Lords Sitting of 7 December 1938

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LANARKSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1938.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Erne I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Ouestion, Motion agreed to.

THE MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKhad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider the desirability of abolishing the most-favoured-nation clause in all reciprocal trade agreements entered into or renewed in the future; and move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is nearly three years since I had it in mind to put down a Motion in your Lordships' House on this particular question, my reason being that all the advantages which had come in the past as a result of the most-favoured-nation clause seemed to be disappearing. I believe that they have disappeared altogether to-day. This clause was originally devised in the interests of fair play and justice among the countries which subscribed to it, and it was devised under our old Free Trade system which has passed away and, if I may say so with all respect, passed away under the ægis and with the help of my noble friend who will reply to this Motion. To-day, owing to new methods of trade restrictions, the most-favoured-nation clause is more vulnerable than it ever was. Even in the past, under devices such as preferential railway rates, frontier dues, and in certain cases special interpretations, it was possible to ride a coach and four

367
through this clause, and certainly the effect was to whittle away a good deal of its meaning and importance.
I have to go back rather far for my first instance, but I should like to refer to the Russo-German Treaty of 1894. Under that Treaty the Germans had taken the right to import coal into Russia at a reduced rate. Under the most-favoured-nation treatment Great Britain ought to have received the same right. But what happened? The Treaty was altered in order to arrange that this coal must be imported overland. Obviously no coal could be imported overland into Russia from this country to compete with the coal imported by through waterways from Germany. Then there was another case. In 1909 the Russians raised the duty on oatmeal imported into Russia. The Americans protested and threatened reprisals, and again what happened? The Russians altered the regulations and arranged that an appendix should be added to them exempting Quaker Oats as being a preparation of oats and not oatmeal. Under the most-favoured-nation treatment the same consideration ought to have been given to British oatmeal, but British oatmeal was not regarded in that light, and so the Americans rode triumphantly through the clause. Then there is the very historic example of the German concession on cattle habitually living at an altitude of one thousand metres. This admitted the Swiss cattle but excluded all cattle from Denmark.
To-day the devices for voiding the obligations in the clause are no less ingenious and we have now in various countries the quota system, the licence system and quantitative imports; in fact, the growth of economic nationalism to-day has been such that the whole economic relationship between countries has been changed and is producing an entirely new orientation of trade. This has also been helped forward by special methods of trading, such as the barter system and subsidies, which are still employed by Germany on a large scale. To-day we have most-favoured-nation-treatment arrangements with fifty other countries in the world. That is practically the whole world, and under this clause we are bound to give any concessions which we give to one of these countries to all the rest of them. For example, suppose in a trade treaty with Denmark' we get certain concessions
368
from Denmark and give certain concessions in return to Denmark, we have to make the same concessions to every other country with which we have this most-favoured-nation arrangement.
That is the ethical interpretation of the clause, but what actually happens? Take the quota question. In practice, Switzerland, for instance, maintains that quotas and licences are outside the most-favoured-nation clause altogether. Germany, on the other hand, considers that if any quota is instituted it must apply equally to all countries. We in this country say that if quotas are instituted here, they shall apply only for a proportion of a period in ratio to the amount of imports that we have taken from the particular country for a fixed period. With such a confusion of interpretation, such a confusion of thought, such a confusion of application of this clause, surely the time has come when we should do away with it and get back to a proper trading basis. The fact that Japan is one of these most-favoured nations—Japan who, as I said yesterday in your Lordships' House, is doing everything she can to undermine our trade in China, quite irrespective of this most-favoured-nation clause—is, I submit, another reason why we should repeal it. Germany herself is a most-favoured-nation country. She is carrying on a barter trade; she is giving subsidies of a very unusual nature to her exports, and riding through the most-favoured-nation clause all the time.
I should like to give your Lordships another instance of the most recent Treaty which has been entered into by His Majesty's Government—that is, the Anglo-American Treaty which we all welcome in this country. Under that Treaty certain concessions are made by this country to American timber of coniferous species, and that concession takes the form of a reduction not only of import duty on the timber as a whole, but of certain rates upon certain classes of timber. That in itself creates difficulties for the Customs and for the importers of timber. But when I tell your Lordships that under this most-favoured-nation clause these concessions have to be applied to all other countries from whom we import timber, and who have the same most-favoured-nation treatment, I can assure you that the difficulties, trouble, and expense are trebled and quadrupled according to the countries from which we take that timber,

369
like Finland, Russia, Sweden, and so on. Not only that, but the importers who hold stocks of this timber are going to lose considerable sums of money by the reduction of these duties, and His Majesty's Treasury will, I submit, lose revenue as well.
Then again, during the period when this clause was really operating most actively, this country was the manufacturing hub of the world, and other countries were glad to take masses of articles from us. To-day this is all changed. Most of these countries have now set up their own factories. They are manufacturing many of the articles which formerly they took from us, and proportionately, and as a consequence, our export trade has fallen off and continues to fall off. Although we are still the largest and most potential market in the world for imported foodstuffs, raw materials, and manufactured goods, our economic position under the new conditions is growing more vulnerable. This is evidenced by the statistics which I can give your Lordships from eight selected countries. I find that we imported from them in 1937 goods to a total value of £334,000,000. What did they take from us? Goods to the value of £117,000,000. Even after taking into account invisible exports, this must represent to us an enormous adverse balance. You may ask what are these countries? I am going to give you them without naming the exact figures—the Argentine, Denmark, Finland, Russia, Poland, Sweden, Germany and the United States of America; and the most glaring example of them all is Russia, from whom we buy £29,000,000 worth of goods while they take a paltry £3,000,000 worth from us.
Surely, as the greatest importing country in the world, and the most important market for so many countries, not only in respect of primary products but also of manufactured goods, we should use the power which we possess to compel those countries with heavy balances of trade in their favour to take considerably larger purchases of goods than they do. I suggest that the most feasible and most practical way of doing this is by putting on quantitative regulation of imports. But to-day, as I am advised, this would not be possible because of the most-favoured-nation clause. Therefore I suggest to His Majesty's Government that that is another
370
important reason why the clause Should be abolished. I also venture to tell His Majesty's Government that in commercial circles—and I can speak from the point of view of the Federated Chambers of Commerce of the Empire—this is a policy for which they have long asked.
It has been suggested that the effect of doing away with the most-favoured-nation clause might be to divide the world into several large economic groups, trading principally inside their own groups, and that this would not help to extend trade, but would rather contract it than otherwise. Personally, I am not prepared to subscribe to that view. I take as an example the British Empire, which is one huge economic unit spread over one-quarter of the globe, doing certainly more than one-quarter of the trade of the world, and in which the most-favoured-nation clause does not operate; and what do we find? As the result of the preferences we have given within that group, trade has expanded, resources have been developed, and whilst there may have been to some extent an alteration in the direction of the balance of trade in the world, at the same time the members of that group have expanded their world trade as the result of this and are going on expanding it more and more.
There is another reason why I think this clause might be abolished. Already a broadside has been poured into it by His Majesty's Government themselves. In the Anglo-American Trade Agreement to which I have just referred, I find that Article 19 reads as follows:
"Each High Contracting Party reserves the right to withdraw or to modify any concession granted in any territory of that High Contracting Party on any article enumerated and described, or specified, in any of the Schedules annexed to this Agreement, or to impose quantitative regulations on the importation of any such article into that territory if, as the result of the extension of such concession to other foreign countries, any such country obtains the major benefit of the concession,"—
I ask your Lordships to note what follows—
"and if in consequence imports of the article concerned increase to such an extent as to threaten serious injury to producers in the territories of that High Contracting Party …"
Then there is the usual proviso for consultation between the parties if they wish to take action under this article.
This article is a direct negation of the most-favoured-nation clause. It cuts right

371
across it. It cuts right across Article 6 of the same Agreement, which is the most-favoured-nation clause in that Agreement. I venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government that if they have gone so far as to incorporate this clause in this very important Agreement they would not be doing wrong, even though they are not able to go the whole way at present, if they were to incorporate this clause in any other agreement in the future, and try to incorporate it in any agreement which already exists. I want to be perfectly fair to the Government over this. I do not for a moment think it is possible for the Government to say with a wave of the wand: "We are going to abolish this clause at once without saying anything more." I know there are difficulties. Fifty countries are involved. The clause in the agreements with those countries can be repealed under notice of a maximum period varying, I think, from three months to twelve months, but I suggest to His Majesty's Government that there is a way out, and it is this. They should advise these fifty countries that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to do away with this most-favoured-nation clause. They should give, say, two or three months' notice that they are going to do so, with an intimation that they would be quite prepared to continue the existing agreements minus that most-favoured-nation clause, and that in any new agreements entered into and continued the clause would not be included at all.
In conclusion I would like to emphasize that the most-favoured-nation clause does not accord either with the present policy of Protection in this country or with the policy of bilateral agreements. Moreover, as I have tried to explain, it minimises and curtails the immense power which this country possesses as an importing country, and which was enhanced when we adopted Protection within the last few years. The British market is by far the largest market in the world, and there are few countries who do not value it at its proper worth, while there are few who would pay for the privilege of entering it unless they were compelled to do so. I think my noble friend Viscount Runciman, had experience of that when he was at the Board of Trade trying to negotiate agreements with countries under a Free Trade system,
372
and he admitted to us, if I remember correctly—and it is possibly within the recollection of your Lordships—that as soon as duties were placed on various imports his difficulties vanished, so that he was able to come to satisfactory agreements during the term of his very able administration of the Board of Trade. But my view is that unless and until we take power, through the abolition of the most-favoured-nation clause, to use discrimination against all countries who make unfair use of the privilege they obtain from us, we cannot hope to restore British industry to its proper place nor maintain our trade at its economic level. I beg to move.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the question which has just been raised has compelled the mover of the Resolution to cover a range of subjects which go beyond the most-favoured-nation clause because, to illustrate the point under discussion, it was necessary to include references to these other questions. The subject itself, the suggested abolition of the most-favoured-nation clause, obviously is something which would have to receive very long consideration because it would involve a revision of treaties with an enormous number of countries. Therefore my noble friend has suggested a line which might in future be followed rather than expressed a hope that there should be a sudden decision. The most-favoured-nation clause itself is, however, receiving inescapably the very deep consideration of traders in this country who are experiencing progressive difficulties through the welter of increasing tariffs and quotas, exchange control and currency restrictions. And so it is opportune that this question should be debated in your Lordships' House, so important is it.
Two things occur to one. The first is the consolation that industrialists and traders as a whole will feel that when it comes to be dealt with in your Lordships' House on behalf of the Government this question is going to receive the attention of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. It is a matter for encouragement to everybody who wants to help the industry of the country that the noble Viscount's wide experience and ripe judgment are again at the service of the Cabinet on these very intricate matters. Then there is the somewhat curious reflection, that a matter like this, which strikes at the very

373
basis of the economic welfare of the country at the present moment, should, when debated in your Lordships' House, attract only so thin an attendance. This is especially so when one remembers that the members of your Lordships' House include a very large number who have wide experience of, and take a deep interest in, foreign and overseas trade. But I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, in dealing with this debate, will be under no misapprehension, thin though may be the attendance in your Lordships' House, as to the feeling of concern about this whole question.
A few weeks ago I returned from a trip to the United States and Canada, which meant that I was absent from this country during the period of extreme difficulty and concern. During that period, if I may say so, the chief measurement of the problem was the kind of advice that was going to be given to His Majesty's Government by the noble Viscount. An interesting point which must have struck most of your Lordships, as it did me when I returned to this country, was the degree to which there has been speeding up of military preparedness and expenditure of all kinds, while little discussion, attention and thought have been given to the equally important subject of economic preparedness. The spending of this money is a very easy thing for Parliament to decide upon, but the really important question is how we are going to pay. We can do so only by exports from this country—that is, by selling to the rest of the world the product of our labour. This Motion of my noble friend indicates one angle from which that question may receive the very serious consideration of the Government.
To turn for a moment to the most-favoured-nation principle, which has long been the basis of our trade treaties with foreign countries, there is no doubt that there is a strong body of industrial feeling in this country that what has served us up to now is no longer appropriate to the conditions which those engaged in foreign trade have to face to-day. To abolish it entirely is impossible, but is there not some intermediary method—indeed there is one, and there may be more—whereby this traditional principle can be modified? My noble friend suggested discriminatory treatment. We well know that in the originality of thought which motivate; the different Governments
374
in their trading laws, there is the risk of incurring penalties which are imposed on certain countries who follow certain courses of action. We have very vividly before us the treatment by the United States of Germany in return for her new policy. I merely throw out the suggestion which has been put forward by the Federation of British Industries in a memorandum recently submitted to the Board of Trade, that we should have a three-decker tariff—the first applied against those countries which do not accord us most-favoured-nation treatment, the second modifying the treatment which they should receive under it, and the third deliberately discriminating by different duties against those countries who buy materially less from us than we buy from them.
This is an age when admittedly the policy of bilateral trade equation is getting increasing attention. It is the thought which motivates all the autarchic States. Its practical application does bring results. It may well be that His Majesty's Government might benefit the trade of this country if they applied more rigorously that principle to their trade negotiations. One well realises the difficulty of that principle when one considers the most recent Treaty to which my noble friend referred, the Anglo-American Treaty. The situation there is that we buy from the United States four times as much as they buy from us. That is the current balance of trade for the first six months of this year. One can understand, therefore, how fundamentally difficult it is to make a trade treaty which can be satisfactory to both sides in its practical results when you have such an axiomatic disadvantage as that. I should like to avoid any impression of being lukewarm about that Treaty. On the contrary, I think all traders who have a broad outlook will not only greet with pleasure its achievement but congratulate the Government on pulling off what was such an extremely difficult thing. What would have been the result had the negotiations for that Treaty broken down? It serves no purpose now to jolt backwards, but those who have been recently to the United States and have been in contact with Washington, will be able to realise the deplorable sequence of events that might have followed from the disappointment to Mr. Cordell Hull and all the negotiators had the negotiations broken down. But let

375
us be under no illusion. A large part of the hundreds of schedules supposed to have been amended are—I scarcely know the word to use—
LORD STRABOLGI: Window dressing.
LORD BARNBY: —are at least misleading. When you read, for instance, of a duty being reduced 30 or 40 per cent.—that is from 110 per cent. to 70 per cent. specific and ad valorem combined—when it may be virtually exclusive at 40 per cent. what is the good of talking about gain? It is merely playing with words so far as practical results are concerned. Those many industries who need assistance, and had hoped for practical results in return for the immense advantages given to the United States, expected something greater; but instead of practical results all they get is a little consoling assurance of a large percentage of reduction which gives no practical advantage. This question of the conscious control of exports is not only engaging the attention of a very large number of Governments but is receiving their support. Ways in which it can be done have been exposed recently in a most helpful series of three articles in The Times newspaper, which give in some detail the technique followed by Germany. Other countries, not unmindful of what Germany has achieved, think that that is a happy line of procedure and are applying it to their own affairs. That series of articles brilliantly set out the position and will be very helpful to industrial thought.
During a helpful debate in another place there was a most courageous and clear speech by the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade. That speech will doubtless have been intensely resented in Germany, but it was very opportune and its delivery was very fortunate. Surely, while we in no way modify our admiration and support of the policy of the Prime Minister, of appeasement towards Germany, we do not see that that is any ground for our accepting treatment in our foreign trade which seriously encroaches upon the interests of industrialists in this country. This conscious control of industry justifies the thought of those who say, "Well, we in England might as well aim at the stimulation of our exports." After all, we come back to it: whatever we may talk about armaments, the justification of that
376
policy, I repeat again, is that arms have got to be paid for by these exports.
There is a very natural inclination for the industrialists of this country, with the increasing difficulties everywhere, to say: "We cannot be bothered with the export trade. The Government, directly or indirectly, in order to finance their armament programme, in one way or another take a large part of the profits of production. For the balance, we are dependent upon the home market to recoup us for our share of all this expenditure which the Government are embarking upon for their programme." That is not enough. Where are we going to get the credit which is eventually going to pay for the production of arms on this vast scale? Only through exports. There are those who say: "Why not? Let us have the export bounty, and impose an internal sales tax to make a pool out of which to pay for the armament programme." The noble Viscount who moved the Motion suggested that that might involve discrimination. That is a matter for His Majesty's Government to explain and examine. Of course I merely advance that suggestion, without recommending it myself, as one line of thought along which industrialists are thinking at the present moment.
The natural sequence must be the collective purchase of raw materials. We saw yesterday, and it was announced in the newspapers this morning, one of the most impressive events: the re-imposition of exchange control in one of His Majesty's Dominions. The New Zealand Government, finding too great the outward flow of its resources, as it was delicately put, through unreasonable excess of imports—when really it was importing foreign evidences of deposit consequent on the flight of capital from the Dominion—imposes exchange control. Here is Great Britain urging on the world a remission of currency restriction and control, and we find that one of the Dominions has suddenly jumped into the arena and put itself among those who practise exchange control. Already the New Zealand Government are committing themselves to the purchase of all dairy products, butter and cheese, in that country; they take them over at a fixed price and resell them in the world's market at the best price they can obtain, at a loss of about £1 per cwt.—£14,000,000 or £15,000,000 a year. The Canadian Government impose a complete

377
purchase of wheat, at a loss of what amount to their Exchequer?
I merely raise these points because we are being driven towards the collective purchase of raw materials. How is that going to impinge upon the economy of the Dominions within the Empire? Already some of their raw materials are at a disquietingly low price, and they are finding increasing difficulty in getting markets. As a digression, I might just say that we are all bearing vividly in mind what happens once interference with normal channels of trade occurs: the example of tobacco. Before the War South-Eastern Europe—Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, etc.—habitually sent a large part of their tobacco to this country. The War came, and trade with those countries was immediately cut off. The whole taste of this country changed from European to Virginian tobacco, and the result is that now the whole of the imports of tobacco into this country come from the United States, a country where we already purchase very much more than we ought to. We ought not to purchase from America; we ought to purchase from South-Eastern Europe, where we can pay for it, as Germany enforces payment for it, by exporting raw materials: by sending capital goods, which include British wages, giving employment to this country. Here is a vivid example—is there not?—of the necessity for His Majesty's Government to say to the working man of this country: "You ask rightly either employment or its equivalent, but the cost is ultimately loaded on to the pods which we export. All this unemployment pay has to be paid for, and we have a right to say that you should to some extent modify your taste, accept South-Eastern tobacco instead of zoo per cent. American tobacco, and let us pay for it with something we can export to a country that will take our goods instead of buying from a country that does not take our goods to the extent that we buy from her."
To some extent this question and the result involve political considerations. May I illustrate that fact for a moment by pointing to Greece, Rumania, or Poland? Poland, for example, is a country in which the economy is entirely complementary to that of this country. There is need for something to be done whereby we assist the inflow of primary production from that country to this country in
378
substitution of the primary products that come from countries that do not buy to the full extent from us, and pay for it by the export of capital goods which employ British labour and which are the contents of British wages. There is an example of a country of which the economy is essentially complementary to that of Great Britain. Why is it not done?
There are those who say that there is a deliberate desire on the part of His Majesty's Government to refrain from any action which would appear to give assistance to those countries which might be said to take part in political encirclement against Germany. Again, we do not want to hinder by one iota the policy of appeasement towards Germany. But we surely do not want to feel that we must sacrifice industrial interests; and we cannot afford to, because we must have this exchange, we must have this increasing volume of exports. Let us remember that many industries in this country, such as shipbuilding and textiles, are already suffering from an over-valued exchange and insufficient exports, causing further unemployment and cost to the Exchequer, and raising the cost of other products which we can export. It is not reasonable to suggest that a conscious action aimed to increase, through the time-honoured methods of treaty negotiations, trade with countries like Poland and Rumania, should be delayed because there is a doubt as to the prudence, at this moment, of interfering with the political set-up and suggesting that there is political encirclement. There is no threat towards other countries; this is purely a policy of self-preservation. But it does raise a point which very much concerns traders in this country, and one on which it has been hoped that some pronouncement might be made by His Majesty's Government.
Immediate short-term credits are the only machinery whereby we can transfer to these countries who are not able to produce exchange for cash payment, either the products of our labour or the primary products of our Dominions, which in turn are paid for by our labour and exports. The old pre-War system of banking has virtually broken down. The banks will, to-day, not take the risks which they used to take, not because there is any question of the trade-worthiness of possible buyers abroad, but because there is doubt whether the foreign

379
Governments will permit the honest intentions of the purchasers abroad to be carried out. That directly establishes the fact that foreign trade involves considerations of the assumption by the Government in some form of a political hazard. There are those who say that Government loans, in various ways to traders, to help to establish mixed companies for the development of industries within certain other jurisdictions, would in their turn assist to develop manufactures in this country or in the Dominions. That involves some political hazard, but only in that way can we hope to establish the volume of exports which will give us the wherewithal to pay for this expenditure to which we are committed.
It can be said that already there is in existence the Export Credits Department, which was set up to help in this direction. I do not need to remind your Lordships that the Export Credits Department confines itself rigidly to exports from this country. It does not provide for the export of goods or raw materials from our Dominions, and in spite of the brilliant way in which the Export Credits Department has been conducted—by that I refer to the fact that here is a Government Department, running strictly on business lines, achieving a commercial profit in spite of its essentially hazardous business—I think we may assume that no longer in the future will it be possible for a long while on the London market to issue public loans to foreign Governments, and therefore that method for the fertilisation of foreign trade, which is the traditional method, is no longer possible.
There are two points that I would wish to make in conclusion. The Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade, in another place last week, emphasized the work that was being done to develop internal organisation in this country in individual trades. By that I mean to say that individual trades were themselves to be put into a position to talk collectively for their industry, so that they might discuss with industries in other countries collectively, and make bilateral agreements for the sharing of other markets. That surely, is a policy by which we feel that the Secretary for Overseas Trade is doing a great service to this country.
380
Finally, I will just emphasize the perplexity of this question of overseas trade and the fact that our capacity to pay depends upon our exports. When we were at school and the University we all learned political economy. At that time we were brought up on the thesis that you can import as much as you like, because those imports can always be paid for by exports. That was the thesis, but we have to-day in the world a competing thesis, that of Dr. Schacht in Germany, who says: "We will import nothing until we have exported the wherewithal to pay for it." That may be heretic political economy, but it is achieving a practical result. I merely dismiss the subject with this illustration, because we must admit that whatever may have been the foundation for the orthodox political economy, the world to-day calls for at least a careful analysis of other economies, and we ourselves might review them. I would repeat that I hope that Lord Runciman, in speaking for the Government, will bear in mind that, although the attendance in this House to-day may be thin, the interest in the country on this subject is an increasing one, and that there is intense anxiety amongst serious thinkers in industry throughout the country.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD): My Lords, may I, in following the traditional custom of this House, ask that I may have extended to me the same indulgence which is always conferred upon maiden speakers? I hope your Lordships will listen to me for a short time with patience, for I trust that I shall not make any prolonged inroad on your time. No one can complain of my noble friend Lord Elibank having raised a subject which has been discussed so very often here and in another place throughout the last twenty years, or that he has ranged over a far wider field than is outlined in his Motion before the House; and my noble friend Lord Barnby has taken us for a world tour, full of interest, and inspired with the most recent experience of American ingenuity and competitive skill. But let me remind your Lordships that the proposal before the House to-day is that we should with one stroke of the pen wipe out the most-favoured-nation clauses which are a characteristic feature of our commercial treaties. It would be difficult to make a greater demand upon

381
the obliterative capacity of the Government, and I have very little hesitation in saying—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt my noble friend? My Motion does not read in the sense which he has just stated. What it does say is: Will the Government consider the desirability of abolishing? It is not demanding or asking the Government to abolish at once.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: I do not see very much difference between what I said and the interpretation put upon the Motion by my noble friend, but I do not complain of that, because I think it is a thoroughly wise proceeding that we should, from time to time, examine our fiscal machinery and overhaul the doctrines by which we are guided. One thing that has been brought home to me is that so many of the practices of the past are based, not upon doctrinaire ideas, but upon practice which has been proved to be practical. Now with that test let us see how we stand under the most-favoured-nation treatment, which plays such a prominent part in our fiscal history. Before we undertook the making of commercial treaties on a large scale we were left with nothing but occasional agreements and a great deal of anxiety as to what the future held for our traders and merchants; and the constant chaffering and bickering and bargaining which went on in the Embassies and Legations led to a great deal of misunderstanding, and ultimately brought no permanent trade benefit to this country. Then some wise and ingenious fellow invented the most-favoured-nation clause. It is not a clause that I should care to repeat from memory, but it certainly does the trick. It provided in the commercial agreements made by this country with its customers throughout the world, numbering in all, I think, some forty-five countries, a means by which we could be assured that in competition in the great markets of the world we got fair play.
The one thing we were anxious to do was to place our merchants and exporters in the position of selling on the same terms as their competitors. To find themselves blocked out of their markets because of the tariffs on those markets, discriminating against us, was the normal experience of the day; whereas the only
382
means by which our merchants could hold their own in those foreign markets was by getting in on the ground floor. That is really the secret of the most-favoured-nation clause: it enables our merchants and exporters to get into foreign markets on the ground floor. I am quite well aware of the fact that there have been many devices during the last few years, particularly since the War, by which the most-favoured-nation treatment to which we have been accustomed in the past was whittled down. The imposition of quotas, restrictions on imports and on exports of the character of prohibitions, exchange controls—all these alike provided obstacles in the way of our trade just as harmful as the tariffs which the most-favoured-nation clause sought to diminish. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to dispense with the most-favoured-nation clause. They have just made an Agreement with the United States of America. In that Agreement full provision is made for equal and fair treatment for our merchants and exporters in the American market. I agree with my noble friend that the number of articles which is dealt with is not a fair indication of the full range of that Agreement. One must examine the articles one by one and see whether or not they are important enough to justify our saying that the American Agreement is to make a substantial difference to our trade.
I think my noble friend went so far as to belittle the subjects which come under the new dispensation, and while he was doing that I looked up the list of some of the principal articles which are affected by the Agreement. First of all—a subject which must appeal to any Scotsman in the House—the treatment of whisky and gin; in both cases a reduction of 50 per cent. under a previous agreement is confirmed in our favour. The treatment of these two alone ought to bring satisfaction in the quarters where whisky and gin are distilled.
LORD BARNBY: It is not the custom in Yorkshire to drink them.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: I leave my noble friend to speak for Yorkshire in that matter, but I point out that whisky and gin are not the only subjects which are dealt with. I look at some of the larger items, and I find china clay, imported into the United

383
States almost entirely from the United Kingdom. The duty was reduced from 2.50 dollars to 1.75 dollars a ton. Ground mustard—almost entirely from the United Kingdom: the duty has been reduced from 10 cents a pound to 7½ cents a pound. Turning to two of our most depressed industries, cotton and wool, I find that the cotton piecegoods categories cover a very wide range and concessions are made on the finer counts—a matter of first-class importance to us. Woollen piecegoods are treated in like manner, and an ad valorem duty on the higher grade cloth is reduced from 60 per cent. to 35 per cent. I submit that these reductions are not immaterial. They have gone in the right direction, and I believe they will bring almost immediate benefit to those producers in this country who are dependent on the American market for their trade, and whose employees are dependent very largely on the good temper and harmony existing between the United States and ourselves.
I have said that in the early days it was found very difficult to make commercial agreements on a basis which brought much satisfaction to our people, but at all events we did succeed in making these commercial treaties with a very large number of countries. I believe something like a score were mentioned by my noble friend, but if my memory is right at least forty-five commercial treaties are operating still between this country and foreign countries, and in those treaties, with very few exceptions, the most-favoured-nation clause plays a part. Let us see how we stand with regard to the rest of the world. The Agreement with America is not the only one which has been reached during recent years. While I was spending my time, profitably I hope, doing what I could for other business men and traders with whom I had been associated all my early years, I succeeded in making agreements with twenty-three foreign countries. They were effective, not in every item of course, but they were effective on the whole, in producing a stability of demand which was of first-class importance to our traders. When I discussed in America with Mr. Cordell Hull the possibility of a trade agreement with this country, he told me over and over again that he had made agreements with no fewer than sixteen countries, and I had to point out to
384
him how much more generous we had been in the obligations into which we had entered. Now I venture to say that he must be having great satisfaction from the approval that has been bestowed upon the Anglo-American Agreement in America as well as here. For let us be quite clear about these matters. Trade agreements which are purely one-sided will never be any good to anybody. There is not the least doubt about it that the long list of articles which are affected in these various agreements will not add uncertainty to the trader's outlook, but will give him an assurance of business for the future.
I hesitate to detain your Lordships over a subject which is so threadbare, but I would repeat again the chief reasons why at the present time we are prepared to examine these topics one by one, country by country, and trade by trade, but at the same time cannot give any undertaking that we are going to dispense with the most-favoured-nation clause. It brings us such distinct advantages that it would be foolish of us and improvident to abandon that clause without having something to put in its place. My noble friend has not made any suggestion excepting that of exclusive agreements within the Empire, and I sympathise very fully with his ambition to extend Imperial trade.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I think the noble Viscount did not follow me. I merely referred to the British Empire as an example of where units, trading together under a preferential system with us, had built up a very large trade among themselves and expanded their export trade. It was only an example. What I did try to make clear was that there should be a rearrangement of all our trade agreements over a period of time and that this most-favoured-nation clause should be excluded from those agreements, and later on from any agreements which might be entered into. That was my definite recommendation.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: We are very grateful to the noble Viscount, I am sure, for having made it still more clear what his ambitions are. In the present Government we certainly have given pledges to the Empire, for we have entered into engagements there which are of mutual benefit to us and to them, but we are not going to ignore our

385
foreign trade. It is quite true that our foreign trade is passing through a period of great difficulty, but we intend to continue in so far as we can to encourage trade and traffic not only with those countries which fly the British flag but with other countries that are capable of buying and paying for that which they buy. I would only say in conclusion that one of the things which cause us the greatest anxiety is not the tariff boundaries over which we have to leap. We are finding means of dealing with them one by one, and I do not think the situation is as bad now as it was ten years ago; but we are having to deal with exchange controls and currency questions of the greatest complexity. It is incumbent on us to examine them to the best of our ability, and to make decisions and embark on policy which may be new, but none the less useful because it is new, and to examine them as well as the old theory, with the object of providing for the sale of our goods abroad and the employment of our people at home.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, before I withdraw my Motion, I would just like to say one or two words. I regret that my noble friend does not seem to have followed my speech in the sense that I intended it, and I hope that to-morrow he will read my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT and see that I did express certain things rather differently from the way in which he interpreted them to your Lordships' House. Evidently I must rest content this afternoon with accepting His Majesty's Government's decision that they do not intend to investigate this question, but are content to leave it as it is. I had no reply at all to the point with regard to the Anglo-American Trade Treaty, Article 19 of which cuts right across the most-favoured-nation clause. However, that may have consideration later on. I only wish to end these few observations by emphasizing what my noble friend Lord Barnby stated in the course of his speech, that this matter is of very great concern to all the commercial classes in this country. They are discussing it, talking about it, examining it, and will most certainly bring it up again. They are gradually and quite definitely coming to the conclusion that the only way that this subject can be met is by an amelioration of this most-favoured-nation clause and by the institution of quantitative regulation of imports, which seems to be the only way in
386
which we can get rid of the adverse balance of trade which is assailing us to-day. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE QUOTATION OF COMMONS SPEECHES.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name, which is "That the practice precluding the quotation in this House of speeches made in the House of Commons should no longer be insisted on." I have put down this Motion in order to give your Lordships an opportunity of considering the present rule on the subject, not because it is of enormous importance, but because I cannot help feeling that the present position is rather unsatisfactory. I have not come across an authoritative statement of what the rule is, but as I understand it, the old conception was that it was out of order or, as some Speakers in the House of Commons put it, "irregular" to quote any of the proceedings, particularly of the debates, in the other House. That was an absolute rule originally, I understand, but it certainly is not an absolute rule to-day.
The most recent decisions in another place—I do not know that there are any in your Lordships' House, at least I have not come across them—make a variety of exceptions. They point out that you cannot insist on that rule in that form. I will quote, before I sit down, the most elaborate of these decisions. But even so long ago as 1891, when the matter came up in the other House, the Speaker, who was Mr. Speaker Peel, gave a ruling. Objection was taken to a reference to a statement made by a Minister in this House, and there was a little doubt as to what the rule was, and the Speaker explained what it was. He said that to follow arguments in detail in the other House was irregular, but not to quote any particular statement that was made and, in point of fact, after that ruling a statement of several hundred words—certainly quite a substantial statement—made by a Minister in this House was quoted without further objection. Gradually there seems to have grown up a number of exceptions of that kind. In spite of that, your Lordships will be perfectly well

387
aware that the rule is continually evaded. If anyone wishes to quote a speech made in the other House, as long as he does not mention it is a quotation, no one would think of interfering with what he is saying. There has been introduced a kind of system of what we used to call at Eton "shirking." There, as long as a boy could nominally keep out of the sight of a master when he was out of bounds, it was part of the duty of a master not to notice him, and consequently the rule as to out of bounds in those districts rapidly fell into disrepute and was abolished. There seems to be something like "shirking" as to the practice of quotations in this House when you wish to refer to proceedings in another place, and the explanation is that there is really no sufficient reason for the rule in present circumstances.
The actual incident which has induced me to raise the matter and bring it before your Lordships' consideration occurred the other day here. In the course of the debate on the Italian Agreement, Lord Snell made a quotation from something that Mr. Eden had said in the other House, not with a view to entering into controversy with a member of the other House, but merely with a view to explaining the position he himself took up, which he thought had been well expressed by Mr. Eden. Then my noble friend Lord Crewe, thinking no doubt that if there was a rule it ought to be carried out, expressed an opinion which I will read to your Lordships. He said:
"Surely the noble Lord is aware that it is completely out of order here to quote textually from a debate in another place. Mr. Speaker is always most active in at once stopping any quotation from a debate in your Lordships' House."
My noble friend the noble Marquess, was evidently speaking on the spur of the moment. I think if he will look into the authorities, he will agree with me that as he stated it he has put it rather too high; at any rate as far as that rule has been explained in the other House. I will quote another ruling of the Speaker before I sit down which, I think, makes that abundantly clear, and that ruling, as I understand it, states the present position.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships with any elaborate investigations as to the origin of the rule. It seems to be put on several grounds. No doubt it
388
sprang up when conditions were extremely different from what they are now. When it originally came into existence no doubt it was a breach of Privilege to report anything which took place in one House anywhere outside the walls of that House. Therefore, to quote it in another House evidently caused very great difficulty, because it might technically be a breach of Privilege. There were other doctrines, and one of them was that it might cause bad blood between the speaker who was quoted and the speaker who quoted him in either of the two Houses. That seems to have been a matter of great anxiety in those days. Your Lordships, of course, are perfectly well aware of the curious relic in the other House, where there is a little carpet before the Front Benches below the gangway beyond which it is not in order for a speaker, a member of the House, to step while he is addressing the House. The reason for that, I have always been given to understand, is that it was done in order to keep the two Front Benches of the House sufficiently far apart to prevent a lunge by one or the other with a rapier. That is not a danger that we should feel to be very acute at the present moment, but in those days apparently they did feel it to be acute.
In looking into this subject I came across a very picturesque story. There was a foreign debate between Mr. Fox and Mr. Wedderburn, and before the discussion had concluded it was observed that Mr. Fox was about to leave the House, whereupon the Speaker immediately rose and directed all the doors of the House to be closed until the two members concerned had given a solemn promise that the matter would not be carried any further outside the House. That takes you back to the kind of frame of mind that perhaps prevailed when this rule was brought into existence, and of course that has all disappeared completely now. I really think that is the chief part of the case that I desire to put before your Lordships. It seems to me that the rule has lost its reality now. It has become whittled away in a number of ways by successive decisions in the other House, and if you are to accept the rule as it is now stated in the other House as a guide to our debates, it practically would mean nothing at all.
Let me read the most authoritative decision that I have been able to find, a

389
decision of my noble friend Lord Ulls-water, when he was Speaker in another place. He was asked for a formal decision by Mr. Harry Chaplin as to what the rule really was, and he said this (I am quoting all the material parts):
"If an honourable member enters into a controversy with regard to something that has been said in the other House and endeavours to reply to a speech made in the other House, that would be out of order and very undesirable because the noble Lord not being present here cannot answer or explain any quotation which may be made."
Next comes what is most material for the case I am drawing your Lordships' attention to:
"But I do not think the rule can be carried out in its entirety because it might … be absolutely necessary to refer to a statement made la another place, such as a statement upon some great question of policy or a statement by a Minister giving a concession with respect to a Bill. I think it would be mere pedantry on our part if we were to insist on closing our own mouths so as not to be able to refer to that fact at all. … Therefore we must observe a certain amount of elasticity."
I think that seems to indicate that the rule as it exists at present, if you can call it a rule, is that you must not quote what goes on in the other House unless it is part of the argument that you are desiring to present to the House which you are addressing on the subject which is before that House—that is to say, you must not enter into a discussion with a member of one House under cover of a debate in the other.
I think it would be practically impossible to apply that, but of course it would be quite improper, not under this rule but under any other rule, for a noble Lord here to enter upon an elaborate philippic against a member of the other House because he was discussing some matter in this House. It world be quite irrelevant to do so, and I imagine would be out of order on that ground quite apart from this rule. The truth is that we have passed altogether beyond the period when this rule may have been, and I dare say was, a useful rule, and one can see that in view of another practice which has taken place recently, the extreme frequency of political speeches in the country and not only in Parliament. Supposing in this particular case Mr. Eden had made this statement outside—and I expect he has said very much the same thing in a speech outside the House of Commons—there would not have been
390
the slightest objection to its being quoted in this House. It could then have been quoted perfectly freely. The fact that it was made in the House of Commons really does not seem to me to make any difference.
If the old rule about Privilege disappears, I see no difficulty. I do see, on the other hand, a great disadvantage, which was alluded to by Mr. Speaker Lowther in the extract I have just read. I see a great disadvantage in shutting out from our debates facts which are of real importance in enabling your Lordships to make up your minds on any question which is being debated here. The opinions of Ministers in this country, certainly on foreign affairs, are part of the very substance of our discussions, and it is a matter of the greatest importance obviously to know what Ministers have said on the subject. It is a matter of almost equal importance, perhaps even of more importance, to know what three or four or perhaps more leading members of the House of Commons have said in like manner; and to say that we are not to be allowed to bring what they have said into the consideration of matters that are discussed in this House does seem to me to be a very grave limitation of the material with which we have to deal in order to arrive at conclusions here. For those reasons I venture to hope that your Lordships will accept the Motion which I now move.
Moved to resolve, That the practice precluding the quotation in this House of speeches made in the House of Commons should no longer be insisted on.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like in a word or two to support the noble Viscount's Motion for one or two reasons similar to those he has brought forward. It has always seemed to me that it is entirely artificial that this so-called rule should exist. It has existed, as we all know, in a certain form in the other House as well as here, but I think I can say it has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance in both Houses for a very long time past, by the introduction of that convenient phrase "in another place" indicating that a speech might perhaps have been made anywhere else whilst we all know quite

391
well that the reference is in fact to a speech made in the other House of the Legislature.
Whatever may have been the original reasons in justification of the rule, so far as it ever has been a rule, I suggest that there are very good reasons why it should not be continued in operation now. We have had some very good examples even in this short session. The noble Earl the Leader of the House will remember that only a few days ago we had a debate on the question of a Ministry of Supply. We were compelled, if we were to discuss that matter intelligently, to have regard to proceedings in the House of Commons. We could not have discussed it intelligently otherwise, as a great many of the most material facts relating to the case had been stated in the House of Commons. For example, the speech of the Secretary of State for War was quoted by myself, and I think by others, because it was exceedingly material to the issue before us. When this House has not the responsible head of a State Department among its members, it is inevitable and I think most useful that we should be able to refer to his speech in another place. That debate and many others are clear instances of the many advantages which do in fact arise.
It is a custom of course to refer to such a statement in the form of a paraphrase, lest we should be held to be out of order if we quote the statement verbatim. I suggest to your Lordships that it would be altogether advantageous that we should quote such statements accurately, and we should be able to quote them accurately without being disorderly in so doing. In bringing forward this Motion the noble Viscount is asking us to pay a tribute to frankness, to good sense and to existing conditions of discussion. I am sure that members in both Houses can be relied upon not to abuse this privilege, just as they do not abuse other privileges. They would soon be called to order by the sense of their fellow members, if not otherwise, if they took unfair advantage of the privilege. I think we should rely upon good sense and good traditions rather than upon a rule which has long since fallen into disuse and which, I suggest, it is better to get rid of in the interest of accuracy and usefulness in debate.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has brought forward this Motion, for the matter is of a certain importance, as everything must be which touches in any way on the relations between the two Houses. The noble Viscount told us the origin of his Motion—namely, what occurred on November 3, in the debate on the Anglo-Italian Agreement, when the noble Lord, Lord Snell, read from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Parliamentary Debates an extract from a speech made in another place. He was somewhat abruptly called to order upon this Bench, to our great regret, because it seemed almost discourteous to the noble Lord who is always so conspicuously courteous to everybody else. But it was a very marked departure by one who holds a conspicuous place in your Lordships' House from what has hitherto been the practice of your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, described to us in a very interesting manner the practice of another place. I do not think that what he said went to show that that is in any sense different from the practice that has obtained here—that is to say, that it is in order to make a general reference to a speech in another place, but it has not been held to be in order to read the precise words used in the debate.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If the noble Marquess will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, the first instance I gave of the decision of Mr. Speaker Peel was quite clearly that it was right and proper to read the actual words, and a very large section of the actual speech made in this House was thereupon read by Mr. Samuel Evans.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am very sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, is not in his place, because he would have been able to tell us what the facts are with far greater authority than anybody else, but I think I am accurate in saying that the present occupant of the Chair has definitely called to order members of the House of Commons for reading verbatim extracts from the OFFICIAL REPORT Of debates in this House. The general practice may be taken, I think, to be that a general reference is permitted, but an argument founded on the actual wording of the speech in another place would be objected

393
to. That is obviously not enough for my noble friend Viscount Cecil. With his accurate mind and his legal training, he thinks it as important to be able to quote the precise words used in a speech made in another place as he would if he were arguing a case in the High Court. Most of us, I think, can hardly go so far. Speaking for myself, after a tolerably long occupancy of both Front Benches in turn, I cannot recall a case when anything I had to argue suffered from my not being able to quote a speech made in another place.
In nineteen cases out of twenty it suffices for the purpose of a speech here to describe in general terms what has been said on behalf of the Government or by some member of the Opposition in another place. The twentieth case is that of a definite Ministerial statement, of which the actual wording, and even the placing of a comma, may be of importance. But it has always in the past—I do not say it always obtains now—been the rule that, so far as possible, statements of that kind should be made at the same time on the same day in both Houses of Parliament. But it is also felt to a great extent by us that we are entitled, so to speak, to sit down to a freshly-cooked meal and not have to be put off with warmed-up cabbage left over from the debates in the other House of Parliament. Therefore the suggested change does not seem to be precisely necessary.
But there are also certain positive objections. My impression is that if such a change were made here, a similar change would be demanded in the House of Commons and that it would be objected to—this is only a conjecture; it is not founded on any knowledge—on the ground that it would throw additional burdens on the occupant of the Chair, whether he were the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. It is all very well to speak of comments made on a Ministerial statement, or upon the kind of statement upon which Lord Snell commented the other day. But if you lay down the rule, by adopting the plan of the noble Viscount, that the debates in one House are freely open for discussion in the other, you seem to me to run certain risks. You almost invite the possibility of some indiscreet speech or some apparently contradictory observation becoming the subject of a Question or a Motion in the
394
other House. Lord Addison put that objection aside by assuming that all members of both Houses invariably behave well and that no instance of what our Standing Orders call "taxing" observations would be likely to occur. I do not feel quite so sure.
Viscount Cecil somewhat discounted the idea of any marked collision of opinion between the two Houses, and seemed to think that that was a matter of the past. It is not at any rate a matter of the very distant past, and I should be very sorry to assume as a certainty that there is no such possibility for the future. To take a single instance, there is at this moment no occupant of the right reverend Bench, but I can remember occasions, and I can conceive their repetition, in which the expressed opinions of the right reverend Bench have come markedly into collision with the views held by the majority in another place. I think it is not difficult to imagine a most lively debate taking place on an occasion of that kind. Of course I do not for a moment suppose that there would be anything in the nature of a "slanging-match" between members of the two Houses. If it came to that, I have no doubt that some of your Lordships would do your best, but I am afraid that some of the less responsible elements of the other place would be backed to win in such a competition!
Then there is another point. When a Bill had passed through one House and came to another, there would be a certain temptation, if free quotation from what happened in the first House were allowed, and there might even be an attempt, to make a point either for or against the measure by quoting verbatim what had been said elsewhere. In my view the real fact is that, after all, at present we have two Houses. It is undoubtedly the declared belief of noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench, and of their supporters, that the business of the country could be carried on more expeditiously and quite as efficiently in a single Chamber.
LORD ADDISON: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Precisely; but so long as we have two Houses of Parliament it is highly desirable that their proceedings should, so far as possible, be kept quite independent one of the other; and the invitation which is issued by my

395
noble friend Lord Cecil goes some little way in the direction of merging the proceedings of the two Houses together. For those reasons, I cannot help feeling that this is a case for the adoption of Lord Melbourne's well-known query, "Why can't you let it alone?" If there were a real grievance attaching to the present procedure, the positive objections might have to be faced, but I do not see that the present system inflicts any hardship on anybody. I am prepared to repeat Lord Melbourne's query, and I trust that the Government and the majority of the House will take a similar view.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot pretend to speak to your Lordships with the same authority as that of the noble Marquess who has just sat down. I have a considerable standing, I am sorry to say, of years in this House, but they do not, I am afraid, compare with the years of the noble Marquess. It therefore makes me very uncomfortable if I feel that upon a matter of the procedure and order in your Lordships' House I do not entirely agree with the noble Marquess. I am very glad that this matter has been brought before the House, because the intervention of the noble Marquess the other day, when he called Lord Snell to order, was a very important matter, that being the method by which the order of procedure of your Lordships' House is determined. We have no Speaker in the sense of a presiding ruler, who tells us what the rules of the House are. We decide for ourselves, and there is no doubt that the intervention of a noble Lord so influential as the noble Marquess, if it had not been brought before your Lordships' House for consideration, would have been quoted, and properly quoted, as—I will not say an abiding precedent but as a very important precedent, governing our future procedure. Therefore we must not be blamed if we seriously consider what the rule ought to be.
There is, of course, a great deal in what the noble Marquess has said with which we must all sympathise, but let us try and remember how limited the application of this rule already is. That has already been mentioned by my noble friend and relative who is responsible for the Motion before your Lordships, but let me just recite them. I do not think he mentioned
396
one limitation. Although, by the practice of the House of Commons and to some extent by the practice of your Lordships in the past, there has been a certain limitation as to the quotation of what passes in another place, yet that is strictly limited. According to recent precedents there is nothing at all irregular in quoting anything which has passed, so long as it has occurred in a past Session. I am no authority on procedure in the House of Commons, but there, I understand, if the quotation is something said in a past Session there is no objection. The point is that it it is not a quotation ipsissima verba of what has passed in the current Session. Will your Lordships realise to what a paradox, almost, that reduces the rule? The Leader of the Opposition, in the speech which is under consideration, if I may so venture to describe it, was speaking on November 3. According to the rigid rule of the House of Commons—I have not a word to say about the rule in this House—he was out of order, but if he had spoken on November 8 he would not have been out of order, because he would have been speaking in a different Session. He would have been perfectly at liberty to recite what Mr. Eden said in another place if he had spoken a week later. We thus see how modern practice has made the old limitations very difficult to defend.
That is one limitation. Let me take another which has been mentioned. The rule does not apply to a Ministerial statement. You may quote as much as you like a Ministerial statement in either House, even in the same Session, but there is a limitation upon a statement by a member of Parliament who is not a Minister. Mr. Anthony Eden certainly was not a Minister at the moment he spoke, but he had only just ceased to be a Minister. Are we to balance the rule upon a foundation so slight as that? Of course I am not referring to any question of Party politics in this matter, but what the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said was almost as important as what the present Secretary of State said. It was very important indeed, and to say that one should be in order, and the other out of order, seems to me to be a refinement, if it had not been urged by the noble Marquess, I should almost have said to the extent of pedantry.
Again, there is nothing out of order in saying what has passed in another place,

397
provided you do not quote the actual words. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, might have said that Mr. Eden had, in the House of Commons, said in effect, and so forth, and he would have been perfectly in order, but according to the rigid rule he must not quote the ipsissima verba. Most of us, if quoted, would like to be quoted accurately. Your Lordships know as well as I do, how often in a public debate, when a statement is made about the attitude of someone else, a critic rises in his place and says, "When was that said? Where was that said? Will the noble Lord refer us to the words on which he relies?" Of course, because it all turns on the accurate words. The substance of the thing, which is not out of order, is to be passed, while the ipsissima verba must be treated with these restrictions. I venture to think that a thing which by the process of time has been reduced to such a point as that cannot be defended.
Then there is the actual practice. I think if your Lordships will refer to the handbooks on this subject, and also ask people of experience in another place, you will find that this rule is continually broken in the House of Commons. No doubt the Speaker retains a certain control and does not allow the practice to go too far, but the rule is continually broken. Speaking of your Lordships' House—I do not speak with any authority, except that of having been here a very long time—I do not suppose a week passes in which this rule is not violated, if it be a rule. There is no Standing Order to this effect. It is only a practice, and although I do not make any complaint, for a moment, of my noble friend who is responsible for this Motion, or of the noble Marquess for having recited the practice of the House of Commons, nevertheless I would like your Lordships never to forget that the practice of the House of Commons has no bearing whatever upon our practice, except for the profound respect that we have for that great institution. We make our own rules, and we are absolutely independent in that respect and in our own practice.
I can only say that, having sat here for a very great number of years, I think hardly a week has passed in which I have not heard this rule, if it be a rule, violated, and it must be violated, because it is impossible to carry on the business of the country unless you can recite what
398
has passed of materiality elsewhere. Of course there is no rule against quoting speeches made in the country, and quoting them ipsissima verba. Are you really to draw that distinction, and to say that while what a very important Minister, or an ex-Minister, says in the country may be quoted, we are to be hampered when we come to deal with what he has said in another place? Surely upon that foundation nothing solid can rest. I venture to say that what we have to think of is how best to carry on the business of the country. We must be as free as we can and we must be, may I also add, as accurate as we can, and the ipsissima verba are the only certain road to accuracy.
Of course I realise and sympathise with the argument that we do not want recrimination—I think that is the word which was used—between the two Houses of Parliament. We want no element of discourtesy. I should be the last man to desire the slightest word of discourtesy to be uttered as regards the other House of Parliament, and I hope that will always be the practice of your Lordships' House. But it is the practice and does not depend upon this arbitrary and (if I may use the word again) rather pedantic rule; it depends upon the general spirit and temper of your Lordships' House that we do not use language which is discourteous to another place. If it were necessary to have a rule of that kind I certainly should not be prepared to criticise it, but that is quite a different thing from binding us down to this particular provision. I do not know what line the noble Earl who leads the House will take, and for my part I should be very anxious to guide my conduct by his advice. It is upon his advice that we principally depend in a matter of order in your Lordships' House, and if he thought fit to say that he thinks this rule should be abandoned I should not be sorry, and I should be glad that we should be free, if that be your Lordships' wish.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, it is rare indeed that I differ from my noble friend who has just spoken, but I am afraid I am obliged to do so on this occasion. Before I come to the substance of the matter I would like just to make two points. First of all, because a rule is frequently violated it does not at all follow that it ought to be abandoned. There is

399
a rule in this House—I do not know whether it is in writing but undoubtedly there is a rule—against reading a speech, but that is continually violated. At the same time, if the practice of reading were carried to a great length I think it might be very useful to fall back upon that rule. Then my noble friend referred to the absurdity of something being in order on November 8 which was not in order on November 3. That is entirely owing to the practice of beginning one Session immediately on the top of another. There is a rule, I think, in both Houses of Parliament that you cannot take a decision on the same question twice in the same Session. Well, there again you might have something that was out of order on November 3 but which would be in order on the 8th, for precisely the same reason. But it does not at all follow that the rule is a bad one. The only conclusion is that because the Sessions come upon one another so closely a certain appearance of absurdity is shed upon all Sessional Orders whatsoever.
I may say a word or two on the rule as it is in the House of Commons, because not only have I heard many decisions there but I think I have had myself to apply it when in the Chair in Committee, or acting as Deputy-Speaker. The rule was, I think, accurately stated by my noble friend opposite. It is that you may not quote the words of a member of another House for the purpose of answering them, and that I think is really in modern times the justification for this rule. You want to avoid anything like a bitter personal wrangle between members of the two Houses. I believe the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, was absolutely justified in what he said on the possibilities that might arise. I am afraid it might easily degenerate into what I may call a personal duel at long range. An instance—it is an old one now, but I believe it is what you may call a locus classicus on the subject—is when Lord Ashburton in the year 1847, or it may have been 1850, wanted to reply to some criticism by Lord Palmerston in the House of Commons on a mission he had to America or Canada; and Lord Ashburton undoubtedly proceeded to a bitter attack upon Lord Palmerston, and then Lord Lansdowne, who I think must have been Leader of
400
the House under a Whig Government at that time, stopped him. Well, if he had gone on, Lord Palmerston obviously would have replied, and so you would have had this rather unseemly discussion.
Now if that was a danger in that time it is surely a greater danger in this time. I quite agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, as to what might happen in the House of Commons if they were to have an unlimited power of criticising speakers in this House and answering them. I think I can remember standing watching the last stage of the Education Bill of 1906, and I well remember the noble Marquess himself saying that because of its rejection harsh things would be done—obviously meaning in administration. Well, there were certainly members of the House of Commons who took a very different view from him who would certainly have censured those remarks if they had had an opportunity of doing so. And I think I can remember instances later than that when members of advanced views in another place sought to criticise utterances of members of this House simply as part of the political game (I am afraid I must call it) that they were then playing. But quite apart from that, whether it is a political or personal matter, I do suggest that if a member makes a personal explanation in one House attacking a statement made in another, then the member attacked will have a right to reply, and one cannot tell where it will end.
I confess I do not see that there is much hardship in the present rule. A noble Lord in this House or an honourable Member in the other can always say "It has been stated" or "It has been alleged," and he can make his position perfectly clear, but no personal element is necessarily involved, and I am afraid it certainly would be involved if this Motion were passed and adopted, as it probably would be adopted, in the other House. I think the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion said that a personal attack upon some Minister or other member of the House would not be in order. I think so long as grossly abusive language were not used it would be perfectly in order, and though it might not be indulged in here I am afraid it very likely would be in another place. At the same time, the rule no doubt has not been enforced rigidly and there are difficulties in knowing exactly what it is and

401
how it can be enforced. But surely this is a matter which ought to be dealt with by both Houses, because what is done in one must react upon the other; and therefore if it be sought to pursue the subject further, I suggest that the proper course is the appointment of a small Joint Select Committee of both Houses.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not intervene as an authority on Parliamentary procedure, but because it is a melancholy fact that I have had a longer period in Parliament than anybody here present, with the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Salisbury.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, you have been here longer than I.
LORD NEWTON: One cannot be in Parliament for over half a century without learning something, and one of the lessons that I have learnt is that disputes between the two Houses are productive of nothing but danger and difficulty. This is, we all know, the most good-natured and tolerant of assemblies—tolerant not only of the members of this House but tolerant of other people as well. We are eminently peaceful, but unfortunately there are many misguided people who regard us with feelings approaching to hatred and who are always anxious to obtain an opportunity to attack us. It seems to me that my noble friend opposite is providing them with an excellent opportunity. He brings forward a Motion which apparently is not reciprocal. We are to be allowed to quote what is said in another place, but they do not obtain the same rights themselves. It seems to me that this is bound to lead to difficulty. I remember quite well being in the Peers' Gallery in another place about twenty years ago when a member made a very vigorous attack upon me personally. He got on quite well until he proceeded to quote what I had said, textually, whereupon he was immediately stopped by the Speaker, the present Lord Ullswater, and he collapsed, much, I will confess, to my disappointment.
I cannot help thinking that if we were foolish enough to adopt this Motion it would not only lead to difficulties in another place, but it would very much inconvenience our procedure. We should have people perpetually quoting long
402
extracts, almost White Papers, in explanation of what they were talking about, and it would ultimately be provocative of any number of personal incidents and personal explanations which, to my mind, are almost invariably very mischievous incidents. In these circumstances I trust that the Government will not support the noble Viscount opposite. After all, what is there to complain of? We can quote almost every word that a man says if we omit a comma or a semicolon, and we should be in order in doing so. Where is the grievance? It seems to me, as was remarked by my noble friend Lord Crewe, that this is one of the cases in which one may well ask "Why cannot you leave the thing alone?" Rather an unusual sentiment to be expressed by a Whig politician, but I am entirely in agreement with him, and I cannot help thinking that the majority of the House will be with him, too. I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Motion myself.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I well remember the incident that gave rise to this debate. As a very new member of your Lordships' House who had spent twenty-eight years in the House of Commons, I must say I was amazed when Lord Snell was interrupted by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Liberal Party, on November 3, because frequently I have known members of your Lordships' House quoted quite correctly and ipsissima verba in the House of Commons without the least objection being taken. The rule in the House of Commons is, as stated by Lord Rankeillour, that the whole question turns on the purpose to which the quotation is put. A more innocent purpose than that of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in his speech on November 3, I cannot imagine. He was not building up any argument against Mr. Eden. He was merely quoting a certain matter which had been put in a particular way, and I am quite sure no Speaker of the House of Commons, least of all Lord Rankeillour, would have ruled Lord Snell out of order if he had made that quotation in the House of Commons.
If the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, wishes to make the rule of this House different from the rule in the House of Commons, I shall vote against his Motion, but if it is to give this House the liberty which is now given to members of the

403
House of Commons and to enable us to do what they are allowed to do by the rulings of Mr. Speaker Peel and Mr. Speaker Lowther, as he then was, then I do think it is a liberty we should have. It did seem to me that Lord Snell was stopped by the House from making a quotation which would have been perfectly in order in the House of Commons. At least that is my experience, and I took it as a new member that we were more restricted, much more restricted, in the use of free speech in this House by the rule as it is alleged to exist now in the House of Lords than we were when I was in the House of Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Does the noble Lord say it is absolutely permitted to hold up, in another place, the OFFICIAL REPORT of one of the debates in this House and to read an extract from it? My impression was that that had been stopped.
LORD HARLECH: I think I have frequently seen it done, but it is always prefaced by the statement "I am not proposing to base any argument upon this." The member is quoting it for the purpose of illustration. It is quite true, unless that is done—and it is almost invariably done—the Speaker would ask the honourable member if he was making this quotation for the purpose of building an argument on it. If the reply is "Yes," then the quotation has to be stopped; but if, as I think, Lord Snell was using the quotation the other day purely for illustrative purposes, that seems to me to be absolutely innocuous and in accordance with the custom of Parliament. I must say I was surprised when Lord Crewe intervened on that occasion. I only hope that the practice of the two Houses will be assimilated, and that we shall not be deprived of the privilege which ordinary members of the House of Commons have in the matter of quoting speeches made in the other House.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I was nearly a quarter of a century in the other House, and my recollection of the rule during that time is entirely different from that of Lord Harlech. Whenever any member of the other House took the Report of a debate in this House and read from it ipsissima verba, the Speaker at once called him to order. The practice
404
may have altered in the last fifteen years, but that was the practice when I was a member of the other House. It is very important that neither House should be allowed to quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT and to read long paragraphs out of speeches made in the other House which will bring about conflict. That is most undesirable. At the same time, I realise that we have to have the right of alluding to speeches made in another place by saying what we regard to be the purport of a passage stated by a Minister or by a distinguished member of the other place. That has been the practice in both Houses. It is a good practice, and I hope it will be continued. There is something to be said for the argument that the system should be uniform in both Houses in regard to this matter of reading in one House long extracts from speeches made in the other. I do not want to see that practice commenced, and if anything ought to be done in this matter it ought to be the subject of consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses so that the practice may be uniform. In this way we shall avoid the dangers which might arise if Lord Cecil's Motion were agreed to in its present form.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I am very sorry to have been the innocent cause of provoking this very interesting discussion. I ought really to have known better. In fact, I did know better. I knew precisely what was allowable in the House of Commons, but I also felt that your Lordships' House provided the supreme example of the greatest anarchic assembly in the world. We have no rules because no one wants to break them. We live above the law, and on the particular occasion I did not want to argue the matter, but an ex-Minister had made a statement which looked like the very key of the argument, and I thought it might help your Lordships if you had the thought in his words rather than in my own. I was also clumsy, because instead of hiding the paper from your Lordships' eyes I flaunted it in your faces to show, of course, what I was doing. I gathered that the right thing would have been to have given it, and to have said what I wanted by a kind of dishonest evasion.
The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said that the right thing in this matter was to let it alone. I do not mind that, but the noble Marquess raised the matter; I

405
did not. Now I do not really mind. It will not put me personally to any great inconvenience. As a matter of fact, when I was in the other House I only had one conflict with the Chair, and that was with my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, who was then Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means. I was a young member then, and I made the same mistake and learned my lesson quite thoroughly. Afterwards I went round to the Chair and explained to my noble friend—I was a great deal more frightened of him in the House of Commons than I am in your Lordships' House—that it was by pure inadvertence that I had done it. He was good enough to say to me: "Don't you trouble. You try to say what you want to say; it is my business to keep you in order." Now we are not guided in that way in your Lordships' House, and we have to do the best we can. I can only say that the next time I want to quote from another place I shall very carefully hide the document concerned, and try to get a reputation for wisdom which I do not deserve.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I confess it is with a considerable amount of diffidence that I take part in this debate. Two noble Lords who have been Leaders of the House for a very long period have each of them expressed opinions on this matter, and I have only been Leader of your Lordships' House for a very short time. Who am I to judge between the two of them when they take entirely opposite views on this question? But I think your Lordships have had an extraordinarily interesting debate on this matter. I confess I find myself almost in entire agreement on one point with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition (Lord Snell). I am not one of those who believe in upholding a custom or a rule when it is allowed to go by default on every possible occasion, and when we pretend to do things which in fact we know quite well we are not doing. Therefore, frankly, I should prefer to see the noble Lord producing the OFFICIAL REPORT and reading from it rather than pretending that he has taken what he quotes from some entirely different source, or suggesting that he is imagining what the speaker has said somewhere else when we know he has it written down verbatim in his notes.
Having said that, I must add that I rather agree with a good deal that was
406
said by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe. I do frankly think that, if the policy of quoting were allowed, there is a very real danger of—I will not say starting a long-range duel between members of this House and members of another place, but at any rate of something being said in this House which might tend to create disagreement between this place and another place. I also see one much greater danger, and it is this. Noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, although at one time I was led to hope differently from some remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, are, I gather, in favour of abolishing your Lordships' House. Now it would assist them in that direction if it came to be the custom that a statement made in one House would suffice for both Houses. At the present moment, officially we take no cognisance of what happens in another place. That is subject to a great deal of qualification, because, of course, Bills sometimes come from another place and we know they have come from there, and have not originated in your Lordships' House. But, speaking broadly, a statement made in another place is not taken official cognisance of here. Therefore your Lordships have a right to hear a statement from a responsible member of the Government, and to have that statement made in your Lordships' House, thereby giving this House an opportunity of debating it. I think if we were to take full cognisance of what is said elsewhere this Front Bench might be relieved of a great deal of work, but at the same time your Lordships would be deprived of opportunities of debate. That, I think, would be detrimental to this House.
I confess that I do not entirely share Lord Crewe's view when he says that he has never known of a case when it would have been of advantage to have quoted what was said in another place. I think my noble friend Lord Salisbury will remember the time of the Curragh incident. I see the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, now preparing to take the field. No doubt he will dispute my remarks, but I shall look for support from Lord Salisbury, who was then sitting on the Front Bench, whereas I sat on a Back Bench. What happened in my recollection in 1914 was this. The House of Commons met at an earlier hour than your Lordships, as they usually do, and a statement was made by the Colonial

407
Secretary on what happened. Then, when your Lordships met, a statement was required from the member of the Government who was to reply on the question. In this case it was the late Lord Morley. The difficulty of the Government was that these statements hardly ever agreed. I remember very well that there always used to be one of the Whips or some member of the Liberal Government standing inside the railings in your Lordships' House, in order to rush back to the House of Commons to give them the last version of what was said in your Lordships' House so that the two statements should be made to agree. Perhaps that is not entirely apposite, because the quotations in the cases I have referred to had to be made from memory, as neither the OFFICIAL REPORT nor the newspapers would have had time to print the actual words that had been said in either House of Parliament so that they could be used for the purposes of quotation.
Several of your Lordships in referring to this matter have spoken of a rule. There is no rule. It is merely a custom, and when I am told that the Speaker has said this and the Speaker has said that, as a member of your Lordships' House who has never had, shall I say, the disadvantage of sitting in another place, that leaves me entirely cold. Your Lordships make your own rules and your own customs, and although I see some advantage in both Houses having similar rules and customs, I do not think it is the least necessary that that should be the case on every occasion. Let me take two instances known to all members of your Lordships' House. If members in another place wandered as far from the subject matter on the Paper as your Lordships very often do, they would be called to order before they had spoken for more than two or three minutes. If that was the rule in this House it might be of great advantage to members who sit on the Front Bench and have to answer for the Government. Those who have had to reply for any Government, whatever its complexion, would agree to that. But I think the rest of the House would agree, and probably the public also would agree, that debates in your Lordships' House, as a result of the freedom which we enjoy, are very much wider and more useful than similar debates
408
which take place elsewhere under more stringent conditions. That is a case where we are under an entirely different rule from that which obtains in another place, and it is a case in regard to which we have some advantage. Another case is this. I have noticed that members who come to your Lordships' House after having sat in another place are sometimes in the habit of addressing your Lordships and going out as soon as they have finished their speeches. I am told that that is a custom in another place. It used not to be the custom in this House, and I trust it is not going to become the custom here, although we have had the entry of a considerable number of members from elsewhere in recent years.
Having said that this is not a rule and that it is only a custom, I am bound to say that I should regret very much if your Lordships passed a Resolution on this matter this evening. I rather agree with Lord Crewe that we had much better leave this matter where it is. By that I mean that we should be entitled to quote from speeches made in another place when it is necessary for an argument and where there can be no question of acrimony or of somebody in either House having to get up to make a personal explanation. I do not think that is likely to happen, but I think it must be guarded against, and that we must guard also against any new cause of disagreement between the two Houses. Subject to that, I think that we should recognise the custom which really has obtained in this House for a long period. We have referred to speeches made elsewhere, and we had better be open about it provided we do it with circumspection. Speaking for myself, I should prefer not to have any Resolution on the matter but that your Lordships, having heard what has been said from all quarters of the House, should arrange procedure in future cases accordingly. Then, if your Lordships feel that any speakers are transgressing by going too far in reading long extracts from speeches, we can deal with them as usual by making our own rules of order to suit the occasion and impressing on them that they should behave better.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, after the speech made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House I

409
should not dream of pressing my Motion to a Division. I am very grateful to him for what he has said, and if I may say so respectfully I quite agree with the line he has taken. I recognise that there would be grave disadvantage in an attack being made this House on a speech made by somebody in the other House. That aspect of it had not occurred to me, ant I think it would probably be out of order on other grounds—on the ground, for example, that you cannot attack the proceedings, conduct or character of the other House. I understand my noble friend has explained that he thinks that as long as controversy and recrimination are avoided there is no objection to quoting speeches made in the other House. That is the most I could desire.
Before I sit down may I say to my noble friend Lord Gainford that he really is entirely mistaken, if he will allow me to say so, in his view of what is the rule in the other House? If he had done me the honour of listening to what I said at first he would have heard me quote an instance where exactly the same point was raised. There was a discussion—I think it was on a Tithe Bill—and there was objection to any reference to what happened here. Mr. Speaker Peel intervened and said he could not accept that. Then Mr. Samuel Evans was proceeding to read a statement made in this House and another objection was raised on the ground that he could not read the ipsissima verba. Mr. Speaker Peel said, in the words which I think I have already quoted, that a Member might quote the ipsissima verba, and in point of fact Mr. Samuel Evans did go on and quoted I should think 150 words of a speech made
410
in this House. The same rule was followed by Mr. Speaker Lowther in 1907. The ruling by Mr. Speaker Peel was made in 1891. I am sorry to trouble my noble friend with these corrections, but those really are the facts. The recollections of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, who has had very much more experience than most of us on this question, are quite accurate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, before the Motion is withdrawn, may I say in justification of what I said previously that I have a clear recollection that on several occasions efforts were made by reading speeches in another place to carry on what was regarded as obstruction? That was objected to by the House, and great cries of "Order, Order," arose so as to prevent the reading of long passages from speeches made in the other House. I think that has never obtained in one House or the other.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Of course I did not expect that my noble friend Lord Snell would immediately take advantage of what I said in order to read long passages for purposes of obstruction.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WILD BIRDS (DUCK AND GEESE PROTECTION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Amendments (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before six o'clock.