Lords Sitting of 16 May 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
REGISTRATION OF STILL-BIRTHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
BAKING INDUSTRY (HOURS OF WORK) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (KEIGHLEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a to be printed and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIDGWATER EXTENSION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

TORQUAY GAS ORDER, 1938.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Torquay and Paignton Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

FUNERAL DIRECTORS (REGISTRATION) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD HORDER: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the registration of funeral directors, and for purposes connected therewith; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Horder.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EIRE (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENTS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading with a very strong consciousness that there are a great number of members of your Lordships' House who, for many reasons, would be far more com-

3
petent to do so. I belong to a generation that has never really felt the bitterness of the Irish conflict. There was a time when that conflict constituted one of the main lines drawn between the great opposing political Parties. It divided not merely political Parties, it divided families. Otherwise respectable members of Parliament, when discussing this subject, were known to throw Blue-books at one another, and pillars of the Constitution were prepared to take sides in what threatened at times to be armed revolt. On second thoughts, it does seem to me that perhaps the very fact that not merely myself but those of my generation did not understand the past conflict in its true depth of bitterness, is the main underlying reason why to-day a settlement of this character is possible. I think that we just regard Ireland as one of our nearest neighbours, a people and a land of quite exceptional and peculiar charm, whom we have misunderstood and who have misunderstood us for many centuries.
This Agreement that is before your Lordships to-day for approval arises out of many tentative and quite informal discussions that have taken place over a number of years. I think one can say that they began from and had their root in the Coal-Cattle Agreement of December, 1934. There have been times when it looked as though there might be no agreement at all; there have been other times when it looked as if we could only arrive at a very narrow trade agreement; but I am in the position to-day of being able to ask your Lordships to approve an Agreement with a very wide foundation. I think one may say that it is in fact the width of the Agreement that justifies many of the provisions in it which otherwise might be very difficult to justify to your Lordships. The four main points that were dealt with in these discussions were, first of all, the question of partition; secondly, defence; thirdly, finance; and lastly, trade.
If your Lordships turn to the Agreement you will see there is no reference to the settlement of the question of partition. That question is really one not between this country and Eire, but between the North and South of Ireland, and on that subject it would not, therefore, be proper, and we made that clear from the beginning, for us to intervene.
4
The second question which was dealt with in the discussion was that of defence. I have to put before your Lordships on this question the very important and vital decisions that have been taken. Your Lordships who have read the Agreement will see that it amounts to a virtual complete abrogation of our treaty rights with regard to the defended ports of Berehaven, Queenstown, and Lough Swilly. This, I think, is particularly a portion of the Agreement that can only be justified on the very widest of grounds, but I would remind your Lordships that at a time when these treaty rights were accorded to us the value which we attached to them was based on the assumption of a friendly Ireland, and to-day I can say that the Agreement which I am now asking your Lordships to pass is based on the assumption of a friendly Ireland, and on the assumption that a friendly Ireland is much more important than any strict insistence on mere legal rights.
There is no doubt—and we have to recognise it—that this particular portion of the old Treaty of 1921 was the portion that was most deeply resented by many residing in Ireland. Your Lordships who read the Prime Minister's speech in another place will see that he then drew the attention of the House to a speech of Mr. de Valera in which he said:
"The Articles of the 1921 Treaty that gave most offence, were these—
he was referring to the defence arrangements—
because they meant that part of our territory was still in British occupation."
It was very soon made quite clear that we could not have a successful healing of these sores that had existed for so long unless we were prepared to make that concession. But it was made very much easier for us to do so because Mr. de Valera made it quite clear from the beginning that the Eire Government would not permit Irish territory to be used as a base by any foreign Power for an attack on this country. He further went on to announce his intention to put those ports into a proper state of defence so that he could implement that assurance. I submit to your Lordships that an Agreement of that character is of much greater value to both our countries than any mere insistence on the formal treaty rights of 1921.

5
I now turn to the question of finance. That again—and I want to state this very frankly and openly to your Lordships—is an Agreement that can be represented as in many ways not a favourable financial Agreement for this country. Putting aside the quarter of a million pounds which in the past was paid for damage to property and which now continues, I turn to the main item of that Agreement—namely, an undertaking to pay to this country the sum of £10,000,000 in return for the annuities that in the past were valued at something over £4,000,000 and have been capitalised at the sum of £100,000,000. Your Lordships might say that that debt had been repudiated and that we are not getting between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 for the annuities, but we were getting over £4,000,000 from the Special Duties. Therefore, in place of an annual payment to the Exchequer of over £4,000,000, we are wiping off the debt for a payment of £10,000,000. Against that we have got to realise that that was a debt which seemed to us to be a perfectly clear question, but which was very strongly disputed from the other side, and indeed was replied to with counter-claims.
Quite apart from that question, quite apart from the rights and wrongs of the whole argument, we place the value of an Agreement before the value of a more favourable financial bargain. I want to be perfectly frank with your Lordships, and say that it is quite possible, if we had bargained very much harder, we might have got slightly more favourable terms, and it is quite possible, if we had been prepared to take a payment over a longish period, we should probably have got more favourable terms. But His Majesty's Government took the view—and your Lordships will probably be inclined to agree—that it was very much better to get finished with the whole affair. The annual payment would have had to come before the Eire Parliament year after year, and each year the old feeling of bitterness, which we are hoping to do away with by this Agreement, might have been revived. One further financial point is that the present and future cost of the care and maintenance and the increased fortification of the treaty ports will be no longer a charge on our Exchequer.
I turn to the final portion of the Agreement—that relating to trade. The Trade
6
Agreement really stands in a different position to the other matters I have mentioned, for the reason that it can really stand by itself as being in fact a good trade arrangement for both sides. Your Lordships are probably aware of how much both of us have lost by the quarrel of the past few years. In our case exports have fallen from over £34,000,000 to £21,000,000. In the case of Eire, exports have fallen from £43,000,000 to £20,000,000. That was a case of mutual throat-cutting which neither of us could enjoy and from which neither could hope for very much profit. In giving these figures I do not want to suggest that we can necessarily at once raise the interchange of trade between us to the original figures. I simply quote them in order to try and give a picture of the sort of possibilities for development that lie ahead of us, though both of us in certain cases have found alternative channels of trade and it may take some time to reestablish all the connections that existed in the past.
The main outline of this Agreement is as follows: No Duties other than Revenue Duties will be placed on Eire produce coming to the United Kingdom. The goods going from the United Kingdom to Eire, which are now free of duty and are mentioned in Schedule II to the Agreement, will continue to enjoy free entry. There will be a possibility of applying quantitative regulations for agricultural produce, if necessary, or duties on eggs and poultry; but in spite of that there are undoubtedly a number of misgivings in the minds of many agricultural producers in this country. I would like, therefore, to make it quite clear that although the Trade Agreement gives free entry to goods coming from Eire, there is provision in Article 3 for quantitative regulation of imports of agricultural products in the interests of orderly marketing. It is not expected that there will be any considerable increase of imports of such goods in the immediate future, and although it may be impossible to avoid altogether some small dislocations of trade immediately following the date of operation of the Agreement, it is most unlikely that there will be any sudden flood of Eire cattle, sheep, eggs, or other produce arriving in this country. The Agreement provides for consultation between the two Governments as regards the amount

7
of the various products which shall be admitted from time to time. As a result of the discussions that have already taken place on this subject it can be definitely stated that the quantities of the principal products will probably not greatly exceed the actual imports in 1937. This applies, for example, to bacon, eggs and store cattle. The farming industry, therefore, I think can rest assured that very careful consideration has been given to the question of preventing supplies from Eire from getting out of hand, and that both Governments recognise the importance of retaining the stability of the United Kingdom market.
There are further provisions in this Trade Agreement There will be the removal of certain duties on United Kingdom products and there will be a review by the Prices Commission in Eire of other duties. I think there has been some disquiet expressed on behalf of Northern Ireland lest this Agreement might not have taken full note of their interests. If your Lordships will look at Schedule II, Part I and Schedule V, Parts I and II, you will see that very particular account has been taken of the trade interests of Northern Ireland in making a choice of the immediate reductions of duties. So far as the review by the Prices Commission is concerned, in the past we have had dealings with the Government of Eire under the Coal-Cattle Agreements and we have always found that they have played completely fair with us in such matters. The Agreement further gives us the right to suggest items to that Prices Commission for first consideration. We have had discussions with the Government of Northern Ireland and certain concessions regarding the financial arrangements existing between our two Governments with regard to the placing of armament orders and with regard to agricultural policy have been made.
That, in a very broad outline, gives the main lines of the Agreements which your Lordships are asked to approve to-day. I think if your Lordships consider them you will agree with His Majesty's Government that they really must be looked at as a whole. Some of them are only justified by the fact of their constituting part of a general settlement. It is perfectly true that to us it must seem that very great concessions have been made, but in saying that I think we have to remember
8
the strong feelings that exist and have existed for many years on the other side. I am quite sure your Lordships' House would like to pay the same tribute that the Prime Minister in another place paid to the statesmanship of Mr. de Valera. He has played a great part in making possible these Agreements, which we hope are going to be the source of the healing of the wound that has kept our two nations apart not just for generations but for many centuries. It seems to me that the Agreements should be to all of us a demonstration that quarrels, no matter how bitter they are, can often to-day be settled by reason; that it is not necessary always to carry these quarrels to logical and deadly ends; and finally that these British Isles of ours are fundamentally united. If we look at the Agreements from that point of view I cannot help feeling, and I think your Lordships will agree with me, that the Agreements are not merely a contribution to our own political life but a contribution to world politics.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it is very rarely indeed that I am able to congratulate His Majesty's Government upon their achievements. That is not because I am unwilling to do so, but because they so very rarely merit the congratulations of your Lordships' House. Therefore on this occasion I am especially glad to be able to offer such support as we can to the passing of this measure, on the understanding that at a later period there may be comments to make in regard to its details. I have peculiar satisfaction in supporting this Bill to-day. I have always marvelled at our success in living on good terms with distant peoples under the principles of the British Constitution, and have never quite understood why our neighbours so near to us should be distrustful of us and why we should be separated from them.
The old bitter days of the Irish agitation are now, one may be permitted to hope, for ever gone. Those of us who are getting old can remember with vividness the keenness, the impatient passion of those great days. Some of your Lordships may feel that the conduct of members of the Labour Party is not always very restrained, but if you had lived in those days you would think that the

9
temper of the Labour Party to-day represents a Sunday School on its best behaviour in comparison with the discussions that then took place. In any case it is an immense relief to feel that this gay, emotional, generous-minded people are able to feel that they can work now side by side with the English people. That involves an entirely new relationship with endless opportunities of promise. I am very pleased to be able to commend this Bill to-day, because one for whom I have had long and unshakable deep regard has by his understanding, his patience and his rare sympathy been able to prepare the pathway for these most welcome Agreements. I should not like this measure to go through without that word of commendation from these Benches of that right honourable gentleman, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald. I feel that this measure provides us with a very great opportunity, and I hope that if, both in Eire and here, we try to nourish this new and friendly plant, it may blossom as Aaron's rod to the blessing of both peoples.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, like the noble Lord, I feel sure that this Bill, which has been so clearly and forcibly presented by the noble Earl, will be a cause of real relief to everybody in England and in Ireland, except those—and I venture to hope that they are now very few—who desire the continuance of unhappy relations between the two islands. I have heard these Agreements spoken of as likely to form a permanent settlement of the relations between the two countries. In politics very few things can be regarded as absolutely permanent. I believe, however, that we may look forward for as long a time as we dare anticipate anything to a greatly improved atmosphere, not only between the two islands but also between the two sections of our neighbouring island. We have to remember that there has been considerable friction between those two sections on the ground that in each the minority has not received altogether fair treatment. I trust that the improvement in the atmosphere will cause a particular gain in that respect.
Looking back over the troubled history of the last hundred years we can remember that a hundred years ago the movement for repeal was strongly pressed by Ireland, and in particular, of course, by
10
her great leader O'Connell. It is not surprising that many Irishmen desired the repeal of the Legislative Union, if we remember that when it became law in Ireland twenty Irish Peers, some of them bearers of the most distinguished names in Ireland, voted against it. The repeal agitation died down in the middle of the last century, when O'Connell died, and in his old age he appeared to have somewhat modified his views about it. That agitation, however, had begun to be replaced by what was in some way a more dangerous and more revolutionary spirit. Not to dwell too much on history, some of us have a very clear recollection of the attempt that was made to introduce the system of Home Rule first in 1886. Some supporters of Home Rule took their attitude from a feeling of historical romance, but to most of us the cause of our being Home Rulers at that time was the conviction that as a political system the Union between the two countries had altogether broken down. It had broken down for this reason, as I have often taken occasion to say: that the Government of Ireland as we carried it on then was merely a form, not of responsible, but of Crown Colony government. It could not be expected that, even though that fact was masked by the presence of a certain number of Irish members representing Nationalist Ireland in the House of Commons, who were able to make their presence felt there in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has described, the Government of Ireland should be responsibly carried out.
Reviewing what Lord Snell said, I cannot help thinking of the contrast between the agreeable aspect of your Lordships' House as it is at this moment and the aspect I remember on a great many occasions when Irish matters were under discussion. Some very hard words were used on both sides. But I must not waste any more of your Lordships' time in historical reminiscences, and I can therefore come at once to the Treaty of 1921, which is being to some extent revoked by the measure which is now before your Lordships' House. As the noble Earl opposite said, there are four subjects with which this measure, specially deals. The first is that of partition, and it was made clear—necessarily clear, I think—and, as I understand, accepted as a fact by Mr. de Valera, little though I presume he liked it, that for the time being

11
the question of partition could not be considered at all. I remember very well in the old days that I thought, and Mr. John Morley, as he then was, also thought, that those who advised Mr. Gladstone in his Home Rule measure did not attach sufficient weight to the objections to Ulster's inclusion. The reason was to some extent the interesting and, in a way, flattering one that a great many people believed that if a Parliament—a subordinate Parliament, as it was then conceived—could be framed for the whole of Ireland, Ulster, with its superior wealth, its faculty for business, and its greater experience in public affairs than the Irish Nationalists could claim at that time, would absorb a very large part indeed of the power and influence in Ireland, and that it would play a leading part in the government of the country. Of course, it will never be known how far that belief was justified, and whether the hopes of those who favoured Home Rule, or the fears of those who dreaded it, would have been justified in the long run. At any rate, the fears which were then so freely expressed could only have led to the creation of the kind of Ireland which we see at this moment, and in that sense I think the alarmists were wrong.
Then I pass rapidly over the financial point, because that was clearly explained by the noble Earl. While £100,000,000 is a good deal of money—although in these days it is not spoken of with the awe with which a few years ago it was regarded—yet we do feel, and I believe the great majority of the people of this country feel, that that sacrifice is worth while. Therefore, I pass from that, only for a moment, to the question of trade. It is explained by those who have taken the trouble to read these Schedules carefully, at great length (and I hope indeed) that it will prove a source of real benefit to ourselves, to Eire, and also to Northern Ireland. We continue speaking in public of the necessity for lowering, at any rate, if we cannot altogether remove them, some of the trade barriers of the world. That hope, I think, is expressed by all of us, even by those to whom a system of protection is not altogether disagreeable, but I like to dream of the time when, so far as these islands are concerned, hostile tariffs and duties shall disappear altogether. I do not see why the newly-created Eire could not maintain full Parliamentary
12
and administrative independence, and at the same time, with all parts of the British Islands, agree to be bound by a system of mutual free trade.
Then the last point in question is one which has undoubtedly caused the greatest criticism of this measure. I mean that which appears in subsection (2) of Clause 2 of the Bill, and which abrogates the provisions of the 1921 Treaty, Articles 6 and 7, relating to Irish ports. As your Lordships may have read in the debates in another place, that was the subject of long and close discussion there, and some very severe criticisms. The ports in question are, of course, important, and it was argued that the handing over of them to the Government of Eire involves a serious strategical risk to this country; but, as the noble Earl opposite pointed out, the concession is made in the belief and on the understanding of a friendly and not a hostile Ireland.
That I think is to be taken as a postulate before the clause can be considered at all, but, I understand—although I certainly do not pretend to speak from any knowledge—that if there were some hostility on the part of Eire, the changes which have taken place since the arrangement was made in 1921—that is to say, the new conception of the power of the air, and also, what I fancy is considered quite as important, the change that has taken place in the power of artillery—both tend to show that if Ireland were not friendly the retention of those ports would be a most difficult and perhaps almost impossible matter for this country. But clearly it is the case that we are entitled to assume that Ireland will not be definitely unfriendly in this regard. It has also been argued that much inconvenience would arise if Eire stood out for neutrality in a war in which we were engaged. On that I would only say that in any war in which the retention of those ports, or the possibility of using those ports, was important—in any such war, which would mean, of course, a great European War, I do not see how it would be possible for Eire to remain neutral, and therefore I think that particular argument may be set aside. What might happen in the case of some distant war in which we were engaged is a different question, but in that case the position of those ports would not be of importance

13
from the naval point of view, or from any other point of view.
In conclusion, I would merely wish to add a word of tribute to what evidently has been the moderation and good sense shown in this matter by Mr. de Valera. But with still greater pleasure I join in what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Snell, about the part played by the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who has evidently shown an amount of tact and good humour in conducting these negotiations which cannot be too highly praised. I only regret that his distinguished father is not still here to witness the fine achievement of his son.
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I rise to-day to address your Lordships' House for the first time. As I am one of the youngest members of your Lordships' House, it had been my intention to follow the maxim for a number of years of being seen and not heard; but to-day's debate is on a subject so close to my heart as an Irishman that I feel I must intervene, and I ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments. What I shall say will be very personal, for I have not had the political experience of the noble Lords who have already spoken, but there is a family tie that I like to carry on. I am afraid that my predecessors in both Houses have always been strong opponents of Home Rule, but I feel to-day that if they had been here now they could only have supported the Government. Another reason why I intervene is that I am one of the few among your Lordships who might describe himself as a returned Irishman. Many people return to Ireland, but they usually return from America with fortunes in their trunks. My family left Ireland after the Treaty, when our home had been burnt down during the Civil War, but ten years ago this summer I went back to Ireland, not with great wealth, but with great optimism for the better days that were coming under Mr. Cosgrave's rule. During those ten years I have watched events, hoping for the best. I remember that when Mr. de Valera came into power the hearts of some of us rather sank, and especially when the tariff war began. Then things looked better, with the Coal-Cattle Agreement, and to-day we have this very pleasant Agreement between our two countries.
As an Irishman I am on principle against all Governments, but to-day I
14
confess that that attitude is absolutely impossible. I am glad to see that there is very little opposition to this Bill—sufficient to show that the task that faced the two Governments was none too easy. From Eire, although I have not been over there since the signing of the Agreement, I hear nothing but praise. In fact, I see that a farmer who was charged with being drunk, and pleaded that he had been celebrating the signing of the new Agreement, was acquitted. In England I can find no concrete criticism, except from those who fear that by ending Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty we have handed over our Treaty rights in the ports to an alien power. I feel that that fear has no great importance.
We have been assured that there are no secret clauses to this Agreement, but what is more important is that there is now an understanding between our two countries which is far greater than any written clauses could be. For the first time in history we are to see co-operation between Ireland and England, which never would have been possible as long as Ireland was subjugated to England. To-day we see the virtual end of a row that has lasted for centuries, during which it has been our misfortune to see the saddest days when people killed each other. To-day that is past. With great optimism we look into the future. England has now shown Ireland that the quarrels are over. I only hope that the North of Ireland, following England's example, will put away its petty grievances and end partition. Before I sit down I should like as an Irishman to pay my tribute to the Prime Ministers of England and Eire who have produced this Agreement. Let us remember that we know well in Ireland that our freedom depends on England's freedom.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I deem it a privilege that I am enabled, if I may, on your Lordships' behalf as well as my own to thank the noble Lord for the very interesting speech he has made, to congratulate him, and to express the hope that he will join in with our deliberations frequently in the future. I have to turn to what is really a sordid point in this Agreement. I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the Financial Agreement on page 6, particularly to paragraph 2. I notice that my noble friend Lord De La Warr, who introduced the Bill, skated very

15
shyly over the £10,000,000 which we are about to receive, and although the noble Marquess referred briefly to that point, and said he would come back to it later on, if I may say so without being discourteous I think he dealt with it with more complacency than I would venture to do. I feel great anxiety about what is implied in the acceptance of that amount. So far as I know no public statement has been made till to-day either in another place or on platforms in the country as to the annual amount of interest and sinking fund which will now fall upon the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund, that is to say, upon us as taxpayers, in return for the acceptance of these £10,000,000 from the Government of Eire in final settlement of all financial claims.
This is an accountant's point, and I think I had better put it as closely and tersely as I can, so that there may be no misunderstanding of what I want to know. Your Lordships will notice that there are no figures given in the Financial Agreement; in the Second Schedule there is only a wide statement running into thirty lines about payments in respect of land purchase. For the first time we are told to-day in this House—the first time anywhere—that the annual payment will be a little over £4,000,000. I myself have been working that out this morning, and I came to the conclusion— I merely put these figures out as a challenge to see if we can get the exact figures from the Government—that the amount is £4,100,000. I want to put three questions definitely, and I hope the noble Earl who will wind up for the Government will be so kind as to give me the answers now or at another stage of the Bill, for I think not only this House but the country should know the facts.
Can the noble Earl tell us: do we surrender the right to receive this amount of over £4,000,000 from the Eire Government annually for the next thirty-five years under the three Irish Land Acts? The point was not made clear, as to the years, by the noble Earl, who told us that we were giving up this £4,000,000. That is the first question. Does that annual £4,000,000 now fall as an additional charge upon the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund, that is to say, upon the taxpayers of the United Kingdom for the next thirty-five years? I do not think
16
the country has realised that. Thirty-five multiplied by four is £140,000,000. The £4,000,000 a year falls on the Consolidated Fund and the extra charge means very nearly one penny in the pound on the Income Tax for thirty-five years. This is my third question: Does not that mean that we are adding to the National Debt, not £100,000,000—I do not agree about that £100,000,000 as stated by the noble Earl, though I may be wrong—but £130,000,000? Those are the three questions that I should like to have answered. No figures are given in the Bill. Whether or not it was intentional that they were kept out I do not know. But whether that be so or not, I think the country ought to know how much we are having to pay in extra taxation for the next thirty-five years, taxation put on our shoulders in return for the relatively small sum of £10,000,000 about to be paid to us.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not know if the noble Earl is ready to reply to the questions put to him by his noble supporter, but in case he is not my intervention will give him a moment or two to make a few sums in addition. May I add one or two suggestions to those put forward by my noble friend Lord Snell? The principal object of my rising is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, on his admirable maiden speech if I may do so. We have lost our only Irish peer on this side of the House, my noble friend Lord Monteagle, and there are not many of his nationality who come here now as Irish Peers. I would like to re-echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, with regard to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred to the financial statement and cavilled at the meagre sum, as I think he described it, of £10,000,000. I wonder what would be said in Washington if we paid the same proportion of our debt to the U.S.A., or what we would say here if we could get the same proportion of our debt from Germany and other countries! In these days of wholesale cancellations of debts the proportion is, I venture to suggest, not ungenerous. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said that in addition to that we were giving up £4,500,000 a year of duties, but those duties were paid, I think I am right in saying, by the

17
British consumer. It is always the case with a duty, that it is the consumer who pays. I dare say the Irish contributed to a certain extent by accepting less for their goods. Nevertheless the payment of the bulk of that money came on to our shoulders.
Like my noble friend Lord Snell, I very much congratulate the Government on this Agreement because of its wider aspects. I do not think it has yet been mentioned that this Agreement has already done something substantial to improve our already good relations with the U.S.A. where those of Irish descent have the influence which their great abilities enable them to wield, and for that reason alone I am sure the Government are to be congratulated. May I as a former naval officer who spent a good deal of his naval service in Irish waters say one word about these naval bases? The three naval bases referred to, particularly Lough Swilly and Bantry Bay, are amongst the finest anchorages in the whole world, capable of accommodating the largest of fleets. In addition to that, they are in strategical positions of the greatest importance for the control of the Atlantic sea routes, and a specious case can be made out for the original Articles of the Treaty which are now being abrogated. Nevertheless, as one who has served a good deal in Irish waters during rather trouble some times, I would rather have the use of those bases when I needed them with a friendly population around them than attempt to hold them with even the kind of lukewarm neutrality such as we had during part of the Great War in certain districts of Ireland. For those reasons, from the purely naval point of view, I think the Government are to be congratulated.
I would like to make one other suggestion if I may, and it is this. I would like to see the Government follow this matter up by doing something with regard to the collection of pictures known as the Lane Bequest. This is a matter which looms very largely in Irish eyes. Ireland is not rich in art treasures, while this country is immensely wealthy in works of art. I believe it would be a very generous act on our part to put the necessary machinery in motion and give effect, if I may venture to say so, to the intention of the testator that the picures should be made available in Dublin, where, after all, we can enjoy them just as much as
18
the Irish can. I will conclude by saying that I wish to add my congratulations on the Bill itself to those expressed by my noble friend Lord Snell.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, may I intervene just for one moment as another member of your Lordships' House who has been fairly closely connected with that part of Ireland now known as Eire. As the son and the grandson of those who strenuously opposed the Home Rule Bills to which reference has already been made, I should like to commend this Bill very much to your Lordships' House. I happened to be in Ireland at the time when the Agreement was come to, and I think I can say that the satisfaction in regard to it was very great indeed. I was speaking to a gentlemen, not a member of the Government but one who held a subordinate position under the Government and who may be counted as one very closely in touch with members of the Government and holding the same views, and he said that details did not matter so much but what did matter was the changed atmosphere which had been produced. That changed atmosphere is going to do a tremendous amount of good to which he looked forward; and I feel the same about it. I think the atmosphere which has been brought about by the signing of this Agreement is going to have an enormous effect on relations between the two countries.
True it is that Eire has come out of it, certainly financially, a good deal better than this country has. At the same time I do not think we can count the cost simply in pounds, shillings and pence, but by the tangible effect which has been achieved. I feel that that is of enormous help not only to the two countries themselves but to the Empire as a whole. We all look forward to a time of happiness and peace between the two countries. Just as in 1907 this country trusted South Africa in a way which was unparalleled at the time, so do we now trust the Irish people, and I feel that they will not be found wanting. I look forward to the day, which I trust and believe is not so very far distant, when the two Governments in Ireland—the Government of the six counties in the North and the Government of Eire—will come together and end the unhappy state that a present exists as a consequence of the partition of the Northern part of Ireland from the South.

19
I strongly commend this Bill to the House and I hope it will receive a unanimous Second Reading.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, the Government have every reason to welcome the reception given to this Bill by all parts of the House. I confess I was nervous when the noble Lord opposite (Lord Snell) got up, because I found there were two other members of his Party present, and therefore I was not sure whether he would be able, as last week, to support us as one man. I was glad to find that he did get the full support of his Party. May I also say how glad I was that both the noble Lord and the noble Marquess expressed their appreciation of the efforts of the Secretary of State. Everybody who realises how long these conversations have been going on will recognise that he is a man endowed not only with inexhaustible patience but with extraordinary powers of persuasion. Of course, as has been said on more than one occasion, it takes two to make an agreement, and therefore we have got to recognise that all those who took part in these discussions entered into them with an entirely different outlook from that which used to exist in days gone by.
I am afraid I am old enough to look at the whole of this question from a different point of view from that of my noble friend who moved the Second Reading, because I took part in the struggles that took place in regard to Home Rule, and I confess quite frankly that I opposed the Irish Treaty up to the bitter end. Now that that Treaty has been made I, like many others, feel there is only one thing to do and that is to see that it is given full effect and made to work as well as it possibly can. Therefore when these proposals came forward I, in common with others who took part in those debates, felt that this was a move in the right direction and one which we have every belief and faith will bear real fruit. I was particularly glad to hear what was said by the two noble Lords who come from the other side of the water. Those who were in your Lordships' House in earlier days will remember how Lord Killanin used to delight the House with what we on our side regarded as speeches which had great effect. I do not know
20
whether the noble Marquess opposite was ready to welcome them quite as much as we were, but they were extraordinarily good speeches and always filled the House. We were therefore very glad to hear the first speech of his successor to-day, and we shall hope to hear many more from him in the future.
I am not going to be led astray into a discussion in regard to free trade. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, tried to lead me into saying that the consumer always pays the tax, but he seemed entirely to forget that trade, whether it comes from Ireland or not, has to compete in this country with trade from all over the world, and therefore there is a competitive price which settles what the consumer has to pay. Nor am I going to be led astray by the noble Marquess into hoping that some day there will be mutual free trade between the two countries. I suspect that Eire may have to raise some of her revenue from that source. Apart from these two objections, I agree with everything that fell from both noble Lords opposite. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, dealt with the question of ports, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I agree with what he said, that these ports, if they are held by a friendly Eire, are going to be of far greater value to us than if they were kept under conditions in which we were never sure whether the hinterland was going to contain an enemy or a friend. I believe I am right in saying that our Fleet has never been there since 1922, and I look forward to the time when the Government of Eire will once more welcome that Fleet and invite it to enter those harbours. I believe that day will not be far distant, but it will be only at the invitation of the Government of Eire because, as has been already stated, there is not the slightest secret agreement behind this.
We trust and believe that Eire now realises how the interests of these two countries are one. If the trade dispute which has gone on for the past six years has proved nothing else, it has proved how the trade of Eire necessarily comes to this country and how Eire also is one of our best customers. Therefore, when it is a question of interference at sea, it is obvious that if our trade is interfered with, so too is the trade of Eire; and although Eire is more capable of self-maintenance than we are, nevertheless

21
she does import a certain amount of food from foreign countries and many raw materials as well. Therefore, I believe that Mr. de Valera fully realises that when it is a question of our having to defend our trade, we shall also be defending Eire's trade, and, that being so, we believe he will recognise that, if these ports are found to be of value, they are of value not only to us but also to Eire as well.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft raised the question of how much we have always claimed that Eire owed to us. The figures are these: Land Purchase Annuities—these are the annual payments due—£3,100,000; pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary, judicial pensions and civil pensions, £1,000,000; local loans, £600,000; administrative expenditure and other smaller items, £13,000 —a total of £4,713 000. That, at 3½ per cent., comes to a total of £97,000,000.
LORD MANCROFT: As at two or three years ago, the amount of land purchase loans guaranteed by His Majesty's Government was stated in Whitaker's Almanack to be £146,000,000. Let us now assume £143,000,000 for this year. We take from that the £10,000,000 now to be received, which leaves £133,000,000. How does my noble friend get £97,000,000? I am not questioning or denying the accuracy of what he says, but I would like to know how he has arrived at the figure of £97,000,000.
EARL STANHOPE: I am not an expert in these matters, but I understand it is the result of recapitalising the annual payments at 3½ per cent. I can only conclude that Whitaker's Almanack was taking a higher percentage or was including the sinking fund.
LORD MANCROFT: The question is not one of the rate of interest or of the sinking fund, but of the total amount of the Irish land purchase loans on which His Majesty's Government in this country have guaranteed interest and principal. I contend—and this is why I challenge the figure—that loans amounting to £133,000,000 have been issued for which His Majesty's Government in Whitehall will be responsible for paying principal and interest. As for recapitalising afresh at 3½ per cent., is not that merely burking the question?
EARL STANHOPE: I believe my noble friend's figure is quite correct, but it applies to the whole of Ireland and not to the twenty-six counties only. The payments for Northern Ireland will continue and possibly account for the difference between the two.
LORD MANCROFT: If that is so, we have in issue a total of £133,000,000 stock. What is the Northern Ireland portion. Do I understand that Eire's total, only, is £97,000,000?
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: The noble Lord has already spoken.
LORD MANCROFT: If I may have leave to speak again, what I wish to know is, what exactly is the proportion for Northern Ireland which is represented in the total guaranteed land stock to-day in issue?
EARL STANHOPE: I cannot answer that off-hand, but I shall try to give the noble Lord an answer at a later stage of the Bill to-morrow. The figure I have given, £97,000,000, is the amount we are writing off. The Government have never made any secret of the fact that we are giving up a claim to a very large sum indeed, but what we do say is that, great as that sum may be—whether £97,000,000 or the figure my noble friend has given—we agree with what has been said by noble Lords to-day that it is well worth giving up in order to create a better atmosphere and better feeling between the two sides. Apart from the welcome which has been given by your Lordships' House I think we all realise how much this Agreement has been welcomed in all parts of His Majesty's Dominions, and indeed, I may say in all parts of the world. It is in the hope and belief that this Agreement, which is a further stage in the policy of conciliation and agreement which the National Government are pursuing, is going to lead to a better atmosphere and open a new and happier chapter in the relations between the two countries, that we are glad to acknowledge the welcome given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POOR'S ALLOTMENT IN HANWELL BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this is a small Bill to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners with regard to a piece of land called the Poor's Allotment in Hanwell. Its purpose was to provide fuel for the inhabitants of Hanwell. The management of the charity have now been offered by the Ealing Borough Council £1,000 for the land, and as acceptance of this would rather alter the trust it is necessary to get the authority of Parliament. The money received for the land will be used to provide fuel for the poor in Hanwell, which was the original scheme. I understand that no objections have been made to the proposal, and I
24
beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, before the House adjourns I should like to say— I think I have already mentioned it to your Lordships—that we hope to obtain suspension of Standing Orders so that the Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Bill may be passed through its remaining stages at to-morrow's sitting.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.