbit menace has increased considerably since the War, and numerous attempts have been made to deal with it. Such attempts go as far back as the Ground Game Act of 1856, and certain regulations were promulgated during the War period of 1914–18, but the powers then given were unfortunately repealed. Attempts to deal with this matter by legislation have been made almost every year since 1923, but all the Bills produced in those years mentioned have failed to pass into law for various reasons.
Your Lordships may have heard of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare, which has been carrying out considerable propaganda work with a view to attracting public attention to this important matter, and it is submitted that the time is now appropriate for a fresh attempt at legislation. The urgency of this problem was entirely realised by your Lordships when a Select Committee was appointed in 1936 under the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. Last Session I had the privilege of introducing into your Lordships' House a Bill under the title of Destructive Animals Bill, which was designed to make better provisions for the protection of agriculture and the land from the ravages of rabbits. The object in view in the preparation of that Bill was to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee. I realised, of course, that the Bill could not be carried through further stages during that Session, but your Lordships will, I feel sure, agree that the public notice thereby directed to
320
the rabbit question has in itself served some useful purpose.
There are ample indications of a growing public opinion in regard to this matter, particularly amongst the farming community and others broadly interested in agriculture, and I submit that an attempt should now be made to place upon the Statute Book a measure that will enable those who are concerned with home food production to take effective action to keep rabbits under control. Since the introduction of the Bill to which I have referred there has been an opportunity for me to discuss this matter very fully with representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and others interested in the subject, and as a result I have introduced the Bill which is now before your Lordships. The present Bill does not go quite so far as the last Bill to which I have referred. With considerable regret I find it would appear to be necessary to restrict this Bill to some extent, as it was obvious that certain of the clauses would meet with considerable opposition. Therefore those clauses are not included in the present Bill.
I suggest to your Lordships' House that it is very essential that something should be done to deal with this matter. For example, it is really not possible to exaggerate the urgency of the economic problem with which this Bill deals, but before coming to the economic aspect there is another side, the humanitarian side, which I think must be carefully considered. I submit that there is no other cruelty in this country so extensive as that which arises out of the trapping of rabbits. It has been truly said that to reduce the rabbit population of the country would be a very humane act, because it would eliminate the number of rabbits that there are to be trapped, and we should, therefore, stop the cruelty which goes on in the trapping. Therefore quite apart from the specific economic aspects of the case, we have a duty, I suggest, to reduce the cruelty inflicted on these animals by reducing the number of animals themselves. Then I would like, if I may, to say a few words on the economic branch of the Bill. It is not denied in any quarter, so far as I know, that the damage done by rabbits to agriculture immeasurably exceeds their commercial value as a source of food or fur, and the evidence with regard to this

321
is very clearly exposed in the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Viscount.
May I explain to your Lordships briefly the proposals contained in the Bill, and indicate to what extent its provisions de-part from the recommendations of the Select Committee referred to? Clause 1 gives effect to a recommendation of the Committee. It empowers a county council or county borough council to serve a notice upon occupiers of land infested with rabbits, requiring them to take steps to prevent damage being caused by the rabbits to crops, trees, pastures, fences, banks or other works on land in the occupation of other persons. The necessary action must be taken within a time specified in the notice, which must not be less than twenty-one days. An occupier who fails to comply with the requirements of a notice served upon him is, under the provisions of this clause, liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £25 and to a further fine for each day on which the failure continues. It will be observed that subsection (2) provides that a duly authorised person, on giving twenty-four hours notice, may enter on the land to ascertain whether proper action is being taken to abate the nuisance.
With regard further to Clause 1, it may be asked how it is intended to identify the offender in a case of this kind, or how it can be proved that the rabbits are coming from a particular property. I suggest to your Lordships that we have a very fair and definite criterion. If the rabbits are causing damage in a neighbourhood, the only way to get rid of them is to close the burrows after having fumigated them with cyanide gas. If, therefore, we find many open burrows in a rabbit-infested neighbourhood, we may fairly conclude that the owner of the land has not taken due steps to keep down his rabbits. Then again we have Counties, like Devonshire for example, in which the great majority of the farmers would like to get rid of their rabbits but are deterred by this particular difficulty: they know that if they incur the necessary expenditure themselves while their neighbours fail to take similar action, they will have thrown their money away, since their crops will be eaten and their pastures fouled by their neighbours' rabbits. Rarely is it possible to organise concerted action. Therefore they try to recoup
322
themselves for some part of their losses by trapping for the market, a practice which in the long run only makes matters worse.
It should be emphasized that there is no compulsory power of entry to destroy rabbits. The Bill confers no power of entry upon land except for the purpose of satisfying the council concerned that the requirements of a notice served are being complied with. In this respect this Bill differs materially from some previous Bills dealing with the rabbit question that have from time to time been before your Lordships' House and have failed to command unanimous support. It should therefore be made quite clear that no powers are being sought that would give power of free entry for the purpose of killing rabbits. In regard to the power to provide rabbit-control service, a difficulty arises. Granted that it is a duty to keep down rabbits on one's land, it may happen, particularly in the case of small farmers, either that the skilled labour for dealing with the rabbit nuisance is lacking or that there is some fear of, and prejudice against, the up-to-date methods of rabbit control. To meet this difficulty the Bill provides, in Clause 2, that the county council may provide staff and equipment for this purpose. This rabbit-control service would be available to anyone who desires to have its assistance, and the council is to be empowered to make a reasonable charge for the use of the service. It is important, I suggest to your Lordships, to note that the use of this service would be entirely voluntary on the part of the farmer. There is no question of putting into this Bill any power to go on to a man's land and kill rabbits without his consent.
The fencing of warrens is dealt with in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee. Clause 3 compels the adequate fencing of any rabbits kept in warrens. Then comes the question of the use of gas. In their Report, as your Lordships will remember, the Select Committee, in view of the evidence submitted to them, stated that the legal position with regard to the use of gas in the destruction of rabbits was uncertain. They recommended that the use of gas for this purpose should be placed beyond legal doubt. Effect to this recommendation is given in Clause 5 of the Bill now before your Lordships' House, which provides for the amendment of the Protection of

323
Animals Acts. Cyanide fumigation will be the method adopted under the Bill for the destruction of rabbits. That is perfectly safe when used with care and in the open air. It is humane and quite extraordinarily effective, and has the advantage of killing the rabbits in bulk instead of requiring them to be caught one by one. It is important for two reasons, I suggest to your Lordships, that cyanide fumigation should be used as extensively as possible for the control of rabbits. In the first place, it is the most humane method of killing rabbits, and it is also by far the most effective means of keeping down rabbits. I may mention that another humane method of gassing rabbits is to use carbon dioxide from the exhaust of a motor car, although unlike cyanide fumigation, this method is not always successful in very porous soils.
With regard to night shooting, the Select Committee recommended that the setting of spring traps in the open should be prohibited in all circumstances. It will be remembered by your Lordships that Section 6 of the Ground Game Act, 1880, contains this prohibition but has been held to apply only to tenant farmers. The present Bill repeals Section 6 of the Ground Game Act, and substitutes the provision that the spring trap should not be used for catching hares and rabbits, except in rabbit holes. Section 6 of the Ground Game Act also prohibits tenant farmers using firearms at night for the same purpose and this Bill contains a provision to apply this generally.
With regard to the setting of spring traps in the open, Clause 6 (1) (b) of the Bill makes the use of a spring trap for the purpose of killing rabbits illegal, except in a rabbit hole. This covers the recommendation made by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House to the effect that the setting of gin traps in the open should be prohibited. It will be noted that the term "spring trap" and not "gin trap" is used in the Bill. It has been done deliberately, in spite of the fact that the words "spring trap" include various traps which are intended to be humane in addition to the cruel gin trap. It is felt that no trap of the spring type should be set where it is liable to damage animals for which it is not intended. It may be that the majority will regret the smallness of this concession to humane
324
people, but I have to confess to your Lordships that from information received it would appear that any attempt to give this clause a wider scope would fatally prejudice the prospects of the Bill passing into law.
Your Lordships will doubtless have observed that the Bill as presented does not extend to Scotland. While I am satisfied that need for legislation on this subject is as great in Scotland as in England, it is clear from information obtained from the Secretary of State that the matter is under consideration and it may be possible to bring about adequate arrangements in Scotland that may bear a relationship to the Bill now before your Lordships. In these circumstances, therefore, the Bill has been framed to apply only to England and Wales. As there is no power under the Bill to claim compensation, I think it would be well to direct your Lordships' attention to the omission of a provision giving effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, that occupiers of land should be empowered to claim compensation in respect of damage caused by rabbits coming from another person's land. Various witnesses strongly urged upon the Select Committee the view that such powers are most desirable and the Select Committee recommended that they should be conferred, but I suggest to your Lordships that their inclusion would be prejudicial to the passage of this Bill. In my anxiety to ensure that something should be done, however much less that would be than some of us would consider desirable, I think that such a clause should be omitted.
For the moment I am commending to your Lordships' consideration a Bill which avoids as far as possible matters likely to provoke controversy, in the hope that it may reach the Statute Book and achieve two important objects. At a time like the present we cannot afford to reduce home food production by allowing the depredations of rabbits to continue. Rabbits provide only from three to four per cent. of our home-produced food supply, and the rapid increase of the rabbit population can be judged by the sales at Smithfield which have increased from 900 tons in 1932 to over 3,000 tons in 1936 and the same quantity in 1937. Five rabbits, for which the farmer receives about threepence each, spoil or consume as much pasture as one sheep. Lambs have been selling for 35s. each recently in

325
the Midlands. The Forestry Commission have spent over £30,000 on trying to keep down rabbits, and fencing, as no doubt some of your Lordships know, costs about £80 a mile. Pasture infested by rabbits quickly loses clover and sweet grass and becomes full of moss, coarse grass and ragwort. It is essential to deal with the matter of keeping down rabbits if subsidies for the improvement of pasture with lime and basic slags are not to be money wasted. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2 a.— (Lord Sempill. )
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill. It was framed largely upon the Report of the Select Committee of which I was Chairman. I may say that, with the exception of the Chairman, it was an extremely strong and well-informed Committee, and tock a great deal of trouble over hearing all the evidence on the questions from different angles. The Bill largely gives effect to the recommendations of the Committee and, with the exception of one or two very small points, as far as I can see at this moment I should like to commend it to your Lordships. It has been suggested to me by a very high legal authority indeed that the words "the warren is securely fenced," in Clause 3, are, perhaps not sufficient, and that the words "securely enough fenced to prevent the egress of rabbits" would perhaps put the magistrates in a stronger position. However, that is only a minor point, and I think what the noble Lord said about being content with half a loaf if you cannot get the whole of it is a very sound argument.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I beg to rise in support of the Bill, which I venture to suggest is a good and well-drafted measure; and I hope your Lordships will agree to give it a Second Reading to-day. The best method of dealing with the destruction caused by rabbits is a question which has occupied the attention of the House for many years. In fact, it might be said that the floor of your Lordships' House is literally littered with Bills which have been promoted here to deal with the question. Nine such Bills, not including the present Bill, are now already in the official waste paper-basket. Six were promoted by private members and three were Government Bills, but even these latter were not successful in
326
reaching the Statute Book. Let us hope that a Bill with such an obscure title as "Crops (Prevention of Damage) Bill," which makes no mention of rabbits or of rooks, mill be more successful and be passed into law. Hitherto an attack on rabbits has always been linked up in close conjunction with an attack on rooks. To many of us it seems impossible to see how one measure could deal effectively both with birds that fly about and with rabbits that run about. In fact, that is the chief cause of these previous Bills having failed to reach the Statute Book.
Many people—and I am one of them—like to see rabbits gambolling in our countryside. The rabbit is a pretty, happy and picturesque little animal, and it would be a great loss to all of us if there were no rabbits to be seen running about—as is the case in some other countries. Nevertheless, however much we may enjoy the spectacle of rabbits in the countryside, to farmers and market gardeners the rabbit is anathema, and may unquestionably, I think, be styled "Public Enemy No. 1." to the farmer and the market gardener. He spoils and soils grassland wherever he lives in excessive numbers. He eats everything that grows, and the more precious and valuable the crops the more he appears to relish doing so. Sometimes one wonders how it has been possible for the rabbit, so to speak, to hold his own and to go on increasing and multiplying in the way he has done during the last few years in the face of so many natural enemies—foxes, weasels, stoats and cats—supplemented by all the ingenious modern equipment invented by man for his destruction: traps, snares, guns, nets and all the rest of it. But I think at long last, perhaps with the aid of this Bill, we may be able to give him his congé. He has probably met his Waterloo in this Bill if it is effectively carried out. He will have now to face for the first time all the authority of local government. The hand of every county council is in future to be directed against him. As a member of the County Councils Association, I should like to say publicly that they welcome this Bill, which embodies nearly all the points that they have been pressing for in previous Bills.
Bills have been submitted before, but the machinery has been so complicated and so slow-acting that if any one of them had reached the Statute Book the rabbits would undoubtedly have multiplied themselves

327
many times before it could have taken any kind of effect. But I have my doubts whether, even with the quicker procedure suggested in this Bill, we shall win a great victory. I fear, somehow, that the rabbits will be able to deal with the situation even in its new form. The rabbit has always been, if I may say so, a peace-at-any-price animal, and the moment he sees any difficulty he immediately decamps. That is why perhaps he has survived. Should we ever be engaged in another war—which God forbid!—there would undoubtedly be a great increase in our rabbits unless we had effective measures to deal with the matter such as this Bill suggests. I do not wish to weary the House with figures and statistics, which can be poured out on this question. Enough has been said amply to illustrate the importance of the problem with which this Bill attempts to deal. I therefore venture with great respect to support the Bill. It is designed to promote the interests of the food producers of the country, and in doing so to provide effective control over the rabbit, which makes such severe depredations and exacts such a heavy toll from our farmers and horticulturists. I beg to support the Motion.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not suppose that anyone in your Lordships' House who knows anything about land disagrees with the principle underlying this Bill. However much my noble friend Lord Eltisley may like to see the rabbit playing in the countryside, I share the view that the rabbit is one of the greatest pests with which the agriculturist has to deal. This Bill purports to deal with the question, and to enable the authorities to dispose of rabbits where they appear in numbers which are, shall I say, in excess of what is desirable. I entirely agree with the noble Lord who moved this measure, for two reasons, when he said that it was much better that there should be no rabbits: first of all, on humanitarian grounds, because all methods of killing rabbits are cruel and the only kindly method is to have no rabbits; and secondly, because no agriculturist wants rabbits.
How does this Bill deal with the question? The really operative part of the Bill is Clause 1. I am afraid I have not been able to examine all the details of the Bill, because those to whom I
328
generally look for advice in this matter have been unable to obtain a copy of the Bill. For what reason they have failed I do not know, but I strongly suspect that they asked for a Rabbits Bill and the Stationery Office, being wise men and not reading the Bills which are put under their charge, did not realise that the Crops (Prevention of Damage) Bill was nothing more nor less than a plain Rabbits Bill. I may perhaps wish, if I can be present, to move an Amendment in the Committee stage to the Title of the Bill, in order to make quite clear what it deals with.
By Clause 1, the onus of taking action is placed upon the county council—or rather, I should say upon the local authority, to cover the wider field. My noble friend behind me said that the Bill would have all the authority of local government behind it. There is an Act of Parliament which deals with certain forms of injurious weeds; that also has all the authority of local government behind it. I do not know, but perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to tell us how many times that Act has been invoked by local authorities. Certainly those weeds have not been exterminated, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be much wiser if action was taken on a complaint from a landowner, and that action, after due consideration by the local authorities of a complaint, should be compulsory on that local authority if they are certain that the complaint is justified. In those circumstances, you would have a man who was suffering from rabbits coming from his neighbour, first going to the neighbour and asking him to kill the rabbits, and if the neighbour did not do that then he could go to the local authority with the certainty that they would take action. My view of the situation would be that the local authority would not often need to take action, because the mere threat of it would compel the man who was causing the nuisance to kill his rabbits.
That is the principal point to which I would just draw your Lordships' attention. The other point is as to Clause 7, subsection (2), which contains a definition of "occupier." It
"includes in relation to any land any person who, by virtue of any interest in that land, has the right to kill the rabbits thereon."
That is rather a wide definition of "occupier," and I imagine that it would

329
leave the authority concerned in rather a difficulty as to whom to apply, because it seems to me it would cover not only the owner of the land but the tenant, and even the shooting tenant, all of whom have an interest in the land and have a right to kill the rabbits thereon. I think that that definition needs very careful consideration, and may be the subject of Amendments in the Committee stage.
There are two other quite small points to which I would draw your Lordships attention before I sit down. In Clause 1, subsection (2),
"any person authorised in writing by the council may, on giving twenty-four hours' notice to the occupier, enter on the land for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the requirements of the notice are being complied with."
I wonder whether that is really a misprint for "have been complied with." It seems to me that it would be rather difficult to find out whether the work is being done, whereas it would be quite easy subsequently to find out whether it has been done and the rabbits have been killed. Also, as to Clause 6 (1) (b), I do not know what a rabbit hole means. Is it a hole made by a rabbit, or a hole used by a rabbit, or just a hole in the ground? It seems to me it would be much better, and much more useful, if that were altered so as to read "uses a spring trap, except underground." Those words would cover any kind of hole. While I approve of the principle of the Bill, as your Lordships will realise, there are certain rather important points upon which in my opinion Amendments will be required in the Committee stage, and I hope that the noble Lord, when that stage is reached, will treat the Amendments in the spirit in which they are meant—namely, to produce a Bill which will perform the function of killing rabbits.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I would like to say at once that I am very much in favour of the object of this Bill, but it seems to me that Clause 1 is too strong for the purpose. It says that "where the council of any county or county borough are satisfied" that land is being allowed to become infested with rabbits, they may serve an order on the occupier. There is in that clause no provision for any appeal by the person against whom an order is directed. Now it happens very often—I have a case in mind—that a man
330
has a small quantity of land, which is arable land, with other land on either side of it which is by no means arable land and is infested with rabbits. In such circumstances it is vain for that man to try to kill his rabbits. I know of one very small area of land on which a couple of years ago 300 rabbits were killed, and there could be killed on that land, to-day, another 100 rabbits very easily. These rabbits are rabbits which are damaging agricultural land. The county council might very well be satisfied that that was the land to blame, when all the time the poor fellow who owns that land is getting rabbits again and again from the people on either side of him. I think there should be provision for some form of appeal.
Then I should like to say that this Bill is a little illogical, because it wishes to kill rabbits, and yet it is prescribed that certain methods are not to be used as far as possible. I, like Lord Radnor, do not know what a rabbit hole is, but I would suggest another and rather different definition from his. I would suggest that as long as a spring trap is covered over it can be set anywhere, and I think the reason for that is that some parts of Great Britain enjoy a milder climate than that enjoyed by other parts. In those parts of Great Britain, some of which I know quite intimately, rabbits have taken to lying out and live lying out, and only visit a rabbit hole occasionally, as some of your Lordships may visit your clubs, and it is perfectly hopeless otherwise to try to get rid of those rabbits. The noble Lord could hardly hope to get rid of them by using cyanide or carbon monoxide. The only way is to snare them in their runs, or to trap them.
Then there is another kind of land where it is quite impossible to use gas. I do not know whether any of your Lordships know what it is like to walk up Ben Nevis. A large section of the mountainside consists of great boulders. You can look down between them from 40 to 70 feet, and when you get down there you can look down another 30 or 40 feet. In course of time those crevices get filled up with peat and other soil, and then you get various trees growing in that soil. Once you get below the surface crust of that land the whole place is open. How on earth are you going to fill up that with cyanide when your subsoil consists of these great boulders, only loosely filled

331
in with occasional soil? I do not think that the exponents of gas are really on safe ground when they say, as they do quite clearly, that you can always get rid of rabbits by gas and that gas is so humane. I think the Bill is illogical in saying that you must get rid of rabbits, and then saying "You may not do this" and "You may not do that." Many people will say, "We can only get rid of rabbits in certain ways, and we are not allowed to use them." I am very much in sympathy with the Bill, but I hope the noble Lord will go into the points I have raised, and at a later stage perhaps something may be done to meet them.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, my support of this Bill is confined, I am afraid, to saying that it is better than nothing. I asked myself on reading this Bill the question whether it would work, and I would like to ask some supplementary questions to-day in order to satisfy myself about that. On reading Clause 1 it occurs to me to wonder whether a conviction will ever be secured under it in a Court of Law. The offence charged, I take it, will be that the defendant has failed to abate or prevent the damage, and I do not at the moment understand how it is going to be proved affirmatively and without any reasonable doubt that he is guilty of that failure. First of all I should like to know—and my doubts are increased since hearing the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the Bill—whether the land can be inspected except by the request of the owner or occupier. I am not quite clear about that, and, unless it can I have no hesitation in saying that this Bill will not work in certain parts of the country, in particular a part from which I myself come.
Then, supposing a prosecution is brought and the defendant is accused of failing to abate this nuisance, and it is given in evidence for the prosecution that there is an abundance of rabbits, let us say on farm A, and that by reason of these rabbits (those words "by reason of" are rather important) damage has been caused to farm B. That is what the prosecution will have to prove. Supposing the defendant in answer says that the damage to farm B has been in fact caused by rabbits which came from farms C and D and E. How is that evidence to be rebutted? The noble Lord
332
did say something which touched upon the point—namely, that the holes would be inspected to see whether gas had been applied, but I do not think that that is completely satisfactory, and unless some further enlightenment is forthcoming on this Clause 1 I cannot see how the authorities, even if they are brave enough to attempt it, are ever going to get a conviction on a charge under subsection (1). The one way of escape then may be the words "or is likely to be caused" which occur in the fifth line. They may have a little more success in bringing a prosecution on those lines, but then they have to convince the court as to whether these rabbits are likely to cause damage, not to the farm on which they are, but to somebody else's farm, and it seems to me that that is not an easy thing to do. I cannot help feeling that I would prefer to be engaged for the defence in one of these cases than for the prosecution; and I can only hope, as I am very keen on preventing this damage and reducing the number of rabbits, that I may be wrong about this.
Then the Bill says that there is to be a fine for each day upon which this default continues. Who is to say upon how many days this default is continued? The penalty is £5 a day, and it is a serious matter. How is it to be proved that the damage is continuing on a definite and given number of days if there is a spirited defence and denial of that statement? I cannot visualise a successful penalty daily being imposed under this Bill, and I venture to say that if there is not to be a reasonable chance of these penalties being inflicted, they had better not be in the Bill at all, and the reduction of rabbits had better be attempted in some other way. In Clause 1 (2) the county council's representative "may … enter on the land." To whose land does that refer? It may seem a small point, but it is as well to have it clear. Does it refer to the land where the damage is being caused, or does it refer to the land where there is a suspicion that the rabbits are being harboured? I hope that that possibly may be cleared up at a later stage.
On Clause 2 (1) I want to ask a question which may appear at first sight to be a frivolous one. The question is this: After these rabbits have been caught by the county council inspector, to whom do they belong? There is more perhaps in that question than appears at first

333
sight, because I am visualising all the time in speaking on this Bill a part of the country where what I deliberately call rabbit farming is carried on to a very large extent. Supposing that the inspector goes on the land and catches, say, fifty rabbits, and all the rabbits on that farm have previously been sold by the farmer to a trapper, whose rabbits are they? We might save trouble later on by clearing up that point before the Bill is passed.
On Clause 3 I am again thirsting for information. I want to know whether the words in that clause are a proper and sufficient definition of "a warren for the purpose of breeding rabbits." We all know what the ordinary rabbit warren is, but how far does it extend? Can it possibly be said, for instance, that where a whole farm is riddled with rabbit holes, as is the case in certain parts of the country, that is a place which is carried on for the breeding of rabbits, if the rabbits on that farm are regularly year after year sold to a trapper? If it cannot be said, then in those regions this Bill is going to do no good at all. If it can, well and good, But is it clear that it can be? Is it clear on that sort of farm? I know a county council small holding, which has a fairly substantial rent for the size of it, on which the only crop on the holding is rabbits. It is right on the coast, I admit, on the cliffs, but there it is. It belongs to the county council. Is that going to be a rabbit warren under this Bill? If not, this Bill is going to be useless in that area, or anywhere near it. So then, while I think this clause is absolutely harmless as it stands, it will not stop what I consider a great evil, that is, rabbit farming, unless the interpretation is as I hope it is.
Then with regard to Clause 6, that introduces the topic of spring traps, which has been debated many times in your Lordships' House. Another question I would like to ask there is whether the police can take any action under this Bill. From reading it, it appears that they cannot, but again I say that unless they can, very little good indeed will come of the Bill. I was again alarmed to hear the noble Lord who introduced the Bill say that nothing would be done tinder this Bill unless it was asked for by the landowner. That means that in many parts of this country nothing is going to be done at all, because a man who sells his
334
rabbits for a large sum annually and does not care for the destruction which they cause is not going to invite interference from the county council. I am, I frankly admit, in a minority, but I would infinitely prefer the use of steel traps to be abolished altogether, not only because I feel that they are abominably cruel, that they are a relic of mediaeval barbarism—and they are not allowed in Germany—but because in certain parts of the country—I emphasize those words, because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley's part of the country, for example, does not suffer in this respect—as steel traps are now used by professional trappers, I honestly and sincerely believe that their use increases the number of rabbits.
I know it is a difficult thing—perhaps an impossible thing—to prove, but that is the conclusion to which I have come, and I would like to ask, if I am wrong, how is it, as Lord Eltisley has said, that in spite of all this trapping, the rabbits go on increasing? What is the reason for that? I think I know, but it is a view in which I am in the minority. In justification I would like to say that I practise what I preach. On my own farm there has never been a trap, and I have very many fewer rabbits than most people in a county which is infested with rabbits. I have no difficulty whatsoever in keeping them down. It is true it may be difficult on Ben Nevis, as the noble Lord said, but this Bill does not apply to Scotland.
LORD SALTOUN: I only introduced Ben Nevis as it showed what was underneath the soil—the land before it was made—and that there were many more accessible places of the kind.
LORD MERTHYR: May I say finally that I am not oblivious of the enormous damage done by rabbits. In a former debate it was stated by Lord Cranworth, though I do not believe anybody could possibly prove it, that the damage was £70,000,000 a year. Be that as it may, the damage certainly is very extensive indeed, and one has only got to think of the problems of the Forestry Commission carrying on an industry of national importance, to realise the seriousness of this problem. It is for that reason, in view of the seriousness of the problem and the fact that I do not honestly think this Bill is going to be very successful in certain

335
parts of the country, that I suggest that the method of supervision by county councils is not the right one. I feel certain that ultimately the only remedy is for the Ministry or some national organisation to use a corp of inspectors who will go round the country killing and reducing this pest as fast as possible. I do not believe results will be achieved by prosecution, at any rate under this Bill, or by the imposition of penalties. Nothing but independent work—reducing rabbits by the proper methods—will really meet the problem.
When I say that nothing will really do except the elimination of rabbits as far as possible, one is always up against the argument of cheap food; but I feel, and I have said it here before, that that is a complete fallacy. I do not believe this so-called cheap rabbit food is cheap at all if, which is never done, the real charges and debits are included in the farmer's accounts. The farmer thinks only of the price which he gets for the rabbits, and never debits his accounts with the damage done or the food eaten. If he did so, there would never again be heard this point of cheap food for the poor people. It is not cheap; it is merely sold for a small price. These matters are very important to a large body of people, and the taxpayers of this country may well ask why they should continue to pay subsidies to farmers who are allowed to continue what I call rabbit farming—that is, selling their rabbits every year to a professional trapper. If I thought that this Bill was going to stop that, I should be most enthusiastic in support of it. I am afraid it will not. It is really only a small effort at a very big problem, but since it will certainly do no harm I shall not vote against it.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, as one engaged in a constant struggle with rabbits, I welcome this Bill, as all your Lordships have done who have taken part in the debate, but I do share with my noble friend Lord Saltoun very considerable doubts, amounting to certainties, as to whether the gas extirpation of rabbits can be successful in a great many areas. It is not merely rough and mountainous country with crevices and hollows which are involved; it affects a very large portion of our coastline, and all those parts of the country where you get a great deal of heathery ground, the
336
banks of small streams covered with broom or gorse, or where you get dense young woods. In all these areas the rabbits habitually do not use burrows, and therefore the use of gas is completely impracticable. At the same time I do not follow Lord Saltoun to the extent of suggesting that the use of the spring trap should be permitted above ground, because not only is it exceedingly cruel but it would mean that a great deal of game birds and domestic animals and the like would be injured. Unfortunately, there is no doubt we have not yet got an efficient substitute for the gin trap. It is a beastly thing. All kinds of humane traps have been tried—at the moment I am trying one myself—but unfortunately none have been found which are in any way really effective; or at least they are so cumbrous and expensive that their use is out of the question.
I do not want to deal with Committee points, but there are one or two matters to which the noble Lord who introduced the Bill might direct his attention. Certainly Clause 1 (1) is going to lead to a certain amount of trouble because it is going to be impossible to say when the nuisance is being abated. The clause says:
"… the county council may serve on the occupier a notice in writing requiring him to abate or prevent the damage within such time, not being less than twenty-one days, as may be specified in the notice."
Twenty-one days is not a very long period in which to put down a really bad infestation of rabbits. It may be said that the occupier ought not to have allowed the infestation to occur, but it is there, and there may be occasions and places in which it will take three months to get the rabbits reduced to reasonable numbers. It is going to be very difficult for anyone to say when the exact point has been reached on which it may be truthfully said that the pest is being reduced to reasonable numbers. I agree that it might be better if Clause 1 (2) were somewhat clearer. Under this provision any person may enter on the land with proper authority. To be effective that land must include not only the land in which the damage is being done, but also the land from which the rabbits are coming. The investigator may enter in daylight, if he is merely to see the work is being carried out, and it may be that all the work is being done by snares or

337
with the use of long nets. This subsection ought to be revised and strengthened if the Bill is to achieve the success which we all hope it will.
There is just one other point on which I would like a little further elucidation. That is on the question of the use of firearms after dark or, to be precise, "between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise." It seems to me that this provision is going to be somewhat unworkable because, particularly on summer evenings, it is quite possible to shoot rabbits a good deal later than the time specified, and it is really not going to be workable if a farmer or keeper coming home is not to be entitled to shoot a rabbit in the dusk. I cannot see that the disqualification of anyone from using a firearm after dark is really going to be of much use. It will be difficult to enforce, and it may lead to a considerable amount of trouble. Subject to these few remarks hope your Lordships will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading, and we shall hope it will be still further improved in Committee.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I do not wish to make a speech, but I should like to make one or two suggestions to your Lordships. A good deal has been said about the killing of rabbits, and I think it has rather been taken for granted that when the rabbits have reached a mature age they have some value in the market. I think there is one difficulty that has not been mentioned which will prevent our ever killing rabbits on the lines that have been suggested, and that is this. If you start snaring or trapping rabbits and killing them in one wood, or one part of the country, you will find that they are very wide awake and will move on to the next area. Therefore it is necessary to deal promptly with the problem of killing them, and I do not think there is anything in this Bill which will enable you to do that. I think it is essential to deal with the problem in a very much bigger way than it is dealt with in this Bill.
There are two things that I would like the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, to consider. One is whether the killing of rabbits cannot be dealt with earlier in the season; whether power could not be given to deal with them in the months in which they are breeding. As your Lordships know, rabbits multiply mostly in the months of
338
May and June. They begin to breed in those months in vast numbers. I think if we could set apart the two months of May and June as a period in which to try and kill the rabbits at their breeding time, there would be a very much better prospect of doing what is desired. I suggest that it might be made compulsory that people should take steps to kill rabbits at the time when they are breeding and long before they are fit to sell. I think that might be more effective than the proposals set forth in this Bill. Moreover, I think it is essential that it should be done not in a piecemeal way, by going into one occupier's wood or on to one occupier's farm, but as far as possible over the whole country at the same time.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, may I at the outset express my apology to your Lordships' House, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, for not being in my place at an earlier stage of this debate. I regret that I did not correctly estimate the time that the prior business would take. I am glad to have this opportunity to support this Bill, and also to say that His Majesty's Government will give it every facility to pass through its various stages in both Houses of Parliament. From the debate that we have had in your Lordships' House it appears that there is general agreement as to the serious damage caused by rabbits to agricultural crops, and indeed to afforestation. Certain figures have been mentioned in the debate as to the extent of this damage. I do not believe that any reliable estimate can be made, but there is no doubt whatsoever from the strictly agricultural point of view that the rabbit is a definite pest, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, who voiced what many of us feel when he affirmed that it would be a great advantage to agriculture if the rabbit could be entirely exterminated. But there are other considerations involved, such as the value of rabbits as a food. The noble Viscount, Lord Merthyr, mentioned this point in the debate, and I think he will agree with we that there are a number of persons who would not accept the arguments that he put forward.
The aim of this Bill, as I understand it, is to reduce the rabbit population to

339
a reasonable figure, and to keep its numbers under control in all agricultural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, and also the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, pointed out that the Bill adheres closely to the recommendations of the Select Committee appointed by your Lordships at the end of 1936, and presided over by my noble friend Lord Mersey. Your Lordships have had the advantage of hearing a valuable contribution to this question this afternoon from the Chairman of that Select Committee. I think that this Bill, unlike its predecessors, is such that it will receive the favourable consideration not only of your Lordships' House but also of another place. There has been some reference in the course of the debate to the experiments that are being conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture to test the various types of traps for the destruction of rabbits. As the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said, the aim is to discover, if possible, a trap that is as effective as the gin trap that is now commonly in use but more humane. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that up to date no such trap has been invented, but the experiments under the auspices of the Ministry are proceeding, and it is to be hoped that eventually they will meet with some success.
Your Lordships will recall the history of the previous attempts to pass legislation dealing with rabbits, and you will remember that that previous history has not been very encouraging. Your Lordships will no doubt recollect that the Corn Production Act contained a provision empowering the Board of Agriculture to take action for the destruction of rabbits. Since the repeal of that Act in 1921 no fewer than nine Bills have been introduced into Parliament before this present Session. Six out of those nine Bills were introduced by private members, while three were Government Bills. Owing to pressure of Parliamentary business, and also in some cases to the strong opposition that manifested itself in your Lordships' House, not one of those Bills succeeded in reaching the Statute Book. I hope, however, in spite of some of the criticisms that have been made in the course of the debate this afternoon, which I think your Lordships will agree are essentially Committee points, that this Bill will pass into law.
340
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in one or two criticisms of the Bill, expressed the opinion that its provisions would not prove more satisfactory than the legislation which has been delegated to the local authorities to carry out under the provisions of the Noxious Weeds Order. It is certainly true that the application of the Noxious Weeds Order by different local authorities varies considerably. At the same time, since the question of noxious weeds was raised in your Lordships' House more than twelve months ago there has been on the part of certain local authorities a very great improvement in carrying out the provisions of that Order and, where necessary, taking action in cases where the Order has not been complied with. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that my own area, which is covered by the North Riding of Yorkshire County Council, the County Council have recently appointed two persons to be specifically engaged in touring the district, firstly, to ascertain where noxious weeds are very prevalent, and secondly, to take action where necessary. Therefore I feel that the analogy of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, of the working of the Noxious Weeds Order, is not so appropriate to-day as it might have been in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, expressed the opinion that the provisions of the Bill are illogical, for, as I understood him, he said that although the local authority are empowered to take action for the destruction of rabbits the methods which they can employ are restricted. That is not quite the case. The methods to be used by the persons employed by the local authority are exactly similar to those used in the country at large. They can employ the methods covered by gassing operations and the use of traps provided the traps are not put on top of the ground but in rabbit holes. Therefore I do not think the provisions of the Bill place any specific disability upon the county councils as opposed to the usual methods employed by the farmer for the destruction of rabbits.
The next point raised was the wording used in Clause 6 (1) (b), and it was suggested that there should be a definition of "rabbit hole." Your Lordships have benefited by the analogy which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, gave in reference to this description. I suggest that the main intention of this paragraph is to provide

341
that a spring trap shall not be placed other than in a rabbit hole—that is, it shall not be put in any place where game or stock or ether animals could get trapped. A rabbit hole is, I believe—and I think my noble friend Lord Sempill will agree—a place where at some season of the year a rabbit will go beneath the face of the earth. I should have thought that for the purpose of this Bill and this particular clause the words "in a rabbit hole" sufficiently defined the general principle that a trap should not be placed where it would be a danger to other animals than rabbits.
Several other points have been raised with which my noble friend Lord Sempill will probably deal, but I feel confident that it will be possible for him to steer this Bill safely through the various stages in your Lordships' House, especially as he has the full support of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and the members of his Select Committee. The majority of the provisions of the Bill are based upon that Committee's recommendations, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that if the noble Lord does succeed he will earn the gratitude of all agriculturists in the country. If agricultural production is going to be safeguarded the need for some measure such as the Bill now before your Lordships' House is in my view beyond question. Only recently I have had correspondence from farmers in many parts of the country, both in the west and the east, saying that they have over a given period been endeavouring to apply grassland improvement measures initiated by Professor Stapledon at Aberystwyth, but that those measures are rendered in some instances ineffective owing to the great damage done by the heavy population of rabbits. Therefore, although there may be members of your Lordships' House who feel that this Bill does not go far enough, I for my part—speaking, indeed, on behalf of the Ministry—feel confident that the Bill will go a long way to remove this sore which has been a constant irritation to farmers in all parts of the country and that it will be welcomed by the agricultural community at large.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, may I in the guise of a Sussex farmer address a few remarks to your Lordships on the subject of this Bill, chiefly for the purpose of suggesting things for the consideration of the noble
342
Lord who has introduced it? Anybody who has been a farmer, even a humble one, in this country is well aware of the damage done, especially in some years, by rabbits. The first thing I want to say is this. Anybody who knows anything about matters of this sort understands how extraordinarily difficult it is to draft a measure so that it will satisfy everybody and so that there will not be many loopholes through which the rabbit may pass and because of which it may be the Bill is imperfect. We cannot help that. You will never be able in a measure like this to prevent there being left a certain number of places where rabbits will breed and to some extent exercise their evil powers, but you can go a long way, and I am sure it will be satisfactory to agriculturists if this Bill should become an Act and thereby largely reduce the number of rabbits in many parts of the country.
Your Lordships have heard a number of suggestions as to ways in which the drafting of the Bill may be improved. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to suggest some of the ways in which I think the Bill can be improved. The first thing that occurs to me is in regard to Clause 1, under which the county council will have a right to send somebody on the land where rabbits are breeding to the damage of neighbours, after a notice has been served. It may be difficult to show what the position was before the notice was served. I would suggest that one thing which the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, might consider is whether he could accept a suggestion by one of your Lordships that the council should act upon the complaint of a man whose land is being eaten up by rabbits from his neighbour's land, and that after such a complaint the council should have a similar right to that mentioned in subsection (2) of sending somebody to examine the land and see its state with regard to rabbits and rabbit warrens. If that is done, I think it would be easier for the council to make up its mind whether some order should be made upon the occupier.
Then, I take it, it might be well if the subsection provided that the occupier should be summoned before the council, or before a committee of the council, and be told the trouble and asked to explain why he had not done anything. In that connection I would suggest to the noble Lord that there is a slight snag in

343
Clause 1 (1), because the council has to be satisfied that the occupier has allowed his land to become infested. He may be a recent purchaser who has purchased a place honeycombed with rabbit holes. It is right that he should take steps to reduce that nuisance to his neighbours' land, but on the other hand he may say: "I did not allow them to come here; I bought the land full of rabbits, and you cannot say I allowed the land to become infested." That is my suggestion on Clause 1, for the consideration of the noble Lord.
The difficulty with regard to the prosecution will not necessarily be as great as some of your Lordships suppose. The ordinary course would be for the occupier on whom a notice is served, if it is alleged that he has failed to comply with the requirements of the notice, to call evidence or give evidence himself to show what he has done. It is quite easy for the man to say, "I have employed a couple of trappers; I have used cyanide; I have used long nets; I have done everything I could to reduce the rabbits on my land." If he has done that, you may be quite sure that he has to some extent been endeavouring to comply with the notice. I do not believe that in practice that will be a matter of great difficulty. I quite agree, however, that there will be cases where it will be hard to prove that the notice has not been complied with and to fine the man. That is the sort of thing that always happens in a borderline case. On the whole, however, I think that the clause, modified, perhaps, as I suggest, will be a useful one and will bring pressure to bear on the people who take no trouble to keep the rabbits down on their land, and make them do it.
Then one of your Lordships has suggested that there is some doubt as to the meaning of "enter on the land" in subsection (2). I do not at present think there is any difficulty about that, because the authorised person may
"enter on the land for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the requirements of the notice are being complied with."
He will see whether anything is being done on the warrens or other places where rabbits breed and are a source of mischief. Again, I see no reason why the meaning should not be made perfectly
344
clear by the addition of a word or two to the clause.
When you come to Clause 3, which has also been complained of, I agree that the phrase "no person shall keep a warren for the purpose of breeding rabbits" might be strengthened. The person might well say, "The warren is there; I do not like it, but I employ people to trap the rabbits and sell them. I do not keep the warren for the purpose of breeding rabbits; I wish they would not breed there." Accordingly, I should have thought that it was better to modify that clause by saying that it is not confined to a person who deliberately wants the rabbits to breed there and keeps the warren for that purpose. Then on Clause 5 the point has been made that cyanide gas is not applicable everywhere. I suppose that the noble Lord who moved the Bill is quite as aware of that as anyone else. There are only certain places where cyanide is of real advantage in trapping rabbits, but in a number of places it is a magnificent destructor of rabbits. Clause 5 will enable the gas to be used for that purpose.
Then we come to Clause 6. One cannot get complete agreement on these subjects, and for my part I think that the provisions of Clause 6 (1) (b) are probably as far as it is wise to go if one wants this Bill to become law with the assistance of the people in another place. That is all I can say. I venture to add only this: that what I have said is intended only for the consideration of the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill, and I would hope that some of the matters which have been suggested by your Lordships, and perhaps which I have suggested, will be of some assistance in making this a useful measure.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I do not think I need say much in reply, but I should like to express my appreciation of the consideration which your Lordships have given to the Bill, of the very illuminating remarks made by the Lord Chancellor in relation thereto, and of the observations of other noble Lords who have spoken. If I might make the suggestion, it would seem to be most appropriate, if your Lordships agree that this Bill be now read a second time, that these matters which have been raised should be taken in Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH TRADE IN CHINA.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKhad given Notice that he would ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now give information as to the results of the action which in his speech in the House of Lords on July 27, 1938, he indicated he was taking for the protection of British trade in China; whether His Majesty's Government contemplate any further actions in this respect in view of the fact that British trade interests in China are daily growing worse, and that Japan by various measures is gradually monopolising trade of all kinds as well as currency in that country; and move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, may I be permitted to change to another war: to leave the war on rabbits in order to deal with the war which is being waged by Japan in China to-day? Although this is the third time that I have initiated a debate on this subject in the past year, the position of our trade interests in China has gone from bad to worse. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, is not in his place to-day, but I quite understand the reason for his absence. I received a courteous message from him saying that he was going on a well-earned holiday; and I am sure that we all agree that he has earned that holiday through the hard, useful and able work which he has performed for the country during the past two months. He informed me that the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, would take his place in the debate. That has this advantage, that the noble Earl has already dealt with this matter, for he replied to the first debate which I raised on this subject in February of this year.
One of the reasons why I am raising this debate to-day is that in the last debate my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs indicated that His Majesty's Government were dealing with many of the points which I raised then, and had also made special representations through His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo. He actually said in that debate:
… pending the outcome of these discussions, which quite obviously touch very closely British rights and interests that the
346
Japanese Government have promised to respect, the noble Lord will not expect me to go into precise details, but I shall bear in mind the wish which he expressed that at the earliest moment the result of these discussions should be made public."
He also informed the House that strong representations had been made at Tokyo in regard to the Tsingtao harbour position, and he hoped for very early remedial action. I think we are entitled, to-day, to hear the results of those measures which he proposed to take, and also of those representations. So far as we are concerned, those of us who are in touch with conditions in the Far East see no amelioration at all; in fact, things have been growing worse, and we are very disappointed indeed about the whole situation.
What do we find? We find that in no single point mentioned in my speech in July has there been any amelioration. In Tsingtao a Japanese Naval Commission is in charge, and not a single British ship is allowed to enter the harbour or lie alongside the wharf, and this in spite of the strong representations of His Majesty's Government. The Yangtse River is still closed to all foreign shipping, and Hankow, a very important city on that river, is now wiped out as a trading centre for an indefinite period. At Tientsin the Japanese monopoly on wools and hides is now fully effective, and this prevents any purchase or sale of these commodities by any British firms. The same applies round Shanghai. The Japanese have set up a monopoly on cotton, and the Chinese farmers are forbidden to sell any cotton to foreigners. In addition to this they have commandeered all public utilities throughout North China—telegraphs, telephones, water and power works, and railways, including the Peking-Mukden Railway, which is a security for a British loan.
Their latest act of economic aggression is an import tax of one dollar on foreign tobacco, as against a tax of 60 cents. on Japanese tobacco. This new tax is severely affecting British trade in that quarter. The fact is that the Japanese are leaving no stone unturned in order to bolster up their own fallen economic system and injure British trade, by getting into their own hands all Chinese export and other trade. This is, no doubt, one of the reasons for the Japanese capture of Canton, which creates possibilities of the gravest danger to Hong Kong trade,

347
which is so bound up with Canton and South China. In the speech to which I have already referred, Lord Halifax said:
"The Japanese Government claim that the action which they are taking is in defence of their interests in China, and we have every right to recognise that if they have certain interests to protect we have the same, and are not unmindful of our responsibilities, which we have every intention to discharge."
I subscribe whole-heartedly to that expression of intention, but I would like to know what the Government propose to do in order to carry it into effect. No one in this country has any idea of retaliation in the military sense, but there are a great many who do believe that if we were to retaliate in an economic sense we should at least make some impression upon the Japanese.
I suggested in my last speech on this subject that we should denounce the Anglo-Japanese Trade Agreement of 1911, with a view to excluding Japanese exports from our Colonies, or reducing the quotas of their exports going to those Colonies. That was urged in another place, and I understood from the reply made in another place that the Government were considering that measure. A second way of retaliation would be to close Hong Kong to all Japanese ships and cargo between Japan and South China. This would effectively block Chinese trade with Canton and the West River. Another way to do it would be the closing of all Indian and Straits Settlement ports to Japanese coastal shipping. Those are three ways, and there is yet a further way, having regard to the desperate need of Japan, to-day, for foreign exchange and credits. I am credibly informed that the Japanese gold reserves are down to £30,000,000 and that their local production has reached as low a level as £12,000,000 per annum. These facts obviously increase our ability to bring economic pressure to bear upon Japan; that is, if we really have the will and the determination to do so.
I venture to urge that as they will not listen to reason, the time has arrived when we definitely should take special economic steps to enforce our point of view, and avoid being driven out of the field altogether. There is very little doubt that there is an entire change of outlook in Japan to-day towards China
348
and her trading problems, and more significant than all is the statement emanating from the London Times correspondent in Tokyo, in the issue of December r, which referred to "The new order in East Asia." We learn from that communication that there has been a Conference, which sat before the Emperor, and considered and approved a new policy for Japan towards China, which must change the whole face of the Far East. This will involve the abandonment of the open-door policy, whilst the Nine-Power Treaty, signed at Washington in 1922, is already regarded as obsolete. It appears that foreign influence and foreign trade are to play a very small part indeed in the future in the economic situation in China.
As a result of the anxiety felt by foreign trading interests in China, owing to the new developments, there was, on November 25, at Shanghai, a meeting of representatives of all the foreign chambers of commerce and foreign associations. They represented Great Britain, America, Canada, Denmark, France, Norway and Sweden, who for the first time combined to form a united front in order to try and meet this new situation. This is the first time that nationals of those countries have met in Shanghai in a common conference and made identical representations to their various Governments as to what should be done in order to resist Japanese trade aggression in China. To such an extent do they feel that action is necessary that, although they know that any retaliatory action might mean serious inconvenience to them, they are prepared to face it for the sake of the future of foreign trade in China.
There is yet another aspect of this question of which I believe sufficient notice is not taken—namely, the attitude of China towards this country. I have reason to believe that strong feelings are being engendered in China against this country because we have done nothing whatever to assist them in their extremity. China is beginning to regard this attitude on our part as at least unfriendly, and from all I have heard I believe that if the Chinese were successful in this war British trade might suffer equally as if Japan were the victor. I wish to urge His Majesty's Government with all the force I can muster that something be done to help China in her trouble. I have heard it said we should not do this because it would

349
be a breach of neutrality, and the situation in Spain has been compared with the situation in China. But the two cases are entirely different. In Spain you have civil war, in China you have a war of aggression by another country, which is not only decimating China but is also destroying all British interests there. Therefore when I advocate help to China I believe I am doing so on perfectly sound grounds.
One final word. Recently there has been concluded between His Majesty's Government and the United States of America a Trade Agreement which most people regard with the greatest gratification, but many of us see behind that Agreement a matter of more political importance, and that is the question of closer collaboration between the two countries. I suggest that a special occasion has now arisen in China, and that there should be close collaboration between these two countries so far as China is concerned. It is sometimes said that we ask the United States to pull our chestnuts out of the fire. In no way can that be said in this instance, because the chestnuts which are to be pulled out of the fire are equally valuable to the United States as to ourselves, So I venture to ask His Majesty's Government whether, if they have not already done so, they will approach the United States in this matter, and I again urge His Majesty's Government before it is too late to take some retaliatory action in this serious situation, the vital importance of which does not seem to be fully recognised in every direction. I beg to move.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to my noble friend for raising this question, and I realise that he does so with a genuine concern for British interests in China. He is entitled to have a deep feeling of grievance about what has been done in Eastern Asia, but, while we may agree that the present state of things in that part of the world is one which we can indeed deplore, it is well to remember that it is best to deal with things realistically. Of course, we are all aware that there are many who feel that the action which has been taken by Japan in China is not one which the majority of industrialists and the majority of thinkers in Japan regard as being in the best interests of Japan herself. Again, on the other side it is realised by the Chinese that resistance must be continued to the utmost of their resources. But
350
the point I want to make is that, the situation being as it is, it is better to try to find a realistic solution.
Passions are strong, indignation is great, the British interests concerned will naturally be impatient and hopeful that strong action will be taken by His Majesty's Government. My noble friend puts forward some practical suggestions as to the way in which pressure could be applied, but in all these matters it is well to get the right perspective. Let us just remember that as long as there was active co-operation between Great Britain and Japan there was no interference with foreign interests in China. Anti-foreignism, so to speak, only developed from the moment there was a clear possibility of driving a wedge between Great Britain and Japan and preventing them from acting in co-operation. It is well to remember that somewhere around 1925 the attitude of China was just as damaging to British trade as is the attitude of Japan to-day. The result was the sending of the Expeditionary Force to China at the cost of the British taxpayer—and it is still there at the cost of the British taxpayer. It may be assumed indeed that whatever the conditions in China were, it would be necessary to maintain that Force there in order to protect foreign interests against the action of the Chinese themselves.
It is alleged that the intention of the Japanese is to take over a large part of the territory of China and apply it to their own use. There have been repeated assertions by the Japanese, however, that they have no desire for territorial aggrandisement in the southern part of China. Whatever may be the actual facts, it would seem wiser to wait before we doubt these reiterated statements—I mean, to wait until the termination of hostilities. It is characteristic of British sympathy for the weaker side that in this case sentiment should be largely with China. On the other hand surely it is natural that there should be suggestions in Japan that active help has been given to China by Great Britain, which naturally cause misgivings and suspicions, however inaccurate they may be. That does encourage the Chinese to believe that if they wait long enough they may expect British intervention. Surely there have been often enough statements by responsible Japanese statesmen, which coincide with the actual facts, that the

351
main desire of Japan is to assure a stabilised government in China. Its aim is to make sure that the Government shall be free from all Communistic influence, shall be free from anti-Japanese activities, and we naturally hope too, having a vivid recollection of 1925, that it will also be free from any anti-British feeling.
When I say that, I do not wish to give the impression of any lack of sympathy with China. This is essentially a moment when in any debate here there should be strict impartiality, giving encouragement to neither side but giving the aspect of resolution to insist on our own rights and at the same time of a desire to exert patience until the situation, difficult as it is, resolves itself. It is suggested that when the military operations reach a point at which the reconstruction of the country will become a matter of active concern, the aim of the Japanese is to exclude all foreign interests from China. Frequent have been the reiterations of that. Again, I suggest, we should look at it from the angle of practical common sense. Is it possible to conceive that China can be reconstructed, involving the requirements of a reconstructed currency as a fundamental to trade, by China herself, or by China and Japan together, to the exclusion of all foreign interests? Common sense shows that there will be a need of foreign assistance, and obviously the assistance most sought after will be that of Great Britain.
In order to appreciate what the problem is, may I just give one suggestion. The coast line of the United States of America, from the Canadian line to the Mexican line, is 1,200 or 1,400 miles. Those of us who are familiar with the United States can picture that it will be a formidable task to attempt to conduct even the volume of trade which must have existed 80 years ago with that vast territory. Japan may hold the key cities and the coastline, but the actual distance, I believe, from Vladivostok to South China is 2,400 miles. That in itself is a picture of its size. Again I understand the total trade of this country with China amounts to about 2 per cent. of our total trade. In the case of the United States their import trade from this country is only about 6 per cent. Two per cent. of our total trade is not a vital thing for this country, but it is obvious that the trade of Japan with the Asiatic Continent is a
352
vital thing for Japan, and, whatever may be the temporary inconvenience and loss caused to those who trade with China, it is well to remember that patience is a thing which is justified here.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: You are an optimist !
LORD BARNBY: The noble Viscount says I am an optimist. It is well to be practical. I repeat that those of us who have been there, who know the territorial area of what is attempted to be achieved, realise that it is not practicable to contemplate that this reconstruction can be achieved without foreign aid. It is for this reason that one has a confident hope that in collaboration with the United States of America, who themselves have large interests subsidiary to ours, we shall observe patience and avoid misconstruction being aroused in Japan as to the grounds on which righteous indignation is expressed from here, regard also being had to the fact that for home consumption very often a good deal has to be said in Japan which, when repeated over here, as in the case of all foreign countries where difficulties exist, take on an entirely different complexion. Incidents reprehensible and regrettable have occurred. It is well to remember that for Japan this activity is in their belief vital to their interests. They believe that in the effort they are making they have their backs to the wall, and tempers run high when criticisms are made of their attitude. Surely what we want to remember is that the spirit of understanding is one which will best help the situation.
Remember that reconstruction has got to come, and we have a great opportunity to collaborate in it. As far as debates in this House or expressions in the Press are concerned, surely what we wish, above all, is to avoid producing a situation which is going to make a settlement more difficult. By showing understanding we shall get a better response when the moment comes, and, after all, what is the practical thing we want? It is a better "break" for our own trade with China.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, the noble Viscount who initiated this debate made allusion to a debate which was held in your Lordships' House in July last, in which these matters were discussed and

353
during the course of which my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that the position was under discussion with a view to seeing what steps should be taken to remedy the position so far as British interests in trade in China were concerned. The noble Viscount has asked what the result of those deliberations has been, and has alluded to certain matters in respect of which he maintains, and I think maintains perfectly rightly, that British interests are receiving unfair treatment at the hand of the Japanese Government. I think that perhaps the best thing that I can do is to make reference quite shortly to some of the matters to which he referred, and to state what the position is in regard to these particular questions. I regret that I am not able to report satisfactory progress, but I should like to inform your Lordships as to the position in regard to these particular matters.
First of all I think the noble Viscount referred to the position at Tsingtao. I am afraid the situation there is still very unsatisfactory. The restrictions which were enforced on shipping there constitute in the eyes of His Majesty's Government a deliberate discrimination against British interests. They consider that there is no valid reason whatsoever why British ships should not be admitted into the inner harbour there. Repeated representations have been made to the Japanese naval and civil authorities as well as to the Japanese Government in regard to this, and His Majesty's Government trust that before long we shall obtain fair treatment in this respect for our ships. Meanwhile I can assure the noble Viscount that we shall continue to press matters vigorously in regard to this question.
Another question which he referred to was that of navigation of the Yangtse River. Here again I regret to say that the Japanese are continuing the restrictions which they have imposed upon British shipping generally, in common, of course, with the shipping of other foreign nations, and the movement of British ships and goods on that River. The excuse that they continue to give for continuing these restrictions is that they do so on grounds of military necessity. On November 7 last the Governments of the United States and France and His Majesty's Government all made representations to the Japanese Government
354
regarding their ships on the Yangtse. We drew attention to the fact that a regular and steadily increasing trade was being developed by Japanese vessels on that river. The reply we got from the Japanese Government was a denial of the fact that such trade actually existed. Now His Majesty's Ambassador has produced further additional evidence to support our contention in this matter, which is being brought to the attention of the Japanese Government. I can only say that, in view of the repeated undertakings by the Japanese Government that the restrictions would be removed as soon as military operations against Hankow concluded, we expect a great deal of improvement in the situation.
Another of the points that the noble Viscount referred to was the position in regard to trade at Tientsin and in North China. It is quite true that some time ago an embargo was placed on the export of all hides from North China, but last July and August important categories were withdrawn from the scope of that embargo as the result of representations made by His Majesty's Government and by other Governments. Recently, however, I am sorry to say, a further embargo has been imposed—namely, on the export of wool and hemp from Tientsin. His Majesty's Government, in common with the German Government and the United States Government, have made protests in regard to this. No settlement has been reached, but I think it is relevant to mention in this connection that the Monopoly Association which had been formed to control the internal sale of wool in North China has now been dissolved. The noble Viscount also mentioned the question of discriminatory taxes upon tobacco. I can only say that so far we have received no information whatsoever in regard to that matter.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Earl whether he will have inquiry made into that, because I believe that what I stated is perfectly true?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I will certainly have an inquiry made into that point. There is just one other matter that I would like to mention, though I cannot say the noble Viscount specifically referred to it to-day. It is a matter that has been the subject of discussion on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House, and that is the very unsatisfactory

355
position which has existed, and still does exist, in the northern district of the International Settlement of Shanghai. Some slight progress has been made in this respect in the direction of obtaining additional permits for factories to be opened and for Chinese workmen to go into that district to do their work, but the progress made is very limited. I can assure your Lordships, however, that we are continuing to press this matter as strongly as possible.
Now, if I may perhaps speak a little more generally, I should like to say something of a somewhat wider character than it is possible to do when discussing particular grievances of the kind that we have been so far discussing. As was, I think, mentioned by the noble Viscount, pronouncements, as your Lordships know, have recently been made in Tokyo regarding the formation of an economic and political bloc which was to comprise Japan, Manchukuo and China, and in which, of course, Japan was to be the predominant partner. I wish to say quite categorically that His Majesty's Government cannot possibly subscribe to this attitude, and I would like to make clear what the position is. The position of Great Britain in this matter is governed by the Washington Treaties and by other international agreements to which His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with a large number of other Governments, are parties.
In particular I should like to recall to your Lordships that the parties to the Nine-Power Treaty, signed in Washington in February, 1922, bound themselves to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial and administrative integrity of China, to provide the fullest opportunity to China to develop and maintain effective and stable government, to use their influence to maintain the open door in China and to refrain from taking advantage of conditions in China in order to seek special rights or privileges which would abridge the rights of subjects or citizens of friendly States. His Majesty's Government could not consider any alteration in the position as defined by the treaties which had been brought about by unilateral action. In this matter our stand is the same as that of the United States Government as set out in their statement to the Press on November 4;
356
and I might go so far as to say that this statement would serve equally to define the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the matter of the Washington Treaties.
The noble Lord asked me what further action His Majesty's Government had in contemplation to deal with the situation. I do not think your Lordships can expect me in present circumstances to give a full or complete answer to that question. It is not necessary for me, I think, to emphasize the consequences which would result from the adoption on the part of the Japanese Government of an exclusionist policy such as the one which has already been referred to during the course of the debate—the formation of a bloc of a political and economic character. I feel sure that the Japanese Government must realise that this policy would inevitably have incalculable repercussions in other parts of the world, with consequences to which I think it would be impossible to set a limit. Therefore we trust that they will agree with His Majesty's Government that the interests of both countries lie in other directions than that one.
I fully admit that the present position is an unsatisfactory one, and it is so for reasons which must be only too readily present to the minds of your Lordships and for reasons at which my noble friend Lord Barnby hinted during the course of his speech. I can assure your Lordships that the question of what steps can be taken to protect British interests is under the constant review of His Majesty's Government and that the Government are prepared to consider all possible measures to safeguard them. The noble Viscount made a number of suggestions during the course of his speech as to the kind of action that His Majesty's Government might take to deal with the situation. I can tell him that none of these proposals has escaped the attention of His Alajesty's Government. He went further and suggested that it was now time that we should give active help to the Government in China. I do not know exactly what the noble Viscount had in mind, but I can say this, that a number of proposals are now under examination for assistance to China in connection with export credits, and His Majesty's Government will certainly ex- amine with sympathy these and any similar requests which may be made to them by the Chinese Government.

357
In discussing these questions I think it is only right that I should say that any action on lines such as those contemplated by the noble Viscount would be of no use whatsoever unless it was effective. Unless there was some guarantee that action such as that suggested by the noble Viscount was going to be efficacious, I venture to say that it would do more harm than good. I merely want to mention in this connection that we constantly keep in mind the question of consulting with other Governments with a view to the possibility of taking parallel action in order to protect our respective interests in China.
I am sorry that I can say little more this afternoon in regard to the situation. I would only say in conclusion that, while His Majesty's Government continue to treat the protection of British interests in China as one of the cardinal points of their policy in the Far East, they consider that this end can best be achieved by an early and equitable settlement of the Sino-Japanese conflict. With a view to securing a settlement which would be fair and just to both sides, and take all proper account of the interests of third parties, His Majesty's Government have indicated to the Chinese and Japanese Governments that they are ready at all times to use their good offices and they will not hesitate to take all necessary steps as soon as the moment appears to be appropriate. I must, however, admit that there are no present indications that that moment is close at hand.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, may I make a brief comment on the important statement that has been given to your Lordships by the noble Earl? I apologise to the noble Viscount for having been called out of the House when he was speaking. As a matter of fact, I was called out to see a very important continental merchant who gave me a lot of information about what is going on in China at the present moment. He is net an English merchant, but an important merchant from another country. He told me that his trade with China was dying but that Japanese competitive trade in Europe in the goods with which he was concerned was also lower, which shows that war does no one any good in the long run. The noble Earl—I hope I shall not embarrass or offend him by saying this—has given the most
358
satisfactory statement that we have heard from the Government Bench for some years. As my noble friend Lord Snell remarked, it looks as if the national worm has at last turned, by which of course he meant the National Government. Without intending to be disrespectful I hope that is the case. The noble Earl said that it is proposed to grant export credits to China. Well, if that is done on a sufficiently generous scale, that will really take the form of a commercial loan to China.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I did not quite say that. What I said was that we were examining certain proposals for the granting of export credits to China and that we were prepared sympathetically to consider those proposals and any others that might be made with that object in view. That is not quite the same thing.
LORD STRABOLGI: I was afraid that my unexpected praise might alarm the noble Earl, and I am sorry if I read more into his remarks than was intended. If export credits are granted to China under long-term arrangements that will have the effect of a commercial loan. It will enable China to import more from this country and to make up some of the falling off in exports from this country that has unhappily taken place as described by the noble Viscount who introduced this very useful Motion, and I only hope that the Government's examination will lead to action in that direction. But may I ask another question? I do not ask for a reply immediately, because I quite understand that in an important matter of this kind the noble Earl speaking for the Foreign Office must only give very considered statements, but perhaps he would be so kind as to find out whether we are simultaneously examining the question of discouraging the supply of credits and raw materials to Japan. I am not suggesting a Government boycott, but ways and means are open to the Government to bring pressure to bear on those who are supplying Japan with credits and raw materials at the present time to desist from doing so. A Government boycott would, of course, be impracticable undertaken by ourselves; everyone realises that.
The noble Earl referred to the Nine-Power Treaty. I fail to understand why, if we collaborate with France and the

359
United States, as he has told us and as we know is the case, in protesting, the other signatory Powers are not called into collaboration. I do not quite understand that. Now I am going to make another suggestion, if I may. The Nine-Power Treaty was drawn up in February, 1922, at Washington, as the noble Earl has reminded your Lordships. At that time two countries which have immense interests in China were "off the diplomatic map," if I may use the expression. They were Germany and Russia. Germany was not called to Washington because of events of which we all know. Russia was still in the throes and turmoil of the revolution. Now, we know, both those countries are within the diplomatic map. Russia is in the League of Nations, and Germany is in close collaboration with His Majesty's Government, France and Italy on various problems of common concern. I should have thought that a new Washington Conference was due. The Powers with interests in China, other than Japan, are the original signatories plus Germany and Russia. There have been many complaints that, in the recent events ending in what has come to be known as the Pact of Munich last September, Germany has received very many diplomatic and other benefits at the hands of His Majesty's Government. Complaints are made, and I think justly, that it is our turn to ask for something in exchange.
The policy of appeasement, I suggest, should be a two-way policy, and we should have the right now to ask something in the way of appeasement to ourselves. The appeasement we should most value at the present time is anything to help our trade. We are a trading nation; so is Germany. When all is said and done, the Germans are a great manufacturing and exporting nation, and in China our interests as merchants are absolutely identical. Forget for a moment the Anti-Comintern Pact, the triangle of Rome, Berlin and Tokyo, and other fantasies of that kind. These things will pass. What will remain are our mutual interests as trading and mercantile nations. Those interests are threatened, as the noble Earl has said, by the proposals to which His Majesty's Government take such well-merited objection.
Is not the time ripe for us to ask of Germany some appeasement along these
360
lines? Why should we not, as a commercial nation, ask the Germans to join with us and other signatory Powers of the Washington Treaty, and Russia, in making joint representations? Surely that would have far more effect than simply ourselves, the United States and France protesting. I throw out that suggestion to the noble Earl for consideration. I know the great interest he has always taken in matters in the Far East, and his great knowledge of the subject. I do not see that it is at all impossible, and I believe that if that could happen, if you could get Germany and Russia to join with the other seven Powers—leaving out Japan and China for the moment—insisting on the open door being maintained, which is, after all, what we all want, it would do more to get rid of what Mr. Pirow called last night, when he gave his interview to the newspapers, the "psychology of war," than anything else that could happen anywhere. If you could call together in our mutual interest as traders, ourselves, the United States, Germany and Russia—the two great democracies and the two great dictatorships—I believe that would create a revolution in men's minds which would certainly have effects in Japan. It might hurt the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, whose sympathy for the Japanese militarists is so well known; but I am glad to think he is a lone voice in your Lordships' House.
LORD BARNBY: May I just interrupt? In the course of my remarks—the noble Lord was not here—I was careful in saying that a very large part of the thinkers of Japan were not in sympathy with the military action on the mainland.
LORD STRABOLGI: Then the noble Lord is in sympathy with the Liberals of Japan, or with those of importance who are left alive; and I share his sympathy. I gather that he is as hostile to the militarists of Japan as is the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth; therefore there is no split in the Conservative Party on that score. I have broken the usual rule of speaking after the Government representative, but the only reason why I have done so is, as I say, to have the rare pleasure of congratulating the noble Earl on the statement of policy. May I also thank the noble Viscount for the Motion, which I am sure is most valuable? I am speaking as a member of the Labour Party, and we

361
are as anxious as any other Party in the State to see the trade of this country flourish and extend. We are a great trading nation, and we have to do everything we can to protect our merchant shippers, wherever their interests lie, all over the world. Everything we can do in collaboration with the Government to that end—I am sure I am speaking for all my colleagues—we shall be only too glad to do.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, first of all I should like to acknowledge Lord Strabolgi's intervention in this debate. I do not think it requires any apology on his part that he should have spoken after the noble Earl. In fact, I often think that the best contributions to a debate are made after the spokesman on the Front Bench has made his statement.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: And cannot reply!
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: And cannot reply. But I should like to clear up one point which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made at the beginning of his remarks, with regard to the Japanese trade in foreign places being reduced in competition, as well as foreign trade in Japan being reduced in competition. I think I can explain that through the fact that the exchange and credits available to-day for Japan for the purchase of raw materials outside Japan are growing less and less. In fact, I referred to that matter in my speech. Consequently, factories are being closed down in Japan because of lack of raw materials, and I admit that that is reducing competition from inside Japan with other places. Nevertheless, be that as it may, that is not due to anything that this country has done or that any other foreign country has done, but is due to the fact that Japan is carrying on a war of aggression in China, and using up all her resources to that end. Consequently, it in no way detracts from any of the remarks that I made in the course of my speech.
May I thank the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, for his reply? I know the great difficulties under which His Majesty's Government suffer in this country, but together with Lord Strabolgi I welcome this definite statement on the part of the Government that at last they are going to take a stand over something in the East—that they should take a stand in connection with the open-door policy,
362
and on the fact that they disagree with the Japanese Government in that the Nine-Power Treaty of Washington is not obsolete. In my judgment that is a definite step forward. On all the other matters that I dealt with in my speech I am not sure that I can say I am so content with the reply, but at any rate we do know from what my noble friend has said that the Government have all these matters under earnest and, I hope, continuous consideration, and will do all they can to alleviate the difficulties of a problem which from some points of view seems almost insoluble. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.