Sitting of 3 December 1929

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR) moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with as respects the further stages of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the House will have no difficulty in granting my Motion, to-day, for the suspension of the Standing Order, so that the Bill which we have been discussing can go down later to another place. The information which I have is that they are very much pressed for time. I think we have discussed the Bill and that the only question left over is the particular drafting of a subsection to Clause 9 on the Report stage. I do not know whether Lord Halsbury is present, but I have had information that he is quite satisfied with the Amendment which I shall propose when the time comes, and which has been prepared after great consideration by the Government draftsman. I think there is nothing left on the Report stage, and I hope we can then take the Third Reading and pass the Bill, so that it may take its place as soon as possible in the programme of the other House.
Moved, That Standing Older No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with as respects the further stages of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I need not tell you how very reluctant we all are to put difficulties in the way of the Government in the conduct of public business, and I hope I shall satisfy the noble and learned Lord that I am not going to put any difficulties in his way. I would, however, venture to call his attention—and I know he will forgive me, because he has great experience
822
as a member of this House—to the extreme inconvenience of the method of conducting business of which this Bill is an example. If your Lordships will forgive me, I will remind the House that the particular subsection to which the noble and learned Lord has referred is an extremely intricate subsection and very difficult, I will not say for laymen, but even for lawyers to understand. As is very common, when your Lordships were in Committee on the Bill you thought lit to call very serious attention to the obscurity of the language and, finally, the House decided to ask the Government to re-draft this particular subsection. The Government have done their best to meet the views of my noble and learned friend who was the prime mover in this matter. Unfortunately he is detained from the House by indisposition to-day, and cannot be present, and therefore we are obliged to approach the consideration of the subsection without any absolute certainty that he is satisfied with the drafting.
However, I have made it my business this morning and this afternoon to try to ascertain from those who are capable of forming an opinion whether the drafting is adequate, and, so far as my information goes, the report is favourable. I cannot pretend that I have got a competent opinion, because the time has been too short for the purpose; but, as far as it goes, it is favourable, and I am inclined to do my utmost to meet the Government, if I can, and to allow them to carry the Bill to-day. But observe—I hope the Government will realise this—how very inconvenient it is, because normally if the words went in, as they will go directly no doubt, on the Report stage, your Lordships would have an opportunity of considering before they finally parted with the Bill as to whether the drafting was really adequate and satisfactory. That is the normal procedure of your Lordships' House. If I may venture to give an opinion, it reflects the wonderful sense of business competence which our people possess that we should have such forms and such an opportunity of revising, even up to the last moment, the actual forms of our Statutes. But, owing to some unknown pressure in another place, we are to be deprived of that safeguard. As I say, it is very in-convenient for us to insist against the Government upon a particular safeguard, and as they have done their very utmost,

823
I agree, to meet us, we are disposed—at least I am disposed—to risk it on the present occasion. But I do hope the Government will realise how very inconvenient it is, and every time this procedure is shortened I am the more convinced of the unwisdom of the course which is pursued.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am rather sorry my noble friend has agreed to the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX. Standing Order No. XXXIX provides that no two stages of a Bill can be taken on the same day. It is an excellent Order, one which during the time I was in the House of Commons I always supported, and I see no reason why this Chamber, which is a revising Chamber, and which ought, therefore, to have plenty of time to consider whether or not alterations should be made in a Bill, should suddenly be called upon to suspend the Standing Order, especially in the case of a Bill of this sort. The Second Reading was given in one day. The Committee stage also took one day, and there was considerable difficulty—not among lay members, but among learned members—as to the meaning of the subsection. The noble Earl who objected to the clause is not here owing to indisposition. If this Standing Order were not suspended it would be possible on the Third Reading, which might take place to-morrow or the next day, to know whether or not this noble and learned Lord is satisfied, or whether there are any other errors in this Bill.
We are now in the middle of the Session, and there is no reason whatever, as far as I can see, for any violent hurry with the Bill. I feel certain that if this precedent is once granted it will always be held up in future as a precedent for enabling the Government to get through this House all sorts of Bills without their being properly revised. I am sorry to say anything against my noble friend [Lord Salisbury], but, having had thirty-one years' experience in the House of Commons, I know what these things lead to. I regret very much that the Motion has been made, and I should hope still, if my small voice has any effect, that I have converted my noble friend to the view that I have expressed.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I am very slow to intervene in this matter after what has been stated by the noble Marquess, whom, of course, I am quite prepared to follow in the matter. But I have not gathered what the reason for this Motion is. I have not heard any explanation as to why Standing Order XXXIX should be set aside for this particular Bill. When I sat on the other side of the House I repeatedly in the month of July or August protested against the Government bringing up their Bills at such a time as necessitated our getting rid of the Standing Orders and making a farce of the proceedings of this House. I give some credit to the present Government for bringing a Bill before the House at such a time that it can be properly considered. But what is the reason that now, on December 3, the Standing Order which has been considered as a necessary part of the procedure of this House should be abandoned? You must make out some reasonable case to show the necessity of it.
Let us see what has happened. Was there anything done on this side of the House to obstruct the Second Reading? It is a voluminous Bill, far-reaching, throwing great burdens on the taxpayers of this country. There should have been a debate for several days, I suppose, if the tactics that are sometimes adopted in another place were followed. Then the Bill, a long, complicated Bill, comes into Committee and is disposed of in a most businesslike way. One matter was obscure, and the Government very properly, as I think, reserved it so that they might see what should be done. That was only given out to us this morning. What is the hurry? What is the reason for getting rid of this Standing Order? If we were obstreperous on this side, if we were using our great majority for some improper purpose, and had so prolonged the proceedings until we had reached a date which would make the working of the Bill impossible, then I could understand. But here we have been behaving absolutely reasonably, trying to do our business with the minimum of trouble to the Government. If we are to suspend the Standing Order I think the proper course would be to refer these Standing Orders to some Committee and get rid of them altogether. Why should not the Government come

825
here and say: "We are a very small minority in this House, and you are a large majority, and we ask you to give up the Standing Orders "? What is the good of disputing anything? I really think the Motion that the noble and learned Lord has made is not a reasonable Motion, and I hope the House will not lightly abandon the rules that have been laid down.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not know that I can usefully add anything to what has been so very well said by the noble Marquess as to the suspension of the Standing Order, but I shall certainly follow the advice he has given to your Lordships' House, that we do not on this occasion object to the suspension of the Standing Order. After all, if your Lordships will look at subsection (2) of Clause 27 you will see that this Bill is to come into operation on January 2 next. It is obvious that it will take a long time to make the necessary preparations in order that this Bill, which is to confer so many benefits upon such a number of widows in this country, shall be able to come into operation smoothly. It is obvious that a Bill of this description must necessitate a certain amount of preparation on the part of those officers who have to administer it. I do not think a month is any too long to give them so that they may be able to do it. For that reason I certainly shall support the noble Marquess.
One thing only I want to say to the noble and learned Lord who leads the House. I do not think the Government can entirely escape some sense of responsibility in this matter. We were only called together at the very end of October after an unusually prolonged summer and autumn holiday. It would have been possible for His Majesty's Government, in view of the large amount of legislation which they proposed that Parliament shall undertake in the course of the autumn before Christmas, to have called us together at an earlier period. I think that with a little wise prevision on their part they would have done that, and then we should not have been obliged to suspend the Standing Order in the way which is necessary to-day.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am much obliged for the speech of the noble
826
Earl. I think he has answered the question which was asked, no doubt very properly, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, and which requires an answer. I think it was given on a former occasion and the noble Lord must have heard it. It is necessary to have this Bill now without any further time being expended upon it. If the advantages given to widows and to persons interested under the Bill are to be properly obtained by them at the date mentioned—the end of December of this year—a very large amount of administrative business will have to be done after the Bill has been passed before it can be actively operative as regards all the persons who are intended to benefit under it.
As the noble Earl has said, we might have met earlier. That is, perhaps, an obvious comment. As things are, however, an endeavour has been made on my part, and on the part of those with me, to avoid having all the work foisted upon the House of Lords at a late stage in the Session, so that we should have a natural and normal amount of work extending throughout the Session. Any one who looks at our Order Paper and at what we are doing will see that this is the intention of the Government. In a case like this, although the end of the Session is not yet near, the conditions of the Bill are such that it is of very great importance there should be no delay. Although I am one of those who do not desire to suspend the Standing Orders of this House unless it is necessary, I think the higher consideration both in this House and in another place is that where a public matter of importance—it cannot be said that there is any prejudice in this case—demands that we should make some sacrifice of our normal procedure, it is right that we should do so. I sincerely hope that we shall not have to ask for it again, at any rate for a long time. I thank the noble Marquess and the noble Earl for what they have said.
On Question. Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

POOR LAW BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: I regret to say, my Lords, that the noble Lord, Lord Muir

827
Mackenzie, is not able to be here to-day; so I am making the Motion in his place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills made.

WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. With your Lordships' permission I would like to speak, certainly for not more than two minutes, upon a point raised yesterday by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. This is the only opportunity on which it can be dealt with and I think it is desirable that something should be said about it as I promised the noble Earl in Committee. Unfortunately, I think he cannot be here, but no doubt he will read what is said. His point was that under paragraph (b) of Clause 12 (1) of the Bill—it was Clause 11 as the Bill stood when we came to Committee—it might be that there would be an inducement to relatives who were contributing to the expenses incurred by the Poor Law authority in respect of the support of a lunatic—that is, a pauper lunatic—to cease their contributions so that they might be eligible for a share of the pension.
I have to say that that is not the interpretation of the paragraph and that will not be its effect. The position is that the contribution for the support of the lunatic is made under a legal liability. Section 41 of the Poor Law Act, 1927, imposes a liability on persons to maintain relatives who are inmates of Poor Law institutions and some lunatics are in these institutions. Section 43 of the same Act provides the necessary machinery by which maintenance orders can be obtained. Again, Section 296 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, made these provisions applicable to persons detained in lunacy
828
institutions. That being the position, it is clear that it is not in the power of relatives to discontinue their contributions in order that they may get a share of the pension of a lunatic. That was the point raised by the noble Earl. When he reads what I have said, as no doubt he will, I think he will be satisfied. I am obliged to him for bringing up the point, because I am informed that it is desirable that it should be elucidated and the position made plain. I hope that these few words will have that effect.
Moved, That this Report be now received.—(Lord Arnold.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I hope that when my noble friend is present he will agree with the noble Lord opposite. I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to what would have happened if Standing Order XXXIX had been suspended yesterday as was proposed by the Government. If their Motion on the Paper yesterday had been agreed to—
LORD PARMOOR: I might remind the noble Lord that it was not proposed.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: —the result would have been that we should not have heard any of this. The Report stage would have been taken then, and the Bill would not have been amended as it is now. That being so, I hope that His Majesty's Government will remember in the future that it is wiser, if they desire that their Bills shall be intelligible, to allow the proper stages to be taken on every Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 9 [Amendment with respect to persons employed in excepted employments]:
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, at the beginning, to insert as a new subsection:—
" .—(1) If in the case of any person who is employed in an employment which is an excepted employment by virtue of a certificate given under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of Part II of the First Schedule to the Insurance Act, contributions under the principal Act either—

(a) cease to be payable; or

(b) become payable at the reduced rates mentioned in Part IV of the First-Schedule to that Act instead of at the ordinary rates;

829
that person shall be entitled to become a voluntary contributor under the Insurance Act in the same manner as if he had ceased to be employed in such an excepted employment as aforesaid and the provisions of the Insurance Act relating to the continuance in insurance of persons ceasing to be employed shall, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed, apply to him as if he had ceased to be employed, and if he is a person in respect of whose insurance a widows' pension or an orphans' pension is payable statutory condition (b) in Section five of the principal Act shall not apply."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, although the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is not able to be here, and we are sorry that he is ill, opportunity has been taken of consulting him in reference to this subsection. He has expressed his perfect satisfaction, and therefore I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, at the beginning insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE IMAM OF THE YEMEN.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that the Imam of the Yemen has sent a draft Treaty for the consideration of the Government; if it has been sent, whether the proposals will be now communicated; and what is the present position of our relations with the Imam; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject matter of my Motion has dragged on for a number of years. Since 1919 I have several times wearied your Lordships, I fear, by bringing this matter to your notice. I will briefly recapitulate what it is about. It is in connection with the Aden Protectorate or the hinterland of that great and important fortress of ours at the mouth of the Red Sea. The Yemen country was previously under the sovereignty of Turkey, and during the War Turkish forces invaded the Protectorate and took Aden. They were repulsed and many of them taken prisoners. Behind them came the Yemen people, or what are generally termed Zeidis, and they sat down in these protected States. Those States were not administered in any way. The only
830
obligations on our part were to protect them from outside interference, and on their part the Chiefs of the State had to keep open the trade routes.
The result of the occupation was that the trade routes were closed and we failed to give the protection. So little protection had we given them that the Chief of one of the important States, the State of Dhala, thirty miles from Aden, was in Aden, and for a number of years we continued to pay him the subsidy which had been arranged for under the previous Treaties. We also paid subsidies to the other States who had failed in their obligation to keep the trade routes open. This continued till 1925. During these years we made verbal protests to the Imam, the ruler of the Yemen. Nothing was done in 1925, but we took rather more vigorous action in 1926. The late lamented Sir Gilbert Clayton was sent on a Mission to the capital of the Yemen to try to bring about a Treaty on our behalf. He failed. This extraordinary condition of affairs then continued till 1928, when His Majesty's Government took strong action, and, by means of aeroplanes, bombarded some of the forces of the Yemen and induced the Imam to withdraw his troops. I ought to mention that in 1928 he had made a big raid, and had actually the audacity to seize two of the chiefs of the other tribes and hold them as hostages. As bearing on this, I have given private notice to the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, that I would ask him whether any hostages are at present in the hands of the Imam.
The irony of the situation is this. From every source of information that I can get the Imam himself is anxious to be on friendly terms with us, and in our material interest I think we should have friendly relations with him. This being the case, one naturally asks what are the obstacles to some agreement being arrived at? I suppose the first one is the question of the boundaries. The Imam contends that the Aden Protectorate, and Aden itself for that matter, have for a thousand years or more been under the jurisdiction of the Imam, and that, as Turkey occupied the territory when the boundary was delimited in 1904, he was not responsible for it. Therefore he contends that he can disregard it. That is his main contention.

831
It would never do for His Majesty's Government to reconsider the boundary so far as the western part is concerned, but the boundary was never thoroughly delimited to the north and north-east, where it was left in the air so to speak. I think it is quite possible that some adjustments might be made in that direction to meet the views of the Imam. I admit they would have to be small adjustments, but they might do something to reconcile him to the fact that we have this main boundary and intend to hold to it.
The other obstacle I understand is that he is very anxious that regard should be paid to what he calls his historical rights over the Protectorate and over Aden. I have done my best to examine his claim. It is very shadowy, stretching back to the year 1400, when Turkey occupied all that part of Southern Europe. The Egyptians came in 150 years later on, and then, finally the State of Lahej, which borders on the fortress of Aden itself, revolted in 1739, and has ever since been absolutely independent of the Imam. I mention these facts as showing that his claim is, in my opinion, a very nebulous one. I think most people who have studied the question are of the same opinion. At the same time, I imagine something might be done to satisfy his pride and prestige without diminishing our material rights or endangering our position. I would suggest that such a course might be found possible. Another obstacle has been that he has all along up to now had to conduct negotiations with the Resident at Aden.
Let me say in the first place that the Yemen itself is part of Arabia, and is the only fertile part of the whole of that vast promontory. So fertile is it that in former days it was called Arabia Felix. It is in fact the richest part of the country. The Imam himself has never left his dominion, and he has no realisation, or very little, of the strength of other countries. The whole of his people are cut off from western civilisation, and, not unnaturally, he may have a rather exalted and exaggerated estimate of his own importance. His people are mountaineers, very hardy and very good fighters, and, therefore, he does not like to think he is put in a position of inferiority. He probably feels that it is
832
not putting him in the position he ought to be in by requiring him to negotiate with an official—certainly a high official, still not one of the highest officials so far as foreign relations are concerned. I think His Majesty's Government should invite him to send a representative to this country to try to bring about some Treaty. That was the course adopted in the case of Italy. The Imam sent his son to Rome, and a Treaty was drawn up. Accordingly I think it would be a very proper course to approach the Imam and suggest that he should send an emissary, with full powers to negotiate, to this country, or, if that is considered too far away, to Cairo or some nearer place. If this was done I think his not unnatural soreness in this respect might be removed. Italy has a Treaty with the Imam, so has Russia, and German and American influences are making themselves very much felt in that district. It does seem a pity that we, who are his next-door neighbours and have the greatest interest in being on friendly terms with him, should not be in direct relations with him.
Our trade in the past—I do not know what it is to-day—has undoubtedly suffered from the fact of the trade routes having been closed, and the trade of the Yemen itself has been diverted to Hodeida and other Red Sea ports. I may add that the Imam has been referred to in a Despatch or in some communication, as nothing better than a brigand chief. That is a most inaccurate and improper description to apply to him. Naturally he felt umbrage at that and also at the fact that we handed over Hodeida to his rival, the head of the Idrisi tribe. I do therefore hope that the noble Lord who replies for His Majesty's Government will be able to say that there are some negotiations going on now, or that something has been accomplished or that there is something which may bear fruit in the near future, and that there is likelihood of an understanding or a Treaty being arrived at with the Imam and his people. I beg to move.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers the Question, may I say that a situation has arisen now which we had always hoped would have been realised a year or two years ago. That is to say, it is believed that the Imam has now come forward with the idea of putting

833
before us a Treaty. I do not think Lord Lamington in any way exaggerated the importance of the country or the importance locally of the Imam. This is an area with anything from three to four million inhabitants, with a very enlightened Chief who wishes to open trade with us. It is a rich land—the Arabia Felix of the past—containing some enormous broken dams which could be repaired and might make a really fertile country of the land at the present time. It is supposed to be very rich in mineral resources and it is known to have some very valuable oil wells as well. I understand that the Imam wishes particularly to trade with us. He believes that we are people of our word, he believes that we will make good any Treaty we make with him, and from what I learn—I admit from unofficial sources—he is dissatisfied with the treatment he has received from certain other rival Powers, if I may so call them.
We must remember that this great Chief, with power over three or four million men, is not a man who wishes to be dealt with as a subordinate. We must also admit that if he has done what we have asked him to, that is to put forward offers of a Treaty, we ought to regard what he puts forward, not from the narrow point of view, but from the large point of view, with the object of coming to terms if possible. There are certain claims of his which are particularly difficult to get over. His powers date five or six centuries back and he is particularly loth to lose them because he feels that then he would lose prestige with his own supporters, who, as Lord Lamington said, are fighting men of the first quality. So high is their quality that, as your Lordships know, the Turks, when they had command of that area, always left that portion of Arabia alone. I would, therefore, suggest, as Lord Lamington has said, that his views should be regarded most seriously by His Majesty's Government and that negotiations should take place, if possible, in this country rather than in the Government of Bombay.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I only want to say a very few words to support what has been said by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. Lord Lamington has brought this subject before your Lordships' House on several occasions and I feel sure your Lordships
834
will be grateful to him for having done so. There is no question whatever, I think, that this little known part of the world is a very important one, as Lord Lovat has pointed out. The late Government did its best to come to an agreement, but at that time the Imam was apparently, from one cause or another, unwilling to do so. Therefore, if the present Government are in the happy position of finding him in changed mind and willing now to make a Treaty, I hope that they will do their utmost to come to an agreement with him. If that can be done, either by asking him to send a representative to this country or to Cairo, or by sending someone to him in his own capital, I hope the Government will do so, and give our official sufficiently wide powers to come to an agreement, if that is at all possible.
There is one other point which has not been raised. I understand that the Imam is still occupying some of the territory which we believe to be within our Protectorate. There is a tribe called the Audali, part of whose territory lies on a high plateau. That territory is still occupied by a tribe which is not friendly either to the Audali or to us. I trust the Government will be able to free that tribe so that they may return to their land at the top of the plateau, which, of course, is the most valuable that they have. Further, now that the defence of Aden has been handed over to the Royal Air Force the only ground troops there are native levies. The best type of levy comes apparently from the tribe of the Audali and the one next door. It is quite obvious, therefore, that it would be impossible to get the best type of troops for our levies if these tribes remain outside the British Protectorate and under the control of someone else. I hope, for all these reasons, that the Government may be more fortunate than we in coming to an agreement with the Imam and bringing this question which has been postponed for so long to a satisfactory conclusion.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS AND THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, let me say at once that so far as the Government are concerned we are distinctly desirous of concluding a Treaty with the Imam as soon as possible. Some of the obstacles which stood in the way

835
before seem to have been removed. I am told that the Imam has evacuated all territories forming part of the Aden Protectorate except possibly for a small encroachment about which we are not quite definite. It is a question of disputed boundaries. I am stating that for perfect accuracy; but substantially, I am informed, all the territory forming part of the Aden Protectorate has now been evacuated by those responsible to the Imam with that possible small exception where the boundary is not quite clear and is in dispute. At the present time, also, so far as we are aware, the Imam holds no hostages from the tribes of the Aden Protectorate at all, so that those two obstacles have been cleared out of the way.
With regard to the change of opinion of the Imam and his desire to enter into a Treaty, we are inclined to believe that this is true, but we have not any very official information on that subject. What happened was that last July the Resident of Aden reported that he had received a document in the form of the heads of a Treaty with the Imam. He had not received this from any official of the Imam or from any person deputed by the Imam. It had been handed to him by a British subject who had been on a visit to Sanaa, but who had no official position and appears to have had no authority to discuss political matters with the Imam or to enter into negotiations with His Majesty's Government. Accordingly we cannot be quite sure that this represents an actual proposition by the Imam, although it may be taken to indicate that the Imam is not now unwilling to enter into a Treaty. An immediate reply was sent recognising it as the desire of the Imam to enter into negotiations for a Treaty, and the Resident was authorised to inform the Imam that His Majesty's Government were prepared to resume negotiations for a general Treaty on the basis of the general conditions put forward by Sir Gilbert Clayton in the course of a visit to Sanaa in 1926, and to ask for the appointment of a duly accredited official negotiator with whom His Majesty's Government could deal.
We have not heard yet of any result from this communication, but the Government will certainly not be backward in responding to what appeared to be a communication
836
from the Imam, even if it came in rather an irregular form. In response to that apparent communication from the Imam, the Government at once took steps to indicate their own willingness to resume negotiations and to suggest that a definite official negotiator should be appointed. We have not heard of any result of that at present, but we shall not let the question rest and we shall certainly take steps to follow it up in one form or another if we do not have a further reply. I am sorry to say that in other respects the position remains very much the same as was indicated in the reply that was given by my predecessor on March 20 last. With regard to the suggestion that has been made that some alteration of boundary in favour of the Imam might be considered, I can only say that I note the suggestion, but it does not appear to be quite a happy way of entering into negotiations with even so great a potentate—
LORD LAMINGTON: With regard to the north-eastern portion only.
LORD PASSFIELD: Well, with regard to any portion. The Government would not necessarily refuse to consider anything that was put forward and that had a reasonable basis, but it is not for us to begin to suggest it, nor could we, I think, contemplate any reassertion of the claim over Aden itself or over the Protectorate. There is, I imagine, a Statute of Limitations with regard to any such claims, and I do not know what could be conceded to the dignity of the Imam which would not affect our material rights. All I can say is that I should hope we should conduct ourselves with complete politeness and respect to any independent potentate, and not the less if he were as important and as ancient as this gentleman apparently is. Summing up my reply: We have had some evidence of the desire of the Imam to enter into negotiations; we have at once responded with as wide a response as seemed suitable at the moment; and, if no rejoinder reaches us shortly, we will consider what steps we can take to follow up the matter with a view to obtaining a regular Treaty with this independent Sovereign which should promote an increase of trade with him and his people. That is the state of things as it is at present. I certainly

837
will not fail to watch the position and to see what can be done to take advantage of any evinced desire on the part of the Imam to enter into negotiations. Of course, in these negotiations we must wait to be approached. While we can respond at once tactfully and courteously to any approach, I think we must be a little slow before we actually go out of our way to invite the Imam to enter into a Treaty such as we wish to see.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the reply of the noble Lord is satisfactory in so far as we have departed—I am glad to flee this—from any idea of strict officialdom in not turning down altogether the overture made by the Imam, I think in July last. I am also glad to hear the assurance given by the noble Lord himself that he is going to turn a sympathetic ear to any approaches or views expressed as to coming to some agreement with the Imam. Otherwise I really do not see that any very great advance has been made towards an adjustment. I understood the noble Lord to say that, in the reply to the Imam, the basis of the Treaty was taken to be the proposal made by Sir Gilbert Clayton. Obviously he would not have had that in 1926, and I do not suppose that his view is likely to be easier in that respect to-day. The noble Lord did not say much about my suggestion that the Imam should be asked to send a representative to this country.
Let me read a quotation from an article which appeared some time ago in The Times regarding the importance that Oriental potentates attach to their dignity and prestige. It runs as follows:—
" This is a readily intelligible point of dignity and sentiment and, as such, is a matter of the highest importance in the eyes of the Arabs, for one and all of the independent rulers resent any suggestion of patronage and protest that it is an affront to their dignity and international status to receive communications from the Middle East Department of the Colonial Office, which deals with the Mandated States of Iraq and the Transjordan. They maintain that his Britannic Majesty should deal with them through that Department which is in charge of his relations with foreign Powers."
The article continues in that sense, and I quote it, not merely as my own opinion but that, I think, of anybody who has paid attention to this question in the East. Such people will know what weight these potentates attach to being treated with full recognition of their dignity and
838
prestige. I hope that the noble Lord will keep this in mind.
At the same time I quite agree with the reply made to me two years ago by Lord Lovat to the effect that there should be no attempt to enter into a Treaty unless it were pretty well certain that we were going to carry it through. There have been two abortive attempts and it would be a pity to have a third. Last July, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, speaking on the Second Reading of the Government of India (Aden) Bill:—
" The decision of the Cabinet was threefold. It transferred the political responsibility for Aden to the Colonial Office; it transferred military control of Aden to the Air Ministry; and it left the civil administration of the Settlement as before under the Government of India."
There you have three different Departments to deal with the unfortunate Protectorate of Aden. No wonder that there is some confusion and that very little has been done. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

IRISH FREE STATE: APPEALS TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to a speech delivered in the Free State Senate on 20th November last by Mr. Blythe, the Free State Minister of Finance, on the subject of appeals from the Free State Supreme Court to the Privy Council, and in particular to Mr. Blythe's statement that if a private individual brought an appeal before the Privy Council and its decision should reverse the judgment of the Free State Supreme Court, the Free State Government would take whatever steps were necessary to make the appeal ineffective; what steps His Majesty's Government will take to maintain the rights of British citizens under the Treaty and the Constitution of the Free State; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on November 13 last I drew your Lordships' attention to some recent actions of the Free State Government which indicated a clear and determined policy on their part to deprive British subjects resident in the Free State of the benefits which had been given to them by the Treaty and the Free State Constitution as regards

839
the right to appeal to the Privy-Council, and further to cause those appeals, if they did take place, to be entirely nugatory. Since that date a remarkable speech has been delivered in the Free State Senate, I think on November 20 last. The Free State Minister of Finance, in clear and distinct language, declared that it was the intention of the Free State Government to persist in that course of action for the purpose of destroying that right of appeal by their independent and, as I think, wholly unauthorised action.
May I at the outset emphasise one point? The question to-day is not whether that right of appeal should be abrogated. That can only be done by action both in the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of the Free State. The question to-day is whether while that right of appeal subsists the Free State Government had any justification or excuse for destroying that right. Incidentally, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that this right of appeal was an essential part of the bargain that was made between the Free State Government on the one hand and the Government of this country on the other. That right was embodied in the Treaty, and it is worth while remembering that President Cosgrave himself, when the Constitution of the Free State was being discussed in the Free State Parliament, stated positively that this right of appeal was an essential part of the bargain, and that he could not, and they could not, accept that part of the bargain which was favourable to them and reject such part as they did not like. In that respect I think it is also worth remembering on a future occasion that the case of the Free State as regards this right of appeal to the Privy Council differs fundamentally from the case of the other Dominions of the Crown.
May I now draw your Lordships' attention to the speech of Mr. Blythe, which was delivered in the Free State Senate on November 20 last? The question under discussion was a Bill which was introduced into the Irish Free State Parliament for the purpose of the settlement of the notorious case of Wigg and Cochrane. As your Lordships will remember, that was a case in which the Privy Council, not by one but by two distinct decisions, decided that certain
840
ex-British civil servants, the appellants in the case, were entitled to additional advantage's and pensions beyond those which the Free State were willing to concede, and notwithstanding those decisions of the Privy Council the Free State absolutely refused to give those civil servants those additional benefits, and the taxpayers of this country were compelled practically to pay those additional benefits out of their own pockets.
In the course of the debate Mr. Blythe, having pointed out, truly and quite frankly, that the right of appeal to the Privy Council had, to use his own words, "its roots in Article 2 of the Treaty," then went on with a strange inconsequence to say this:—
" There will be no more appeals taken, and if there are they will produce no results."
He then used these remarkable words, and you will find them in Volume 13, col. 45, of the Official Report of the Free State Parliament:—
" If the Privy Council should still hear private litigants, and decide on the suits of private litigants, and reverse the decisions of the Supreme Court here, we would take whatever steps may be necessary, whether by legislation or otherwise, to make the effort of the Privy Council to reverse the decisions of the Supreme Court here ineffective."
That was a serious statement—a most serious statement—made by a responsible Minister of the Free State Government, and I desire to use no stronger language about it than the circumstances justify; but I venture to say that in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of many more qualified to judge than myself, that statement was a direct and flagrant violation of Treaty rights. I should add that the statement has excited no small alarm and anxiety among those British subjects resident in Southern Ireland who believed, and had justification for believing, that the right of appeal to the Privy Council had been inviolably protected and preserved by the Treaty itself and by the Constitution which followed it.
Your Lordships will remember that on the occasion of the last debate on this subject in this House the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Colonies deprecated any action in this House which might reflect upon the proceedings of any Dominion Parliament. May I respectfully point out to him, and

841
to the House, that I am not now criticising, or inviting this House to criticise, any legislative action of the Free State Parliament. My abject is to call your Lordships' attention to this pronouncement made by a Minister of the Free State, speaking presumably on behalf of his Government, and to enquire what steps His Majesty's Government will take to maintain the rights of British subjects under the Treaty and Constitution. To such an inquiry and such a course of action, I can conceive that there can be no constitutional objection, even on the most rigid view of the relations between this country and the Free State.
Your Lordships, I think, are entitled to know what up to now has been the avowed and open attitude of the present Government in regard to this matter. On the 25th of last month the Prime Minister was asked in another place whether he had observed Mr. Blythe's statement on this matter. It had already then been widely published. His answer was this—
" I answer questions here as Prime Minister, not as a casual newspaper reader."
To me at any rate that form of answer appears exceedingly evasive, and it was not the form of answer which in former days we were accustomed to receive from the Prime Minister of this country. On November 27 the Prime Minister was again asked whether he had now made himself acquainted with this subject, and whether any communication had been made by the Free State Government to His Majesty's Government on the subject. His reply was this—
" The Government have had no communication from the Irish Free State Government in this matter, and such a communication, and such a communication alone, will receive my official attention."
That answer will be found in Vol. 232, col. 1411, of the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT.
I venture to think that the statement I have just read is an astounding statement to be made by the Prime Minister. It comes to this, that if a wrong is done, or alleged to be done, to a British subject by the Free State Government, in violation of the Treaty, the Prime Minister will completely disregard it and put it on one side, unless indeed his attention is called to it by the alleged wrongdoer. Well, there again I think
842
is a new constitutional doctrine and an attitude which I prefer not to describe in the language in which I should like to describe it. I dare say other noble Lords will be able to give it a more suitable description than my vocabulary permits. I trust at any rate that the Secretary of State will not adopt that form of reply or put forward any such excuse for refusing to give attention to this matter to-day. This House has always been a custodian of the rights and liberties of the subject, and has been jealous to protect the subject from injustice, from whatever quarter it may come, and I do hope that the House will to-day feel that it is entitled to a clear and distinct statement from the Government as to the policy they intend to pursue in regard to this matter; because once you allow a deliberate infraction of Treaty rights, whether with a Dominion or any other Power, I venture to think you inflict a blow upon civilised government of which the end is impossible to foresee. I beg to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they will take to maintain the rights of British citizens in the Treaty and the Constitution of the Free State, and I move for Papers.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I doubt very much if it has yet been realised, frequently as this question was debated in this House when the late Government was in power, how far-reaching is the effect of what took place in Ireland when the Irish Government deliberately stated that they would take whatever steps were necessary to make the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ineffective. I do not deny in the least the right of any of our Dominions to say they no longer want to appeal to the Privy Council, and in a constitutional manner to get rid of that appeal. In the case of Canada it would be done by some amendment of the British North America Act, and in other Dominions by some similar means. But in the case of Ireland, under Article 2 of the Treaty, as Mr. Blythe himself admits, this appeal is part of the Constitution, part of the terms upon which Home Rule, or whatever you like to call it, was granted to the Irish Free State. In another place year after year I used to hear them ask from the Government Benches: "What are you afraid of? You have got the appeal to

843
the Privy Council; you will always have the Privy Council." When the Free State was constituted you specifically put it in, and it is, therefore, as much a part of the Constitution of the Free State as are any of the other Courts.
Just look at what that leads to in the way of retrogression and chaos. An Executive Government claims that if one of its Courts gives a decision which it does not like it has a right to say: "We will take whatever steps are necessary to make that decision ineffective." The very foundations of liberty are swept away. Fancy the Government in this country saying: "If any of our Courts, the Appellate Court or any other, gives a decision we do not like, then we with our majority in the House of Commons, and with the ineptitude of the House of Lords, will turn it into naught, we will bring in a law to get rid of it." Consider what it means also to your other Dominions. What are the majority of the cases which come from Canada to the Privy Council? They are cases of litigation between the Dominion Parliament and the Provincial Parliaments—nearly all are cases of that kind. Think what it would mean if any one of these Provincial Parliaments were to say: "We will not allow this appeal to go to the Privy Council. If the Privy Council decide that the Dominion Parliament is right and we are wrong, we will give no effect to it." It is exactly the same. There is nothing at the back of this but chaos.
When this country hands over a large number of her subjects to those who have been their opponents all their lives, and with the one sole protection of an appeal to the Privy Council, I want to know is this Court to allow itself to be laughed at as Mr. Blythe laughed at it all through his speech? Even in the Wigg and Cochrane case he got you to set up one Privy Council to try and overrule another one, and what was his comment on it? His comment was that the Court which was set up to relieve them from the decision of the first—and I commend this to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who presided over it—delivered a more extraordinary and absurd judgment than the previous one. Then he goes and ridicules what you did and what you are always doing in the present day of sloppy subservience to any one who
844
insults you and breaks your laws. He says: "What harm did it do us? We sent over counsel just to please them and make a show before the Privy Council. We were not really there at all—it was they who paid the Privy Council. We did not; it all came out of the taxpayers' money in England. And then when the decision went against us what harm did it do us? True it was that under the Treaty we were to pay the sums to the British civil servants who were handed over to us. Not likely! Oh, no, the British Government paid for us." Well, I call that blackmail, and upon each and every occasion upon which this country and the Free State have differed you have always yielded to blackmail. Why, I do not know.
When it came to the question of paying them for property that was blown up, in which they were manufacturing the bombs to blow up your soldiers, you gave them £900,000 rather than have a word with them. It was not under this Government; it was under the last Government. When it came to the question of the boundary between the Six Counties and the rest of Ireland, when, having appointed a Commission, it came to agreeing either to the proposed boundary or the boundary as it existed, you struck out of the Treaty their share of the National Debt which amounted to between £300,000,000 and £500,000,000. That was all out of the money of the taxpayers of this country. How long will you go on doing that? How much do you like being kicked in this country? What is the use of the Free State to you in those circumstances? If they will not fall in with and carry out the ordinary treaty obligations they have entered into and the conditions on which they were set up and under which large sums of money have been paid to them, what do you want with them?
This may appear perhaps a little irrelevant, but I think it is germane. It was only the other day that my old constituency, Trinity College, Dublin, held its great annual sports meeting, which is always one of the great social events in Dublin and has been ever since I was a little boy. I have been there many times as steward. On this occasion, as usual, they invited the Governor of the Free State, the Governor appointed by you, to attend the sports, out of courtesy

845
naturally, although I dare say the majority of them may not have been in sympathy with his politics. What reply did he make? He wrote back to say that he would be very happy to come on one condition and on one condition only—that "God Save the King" should not be sung. That is part of your Empire! Every time there is difficulty you pay them so as to give a good appearance to the thing, as they say themselves in the speeches in question. It is far better to let them go if they want to go. Is there no pride in being part of the British Empire? Have you always to go begging to people and saying: "For God's sake, come in. We will give you anything to say you are part of the British Empire." The whole thing from the commencement until this question of the Privy Council arose has been ignominious, not only for the Free State but for the British Government, and just as much for the last Government as well. I do not in the least wish to cloak the fact that it arose under the last Government. I remember very well the disastrous answers given by Mr. Amery when he held the position now occupied by the noble Lord opposite.
I am very proud as an Irishman to be a member of the British Empire. Why should you always go about patting upon the back and yielding to people, in fact, almost licking their boots, simply because they are always insulting you, insulting your King and insulting the very Treaty under which they exist? That is the way with them. I hope that something will be done to put an end to this state of affairs. Let us have reality. Tell them either that they must conform to the Treaty which constituted them, as any proper, honest Government would and ought to do, or give them up altogether. As an Irishman born in the Free State, and having lived and practised there (I came over here when I was somewhere about 37 years of age and I am very glad that I did) let me say this: I am extremely sorry from every point of view at the course taken by the Free State, by Mr. Blythe and Mr. Cosgrave, from the Irish point of view, and I will tell your Lordships why. Day after day in this country I hear merchants, contractors, and others saying that they would not enter into a contract with people in Ireland for any money you could give them. Of course not. It is the only one of our
846
Dominions in which we do not know what law is administered or whether there is any law. I do not know whether the Executive there have the whole of the Judiciary in their power. They have, at all events, claimed the right to set aside their decisions. That is a very serious thing for Ireland.
I want to make one thing clear which I think ought to be made perfectly clear upon every occasion. It is that this has nothing whatever to do with Ulster. I know of my own knowledge of people who have said, when orders were sent to them from Ulster, that they never dealt with Ireland and would not send goods to Ireland as they did not know whether they would be paid. There is an impression abroad that there is no difference between the North and the South. Ulster is proud that the same law that is administered here and throughout the Dominions in the Privy Council should apply to her. Every British merchant—I say this purposely in order that it may be remembered—and every British contractor and shop-keeper can deal with the Six Counties with the full knowledge that they have the right, if necessary, if it is a case of contract, to bring it to the Privy Council. This action of the Free State regarding the Privy Council affects not merely British subjects in Ireland but any British subject who enters into a contract with people there. I rather think that the last case that arose was that of an English contractor who brought an action over there and carried it to the Privy Council.
LORD DANESFORT: Yes.
LORD CARSON: And then the law was altered so as to prevent the appeal. In passing, though I do not give it as my opinion only, I do not think that it is at all a possible or effective thing to do having regard to the Treaty. This is no trivial matter. It is a far reaching constitutional question. There is no question on my part of any hostility whatsoever to the Free State. All that is buried and gone. Hundreds of my friends have been ruined—well, there let it be! It was the policy of the British Government, including many eminent Conservatives who were going to die on the floor of the House before such a thing should happen, but who agreed to it. Having made the Treaty of surrender and betrayal the

847
least you ought to do is to see whether this great country is not strong enough and able enough to ensure that what was contracted for is carried out.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think a large portion of the speech to which we have just listened ought to be answered by some one on the other side of the House, because what the noble Lord, Lord Carson, has protested against in very able terms and in strong language, perhaps not too strong from his point of view, is the Constitution of the Free State itself. He talks about the surrender of the rights of the minority in the Free State, about the distinction between Ulster and the Free State; and no doubt he is quite right. Whether it is a good thing for Ireland or not is a different question. No one can suppose, for a moment, that the same spirit exists in Ulster as in the Free State of Ireland. I certainly would not suggest it, and I do not think anyone else would. But is not all this past history? I will come to the particular point in a moment. As I followed the noble Lord he did not deal, except perhaps in a sentence or two, with the Question brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. But he did tell us today, as he has very often done before in this House, and as he has often told the House of Commons, that in his view the Irish Free State ought not to have been constituted. Today he went so far as to ask why do we not throw it off as an incubus—not as an honoured member of our Imperial system but as an incubus, which is nothing but a drawback to our Imperial and national position.
Before I come to the particular point I would like to make a reference to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. I do not think it is well in a discussion in this House to attack a Prime Minister in the language that the noble Lord used, because he cannot be here to defend himself. There are plenty of opportunities of attacking the Prime Minister in the other House. The noble Lord said that the Prime Minister had been exceedingly evasive.
LORD DANESFORT: I say it again.
LORD PARMOOR: I deny it altogether. But the real person to answer an allegation of that kind is, of course, the Prime Minister himself. In the
848
same way, if the noble Lord himself made a speech which some one had criticised as being exceedingly evasive, he would be the first person to say: "An allegation of that kind had better be made when I am present; I am prepared to defend what I said, or to give quite a different meaning to that which has been attached to the words to which reference has been made."
LORD DANESFORT: Does the noble Lord defend those answers I read?
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly, I defend every word of them. I think the inference the noble Lord makes cannot be drawn from the words which were used. I do not, however, like to use the word "defend" in this connection. I think every word the Prime Minister used was justified, and that the word "evasive" is not justified in regard to the language he used. Lord Danesfort made another statement. I do not want to misrepresent him, but the purport of it was that the Prime Minister was careless of wrongs done to British citizens. Let us consider what we are dealing with an what the Prime Minister was dealing with. There is no question here of any wrong done to a British citizen, absolutely none. So true is it that no such wrong was done that to a great extent it is the essence of the position. I should like to know what a Government could do in the circumstances which are now suggested, and what would be the attitude they could take up, and I hope would take up, if a British citizen was deprived in any way of the rights to which he is entitled. I must say in passing that it seems to me most unfortunate we should have a debate of this kind upon words used elsewhere by one of the Ministers of the Irish Free State.
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear!
LORD PARMOOR: I am afraid the noble Lord says that ironically. I would like him to see that the matter in debate on that occasion was the putting into force of the rights of the civil servants of Ireland which had been ascertained by the Privy Council in this country, and the resolution in favour of the civil servants was carried in the Senate, I think unanimously.
LORD DANESFORT: I can tell the noble Lord what was done. Mr. Blythe

849
recommended this measure to the House, and expressly said he put it upon the ground that the British taxpayer was going to pay the sums which they ought to have paid themselves.
LORD PARMOOR: The reasons may be exceedingly had ones. I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, but I have heard him use some bad reasons at times. That was not the question. The only act was the confirmation of the right of the civil servants to the pay, and to the consideration which had been adjudged to be their right by the decision of the Privy Council. I will deal in a moment with what was said. Mr. Blythe made certain statements to which the noble Lord has referred. It is exceedingly difficult, and a great deal of harm may be done, by having a discussion of this kind on terms used in a debate in one of our Dominions. Whether it be Canada, or Australia, or any other country, nothing is more likely to lead to [misunderstanding, nothing is more likely to put on one side the friendly and conciliatory spirit upon which at any rate in my view the whole framework of the Empire now depends. It makes no difference whether it is a debate in the Senate of the Free State or a debate in the Senate or Second Chamber of any of our Dominions.
How does the matter really stand? The noble Lord, Lord Carson, said quite rightly that Mr. Blythe recognised fully what he called the contractual obligations of Article 2 of the Treaty, and he said, in terms, that Article 66 of the Constitution had been constantly referred to. Article 66 deals with the special right of appeal, which was the question that the noble Lord raised the other day. He said: Why go beyond that? It is not a question of the proviso to Article 66 or the way Article 66 is framed. I regard the terms of Article 2 as placing the Irish Free State in the same position as the Dominion of Canada in regard to the basic and contractual relations between the two countries. I do not see how we can go further than that. I think he is right. We all of us regret the phrases to which attention has been called, but to call attention to particular phrases may be misleading—I do not mean intentionally misleading—unless you deal with the whole speech and consider the whole circumstances in which it was made.
850
Let me answer what Lord Carson says. I think the position now really depends on the Report of the Empire Conference in 1926. That, again, was a very admirable Report drawn up by Lord Balfour and accepted, after debate, in this House and in the other House. I am speaking to-night—Lord Passfield will speak afterwards—because it is in my Department as President of the Council that the whole status and position of the Privy Council has to be considered. It is the headquarters.
LORD CARSON: Was any law altered by that?
LORD PARMOOR: I want you to listen to me. I do not think it was, but I am going to tell you how I think the position was altered. I am dealing with the purely technical point as to how the position was altered and how it stands at the present time. In the Report of the 1926 Conference one of the paragraphs, and a very important paragraph, is headed "Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council." That is what we are dealing with at the present time. I will only read the relevant words. The Report says:—
" From these discussions it became clear that it was no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government—"
that is, the Conservative Government—
" in Great Britain that questions affecting judicial appeals should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of the part of the Empire primarily affected."
Now what was said in the debate? It was that you have not only to consider technical, legal words—of course they are very important—but you have to consider whether a new atmosphere—
LORD CARSON: May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is arguing that what took place at the Conference repealed the Act of Parliament setting up the Constitution under which an appeal was taken to the Privy Council? If not, what is the relevance of this?
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR It is most relevant. You need not repeal an Act. Of course, that is the answer and the noble and learned Lord would not have asked me the question if he had not been absolutely certain what the answer would be. It is very important to see how the matter stands at the present time. That is the real pith and marrow of Mr.

851
Blythe's speech. I will now read on. The paragraph in the Conference Report continues:—
" It was, however, generally recognised that, where changes in the existing system were proposed which, while primarily affecting one part, raised issues in which other parts of the Empire were also concerned, such changes ought only to be carried out after consultation and discussion.
" So far as the work of the Committee was concerned, this general understanding expressed all that was required. The question of some immediate change in the present conditions governing appeals from the Irish Free State was not pressed in relation to the present Conference, though it was made clear that the right was reserved to bring up the matter again at the next Imperial Conference for discussion in relation to the facts of this particular case."
That means the Irish Free State. Now what does that mean? I am asked what is the policy of His Majesty's Government? My answer is that on this Imperial question our policy is the policy indicated in the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926.
LORD CARSON: Does that mean that the noble and learned Lord says that the policy of the Government is that they encourage the Free State to break the law?
LORD PARMOOR: No, nor have they done it. It is not a breach of the law. If I may remind the noble and learned Lord—perhaps he has forgotten it having regard to some of what I may call the very urgent speeches he has made—it is not a breach of the law to make a speech in the Senate or in the House of Commons attacking the legal system and saying you do not intend to be bound by it. That is not breaking the law. I am afraid many of us, I am afraid the noble and learned Lord himself, would have got into trouble if that had been so. Of course, I am not saying that by taking up this question at this date and basing an attack on the report of a speech in the Senate in the Irish Free State, there has been any breach of the law of any kind. It has been mentioned that there has been no communication to the Government. Of course there has been no communication. Who could make any communication to the Government on a matter of that kind? I am bound to admit that I think it is most regrettable—I think everyone
852
will be sorry—that words of this kind have been used; but I am afraid if many of us look back into the past we must regret language used. But there is no illegality, no suggestion of illegality, no complaint of illegality of any kind. If you ask what the outlook of the Government is, we are going to hold by the Report of the 1926 Conference drawn up by our predecessors under the Chairmanship of the Earl of Balfour, and when the time comes in 1930 the whole matter will be ripe for decision. One cannot foretell that. We may not be here at that time. It is not for us to prophecy what will happen in 1930. Still worse would it be at this time for the Government now in power to assume that illegality had been committed which in fact has not been committed.
LORD CARSON: Yes, it has.
LORD PARMOOR: Speech is not illegal.
LORD CARSON: The noble and learned Lord is in error. They have passed two Bills getting rid of the Privy Council.
LORD PARMOOR: But even that by itself is not illegal.
LORD CARSON: Yes, it is.
LORD PARMOOR: With great respect to the noble and learned Lord—we have had many contests in many places, but I do not want a contest with him now—I say that in my opinion it is not. I do not believe any ordinary lawyer putting it in that way would suggest that that is an illegality. I do not think it is. Therefore, as I say, our policy will be and is the policy which I find enunciated in the 1926 Conference Report. Of course, we regret language of this kind. We should regret any one using language of this kind. I am sorry even that the noble Lord himself used language which might promote, instead of conciliation and friendship, unfriendliness between this country and the Irish Free State. After all, our Empire depends on promoting a kindly feeling in all parts of it. That will be our policy and when the 1930 Conference is held we shall carry out what was laid down and enunciated in 1926.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate but for some observations

853
which fell from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council, in which he defended as no illegality, and treated as a matter on which no lawyer could differ from him, the position taken up by the Minister of Finance in the Irish Parliament. I am only concerned in discussing the constitutional question which has been raised. May I say that as a lawyer, I differ from him profoundly.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: In my view the argument he has put forward, though it may be and most probably is the best that could be advanced in defending a difficult position, is one of that kind of quibbling which has often brought lawyers into disrepute. What is the position? I have no desire to take any part in the political side of the debate or as it affects past decisions of the Judicial Committee. I am dealing only with the constitutional question as I see it. There is agreement by a formal Treaty, binding not only in law but in honour. The Irish Free State was party to an agreement by which, under Article 2 of the Treaty, and also under Article 66 of the Constitution, there is no question regarding the right of appeal to the Privy Council in certain cases. I do not enter into detail or into the limitations, because really they are not germane to the matter we are now-discussing. The whole point concerns the right of appeal under the Treaty and the answer made to the arguments of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Danesfort and Lord Carson.
I agree with what Lord Parmoor said as to no action having been taken with regard to an individual, but there is a vital difference between this and saying that there is nothing illegal of which complaint can be made in reference to the Treaty. Let me point out to him something that I cannot but think has been forgotten or not sufficiently regarded in considering this question. The position is that there is a right of appeal as matters stand. The Minister has said so. He has referred to the Treaty and there is no question about it. The right of appeal, until it has been abrogated by agreement between the Irish Free State and this country, remains. In order that there may be no doubt about it, and to show that this is recognised by the Minister, I would point
854
out that he used almost the same language—
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps I may be allowed to say to the noble and learned Marquess that I not only agree with him, but that I referred to that language, which is familiar to me.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My noble friend did not refer to the particular sentence to which I desire to call attention. In this respect I am not in controversy with him, nor even with Mr. Blythe. On the contrary I am pointing out what he said. His words were:
"…we would take whatever steps may be necessary, whether by legislation or otherwise, to make the effort of the Privy Council to reverse the decisions of the Supreme Court here ineffective; that is, pending the time when we can get agreement with the British Government to wipe out the appearance of the right of appeal, and to abolish the whole idea of appeal to the Privy Council."
That makes it quite plain that it is recognised that there is no agreement at the present moment, and therefore references to what took place in 1926 at the Imperial Conference scarcely assist in the matter. All that they do indicate—and I think my noble friend would have been justified in confining his observations to this—is that there were discussions at the Conference in 1926, that references were made to the right of appeal to the Privy Council and that, so far as I can understand, the matter was left open for discussion at the next Imperial Conference when, if necessary, legislation would be introduced in the various Dominions giving effect to the agreement which had been reached. I challenge contradiction upon that point, and I am quite sure that my noble and learned friend will agree.
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly.
THE MARQUEISS OF READING: That being the decision, how do matters stand now? Let me take the case of an individual who seeks to appeal to the Privy Council because he hopes to reverse a decision of the Court in Ireland. This is a right which he has by agreement. It has hitherto been considered the right of any subject in the Dominions to petition the King. If he appeals at the present moment, he is justified. His appeal, properly stated, comes before the Judicial Committee, and he spends

855
his time, his labour, his attention and his money for the purpose of obtaining a decision. The vice of the statement that has been made, if it were ever to be made effective, would be that it is giving notice to him that, if he takes that step, he is wasting his money, his time and his attention, for the reason that, if he succeeds in reversing the decision in Ireland, then, "whether by legislation or otherwise," to use the words of the Minister, steps will be taken to render that appeal ineffective.
That is obviously the true state of affairs, and I do not hesitate to say that, to my mind, it is more serious than the breach of a legal obligation. It is a breach of honour. They say: "We are bound by the Treaty; we can be forced by law, if there is a Court which can enforce it, to carry it out but we will take steps to render ineffective any decision which interferes with the decisions of our Court." And yet in the same breath, the Minister says: "I admit that we are bound by the agreement. I admit that, until there is a new agreement, the right of appeal to the Privy Council stands. But, although we are bound in honour and by law, we will take such steps that nobody will be so foolish as to waste his time or money by going to the Judicial Committee to get a decision reversed, because we give him full notice that, if he does that, although we cannot object that he has no right of appeal, we will take care that he gets nothing out of what he has done and, indeed, that he will be worse off because he will lose the money which he has spent on prosecuting the appeal."
I cannot believe that this is really what the Minister means, but I have looked at this statement and considered it very carefully. It may be that it is not satisfactorily expressed. It is possible, it occurs to me, that what he meant was that, when the time came, they would seek to make appeals ineffective by preventing appeals to the Privy Council. But the language that he used, unless it is explained, merits every observation that I have made with regard to it. Indeed I go further. I will challenge any member of your Lordships' House, in view of the facts to which I have referred and which are beyond controversy, to get up in this House and say that, if the speech
856
means what it does mean according to the ordinary interpretation of the English language, and if it is the fact that successful appeals to the Privy Council under the Treaty are to be made ineffective, by legislation or otherwise—I defy any member of this House to get up and deny that this is not only a breach of the Treaty but also a breach of honour. I hope that we shall have an explanation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, after listening to the speech of the noble and learned Marquess, must regret the tone which he adopted in answering my noble friend. Compare the two speeches. If the speech to which we have just listened had come from this Bench, from avowed Unionists, from people who had opposed the Treaty and who deplored the policy of the Government who passed the Treaty, if one of us had made the speech to which we have just listened, it might not have been so impressive. But the noble and learned Marquess is as much a Home Ruler as the noble and learned Lord opposite. He belongs to a Party which is quite as much responsible for all the misfortunes of the Irish policy as the noble and learned Lord opposite. And yet the noble and learned Marquess, when he was faced with this deplorable speech by an Irish Minister, did not hesitate to say exactly what he thought about it. He stood up before your Lordships' House and the country and said that this was not merely a question of a breach of law; it was a breach of an obligation of honour. He did not apologise for the Irish Ministers, and he did not try to minimise what they had done. He said quite frankly, what I should have thought any sincere man must say, that the speech which was made in the Irish Senate was a deplorable speech.
I must say that I regret very much the line which the Government have taken. Altogether apart from any personal or political convictions they may have on these subjects, it is their business to see that the Treaties which have been made between this country and any other country are fulfilled. If there is an obvious breach of the spirit of the Treaty it is their business to say so, and I cannot for the life of me understand why they should not say

857
so. What harm could happen to them if they said what the noble Marquess has said? Why should they not stand up for the rights of this country and the rights of those whose interests we are bound to protect in Ireland? The only answer, so far as I can understand, which the noble and learned Lord could make, was that next year the matter will be brought up at the Imperial Conference, and that therefore nothing is to be done to maintain the law in the meantime. That seems to me a most singular want of judicial sense.
LORD PARMOOR: I never said that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I really do not think I have misrepresented the noble and learned Lord. So far as I can make out, the Government do not propose to take any action, either in this House or elsewhere, to condemn what has been done, but propose to hold the whole thing over till the Conference next autumn. The course which I should have thought would be pursued would be a proper remonstrance on the part of His Majesty's Government in regard to the speech made in Ireland, and a representation to the Irish Government that we look to them to maintain the law until the law is altered, just like any other civilised country would do. Surely the essence of a State is the acceptance of a common responsibility, and the essence of a common responsibility is that people should keep their word. That is what is essential. The Irish Government have entered into certain obligations, and they allow a Minister, one of their own Cabinet, speaking in the Irish Parliament, to say distinctly that whatever the law may be with regard to Privy Council judgments they, the Executive Government, will see that those judgments are ineffective.
Can there be anything more—I cannot avoid the word—outrageous than that, as a statement from an Executive Government? That has been said in your Lordships' House, not by a poor benighted Unionist, but by the noble and learned Marquess, speaking, as he ought to speak, with a full sense of his responsibility as a great judicial officer of this country. I wish His Majesty's Government had pursued a like course, and I earnestly hope that the effect of this debate may be that the Irish
858
Government will realise that if they are to deserve the name of a great Dominion, if there is to be a great Dominion history before them, they must begin by learning what are the obligations of a Dominion or a relatively independent State—to keep their word and maintain their Treaty obligations, and not allow their Ministers to denounce beforehand legitimate judicial decisions by which they are bound by Treaty but which are to be rendered ineffective by executive action.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, I do not propose to detain you many minutes, but the speech of the noble Marquess deserves some word of recognition from this Bench. I want to say that far from rising to defend a difficult position, I do not feel any difficulty in the matter, because I claim that we here are in agreement with nearly all that the noble Marquess on the other side has said, and with what the noble Marquess who has just sat down has said, As a matter of fact of course we believe that agreements should be observed, and should be observed in the spirit as well as in the letter. Of course we believe that Treaty obligation are sacred until they are revised by consent, and so on; but, on the other hand, I think it is desirable to be a little careful before we assume that those with whom we are dealing are going actually to break a Treaty or to depart from their word. One has to be slow, even in face of expressions, to assume that people are going to act in a way which we think dishonourable, and I am not going; to assume that the Irish Government are going to commit any breach of the Treaty or to do anything illegal under the existing law.
I venture to say that a great deal of this discussion this afternoon has gone a little askew, because of the failure to distinguish between the actual committal of an illegality and assertions that you are going to do something which, if done, would be an illegality. I am afraid that many of us have been guilty in speech of saying that we are going to do something which on reflection we find to be illegal or dishonourable, and so we do not carry out our intention.
THE MARQUESAS OF READING: Will the noble Lord forgive me if I ask one question? What is to be the state of mind of the man who thinks he has a perfect right

859
to appeal on a good case to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but is told that if he succeeds the result will be ineffective?
LORD PASSFIELD: I am sorry that I cannot answer that conundrum. Perhaps some noble Lord opposite can answer it. I do not think the noble Marquess could answer it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: You are speaking for the Government.
LORD PASSFIELD: Certainly, I am speaking for the Government, but the Government cannot answer what the state of mind of that man would be. For that reason I myself would not have made the speech which this Irish Minister is reported to have made. It is because words have effect upon the minds of people that one has to be a little careful in speaking, and obviously it is not a matter of doubt or dispute that this speech, as reported, contained a great many (I venture to say) injudicious remarks. I have heard speeches even in this House which contained a great many injudicious remarks, and I have regretted them, but I have not thought them matters of illegality. When the Irish Free State have actually committed some breach of the Treaty undoubtedly it will be the duty and right of His Majesty's Government to call their attention to the matter, and ask for an explanation, and to take any other steps which may be necessary; but that is not yet. So far as I know no illegal act has been done, and when we are asked what steps we should take my reply is that we must wait until some illegal act has been done. Obviously it would not be possible, or desirable, to state beforehand what action would have to be taken in the event of that very regrettable action actually happening.
I am not going to believe that the Irish Free State is capable of committing an actual breach of the Treaty or of its contractual obligations, which in this very speech the Minister himself recognises as existing, when he said that what he wanted was by agreement with His Majesty's Government to get a revision of the Treaty in that respect. I am coming to that in a few minutes. But in this very speech, if it is read right through, Mr. Blythe recognised the existence of the contractual obligation,
860
recognised that it could only be modified by agreement with the other party to the contract, and as far as I can see indicated the intention of his Government to seek at the proper time such a modification of the Treaty as they desired, apparently. That attitude, if you disregard the fireworks of the other part of the speech, is one to which I do not think we can take any objection at all. It is the very essence of a contractual obligation that it can be modified lawfully and properly by agreement among the parties. It is the very essence of a Treaty that it can be altered by agreement of the parties, and in no other way. And therefore, if it were necessary for me to make any defence of my Irish colleague, I could make a defence in that way, whilst regretting and abandoning to the critics the other parts of the speech which seem to have been singularly unhappy and, I should have thought, altogether improper.
Now I think in fairness to Mr. Blythe—whom I am not seeking to defend, but I do think that noble Lords ought to recognise what the point is that he has in his mind: it is relevant—I ought to point out that he said that while the Treaty had been signed in 1922 (if that was the year), long before the time when this Government or the Government of 1924 was responsible—the Treaty signed and carried out by our predecessors of the opposite Party—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, the Coalition Government.
LORD PASSFIELD: —at any rate, of the combined Opposition to the Labour Party. Since then (this is not a quibble) Mr. Blythe points out that there has been a tremendous constitutional development in the position of the Dominions, that the Imperial Conference of 1926, which occurred subsequently to the Treaty, marked a growth in our constitutional relations, and—I am not agreeing with this necessarily: I am only trying to put the position which he indicated in that very speech—that, in accordance with the declaration of 1926, which defines the present constitution of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the advice which is given to the Sovereign by his Privy Councillors ought to be tendered by the Privy Councillors for the part of the Commonwealth with which the matter was concerned; that is to say,

861
that it is not constitutional for His Majesty's Ministers in this country to tender advice to His Majesty with regard to something in Canada or South Africa.
Now I am not asserting that I agree with this; I am only trying to indicate what the position of Mr. Blythe is. Therefore, he says in terms, though there may be a right of appeal to the Privy Council, though there may be a decision of the Privy Council, effect is given to that decision of the Judicial Committee by advice given by Councillors to His Majesty at an ordinary Council; and, according to the constitution of the British Commonwealth, as laid down and authoritatively agreed to in 1926 (when we were not responsible) that advice can only be given by the Privy Councillors for the part of the British Commonwealth which is concerned. That is to say, that Mr. Blythe suggests that no executive order based on the recommendation and the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ought to be issued except in accordance with the advice of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State. That is the puzzle which is—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord will realise that he has made a statement which is quite accurate as to Mr. Blythe's contentions, but if he leaves it like that the country may be under the impression that His Majesty's Government share this singular view of how a judicial decision is arrived at. It is perfectly true that the acts of the Privy Council are the acts in one sense of the Executive, but we all know perfectly well in England that the Executive Government does not interfere in any way whatever with the judicial decision, and that therefore the contention of Mr. Blythe is quite illusory. I should be very sorry if this debate ended without a very strong expression on behalf of His Majesty's Government that they entirely differ from his view.
LORD PASSFIELD: I carefully said that I was not taking any responsibility for Mr. Blythe's position, but I was trying to indicate why it was that he thought that the appeal to the Privy Council from Ireland was no longer effectively in accordance with the constitution. Now I am not prepared to accept his view at all in that matter, but
862
I know too well how strongly such views are held. With regard to the special point of the noble Marquess, of course I recognise to the full the difference between decisions of a Court of Justice, with which the Executive, according to our common English view, ought not to interfere in the very least—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And never does interfere.
LORD PASSFIELD: And never does interfere—I entirely agree with that, of course. I recognise to the full the difference between the decisions of Courts of Justice, with which the Executive does not interfere, and would not dream of interfering, and ordinary executive acts of government, which necessarily have to be decided by the Executive itself. But the contention that Mr. Blythe is making was raised not by him alone, and was deliberately left over unsettled in 1926—the point, that is, how to draw the line between the one kind of decision and the other kind of decision. That has been left over until the next Imperial Conference in 1930. We know that the Irish Free State at that time practically gave notice that it would be its intention to raise the question at the Imperial Conference in 1930. That is one of the reasons why I have been anxious myself—and I think it would be a matter of prudence and tact—not to assume that the Irish Free State are actually going to commit a breach of this contractual obligation, which they admit they are under—a breach of the Treaty, to which they attach importance. I am not going to assume that they are going to commit that breach until they do it. Then, if they unfortunately do it, it is quite certain, of course, that His Majesty's Government will have to take the appropriate action. I cannot say in advance what that would be. But the time of the next Imperial Conference is not so far off. It is practically going to take place, in all probability in the course of the very next year, and this whole question will have to be dealt with, as the noble Marquess has rather indicated, by the decision of the whole of the Dominions, and not upon the will of any one of them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
LORD PASSFIELD: I hope there has been no ambiguity as to the position of His Majesty's Government. I hope also that there is no unfair objection to parts of Mr. Blythe's speech without taking into account the other part, in which he recognises the existence of this contractual obligation, and indicates that they were prepared to ask for a revision by agreement. That being so, I think we must wait until the time comes, and then we shall have to act with all the wisdom that we can. I do not see that I can announce any policy of His Majesty's Government beyond that.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me to express one or two views that I gathered during the debate. I do not suppose that your Lordships have often heard two more discordant notes struck by two Ministers of the Grown who are supposed to be speaking on the same subject. Lord Parmoor, on the one hand, as I understood him, entirely justified the speech of Mr. Blythe.
LORD PARMOOR: I never did that.
LORD DANESFORT: So I understood him. He said there was nothing illegal about it and nothing wrong about it. Of course, if he chooses to say I am wrong and that he condemns that speech I shall be very happy to hear him.
LORD PARMOOR: I said there was nothing illegal, just the same as the noble Lord who spoke just now. Nor is there. But that is an entirely different thing. The part of the speech I referred to was that in which he recognised the contractual obligations as binding obligations between the two States. That was perfectly right and I entirely agree. But what I may call the extreme statements I never touched and, of course, I do not agree with them.
LORD DANESFORT: I still do not know whether the noble and learned Lord denounces that speech or approves of it. He quoted just now the only part that he agreed with—namely, that Mr. Blythe recognised that the right of appeal was at the root of Article 2 of the Treaty, and then he proceeded to say that he violated that Article. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord approves of that; at any rate, he has not told us and he declines apparently to express himself
864
upon that. He does not at any rate here disapprove of that. And the Secretary of State, with the most engaging and, as I think, the most worthy candour, tells us that he strongly disapproves of the speech. He said that parts of it were—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Improper.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT —unhappy and indeed, he would add, improper, and he greatly regretted that it had been delivered. I greatly regret that the noble and learned Lord had not consulted with the Secretary of State before he made his speech and then they might at any rate have said the same thing; but they have not. I do not intend to refer to Lord Parmoor's speech more than to say one word about it because it has already been dealt with by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. The truth is that the greater part of Lord Parmoor's speech was totally and entirely irrelevant to this discussion. He referred to the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926 which dealt with something to be done in the future, some agreement to be arrived at. What we are discussing to-day is whether, before any agreement has been arrived at but while the Treaty is still in force, Mr. Blythe was justified in saying that they, the Free State, would do everything in their power to render nugatory that right of appeal given by the Treaty. That is what we are entitled to discuss and it is the only thing to be discussed. This reference to what should be done by agreement in future, I venture to suggest is entirely and hopelessly irrelevant.
The noble Lord, Lord Passfield, did indeed discuss that point, but with very tender consideration—I do not think he knows Irishmen quite well—for Mr. Blythe and his colleagues, for whom Mr. Blythe has spoken. He said: "I do not care about these injudicious speeches. They mean nothing? They are all froth." (I am paraphrasing his speech.)" Wait till they do something. "On three separate occasions they have already acted upon that statement of Mr. Blythe. They acted upon it in the case of Lynham versus Butler. While the appeal was pending in the Privy Council, they passed legislation which made that appeal futile and caused it to be abandoned. They acted on the

865
same principle in the case of the Performing Right Society versus the Bray Urban Council in regard to which, after leave to appeal had been granted and while the appeal was pending, they passed legislation which said in so many words: "However successful you may be in this appeal you will get nothing out of it. You will get neither costs, damages nor anything else." Is not that acting upon it? The noble Lord, Lord Passfield, will see on reflection, I think, that not only have they made this statement of future intentions, but they have already in the past shown that they intend to carry it into action.
There is also the notorious case of Wigg and Cochrane. Did they not act upon it on that occasion? Did they not flout the Privy Council? Did they not say: "Although the Privy Council have said that these ex-British civil servants have certain rights, we will not pay a farthing of the money that the Privy Council have declared them to be entitled to "? It is not as if this was a mere threat which means nothing or a mere injudicious speech by some excitable Irishman. The fact is that it is a deliberate and fixed expression of the policy which they intend to carry out. I am glad to know that it has been denounced in strong language in your Lordships' House and I trust the Government may be induced to take their courage in their hands and to make some protest. I asked
866
in my Question whether the Government could give us a statement of their policy in this matter. The policy they have announced is one of paralysis. They can do nothing. They say that can do nothing and they will do nothing. I beg them to reconsider that, and to see whether it is a worthy attitude on the part of a British Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): Does the noble Lord press his Motion?.
LORD DANESFORT: No, I do not press it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

UNDER SECRETARIES OF STATE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

HERTFORD GAS ORDER, 1929.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Hertford Gas-light Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.