Sitting of 24 November 1931

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  COAL INDUSTRY.

    COAL MINES ACT.
    Mr. JOELasked the Secretary for Mines whether the methods of regulation introduced in the Coal Mines Act have in their experimental working shown any need of modification; and, if so, along what lines?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on Thursday last to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer).

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines the number of fatal accidents at mines under the Coal Mines Act for the year 1930, giving separate figures for surface and underground and showing how they compare with 1929?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: During the year 1930, there were 866 separate fatal accidents underground at mines under the Coal Mines Act involving 940 deaths, and 73 on the surface involving 73 deaths. The
    186
    corresponding figures for 1929 were 936 accidents and 996 deaths below ground and 76 accidents and 80 deaths on the surface.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines the number of fatal accidents for 1930 caused through explosions of firedamp; how many lives were lost; and the figures for 1928 and 1929?
    Mr. FOOT: During the year 1930, there were 18 explosions of firedamp, involving loss of life, the total number of deaths being 70. The corresponding figures for 1929 were 13 explosions and 34 deaths; and for 1928, 15 explosions and 36 deaths.

    BOYS (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines the latest figures of the number of boys below the age of 16 years who are at present employed and working underground in the coal mines; can he say what number of shifts they have worked during the last 12 months; and how many of them have been on the night-turn between nine at night and five the following morning?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: In December, 1930, the latest date for which information is available, 24,200 boys under 16 years of age were employed below ground at coal mines. I have no information as to the number of shifts worked by such boys but the average number of shifts worked during 1930 by workers of all ages below ground was approximately 238. No record is kept of the number of boys or other persons employed on night shifts but a special inquiry undertaken in April, 1927, indicated that at that time nearly one-third of the boys employed worked on shifts ending after 9 p.m. or beginning before 5 a.m.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last week he stated that the cost would be too heavy to alter existing Acts of Parliament in order to prevent boys working underground on night turns; are we not, therefore, entitled to know how many boys are working at night?
    Mr. FOOT: I shall be happy to give any information that is available, but I cannot give information that is not in our possession. I drew attention in my answer to the fact that it would not only be an additional cost, but would mean

    187
    difficulty in reorganisation, and I said that we shall be glad to consider any representations that may be made to us.
    Mr. TINKER: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get the information for which I am asking.

    WORKING DAYS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines the average number of days worked each week by mine-workers in Great Britain during the year 1929, and the average each week during the first nine months of 1931?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: During the year 1929, the average number of shifts per week worked by mine-workers was 4.93 and during the first nine months of 1931, 4,67. As regards South Wales and Monmouth the figures included are those for the year ended January, 1930, and the nine months ended October, 1931, respectively.

    STOCKS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines what quantity of coal was in stock on 1st April, 1st July, and 1st October, 1931, in various parts of Great Britain?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am informed that the stocks of coal at mines in Great Britain amounted to 5,778,000 tons on 1st April,?,359,000 tons on 1st July, and 8,050,000 tons on 1st October.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Do not these figures indicate that the quota schemes have not caused a shortage of coal or decreased working days?
    Mr. FOOT: I think that the bon. Gentleman will probably draw that conclusion from the returns.
    Mr. TINKER: Are these figures the average or more than the average of former years?
    Mr. FOOT: I must have notice of that question, and I would ask the hon. Member to let me know for what years he desires the figures.

    NYSTAGMUS (YORKSHIRE).
    Mr. SOPERasked the Secretary for Mines what statistics the Department has as to the condition of miners in Yorkshire as regards nystagmus; whether it is
    188
    increasing or decreasing; and what steps are being taken to reduce it to a minimum?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Statistics are available for the past few years of the number of cases of nystagmus in Yorkshire reported to the certifying surgeons under the Workmen's Compensation Act. These figures, which I will send to my hon. Friend, show a decrease since 1925 but with some fluctuation. The principal measures in hand for the prevention and cure of nystagmus are those to secure improved lighting in mines and an investigation under the auspices of the Medical Research Council.

  DOMINIONS (MINISTER'S VISIT).
  Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if, on his proposed tour through the Dominions, he will set himself to find or develop new markets for British manufactured cotton goods and communicate as soon as possible with those concerned, with a view to an early reduction of unemployment in the cotton industry?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Yes, Sir. I shall certainly lose no opportunity of endeavouring to find new markets for Britsih goods if occasion arises.
  Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the Dominions to lower their tariffs on our goods?
  Mr. THOMAS: I hope that we shall be in a position to put to them certain advantages, and I should also hope they would reciprocate.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the depression in shipbuilding, is there any chance of the right hon. Gentleman getting any new ships?
  Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to see that there is an increase in duties on foreign cotton goods going to the Dominions?
  Mr. CLARRYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will state in general terms the operative pro-

  189
  posals he intends to place before the Dominions during his visit in order to effect general Empire agreement?
  Mr. THOMAS: I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement on this subject.

  IRISH FREE STATE (POLICE PENSIONS)
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the Minister for Finance of the Irish Free State has refused to grant the pensions of £30 per year claimed by the widows of ex-Sergeant Patrick Cummins and ex-Constable Jeremiah Brosnan, both of the Dublin Metropolitan Police; and whether he will inquire into these two cases in view of the joint obligations under the agreement of this country and the Irish Free State?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to him on this subject on the 6th of May last. The inquiries to which I then referred are not yet complete, but I hope to be in a position shortly to communicate the results to the hon. and gallant Member.
  Sir A. KNOX: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that six months is rather a long period in which to inquire into a small subject like this?
  Mr. THOMAS: It is not a simple matter. The amount may appear small, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that the question of principle as to who is liable is involved, and that is not so simple as would appear at first sight.
  Sir A. KNOX: Is it not clear from the Debates on the Irish Treaty that the Free State Government took full responsibility for pensions for these people, and, if the Free State Government denies its responsibility, is not this Government responsible?
  Mr. THOMAS: An answer to that question cannot be given across the Floor of the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is a very debatable subject as between the two Governments.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, before making arrangements for his tour of the Dominions, any steps were taken to ascertain which of the Dominions, if any, would find it impossible to attend an Imperial Economic Conference not later than the spring of 1932?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The object of the Government has been to secure that the date at which the Conference shall meet is one which will enable all the Governments concerned to attend, and will also allow time enough for adequate preparations to be made.
  Mr. CLARRYasked the Prime Minister whether, in pursuance of economic development in the Empire and in view of the pending Imperial Conference, he has sufficient information regarding the general lines upon which specific industries and interests are prepared to agree to tariff adjustments and preferences both in home and Dominion markets to enable the Imperial Conference during its session to ratify inter-Empire trading agreements actually prepared prior to the sittings of the Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of the development of inter-Imperial trade is receiving the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and that the necessary information is being collected and examined.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORTS.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the importation of gravestones into this country; whether he can state the country from which these gravestones come; and whether he is aware that correspondingly suitable stone can be obtained in this country at reasonable rates?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Gravestones are not separately recorded in the Trade Returns of the United Kingdom, but the main importation of monumental and

    191
    architectural granite is from Germany and Czechoslovakia, and of marble from Italy and Belgium. I am aware that granite and other stones suitable for monumental purposes are available in Great Britain.
    Mr. SMITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has not been able to include foreign gravestones in the classification of abnormal importations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That will be considered along with other commodities.
    Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the district that he represents, Cornwall, there is ample material for all the gravestones required in this country?
    Sir A. KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the increased unemployment in the furniture trade, what action he proposes to take to check the import of foreign furniture?
    Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that increasing quantities of manufactured house furniture are being sent into this country, for instance, from Italy, where girl polishers are paid ¾d. per hour; and will he be prepared to put a tariff on foreign furniture to decrease unemployment in Shoreditch and elsewhere?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As my hon. Friends will be aware, certain metallic furniture is included in the Order of the 20th November last under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act. The facts concerning other imports of furniture will also be reviewed in relation to that Act.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of woollen and worsted tissues imported from Poland during the first 10 months of this year; and if subsidies are being paid to Palish manufacturers by the Government of that country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the first 10 months of 1931, the total imports of woollen and worsted tissues into the United Kingdom consigned from Poland (including Dantzig) amounted to 1,611,000 sq. yards, of a declared value of £188,000. Exporters of woollen and
    192
    worsted tissues from Poland receive a non-transferable certificate valued at about 3d. per pound on pure wool tissues and about 2d. per pound on mixed wool tissues, which is available for payment of Customs duties on articles of any kind imported by them. The intention of this system is stated to be to reimburse to the manufacturer the duties payable on his raw material.
    Mr. POTTERasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of fish landed into this country by Dutch, Danish, and German trawlers for the 12 months ended 30th September last; whether he can give the figures for the corresponding period of the previous year; and whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps with the view to protecting the interests of the British fishing industry?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. HoreBelisha): The total weight of fish, of all kinds from deep sea fisheries brought in to the United Kingdom by Dutch, Danish and German boats during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1031, was 14,000 cwts., 113,000 cwts., and?99,000 cwts., respectively, compared with 18,000 cwts., 85,000 cwts., and 1,006,000 cwts., respectively, during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1930. As regards the second part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on the lath November to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law).
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total money value and the average price of offals imported into this country in October, 1931, the similar value and average price of the same in October, 1930, and from what countries do they come?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is there not a very great increase in the price?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. and gallant Member will wait and see the figures, I will then discuss them with him.
    Following is the answer:

    The following table shows, in respect of the undermentioned cereal by-products, the total declared value and the average declared import value (c.i.f.) of the imports into the United Kingdom registered during the month of October, 1930 and 1931, together with the principal countries whence these imports were consigned.

    Description.

    October, 1930.

    October, 1931.

    Principal countries whence consigned.

    Declared Value.

    Average Declared Value per ton.

    Declared Value

    Average Declared Value per ton.

    Cereal by-products:

    £

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    £

    s.

    d.

    Bran and pollard

    36,191

    4

    8

    2

    117,131

    3

    19

    8

    Argentine Republic, Australia, Netherlands.

    Sharps and Middlings.

    35,161

    4

    18

    11

    64,327

    4

    19

    4

    Argentine Republic, France, Netherlands, Australia.

    Rice meal and dust

    82,937

    4

    10

    9

    74,853

    3

    11

    0

    British India.

    Other sorts

    1,413

    3

    0

    8

    1,074

    2

    4

    10

    Irish Free State, France.

    Major LEIGHTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any liquid milk, either pasteurised or otherwise apart from tinned milk, is being now, or has been during the last year, imported into this country, and, if so, how much?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The only fresh liquid milk imported into the United Kingdom comes from the Irish Free State, and the, bulk of this passes over the land boundary into Northern Ireland. During the first 10 months of this year 38,403 cwts. of fresh milk were so imported. In addition, 3,174 cwts. of unsweetened preserved milk (other than condensed and powdered milk) were imported into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILDasked the President of the Board of Trade in. what quantities the under-mentioned products have been imported into this country since 1st January, 1931, and the value of this year's total importation of each: cut flowers, bulbs, and pot plants?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the first 10 months of 1931 the total imports into the United Kingdom of fresh flowers, which are recorded by value only, were of a, declared value of £927,500, while the Imports of bulbs amounted to 525 million, valued at £1,312,600. Imports of pot plants are not separately distinguished in the trade returns.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Are these imports classified as luxury imports or as necessaries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a matter of opinion. I have no doubt the producers think that they are necessaries.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: How do the Board of Trade classify them?
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the quantity of paper-machine wire which was imported into this country during the first 10 months of 1930 and during the same period of 1931; and whether there has been any sign of abnormal imports during the last six months?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I am not in a position to give the hon. Member the information which he desires, as the imports of paper-machine wire are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom.
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Can the information be got from any source which is open to the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will make inquiries to see whether it can be obtained.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to cases of abnormal imports under

    195
    Class II of the Board of Trade returns; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and the second part therefore does not arise.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to introduce legislation dealing with the subject mentioned in the last part of the question?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot make any statement on that question at present.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the extent to which dumping of goods from Germany, France and Czechoslovakia is affecting worsted factories in Scotland; and whether the amount of such imports will be taken into immediate account with a view to action under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As my hon. and gallant Friend will see from the Schedule of the Order which was made on Friday last, the provisions of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act have been applied to imports of woollen and worsted tissues.

    "BUY BRITISH GOODS" CAMPAIGN.
    Major CARVERasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the setting up of the organisation to promote the sale of British goods to which the late President referred on 7th October last in his reply to the hon. Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver)?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A meeting was held on the 9th October at which a number of representative business men were present, and I understand that a subcommittee was formed to consider how the matter might best be pursued. The Empire Marketing Board, as my hon. and gallant Friend will have observed, have launched a vigorous campaign, in which they have had the invaluable assistance of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has it never dawned on the right hon. Gentleman that the best way to encourage the buying of British goods is to give the British the power to buy British goods? They have not the money to buy.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that housewives cannot buy British butter up to May next because it is not labelled British?

    IMPORT DUTIES, FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken with regard to the recent increases in French import duties which discriminate against British products and manufactures?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given on this subject yesterday by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson).
    Mr. RAMSDEN: In the event of the French Government adopting an unreasonable attitude, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to impose additional duties on French wines and other goods?

    FOREIGN TRADE (PREFERENCES).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the expectation among Continental countries of this country adopting a tariff policy, any proposals have been received from any country with the object of establishing a system of mutual preferences?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS (ADVERTISEMENTS).
    Mr. RALPH BEAUMONTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the importance of encouraging purchasers to buy British goods, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to compel advertisers to state in their advertisements the country of origin of the goods they seek to sell?
    Dr. WORTHINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to initiate legislation to ensure that all advertisements relating to goods of foreign origin, whether in

    197
    the public Press or on the hoardings, shall bear an indication of the country of origin of the goods advertised?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, does already require the addition of an indication of origin to any specific advertisement of goods which have themselves to bear such an indication under Order-in-Council, and it is open to the manufacturers of any particular class or description of goods to take advantage of this provision by making application for an Order-in-Council.
    An HON. MEMBER: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the nature of the exhibition of advertised articles of British manufacture held recently in London; whether that exhibition was organised by the retail advertisers themselves, and whether they invited the manufacturers to attend?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to put down that question.

    SHIPPING INDUSTRY (IMPORTS).
    Mr. DENVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will favourably consider the advisability of reduced tariffs on foreign goods carried in British vessels?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.

    TARIFF REDUCTIONS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any negotiations have recently taken place with regard to tariff reductions by other countries; and whether any offers or proposals of such a kind have been received?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There have been no recent negotiations or proposals for negotiation with foreign countries except on the ordinary basis of mutual most-favoured nation treatment. I may explain, however, that two recent agreements of this description, namely, those concluded with Chile and Salvador, did in fact result in United Kingdom goods securing reductions of duty which had previously been accorded to other countries but withheld from us.
    Mr. MANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to continue the negotiations instituted by the late Government with the object of reducing foreign tariffs?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Whenever opportunity offers we shall certainly take advantage of it.

    IRON AND STEEL. INDUSTRY.
    Mr. PEATasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion the imports of iron and steel into the United Kingdom bear to the total of iron and steel manufactured in the United Kingdom in September and October of 1931; and how this proportion compared with the proportion of imports of total make in September and October of 1930?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During September, 1931, the proportion that the imports of pig-iron, ferro-alloys and steel ingots and castings into the United Kingdom bore to the quantity produced in this country was 2.93 per cent., compared with 3.51 per cent. during September, 1930. During October, 1931, the proportion was 4.61 per cent., compared with 3.81 per cent. during October, 1930.
    Mr. PEAT: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that steps will be taken forthwith to stem the flow of imports of iron and steel, which are unnecessarily increasing the adverse, trade balance?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The matter is having our constant consideration.
    Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received a report from his Department as to whether there are or are not abnormal imports of iron and steel at the present time?
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: May we ask for an announcement on this subject from the right hon. Gentleman before the House rises?
    Mr. CLARRYasked the Prime Minister if he will state the reasons for the exclusion of Great Britain from the Report of Delegation, Command Paper 3601, on the industrial conditions in the iron and steel industries, June, 1930?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The reason that this report deals only with the industrial conditions in iron and steel industries abroad is that it was specially prepared to supply information on this subject to the Committee of the Economic Advisory Council which was at that time considering the position of the iron and steel industry in this country.
    Mr. CLARRY: When may we expect a report concerning the British industries?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That question has been dealt with again and again in this House.

    IMPORT RESTRICTIONS (BRITISH COAL).
    Lord DUNGLASSasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of countries which limit the amount of British coal to be imported and under what international agreements they do so?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only countries of substantial importance from the point of view of the United Kingdom coal trade which directly restrict the importation of coal are France, Belgium and Germany. There is no international agreement which limits the right of France and Belgium to impose such restrictions, and the right to apply import restrictions to coal was reserved by Germany under the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty of 1924. I should perhaps add that certain countries, notably Brazil and Spain, whilst not directly controlling importation, enforce requirements that industrial users of coal must consume certain proportions of native coal.
    Lord DUNGLASS: Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind the use of similar limitation to goods imported into this country to the prejudice of our agriculture?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Noble Lord will observe that the latter part of my answer referred to the quota system which is in operation in Brazil and Spain. The quota system is being considered here.

    COCOA(PRICES)
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the wholesale price of Accra cocoa has fallen 40 per cent. between December, 1928, and November, 1931, and that the retail price of certain well-known proprietary brands of cocoa has fallen only 12½ per cent., and the retail price of loose cocoa has fallen only 4 per cent., during the same period; and mill he therefore take action under the Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation) Act, or other similar Act if applicable; and, if none is applicable, will he request a competent body to institute an inquiry and to publish a report?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The figures mentioned do not, of course, take into account all the factors concerned. Nevertheless I am asking the Food Council to inquire into the matter raised by my hon. Friend.

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
    Miss CAZALETasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House the figure of the total value, for each of the last three years, of the preferences given by the Dominions to the United Kingdom on our exports to them, and also the similar figure accruing to the Dominions from the preferences given to them by the United Kingdom?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as is available.
    Following is the information:
    Complete information in regard to the amount of preferential rebates granted by the Dominions (not including India) on United Kingdom goods is only available with respect to the year 1929. It is estimated that during that year the total amount of such preferential rebates aggregated approximately £15,000,000.
    The approximate amount of the (gross) preferential rebate allowed on goods consigned from the Dominions (not including India) and delivered for home consumption during the years ended 31st March, 1929, 1930 and 1931 was £3,000,000, £3,500,000 and £3,000,000 respectively.
    In all cases the amount of preferential rebate represents the difference between the amount of duty received at the preferential rate and the amount which would have been paid on the same quantities had duty been charged at the full rate.
    It will be appreciated that the amount of the preferential rebates is in no sense an accurate measure of the real value of the preferences.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the retained imports of foreign teas in the United Kingdom, which amounted in 1921 to 32,000,000 lbs., had increased in 1930 to 85,000,000 lbs., while the Empire's share in the same period fell from 92 per cent. to 81 per cent.; and whether he can assure the House that

    201
    early steps will be taken to secure a preference for British Empire teas, especially having regard to the fact that all British tea entering Holland is subject to an import duty?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am unable to make any statement at present.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the present very grave position of British tea planters, and will the Government deal with the matter at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the position.

    SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state with respect to what industries Safeguarding Duties have been removed during the period from June, 1929, to the present time; what annual amount of revenue was pre-

    THE FOLLOWING TABLE shows the average annual net receipts from Safeguarding Duties which have lapsed since June, 1929:

    Articles.

    Date when Duty lapsed.

    Customs Duties— Net Receipts (Annual Average).

    £

    Lace and Embroidery (made on net or dissoluble fabric).

    30th June, 1930

    229,800

    Gloves of leather and of fur and cotton fabric gloves.

    21st December, 1930

    490,800

    Mantles for incandescent lighting

    21st December, 1930

    5,700

    Cutlery

    21st December, 1930

    92,000

    Packing and wrapping paper

    30th April, 1931

    520,000

    WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that orders for aeroplane engines for naval aircraft are being placed in this country by Japan; and whether he will consider the advisability of placing an embargo on such orders in present circumstances by international action?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, but I cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. MANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is an im-
    viously obtained from each; and whether he will make an announcement, without delay, as to the intentions of the Government with regard to re-imposing these duties?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Safeguarding Duties on lace, cutlery, gloves, gas mantles and packing and wrapping paper have expired during the period mentioned. With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission I will circulate particulars of the revenue obtained from these duties in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part of the question cutlery, gloves and packing and wrapping paper are included in the Order made on the 20th November under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act.
    Sir F. HALL: In the case of those not included in those previously safeguarded, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the duties are re-imposed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We will look into their merits.
    Following are the particulars:
    proper thing that this and other countries should be in the position—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking for an opinion.
    Mr. MANDER: I bad not finished my question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Clarry.
    Mr. MANDER: The question I wanted to put to the Prime Minister was whether he does not think that steps—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not ask what right hon. Gentleman thinks.

    YUGOSLAVIA.
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Government of Yugoslavia have promulgated a new Act prohibiting the importation of goods which can be produced in that country; if he will state what were the principal classes of goods exported to Yugoslavia from Great Britain in 1930–31 and their approximate value; and what was the value of the goods imported from Yugoslavia in the same year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Inquiries are being made into this matter and I should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend would put his question down for answer next week.

  COMPANY LAW.
  Mr. L. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up without further delay a Departmental Committee to deal with the defects in the Companies Act, 1929, revealed by the Hatry and Kylsant cases, and to recommend constructive methods for preventing limited liability being used any longer as a screen behind which the confidence of the investing public can be abused?
  Sir JOHN HASLAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as a result of recent cases in the criminal courts which have shown that unscrupulous persons can prevent ownership of capital controlling that capital in joint stock enterprises, he will now consider amending the Companies Act of 1929 and the regulations for companies operating under a Royal Charter so as to render the Companies Act capable of protecting the public?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Companies Act, 1929, which came into force on the 1st November, 1929, incorporates the revisions which were made in the law by Parliament in 1928 after a thorough inquiry by a departmental committee. In these circumstances the time is hardly ripe for a fresh inquiry, but if my hon. Friends will let me have their suggestions on the particular points which they have in mind I will have them noted for investigation when the question of amending the Companies Act is under consideration.
  Mr. SMITH: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a small inquiry into these matters may well encourage the investing public to put more capital into industrial securities?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That will certainly be kept in mind.
  Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does not the experience of the last two years show that the longer this Act goes unamended the greater will be the loss to the public?
  Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to take any steps to prevent the use of the title British by companies regardless of foreign ownership of the greater part or of the whole of their capital?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: This proposal involves the general question of compelling disclosure of the persons who are beneficial owners of the shares of a company as distinct from those whose names are required to be stated in the documents filed with the registrar. This is a matter of very great difficulty and I am afraid that I could not hold out any hope of introducing legislation which would be necessary to give effect to my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
  Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the words "Royal" and "Imperial" may only be used in the title of a company with the consent of the Home Secretary, and does he not think that the word "British" presents to nearly all of us an equal if not greater significance than the word "Royal" or the word "Imperial," and will he not take steps to see that the word "British" is suitably safeguarded?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will certainly take note of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.

  BRITISH SHIPPING (ALIEN AND COLOURED SEAMEN).
  Major SANDEMAN ALLENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider setting up a committee, formed of representatives of this House, representatives of the shipowners, and representatives of the trade unions involved, to investigate and report

  205
  upon the grievances existing as a result of the employment of coloured seamen in British vessels?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The grievances, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, have not been brought to my notice, but I shall be pleased to consider any evidence he may have on the subject. On the facts at present before me I see no sufficient reason for appointing a committee on the lines suggested in the question.
  Mr. McGOVERNasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of foreign workers engaged on board British ships?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of British and foreign seamen engaged at mercantile marine offices in Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the three months ended 30th September, 1931 (including repeated engagements of individuals), was 124,969. Of this number 2,583 were foreigners (other than Asiatics and Africans), and 2,811 were Asiatics and Africans, British and foreign. The number of foreigners among the Asiatics and Africans cannot be stated.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to see that unemployed British seamen get these jobs instead of foreigners?
  Sir PATRICK FORD: Has the right hon. Gentleman in prospect any legislation or regulation in order to reduce somewhat the proportion of foreign seamen in British ships?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have every sympathy with the object which both my hon. Friends have in view, but I would point out that, in sonic trades, it is desirable that we should not encourage the employment of white seamen as stokers. In those cases, we do not want to see any reduction of native sailors on British ships, but in a general way I shall do everything in my power to encourage the employment of British sailors in preference to foreigners.
  Captain A. EVANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the classes to which he has referred there is a large number of British coloured seamen available for the employment which offers?

  BAHAMA ISLANDS (LIGHTHOUSES).
  Major COLFOXasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements exist for supervising the efficiency of the Imperial lighthouses in the Bahama Islands; and what is the annual cost to the Exchequer?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: These lighthouses, which are under the management of the Board of Trade, are periodically visited and inspected by an officer appointed by the Department and stationed at Nassau. The charges of the service are borne by the General Lighthouse Fund, not by the Exchequer, and the cost of maintenance averaged approximately £26,600 for the three years ended on 31st March, 1931. In addition, capital expenditure was incurred on renovations of lighthouses during the same years averaging approximately £24,000.
  Major COLFOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a special ship is kept for this purpose?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not answer that question without notice.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.
  Mr. POTTERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the total number of persons prosecuted to date for non-compliance with the quota provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; how many convictions have been secured; and whether the total amount of costs and fines imposed and recovered has been sufficient to discharge the total costs and expenses of the legal proceedings instituted by his Department?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answers to the first and second parts of the question are 56 and 46, respectively; in addition to-the 46 convictions five cases were dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act. The total amounts of costs recovered and fines imposed in all the cases were £445 8s.1d. and £439?s., respectively. The total cost incurred by the Department, including travelling expenses of witnesses, was approximately £550.

  PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES (PLEDGES).
  Mr. BUCHANANasked the Prime Minister if he is 'aware that many candidates for election to Parliament, previous to the General Election, were asked to sign a document which renounced their rights to vote freely in this House if elected; and if he will take steps to make it illegal to put any such pressure upon Parliamentary candidates?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. This would seem to be a matter which should be left to the judgment of candidates themselves, and of the electorate in their constituencies.

  ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister what changes have taken place in the personnel of the Economic Advisory Council since the inception of that body?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the supplementary reply which I gave on the 19th November to a question by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Marton).
  Captain MACDONALD: There has been no change since then?
  The PRIME MINISTER: None.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of War Certificates falling due for redemption next year; and what steps he proposes to take in connection therewith?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amount of Savings Certificates of the first issue which will be outstanding on the 31st March, 1932, is estimated at approximately £150,000,000, including accrued interest. An announcement respecting an offer of extension or conversion to holders of these Certificates will be made at an early date.

    BEER DUTY.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of the Beer Duty paid to
    208
    the Inland Revenue for the month of October, 1930, and the amount paid, or payable, at the increased rate for the month of October, 1931?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The only comparison which can be made at the present moment is between the gross amounts of Excise duty assessed for the month of October in each of the years mentioned (but not payable until the following month). These were £6,076,000 in 1930 and £6,123,000 in 1931. I would repeat, however, that it would at present be premature to draw any conclusions as to the effect of the increase in the duty.
    Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the apparent failure of the tax to produce revenue, and of the fact that it prevents a number of poor men from getting their accustomed beverage, will the Government take into consideration action will, a view to removing the duty?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When sufficient facts have been accumulated, the Government will take that question into consideration.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the effect of the increased beer tax on the hop-growing and barley-growing industries of this country, he will give an early indication that it is the intention of the Government to reduce this tax at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me to anticipate the next Budget statement.

    LAND VALUES TAX.
    Mr. BRACKENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government will abolish forthwith the organisation which was recently established under Part III of the Finance Act, 1931?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on the 19th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Sir V Henderson).
    Mr. BRACKEN: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that he has power to suspend forthwith the working of this part of the Act, and will he not, in view of the pledges as to economy that he gave before the last General Election, exercise that power forthwith?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already said that I will make a statement on the subject before the House rises.
    Mr. MANGER: Is not this a Measure which the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government think a very good one?
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now make any statement as to the policy of the Government with respect to Part III of the Finance Act, 1931?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on the 19th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall). I can as yet add nothing to that reply.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to tell me when I can put this question down in the hope of getting a reply?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I repeat that I hope to make a statement on the subject before the House rises.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the number of manual and other workers who will be subject to Income Tax in consequence of the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, he will consider the immediate introduction of machinery to provide for the payment of such tax due at the source by the employers of the workers concerned?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The deduction by employers of Income Tax from wages has been considered on various occasions in the past, but it has never been found practicable. I am, however, looking into the question again.
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take the necessary steps to see that in future all wholesale and retail co-operative societies are made to pay Income Tax under Schedule D and are treated like all other trading concerns for taxation purposes?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This raises a question of Budgetary policy, and I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the Budget statement.

    SCOTLAND
    Mr. TRAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual total contribution from Scotland to the national revenue; and what is the proportion allocated to Scotland, including the defence services, during the last financial year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that reliable statistics are not available, and. could not be collected without a disproportionate expenditure of labour.
    Mr. TRAIN: In view of the dissatisfaction in Scotland at not getting its proper proportion, will not my right hon. Friend take steps to give us some information on the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must warn my hon. Friend that further investigations into this matter might not produce the result be desires.
    Mr. TRAIN: I will abide by the result, whatever it is.

    STERLING (STABILISATION).
    Mr. CROSSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to defer stabilising the value of the pound sterling until the present bank rate of 6 per cent, has been materially reduced?
    Mr. CLARRYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the principal conditions governing a decision to return to the gold standard?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hamonersley) on Tuesday last. The subject is clearly too large to permit of discussion by way of question and answer.

    CURRENCY (SILVER).
    Mr. CROSSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government has in view any steps towards regulating the value of silver in a fixed proportion to gold by co-operation with the chief silver-producing and silver-consuming countries; and whether he will bear in mind the importance of this matter to the cotton industry of Lancashire?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Stockport Division (Mr. Hammersley) on Tuesday last.
    Mr. CROSSLEY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his views, and consider this question, in view of the report last week of the Silver Association, and also of the recent agreement between the Government of India and the silver producers in America?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that any agreement has been come to between the Government of India, and the producers in America.

    ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS CUSTOMS DUTIES)
    Mr. HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made as to the probable revenue, if any, from the duties levied under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. Any such estimate would necessarily be based on so many uncertain factors as to possess no real value.
    Mr. HARRIS: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury were consulted about the putting on of these various duties before the list was published?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

    UNITED SPATES AND FRANCE (BRITISH TREASURY CREDITS).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the credits granted to the Bank of England for approximately £50,000,000 by the Bank of France and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has been repaid; and whether any portion of the credits for £80,000,000 granted to the Treasury has been repaid?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, I can add nothing to the statement by the Bank of England published on the 31st October, of which I have already sent a copy to the right hon. Member. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I cannot understand the statement which he sent to me from the Bank of England; and will he kindly say how much of this £30,900,000 has been repaid? It is a very simple matter.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not aware that my right hon. Friend could not understand the statement. If he will be good enough to come and see me, I will endeavour to make everything clear to him.

    IMPORT DUTIES.
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that branches of firms abroad sell articles which are taxed under the Safeguarding and McKenna duties to branches of the same firms in England at sums below cost price, thereby avoiding the payment of the proper tariff on those articles; and whether he is prepared to take steps to stop this practice?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): Care is taken to prevent payment of the proper duty being evaded in the way suggested, but, if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any specific instances in which he has reason to think this is happening, I will certainly have the facts looked into.

    TREASURY PENSIONS ACCOUNT.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total accumulated surplus in hand at the beginning of the present month from the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and the amount of interest earned by this surplus?
    Major ELLIOT: It is estimated that, after giving effect to the transfer required by Section 3 of the National Economy (National Health Insurance) Order, 1931, the balance to the credit of the Treasury Pensions Account on 31st October, 1931, is rather less than £45,000,000. This sum is not, however, properly to be described as a surplus. It is no more than a balance accumulated in the first years of the scheme, which is now diminishing and will be absorbed, together with any accumulations of interest, by the outgoings of the next 10 or 12 years. The interest earned

    213
    on the investment of this balance is at present at the rate of approximately £2,000,000 a year.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has it also been borrowed like the Post Office savings?

    PATENT MEDICINE DUTY.
    Sir ALFRED BEITasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that many manufacturers of proprietary medicines are evading the patent medicine duty by ceding their proprietary rights, at the same time retaining the protection and good will of their registered trade names; and whether, in view of the loss of revenue caused by this form bf evasion, he will take steps to bring this practice to an end?
    Major ELLIOT: The law povides for exemption from Medicine Stamp Duty in favour of known, admitted and approved remedies, when sold under certain conditions by duly qualified chemists and druggists. I am aware that certain manufacturers have taken steps, one of which is a disclaimer of proprietary rights, to bring their preparations within the scope of that exemption; hut, provided this is within the terms of the Statute, I cannot interfere.
    Sir A. BEIT: Is it not the case that, as a result of this evasion, many other manufacturers who still pay the duty will have to follow the same course of evasion, as they cannot face the unfair competition?
    Major ELLIOT: If my hon. Friend will look at the answer, he will see that manufacturers have to comply with certain conditions, as to publicity and so on, and manufacturers who comply with those conditions obtain corresponding privileges.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.

    MEMBERS (RAILWAY VOUCHERS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Members of this House have availed themselves of the opportunity to travel third class between Westminster and their constituencies?
    Major ELLIOT: The information in question could only be obtained by a
    214
    detailed examination of used vouchers, and then only for a period some time past, and I am satisfied that the labour involved in ascertaining precise figures would not be justified.
    Mr. McGOVERN: In view of scientific developments, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider aeroplanes as a new means of travel?
    Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think, considering all the other economies which are compulsory throughout the country, that this economy also should be made compulsory?

    QUESTIONS (COST).
    Wing-Commander JAMESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in the interest of economy and for the guidance of new Members, he will state the approximate average cost, in the last financial year, of oral questions asked?
    Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that it is not possible to estimate at all closely the cost of supplying answers to Members' questions, but it is no doubt true that considerable expenditure of time and money is involved. Unofficial estimates were made some years ago giving the cost at as much as 21 per question, but the circumstances of each question differ so widely that it would not be possible to give any accurate determination.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Can my hon. and gallant Friend give any estimate of the cost of answering this particular question?

  GOVERNMENT FACTORY, QUEENSFERRY, FLINTS HIRE.
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps have recently been taken by his Department to dispose of the remainder of His Majesty's factory at Queensferry, Flintshire; and whether, having regard to the demand by industrial firms for sites for works, and also the large amount of available labour in the district, he will take all possible measures to give the public information as to the suitability of this property?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: About 200 acres of this property have been disposed of. The residue of about 60 acres was offered at a public auction last June without a sale resulting. It was re-advertised last week, and every effort is being made to dispose of it. Particulars of the property are readily available locally; they may also be obtained from the Lands Directorate of the War Office.

  NATIONAL GALLERY.
  Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will, in the interests of economy, request the trustees of the National Gallery to close the new western rooms, in which pictures cannot be seen during the day, and re-hang the pictures in other parts of the National Gallery, in order that public money may not be wasted by keeping open rooms in which the contents cannot be seen by daylight?
  Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works to a question by the Member for Newcastle, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle). The necessity for economy will be borne in mind.

  BRITISH ARMY

    TERRITORIAL ARMY
    Sir REGINALD BLAKERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the present need for economy, he is prepared to abolish Territorial Associations and to place the administration of the Territorial Army under the direct control of his Department?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir.
    Sir R. BLAKERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the question of annual camps for Territorial units will be reconsidered by the present Government?
    Mr. COOPER: It is not proposed to alter the decision to suspend the annual training in camp of the Territorial Army for the year 1932, but I may say that the grant for training other than at annual camp for that year has been increased
    216
    by more than 33 per cent. There is no intention of suspending annual camps in 1933.

    WIDOW'S PENSION CLAIM (MRS. TIMONEY).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why the widow of the late Lieutenant John Timoney, of 26, Apsley Place, Glasgow, has been refused a pension, seeing that while he was serving with the Royal Army Medical Corps in Egypt, on 8th September, 1930, he was killed on duty by a revolver suddenly going off; and if he will have this case reconsidered?
    Mr. COOPER: Lieutenant Timoney ways killed by discharge of his own automatic pistol. He was not on duty at the time. As the hon. Member was informed by the late Secretary of State, this case has been very carefully considered, and in the absence of any fresh facts, I regret that the decision cannot be reconsidered.

    BRITISH TROOPS, CYPRUS.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there have been any casualties among the British troops during the recent disturbances in Cyprus; and what is the total establishment of British forces now stationed in the island?
    Mr. cooper: There have been no casualties amongst British troops in Cyprus. The normal establishment of troops in Cyprus is one company of infantry and ancillary troops. According to the latest information available, two additional companies of infantry, a detachment of an armoured car regiment and ancillary troops are temporarily in the island. The armoured car detachment is in process of being withdrawn.

  SCOTLAND.

    BORSTAL INSTITUTES.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the secretary of state for Scotland how many Borstal institutes there are in Scotland and how many inmates?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): Persons sentenced to Borstal

    217
    detention in Scotland are at present accommodated in one Borstal institution and in four parts of prisons reserved for Borstal cases. The number of inmates on 18th November was 213 males and 16 females.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are the inmates on the increase or the decrease?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking the Borstal boys away from the prisons?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I should like to assure the hon. Member that the most scrupulous care is taken to keep these boys and girls away from the other inmates of the prisons, and the supervisory staff is very carefully selected for this work.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will take away these Borstal boys and girls from the prisons altogether There is adequate room for them elsewhere.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Are the cases frequently reviewed, so that boys who show signs of coming back to normal behaviour can have their punishment reduced?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Certainly they are reviewed. As regards the previous question, I am assured that the parts of the prisons which have been set apart serve their purpose very well.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In the review of these cases, will the right hon. Gentleman show greater sympathy and clemency than any of his predecessors?

    AGRICULTURE.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether, in view of the losses sustained by Scottish fruit growers 'as the result of the imports of foreign fruit, he is prepared to take steps to restrict such imports;
    (2) if he will consider the desirability of controlling by licence, prohibition, or quota, the importation into Scotland of oats and barley, including malting barley?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: These matters along with other questions concerning agriculture are engaging the attention of
    218
    the Government. I am not at present, therefore, in a position to make an announcement on the subject.
    Lord SCONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is grave danger of still more arable land going down to grass unless a satisfactory assurance is given very soon?

    HOUSING.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is prepared to urge the Second Scottish National Housing Company to reduce the rents of grant-aided steel houses at Sandyhills, Tollcross, Glasgow?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The answer is in the negative. The Second Scottish National Housing Company is bound to fix the rents of steel houses by reference to the rents charged for houses of similar accommodation in the district, and inquiries have satisfied me that this has in fact been done at Sandyhills.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these houses are very much inferior to adjoining houses of brick and rough-cast type, and that the tenants are enduring considerable hardships? Would he further consider the advisability of advising this company to reduce the rents?
    Mr. SKELTON: No, I have no information which would lead me to suppose that these steel houses are inferior to other houses.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: If the Under-Secretary were to visit these houses in this area, where I live, he would see that they are inferior and that the rents ought to be reduced.

    REGISTERS AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT (SALARIES).
    Sir P. FORDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists among the second-class clerks in the Department of the Registers and Records of Scotland, owing to the fact that the salary scale of youths of 18 to 19 entering the lower executive grade with no more than a secondary education is £100—£15—£400, whereas the scale of the second-class clerks, who have been recruited between the ages of 20 and 25, and have had

    219
    prior professional training and qualifications in law, is £80—£7 10s.— £132 10s.—t10—£300; and whether, in view of the negotiations which were in progress in the last Parliament with regard to second-class clerks, he can now state when these clerks will receive terms commensurate with these considerations?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am aware of the dissatisfaction among the second-class clerks referred to on the subject of their rates of remuneration, but I am unable to admit the implications conveyed in the comparison drawn with the executive grade, upon which comparison I am informed that a claim by the second-class clerks was made unsuccessfully before the Civil Service Arbitration Board in 1923. The rates of remuneration of the second-class clerks are necessarily dependent upon a reorganisation of staff in the light of the decisions to be taken on the recommendations of the Committee on the Registration of Writs presided over by Lord Fleming, and upon a satisfactory adjustment of the balance between revenue and expenditure in the Sasines Office. The issues involved in these questions are important and complex, and I regret that I am not yet able to say when a reply can be made to the claims of the second-class clerks; but there will be no avoidable delay in reaching a conclusion.
    Sir P. FORD: Is it not a fact that the arbitration was given at a, time when the board was drawing to a close and when the same attention was not paid to it? Further, is it not a fact that the Fleming Report had nothing whatever to do with the qualifications of these clerks but rather with the nature of the work that would be required? Further, is it not a fact—
    Mr. SPEAKER: These questions had better be put down.
    Mr. D. M. MASON: On a point of Order. It is almost impossible to hear the answer owing to the noise opposite.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am suffering in the same way.

    UNEMPLOYED DEMONSTRATION, GLASGOW (ARRESTS).
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state the
    220
    reasons for the delay in bringing to trial the persons arrested in connection with the unemployed demonstration in Glasgow on let October?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): Of 108 cases arising out of the demonstration referred to, 87 have already been brought to trial and finally disposed of. Of the remainder dates for trial have been fixed in nine cases, and as regards the rest instructions have been given for their disposal. There has, accordingly, been no delay.
    Mr. MAXTON: It is now seven or eight weeks since these men were arrested on what is either a very simple charge or no charge at all. Are the police having difficulty in finding evidence in these cases?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, the police have had no difficulty of any kind in finding evidence. The hon. Member should keep in view that there were 103 cases that had to be carefully investigated and reported upon before proceedings were instructed. He should further keep in view that cases can only be disposed of when Judges are able to find time for their disposal. I can assure him, taking the whole of the facts into consideration in the present cases, that there has been no delay of any kind.
    Mr. McGOVERN: If it is no breach of legal privilege, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that I am left at home at Christmas time or, if not, will he give the same consideration as was given to Lord Kylsant and send me to hospital?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of feeling in the matter and that the poorest people were proceeded against in some cases a month ago? In the case of more prominent Members, all this delay takes place while the very poorest people are proceeded against at once.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: My hon. Friend is quite misinformed as to the facts. There has been no discrimination of any kind, except that in order that the electoral activities of certain people might not be interfered with, I directed that their cases might stand over until the election was over.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman or—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We really cannot have the matter debated.

    UNEMPLOYED WORKERS (RENT AND TAXES).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to protect the large numbers of unemployed in Scotland from the sufferings confronting them during this winter, owing to their inability to pay rent and taxes and their consequent liability to eviction?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: No steps on my part seem necessary for I have no reason to doubt that the local authorities administering public assistance are fully alive to their responsibilities in regard to these cases.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the same reply he has already given to me, namely, that this matter would be dealt with by the Public Assistance Committee Now we have made extensive inquiries, and find that such a statement is inaccurate; it is not true. We want to know what he is going to do.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Train.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. My point of Order is that the Secretary of State for Scotland has given me a reply which is exactly the same as that I received from him a fortnight ago, and we have proved that his reply is a mistake. I want him to go further into the matter and try and get his mistake rectified.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no point of Order. If the hon. Member will put down another question, perhaps he will get the same reply again?

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.
    Mr. TRAINasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government proposes to set up a committee of inquiry into the working of the Local Government Act, 1929, in Scotland?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Until further experience has been gained of the working of the Act it would in my opinion be premature to consider setting up a committee.
    Mr. TRAIN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scotland has been promised time and again an inquiry into the working of the Act, which has now been working for two years and a half?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: A number of modifications have been made in the administrative schemes, and there is need, I think, of getting these schemes further tried before we embark upon a formal inquiry. The possibility of having an inquiry, as was announced by the Prime Minister, has certainly not been abandoned.

    AGRICULTURAL SECURITY CORPORATION.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to give the House any information with regard to the corporation for agricultural credits in Scotland?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the answer which I gave last Tuesday to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeenshire (Mr. R. W. Smith) and to which, in the meantime, I have nothing to add.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Has nothing been done within the last week?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: As I explained to the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen last week, this scheme has been approved by the Department concerned and is now with the banks. We can do nothing until the banks have approved the Articles and Memorandum of Association and as soon as they have done so there will be no delay.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Cannot my right hon. Friend complain to the banks and point out the strong feeling of resentment there is on the part of Scottish Members that Scotland is being treated, in comparison with England, very adversely.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: My right hon. Friend had better address that question to the banks.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Colonel GRETTON: May I ask a question upon Business before the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule is put?

223
Can the Leader of the House inform us what Business it is proposed to take after eleven o'clock?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): Perhaps I may answer that question. If possible, it is proposed to get the remaining stages of the Statute of Westminster Bill and the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Money Resolution. If, as the Debate proceeds, we see that more time is needed for the Statute of Westminster Bill, then inquiries at the Whips' Office will be made. We should like to see what takes place, but at the moment we adhere to the statement which was made yesterday.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that at any rate the Irish Amendment of importance to the Statute of Westminster Bill will not be taken after eleven o'clock and that he is not seeking to make us go into the Division Lobby in order to make us pass this important Statute after eleven o'clock, because such a procedure, after the strong pledge given by the Solicitor-General, would be highly improper.
Captain MARGESSON: As the Prime Minister stated yesterday, there is no intention whatever of asking for a Division at a late hour. Of course, no important Division will be asked for at an unreasonable hour. We must see how the Debate proceeds before we decide what is to be the course of the proceedings.
Colonel GRETTON: What is a reasonable hour? Of course, no one would wish to carry the Debate over for the sake of half-an-hour, but what does the hon. and gallant Member mean by reasonable hour?
Captain MARGESSON: As I have said, there is no intention by the Prime Minister of asking the House to sit late and take important decisions at an early hour to-morrow morning. We shall have to see how the Debate proceeds, and then, if necessary and representations are made and it is found that the Debate has been protracted, something will be done to accommodate the convenience of Members of the House. There is no intention of asking that an important decision shall be arrived at at some inconvenient hour.
Earl WINTERTON: Can my hon. And gallant Friend say whether, if there is any alteration of Business, it will affect the Business set down for to-morrow?
Captain MARGESSON: I think we must be allowed to see how the Debate proceeds to-day. In any case, if extra time is to be afforded, I do not see any reason why the Business set down for tomorrow need necessarily be altered. I think the same arrangements could be carried out.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether if in any case he intends to go on with the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Money Resolution?
Captain MARGESSON: The Report stage of the Money Resolution, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is exempted Business, and we hope, if possible, to get the Report stage of the Financial Resolution to-night.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 404; Noes, 38.

Division No. 18.]

AYES.

[3.50 p.m.

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Blindell, James

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Balniel, Lord

Borodale, Viscount

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Bossom, A. C.

Albery, Irving James

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Boulton, W. W.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman {Llverp'l, W.)

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Aske, Sir William Robert

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Atkinson, Cyril

Bernays, Robert

Braithwaite, J, G. (Hillsborough)

Bailey, Eric Alfred George

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

Briscoe, Richard George

Broadbent, Colonel John

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Levy, Thomas

Brockiebank, C. E. R.

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Liddall, Walter S.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Lister, Rt. Hon. sir Philip Cunliffe-

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Nawb'y)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Browne, Captain A. C.

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Buchan, John

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

Burghley, Lord

Gledhill, Gilbert

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Burnett, John George

Glossop, C. W. H.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Butler, Richard Austen

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Mabane, William

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Goldle, Noel B.

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Caine, G. R. Hall

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Campbell, Rear-Admt. G. (Burnley)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

McCorquodale, M. S.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Grimston, R. V.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Carver, Major William H.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Castiereagh, Viscount

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

McEwen, J. H. F.

Castle Stewart, Earl

Gunston, Captain D. W.

McKeag, William

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

McKie, John Hamilton

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

Hales, Harold K.

McLean, Major Alan

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Chotzner, Alfred James

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Christle, James Archibald

Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Clarke, Frank

Hanley, Dennis A.

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Clarry, Reginald George

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Magnay, Thomas

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Harbord, Arthur

Maitland, Adam

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Hartington, Marquess of

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Colfox, Major William Philip

Hartland, George A.

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Colville, Major David John

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Conant, R. J. E.

Harve,. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Manningham-Butler, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Cook, Thomas A.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Cooke, James D.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Cooper, A. Duff

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Martin, Thomas B.

Copeland, Ida

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Meller, Richard James

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Mills, Sir Frederick

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Hepworth, Joseph

Milne, Charles

Craven-Ellis, William

Herbert, George (Rotherham)

Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-

Crooke, J. Smedley

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Crookshank, Capt, H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Holdsworth, Herbert

Mitcheson, G. G.

Crossley, A. C.

Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

Molson, A. Harold Elsdale

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Hopkinson, Austin

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Morgan, Robert H.

Curry, A. C.

Hornby, Frank

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Horobin, Ian M.

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

Davison, Sir William Henry

Howard, Tom Forrest

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Moss, Captain H. J.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Denville, Alfred

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Munro, Patrick

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

Dickie, John P.

Hurd, Percy A.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Donner, P. W.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Doran, Edward

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. sir R. (Montr'se)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Drewe, Cedric

Hutchison, w. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fld)

Duckworth, George A. V.

Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.

North, Captain Edward T.

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Llonel

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Nunn, William

Duggan, Hubert John

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Oman, sir Charles William C.

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Jamieson, Douglas

Ormiston, Thomas

Dunglass, Lord

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Eady, George H.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Owen, Major Goronwy

Eden, Robert Anthony

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Palmer, Francis Noel

Edge, Sir William

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Patrick, Colin M.

Edmondson, Major A, J.

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Peake, Captain Osbert

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Ker, J. Campbell

Pearson, William G.

Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Peat, Charles U.

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Kimball, Lawrence

Penny, Sir George

Elmley, Viscount

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Petherick, M.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Knebworth, viscount

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Knight, Holford

Pickering, Ernest H.

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, s.)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Pike, Cecil F.

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Potter, John

Everard, W. Lindsay

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Law, Sir Alfred

Power, Sir John Cecil

Ferguson, Sir John

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Fermoy, Lord

Leckie, J. A.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Flanagan, W. H.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Pybus, Percy John

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Lees-Jones, John

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

226

227

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Ramsbotham, Herswald

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Ramsden, E.

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Rankin, Robert

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Train, John

Ratcliffe, Arthur

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. sir Walter D.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Rathbone, Eleanor

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Somerset, Thomas

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Soper, Richard

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Remer, John R.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E,

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Wells, Sydney Richard

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Weymouth, Viscount

Ropner, Colonel L.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

White, Henry Graham

Ross Taylor, Waller (Woodbridge)

Steel- Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Stevenson, James

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Stewart, William J.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Runge, Norah Cecil

Stones, James

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Storey, Samuel

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Stourton, John J.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Wise, Alfred R.

Salmon, Major Isidore

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Withers, Sir John James

Salt, Edward W.

Summersby, Charles H.

Womersley, Walter James

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Templeton, William P.

Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Thorn, Lieut.-Colonel John Gibb

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Savery, Samuel Servington

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Scone, Lord

Thomas, Major J. B. (King's Norton)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H,

Thompson, Luke

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Thornson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr. Russell Rea.

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Thorp, Linton Theodore

NOES.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Grundy, Thomas w.

McGovern, John

Batey, Joseph

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Maxton, James

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Milner, Major James

Buchanan, George

Healy, Cahir

Parkinson, John Allen

Cape, Thomas

Hicks, Ernest George

Price, Gabriel

Cove, William G.

Hirst, George Henry

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Tinker, John Joseph

Daggar, George

Kirkwood, David

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Devlin, Joseph

Leonard, William

Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

Logan, David Gilbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Edwards, Charles

Lunn, William

Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:
That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
228
had selected the following Eight Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the Five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47: Mr. Cape, Sir Cyril Cobb, Mr. Entwistle, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Duncan Millar, Mr. William Nicholson, Sir Hugh O'Neill, and Sir Samuel Roberts.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL) (PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. Cape and Mr. William Nicholson from the Chairmen's Panel,

229
with whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899) (PANEL).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following Eleven Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Sir Adrian Baillie, Sir Samuel Chapman, Earl of Dalkeith, Sir Patrick Ford, Mr. Leonard, Major MacAndrew, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Maclean, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Albert Russell, and Mr. James Stuart.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE) (PANEL).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Eleven Members to be the Panel to serve on Standing Orders Committees under Standing Order No. 98: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Earl of Dalkeith, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Major Leighton, Mr. Mander, Major-General Sir Newton Moore, Sir Frank Sanderson, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Mr. Tinker, Sir Kenyon Vaughan Morgan, and Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (UNOPPOSED BILLS COMMITTEE) (PANEL).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Eight Members to be the Panel to serve on Unopposed Bills Committees under Standing Order No. 111: Mr. Charles Brown, Mr. Chotzner, Mr. Ellis, Sir Bertram Falle, Mr. Logan, Mr. James Reid, Mr. Smith-Carington, and Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Colonel GRETTON: Before we proceed with the Committee stage, Sir Dennis, would you be prepared, for the convenience of the Committee to indicate the Amendments which you propose to call; also those which you rule out of order and those which you propose to group?
  4.0 p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN: On Clause 3, which is the first Clause on which there are any Amendments on the Order Paper, I do not propose to select both the first and the third Amendment. I shall call the first Amendment, and if it is discussed I do not propose to call the third Amendment. In regard to the Amendments on Clause 10, the first three obviously form one Amendment. I have had handed in other Amendments which are in place of those, and which only amount to a slightly different form of words. I do not propose to rule any of the Amendments as out of order, but it must depend on the progress of the Debate whether I decline to select any of them. At the moment I have no intention to decline to select any of the Amendments. After Clause 3 two or three of the Amendments are consequential on earlier ones.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: In regard to the Amendments on Clause 3, am I to understand that it will be permissible to adopt this procedure, that you will call the first Amendment and put the first and the third Amendments, allowing the Committee to vote for the first or the third, and also allowing a general discussion on the subject matter of both Amendments? They concern the same subject matter, but they are alternative ways of amending the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: I propose to call the first Amendment. If it is not moved, I shall, in due course, call the third Amendment, but, if it is moved, I shall not select the third Amendment.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power of Parliament of Dominion to legislate extra-territorially.)
Sir GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end, to add the words:
"Provided that such laws do not conflict in their terms with laws prevailing in the United Kingdom or in other Dominions which have extra-territorial operation or with international law."
May I, at the beginning, make two observations which, I think, can fairly be made, not only on my own behalf, but also on behalf of my hon. Friends whose names are attached to this Amendment? The first is, that in moving this Amendment there is not the slightest idea of making any cave or revolt against the National Government. That suggestion has been made, but, of course, we are all loyal supporters of the National Government. It is not, however, in the interest of the National Government, or of the nation, or of any of the Dominions to pass a Measure which is full of obscurities, and which is not based upon the very best methods possible to achieve the end which the Government have in view. Secondly, in moving this Amendment, there is not the slightest idea of combating or challenging in any way the famous formula as to equality of status laid down by the late Lord Balfour in 1926. No doubt this House is committed to that formula, but it does not follow in the least that the House is committed to every word in the Measure now before it. The aim of the draftsmen of the Measure has been to give effect to the formula, but draftsmen are fallible men, like ourselves. No sanctity attaches to the exact words used by them. We, as a House of Commons, are entitled to ask: "Where are we going?" and I cannot think that any representative of the Government will really urge that this House is committed to every sentence in this Bill, and is disqualified from examining every Clause on its merits, and arriving at a fair and free decision as to whether those Clauses are in the best form.
This Amendment deals with Clause 3 of the Measure, which declares that
"the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation."
At the present time, the Dominions do not enjoy such power, except the very limited power of dealing with coastal

247
trade and matters of that sort when dealing with what goes on in territorial waters. There has been, and there is to-day, a range of law outside the jurisdiction of the Dominion Legislatures. That range is described very roughly in paragraph 38 of the Report of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation, in which it alludes to questions concerning fisheries, taxation, shipping, air navigation, marriage, criminal law, deportation, and the enforcement of laws against smuggling and unlawful immigration. But there are other branches of law also which are not touched by Dominion legislation—Imperial British nationality, naturalisation, the status of married women and allegiance. The reason why this range of jurisdiction has not been exercised by Dominion Legislatures is not because of any alleged or imputed inferiority of the States. The reason has been that it has been universally recognised that, upon all these matters of world-wide importance and world-wide interest it is desirable, from the point of view not only of this Kingdom but from the point of view of every Dominion, to have as much uniformity of law as possible. These are not subjects in which the historical and racial differences which divide the members of the British Empire to some extent from one another apply at all. They are matters in which the greatest possible uniformity is desirable.
These matters of jurisdiction have passed through three stages in the history of English law. There was a time when our Parliament legislated for British subjects all over the world without regard to the self-governing Dominions. The second stage was arrived at when this country passed legislation leaving it within the power of Dominion Legislatures to adopt the same legislation, and that course has been followed with regard to copyright law in 1911, and with regard to the British Nationality Act, 1914, which was adopted with, I think, very slight modifications by Australia and New Zealand. In later years, since 1926, the third stage has been reached in which legislation on those lines has been proposed, but subject to consultations and agreements first with the Dominions. These stages have all made towards unity and uniformity, be-
248
cause it is not in the interest of the Empire that there should be seven complete systems of law. There are anomalies in the present system with regard to naturalisation, uncertainties and doubts; at the same time, British citizenship has been so interpreted, and the extra-territorial jurisdiction of this Parliament has been so exercised, as to render the ambit of those anomalies as small as possible.
What is the effect of Clause 3? It really means that, apart from the invaluable personal link of the common Sovereign, there is a liability to a conflict of laws with regard to extra-territorial legislation between seven self-governing countries, and I hope that whoever speaks on behalf of the Government on this Amendment will deal with that point. Is it not a fact that Clause 3 in its present form opens the door to a specific conflict of laws with regard to a great range of legislation between the seven parties to this Statute? This must mean very great inconvenience and very uncomfortable clashes not only between members of the British Commonwealth, but also the greatest uncertainty among individuals as to what the law is. Take the ease of nationality. Under the law of the Irish Free State anybody who had been resident in Ireland for seven years, in 1922 became automatically an Irish citizen who may be, and probably will be, a British national from our point of view, and if this Clause is passed, and you really get the idea of two nationalities within the common Commonwealth, a man may be in point of law an Irish national and an English national at the same time. He may be subject to two conflicting systems of law. It is very difficult to know what would be right in that case. If such a man died in Italy, what would be his power of testation? We refer this question to the law of the domicile, but that law refers it back to the law of the man's nationality. What is that man's nationality? Is it English or Irish?
There are countless questions such as those relating to marriage, to the capacity to make 'a will, and to the devolution of property on intestacy. Then, again, there is the very difficult question which is raised in paragraph 44 of the Report, and which is ignored in the Bill. Paragraph 44 says:

249
"In connection with the exercise of extraterritorial legislative powers, we consider that provision should be made for the customary extra-territorial immunities with regard to internal discipline enjoyed by the armed forces of one Government when present in the territory of another Government with the consent of the latter."
In other words, some specific provision was recommended by this Committee to be inserted in the Statute to meet the case of a British garrison sent to a Dominion, or kept on garrison duty within the frontiers of a Dominion. That recommendation has not been acted upon, and no such provision is made. If this Clause is passed in its present form, with no such provision made, it will mean that the arm of British law will not be long enough to maintain discipline in a British Army garrisoned, say, in a port in Ireland, and the garrison will be subject to the local law. That would be the result of the non-observance of paragraph 44.
I only mention what might be regarded as of minor detail, resulting from the conflict of laws. I do not wish to raise the graver questions of conflict of laws which may very readily suggest themselves to the imaginations of hon. Members, such as may arise from conflicting advice being given to the Crown by the Governments of different members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and will raise infinite difficulties. If, in addition to conflicting advice, you have a conflict in extra-territorial legislation, the result will be positively disastrous. It may be said, on behalf of the Bill, that clashes of this sort are impossible, and that we have to rely upon a reasonable understanding, forbearance and intelligence in those who govern the countries, and who are not likely to encourage clashes of this sort. That is what we rely upon at the present time. That; reliance upon mutual forbearance and understanding has been the cement which has kept the Empire so loyally together.
We have regarded the Empire, just as we regard the State, as a living organism that grows, and where changes of the very greatest importance can be made without being incorporated in any written or rigid constitution, but which will be recognised by those who are responsible for the government of the Dominions. That is the present system. By this Bill we are substituting, for the system which is based upon mutual
250
understanding, a written constitution, and those questions in the future will not be simply questions of conduct and policy, but will become also questions of law. They are to be interpreted, not by the wishes and the sentiments of those who are, for the time being, governing the different members of the Empire, but as legal matters, according to the true construction of the Statute.
We have put forward this Amendment as a Proviso that such laws do not conflict in their terms with laws prevailing in the United Kingdom, or in other Dominions which have extra-territoriality, or with international law. The aim of that Proviso is to leave, over and above the obvious functions of a municipal legislature legislating for its own internal affairs, a margin where we can have uniformity, so far as it is possible to have uniformity, and where what has been agreed upon by the United Kingdom and the Dominions can be given free play, along with those practical rules and principles, which are so recognised as international law that they form part of our common law. An Amendment of this type need not be a permanent part of the law of the Empire, because if advantage is taken of the next Imperial Conference, it may be possible to give effect to the spirit of the third Amendment, which you, Sir, are not going to call, but which provides that the Section shall not come into operation
"until a convention has been ratified by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and every Dominion Parliament establishing uniformity with regard to laws having extraterritorial operation throughout the Empire."
If the Proviso which I am moving were incorporated in the Statute, it would be possible, at the next Imperial Conference, to make an appeal to arrive at uniformity, in general Imperial matters as to which there is no conflict of opinion between the Dominions and this country. It is of the first importance to establish the closest possible uniformity of spirit and of outlook. I know that it is not your intention to call that Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Hopkin Morris), but the spirit of that Amendment is in the Amendment which I am moving. I feel that all hon. Members must realise the need for having a

251
common law of the Empire or Commonwealth, in those non-contentious, non-national but Imperial matters, as to which a conflict of law would be of the gravest disadvantage to the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I should like to ask the learned Solicitor-General if it is not a fact that Clause 3 opens the door to a greatly increased conflict of law. There is a conflict of law, here and there, at the present time, between the United Kingdom and the Dominions, but is it not a fact that the introduction of seven extraterritorial systems of law, in place of one, must lead to an increased conflict of law I Secondly, does the learned Solicitor-General not think that conflict of laws is in itself a bad thing, and that it should he the object of Imperial statesmanship to lessen that conflict of laws? That is a view which I am sure will commend itself to anybody who has at heart the true interests, not only of our nation, but of the Dominions as well. The present law is not the result of any arrogation of supremacy or superiority by the Mother Country, but is simply the result of the deep-felt need for uniformity of nationality and citizenship, and of law, among the members of the same Commonwealth throughout the world.
I suggest that this Proviso deserves very serious consideration by the Committee. We were told that we must not criticise this Bill too much, and that it is a good thing to make a leap in the dark. What is the good of a leap in the dark? We are entitled on these matters to be guided by the best opinion and the best experience that we can get, and my object in moving this Amendment is that, if we have to take this plunge and walk in darkness, at any rate we may try to preserve as many rays of light as possible, to lead our footsteps amid the encircling gloom.
Mr. ATKINSON: This is one of the matters, in relation to the Bill, which deserves full consideration. Every hon. Member must have been struck by the extraordinarily wide language of the Clause. A Dominion is to be given full power to make laws having extra-terri-torial operation. There is not a single nation in the world which has full powers
252
to make laws of extra-territorial operation. Normally, a nation can only legislate in respect of its own territory and its own people, and with regard to foreigners can only legislate in so far as they come within the jurisdiction of that nation. The most complicated and difficult questions are constantly arising when one nation attempts to make laws to bind foreigners outside its own territory, questions which we come up against where attempts are made to create fishery offences outside territorial waters, and in conflict of law with regard to marriage and divorce. All sorts of difficulties arise once a nation attempts to legislate for other than its own nationals. The principle, which you will find laid down by the authorities, can be put in these words: That, in general, one nation cannot assume jurisdiction which goes beyond the limits established by the common consent of nations. In other words, they cannot attempt to infringe what has come to be recognised as international law.
With regard to our Empire, one thing I should have thought everybody would agree upon, and that is, that it is tremendously desirable that there should be uniformity with regard to an international or Empire code of law, dealing with extra-territorial questions. One would have thought that uniformity was essential, yet it is here proposed to set up seven or eight different legislatures, and to give them all power to legislate differently in regard to matters which must overlap. Let me give you an illustration to show how it would work out. Suppose that Canada proceeded to pass legislation prohibiting anybody fishing, in waters which they chose to regard as Canadian waters, beyond the three-mile limit? Suppose that Newfoundland thought the same thing, and did the same thing, passing similar legislation in respect of the same waters. Nothing in this Bill can give Canada any right to legislate with regard to foreigners, but this question does not affect the rights of foreigners at all. What we do in this Bill may affect the rights of our own subjects, and of members of other Dominions. Suppose that Canada passed legislation of that sort, and proceeded to arrest British fishermen for fishing in waters reserved for themselves, and that we set up the argument: "You have no

253
right to go in for extra-territorial legislation of that kind." They would say: "Look at Section 3 of the Statute of Westminster, which gives us full powers" —not the powers which they usually exercise and which are exercised by international law—"You have given us full power to make laws having extra-territoriality. What effect is to be given to the word 'full'." There would be very good arguments on their part to say, so far as our own subjects and the nationals of other Dominions are concerned, that we have given them rights against us and against those nationals, to a wider extent than they possessed against nationals of other countries.
4.30 p.m.
Take a very complicated branch of law, that of copyright. Suppose that Canada choose to say that anyone who in any country infringed the Canadian law of copyright should be liable to a fine. Suppose that there was an infringement here, and that it was an infringement according to Canadian law but not according to our own law. Of course they could not possibly fine a man here. But suppose that the man here had property in Canada. He could be proceeded against and fined there; there could be service outside the jurisdiction and a fine levied on his property. One can imagine all sorts of questions arising in connection with merchant shipping law. We may have our own regulations, as we have, relating to merchant shipping. Canada may choose to have different regulations regarding the employment of Canadian seamen. Let me give an illustration which may perhaps seem silly. Suppose that Canada said that no Canadian should be employed on any ship throughout the world for less than five dollars a day. Suppose that a Canadian joined a ship in Liverpool at four dollars a day, and sailed to Canada. The Captain could be arrested for breaking the Canadian law by employing a Canadian seaman at less than five dollars a day. The moment we protested and said to Canada, "You cannot legislate with regard to matters of that sort," they would reply, "Why not? You have given us full power to make laws with extra-territorial operation. Cannot we legislate with regard to Canadian subjects throughout the world? What do you mean when you say that you have
254
given us full power to make laws of that kind?"
I raise the points that I have in my mind. It seems to me that the use of this word "full" may lead to all sorts of difficulties. This is a Bill which will regulate the relations of the Dominions for hundreds of years, for all we know. No one can tell what questions will arise. With regard to Ireland all sorts of disputes may arise as to the territorial waters of the two countries. Ire land may have one view of territorial waters and we may take another. I do not know who is to settle the conflict between the two countries. It is quite clear that if this Bill is passed there will not be much left of the right of appeal to the Privy Council of this country. Once that appeal has gone who is to settle how far the power given by this Clause has been legally exercised? It becomes a matter of discussion and dispute and someone has to give way. I support the Amendment, because I hold that we ought not to be put in a worse position than that in which we would be under international law if the Dominions were foreign countries. Under the Bill we would be in a worse position, and no one can complain of the proposed limitations being added to the Clause. I understood that there was no intention to give any Dominion power to infringe what is the recognised international law. It is important that we should try to secure uniformity of extra-territorial law so far as the Empire is concerned. Therefore, the first Amendment is fully justified in providing that nothing shall be done which is in conflict with the law of this country.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I think it is convenient, at the outset of these Committee proceedings, to remind the Government of the pledges that they have given with regard to this matter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council will remember that the learned Solicitor-General promised us, in the most generous terms, consideration of any Amendment that might be brought forward. He said:
"I am not giving a promise to accept any particular Amendment, but I am undertaking—and I hope the House will accept it on behalf of my right hon. Friend—that, with the opportunities for consideration

255
which, no doubt, will be given to all these important matters, every single Amendment shall be considered on its merits without any desire to compel the House to a particular course of action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1931; col. 1248, Vol. 259.]
There are a great many of us in this House who take all these legal Amendments, without reference to the specific question of Ireland, extraordinarily seriously. We regard this as the first charter for the future of our great Empire. We think that it is only in harmony with our duty that we as a Committee of the Whole House should consider everything honourably and conscientiously to the best of our ability. Hon. Members must realise how hopelessly inadequate and hopelessly unsuitable this tribunal is for the discussion of these matters. We have beard and we will hear learned speeches from eminent lawyers discussing what they in their learning know and can judge about a Statute of this kind, not matters of interest to the general body of the House, not matters upon which the general body of the House would wish or feel it proper to base an opinion. But this is the tribunal which has been chosen by the Government to discuss the first Statute that is to give a constitution to the Empire.
Of course, the Bill should have gone to a committee of experts. It makes me feel miserable and ashamed to think that this moment should have been chosen by the Government for the discussion of this Statute. It ought to have been sent to a joint committee of Lords and Commons, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). Such a committee would have been able to thrash it out month by month and perhaps year by year. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. They do not realise that the Dominions have had years to consider this matter. Hon. Members may not have read the learned speeches of Imperial statesmen like Mr. Latham, who has made great contributions to the subject. I do not know whether those speeches have been read by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. The right hon. Gentlemen would realise at once that the Parliament of Australia is second in no degree in Imperial maters to this House, and that it has given far greater and more careful consideration to this ques-
256
tion than the National Government proposes that the House of Commons should be able to do. The Bill has been discussed throughout the Empire; on a number of occasions it has come up and has been examined with care. The Dominions look to this House to consider it and amend it.
I have reminded the right hon. Gentleman of the pledge given by the Solicitor-General. I would remind him again of the pledges given to-day by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. He was asked specifically whether he proposed to take a vote on the Irish question after eleven o'clock at night. He gave an answer with which I at any rate was satisfied, that the Government had no intention of taking a vote at a late stage on so important a matter. I regard that as a pledge of honour. I regard all the Amendments on the Paper as Amendments which we must argue and thrash out and try to get the Government to accept. We are not wedded to any particular form of words, as the Government arc, but we ask the Government to discuss this matter seriously like men of honour.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now making a speech which is more appropriate to the Second Reading. He has been speaking for nearly five minutes without having come to the Amendment.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I will immediately expedite my approach to the Amendment. I gather that your Ruling does not rule out any arguments which I may found upon the third Amendment on the Paper, at the end of the Clause to add the words:
"Provided that this Section shall not come into operation in any Dominion until a convention has been ratified by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and every Dominion Parliament establishing uniformity with regard to laws having extraterritorial operation throughout the Empire."
The CHAIRMAN: I am prepared to allow reasonable latitude in the discussion of the first Amendment as there is a principle involved in it; and, of course, it would be in order to make reference to the third Amendment.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The Bill is described as a Bill
"To give effect to certain resolutions passed by Imperial Conferences held in the years 1926 and 1930."

257
This is a subject which I wish to clear up at the very outset. I read in the report of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation and Merchant Shipping Legislation, 1929, the following on page 9, paragraph (b):
"The practicability and most convenient method of giving effect to the principle that each Dominion Parliament should have powe0r to give extra-territorial operation to its legislation in all cases where such operation is ancillary to provision for the peace, order and good government of the Dominion."
It is clear that there was a wise Conservative Government in power, or at any rate that some of them were wise enough to put that important proviso upon any extra-territorial powers which were given to the Dominions. It is interesting to see that this was agreed to by the other Dominions; at any rate there is no record on the proceedings that that safeguard in regard to peace, order and good government by the Dominion should not be reserved. I my-self, perhaps, think that that would have been the best way to have moved this Amendment, except that it would have been so vague and would have led to a greater conflict of law than it was in- tended to avoid. However, it was a wise reservation, but difficult to work out. Now we find, according to the latest re- commendation, which was the result of a hopelessly discredited Government, the last Socialist Administration, who were responsible for this report now being laid before Parliament, that that safeguard and reservation with regard to peace, order and good government of the Empire is withdrawn—a safeguard which might have preserved some semblance of unity. We read on page 16, at the bottom:
"With regard to the extent of the powers so to be declared [on extra-territorial matters] we are of opinion that the recognition of the powers of a Dominion to legislate with extra-territorial effect should not be limited either by reference to any particular class of persons, or by any reference to laws ancillary to provision for the peace, order and good government of the Dominion.'"
That shows a very strange falling off from the original safeguards given by the Conference of 1927, a falling off which is utterly to be deplored. It is difficult, of course, to work out a conservative safeguard. The way in which it has been worked out is simply to cut it away. In the first place, some explanation should
258
be given by the Solicitor-General of that change of front, which was a most important change of front. The third Amendment on the Paper certainly expresses the true intentions of even the last Imperial Conference. You will find, if you look through these documents, that there is again and again embodied in these reports the principle that you should have uniformity of laws pertaining to extra-territorial matters throughout the Empire. Indeed, on certain matters, merchant shipping especially, there has been machinery set up to create uniformity. But there is nothing about it in this Bill.
In the three Amendments which we are to propose we ask the Government to suspend the operation of this Bill until they can get a convention of the British Empire set up to create uniformity. As regards merchant shipping, there has been a convention already agreed, and it only awaits ratification. Why make confusion worse confounded by passing this Bill and destroying that uniformity before you build up a new uniformity? I am prepared to subscribe to the principle that the old order has passed, and that a new order has come into being, upon which you can make Imperial laws only by agreement between the Dominions. I take that step reluctantly but with conviction. But before we destroy the uniformity of the old we must build up the new.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council to consider whether this is not an inopportune stage at which to destroy the old uniformity. I ask him to consider the statesmen of Dominion statesmen on this matter. I know that he would respect and honour the opinion of Mr. Latham in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Mr. Latham said:
"I believe that if an Imperial Statute declares that a Parliament of the Dominion has full power to make laws having extraterritorial operations, and this were recognised as putting the Dominions and Great Britain on the same footing, serious confusion might arise. I suggest that it is unnecessary, and indeed impossible, to put the Dominion Legislatures in the same position as the British Legislature in this regard, and that it would be unwise to endeavour to do so."
That is the opinion which he, as an Australian statesman, held. I go further and I think that this Committee is en-

259
titled to go further than that. Let us build up the new uniformity, but not destroy the old uniformity. You are destroying the old uniformity if you pass this Statute word for word. Those who put forward these Amendments are not committed to any form of words. We are not like the Government in that respect. We have had this Statute hurled in our faces at the last minute. We have had no power or opportunity to consult expert draftsmen, as the Government have had for years past. Those of us who have been keenly interested in this matter, whose feelings of Imperial patriotism have been aroused sufficiently for them to take an interest in this Statute at all, have had to sit down and work the matter out and try to get the best Amendments we could in the time at our disposal, and I assure the Committee that we have done our best. But, as I say, we are not committed to any form of words. These two Amendments, the first and the third, embody a most important practical safeguard. I believe that you would find agreement with them in this country, if only the issue became well known, and, not only in this country, but in every part of the Empire.
Why should we paralyse ourselves in these times when the gales of world corn-petition are blowing in upon us from every quarter—it is madness to do so—in order to pass a Statute to which apparently everybody is committed, but which nobody likes? We are asked to approve of the Staute in this Committee because of reasons of policy in the past in regard to which we are not committed. The proper position and importance of this Statute have not yet been appreciated in this country or explained by those organs of public opinion whose duty it is to explain to the people what is happening in such matters. I am, perhaps, transgressing on more general lines again, but I wish to emphasise the fact that this point about extra-territoriality is one of extreme importance to the British Empire. When I read in the "Times" that no agreement made between the various Governments at the Conference could deprive Parliament of the right to discuss the Statute as fully as it pleased, and make any amendment it desired, I was delighted because I thought that this question of extra-territoriality might be thrashed out and that there might be
260
some opportunity for people to understand it and for Members of the House of Commons to understand it. But of course in the following week I read in the "Times" that some Members of the House of Commons were asking that two days should be devoted to discussing the Bill in Committee and were threatening to propose nearly a score of Amendments. I am amazed at the strange changes which take place in the life of a great newspaper. They are beyond the intelligence of a poor private individual who holds the same opinion sometimes for weeks, sometimes for months, sometimes even for years on end.
What we have been fighting for in this matter is to have the Statute properly understood. We wish that its technical aspects should be properly explained. We hold that a Committee of the Whole House is an unsuitable tribunal to discuss extra-territoriality. It is a question which ought to be submitted to the finest lawyers in the world, who are collected along the passage there. Everybody knows that. You, Sir Dennis, will perhaps forgive me if I conclude on the same note of irrelevance as that with which I began. I repeat that the House of Commons is an unsuitable tribunal to discuss this technical question of law and that the responsibility lies on the Government for having taken the course which they have taken.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) in his concluding observations, has suggested that the House of Commons is not fit to discuss this important Statute and that it had better be sent to another place where there are more eminent persons who are better fitted to take part in such a discussion. May I beg his assistance in sending this Bill to that place where he says it will he discussed to better advantage than it can be discussed here? The hon. Member invited us, I am sure sincerely, to treat the Amendments on the Paper seriously. I think it is a little hard to suggest that they are not receiving serious consideration. At any rate, we should not be reproached with failing to give them serious consideration.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman with

261
great respect not to suggest that I said that without reason? There was very good reason why I made that observation.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think I suggested that the hon. Gentleman said so without reason, but let me assure him that my right hon. Friend and I and others who speak from this Bench are giving and have given the most serious consideration to these Amendments, and in the examination of this difficult and intricate question, I hope that Members upon all sides will approach the subject with the seriousness which it deserves. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) suggested that we ought not to take a leap in the dark or at any rate, if we were going to take a leap in the dark, that we should preserve as many rays of light as possible. I have never invited this Committee to take a leap in the dark. I am anxious for as much elucidation of this Bill as possible, because the more the history of this Bill is understood, the more will hon. Members appreciate what is proposed in it. I am not saying that everybody in this Committee will be more likely to agree whole-heartedly with what is proposed. We all have our prejudices and our affections for ancient forms, even of the Constitution, but I say that the more light is thrown on the Bill, the more likely will the Committee be to come to the conclusion that in substance it is desirable that it should be passed into law at the earliest moment. That is the conclusion to which I believe hon. Members are coming, increasingly, in all parts of the Committee. Of course, that view does not preclude the anxious consideration of every Amendment before the Committee.
The Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side is, I understand, intended to provide that the area within which there may be a conflict of laws within the Dominions shall be restricted as much as possible. I am bound, however, to ask the Committee to observe that neither the first nor the third Amendment seems to be framed in such a way as to promote the objects which the promoters of those Amendments have in view. I am not going to base my reply upon a mere form of words. As my hon. Friend has
262
just said, it is always difficult to draft Amendments to give effect to one's meaning, and that is particularly so in this case, but I ask hon. Members to observe that the form of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is of a curious character. The first part of the Amendment is to provide that:
"Such laws"—
that is laws which will have extraterritorial operation—
"do not conflict in their terms with laws prevailing in the United Kingdom or in other Dominions which have extra-territorial operation."
That is to say, suppose that a Dominion passes a law which is to have extraterritorial operation, if it be found that that law conflicts with an existing law which also has extra-territorial operation, the law which was in existence first shall prevail and the law which came into existence subsequently shall be of no effect. That seems to amount to a declaration that whoever comes first is to hold possession of the field, because it is only the second law when it is inconsistent with the first law which is to become nugatory. I cannot think that that is a very convenient method or principle upon which to parcel out the legislative authority of the Empire—to provide that the Dominion which gets its word in first is to be the Dominion whose word is to prevail. But the last part of the Amendment provides that
"such laws do not conflict … with international law,"
There is not a lawyer, let alone a layman in this Committee who does not know that if there is anything vague in this uncertain world, it is the area and scope of international law. Everybody who has dabbled in that region of the law knows that of the many text books on the subject, scarcely one writer will agree with another upon the state of international law with regard to any subject at all. Take prize law alone, which is part of international law. Every country has its own prize law. I do not believe that any Amendment would be more likely to provoke that conflict and that discord which my hon. Friends are so anxious to avoid than a proposal that the laws passed by the Dominions shall always be judged on some imaginary standard which international law provides. I do not know who is to consider

263
discrepancies between the laws in question and international law, but I am bound to make those observations on the form of the Amendment.
My hon. Friends quite rightly say in regard to the Amendments: "This is the best that we have been able to do, and we put before you the suggestion that you shall in some way seek uniformity within the Commonwealth of Nations." I understood that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side expressed the opinion of those associated with him best, when he said that it was very unsatisfactory to have seven different systems of law prevailing in the Empire. [HON. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to have my hon. and learned Friend's assent that that proposition is the one which best expresses his apprehensions. That view seems to me, and I say it with all respect, to proceed on a complete misconception as to the operation and the extra-territorial operation of laws. Suppose that two countries like Great Britain and France each pass legislation which is extra-territorial by reason of the sovereignty of the nations concerned. We have the power of legislating extra-territorially and so has France, but that does not mean that we may legislate so as to make municipal law in France as administered by the French courts in respect of persons who come within the jurisdiction of the French courts. It simply means that each nation has the capacity to legislate outside the three-miles limit of its own territory, in respect of its own subjects, in such a way as to make them amenable to the law, as administered in its own courts, when they come within its jurisdiction.
Does anybody suggest that because we have the power of extra-territorial legislation and France also has that power, that that fact has produced the inconvenience of two systems of law prevailing both in Great Britain and France? Of course, questions of conflicting laws arise in certain regions of law such as in connection with marriage —for instance, whether a person is a divorced person in one country by reason of the fact that he or she has been a divorced person in another country. Everybody knows that these
264
conflicts, as the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) has said, constitute a difficult branch of the law in themselves, but, broadly speaking, the capacity to legislate extra-territorially is a power to legislate for persons who come within the jurisdiction of the courts of the legislating nation.
5.0 p.m.
Let us apply that principle to the Empire. If this Clause is passed without the proposed Amendment, there will not be seven systems of law operating in all the Dominions. It is quite likely that there may be a different state of the law in each Dominion upon particular subjects, but those laws would only be administered as regards any particular Dominion in the courts of that Dominion with respect to persons who come within the jurisdiction of those courts. That seems to me not merely necessary, if you are to have the equality of status implicit in the Balfour Declaration, but it seems to me not inconvenient, because it is to be expected that a British law, a law of the Imperial Parliament, will not be suitable for people who dwell in different Dominions under radically different conditions. You would expect different systems of law to exist in each of the Dominions themselves.
An hon. Member may ask: What are you talking about when you are giving power to legislate extra-territorially? Let me give an illustration. As everybody knows, there are many Conventions regulating the way in which aeroplanes shall be used. They may not fly over certain territory; they may not fly under certain conditions. It is the subject of an international Convention or of many Conventions. Suppose that Canada wants to legislate so as to make it a crime for a Canadin citizen not to fly a Canadian aeroplane, in breach of that international Convention, the capacity of Canada to regulate the conduct of its own citizens stops strictly at the end of the three-miles limit outside Canadian territory. An effect of Clause 3 in its present form will be to allow Canada to legislate in such a way that if a Canadian citizen has offended against a Convention which has been recognised by the Canadian law, when he comes back to his own country he shall

265
be amenable to the Canadian courts administering Canadian law, even though the offence was committed extra-territorially, as we say, or outside the three miles' limit.
I do not think it is right to trouble the Committee with further illustrations of the same operation of extra-territorial law, but I want to deal quite shortly with one or two points that have been raised, in order to show that I think they proceed under a misapprehension. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has asked why there has been a departure from the form of the proposal to permit extra-territorial legislation only for the peace, order, and good government of the Dominion concerned. If the hon. Gentleman, who has complained that not enough ventilation has been given to this interesting subject, would refer to one book where the subject has been exhaustively ventilated, written by Professor Berriedale Keith, for the express purpose of dealing with the Report of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation, he will find a volume of nearly 500 pages, dealing with this report. He points out that if this Clause had been passed with that addendum, referring to the peace, order, and good government of the Dominion concerned, it would have afforded abundant opportunities for the exercise of the lawyer s art, because it would be very difficult to discover whether or not a particular law was related to the peace, order, and good government of the Dominion. The omission of that qualifying sentence is a pure question of convenience.
One of my hon. and learned Friends asked what had happened to the recommendation in paragraph 44 of the Report on the Operation of Dominion Legislation as to providing fur the discipline of the armed forces of one Government when in the territory of another Government. The position as to that is that a Convention is now under discussion to enable that subject to be satisfactorily dealt with. It has been already agreed to by South Africa. It is in processs of finding agreement 'with the other Dominions, but obviously the Convention as to that matter must come after the passage of this Statute of Westminster, because this Statute will enable the different Dominions to give legislative effect to the Convention which is in process of being agreed, upon this limited subject. That,
266
I hope, will answer the question put by, I think, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson).
I hope that, while the Committee considers that this Clause has nothing at all in it which is likely to increase the possibility of a conflict of laws between the Dominions, it will see that neither the Amendment on the Paper nor any Amendment designed for the same purpose is necessary. Indeed, my own opinion is that if you are going to try to bring all the laws of the Empire, these widely differing territories, into the compass of some text-book, some volume of legislation, so as to see that no part conflicts with some other part, you will have a task which indeed will engage the attention of the Committee which, I think, the hon. Member for Eastbourne visualised as sitting for months and months and years and years. I cannot imagine a more fruitful subject of discord and discussion.
After all, we do belong to a nation which has Shown a little capacity to order the Government of its different parts; we do credit ourselves with some common sense, with a capacity on the part of even the layman of the Empire to understand the fundamental principles of English law; and I respectfully suggest to the Committee that rather than attempt here to regulate the legislation of all the Dominions, let us give them this power which they have sought and which we have promised them in the Imperial Conferences, and trust that they will, by subsequent co-operation with us, see that it is made a boon to the Empire instead of that Tower of Babel which my hon. and learned Friends appear to contemplate.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Before my hon. and learned Friend resumes his seat, could he deal with the third Amendment on the Paper, which does not go very much farther than, but really embodies, his peroration? All that we want is that the Convention already agreed upon should be ratified.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend with great impartiality has put his name to both Amendments. My criticism of the second Amendment is that he will have to get this Convention establishing uniformity, whatever that may mean, before this Statute of Westminster

267
comes into operation. It is exactly the calling of a conference which is to carry out that rather difficult and, I think, impossible task which I should view with some apprehension. For those reasons, I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
Mr. WILLIAM STEWART: It may be strange for one who is not a lawyer to talk about a subject which apparently exhausts the minds and brains of the distinguished lawyers who have spoken already, but I want to approach this matter from a common sense point of view. No one here wants to interfere with the Dominions doing exactly as they Like, but we do want to prevent our own right to do as we like being interfered with. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General refers to extra-territoriality law as only legislating for their own subjects. I would like to ask whether this Bill does not make us liable to be subject to two different Dominions. If that is so, are we not liable to be interfered with when we go to a Dominion which has a different law from the law in the Dominion to which we think we are subject?
I belong to Northern Ireland, and we have different opinions about religion and about politics, as compared with our friends in the Irish Free State. Those carry us a very long way. Take the question of divorce, which has been referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson). If I go to the Free State, as I very often do—I have considerable business there, and I like the Free State, and I like Dublin—it might be that if this Statute is passed, the Free State might call me an Irish Free State subject. [Interruption.] They might not want me, but they might make me that by law, which is quite a different matter. I would like the Solicitor-General to tell me, if that is possible, whether I would be liable to be interfered with in the Free State as a Free State subject under their law. That is all that we want to know. If this subject is as clear as the Solicitor-General makes out, why is there this division of opinion among hon. and learned Members in this House? I cannot understand why these hon. and learned Gentlemen cannot give us something that is quite clear.
268
The question of different laws in different Dominions is surely a very important and a very interesting question to discuss in a business manner. Almost every business man to-day has interests outside the United Kingdom. Re has interests in Canada, and, we will say, in Ireland, and when you come to a business matter it is possible that the law in one Dominion may be different from the law in another Dominion. If a conflict is to arise in regard to nationality, surely then a conflict arises right away as to the law to which you are subject. I would impress upon the Government that we do not want to interfere with the passing of this Bill at all, but that we want to try to avoid trouble. We have had enough trouble, and we want to avoid it. Why then can we not, when we have a, chance, if this matter is as easy as the Government tell us, make it quite clear and plain?
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: There is some confusion in the minds of some of us as to what these extra-territorial laws are. Suppose the Parliament of Canada passed a law requiring a Canadian miner to work nine hours a day, would that law enable a Canadian miner in a country where there was only an eight hours day to work the full nine hours a day? Again, you might have exactly the reverse of that situation, which would be equally difficult to decide. You might have a Canadian who was only permitted to work seven hours. Would he be compelled in another country, where eight hours were allowed, to work for only seven hours? As I understand, the law of the country where they were actually working would prevail, and not the law of the Dominion or country from which they came; but I would like to be quite clear on the point.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am happy to say that my hon. Friend has perfectly correctly understood the position. It is the law of the country in which the miner is working that would govern the conditions under which he might work. I hope that answers that point.
Mr. WILLIAMS: May I put it in this way? Suppose that a miner worked an hour longer than he was permitted by the law in his own country, and then came back to his own country,

269
would he then be liable to be prosecuted? The Solicitor-General said that you have a law as far as flying is concerned in Canada, and that if it is broken the man responsible is liable when he comes back. Suppose he breaks these other laws, is he liable when he comes back?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend puts a slightly different question from that which was included in the last two sentences of his speech. He is supposing the case of Canada saying that one of its citizens may not work more than five hours a day; so that it would be a crime in England, according to Canadian law, and the hon. Gentleman supposes that a man would be prosecuted in Canada for the crime he had committed by working in England more than five hours a day. All I can say is that that is a case which it does little credit to the Canadian Government or people to suggest is a possible one. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Friend say that that is not an answer. The answer to the question is that strictly legally no doubt that might happen, but when my hon. Friends suggest that it is possible that a sensible legislature would pass an Act of that sort they are not doing full credit to the intelligence and good will of our fellow British subjects. Do let us understand that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) seemed to think that this Bill was a product of a hole-and-corner committee, there were on the two bodies that drafted it representatives of the most eminent lawyers in all parts of the Empire. Every single part of the Empire contributed its wealth of learning and good sense to the fabrication of this Measure.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: That is why it is so confusing.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is not a comment that I should like to make. My hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. W. Stewart) asked a question which was similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). He said that one Dominion might make a particular act a crime if committed by somebody who might come within the jurisdiction of the courts, shall I say, of the Irish Free State.
Mr. W. STEWART: Any state; I did not refer particularly to the Irish Free State.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Let me take any Dominion the hon. Member likes. I can only give the answer that has been given. It is possible to imagine many absurd situations. It is true that if any Dominion were to take that course —and I agree that it is theoretically possible to imagine it—the whole scheme would be likely to break down; but all I can say is that I do not believe any Dominion would legislate in that fashion. Let me also add that if they were minded to make crimes for which they would punish people when they came within their jurisdiction in the manner suggested, they could do it to-day and nobody could prevent them. If a Dominion cared to take a fantastic course, saying, "We will make it a crime for a member of another Dominion to do something in his own country, and we will punish him as soon as we can catch him when he lands on our shores," there is no power on earth to prevent that Dominion putting my hon. Friend in gaol.
Mr. STEWART: They can do that legally to-day?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It will not comfort my hon. Friend when he is in gaol to say, "You have done it illegally." The point is that the Amendment will not prevent people doing foolish things if they are minded to do them.
Mr. STEWART: That is no answer to my question. Can they do it legally today? That is my whole point.
Mr. AMERY: I want to make one or two observations on this Amendment, not from the point of view of a lawyer, but from that of an ordinary person who has watched the development of this matter to some extent from inside, and who has listened to the Debate. Judging from the course of the Debate, one would imagine that all extra-territorial legislation must be mischievous. As a matter of fact, that power is enjoyed in the ordinary way by every sovereign State. All the nations of Europe exercise it, and they exercise it apparently without creating any serious friction among each other. I do not think that anything has ever arisen in which Geneva has been interested or which has led to

271
acute controversy between different nations of the Continent because they have that power, nor has any controversy arisen between them and ourselves. More than that, the same power is enjoyed by one of the Dominions; the United Kingdom enjoys it towards both the foreign world and the rest of the Empire, and I do not believe that any serious trouble has arisen out of it. Is there any reason why these powers should not also be exercised by the other Dominions now that they have acquired their present status and now that their external interests are so much greater than they used to be?
In the original development of the Empire, the Dominions were largely remote from the world outside, and their external affairs were naturally conducted for them by the British Government. Now they are much more in the world than they were before. Over 4,000 miles Canada adjoins one of the greatest industrial countries in the world. Along that frontier there is a continual going and coming between Canadians and Americans. The United States enjoy certain extra-territorial rights over their citizens when they cross the Canadian border. Canada cannot make similar legislation at present, except by certain devious subterfuges, with regard to Canadian citizens crossing the American border. It is largely in their frontier relations with foreign countries that this question will arise. South Africa may want to make regulations with regard to her subjects crossing the Portuguese border. Is there any reason why, on an issue eminently to be decided by local considerations, as for instance, what happens to South African labourers when they go into Portuguese East Africa, that only should be susceptible to legislation by us here in this Parliament?
On the matter of uniformity, this is one of the cases where over a large part of the field uniformity is not desirable. The legislation that Canada passes with regard to bootleggers in America is not legislation that the South Africans would wish to pass with regard to absconding natives taking out diamonds or gold dust. Yet if this Amendment were accepted, then, if the terms of a law dealing with native runaways in South
272
Africa conflicted with the terms of a bootlegging ordinance in Canada, whichever was the later in the field would become invalid. This is a matter where over a very large part of the field it is essentially a matter for the local legislature and for differentiation, not for uniformity. There is a, very important part of the field, including such subjects as merchant shipping, where uniformity is desirable, but when that question is dealt with, you have to face the further question as to who is to enforce the uniformity. Are we in this Parliament to be the only Parliament in the Empire which has the right to legislate for all the other Dominions and to enforce uniformity upon them?
I can assure hon. Members who have spoken that every one of the points they have made was discussed fully in 1926. It was then decided that, in view of the principles which govern the relations of the Empire, uniformity has to be sought by other means than the arbitrary imposition of it by one Parliament. This conclusion was confirmed after months of discussion between experts, who were the best legal minds from every part of the Empire. These results were published in this country; we all knew about them. The actual terms of this particular Bill are mostly in italics in the report of the Conference of 1929. They were again fully and anxiously considered in 1930, and, as a result of that consideration and of a definite undertaking given to the Imperial Conference, they are now presented to this House. I agree that it would be unfortunate if on some of these matters, like merchant shipping, there was a gap during which inconsistent legislation were introduced. We have been informed, as regards this instance, that the Governments of the Empire have agreed upon a convention securing uniformity, and that they intend to put it into force as soon as the Statute of Westminster goes through. Are we to say that, though they have given this assurance, there may be a few weeks during which they may run amok and pass all sorts of diverse legislation and destroy that uniformity? I admit that it is undesirable that the old uniformity should disappear before the new uniformity is secured, but you will not do that by saying, "We will not take away

273
our arbitrary powers of control until you have made a new uniformity that suits us." You cannot bargain in that way. You have to accept the position that uniformity by dictation is no longer possible, but you will find very little difficulty in arriving at uniformity by agreement in those matters in which uniformity is desirable.
This discussion has seemed to proceed on a basis which, I should have thought on reflection, we could not sustain, even in this proud and ancient House of Commons, that is, that all wisdom is with us alone, that we alone have a sense of Imperial responsibility, and that if we give to other parts of the Empire the same licence and power they are bound to abuse them. We must accept the position that they, like ourselves, are reasonable in their outlook and are not mischievous children who have been prematurely sent out into the world, but that they are Imperial nations which have risen gradually to a position and a sense of Imperial responsibility like ourselves. Is it beyond hope that in matters that are eminently local they will legislate sanely for their own purposes, and that in matters where common uniformity is desirable they will approach that problem of uniformity in the same spirit of good will and with the same desire to serve the common weal that we possess?
5.30 p.m.
Sir JOHN WITHERS: I regret the attitude of mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). This is one of the most important matters that has come before Parliament for many years, and it is destined to regulate the British Empire for centuries. It is the duty of every Member to put before the Committee his views, if he thinks he ought to do so. Although I did not put my name to this Amendment, I thoroughly appreciate the reasons of the hon. Members who have done so. The Solicitor-General says there may be absurd anomalies created in theory but that in practice they will not occur; but here we are making a Statute which is to last for years, and surely it is our duty, if we can, to remove such anomalies. We may be told that there is no time to do it, and that may be so, owing to this Statute of Westminster having been brought be-
274
fore the House at a time of unexampled trouble and anxiety, and after a General Election in which the matter was never mentioned. Personally, I feel that it is very wrong of right hon. Gentlemen, however learned they may be, to impute motives and reasons to hon. Members who are trying to do their duty.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should not have intervened again but for the spirit of the reply of the Solicitor-General. I asked only a simple question, refraining from making a speech because I did not want to hold up business. The question was on a purely technical point, a legal point, and it was put with no desire to try to make out, as the Solicitor-General inferred, that we should get absurd legislation in the Dominions. I repudiate the idea that any Member on the Treasury Bench can ride off in that way from a question which is too difficult. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not intend that, hut, after all, he said it, and that being so the least I can do is to get up and tell him that I have no intention of casting any reflection on Dominion legislation. May I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, also, that perhaps the Dominions have better lawyers than we have here. At any rate we have passed innumerable silly and stupid laws, such as the legislation dealing with the sale of sweets, and the like. I will not take up the time of the Committee any longer, except to express the hope that the ordinary private Member who puts a question will not be treated as though he wished to cast reflections on the Dominions, although I am sure that was not intended.
Amendment negatived.
Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end, to add the words:
"Provided that nothing in this Act shall deprive any subject in any Dominion of British nationality."
I had not intended to introduce this Amendment myself, but in the absence of my hon. Friends whose names are also attached to it, I ask the House to listen while I submit some reasons why this proviso should be inserted. It will be agreed on all hands that no one should, by inadvertence, be deprived of the status of British nationality through the operations of this Measure. British

275
nationality is one of the bonds of the Empire, or, as this Statute proposes to call it, "The British Commonwealth." Something was said on this matter at the Conference which apparently has escaped the attention of those who drafted this Bill. No definite proposals were made dealing with the question of nationality, but the report of the Conference on the operation of Dominion legislation said:
"It is important to maintain the common status, though there may be reasons for variation in some cases."
In the final conclusion it is said:
"The possession of a common status… in any part of the Commonwealth ought to carry with it the recognition of that status by the law of every other part of the Commonwealth."
What else can that mean except British nationality? Clearly there has been some oversight in the drafting of the Bill, because if it passes in its present form that most important question will be left unprovided for, and there is ground for confusion and misunderstanding. We all value our British nationality, and it is especially valuable to those who are in the more distant parts of the world. If any subject born in a Dominion, whether it be New Zealand or whether it he the new Dominion of the Irish Free State, were to be deprived of British nationality, then the Government of every other Dominion would be precluded from taking action if that person were aggrieved by the subjects or the Government of any other Power. This bond of nationality is one of the most important of those which keeps the Empire together. We should provide against action which may arise either through inadvertence or by the deliberate intent of persons elsewhere. I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me as a. layman that it is only clear common sense that the omission to which attention has been drawn should be repaired by the proviso which I now move.
The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): If there were any prospect of the fears of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman being realised I should take my stand with him in refusing to agree to any Act of Parliament which might deprive me of my nationality. I hasten to assure him straight away, on the autho-
276
rity of all the best legal advice, that that is the real answer to his suggestion. I would also point out that our fellow subjects in the Dominions of Australia, Canada and South Africa are very jealous of their British nationality, and I am sure it will occur to him that their representatives, who were responsible for these words, would feel equally jealous. Obviously, he was not aware that the Law Officers of Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and the Irish Free State, who are as jealous on this point as any Member of this House, were themselves unanimously responsible for the drafting of this Clause. The only answer I can give to my right hon. Friend is that, as we are at present advised by all the competent legal authorities in the British Commonwealth, as well as our Law. Officers of the Crown, there is nothing whatever in this Clause as it stands that would deprive anyone of his British nationality.
Mr. MARJARIBANKS: May I say with very great respect that I, at any rate, propose to express a different view of the law from that which has been set forth by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs? The right hon. Gentleman said that all competent legal opinion was on the side of the Government, but he knows perfectly well that all competent legal opinion is not on his side.
Mr. THOMAS: I did not say anything of the kind. I made the specific statement that the Law Officers of all the Dominions were parties to this, and I assume that they would be as jealous about this particular point as we are. That is the point I made.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I am very sorry if I misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, because I should hate to do that, but there is eminent legal opinion which is not on his side. If the point is argued, I think it will be seen that there is a danger to British nationality. Up to the passing of this Measure everybody in the British Empire, excepting Great Britain, has been entitled to two kinds of nationality. Everybody born in His Majesty's British Dominions and Colonies was entitled to Imperial nationality. In 1914 that was put into statute form by the British Nationality Act of that year. In that Act it was provided

277
that the following persons should be deemed to be natural-born British subjects:
"Any person horn within His Majesty's Dominions and allegiance."
That is a matter of statute law, and by this Bill we shall enable any Dominion to repeal that statute law. Therefore, as a mere matter of repeal, that right may go. It is as clear as day that the British Nationality Act, so far as it applies to the Dominions, may be repealed by them. That, of course, is the very subject matter of this Bill—that such an Act may be repealed. When the right hon. Gentleman said that every Law Officer in the Dominions was satisfied that this Bill would not affect Imperial nationality he ought to have considered the provisions of the Act of 1914 which, like every other Imperial Act, will be subject to repeal. Apart from Imperial citizenship, which, as I said the other day, was the proudest boast which anybody of any race or any colour could make since the days of the Roman Empire, each Dominion of the Empire can give to its citizens Dominion nationality, a local nationality, but it is that, and that only, which will survive as the result of this Bill, so far as I can see. If this Amendment be not inserted it may he that this Bill will abolish Imperial citizenship altogether, and that no safeguard will survive. At any rate, it will make it possible for another Act to be passed which will deprive the citizens of a Dominion of their Imperial nationality.
An hon. Member sitting above the Gangway mentioned the case of Ireland. Suppose it should occur to the Government of the Free State to repeal the British Nationality Act and to abrogate the right of its citizens to Imperial British citizenship. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered what would happen then? He could not even help the Irish loyalists by diplomatic representations, because ipso facto they would cease to be subjects of the British Crown. All these questions are not easy to answer, and they cannot he dismissed by quoting authorities which are not given or by producing the opinion of Law Officers. These are matters which must be considered on their merits.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The Amendment reads:
"Provided that nothing in this Act shall deprive any subject in any Dominion of British nationality."
I answer the hon. Member by saying that there is nothing in this. Act which does what is complained of.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to take a broader view. The whole weight and depth of the opposition is in regard to what will happen on 1st December, and we believe that innumerable results will follow throughout the Empire as a result of this provision. It is a mere legal quibble to say that there is nothing in this Act which would not be affected by a repeal of the British Nationality Act of 1914 by any of the Dominions. That argument is quite unworthy of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. I want an answer, "aye" or "no," from the right hon. Gentleman to my question as to whether it is possible for the Irish Free State to repeal the Nationality Act of 1914, and if he says it is possible to do that let me remind him that that would take away the whole protection of the British Foreign Office to the tiny minority in the Irish Free State to whom we owe many obligations.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise how terrible it will be for people in Ireland suddenly to find themselves in a hostile atmosphere, separated from the Crown which they served so faithfully for so many years in the past? The right hon. Gentleman says that there is nothing in this Bill to deprive, those people of British nationality, but of course he cannot answer for every Act that may follow this Bill. This Measure is so crowded with possibilities in regard to other Acts that we are obliged to oppose it, and this is not a question that you can get rid of in one day. The Measure which we are now considering is one which may vitally affect the unity of the British Empire.
Mr. THOMAS: In reply to what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) has just said, I would like to remind him that all that I did was to call his attention to the words of the Amendment. I respectfully submit that I was dealing with the Amendment before

279
the House. The wording is not the wording of the Government, but the wording of the Amendment, which says:
"Provided that nothing in this Act shall deprive any subject in any Dominion of British nationality."
If that is the Amendment, all I say is that there is nothing in this Bill that will do what is suggested in the Amendment. I was not called upon to say what will happen in the future, but I was dealing with the Amendment before the House.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 4.—(Parliament of United Kingdom not to legislate for Dominion except by consent.)
Sir J. WITHERS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, after the second word "that," to insert the words "the Parliament of."
If my Amendment is accepted the Clause will read:
"No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that the Parliament of that Dominion has requested and consented to the enactment thereof."
This Amendment, to a certain extent, is a drafting Amendment. The Parliament of each Dominion is always referred to as the authority for testing the opinion of that particular Dominion, and, therefore, to make the Clause read properly, the words I have suggested ought to be inserted.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: If I had only to consult my own personal wishes I should be quite willing to accept this Amendment, but the Clause was drafted in its present form at the request of the Dominions themselves. The Government were indifferent on this point, but the real answer is that as far as the Government was concerned we did not care which method was adopted, but what is now proposed was put in at the request of the Dominions.
Amendment negatived.
Sir G. HURST: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to add the words:
280
"Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent the Parliament of the United Kingdom from amending or supplementing any Bill so requested by the Parliament of a Dominion or the Parliament of a Dominion from assenting to such Bill as amended or supplemented by the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
This Amendment does not raise any question of principle, and it is simply a drafting proposal. We think a contingency might arise where a request might be made by a Dominion that an Act not of the kind contemplated in Clause 4 might be passed by the Parliament of a Dominion, and when that Measure reached this House it might be found that, in some obscure way, it did not carry out the intention of the Dominion Government, and it might be thought necessary to pass an Amendment, not of substance, but dealing with the drafting, with a view to giving effect to the real object of the Dominion which had made the request. If after being amended it was assented to by the Dominion, it might be a contentious question whether the Act passed in that way was the actual Act requested by the Dominion Government. I have put down this Amendment in order to ascertain what is the position of a Bill that has been amended in that way. It might be useful to give a certain limited power to our Parliament to deal with a question of this kind, as it may well be that the Dominions would not like the passing of such legislation to be delayed.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to second the Amendment.
Great importance attaches to the principle contained in this Amendment, which is only an alternative form of another Amendment which appears later on the Paper. It is a drafting Amendment, but it is one which may have an immense influence on the continuance of Imperial unity, and the future of this House. This Amendment has been debated in, the Dominions, and more especially in the Australian Parliament. The Dominions must make a request for an Act before it comes to this House, but when it comes here it has to be accepted in exactly the same form as it has been requested. I do not know whether hon. Members fully realise the effect of that proposal because, in reality, it is taking away an enormous power from the British House of Commons, and transferring it to His

281
Majesty's Government. In most legislation the House of Commons has the ultimate control, but in this case the control is handed over to the Government, and only the Government can initiate such a Bill. The request must come from the Dominions, and then their Measures can be discussed here, but these Measures can only be decided aye or no, and no Amendment can be made.
6.0 p.m.
For these reasons, I think that what is now proposed is a most proper Amendment, and it is not opposed in any way to the principle of this Statute. I think this Measure may be made a good one if machinery is introduced in it which will allow the Parliaments of the Empire to consult each other. We do not wish to deprive the Imperial Parliament of the power to discuss these matters. If this Amendment is not accepted, there will be no equality between this Parliament and the Dominion Parliaments, because the Dominion Parliaments will be able to discuss the legislation they wish to send to this House and this House will not be able either to discuss or amend that legislation. There is an important principle involved in this Amendment, and, unless it is accepted, we shall be doing away with the power of the Imperial Parliament to discuss and alter Dominion legislation. It seems to me that what I have stated is the real effect of the words contained in this Bill, and unless the Clause is amended in some such way as I have suggested, the powers of the Imperial Parliament to deal with these matters will be greatly restricted. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have taken advice on this matter, and have asked an opinion much more valuable than my own; and I think that the House of Commons ought not to pass the Bill without a provision of this kind, without fully realising the possibility that it may emasculate itself as an Imperial Parliament.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: My hon. Friend has carried this question on to a much wider basis than the Mover of the Amendment had in mind. I must say again that it is not fair to new Members of the House, who may be listening to these Debates, to assume that the Government will be constantly throwing at them Bills of a complicated character
282
without any opportunity for consideration. The hon. Member has repeated that assumption, and now states that he has certain information as to the apprehensions of some Dominions on this matter. Let me assure him, and let me assure the Committee, that the Dominions have never hesitated to express their opinions in very definite language, and, if there were any feeling in any of the Dominions with regard to any part of this Bill, surely the first person to hear about it would be the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. Our object in this matter is to assist the Dominions. We are doing this at their request; this is their Bill; and, surely, it is useless for the hon. Member to repeat, to Members who would not know the real facts, that some strong feeling exists in the Dominions. Let me assure him that the strong feeling is in favour of the Bill, as expressed by all their Resolutions at the Imperial Conference.
Look at the confusion that arises over this simple issue. The Mover of the Amendment, clearly, knew exactly what question he was asking, namely, Is there a danger of our being deprived of the power to give to any legislation for the Dominions that close scrutiny which can be given at the present time? That is a much narrower point than has been stated by the hon. Member for East-bourne (Mr. Marjoribanks). What is the Dominion legislation that we are called upon to deal with? I myself have introduced such legislation, but it was only done at the request of the Dominion of Canada, and was covered by the British North America Act. If the Dominion Parliament made such a request in the usual way, by petition to His Majesty and so on, would the House of Commons say that they should be the best judges with regard, for instance, to the interpretation of the British North America Act? Should we ever be called upon to-day to pass any legislation that attempted to interfere in any way with the status of any of our Dominions? Canada especially is protected by the British North America Act, and preserves the right to go through the usual formality of petitioning the King, and, through His Majesty, requesting the House of Commons to pass certain legislation. I think that on the last occasion on which that was done it was to confer certain rights on Manitoba. I

283
remember introducing the Bill in five minutes, and the whole House readily agreed to it. Why should any Member of this House desire to tell Canada what was good for one of her own Provinces? That is a power which the Dominions exercise to-day, and will continue to exercise. The real answer to the Amendment is that the procedure which exists to-day will be preserved under this Bill, and that is why we are unable to accept the Amendment.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood me to a certain extent. If the right view is that this does not deprive the Imperial Parliament of the power to discuss Imperial Bills, I am perfectly satisfied, but I wish to make that clear by putting in au express provision to safeguard it. If it only expresses what the right hon. Gentleman wishes, then, for my own part, I do not see why it should not be included in the Bill. When I said that there were misgivings in the Australian Parliament on this very matter, I was only stating what is true, because my arguments are taken directly from a speech by Mr. Latham in the Australian Parliament. I will not weary the House by reading it, but the arguments were the same with regard to such legislation being introduced at the request of the Dominion concerned.
Mr. THOMAS: I must again correct the hon. Member. I do so because so much interest has been taken in this matter—and it is a good thing that in a new House of Commons there should be such an interest in Imperial matters —and I must not allow the hon. Member or anyone else to be confused. Suppose that a Bill were being discussed in Australia or Canada at this moment, involving Imperial questions affecting this country, and suppose that a speaker got up in support of it and said, "But I want this House to remember what Great Britain thinks of it." The implication would be that he was speaking of the British Government, but he might be quoting the Leader of the Opposition and his audience might not know it. See what an unfortunate situation that would create. So far as the Governments and the Imperial Conference are concerned, they are not, and cannot be, concerned with mere party politics. The last Im-
284
perial Conference, and, indeed, every Imperial Conference, comprised representatives of Governments whose political opinions varied—sometimes a Labour Government in Australia, a Liberal Government in Canada, and so on; but, so far as the Governments themselves are concerned, and so far as we are concerned, the only authoritative view that we can legitimately take is that expressed by the Government of the day, whoever they are. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that, so far as we are concerned, the expressions of opinion have come all the time from the Government of the day, and that that, after all, is the only authoritative opinion.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and am sorry that I should have confused him.
Mr. ATKINSON: I should like to be quite clear on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that if, say, the Dominion of Canada asked us to make particular alterations in one of the Acts referred to in Clause 7 of this Bill, that is to say, the British North America Acts, this House has got to pass that Bill in the precise form in which they request us to pass it, and that we have no power to alter a single word in the Bill which they request us to pass.
Mr. THOMAS: I do not put it so high as that. The British North America Acts give certain rights, which the Canadian people are very jealous of preserving, but the overriding part is that it rests with this Parliament, at the request of Canada, to give expression, in the way that they desire, to their petition, as was done, for instance, on the last occasion, when, as I have said, some rights to Manitoba were involved. There is a petition to His Majesty, and then a request to the House of Commons. It would not be true to say that every word of such a Bill would not be subject to scrutiny here, because we could scrutinise it, but it would be true to say that there is nothing on record to show that, in the event of a petition under the British North America Act, the principle of that petition would be interfered with by this Parliament. It would be wrong to do so. It would be saying that we ourselves are going to exercise the right to tell Canada what

285
exactly she thinks she wants. I hope that my hon. Friend will not confuse the issue by continuing to say that it would not be possible to alter a word. I do not say that, but I do say that it would be inconsistent and inconceivable that this Parliament should alter the principle for which the Dominion had asked.
Sir G. HURST: I am quite satisfied, and I think my friends are, with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 5.—(Powers of Dominion Parliaments in relation to merchant shipping.)
Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, at the end, to add the words:
"Provided that this Section shall not come into operation until a convention as to merchant shipping in the British Empire has been ratified by the Parliaments of the United Kingdom and of each Dominion."
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has to-day altered his argument in favour of the Bill. As I understand it, the basis of his argument is that this Bill provides, in substitution for the old uniformity which bound the Empire together, a new form of uniformity based upon the consent of all the Dominions and all the parts of the Empire. If, however, it is to be based on such consent, the new uniformity should be brought into force. It is well realised upon what the present uniformity is based. The effect of my Amendment would be as follows. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that:
"Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, Sections seven hundred and thirty-five and seven hundred and thirty-six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be construed as though reference therein to the Legislature of a British possession did not include reference to the Parliament of a Dominion."
Sections 735 and 736 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, restrict the power of British possessions to do certain things. At the moment, uniformity with regard to merchant shipping is obtained by this Parliament legislating for the whole Empire, subject to certain reservations, which are safeguarded in Sections 735
286
and 736, to the Legislatures of British possessions. British possessions can now do certain things. For instance, Section 35 says:
"The Legislature of any British possession may by any Act or Ordinance, confirmed by Her Majesty in Conned, repeal, wholly or in part, any provision of this Act (other than those of the Third Part thereof which relate to emigrant ships), relating to ships registered in that possession; but any such Act or Ordinance shall not take effect until the approval of Her Majesty has been proclaimed in the possession…"
Therefore, there is the check of an Order in Council and the approval of Her Majesty upon any Legislature repealing any Section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Section 736 of the Act provides that:
"The Legislature of a British possession may, by any Act or Ordinance, regulate the coasting trade of that British possession, subject in every case to the following conditions."
The Section then states the conditions under which the Legislature of a British possession can modify the Act of 1894. Clause 5 of this Bill would remove all these safeguards. By removing the word "Dominion" from the definition of a British possession, it would enable a Dominion as defined in this Statute of Westminster Bill to legislate irrespective of legislation in this House, and without the check given by the Royal Proclamation in the case of British possessions under the Act of 1894. So that, as far as the Dominions are concerned, after the passing of the Statute of Westminster, there would be probably no uniformity with regard to the merchant shipping services. The desirability of that uniformity has been set out in the report of the Conference of 1929. One of its recommendations was:
"As shipping is a world-wide interest in which uniformity, from the nature of the case, is desirable, there is a strong presumption in favour of concerted action between members of the British Commonwealth in shipping matters."
That uniformity is now secured under the Act of 1894 by the Royal Proclamation. Assuming it to be desirable that one system of uniformity should be substituted for another—I do not think this Bill does it, but that is beside the point for the moment—the first thing you have to do is to have the form of uniformity to substitute for the existing one. That form is suggested by the Amendment. It

287
will avoid all the clash of legislation which you may easily get with the position created under the Clause.
Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I understand that this agreement has been drafted and sent out to the various Dominions and has been virtually approved by them. Knowing, as I do, something about shipping, and having handled a good many vessels in foreign ports, I think it would be a most disastrous thing if this Clause was passed without having an agreement between various portions of the Empire as to what is to be done in the case of vessels that are registered outside Great Britain. I cannot see why, when a draft agreement of such importance as this was being sent out to govern our dealing with shipping in the years to come, it was not first of all submitted to Parliament. It was drawn up here and sent out to the Dominions and the Colonies and, if they agree to it and it comes back here, we shall be told we cannot possibly alter it but that we have to agree to it. I hope that the Committee will approve of the Amendment.
Mr. ATKINSON: One of the Sections of the Merchant Shipping Act referred to in this Clause provides that all British ships shall receive the same treatment as ships of other possessions. It does not seem unreasonable that we should do something to retain that right until it has been secured by a Convention. To pass an Act depriving us of the right of equal treatment before we have secured the Convention does not seem a very reasonable thing, and I suggest that the Amendment is so reasonable that it ought to be accepted.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) has presented an involved legal argument, and I think it is his desire that uniformity should be maintained in merchant shipping legislation throughout the British Empire. That is precisely the intention of the Clause. If he had followed the proceedings of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation which took place in 1929 he would appreciate that at present the law is in confusion. We have not legislated for the Dominions since 1906, and, therefore, such uniformity as he desires
288
cannot be secured except by agreement. The heads of such agreement have been drawn up and have been published and been on record for a very considerable time. My hon. Friend quoted from the proceedings of the Conference of 1929. In the proceedings of the Conference of 1930 he will find the agreement set out in full. All the Dominions have agreed to this Convention as he prefers to calf it. There is no difference of opinion whatever except in the case of New Zealand, and it is hoped that such small difference of opinion as exists between that Dominion and the rest will be rapidly adjusted. In these circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is the best way to secure uniformity, for it is uniformity by agreement and it removes the present anomalies, not only of status but also the present anomalies in connection with discrepant legislation which may now be passed in relation to identical subject matter in the Dominions on the one hand and in this country on the other. Having given my hon. Friend that assurance, coupled with this further assurance, that shipping interests are entirely in favour of this agreement, I hope he will not press the Amendment.
Mr. MORRIS: Since my hon. Friend admits the desire for uniformity, and he has the uniformity now in the draft agreement, there can he no difficulty about putting this proviso into the Clause, because it gives statutory embodiment to what is already obtained. With this proviso in the Bill, it will not be necessary on future occasions to obtain the agreement which he has now been fortunate enough to obtain.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Either you are prepared to trust the Dominions now and in the future and to believe them when they say they will put this agreement into operation or you are going to try and maintain an antiquated—
Mr. MORRIS: My hon. Friend does not appreciate the point. We are not going to ask that this shall be given legislative effect unless there is agreement. On this occasion he has been fortunate enough to secure agreement and, therefore, no difficulty arises. Where there is no agreement there shall be no effective legislation in the future. That

289
is all we are asking. We want to secure that there shall be agreement in the future before there is legislation.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Clause only secures in the letter what has long been the position in spirit. There is no sanction which my hon. Friend will be able to apply now or in the future to carry out the present theory of our superiority in matters of legislation and, if the Dominions are willing to sign, why should my hon. Friend hold a big stick over them?
Mr. MORRIS: My hon. Friend is misrepresenting what I said. This proviso seeks to obtain agreement first. He may say that the proclamation under the Act of 1903 was holding a big stick. All that this secures is that there shall be a Convention to ratify, provided there is agreement. There is no big stick about that.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend is also under a misapprehension. There is complete agreement.
Mr. MORRIS: This time.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, and the agreement will be signed within a very few days. It is not necessary for Parliaments to ratify as suggested in the Amendment but, in so far as Parliaments can, this Parliament is ratifying now. The Dominions will sign, and are authorised by their Governments to sign within the course of the next few days, and that is the only occasion to which his Amendment relates. I really think it is a very small difference. We do not want to hold up an Act of Parliament by accepting an Amendment of this kind when there is no difference of opinion whatever between us and the Dominion.
Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: What happens if these draft agreements are not signed? I think that is a substantial point, and the only point, on which we require some security.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is only a question of the spirit in which you are going to treat the Dominions. One cannot say more than that. The Dominions have agreed to sign, there is no reason to doubt their word in the matter, and I do not see any necessity to accept an Amendment which in itself would be an
290
aspersion upon the Dominions. We never hesitated for a moment to believe that they will append their signatures where they promised to append them. They are desirous of so doing.
Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot agree that there is any aspersion on the Dominions on the matter. The fact is that at present it rests upon a draft agreement, and the sole point under discussion is to have words added that until the agreement is signed, the present position shall continue. I think we are entitled to have some such assurance.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Dominions at present enjoy, or suffer under, an inferiority of status. Surely my hon. Friend, who is such an Imperialist, will not wish to continue that inferiority of status any longer. There is no sanction by which we can preserve our present position. As the Dominions have consented to sign, and as there will be complete equality for British shipping throughout the Empire as the result of passing this Clause, I cannot appreciate the very narrow point, if he will allow me courteously to say so, raised by my hon. Friend.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 10.—(Certain sections of Acts not to apply to Australia, New Zealand, or Newfoundland unless adopted.)
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjorihanks) wish to move their Amendments in a somewhat different form, namely, in line 36, to leave out from the word "effect" to the end of the line. If that is their desire, I ask the hon. Member for East-bourne to move in that form.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 36, to leave out the words "either from the commencement of this Act or."
6.30 p.m.
I merely wish to know whether the Government can accept the Amendment or not, and to point out the difficulty we may be in in future if they do not accept such an Amendment. Under the wording of Clause 10 it is possible that a Dominion may adopt the Act on 1st December, or at any time afterwards, and that, under the present wording of the Measure, when it has adopted the Act, the day of its effective adoption may go back any amount of time. So that if in 10 years a Dominion Parliament adopts the Act or any provision of it, it may have a retrospective effect of five or six years under the wording of the Clause. That is a very grave defect, and any hon. Member who reads the Clause will understand that it is possible under the drafting of the Clause for a decision with regard to Imperial matters in the Dominion courts and in the courts at home to be upset by an Act with a retrospective effect. I am sure that this does not do justice to the Solicitor-General in its present form, unless there is some special reason of policy for retaining the words. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Clause should read:
"and any Act of that Parliament adopting any Section of this Act…shall have effect from such later date as is specified in the adopting Act."
If that can be of any assistance to my hon. and learned Friend I should be very glad to make him a present of the suggestion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Amendment on the Paper proposes to do the exact opposite of what my hon. Friend now proposes.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I must explain that it is entirely my mistake.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We are all liable to make mistakes, and I anticipated that my hon. Friend intended his Amendment to be what he now proposes to make it, so that I have not been taken wholly unawares. The objection is—and I am free to admit that at first sight there is some reasonableness in it—as I think he said on Second Reading, to empowering a Dominion to adopt the Act, say in
292
five or six years time, and then do what lawyers are fond of doing, deem that the Act had been in operation the whole of the time previous to its adoption. The fact is that this provision was devised to meet the wishes and the views of the Dominion of New Zealand. If hon. Members will refer to page 21 of the Imperial Conference report, they will find that a Clause dealing with the position of New Zealand is there set out embodying this alternative power as to adoption. All that the Bill does is to apply that provision to two other Dominions instead of singling out New Zealand, at New Zealand's request. I do not think that my hon. Friend attaches any great importance to it, and I hope that inasmuch as the Clause is to meet the wishes of the Dominions concerned, it will be thought convenient that these words shall stand in the Bill.
Amendment negatived.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris), I should like to ask the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. L. Boyce) whether he wishes to move his Amendment, and, if so, I shall preserve it.
Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Yes, Sir.
Mr. H. MORRIS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, to leave out Sub-section (2).
The words I wish to leave out are:
"The Parliament of any such Dominion as aforesaid may at any time revoke the adoption of any Section of this Act."
This Sub-section seems to illustrate the principle of the hill with regard to Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland, that is to say:
"None of the following Sections of this Act, that is to say, Sections two, three, four, five and six, shall extend to a Dominion to which this Section applies as part of the law of that Dominion unless that Section is adopted by the Parliament of the Dominion."
They may adopt it at any time. They may adopt one Section, and, having adopted it, they can adopt another Section at another date, and a third Section at another date. They can adopt the Act piecemeal, and they can proceed to revoke it Section by Section. I understand from the argument of the right hon.

293
Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) that this provides a new constitution for the Dominions. I agree. The only thing I regret is that it is being embodied in what I regard as a piece of very bad legislation. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Here are the Dominions; they are demanding this Bill." He was careful to say that the Governments of the Dominions were demanding the Bill when correcting an hon. Member opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Parliaments!"] Yes, in very lukewarm resolutions.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Let us be clear upon this matter. Do I gather that my hon. Friend objects to any Parliament, whether it is here or in the Dominions, speaking for and representing the Dominions?
Mr. MORRIS: I certainly do not, but I do not always regard even the Government in this country as representing the nation. General elections have proved that. They prove it both ways. I would say exactly the same thing with regard to the Dominions. They do not represent the Dominions any more than is the case here. Here are three Dominions mentioned. None of those Clauses is going to apply to them unless they adopt them piecemeal. Once they have adopted the Act they can revoke it. I cannot conceive an instance of a worse form of legislation than this, and for that reason I propose that the Sub-section be deleted.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The history of this Clause is precisely the same as that of the last. The Clause in this form was drawn up at the instance of the Dominion Government of New Zealand, and it was subsequently asked that the same Clause should be applied to the Commonwealth of Australia, and to New Zealand. Therefore the Clause is, by the operation of the words at the top of the next page, confined to those three Dominions. My hon. Friend expressed the opinion that it is very bad legislation. He is fully entitled to his own opinion, but I am bound to say that it is not the view taken by the responsible Dominions which asked for legislation in this form. My hon. Friend therefore is in the unfortunate position of not agreeing with the Governments of the three Dominions, and I am afraid
294
that I must leave it there. I hope that now he is assured that the Dominions in question really want it in this form he will not press the Amendment.
Mr. MORRIS: The Dominions can revoke the whole thing.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. BOYCE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, to leave out the words "of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "referred to in sub-section (1) of this section."
My object in moving this Amendment is to secure, beyond all possibility of doubt, that the sovereign rights of the six States of Australia shall not in any way be affected by the passing of this Bill. On the face of it, Sub-section (2) of Clause 10 appears to suggest that any Sections of the Act may be revoked by the Parliament of a Dominion including Sections 8 and 9 which are vital to the preservation of those rights. Although I read Sub-section (2) as meaning that only those Sections, namely Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6—which require to be adopted by a Dominion before they can become operative—may be revoked, yet considerable doubts have arisen as to whether this interpretation could not be challenged. The purpose of the Amendment is completely and finally to remove those doubts. If the Government can see their way to accept the Amendment, I can assure my hon. and learned Friend it will be appreciated by the Governments of the States concerned.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend, I think, takes the view of the construction of the Sub-section as drafted which I take, namely, that as it speaks of revoking the adoption of any Section of the Act, it must be limited to the revocation of Sections which can be adopted. But as he says, there is a possibility at first sight of misunderstanding Sub-section (2), and my right hon. Friend has considered the Amendment and is prepared to accept it as an improvement in drafting.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Short title and commencement.)
Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, to leave out the word "thirty-one," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-two."
The object of the Amendment, which stands in my name and the names of several hon. Friends, is to attempt to provide, upon the coming into operation of this Measure, a kinder reception than it may have on the 1st of next month. If we look round the Empire we find that Australia is half-hearted about it, Tasmania and West Australia have protested, New Zealand does not seem to want it, Canada is lukewarm, but certain persons in South Africa and in Ireland want it for electoral purposes. We come back to this country and find that the Solicitor-General is more apologetic than enthusiastic. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) is fatalistic. A Measure of this importance which affects the whole Empire, and affects it for generations, should be received and adopted with enthusiasm. With regard to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, perhaps I can best illustrate what I believe to be his attitude to the Measure by a humorous remark which I heard him make though not in this Debate. He said, "I wonder when this poor old country will get Dominion status." That illustrates his attitude. As for this House it takes the view that the step is inevitable and accepts it with resignation. That attitude seems to be the result of what has happened in the last 34 years. Thirty-four years ago Canada gave this country a measure of Imperial Preference, generously, and since then the Dominions have been anxiously wishing for a wide extension of that principle, but the response of this country has been meagre. Consequently, there has been discouragement on the part of the Dominions. By this Bill we are trying to imprison the spirit of unity which should exist without this legal phraseology. We are told that we are at the beginning of a new era. The Secretary of State for the Dominions is about to start upon an errand of Imperial economic unity. The omens are favourable and I believe that he will get a warm welcome.
296
I hope that it will start a new epoch in the history of the Empire, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that instead of his passion for getting this Bill passed, verbatim, it would be well to accept my Amendment. The Bill would then come into operation under new auspices, with a new feeling in the Empire—a feeling of hope and progress. I would respectfully urge the Government to accept the Amendment.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I can only conceive that my hon. Friend moved the Amendment with a view to getting one grouse off his chest, and one hope expressed. He wishes to defer the Bill for 12 months, first of all on the ground that 34 years ago Canada offered us Preference, and that in the interval nothing has been done. I have been a member of a Government for about three years, and I accept my three years share of blame and ask him to apportion the rest of the blame among those responsible for the other 31 years. I share the hon. Member's hope for the future. I say sincerely that I do not think there is one hon. Member who is not dissatisfied with the existing Imperial position. No matter what view they may take on Preference or anything else, no one can be happy with the present state of affairs. Although there have been numerous Imperial conferences it is true to say that far too much time has been taken up with these political issues. I never disguise from the House or the country my view of the terrible difficulty I had at the last Imperial Conference, when nine-tenths of the time was occupied by these political questions and no time was available for economic questions.
Do not let the House make the mistake of assuming that the Dominions are not keen on this matter. I can assure my hon. Friend of the strong feeling that exists. They have pressed that this Bill should become law at the time specified. If things were as bad as my hon. Friend suggests, it would only be putting off the evil day to postpone the operation of the Act. He knows perfectly well that his Amendment will not be carried. He has delivered a charming little speech, not in support of the Amendment, but in support of 101 other things not connected with it. If he is as anxious as I am that we shall seriously and surely

297
get down to these fundamental economic questions that are vital to the British Commonwealth, he must admit that the sooner we get rid of these political differences the better. This Bill is a way of getting rid of them. I believe that the Bill will for a long time get rid of these political differences, and I would ask the Committee whether they would be wise to consider even for a moment the idea of postponing the Bill for 12 months, seeing that we are committed to every one of the Dominions. They have complied with their side of the bargain in having sent in their request in the usual way, and surely it is for us to comply with ours.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: My right hon. Friend has complained that the Mover of the Amendment did not endeavour to prove his case. In other words, he suggests that nay hon. Friend did not get close to the Amendment. I think that suggestion was unjustified, and I will try to rectify the position. It is not a case of endeavouring to fulfil something that all the Dominions have asked for. As far as I can find out, and I have made many inquiries, very few of the Dominions are urgently demanding that this Bill should become an Act by 1931. I have here two or three expressions of opinion from the Dominions asking that the Bill should be postponed so that the States of Australia, including Tasmania, should be further consulted before definite action is taken. We in this House owe an obligation to those States to ensure that their views are considered and represented in this House. The Mover of the Amendment suggested that it is 34 years since Canada first raised the question of Imperial Preference. That is not now the issue. We have an Empire or a Commonwealth which started in 1607, when Newfoundland was first acquired. This was followed by Canada coming into the Empire in 1763, and so on through our history we find the various Dominions desiring and seeking to become part and parcel of this great Commonwealth. Now, in two days and against the will and desire of certain constituent parts of the Empire, we are going to reverse the whole structure, and we are doing that, in face of the demand of the States of Australian that the matter should be reconsidered.
It is no great argument for the right hon. Gentleman to say that some of the
298
Dominions want the Bill for political reasons. We know, for instance, that when the elections take place in the Fret State next year the political head of the Free State wants his opponents' arrows to be blunted. It will be entirely unwise for us in this very short; space of time to take a drastic action which affects the whole constitutional situation not only of the Empire and this country but possibly of India. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Economic Conference will take place next year. That is an abundant reason for postponing the operation of the Bill for one year. In the atmosphere which we hope the Economic Conference will develop, when, if our hopes materialise, there will he an economic unity established, it will be regarded as the right atmosphere for the bringing about of closer political unity. Therefore, we should find that we have translated this Bill into law at the very time when we should hold our hands for a few months. We desire to make this Bill a real constructive Act which will bring about closer economic and political bonds than we have visualised before. The right hon. Gentleman, while expressing his views fairly and fully, has perhaps forgotten what is at stake. As an Empire lover, I appeal to him for a little delay, and I suggest that he should not reject the Amendment.
Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I should like to support the Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman has dismissed it much too summarily. If this Statute means anything at all, it is a new charter for the British Empire. We know that there is to be a great conference of Dominion representatives at Ottawa which may very well alter the bonds which bind the Empire together. We have some reason to complain of the speed with which this great Charter has been pushed through the House. The Bill has only been in the Vote Office for a few days. Some time ago, when some of us who are interested in the matter heard that the matter was being discussed by experts, we asked for some information as to the provisional form in which the Statute of Westminster was to be drafted, but we were unable to get even a draft of the Statute. The Bill has been suddenly introduced, and after a very short time it is to be passed into law.

299
If the Bill is of any importance it is of very great importance to the British Empire as a whole, and now we are told that it must be passed into law within a few weeks. Having regard to the fact that the Imperial Conference is about to meet at Ottawa and that the Dominion Secretary has told us that, he is about to go on a tour through the Empire in order to reconstitute the bonds which should bind it together, I think it would be very much better if the Statute were postponed until next year. We have a National Government in power which looks at national and Empire affairs from an entirely new angle, and we hope that they will get a move on in regard to matters which have been put aside at the various Imperial Conferences, so that those matters may become a great Empire reality. We cannot at the moment forecast all that that reality is to be. Therefore, it would be better if we postponed the operation of the Statute of Westminster for a year so that it can be made a reality and not a semblance, as it is at the moment.
Mr. MANDER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he will give this matter further consideration or that he will give the Committee certain assurances in regard to the Australian States. There can he no doubt that the Australian States are very much concerned as to their rights in the future under this Act. Within the last two days a resolution has been adopted by the Tasmanian Parliament. The message that reaches us says that:
"Both Houses of Parliament passed a resolution protesting against the passage of the Statute of Westminster by the Imperial Parliament. The Government urge that the passage of the Statute be deferred with a view to full consultation with the States. The States have never been consulted and they desire full opportunity for the consideration of their views. South Australia telegraphed support of Tasmania's request that the Statute be not proceeded with."
I am a supporter of the Statute. It is to be put through in accordance with agreement in various parts of the Empire, but we want to do it with all in the Empire feeling thoroughly satisfied that their position has been met beyond any doubt, and if by a slight delay in the passage of the Bill they could be persuaded that the points in which they are
300
interested have not been overlooked, I cannot help thinking that it would be for the good of the Empire in the future. In view of the strongly expressed doubt which exists in Tasmania and Western Australia I hope the Secretary of State will be able to say something which will give assurance where assurance is certainly wanted.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: If there were any justification for pointing out the dangers of a discussion such as that raised by the hon. Gentleman, it would be made manifest should this House begin to differentiate in the internal affairs of the Dominions. It is not for me to comment on the merits of the case, except to state this fact. Every Member who has followed Australian polities during the last two years knows perfectly well the differences existing with regard to the Federal Parliament and the States for reasons disconnected entirely with this Statute. We know the agitation that has taken place in some cases for separation. It would be a profound mistake for this Parliament, which is itself responsible for the Australian Constitution, to take sides. Nothing would be more dangerous to Imperial unity than that. It is not my business to comment on any view, either of Tasmania, New South Wales or anywhere else, because I should then be balancing one State against another. We are concerned with the fact that the Imperial Conference is a conference of Dominion Governments, and it is the Dominion Government representatives who have come to this conclusion. In the same way, look how dangerous it would be if, for instance. Ontario or Quebec had expressed certain opinions on some religious question. You would expect no Secretary of State to get up in this House and take a particular view because of that expression of opinion. The Dominion Parliament would at once say, "This is a domestic matter for which we ourselves are responsible and which we must deal with."
I beg hon. Members to keep in mind that the Statute of Westminster and all involved in it is the request of the Dominions for this legislation. We were under a solemn pledge at their request. Having met them, we had to give effect to it. Is my hon. Friend quite fair when

301
he says that this is being rushed? He was a Member of the House in 1926, and it is not fair of those who have to accept responsibility for 1926 legislation to complain now. All that this Statute of Westminster does is to give legislative effect to what was implied and intended by the 1926 Conference. It is no good for any one to excuse themselves by saying that they had not thought of it, and had not known the implications of it. So far as I am concerned this is a legacy to me. I have never disguised my opinion that I hate a written constitution. In my judgment the value of the British constitution is that it was an unwritten constitution, and I have never disguised that view. My hon. Friend was in the Government of 1926 which left me the legacy, and I had to deal with it. I found that we were committed, and that these obligations were entered into. I found, and the Labour Government found, that this was something which was a fait accompli. What other course was there for any Government than to say, "Certainly, whatever our personal views, we are going to implement it"? That is exactly what happened, and that is the history of the Bill we are now discussing. The Amendment before the House is to defer it for 12 months. My hon. Friend in his speech suggested as the reason for deferring it that we are going to meet at Ottawa. Surely my hon. Friend knows this question is excluded from Ottawa. You must not confuse the next Ottawa Conference with an Imperial Conference. It is adjourned as an Economic Conference, not as an Imperial Conference, and this question would be absolutely ruled out.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I quite appreciate that point of view, but what I was saying was that probably, in view of the reassembly of the Economic Conference, there might be a spirit engendered at that conference which would create a desire for closer political as well as economic union. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Dominions pressed in 1926 for this revised Constitution, but was it not rather owing to the failure of any economic help from us that there had to be something found for the conference to do, and that this point was raised?
Mr. THOMAS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entirely in error. He
302
knows nothing of the history of the matter if he says that. The 1926 Imperial Conference was responsible for the Balfour declaration, and that was the first declaration which substituted for the British Empire the British Commonwealth of Nations. In 1929 it was necessary to give legal effect to the declaration, and the legal experts of the Dominions met for that purpose. The 1930 Imperial Conference was then called to consider what the legal gentlemen had referred to it. That is the history of the matter. I repeat that the genesis of the whole thing was in 1926. Take the other point about the spirit of the next Ottawa Conference. There is common agreement that we want to start in an atmosphere of good will, but are you not doing the reverse by accepting this Amendment? You may take it that a number of Dominions will say, "Last year you solemnly placed on record a promise that the Statute of Westminster should be law before December of this year." I answer "Yes, it is quite true. I did promise, but we thought von would be better pleased if we did not fulfil our promise." That is not an atmosphere in which to get good will. It is for these reasons, and because I know the Dominions are keen on it, and that many of them would look on the Amendment as a breach of faith, that it is impossible to accept the Amendment.
Mr. G. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has submitted one of the most extraordinary arguments ever submitted to the House of Commons. To what does it amount? Tasmania objects, Western Australia objects, certain other Colonies object. But we are bound because delegates to an Imperial Conference have among themselves come to a certain agreement. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has the slightest evidence that members of the public in these Dominions have been fully informed, or that one per cent. of the population of Great Britain know what we are doing? Coming up in the train this morning, I asked everyone I could about it, and I did not find one individual who knew what the Statute of Westminster meant. By what right is this Measure put before us merely because delegates at a conference said, "By 1931 you shall have the Statute of Westminster"? By what right did they

303
enter into that obligation on behalf of the Imperial Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that they have no right or authority. I am one of those who resent bitterly that this Measure, which was put before us on Friday, is to be passed within a day or two and become law by the end of this year. There has been no argument submitted to this House to justify such action, and everything the right hon. Gentleman has said strengthens me in that view.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving with respect to Irish Free State and Northern Ireland.)
"Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorise the Legislature of the Irish Free State to repeal, amend, or alter the Irish Free State Agreement Act, 1922, or the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, or so much of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as continues to be in force in Northern Ireland."—[Colonel Gretton.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."
I am moving this Clause because the same constitutional question is already provided for in the Bill in its relation to the Constitution of Canada, the British North America Act, the Commonwealth Act of Australia and the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand. It is true that exemption is not made in relation to the Constitution of the Union of South Africa. The Government of South Africa have taken action, and affirmed their Constitution unanimously and in definite language, and they have said that they consider and believe it is outside the purview of the Statute of Westminster. The Irish Free State have taken no steps whatever in the matter. It appears to many of us that this question of what is the position of the Irish Free State under the new Statute is very vital. We cannot look on the Free State as if we were regarding the case of a distant Dominion. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because there is some-
304
thing compelling in geography. Ireland lies across our access to the Atlantic Ocean. She narrows down the highways of the sea into two channels of approach; by the Northern coast of Ireland to the Clyde and Western coast and by her Southern shores into the English Channel. We are bound to look at the proximity of Ireland, which makes her a special case. The Government of Ireland was set up in consequence of Articles of Agreement come to in 1922. The Articles of Agreement are embodied in the Irish Free State Agreement Act and carried forward in the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922. I will say something about these Articles of Agreement before I sit down. It is useless to argue that there is no legal obligation. They are enshrined in those two Statutes.
This Parliament and the Parliament in Dublin have both enacted the Articles of Agreement which are the basis of the position as it stands to-day. We have thought it necessary to put the agreement into an Act of Parliament. The legal position is beyond dispute. The Irish Free State is a new State, and, as everyone is aware, there are two parties who hold very different views, as expressed by them, as to the relations of its Government to this country. Mr. Cosgrave, who is the head of the party which now forms the Irish Government, has invariably clone his best to maintain friendly relations, and to maintain the British connection, but there are other Members in his Government whose expressions from time to time make one believe that even his Government is not entirely unanimous in this matter. The party which, in the Free State, is in opposition is undoubtedly opposed to any connection of the Irish Free State with this country, or even with the British Empire—or the British Commonwealth of Nations, as it is called in the Bill that we are now debating.
What is proposed in Clause 2, and especially in Sub-section (2), is to confer upon the Irish Free State the power to revoke any law which may have been enacted in this country or in a Dominion, either previous to, or after, the passing of the Statute of Westminster. The proposal is to endow the Parliament in Dublin with powers to revoke legislation which is set up by the Articles of Agreement between this country and the Irish

305
Free State, and so to set on one side the Irish Constitution, as set up in the Irish Constitution Act. Nothing could be more satsifactory than the speeches which Mr. Cosgrave has been making lately, but he cannot speak for the whole Free State, and it is well known that there is great danger of a revocation and a repeal of both these enactments, if the Opposition party should obtain a majority. Surely this Parliament is not going to take action which will make the status of the Free State, in regard to the United Kingdom, the sport of factions and parties in Ireland or elsewhere. This is a very serious matter, and it imperils the legal obligation. No one denies that. Why deliberately set aside that legal obligation, and those ties that we considered wise and necessary? We should only be inviting the separatist party in the Irish Free State by the passing of this Bill without some such Clause as I am proposing, to take legally the very step which they propose, and which we maintain, in this country, would be an immoral step. They could take it without its being illegal.
Now, if the House will bear with me, I come to point out what is contained in the Articles of Agreement which remain in force. Article 4 includes the Oath of Allegiance to the Throne, the one bond which unites the constituent nations of the British Empire. Article 5, which has been accepted by mutual agreement, deals with the public Debt. Article 6 relates to defence, and lays down that the Irish Free State shall not have a fleet, at any rate at present. It is only able to undertake coastal defence. Article 7 provides that the Free State:
"shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces:
(a) in time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex hereto…"
and
(b) In time of War or of strained relations with a foreign power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for purposes of defence…"
Can we afford to put on one side provisions of that kind? It would be most unsafe, suicidal, to lay upon one side those Articles, unless we were going to replace them by something else. We should raise the whole question of the standing of the Free State and ourselves, questions which we hoped had been
306
settled, although in a manner painful and very unsatisfactory, to many of us who are now in this House. Then there was a limitation of armament laid down, by which the Free State Army is not to be greater, in proportion to its population, than the Army of the United Kingdom. There are other provisions in these Articles of Agreement, with regard to religious agreement, and to the protection of minorities. One of the Articles provides the option for Northern Ireland not to come under the proposed Constitution of the Free State, but to exercise that option to set up a Northern Ireland Government, which has been adopted. That is the legal status which Northern Ireland has adopted to-day.
All these matters are of very great importance, and if you give the Free State Parliament power to set them all on one side, and legally to tear up this Agreement, we are, I respectfully submit, running a risk and taking upon ourselves a responsibility which, in face of the nation, we have no business to assume. Has the history of the Irish Free State been so tranquil, or has the Free State so long had a Government, that it may be regarded as fully and firmly established? We know that that is not so. It is a new country, with a new organisation and a new form of Government. Whatever action it may be wise, prudent and statesmanlike to take in the future, hurriedly to set on one side the whole of the foundation of the Agreement between the Free State and ourselves is certainly most rash, and is certainly not statesmanlike.
I do not wish to detain the House too long. There are many others who have arguments to advance in this matter. I finish as I began, with the statement that the Irish Free State stands upon a different footing from the other Dominions. It is the youngest and least firmly established, with a geographical position which makes it incumbent upon us to see that certain stipulations are not set upon one side, and that agreements are not torn up, in regard to it. I am fully conscious that the moral obligation is strong. Why tilt against the legal obligation which has been entered into? What is the meaning of setting these matters upon one side? It has been said that an election is pending, and that it might

307
prejudice the present Government of Mr. Cosgrave to insert this new Clause which I am asking the House to accept. What has that to do with legislation of a permanent character? Can we be deterred from doing what is our duty, incumbent upon us, because there is an election pending in one of the Dominions? I feel that that might be a very good argument for accepting the Amendment, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), to put the whole matter off for a year, until the election has taken place, but surely we are not to make the position of Ireland in the British Commonwealth of Nations the sport of one election. I hold the view, and many other people hold the view, that because Mr. Cosgrave desires to maintain the status quo in the relations between this country and the Free State, he would be safer and stronger with this legal obligation to serve him. It would enable him to say: "I am not only bound morally, but bound legally."
The Irish Free State has never found the Parliament in this country in late years unwilling to meet the desires of the Dominions. We have been perhaps too ready to meet them in some respects. This Parliament has been most complaisant and friendly with the Irish Free State since it was set up by its own act. I will not detain the House longer. I urge that this new Clause should be accepted for the reasons I have given, and for many reasons which my hon. Friends will urge in subsequent speeches.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: On Friday after-noon, in response to a very keen desire in all parts of the House, I promised that, between then and to-day, the Government should not only be informed of the Debate, and of the strong feeling that existed, more especially in connection with this particular point, but that the opportunity should be given to review the whole situation. Therefore, in the attitude that I adopt at this moment, I can assure the House that every consideration was given to this Amendment, and that every endeavour was made to fulfil the promise I made that full Cabinet consideration should be given to it. But I want to submit that it is not quite fair, in a Debate of this kind, to separate or distinguish between one Dominion and
308
another. Nothing could be more fatal to Imperial unity than for this House to differentiate in such a way. Incidentally, the answer to my right hon. and gallant Friend's statement, that after all the Irish Free State has not a very long record as a, Government, is that he cannot point to another Dominion covering the same period with such a stable Government as the Irish Free State. Take the period since the Treaty and keep in mind all the circumstances that led up to the Treaty. I think it is a remarkable tribute to the Irish people that from the day the Treaty was signed to this moment there has never been a change of Government, except the return of a Government pledged absolutely to preservation of the Treaty. Who is there who will suggest that Ireland, so far as political faith is concerned, has not been much more consistent than this country as a whole?
I would say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that I listened to the very powerful speech and the very powerful plea that he made on Friday. I could not quite understand his position then, and I cannot understand it to-day, because he first said, in defending his attitude on Friday with regard to the 1926 declaration, that the late Lord Balfour had said to him, in justification of his now famous formula, that he made that formula because he did not believe in wooden guns. In other words the only justification for that statement was that Lord Balfour meant then—it would be the only construction to put upon his words—that no mere paper security is equal to the good will and the confidence of the people themselves. Is not that the real answer to the Amendment now proposed?
I would remind the House of the different circumstances to-day. After years of bitter hostility and war, when passions were aroused, when there was a tremendous feeling and a tremendous loss of life, between Ireland and this country a treaty was made, to which the right hon. Gentleman who now supports this Amendment was a party. It was then his responsible duty to defend the treaty in this House. The same arguments were used and almost the same Amendments —it was the same principle underlying the Amendments—were moved then, when

309
the right hon. Gentleman was defending the treaty. Let me point to the relevance of his answer then to the position to-day. There was an Amendment moved calling upon His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to accept the responsibility for the payment of compensation under Article 10. In other words, although there had been an agreement, a moral obligation, a treaty obligation as between two parties, just as this Amendment now says, although we admit there is a treaty, although we admit there is a moral obligation, yet we are asked to safeguard it by putting something in an Act of Parliament. That is exactly the Amendment that was put down years ago, and the right hon. Member for Epping was called upon to accept it or to reject it, as I am called upon now. This was his answer:
"I do not propose to accept this Amendment and to write this upon the text of the present Bill. I think that to do so would be to throw a quite unjustifiable slur upon the action of a Government which has not yet come into existence, and which, if it comes into existence at all, will do so on the basis of the Treaty, and will, we must assume, honourably execute the provisions of the Treaty. I could not accept the suggestion that this provision be inserted. I think it would tend to encourage people to think that they were entitled to evade their obligations, and to regard it as a statutory provision, in the event of their doing so, for the Government assuming the responsibility. It would be most unfortunate to begin by assuming that an Trish Free State Government—which, after all, is the goal of this policy, and without which the policy would fail and many grave and immeasurable evils would supervene in our affairs—would not carry out its obligations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1922; col. 1343, Vol. 151.]
That was the reason why the right hon. Member for Epping could not accept the wooden Amendment. He knew perfectly well that a moral obligation signed between two contracting parties and faithfully observed, must by the very nature of things be more binding than a mere Amendment in a Bill. He refused to accept the Amendment. Indeed, he went beyond that. In his final words he said:
"It is from these two motives, faith and hope, that we are entitled on the Third Reading of this Bill to say 'We have put our hands to the plough and we will not look back.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1922; col. 1432, Vol. 151.]
310
That was the right hon. Gentleman's answer in 1922, when he had to persuade the British Parliament to trust the good name and faith of the Irish people, when he had to say to this House and to many of his own friends who were bitterly opposed, "We believe in the Irish people. We ask you to trust them because their word is far better than any Amendment that I could put into the Bill." Last Friday the right hon. Gentleman recalled the names of men whom both he and I knew. He paid the greatest tribute to Michael Collins. He paid tribute to Arthur Griffiths and many others. I submit to him that it is not fair, in this connection, to mention their names, and not to realise that President Cosgrave is taking the same risks, and is prepared, if need be, to make the same sacrifice for the same object that they gave their lives for. Are we not entitled to keep in mind the fact that no speaker on Friday and no speaker this evening has doubted President Cosgrave's word? No one for one moment has challenged Mr. Cosgrave's word. But the doubt has been in connection with the supposition that Mr. De Valera may be returned. That has been the argument used by everyone.
If you want to ensure the return of Mr. De Valera, then carry this Amendment. Just imagine an Irish Election taking place, after the lives that we have mentioned were sacrificed, and imagine every Irishman being able to say, "They not only do not trust De Valera, but they do not trust Cosgrave." That would ensure not only the return of Mr. De Valera, but it would ensure that every Irishman who had sacrificed so much in defence of the Treaty, would have lost hope and would never meet us again. In this connection, I think I ought to read one passage from a letter sent by Mr. Cosgrave to the Prime Minister on Monday of this week. There was a suggestion that although Michael Collins and the others had fought for the Treaty, there was a large section in Ireland, even represented in the Government, who were more lukewarm on the matter. The report of the Debate on Friday was read by Mr. Cosgrave, who sent this letter to the Prime Minister under date 21st November:

311
"Dear Prime Minister,
I have read the report of last Friday's Debate in the House of Commons on the Statute of Westminster Bill, and am gravely concerned at Mr. Thomas's concluding statement that the Government will be asked to consider the whole situation in the light of the Debate. I sincerely hope that this does not indicate any possibility that your Government would take the course of accepting an Amendment relating to the Irish Free State. I need scarcely impress upon you that the maintenance of the happy relations which now exist between our two countries is absolutely dependent upon the continued acceptance by each of us of the good faith of the other. This situation has been constantly present to our minds, and we have reiterated time and again that the Treaty is an agreement which can only be altered by consent. I mention this particularly, because there seems to be a mistaken view in some quarters that the solemnity of this instrument in our eyes could derive any additional strength from a Parliamentary law. So far from this being the case, any attempt to erect a Statute of the British Parliament into a safeguard of the Treaty would have quite the opposite effect here, and would rather tend to give rise in the minds of our people to a doubt as to the sanctity of this instrument."
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), when this discussion took place on Friday as to what was the view at this moment on the moral obligation of this Treaty, spoke to me privately, and I said to him that I felt there was no doubt in the minds of the Irish Government on this point. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the quotation I have read is the best answer to that question. Therefore, what I submit to the House is this: Suppose that you were to accept this Amendment, does any member of the Committee assume that it would be binding on Mr. De Valera if he were to come back? Are there any Members here who would feel satisfied that by inserting this Amendment they had safeguarded anything? If there were returned to the Irish Parliament a body of people who were determined to break the Agreement nothing that could be done in this Committee by this Amendment would stop it. It is because I believe that the moral issue is greater; it is because I believe that the Irish people are anxious and ready to fulfil and to discharge to the full their obligations, that I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Further down on the Paper there is one other suggestion that the same principle should apply to South Africa.
312
South Africa and Ireland are the two Dominions with which there are Treaty obligations. I ask the Committee: do you think for one moment that on a division you would dare to insert a Clause that this should be applied to South Africa? Is there any Member, knowing the position in South Africa, who would dare to risk it? If you dare not risk it for South Africa, then if you insert Ireland you merely brand her to the world, with the proclamation that the one Dominion that you cannot trust is Ireland. That would be the net effect. It is because I believe that in the end that course would be disastrous; it is because I do not believe that it is a real safeguard; it is because I believe that, in the end, it is better to trust the Irish people and that that will, after all, be the real and permanent safeguard, that I say that the Government are unable to accept this Amendment.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I ask the permission of the Committee to say a few words on this subject, but I shall detain them only for a few moments. I am one of the small and diminishing band of those who were signatories to the Irish Treaty, and I was one of the members of the Imperial Relations Committee of the Conference of 1926. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs will not press too far the responsibility of those who drafted the report of that Committee or agreed to it, for all the conclusions which other people, three years later, have felt it proper and fit to draw from that committee's report. While the committee of 1926 had no difficulty in defining the actual position at that moment of the Dominions and this country, within the British Commonwealth of Nations, the committee—and its chairman, Lord Balfour, in particular, was careful to do so—laid stress upon the fact that no such mere negative statement was any adequate exposition of the relations of the different parts of the British Commonwealth one with another. They insisted with equal emphasis upon the constructive, and, if I may so call it, the relating work which had to be done, the spirit in which it must be approached, and the way in which with this new spirit and in these new words, the unity of the Empire should be preserved even when

313
the authority of the Motherland over the self-governing Dominions was entirely abandoned.
By the Treaty with Ireland we placed the Irish Free State upon the footing of a Dominion. We made what, by the wish of the Irish themselves, was called a Treaty or Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between the Irish nation and ourselves. I am content to trust to the good faith of the Irish Government, who have given us every reason to trust their good faith since that Government was established, as long as I know that they definitely accept the obligations which that Treaty imposes upon them. I confess that as I listened to the Debate on Friday I felt not a little anxiety lest by the Statute of Westminster we should not merely be withdrawing statutory sanction from the Treaty but should be destroying the moral obligations of the Treaty itself; that, we should not only be removing the particular basis if you like, upon which the Treaty has hitherto rested, but that we should be, if not directly taking away, at any rate authorising the other party to the Treaty to take away the Treaty itself or abolish its conditions as they liked. For my part, I felt that keenly, and it was that which led me to speak privately to the right hon. Gentleman, as he has said, just after the conclusion of the Debate.
I am satisfied with the public acknowledgment by the authorised spokesman of the Irish Free State Government that the Treaty is an agreement between the two nations, standing, irrespective of statutory authority, upon their mutual faith, and only to be altered by their common consent. That gives me all that I could ask and all that I want. On that understanding, and accepting it in the spirit in which it is made, and in which the Irish Government have acted since their establishment, I shall go now with confidence and faith into the Lobby on behalf of the Statute.
Mr. BOOTHBY: The argument of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that the Irish Free State had the most stable Government of any of the Dominions since the War did not seem to me to be altogether relevant to the issue. What some hon. Members are obviously anxious about is not what Mr. Cosgrave's Government may or may not
314
have done, but what a Government, of which Mr. De Valera may be the head, may do in the future. Therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that Mr. Cosgrave is a, man of high character—which we all know—and that he is head of one of the most stable Governments in any of the Dominions since the War is not quite relevant. Upon this question I submit two points. The first is a point which has not, I think, been made clear in the Debates either on Friday or to-day. Do we or do we not in this Committee accept the Treaty made between the Irish Free State and this country in 1922 as a binding obligation which cannot be altered in any circumstances by one of the parties? For my part, I always regarded the terrible operations which were conducted in Ireland during 1920, 1921 and 1922 in the light of a war between two nations, and a particularly horrible type of war. I always regarded the Treaty which was negotiated by the Coalition Government of that time as nothing short of an international agreement between the two nations. I do not think that anything which we may insert in this Bill to-night or leave out of it can possibly, in international law, alter by one hair's breadth the obligations which rest upon this country and upon the Irish Free State and upon no other country in the world, in relation to the Treaty of 1922.
Take the position of this country at the moment. It is well known that we would like to impose an embargo upon certain classes of goods coming from Europe. Why are we deterred from doing so? Why are we unable to put an embargo on German goods? For the simple reason that we—rightly—consider ourselves bound by the commercial Treaty which we signed a few years ago with Germany. For exactly the same reason I maintain that the Irish Free State is equally bound by the terms of the Treaty of 1922 and could pass no legislation violating the terms of that Treaty without, in fact, breaking the Treaty. If they are determined to break the Treaty nothing that we can do here will stop them—no legislation of this House of Commons will stop them. The second point is that the problems of to-day are not political but economic. The future will be dominated by events which will happen in the economic sphere. The

315
House of Commons will discover that before many months have passed. The Government will discover that, probably to its cost, because it has some terrible economic problems to face.
I do not believe that the relations between this country and the Irish Free State will worsen in the course of the next few years, because I am convinced that the Irish Free State is economically dependent on this country. In the wider field, I believe that the whole future of the British Empire depends not on constitutional formulae of one kind or another, but on the degree of economic co-operation which we are able to establish in the course of the next few years. If the constituent parts of the Empire can be made economically dependent on each other, the Empire will survive. No mere political issue can possibly smash it. Constitutional legislation of the type which we are discussing to-night, in this age can neither terminate nor perpetuate the British Empire as an entity. For my part, I oppose this Amendment, not because I do not sympathise with the natural apprehensions of those who have brought it forward, but because I believe that it might, from a purely political point of view, raise certain apprehensions in the Irish Free State. I believe that it might well bring an accession of electoral and voting strength to Mr. De Valera. I believe that our own position is safeguarded by the terms of the Treaty, and I do not want to see the economic issues, which I believe to be fundamental and vital to-day, prejudiced in any way by political issues which, in this connection, I regard as irrelevant at the present time.
8.0 p.m.
Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: The Secretary of State for the Dominions almost in the last words of his speech said that it was not fair to differentiate between one Dominion and another. He followed that statement by quoting a letter from Mr. Cosgrave, the leader of the Government of the Irish Free State. In passing, may I suggest that it is very unusual for the leader of a political party in another Government—one of the Governments in the British Commonwealth—to intervene in a discussion in this Parliament with a view to affecting the decision of the House of Commons. I
316
wonder what would be said if a letter from the British Prime Minister or the Lord President of the Council were to be read by Mr. Cosgrave in the Dáil with a view to influencing the decision of that body. On the point as to whether or not it is fair to differentiate between one Dominion and another, I crave the indulgence of the Committee to read a few sentences which I think are more á propos than the opinion of a gentleman who is not a Member of this House of Commons. These are sentences used by the prime author of the Treaty and one of the first signatories to the Treaty, namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Referring to the various difficulties in the way of the creation of the Irish Free State as a Dominion, this is hat he said in this House on the 14th December, 1921, when he was explaining the Articles of Agreement in the Debate on the Address:
"There was the difficulty that arose from the geographical and strategical position of Ireland. There was no use saying, 'You must treat Ireland exactly as you treat Canada or Australia. There was Ireland, right across the ocean. The security of this country depends on what happens on this breakwater, this advance post, this front trench of Britain. We knew that, and that was one of the greatest difficulties with which we had to deal. There was no use saying: Apply Dominion Home Rule fully and completely. We had to safeguard the security of this land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1921; col. 32, Vol. 149.]
Then he went on to deal with other difficulties. I think that is an almost conclusive reply to the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Dominions that it is not fair to differentiate between one Dominion and another. Having regard to the long quotation that we have had from Mr. Cosgrave, may I quote a few more words from the same right hon. Gentleman, when this House first had an explanation of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty? It is very á propos indeed to the Statute of Westminster. This is what he said:
"The main operation of this scheme is the raising of Ireland to the status of a Dominion of the British Empire—that of a Free State within the Empire, with a common citizenship, and, by virtue of that membership in the Empire and of that common citizenship, owning allegiance to the King…I will explain as best I can the nature and extent of this transaction.

317
What does 'Dominion status' mean? It is difficult and dangerous to give a definition. When I made a statement at the request of the Imperial Conference to this House as to what had passed at our gathering, I pointed out the anxiety of all the Dominion delegates not to have any rigid definitions. That is not the way of the British constitution. We realise the danger of rigidity and the danger of limiting our constitution by too many finalities. Many of the Premiers delivered notable speeches in the course of that conference, emphasising the importance of not defining too precisely what the relations of the Dominions were with ourselves, what were their powers, and what was the limit of the power of the Crown. It is something that has never been defined by an Act of Parliament, even in this country, and yet it works perfectly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1921; cols. 27–8, Vol. 149.]
I venture to say that those arguments apply equally to-day as they did when the Irish Treaty was first explained to this House by the then Prime Minister. If I may return to the speech with which the learned Solicitor-General concluded the Debate in this House on Friday last, he said:
"There is nobody in a responsible position, either in this country or in Ireland, to-day who intends to repeal that Treaty." —[OFFCIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1931; col. 1249, Vol. 259.]
Assuming that to be correct, can anyone say what is the objection to putting in a Clause, or how it can be offensive to people who do not intend to repeal the Treaty to say that this Act of Parliament which we are now passing is not intended to affect the Treaty? If people are so touchy as that, they are not fit to be governing a great Dominion. What on earth is there to object to? Why is the Irish Free State more touchy than Canada? Words are inserted in the cases of Canada, of New Zealand, and of Australia, saying that the great Treaties which affect the constitution of those countries are not affected by this Bill which we are considering. Who are the Irish Free State, who are in far closer relationship and far more intermingled with this country than any of those far-flung Dominions, to be touchy and to take offence if we put in a Clause saying that nothing in this Bill shall affect the Treaty which we are told none of them want to alter?
We have heard that no one wants to alter it, but what about the speeches which have quite recently been delivered
318
by Mr. Cosgrave on the matter? Then also we have the speeches of the Minister for External Affairs, Mr. McGilligan. For months past, Mr. McGilligan, who was the delegate of the Irish Free State at the Imperial Conference, has announced his intention of introducing legislation which will repeal the appeal to the Privy Council, an integral part of the Treaty. Mr. Cosgrave himself, at the annual Convention of the Government party on the 5th May last, said:
"Appeals to the Judicial Committee from our Supreme Court are an anomaly and an anachronism. Their continuance is incompatible with our status, and is au insult to our dignity and sense of fairplay. This appeal must disappear at once."
That is Mr. Cosgrave, who, we are told, looks upon the Treaty as irrevocable. Can anyone say that that is not included or a part of the Treaty? Let me refer to what the then Attorney-General, Sir Douglas Hogg, who is now Lord Hailsham, said, in winding up the Debate on the Irish Constitution Bill on the 27th November, 1922:
"If Article 66 were not in, I am inclined to think that there would still be a right of appeal to the Privy Council, because it has been held more than once in the Privy Council that you cannot take away that prerogative of the Crown except by express words; but in order to prevent any doubt on the matter, you have in Article 66 the expressed provision:
'Provided that nothing in this Constitution shall impair the right of any person to petition His Majesty for special leave to petition from the Supreme Court to His Majesty in Council, or the right of His Majesty to grant such leave.'"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1922; cols. 376–7, Vol. 159.]
Yet Mr. Cosgrave says that it is contrary to the dignity and sense of fair play of the Free State Government. Speaking in the Dail on the 17th July, Mr. McGilligan, the Minister for External Affairs, not a nobody, not a more man in the street, but the man responsible for the external relations of the Free State, said:
"The British Monarch, as King, was finished entirely so far as the Free State was concerned, and everything done was at the will of the Irish people."
Again, if you refer to the "Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire" which has just been circulated, you will find there a speech by Mr. McGilligan in the Dail, in which he was moving the adoption of the Statute of Westminster, where he says:

319
"No argument…could be upheld that for diplomatic or political purposes the Commonwealth of Nations was one entity. When we agreed to this recital in the form in which it appears…we were simply stating that in the exercise of our sovereign legislative powers, which exist apart from and over and above all other considerations, which are supreme, paramount and uncontrolled, we would have regard to the desirability for uniformity of reference, to the symbol of the association and the desirability for avoidance of legal confusion in regard to the Succession. That is the extent of the meaning of this recital. It assumes the absolute inherent right of each of the Parliaments to legislate for the Crown without regard to these considerations…the summing up of the whole aim and the whole result of the Conferences of 1926, 1928 and 1930: that one had to get completely rid of any power, either actual or feared, that the British Government had in relation to this country.' Because that result had been achieved, he asked the Dail to pass the Resolution."
So much for Mr. Cosgrave and his Minister, but what about the Opposition? After all, there is an election pending in a few weeks' time in Ireland. We have seen cataclysms in this country, and who is to say that Mr. Cosgrave is always going to remain President of the Dail? What about Mr. De Valera, who is the Leader of the Opposition? At the annual Conference of the Fianna Fail party, held in Dublin in October, Mr. De Valera declared:
"In regard to our relations with Britain, our attitude will be one of non-co-operation so long as Britain persists in any attempt to enforce the terms of the imposed Treaty upon us."
That is plain speaking, and he is the Leader of the Irish Opposition. Are we entitled to take any risks? He further stated that the oath prescribed by the Treaty must go, and that the office of Governor-General must be assimilated to that of President of the Republic. At the annual Fheis of Siann Feinn, held at Dublin on the 4th October, the President declared:
"England is in the mire to-day. England is in the lash of destiny. She has pickled herself for her own trouncing. England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity."
That is not ancient history, but last month. Do let us be practical. Do not let us deal with this matter with washy sentimentality, but let us remember, as Members of the House of Commons, our debt of honour and the assurances we gave not only to the Protestant minority
320
in Southern Ireland with regard to their religious freedom, but with regard to the Irish harbour rights of the British Navy in time of war, with regard to the limitation of Irish armaments, and with regard to the other things mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). Quite unconsciously, the Solicitor-General misled the Committee by saying that there was no one of importance in Ireland who now says the Treaty should be torn up.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not say that.
Sir W. DAVISON: The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"There is nobody in a responsible position, either in this country or in Ireland, to-day who intends to repeal that Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1931; col. 1249, Vol. 259.]
I have ventured to submit to the Committee sonic reasons why I think that that is not strictly accurate. The Dominions Secretary has said that if you were to put this Clause in the Statute, you would gravely embarrass Mr. Cosgrave. I quite agree that Mr. Cosgrave is a very gallant gentleman, and we all owe him admiration. He has a very difficult task, and I think he has performed it with great courage, so that, speaking personally for myself and, I believe, also for a great many others, we owe him admiration for the courageous way in which he has discharged his task.
But let us look into this matter. Will he be in a worse position if this Clause is passed? I submit that he will not. If this Clause is not passed, the Free State, at any rate legally, can repeal the Irish Free State Constitution, but if the Clause is put in, the Dail cannot legally do that; and if we do not put in this Clause, it will be the chief item of Irish political controversy at every election in the near future. It will be a question of, Will you or will you not repeal the Treaty? And Mr. De Valera will say, "You have now the legal right to do it and it is only your moral sense of responsibility, which is really all wrong, that prevents you," because of the quotation that I have already referred to, in which he said that they were forced into signing the Treaty and did not do it as free men. Even from Mr. Cosgrave's point of view it would be very much better if this proposed Clause were included. I ask the Committee not to be

321
carried away by sentiment in this matter. Let us remember the assurances that were given by the right hon. Member, for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who was then in charge of the Bill in the House of Commons, to the minorities in Ireland, to Ulster, and to the people of Britain, the mother country. Surely it is something at which nobody should take offence if we put into this Statute, which, we understand, is to be the great charter in future of the British Dominions, a Clause saying that the undertakings and agreements of the Treaty which were entered into in 1921 still remain the law of the land of both countries, and that nothing in this Statute will affect them.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I did not intend to take any part in this Debate because unhappily the state of my health does not make it easy for me to undergo the strain of addressing the Committee; and therefore, not only for the sake of the Committee, but, for my own sake, I shall endeavour to make my observations as brief as they possibly can be. I want to make only a single point. It has been stated by the Secretary of State and by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) that President Cosgrave's letter makes it quite clear that the moral obligation of the Treaty remains whatever we decide in respect of this Bill tonight. So far as President Cosgrave and his colleagues go, that is of course quite true and unanswerable. The moral obligation of the Treaty, as far as they and the Irish Government in whose name they speak are concerned is undoubtedly still binding, whatever we do. It is said that we shall only weaken their hands if we put in this proposed new Clause. I am not quite in agreement with that argument, because I believe that it indicates a mistaken theory of Irish psychology. I do not believe, as a matter of fact, that those emotional considerations have anything like the weight in Ireland that they are supposed to have. The decisive body of Irish opinion, which is not always the great majority, really looks to what they conceive to be the national advantage, and that will in future, as in the past, be what will determine their action. I do not want to go into that, because it does not seem to me, either as a fact or as a basis of this Bill, to be any business of ours.
322
The whole idea of the Bill, whether it be a wise Bill or not, is that each part of the 13ritish Commonwealth of nations should be regarded as equal parts with each other of a common body, each managing their own affairs and only looking to their own affairs in the exercise of their autonomous power. I want to apply that to ourselves. We cannot be blind, however, to the fact that it is possible that moral obligations may he disregarded, because there are certainly politicians in Ireland who do not think that the Treaty is a moral obligation, and who would feel quite justified, and do not conceal their feelings, in breaking the Treaty. It then falls on us to consider what we should do. The Treaty is morally binding, as we conceive it, but, if this Bill passes in its present form, it will be possible to introduce by an Act of the Irish Parliament a vast and, it seems to me, a dangerous ambiguity into the legal position. I assume that we should take measures to enforce the Treaty as against the then Irish Government, but should we be legally justified in doing so if the Irish Parliament, acting in accordance with the Clauses of this Measure, had passed a Statute repealing the Treaty and, let us say, annexing the whole or large part of Northern Ireland? What would be our legal position? I believe that it would be a position of the utmost confusion. Immediately you came within reach of the jurisdiction of the Dominion, you would be in the position of persons who were acting unlawfully and in contravention of the law.
There still remains the theory, which cannot be abolished by this Statute, that there is only one thing which is legal throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations; and from the moment you had a conflict of law, such as I am supposing to arise, and you had the Irish Parliament enacting a law which in our view was an act of rebellion against the Commonwealth of Nations, and certainly a breach of faith, you would have two laws—the law which we obeyed in this country and the law which we were bound to obey immediately we and our soldiers or sailors crossed St. George's Channel. That is surely an unworkable position in which to put ourselves. We cannot be blind to the danger that, although this moral obligation is recognised in the most ex-

323
plicit form by the present Irish Government, it may be disregarded by a future Irish Government; and, if we try to enforce our just claims under the treaty, we might be faced with the absurd position that we should be acting in defiance of the common law of the British Empire. I protest against such a danger, and for that reason I shall support the proposed Clause, although I may not, on account of my health, be able to take part in the Division.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I want to speak for only a few minutes, but I have a great affection for Ireland as I was born there, and I want to see Ireland as happy as it can be, both in the north and the south. I have a further right to speak in that I happened to be serving in Ireland as a soldier during the Rebellion and during the period of the troubles from 1920 to 1922. I saw then the cruel destruction of all public feeling, especially among those who were loyal to Great Britain. That was of course, due to the weakness of the Coalition Government. I saw a friend of mine, Max Reid, a son-in-law of that great Irishman, John Redmond, murdered 10 yards away from me. I only saw the back of the murderer, and it was impossible to get one informer from the scores of people who saw the murder. That shows the utter elimination of public feeling at that time, and I only make this preliminary statement to show that it is essential that we should do nothing to destroy what little confidence there may he left towards Great Britain among the loyal population of Southern Ireland.
Since the Free State Government came into operation in 1922 things have gradually improved. There has been a resurgence of public opinion, based largely on the fact that Mr. Cosgrave has done so amazingly well and that he has gained every confidence in himself and his loyalty to his Treaty obligations, and also because the people of Southern Ireland realise that, even though they may be let down by their own Government through any change in Mr. Cosgrave's position, they still have at the back of them Great Britain and Great Britain's promise that any Irishman has a right of appeal to the Privy Council of Great Britain. That has been one of the
324
strongest levers in reintroducing a publicly-instructed opinion throughout the South of Ireland. At one time you could not get an informer to come forward and give evidence in regard to any crime he had seen, but, now that confidence has been restored, he will do so. Therefore it is more than ever necessary that we should develop that growth of confidence, and support it, by not introducing into the minds of the people of Southern Ireland any suggestion that they are in danger again, that they are likely to be again let down by the British Government, likely to be again thrown back into complete divorce from Great Britain and into whatever fluctuations of politics may ultimately develop in the Free State.
There is no doubt that Mr. Cosgrave wants this Measure to be passed as it stands. I do not blame him. Mr. Cosgrave has many difficulties, and chief amongst those difficulties is the point that he must be more extreme than the extremists, must satisfy the extreme point of view. He wants to stop the efforts of Mr. De Valera to capture the in-between opinion, the moderate opinion between the right and the left, and he can only do that by getting this Measure passed. Otherwise, Mr. De Valera will still have the breaking of the Treaty as the golden object to hold in front of the people of Ireland in the next election. If the Statute goes through in its present form Mr. Cosgrave will undoubtedly be strengthened, but what is going to be the position then? The only programme which Mr. De Valera will have will be the implementing of the Statute, and a barricade will be removed straight away between the peace that at present exists and what may exist in the future.
If the Statute is passed, then Mr. De Valera will go to the country and say, "Now that we have statutory rights with Great Britain, my programme is to implement those rights and to break the Treaty." Of course, that will be a tremendous attraction to a lot of young men, idealistic and nationalistic spirited young men, who have—some of them—nothing else to do; but I do not believe it will appeal—and I want to say this, since Mr. Cosgrave is watching this Debate—to the farmer and to the manufacturer. The farmer in Ireland is far more concerned with the prices he is going to get for his butter, milk and eggs than with whether this Statute of West-

325
minster is passed or not; I doubt whether he even knows that it is in existence. As for the manufacturer, he is tar more concerned about getting payment for the goods he supplies to the farmer. So the real people of Ireland—because the manufacturers and the farmers are 95 per cent. of the population of Southern Ire- land—are solely interested, not in this Statute, not in the cutting away of the final link with Great Britain, but in getting an assurance that their economic situation is improved, and they know that under a De Valera administration, especially if this link is broken, that the economic situation will not be improved.
8.30 p.m.
Supposing the Statute is passed in its present form and the last link is broken and Mr. De Valera comes into power— as he may well do, because there is a very fluctuating vote there at this moment— then what is to be the British Government's attitude in the matter of keeping the Treaty conditions alive? One method of dealing with the situation would be to keep the cattle out and the coal in; in other words, to apply economic pressure. If you kept the cattle of the Irish Free State from coming into Great Britain, and the coal of Great Britain from going into the Irish Free State, in three days' time you would have a complete economic blockade, and—
Mr. BOOTHBY: Suppose that were to happen, does the hon. and gallant Member think the Free State Government would then be legally entitled by statute to violate the Treaty of 1922?
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: No, I do not think it would, but what I was trying to point out was this, that while we might use such economic pressure to force the Free State Government—under Mr. De Valera, of course—back into a more amenable frame of mind, that it is a policy which would cut both ways. While it would hurt our own friends in the Free State, it would also hurt ourselves, so obviously it would not be one to be used as a means of overcoming the new conditions which would be in existence.
Therefore I come back to this belief that it would be better in the interests of Mr. Cosgrave himself, and certainly better in our own interests and in the interests of the bulk of the Irish people, to maintain the existing position and accept this Amendment. I do not believe
326
it would be for the good of the Irish people to have this Measure passed as it stands. If I thought the bulk of the people of the Irish Free State were in favour of this Measure as it stands I would vote for it willingly, but I do not believe that is their wish—it is merely engendered fear by Mr. Cosgrave that he must spike the guns of his enemy and secure the position which Mr. De Valera otherwise might hold, and that is, the domination of all sections of political opinion in the Irish Free State. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, and previously I have spoken in favour of a postponement of this vital question, and I suggest that now, even at this late stage, he might consider having further conversations with Mr. Cosgrave to find out whether he could take a referendum of the people. If that were possible it would be shown clearly to Mr. Cosgrave and this country that the Measure in its present form is not required.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I had a full opportunity on Friday of stating the misgivings, and, indeed, the objections, which I personally entertain to this Measure in its present unamended form, and as I listened this Afternoon, first of all to the long and discursive Debate upon various constitutional points, and, secondly, to the Debate on this Amendment, I am bound to say that my opposition to the Bill was not in any way mitigated. I shall not repeat the arguments which I submitted to the House last week, but as I listened to the speech of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs I could not help feeling that it put the case on a false and disproportioned basis. We see defects in the Statute. We wish that its legal form and shape could have been more in harmony with the traditions, at least, of the British Constitution, but we are committed to the Statute and we do not see how in this House and at this time we have the power to re-shape that Statute in detail.
If only this Measure had been committed to a Joint Committee of both Houses, on which the great lawyers of the House of Lords, whose names and legal authority are respected in all the Dominions, could in perfect frankness and sincerity have examined this matter, and smoothed off the unfortunate terms of phrase and of provisions which are in it,

327
I am certain it would have been possible to present this matter again to the Dominions—there being no hurry for it—and to obtain from them some reconsideration of certain points. While we show every respect and attention to the wishes and views of the Dominions, and are always anxious to defer to their desires, still, the Mother Country must sometimes have a wish or point of view of its own, and I cannot believe that that wish, that point of view, when strongly and reasonably felt, might not be accepted in the family circle of the British Empire or, if you are afraid of the word "Empire," as you seem to be, in the family circle of the British Commonwealth of Nations—with at least as much good will as we have shown towards the wishes which the Dominions have expressed to us. So much for the present Statute.
The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs argued as if those who had expressed misgivings about these proposals were opposed to the resolutions of 1926 out of which this Statute has been born. That is not the position. There has been no attack on the main principles of the Bill, and there has been no opposition to the Statute as a whole. There is only one important point of principle at issue at the present time, and that is whether the Statute of Westminster should include a saving Clause for the Irish Treaty Act. That is the sole question before us. The Secretary of State made an impassioned speech, which seemed to imply that the relations between Great Britain and Ireland, now so much improved, would be fatally thrown back if we were to insert in the text of the Bill the words which have been proposed by my right hon. and gallant Friend. I do not think that it is an unjustified demand that we should insert those words. What has astonished me is that the Government have never disputed the principle that Clause 2 of the Statute gives legal power to the Irish Parliament to repeal the application to Ireland of the Irish Free State Act of 1922. I imagined that we should hear this disputed by legal authorities. We have heard other legal authorities on the subject, but it has not been disnuted by the Government. If, for instance, the Solicitor-General had said, "Your fears are groundless, and
328
nothing in this Act will give power to repeal the Act on which the Treaty rests," then I should have said, "We are friends, because, if our objects are the same, you cannot object to words being inserted which secure your purpose and ours as well."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has made a statement which I desire to say is not quite in accordance with the facts. The right hon. Gentleman says that no dispute has been raised as to the unqualified power, if this Bill is passed, of the Irish Free State to abrogate or to abolish the Treaty. That was certainly challenged in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell), and I repeated that challenge in my speech, and said that in my humble judgment the Constitution could not be amended, having regard to Article 50 of the Treaty, except in accordance with the Treaty.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I fully apprehend the very important statement which the Solicitor-General has just made. Apparently, there is a doubt as to whether this Act does or does not give power to repeal the Treaty. The Solicitor-General reassures the House that, in his opinion, it gives no such power. On the other hand, we have had legal authorities expressing an opinion to the contrary. If the Government think that the Act will not throw any strain upon the Trish Free State, and we hope so too, why cannot we be united in inserting words which put this matter beyond doubt. If it he true that this Statute invalidates the Treaty Act, and the supporters of the Bill hope that it will not do so, let us make our hopes secure by putting in the simple words which my right hon. and gallant Friend seeks to introduce in the Bill.
I listened with great attention to the letter from President Cosgrave which was read in order to influence our decision. I have great admiration for President Cosgrave, and I know how faithfully he has stood by all the obligations entered into by his late colleagues who were signatories of the Treaty, and I have known this for many years. I do feel, however, that this is a matter which ought not to be decided upon personal assurances by individuals. We have to

329
consider what should be the settled legal foundation to put our Constitution right. President Cosgrave is the most long-lived Prime Minister of any of the Dominions, but to say that the Irish Free State Government is the most stable of Dominion Governments is to ignore the fact that the Irish Government have been forced to adopt extreme powers unknown to ordinary law, and almost amounting to martial law, in order to protect he people against lawless acts of terrorism and outrage. The Government in Ireland, which is now ruling the country by exceptional legislation far exceeding the drastic powers of any Coercion Act passed by this House, is possessed of a majority varying between three or four, and which has sometimes risen to five or six. A general election is approaching in Ireland, and I cannot feel that we shall be held up to reproach and censure in this House because we are insisting on our rights and upon our legal claims. Having received an assurance from President Cosgrave which does him honour, and which I am sure he would make good with his last drop of blood, I ask why the insertion of the words of this Amendment is held to be derogatory to us.
We may consider ourselves bound, as far as possible, by the Treaty Act. When the Treaty was passing through this House I said that we had no right to sanction the conditions of that Treaty. An hon. Member has mentioned Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and every one of those Dominions have insisted upon having the Foundation Act made immune from the new powers of repeal which are accorded by this Statute. Some hon. Members say what about South Africa? The Solicitor-General, in his speech on Friday, made a great point of South Africa. When I came to study the matter more at leisure than was possible in the course of that Debate, I was very much shocked to see how hurriedly the hon. and learned Gentleman must have had to get up his brief on this question. He said, referring to what I had said:
"If the Treaty or the Constitution of the Irish Free State is, against her expressed wish, to be put into this Bill, a similar course will presumably have to be taken with regard to the Constitution of South Africa, and I do not know whether my right hon. Friend "—
330
that is me—
"would think it was consistent with the dignity of that Dominion, which he did so much to set on its way, to put into this Bill a provision that its Constitution shall not be broken and its entrenchment Clauses shall not be repealed contrary to every good faith and sense of honour …"—OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1931; col. 1247, Vol. 259.]
His argument is that to put this saving for the Irish Treaty into the Statute of Westminster in respect of Ireland would be derogatory to Ireland, and a great reflection upon Ireland which we should not care to see the Dominions Secretary apply to South Africa. I will read the Resolution which the South African Parliament passed after considering the provisions of this very Statute of Westminster Bill:
"That, on the understanding that the proposed legislation will in no way derogate from the entrenched provisions of the South Africa Act, this House, having taken cognisance of the draft Clauses;and recitals which it was proposed by the Imperial Conference of 1930 should "—
and so on. Here, therefore, is South Africa itself by resolution approving of the insertion of the very same provision that we ask should now be inserted in respect of the Irish Treaty. The Irish Treaty finds no counterpart in the relations between us and any of our Dominions. It is at once more recent, more tragical and more solemn than any other instrument that exists, going even as far back as the Articles of the Treaty of Vereeniging. But this Irish Treaty, may at no distant date become a matter of grave, real, practical politics. Suppose that a change of Government should occur in Ireland, you will be immediately confronted with a very grave crisis on this Treaty, and will be held responsible if you weaken in any way the moral —and in the moral I include the legal—rights of this country to defend the Treaty. We are in such a pusillanimous mood, apparently, that it almost has to be made a matter of apology, almost regarded as an act of impropriety, for any British representative to put forward modestly and politely, with studious and calculated courtesy, claims which are indefeasible in law. This Irish Treaty represented only what could be saved from the wrecks of great Imperial authorities, but, such as they were, they were of the greatest value, and they were fought for in the controversies between

331
the two countries. We ask that the same saving shall be given with regard to this Treaty as is given in this Measure to every other one of the Dominions in respect of their fundamental laws, and which South Africa itself sought in its resolution to impose upon itself.
I am not going to keep the Committee any longer. The right hon. Gentleman is about to address us, and we must listen with the very greatest respect to all that he says, not only because I know it will be heartfelt and sincere, and will aim at helping the House out of its difficulties and offering to it assurance and comfort, but also because my right hon. Friend is the lord of legions. If Providence is on the side of the big battalions, he, no doubt, has the Divine blessing resting upon him to-night. Not only has he this magnificent majority with which the nation has provided him on this occasion, but he will also have the assistance, should this matter go to a Division, of the defeated army. The Socialists will be able to march into line, and the Dominions Secretary and the Prime Minister will be able to make that reunion to which they assure us they are looking forward. I say to them, "You will have your way, and you will have the responsibility. We have found it to be our duty to protest. We have made our protest. We are satisfied, after all that has been said in this Debate, that, in asking that this safeguard and provision should be inserted in the Statute, we have done no unworthy thing."
Mr. DEVLIN: I do not think that, during an experience of 30 years in this House, I have ever witnessed so extraordinary an exhibition as I have just seen. Nor have I ever listened to a more mischievous speech than that of the right hon. Gentleman. He concluded his speech with an attack on his Leader. Since this new National Parliament was elected, the right hon. Gentleman has made many interventions into our Debates. I would like to ask him what precisely is his position in the public life of England; whom does he represent; what principles does he hold; and who is his Leader? [Hon. MEMBERS: "Who is yours?"] I am my own leader, and I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in this, that I am probably a solitary Member in this House, because I have
332
never departed from my principles. The right hon. Gentleman has had a varied career. No one in this House has a more profound personal regard for him than I have; no one listens to him with such intellectual delight as I do; I think that this House and the public life of this country are enriched by the magnificent talents which he possesses. But, if there is one thing that I could never conceive myself doing in any circumstances, it is following the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman. I came into this House 30 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman was then a Unionist. He was not only a Unionist, but he was a Free Trader. I was very young and very unenlightened, but I was modest enough to hope that I might be like him. I sat at his feet and listened to his magnificent speeches on behalf of Free Trade. Because he became a Free Trader, he transferred himself to these benches. He was a Unionist, and he became a Home Ruler. He joined the Coalition Cabinet, and he remained in that Cabinet and, as a Coalitionist Minister, he carried the Treaty. I do not know precisely where he stands to-day, what are his principles, or—
Mr. CHURCHILL: I stand for the enforcement of the Treaty.
Mr. DEVLIN: We shall see. The right hon. Gentleman insults Ireland by this suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Will he give me a single instance where, in any arrangement between Ireland and this country, Ireland has ever broken its word? I remember the time when Mr. John Redmond was denounced in this House and out of it as badly as you are denouncing Mr. De Valera. Mr. John Redmond gave you his word of honour that, if you conceded the constitutional principle which you afterwards incorporated in your Treaty, of the right of Ireland to govern itself, Ireland would become a loyal member of this Empire. You sold the living and now you want to betray the dead. Mr. Redmond went to his grave because he was an honourable friend of this country. When the great Imperial emergency arose, and when an appeal was made to the whole world, and to all the English-speaking parts of the world, to rally to this country in her time of Imperial danger, Mr. Redmond suffered the unpopularity

333
which drove him to his grave by taking your side. I am about the last survivor of that movement. I was also one of those men who helped you in the War. We were absolutely betrayed, and the result of that betrayal was to produce such a condition of things in Ireland that your name became a by-word during those fateful years. Those who entered into this contract with these men—
Mr. CHURCHILL: Whom do you mean?
Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman with others. He admits that he was one of the chief architects of that structure called the Treaty, which we are discussing to-night. He defended it in the House. I believe some of the most eloquent speeches that he made were in favour of this Treaty. He was sincerely anxious to carry it out. That I will admit. Then, when it becomes an operative weapon in the hands of Ireland and in the hands of England, when an occasion of this character presents itself, he desires to insult Ireland by saying, "Although we gave you a constitution equal to the constitution of Canada, we will now make reservations and say, that while that was the Treaty that was accepted, a Treaty based upon Dominion Home Rule such as Canada possesses, yet later on we shall see that, when we say to Canada and to South Africa and to Australia that you are to be in the full enjoyment of domestic home rule and that this Westminster Statute, which is, as I understand it, a Statute which is to-day being legalised by Parliamentary sanction to carry out the will not of Ireland but the will of the Imperial council, not only constituted of representatives of Australia and Canada and Africa and the Free State but of this country as well—although that Imperial Conference on which Ireland was represented agreed to this provision that was to be made a Statute of this House, we will put a special Clause in to say, "All except Ireland."
HON. MEMBERS; No!
Mr. CHURCHILL: It is the other way round—exactly the opposite.
Mr. DEVLIN: That is what you want to put into it. That is my reading of the proposed Clause that has been discussed
334
here to-night.[Interruption.]Then what is it you want?
Mr. CHURCHILL: We want exactly the same kind of, provision in the case of the Irish Treaty as has been inserted to save the fundamental status of the other great Dominions.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. DEVLIN: At Canada's request. At all events, as I visualise it, you are going to pass this Statute of Westminster and, concurrently with its passing, you are going to insult Ireland. You are going to say you will not trust Ireland, although I have challenged the right hon. Gentleman now for the third time to give us one solitary instance where any compact, arrangement or compromise was arrived at between this country and Ireland and Ireland has ever broken that arrangement or has been false to that compromise.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Did not de Valera break the Treaty?
Mr. DEVLIN: Go and ask de Valera. You know him better than I do. I am not speaking for Mr. Cosgrave. I am speaking as an Irish representative returned here to express my own opinions, and I am here to express those opinions. What is the cause of this Debate? It is that there still remains in this country a most mischievous and dangerous element that seems to live and thrive upon the creation and the fostering of bitter passions between the two races. From whom did we first hear the sound of battle? From Lord Carson. He has been the most mischievous influence in the public life of these islands during the last 30 years. When you talk about de Valera, remember your own rebels. Who taught de Valera? I did not invite this controversy, but, if you want a controversy, you are going to have that controversy. He started the first rebellion. Out of that rebellion sprang the Irish rebellion. The spirit that was created in Ireland wafted itself to Egypt and to India. The architects of this movement were the inspiring agents of all the mischief which has brought misery on the whole world during the past few years.
Here in this House now Lord Carson once again is responsible for the creation of that spirit which has been expressed

335
so bitterly in the speeches that have been delivered here to-night—not only Lord Carson, but those who have carried on the Debate, who are his comrades. They are all diehards. I have watched them in all the controversies and all the Debates in the House for the last 30 years. They are there, bitterly hating Ireland, endeavouring, when they cannot beat her, to humiliate her, to put indignities on the nation which is keeping its word. That is the purpose of this Amendment and no other, and it is because I feel, as an Irishman, that that;is the main and only purpose of the Amendment that I am here to oppose it. I know that my speech to-night will probably prevent many of the Conservative party from voting with the Government who would do so if I did not make this speech. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite so!"] Very well, you can vote as you please. But my business here is to speak the truth as I understand it. If I have misrepresented the situation, there are plenty of silent Members, especially those who have not yet made their maiden speeches, who will have an opportunity of traversing the statements I have made.
Take the other point—the chief point that I wanted to make when I rose. I have heard a great deal here to-night about the interests of the minorities of Ireland. We have heard a great deal about minorities. This is a House of Commons which knows little about Ireland. I have never known a House of Commons in my life that knew anything about Ireland. May I tell the Horse that a more disgraceful betrayal of a minority has never been known than the betrayal of the minority for whom I speak in this House? They want to save the minority in Southern Ireland from the majority of their countrymen. When the Free State Constitution was put into operation, one-half of the Senators in Southern Ireland created by the Free State Government belonged to the minority. There were nine judges of the High Court in Southern Ireland and five of them belonged to the minority. The largest number of chief civil servants in Southern Ireland belonged to the minority class. There never was a case where a minority was so magnanimously treated as the minority was treated in Southern Ireland. In fact, a
336
great many people in Southern Ireland believe, and have said; it on the platform, that the Free State, is now dominated by those who are known as the minority in Southern Ireland. Generosity, toleration, concession, every spirit of good will that can be manifested has been shown towards the minority.
The minority—and I give them credit for it—recognise the justice and the magnanimity that has been shown to them. Protestant ministers, Protestant bishops, leading public men in every branch of public activity, commercial, industrial and professional, have got there by the warm and generous toleration of the Free State Government towards that minority who are to be protected, according to the right hon. Gentleman here tonight. They have not asked you to interfere. They do not ask you to come here to be their defenders. They are quite satisfied to accept these proposals without any amendment whatever. Why should they be mentioned at all. There is another minority, and they are the minority for whom I speak. And since you have introduced minorities' and have made this House to-night the platform for the degradation of Ireland- —[Interruption]—yes, that is what it is—I want to tell you something about minorities. Under a Government created by you in Northern Ireland—half the Senators in Southern Ireland are Protestant there is not a single Catholic in. Northern Ireland appointed as Senator.
Sir JOSEPH McCONNELL: On a point of Order. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must understand that asking a question of an hon. Member who is speaking, is not a point of Order.
Mr. DEVLIN: I want to hear the hon. Member's question.
Sir J. McCONNELL: The hon. Gentleman says that they did not get sufficient Senators in Northern Ireland at the commencement of the Northern Government. Is it not a fact that he was a quitter and that he kept away from Northern Ireland and ignored the Northern Government altogether?
Mr. DEVLIN: The judges were not all away, the magistrates were not all away, and the civil servants were not all away. I must remind my hon. Friend that he is not now in Northern Ireland, but in this Parliament. Mark you this, the minority in Southern Ireland constitute 7 per cent. of the population and they get five judges out of nine, and they have all the higher places—Civil Service and official. They have received every possible advantage that any party could have with 7 per cent. of the population. We in Northern Ireland have 33⅓ per cent. of the population, but not one of our people was appointed to the Senate; and of the judges, we had not one.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: What about the late Lord Chief Justice?
The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is getting a little far away from the Clause.
Mr. DEVLIN: This is one of the few opportunities that have been presented to us, because as long as you kept your word and as long as you kept the House free from the passions and controversies of Irish affairs and were willing to honour your bond and leave Ireland—even adly treated as part of it is—alone, I had no desire to interfere. But when you make this House the arena for the discussion of Irish affairs, I decline to be silenced, and I refuse to be denied my right to state my aspect of this question. As I said, there was not a single representative of the minority in the Senate. Why does the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this Treaty, raise his voice on behalf of the minority? Why did he not raise his voice in favour of giving 33⅓ per cent. of the population in Northern Ireland even a tithe of representation in the Senate? After all, the respect for law and justice is determined by the purity and the freedom of the courts of justice, free from political partisanship. We have not a single Catholic judge. You gave proportional representation as a guarantee that the minority would have fair representation. That proportional representation was abolished. One would not mind it being abolished, but what did they proceed to do? They proceeded so to jerrymander the constituencies that I am returned in the Northern Parliament with 60,000 votes and one of my Unionist
338
colleagues in an adjoining constituency is returned with 20,000 votes. [Interruption.] Now listen to me. You are all new Members of this House. This may be a pleasant experience for you at the commencement of this Parliament, but before you are long in this House, not on the issue of Ireland but on many other issues, you will find much more unpleasant experiences than the experience of listening to me. If you take the case of the schools—
The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to remember that he must at least confine his remarks to the question of the application of the Free State Treaty as mentioned in the new Clause now before the Committee.
Mr. DEVLIN: May I point out that one of the most cogent arguments—if any of their arguments were cogent—put forward by the protagonists here on this side and on that show that they were anxious to secure that the minority rights should be safeguarded. That was one of the arguments advanced. I can see the hypocrisy of the whole transaction. This question might have been raised constantly since I came into the House, but I have remained silent and preferred to be one of the bondage minority to remain silent rather than to embarrass this country or to raise controversies that would embitter feelings and passions over the Irish question. But they have created this opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and I am taking advantage of it.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not take advantage of it too far. He must not devote this part of his speech to elaborating questions with regard to a minority in a State which is not concerned with the Clause now before the Committee.
Mr. DEVLIN: With all respect, it is concerned with this matter, because the argument put forward, not once, but twenty times in the Debate, was that they are anxious to preserve their minority rights and to see that the minority shall not be subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of the Free State. That was their argument. I want to put it to you, and to the Committee, and I claim that right, that never was there a greater piece of insolence, impudence or misrepresentation than for them to come here and talk

339
about the minority of 7 per cent. in the South of Ireland, which enjoys every privilege of the majority, and then to plead and whine about their minority rights where they have a majority and they treat 33½ per cent. of the population in the manner that I have described. I thank you very much for allowing me to go so far.
I come now to the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks), who has taken such a prominent part in the Debate. He suggested that this question ought to have been delegated to a qualified body of legal experts. That was a curiously cynical commentary upon the legal experts who were present at the Imperial Conference. I do not know anything about the Imperial Conference, but I take it that so long as it was guided by a wise man like the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, when he went into the Imperial Conference he would see that the interests of this country were efficiently defended by the best legal power that he could secure. I take it also that the legal representatives from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada were lawyers of considerable eminence, certainly as eminent as any that would be selected by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I read a statement in the "Times" the other day. If I made no speech at all, the two branches of this subject have been dealt with by the "Times" in an infinitely more effective manner than I could deal with them, first upon the merits of the question and, secondly, upon its legal aspect. The "Times" says:
"If there is no enthusiasm for the Statute, there is, and there need be, no apprehension as to the practical effect of such a document on the unity of the Empire. The old unity, based on the Supremacy of the Government and Parliament in Great Britain is already a thing of the past. The new unity towards which the Empire is striving is a unity which is based on free and equal co-operation. Such co-operation will he made not more difficult but easier by clearing away the last vestiges of inequality."
Then they come to the legal aspect and I commend what they say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne:
"At the Royal Empire Society last week Lord Hailsham"—
340
I wonder if the hon. Member has ever heard of Lord Hailsham? I never knew Lord Hailsham personally. I was not a Member of this House while he was in it, but I understand he is a man of commanding Parliamentary ability, who skilfully directed the affairs of the Tory party at the time that the Tory party was trying to upset the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. As a reward for his brilliant services in defending the flag at the moment of its danger he was sent to the House of Lords, and became Lord Chancellor. Therefore, whether the hon. Member for Eastbourne knows him or not, I take it that that which inspires the hon. Member in the Parliamentary affairs of this House is largely due to the stepfatherly, parental care with which Lord Hailsham has guided him. Here is what the "Times" said:
" the Royal Empire Society last week Lord Hailsham agreed with Mr. Bruce that the enactment of the Statute was not likely to make any real difference, but he did not think it was equally true to say that its rejection would make no real difference. The Balfour Declaration, he said, had done a great deal to wipe away misgivings and to establish confidence, especially in the newer Dominions, and, as the Statute of Westminster was regarded by them as the legal expression of that declaration its rejection by the British Legislature might revive all the old suspicions."
That is what I say. That is what your leaders said and that is what Lord Hail-sham's stepson ought to agree with.
"That seems to sum up the common sense of the matter. There can be no doubt that it would be disastrous to run any risk of reviving those suspicions, especially at a moment when the great need of the Empire is to secure common action to meet the economic difficulties from which all its members are suffering."
Therefore, we have it from the "Times" that the policy that is being pursued by the Government in relation to this matter is the only effective policy, and it commands the approval and support of the leading organ of Conservatism. We have it from Lord Hailsham, a, lawyer of eminence, an ex-Lord Chancellor, a Member of the present Government, the Secretary of State for War. He has covered the whole ground from a seat on the Woolsack to a seat in the War Office; he knows everything and, therefore, is capable of giving direction and guidance. He does not change his opinions, like the right hon. Member for

341
Epping, but remains faithful to the Tory party. What other lawyers' opinion does the hon. Member for Eastbourne want, when he has the opinion of the ex-Lord Chancellor, a present Leader of the Tory party, a man whose gifts of eminence are recognised by all parties? The "Times" and Lord Hailsham are agreed not only on the wisdom of this Measure but on the unwisdom of inserting into it such a provision of suspicion as that which has been suggested in the Amendment before the House, and supported by the right hon. Member for Epping. For these reasons the House would be well advised to support the Government in this matter.
It is well known that I am not a supporter of the present Government, but I will vote for them on this occasion. I will always vote for them when they are right. I have never had very strong economic convictions. To me Free Trade and Protection were never anything more than changing aspects of our economic and industrial life. I am prepared to give a vote as an independent Member upon any question that presents itself to me as one of value to the nation, but when an occasion of this character arises, I see the evil, mischievous spirit existing among ancient politicians who for 40 years have never forgotten anything and never learned anything. If you go back to the time when Gladstone first introduced his Home Rule Bill, he proposed a Measure that would have satisfied the aspirations of the Irish people and would have relieved this country of all the bitterness and hatreds that have been impregnated in the poisoned public life of the country, and have caused hatred of this country among many people who would be friendly to it. When I think of the 40 years that were lost which might have been given to legislation for the benefit of this country and the welfare of its people, when I think that probably if Home Rule had been granted then there would never have been any war, I still claim that the roots of all this mischievous growth all over Europe commenced with the spirit of rebellion which permeated a party in this country and spread and spread into every part of the world.
Those of us who hold that view and who supported Gladstone's policy are still anxious to see good relations between this country and Ireland. Anything to
342
insult Ireland, to belittle her Constitution, to rob her of any of her privileges will undoubtedly create discord there and mutual hatred between the two peoples. I speak as I do, although I have never been very enthusiastic about this treaty. I stood for a united Ireland, an Ireland of one Parliament. I believe that that would have been the real and genuine solution of that question. Lister to-day would have been happier, economically sounder, and more commercially stable it that had happened. But that was not the way it happened. The English statesmen decided to divide the country and, since the country is divided, I can have no great love for the treaty. I stand here to speak for those who supported it because they spoke for Ireland at the time. They did more than speak for Ireland. They took their lives in their hands to put this treaty through. Some of them lost their lives and nearly everyone has made great sacrifices for the mutual relations between the two countries. To tell these men that they are not to be trusted and that the nation that trusts them is not to be trusted is the negation of all magnanimous treatment by one nation to another. Therefore, as I say, we shall vote on this occasion for the Government.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The moment is opportune for intervening with a few words before we pass from this Amendment. I regret very much that a longstanding engagement in Yorkshire prevented my being here on Friday, but I must confess that I did what I rarely do. I read every word of Friday's Debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There are advantages in reading great orations in cold print. It is like watching a slow motion picture of a conjurer. I read through the Debate because much of the discussion on Friday was germane to the subject of this Amendment. I have been very much struck by how to-day there have been, as it were, atavistic impulses urging the House on and we have been reminded of old unhappy things of long ago. There is a, tendency, in concentrating on Ireland, to lose sight of the fundamental question here, which is the question of Imperial relationship, a vastly more important one and pregnant as regards the

343
future. I wish to bring the House back to that and to explain why in my view I cannot support this Amendment, although there are the names of many old friends of mine to it, many of them friends of long years standing. We do differ honestly and conscientiously on this matter. I wish to give my reasons for I have listened with patience to all that they have had to say.
9.30 p.m.
Very likely a number of Members newer to the House have not realised some of our political history in the last half dozen years. One speaker in the Debate spoke as though this question of status among the Dominions had merely been taken up because we had denied them an opportunity of discussing fiscal questions. I do not entirely agree with that. There is no doubt that one of the results of the War, as I have often said in this House, was to speed up the political development of many countries, and it speeded up enormously the political development and consciousness of every Dominion in the Empire. So it was that, in those early years after the War, those great nations of the Empire, fully conscious—and we ought to sympathise with them—of what they had done in the War, were most anxious to discuss from every angle with the Mother Country the question of status and to get formal acknowledgment of the position which they had reached by the normal process, although speeded up, of political development. That was the attitude of the 1926 Conference.
I am quite sure that when many of my colleagues at the time saw the result of the discussions, when they saw that brilliant report of Lord Balfour, it brought them up with a shock to realise how things had changed from the Empire that we knew when we were young. We suddenly realised that the other nations of the Empire were grown up; they were for all practical purposes independent. The days of tutelage were over. We entered into a new relationship. When I was trying in 1929 or 1930 to get more clearly this condition into words, I regretted the necessity—we all did—but it had to be done. It may be that, if a Government with another complexion had been in office, some
344
things might have been done a little differently. I do not know; the opportunity did not arise. But what was done was done by a British Government, and we cannot go back on what has been done by a British Government.
I think it right to preface my observations with those remarks and I wish to examine this Amendment, first, as to whether the Amendment will accomplish what its spokesmen desire, and, secondly, whether, if it does accomplish that or not, it is wise or right of this country to insist on the insertion of those words in this particular Act of Parliament. In my own view, the words are futile to effect what their authors desire, and, so far as the wisdom of putting those words in is concerned, I believe that, if we insisted upon it, it would be disastrous to the whole Empire. I will say a word or two about that. Many Members in the House now will have heard the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip). I am not surprised that there are differences between constitutional lawyers as to the exact effect of this legislation as regards the power to interfere with existing Treaties. I am advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that the binding character of the Articles of Agreement will not be altered by one jot or tittle by the passing of the Statute.
I have listened with the greatest care to all the speeches that have been made, and I recognise the quality of them. We have had two speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), by common consent the most powerful debater and greatest orator in this House. We had a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), one of the most acute intellects in this House. Frankly, though I have tried my best to follow the advantages that they see in inserting these words, I cannot do it. My right hon. Friend, the Member for Oxford University, seems to think that it would make a great deal of difference, supposing there were what, in fact, would be a rebellion in Ireland, if that rebellion were illegal. [Interruption.] The whole Committee is in agreement in believing that the present. Irish Government will adhere with perfect faith and honour to the Treaty, but many hon.

345
Members seem to feel difficulties about what may happen, and they are very anxious that, if serious difficulties occur, they should be conducted on a legal basis. I can almost see my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) on the 30th January, 1649, paying a visit to Cromwell and saying to him: "Do you know that you have committed an illegal action?"
If the Treaty is to be repudiated in such a manner, there would be no question of Statute law. The repudiation would have to be dealt with otherwise. The sanctity of the Treaty, which has been acknowledged over and over again in the fullest and most generous sense by Irishmen—the great sanction of that Treaty, is that it is a Treaty. I speak as a layman. I do not know whether I am using the right words in law, but I do know what a Treaty is and the Irish Government knows what a Treaty is. That Treaty will be just as binding, so I am advised after the passing of this Statute as before. This also occurs to me: The Treaty has been scheduled to the Constitution by the Dail, sitting as a constituent assembly, and in it are contained provisions for the Amendment of the Constitution only within the terms of the scheduled Treaty. Thus, the Dail now can only legally modify the Constitution in conformity with the Treaty, which is actually embedded in the Irish Free State Constitution. I think this country has every security.
I come immediately from that to what I said at the beginning of this short speech of mine was the crux of the whole question. The crux is our imperial relationship. In 1926, in the report dealing with the operation of the Dominions legislation, it is placed on record that the constitutional practice is that legislation by the Parliament of Westminster, applied to a Dominion, would only be passed with the consent of the Dominion concerned. We gave Canadian status to Ireland, and we gave it freely. The Dominions have all been consulted throughout with regard to this legislation. Australia and Canada have, it is true, asked for special provisions to be inserted in the Bill. South Africa and Ireland have asked that such special provision should not be inserted, because they believe that all the protection that
346
is needed lies in their Constitution, and they both feel that any, I say "restrictive"—it will do for my purpose—Clause or Amendment in the Bill is a reflection on their good faith.
Now, this is what I want to say: We may think we are only dealing with Ireland in these matters. Let me remind the House—and anyone who has had work to do in the Imperial Conference since the War will know the truth of what I am saying. The Dominions are rightly and properly very jealous of their status and they are jealous of each other's status as regards the Mother Country, and if you think that you can do something which offends Ireland, and is only going to offend Ireland, you make the mistake of your lives. You are going to offend, not only the Irish Free State, but you are going to offend every Irishman in Australia, in Canada and in the United States of America. You will offend every. Dominion, even the most British of them, and none will feel it more than Canada, which is often held up to us as an example. I can think of nothing more fatal for this House to do, a Tory House of Commons, full of Tories, than to think, with Dominions that enjoy a state of economic equality based on Treaties, and a conference to be held this year in Ottawa, that by inserting these words against the will of the Dominions, and particularly trying to do it in regard to South Africa, they are helping that cause for which many of us have fought for a whole generation. Not a bit They will set it back far years. It is because of that and because of the Imperial side of it, because it may go out to the world that, for all our talk, we do not trust the Dominions, and that Dominion status means nothing to us, that I oppose this new Clause. I am not interested in a great part of the discussion that has taken place on it, because it really does not touch the big principle. The big principle is the thing. I do warn my hon. Friends that they may make a very grave mistake in the relationship of the whole of the Empire by accepting these words.
I would say one final word. I have said that many of my friends, and many of them very old friends, are supporting this new Clause. I would like to say that I recognise the sincerity of their views. I know that it is not done to be troublesome. It is done on the part of many

347
of them as a matter of conscience. I do not share it, but I respect it. I should expect to see them vote for their Clause, and I do not feel in any way that they are voting against the party or that they have got anything against me. They have a perfect right to do it. I ask those, for whom this is not a matter of conscience but largely of old-time association, to try to judge the matter from the larger point of view, and from the point of view of the whole Empire, to see that this new Clause is defeated by a substantial majority.
Mr. LANSBURY: I should not have attempted to intervene in this discussion except that we do not propose to give a perfectly silent vote on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to include a gibe about our numbers. Whether we are one, or whether we are 50, we have our individual and collective right to state our view. On this issue we shall go into the Lobby for the sole purpose of registering what has been the policy of the Labour party ever since it was a Labour party. We do not think that you can hold people together, either by bits of paper or by force. We think that you can only hold one country to another if the countries give consent. We think that the Irish people, being part of the Dominions, ought to be trusted and dealt with in exactly the same manner as any other Dominion. We do not take the view at all that the Irish people, as was once said, have a double dose of original sin.
I happen to have heard the Debates in this House on this subject for very many years. I have heard the Noble Lard the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) many times on the Irish question, and he has always been wrong. He conscientiously believes what he says, but he conscientiously believes the wrong thing. He does not believe in trusting other people. He does not believe that self-government should ever have been given to Ireland. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Evidently others think the same thing. Therefore to-night, by a side wind, they want in some way to treat Ireland in a derogatory fashion. We maintain that if you are to have a British commonwealth of nations every
348
partner in that commonwealth must be treated as an equal partner. Because of that and for no other reason we are going into the Lobby in support of the Bill, not at all because we like going in with the National Government—[Laughter.] Certainly, we hate and detest most of the things that the Government want to do and nearly everything that they have done. We shall go into the Lobby because we are part of the British House of Commons, and because we want to register our own view on this particular question.
Those who try to infer that we have not a right, or, because we are a small party, that we ought to stand on one side while others have their quarrel out about something that many of them do not understand, are making a very great mistake. We not only propose to vote on such questions as this, but we propose to take advantage of the rights we have as Members of saying why we do it; and the reason we are doing it to-night is not that we love the Front Bench, but because for once they are carrying out a piece of good Socialist policy, which is that if we have a commonwealth of nations it shall be a free partnership of nations, of people who are in that commonwealth because they want to be in it and not because they are forced into it.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: The House has listened very patiently to one Irishman, who has made an irrelevant speech, and I would ask indulgence for about five minutes in order to reply. I am very sorry that the hon. Member raised a great deal of the old bitterness that used to occupy the hours of the House to midnight and onwards. I want to refer to one part of his speech which, personally, I resented very much, that is to say, the words he used about one of the greatest Irishmen who ever stood in this House, Lord Carson. The hon. Member called Lord Carson's followers "rebels" I was one of them, and delighted to be one, and as a result I have no doubt whatever that I am as loyal a citizen of the British Empire as any Member of the House of Commons. Lord Carson is not here to defend himself. I am sure he does not wish that I should do so further than to say what I have said, that I was proud and always have been to call Lord Carson my leader. With regard to some of the remarks of

349
the Secretary of State for the Dominions, I have not so much to take exception to them as to complain of what was admitted from his speech. He has referred several times since Friday to the sacrifices of those who procured the Treaty, but never a sentence, never a word about the sacrifices of those who laid down their lives or were compelled to lay down their lives in the protection of the rights of the loyalists of Ireland in that horrible time. Never a word did the right hon. Gentleman say of what was done, those outrages, those murders—[Interruption.]
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): We are debating a very important Imperial point, and I trust that there will be no interruptions.
Mr. LOGAN: On a point of Order. If any hon. Gentleman makes allusions to things that are not historical may he not be contradicted? The hon. Gentleman has alluded to murders. I say I have a right to interrupt him.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No hon. Member has a right to interrupt. I would point out that interruptions do not add to the dignity of the Committee or of the Debate.
Sir W. ALLEN: I have not the slightest objection to interruptions of that character. I am only replying to what has already been stated or insinuated on several occasions by other speakers. I am not going to give a silent vote on this question without at least registering the opinion of myself and my friends, no matter whom it may please. The Secretary for the Dominions referred on several occasions to those who had sacrificed themselves. All I want to do is to put in a plea for others who also sacrificed much, who lost their homes, lost everything, lost their liberty; and that is what is going on in Southern Ireland to-day, and hon. Members opposite know it. The Secretary for the Dominions has left an impression on the House of the great unanimity of all the other Dominions connected with this matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very preamble of the Bill talks about the delegates united in conference. And this great thing was evolved. Whom did the delegates represent? We do not know. We do know, from the speeches in New Zealand, Australia and Canada, that there was considerable opposition
350
to anything of the kind. Why then does the right hon. Gentleman come here and say that there was great unanimity and that it is the demand of the Dominions that this should be done? It is nothing of the kind and it is necessary only to read the speeches to find that that is so. Several have been very careful to exclude themselves practically from the operation of the Bill. Now, because someone here has decided that at least there will be some guarantee in Ireland that the Treaty which was given to Ireland shall be kept, of course we are told that this is all wrong.
When I was speaking in the House last week I said that I came here and was sent here as a supporter of the National Government. That is perfectly true. But I did not come here as a supporter of a National Government whose business it was to introduce Bills of this kind. On this point I am entirely free. To-night I shall vote against the Government. I do not call it a National Government as regards this question. I call it a Coalition Government. Unfortunately, we had a Coalition Government before and it was that Coalition Government which left this curse upon Ireland, because that is what has happened. The Free State Government recently had to enact a statute which, if this Parliament had enacted it, would have caused us to be howled down through all the ages. Now we have another Coalition Government, and they are giving Ireland away again. That is what it means. Undoubtedly they will live to see the day when that Treaty will be torn up, and that is why we want this Clause to be included as some guarantee to the people left in Ireland.
It is very difficult for an Irishman and a loyalist to speak patiently of the Unionist party—of the old Conservative party—in connection with what they have done in Ireland. I find it difficult to speak on the subject to-night. You are giving the show away again—that is what you are doing. You were not elected to do it. You were elected for a very different purpose—to save England from economic disaster—but here you are introducing a Measure which is entirely foreign to the business of this Parliament and you are going to push it through. The Secretary of State for the Dominions is sick of the whole thing. One can read

351
that in his speeches and one can also see that the heart of the Solicitor-General is not in his task to-night. He told us how this Bill was concocted with the most learned legal advice and opinion that could be obtained but I am sure we should find that there is advice just as learned and legal opinion just as high in opposition to this Statute.
10.0 p.m.
I think it is a disgrace that a Measure of this character should be brought before the House of Commons. As I say, this Coalition Government are going to give us away again. They often twit hon. Members opposite with running away, but no party in this House of Commons has ever run away with greater speed from those who would break and smash the Empire than a good many of the Members of the Conservative party. That is what they are doing to-night. They say that the Treaty is sacred but they are running away from the position. We are told that there is no harm in doing this, that it means nothing. Then why do it? You are doing it because Mr. Cosgrave says you must do it. I say that these people were your commanders before and they are your leaders now—that is the beginning and end of the whole thing. You do not want to displease your friends in Southern Ireland. That is the position of the great Conservative party. I certainly am going to record my vote in favour of the Amendment. Of course the great battalions of the Government will defeat it, but that will not prevent me from doing my duty.
Mr. LOGAN: I would not have attempted to address the Committee had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member far Armagh (Sir W. Allen) which brought my memory back to the many unfortunate scenes witnessed in this House in other days when the spirit of rancour has been introduced. I suggest that the hon. Member's speech was most irrelevant and inopportune, and that on this night of all nights the past should not have been raked up and references such as he made should not have been made to past events in Irish history. This is 1931 and the question before the Committee is the question of the Statute of Westminster in which the faith and courage of British statesmanship is ex-
352
hibiting itself. I remember the days when these benches were graced by 86 of the finest men who ever breathed the breath of life and who spoke and fought in the cause of Ireland in this Parliament. It is because their spirit still lives to-day that I claim the right to enunciate my point of view and to express my appreciation of the statesmanship which is being exhibited in 1931 by a Government which recognises that the past is dead. Let the dead past bury its dead, and let this nation rise to the occasion, and by cementing unity safeguard those things which are essential if the British race is to be able to meet the competition which it will encounter in the near future.
I do not often agree with the Lord President of the Council, but I agree with him in the advice which he has given to those who have brought forward this Amendment. The disastrous past has gone, and great evil may be done by an Amendment of this description. The Committee will be well advised to follow the statesmanlike lead given by the Lord President of the Council. His words are words of warning. They are also words of wisdom which ought to be taken in particularly by the new Members who have come here to support the National Government. You are the custodians of everything that goes to make for the welfare of the nation. I do not intend to waste time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I ask hon. Members to observe that I was referring to my time and not to theirs.
I am very much impressed by the sagacity which the Lord President of the Council has shown in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] Even though I am one of the younger Members, I think I have a right to be heard on this matter. I come from a Division the representative of which has a right to speak on this problem. Lancashire and other parts of England, as well as Ireland, and as well as Canada, Australia and America, will certainly be affected by the vote given on this matter in this Committee. It is because I am anxious to see an end to the difficulties of the past, it is because I want to see the Irish race play its part as it ought to do, and to have its place in the sun, that I ask the Committee not to vote for this Amendment, and I hope

353
that hon. Members in building up the nation will realise the value of friendship in the republic which they are setting up.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 360.

Division No. 19.]

AYES.

[10.5 p.m.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Greene, William P. C.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

Atkinson, Cyril

Hartington, Marquess of

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Somerset, Thomas

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Knox, Sir Alfred

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Stewart, William J.

Bracken, Brendan

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Templeton, William P.

Browne, Captain A. C.

Moss, Captain H. J.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

Nail, Sir Joseph

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Davison, Sir William Henry

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Dixey, Arthur C. N.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Sir John Withers and Mr. Marjoribanks.

Donner, P. W.

Remer, John R.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Clarry, Reginald George

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

Albery, Irving James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Gibson, Charles Granville

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

Colville, Major David John

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)

Conant, R. J. E.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir John

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Cook, Thomas A.

Gledhill, Gilbert

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Cooke, James D.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Cooper, A. Duff

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Aske, Sir William Robert

Copeland, Ida

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

Goldie, Noel B.

Atholl, Duchess of

Cowan, D. M.

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Craven-Ellie, William

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Balley, Eric Alfred George

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.

Crooke, J. Smedley

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Graves, Marjorie

Balniel, Lord

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Farclay-Harvey, C. M.

Crossley, A. C.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Grundy, Thomas W.

Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'tb, Centr'l)

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Curry, A. C.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Bernays, Robert

Daggar, George

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Betterton. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Hales, Harold K.

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Borodale, Viscount

Denman Hon. R. D.

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Bossom, A. C.

Denville, Alfred

Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

Boulton, W. W.

Devlin, Joseph

Hamilton,Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Dickie, John P.

Hanbury, Cecil

Boyce, H. Leslie

Doran, Edward

Hanley, Dennis A.

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Drewe, Cedric

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Briant, Frank

Duckworth, George A. V.

Harbord, Arthur

Briscoe, Richard George

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Harris, Percy A.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Duggan, Hubert John

Hartland, George A.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

Haslam, StJohn (Bolton)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Buchanan, George

Dunglass, Lord

Healy, Cahir

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Eady, George H.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Burghley, Lord

Eastwood, John Francis

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Eden, Robert Anthony

Hepworth, Joseph

Butler, Richard Austen

Edge, Sir William

Herbert, George (Rotherham)

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Campbell, Rear-Adml, G (Burnley)

Edwards, Charles

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Hirst, George Henry

Cape, Thnmas

Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Holdsworth, Herbert

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Elmley, Viscount

Hopkinson, Austin

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Hornby, Frank

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Horobin, Ian M.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard

Horsbrugh, Florence

Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Howard, Tom Forrest

Chotzner, Alfred James

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Christie, James Archibald

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Clarke, Frank

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Hurd, Percy A.

Martin, Thomas B.

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

Salmon, Major Isidore

Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.

Maxton, James

Salt, Edward W.

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Jamieson, Douglas

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Janner, Barnett

Mills, Sir Frederick

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Jenkins, Sir William

Milne, Charles

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Jennings, Roland

Milner, Major James

Savery, Samuel Servington

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tfd & Chisw'k)

Selley, Harry R.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Mitcheson, G. G.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

John, William

Molson, A. Harold Elsdale

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Moreing, Adrian C.

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Morgan, Robert H.

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Ker, J. Campbell

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Smithers, Waldron

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Munro, Patrick

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Kimball, Lawrence

Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

Soper, Richard

Kirkwood, David

Nathan, Major H. L.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Knight, Holford

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

North, Captain Edward T.

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Nunn, William

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

0' Donovan, Dr. William James

Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)

Ormiston, Thomas

Stevenson, James

Lawson, John James

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Stones, James

Leckie, J. A.

Owen, Major Goronwy

Storey, Samuel

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Palmer, Francis Noel

Strauss, Edward A.

Lees-Jones, John

Parkinson, John Allen

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Leigh, Sir John

Patrick, Colin M.

Sutcliffe, Harold

Peake, Captain Osbert

Thorn, Lieut.-Colonel John Gibb

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Pearson, William G.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Leonard, William

Peat, Charles U.

Thomas, James P. L, (Hereford)

Levy, Thomas

Penny, Sir George

Thompson, Luke

Liddall, Walter S.

Percy, Lord Eustace

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Petherick, M.

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Llewellin, Major John J.

Pickering, Ernest H.

Tinker, John Joseph

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Pike, Cecil F.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Locker-Lampson. Rt. Hn. G. (wd. Gr'n)

Potter, John

Train, John

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Power, Sir John Cecil

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Logan, David Gilbert

Price, Gabriel

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Mabane, William

Pybus, Percy John

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

McCorquodale, M. S.

Ramsbotham, Herswald

Weymouth, Viscount

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Ramsden, E.

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)

Rankin, Robert

Whyte, Jardine Bell

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Rea, Walter Russell

Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

McEwen, J. H. F.

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Wills, Wilfrid D.

McGovern, John

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

McKeag, William

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

McKie, John Hamilton

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Worthington, Dr. John V.

McLean, Major Alan

Ropner, Colonel L.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Magnay, Thomas

Runqe, Norah Cecil

Mr. Shakespeare and Mr. Womersley.

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Resolution agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Succession to the throne and the royal titles.)
"It shall not be lawful for any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the Royal style and titles to be made without the consent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliaments of all the Dominions."—[Mr. Atkinson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The complaint which some of us have against this Bill is its want of courage in putting its provisions into clear language. We have just had one example in connection with the last proposed new Clause. No one intends or wishes to impair the legal basis of the Treaty; yet the Bill dare not say so, and here we have

357
another example. The position of the Crown in connection with this Bill is obviously one of vital importance, and yet it is only dealt with in the Preamble, and there is nothing about it in the enacting part of the Bill. I want to point out a contrast. There are two recitals of importance in the Preamble. The second is
"And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made my the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion."
That finds its place in Clause 4, where it is enacted in precisely similar language. The first recital, which is of far greater importance, deals with the position of the Crown. Again, we have the same curious language that
"it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
That recital finds no place in the Bill, and I and the other hon. Members whose names are attached to this Amendment raise this point because we want an explanation. It is a matter of great importance, and if it is meant to be part and parcel of the constitutional law of the Empire, we want to know why it is not so stated in clear and definite language. Why is there not a Clause definitely making that the law, as has been done in the case of the other recitals? It may be said that the preamble recognises it to be the law. Well, does it? The language is very curious. It speaks of:
"the established constitutional position."
Why cannot it even there say "the established constitutional law"? We all know what constitutional law means, but I do not think any of us know what is meant by constitutional position. At any rate, the phrase is there, and I suppose it is intended to mean something, and if it really means something, if it is meant to recognise this as part of the law of the Empire, I submit it ought to be embodied in a Clause framed in clear and definite language.
Sir BASIL PETO: I beg to second the Motion.
Either the words in the preamble are intended to mean something or nothing. If they are intended to mean nothing, then not only have the Government been afraid to put into the Bill a definite Clause enacting what these words purport to represent, but, in putting the Bill forward in its present form, they are really misleading the House. Those not acquainted with decisions in the Courts of law as to the validity of words that are merely included in the preamble to an Act, might think that by this solemn recital we have really established something which has some measure of validity. A layman myself, I am assured on the highest authority that words recited only in the preamble and not enacted in the Act itself have no validity whatever. If that be so, I cannot help wondering why these words are here at all. Unlike the last Amendment, which proposed to do something definite which was not contemplated in the Bill, this new Clause only puts into the operative part of the Bill what the Government have put into the preamble. It puts in clearer and shorter language exactly what is in the preamble. If the Government meant anything by inserting these words in the preamble, how can they resist this Clause which would put them into the body of the Bill? That is really what we want to know.
If, on the other hand, they mean nothing, why should they be put there in order to give the appearance of mean-something when we all know quite well that they mean nothing at all in law. On the grounds of necessity and plain dealing with the House and the country, we ask that these words should be put in the operative part of the Bill or left out of the Preamble altogether. If the Government resist this new Clause—I cannot see how they can on its merits—we must assume that they want the country to think that there is some protection given to the succession to the Crown, and to the principle that the different parts of the Commonwealth of Nations or the British Empire should recognise His Majesty and his successors or not. If they really mean that there should be some security given to the great bond of union which exists throughout the Empire, there is nothing more important than that we should insert these important words in the new Clause.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I hope my hon. Friends will not press this new Clause. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) said that either the words of it should be inserted in the Bill, or they should be left out of the Preamble. I do not think there is a single Member of the House who would be more disappointed than the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple if those words were omitted from the Preable. The hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) founded his criticism on the assumption that in Statute law there had been an abandonment of the old habit of prefacing the Bill with a, Preamble, and he stated that all lawyers know that the words of the Preamble are never looked at by the judge. That statement is right with reference to an ordinary Act of Parliament, but a study of constitutional law will show that some of the classic cases dealing with the Constitution of the Realm are to be found in the Preambles of great constitutional Statutes.
I take the view that a solemn recital of these words in the Preamble of the Bill will be most valuable and impressive. They were put there at the Imperial Conference in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee on Dominion Legislation, and it would be contrary to the decision there arrived at to put these words in the operative part of the Bill. For these reasons, I hope that the Committee will feel that happily the Crown does not want this protection at least in this country, and that the firm foundation upon which the loyalty of the people of the country rests is well secured by the Preamble. I hope therefore that the Committee will not be so small-minded as to insist upon legal pedantry by putting these words in the Statute of Westminster. I hope my hon. Friends will not think it necessary to press the Clause to a Division.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. MANDER: As one of those who think that it is better, so far as is possible, to have an unwritten rather than a written Constitution, it seems to me that it would be far better to leave these words in the way that they are, rather than to remove them into the Statute itself, and thereby make this declaration more rigid than it otherwise would be. I desire to call attention to some interesting observations with reference to the
360
Crown that were made in the course of the Debate in the Canadian House of Commons when the Statute of Westminster came before it. During that Debate, Mr. A. R. Lavergne took rather a different line. He said:
"The Dominions, or self-governing Kingdoms of the Empire, should now place upon their Statute Books a law providing that they should contribute their share to the Civil List of the King and the Royal Family. That would be a far better way of recognising the benefits of the Monarchy than in indulging in protestations of lofty sentiment."
I hope that these words used in the Canadian Parliament may echo round the Parliaments of the Empire, and that some progress, perhaps on these lines, as a united Commonwealth of Nations, may be made with regard to the Crown.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should not have intervened but for the fact that the Government have been singularly unpliable to-night. As far as I could follow the arguments of the Solicitor-General, the only argument against this proposed new Clause seems to be that it is merely legal pedantry. Far be it from me to decide who are the greatest authorities on legal pedantry among the various lawyers in this House; I should never dream of interfering in such a matter, but, if that be the only reason, and apparently it is, I do not see why the Clause should not go into the Bill. I agree, on the whole, that the Preamble lays down the whole position. We know that possibly this Measure is not really quite as important as some might assume it to be, but, at the same time, this proposed new Clause does not offend anyone, none of the Dominions have asked—as we have been told on other occasions has been the case—that it should not he put in, there has been no petition from the Prime Minister or the Government of any of the Dominions that it should be left out, and, undoubtedly, a good deal of feeling has been exhibited that certain things should be inserted in an Act of this kind. Is there any reason why one section of the British Parliament should not be responsible for a little bit of the Bill on its own account?
Again the proposed new Clause makes no distinction between this Parliament and some other Parliaments of the Empire or Commonwealth of Nations, such as has been used as an argument against

361
other Amendments. The whole Clause might quite well be accepted by the Government if, as I understand, its acceptance would at any rate give some pleasure and consolation to those who have worked very hard and spent a great deal of time in looking into this Measure. While this particular Clause is not one on which I should desire to vote against the Government, I say quite frankly that there seems to be no earthly reason why it should not be put into the Bill, and, as I think it would be welcomed by many Members who will not take any part in the Debate, I should have thought that the Government might for once have met the desires of that section of the House who would like to see the Clause added to the Bill.
Mr. AMERY: I desire to submit one consideration to my hon. Friends in regard to this matter. I am not sure that this Clause, if it were introduced into the Bill, could apply to any other Parliament than this Parliament. I do not think it has been suggested that legislation affecting the succession to the Crown, would be likely to be introduced in any other Parliament than this, and, if that be the case, this Clause would be ineffective, because no legislation passed here could bind this Parliament against again legislating on the matter. Therefore, I submit that in law the Clause would be inoperative.
On the other hand, this whole Measure deals, not with a question of law, but with a great question of constitutional usage. If we look at the Report of the Constitutional Conference, we see that they dealt with the whole question as one of constitutional convention. They suggest that proper recognition should be given to the position of the Crown, as commanding the equal allegiance of all, by means of a convention similar to that which in recent years has controlled the theoretically unfettered powers of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. They go on to say that such a Convention could not derogate from the position of the Dominions. They suggest words which have since been adopted, and they suggest that the appropriate place would be a formal recital or Preamble in the proposed Act. I submit, not merely on the ground of conforming to what was definitely recommended by the Imperial Legislative Conference and endorsed by
362
the Imperial Conference of 1930 but also on the ground that the appropriate place in which to embody a constitutional principle, but not a matter of constitutional law, is in the Preamble, which is for that sort of purpose not the least important, least solemn or least binding part of a great constitutional Statute, that the present text should stand.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

PREAMBLE.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, after the word "British," to insert the words "Empire or."
I think possibly this is the second Amendment to-day which the Government may see their way to accept. If the right hon. Gentleman has really studied the meaning of the Amendment, he will be one of the first to see how reasonable it is and how much it would appeal to members of the component parts of the British Empire. It is only designed to provide the alternative and better known title of "Empire" to this comparatively new-fangled growth, the British Commonwealth of Nations. I have thought to myself, I will find out exactly what this word commonwealth means. I looked it up in the dictionary, and I found it was a form of government in which the power rests with the people. If that is accepted, surely it cannot apply to the British Commonwealth. In the British Commonwealth the form of government does not lie with the British people but lies with the will of the people of each individual component part of the Empire.
It seems to me that, while Commonwealth would be a proper term to apply to any one of the Dominions, it is a singularly improper term to apply to the Dominions as a whole. The word "Empire," although, according to the dictionary, it has a meaning which is perhaps not in consonance with our modern development of thought, means a tremendous lot to every person throughout the country, and throughout the Empire as well. After all, what does it matter what is in a name? It is what that name signifies to the people who use it that matters. Our Friend Lord Beaver-brook believes that Empire economic unity means Empire Free Trade. It is simply a question how you look at the

363
phraseology that you are using and with what meaning you clothe it. I remember when Mr. Forbes was addressing a meeting of Members of the House he said, "I have no use for this new-fangled term "British Commonwealth." I am very happy and satisfied with the old term "British Empire." If we go further, I have an extract from a speech by the ex-Minister of Education in Ontario in the Empire Rooms when he said:
"I think in Canada we have come fully to realise what, after all, is the distinct and proper use of the term 'Empire' in relation to the British Empire. The wore 'Empire' has come down with perhaps rather a tradition and flavour of tyranny. It has usually meant a central power that has maintained its sway over out-lying, regions and compelled them to pay a tribute to it. Now the British use of the term 'Empire' has never been of that kind. … It does hot mean that we are an organisation out to dominate the world, to restrain the development of others, but it is a declaration that within our own Dominion we claim freedom and independence from outside interference. And that in my humble opinion justifies abundantly the use of the fine old term that stirs our very hearts, 'the British Empire'. The British Commonwealth of Nations has its place and use and meaning, but it is not as big, and not as ancient, and it is not as heart-stirring as that term 'The British Empire'".
That is the declaration of one of our most distinguished Canadian Ministers, and represents the feeling held by every man and woman throughout the Empire, I cannot see what harm it would do to the phraseology of the Bill. I cannot see that it would alter it in any way, but it would give that alternative term, which has a far greater meaning to us all, and which is a term which is enshrined and honoured in the heart of every individual in the British Empire.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misconception about this matter, if he will allow me to say so. He wants to call, what is rightly described as the British Commonwealth of Nations, the British Empire. The British Commonwealth of Nations is not the British Empire. If he will turn to the report of the Imperial Conference of 1926 he will find, in language most carefully chosen and as accurate as it is inspiring, that the position of the Dominions is described in this way:
364
"Their position of mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire"—
—I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will be gratified to find the word "Empire" in the report of the Imperial Conference—
"equal in status and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
The British Empire is a great and magnificent community, but it is not the same thing as the British Commonwealth of Nations, which is the accurate description of the autonomous Dominions which are generally included within that term. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will see that we intend no disrespect for and wish for no forgetfulness of the British Empire, and that this Bill wishes to emphasise or describe accurately what is a part of the British Empire, namely, the Commonwealth of the self-governing Dominions.
Sir J. WITHERS: I should like to draw the attention of the Solicitor-General to the first paragraph of the Irish Free State Agreement where it is appropriately set out that Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the unity of nations known as the British Empire, which means Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand and so on.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It was in 1926 that this status was defined, and the Treaty from which my hon. Friend was reading was the Irish Treaty made long before the Balfour Declaration.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: After the courteous explanation which has been given by the Solicitor-General, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported: as amended, considered.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
This is, as everyone recognises, a Measure of the greatest importance in our Imperial history. It deserved the most careful attention, the most scrupulous examination and the most thorough discussion during the Committee stage. Be-

365
cause of its importance, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, during the Second Reading, promised that the Government would not attempt in any way to dragoon the House during the Committee discussion. They promised that any Amendment which was put down would be examined on its merits and that adequate time would be given for discussion. This afternoon and evening the Bill has been suffering that scrupulous examination. It has come through the trial with practically no alteration and has survived almost unscathed. The fact is, and I think the Debate has proved it, that the House is practically unanimous in accepting the general principle of this legislation. The House would have been untrue to itself if it had taken up any other attitude. It has often been proclaimed from this Box and from these benches that liberty is the aim of the British Empire, and this Bill, so far as the Dominions are concerned dots the "i" and crosses the "t" in liberty.
As the Bill, after the most careful examination, has passed the House with practically no alteration, very few additional words are required from this bench in order to persuade the House to give it a unanimous Third Reading. During the discussion only one major point of controversy has arisen—the question connected with the Irish Free State Constitution. Both on Friday and again this afternoon that issue was thrashed out and made quite plain. The legal position of the Irish Constitution may be altered. There is some dispute as to that, but there is very little dispute—only one Member disputed the fact—that the moral position of the Irish Constitution remains as it was, and will remain the same if the Statute of Westminster Bill is passed. The Treaty between the Irish Free State and this country still stands. The Articles of Agreement still stand, and the representatives of the Southern Irish people have repeated again and again their determination to abide faithfully by their obligations under that Treaty and under those Articles of Agreement.
We trust the word of the representatives of the Southern Irish. The Irish Free State, like the other great countries whose affairs we have been discussing
366
to-day, is a Dominion. It is therefore a partner in the British Commonwealth of Nations. One of the essential links between partners in any great undertaking like this is trust and mutual confidence. It is in that spirit that I would ask the House, after the very thorough discussion we have had of this Bill, to give the Bill a unanimous Third Reading to speed it on its way through this Mother of Parliaments.
Sir J. WITHERS: After having been an active opponent and critic of this Bill, I cannot help thanking the Government for the way in which they have allowed these Amendments to be considered, but I must protest again against the mode in which this Bill has been introduced. It is a Bill of immense importance to the Empire, probably the most important Bill I shall ever see passed through Parliament. It has been introduced in a period of enormous national crisis, after a General Election in which it was never mentioned, on a Friday afternoon without practically any introduction to the House of Commons at all. Certainly, under protest, we have been given time to consider these Amendments, but, after all, one Friday afternoon and the following Tuesday is very little time to give to the British House of Commons to consider a Measure which is going to regulate the whole arangements of the Empire, as I hope, for centuries. I protest against it and hope it will not occur again.
Sir CHARLES OMAN: I have great pleasure in following the speech of my Cambridge colleague to bear out the fact that there is not complete unanimity in this House for the pasisng of the Bill. The first point I make is, as I said before, that the Bill is wrongly named. We have been hearing it called again and again the Statute of Westminster. It is not the Statute of Westminster because that term can only apply accurately to the Statute of Edward I, 1275. The Soliictor-General rather laughed at my petition to him to see that it is registered as the Statute of Westminster, 1931, but to talk about the Statute of Westminster means that old law about the Law Officers and officials of the Crown who extorted so much money and about the arrears of rent of the monks, and so on.
Secondly, I protest against the assumption of the Mover of the Third Reading

367
that a large majority means unanimity and carries with it moral strength. I, myself, am at one with that ancient hero of Plutarch who was accustomed to say when he found himself in a majority, "Have I been doing anything base?" On several times I found myself in that position in the last few days and I cannot say how it restored my right-mindedness to find, as when I opposed the Montagu Bill 12 years ago and other Bills since which have turned out badly, that I am in an honourable minority with some of the men whom I respect most in the House of Commons. Unanimity with them is better than the unanimity I should get with the mosaic of Members of all creeds and political views in which the Prime Minister is once again followed by his ancient gang and by the Liberals mixed up with their reconciled enemies. To a majority of that kind, I pay no attention. I am proud to have voted against the Bill.
Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I only want to add one word to what we have had from the distinguished representatives of the two universities. We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on having brought this Bill safely through, in spite of the reaction from within his own party. We also desire to congratulate the Law Officers of the Crown on having succeeded in steering a difficult constitutional Bill, and in having got this degree of unanimity. It is a remarkable
368
degree of unanimity upon so difficult a controversy. We are delighted to see that the Empire is launched upon a new era, we hope a new era of great prosperity.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) [SALARIES AND EXPENSES].
Resolution reported,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend by three years the period during which the powers of the Commissioners appointed under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1928, may be exercised, and for purposes incidental to such extension, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to remunerate the Assistant Commissioners and the Secretary and other officers of the Commissioners, and to defray the expenses incurred by the Commissioners during the aforesaid extended period."
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir F. Thomson.]
Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

SCOTLAND.
  ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
  ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
  TRANSITIONAL, BENEFIT (STAFF, LANARKSHIRE).
  TRANSITIONAL, BENEFIT (STAFF, LANARKSHIRE).
  UNEMPLOYED DEMONSTRATION, GLASGOW.
  UNEMPLOYED DEMONSTRATION, GLASGOW.
  HOUSING SUBSIDY, GLASGOW.
  HOUSING SUBSIDY, GLASGOW.
  AYR AND TROON HARBOURS.
  AYR AND TROON HARBOURS.
HOUSING.
  SCHEMES (BRITISH MATERIALS).
  SCHEMES (BRITISH MATERIALS).
  LIVERPOOL.
  LIVERPOOL.
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES (BRITISH TRAWLERS).
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES (BRITISH TRAWLERS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  LANARKSHIRE.
  LANARKSHIRE.
  CHATHAM.
  CHATHAM.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  BETHNAL GREEN.
  BETHNAL GREEN.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  IRAQ.
  IRAQ.
  FINANCE.
  FINANCE.
  POST OFFICE TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  POST OFFICE TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  CADET CORPS.
  CADET CORPS.
  ADMIRALTY STAFF.
  ADMIRALTY STAFF.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IMPORTS.
  IMPORTS.
  IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS).
  IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS).
  ROAD PASSENGER SERVICE, OTTERBURN.
  ROAD PASSENGER SERVICE, OTTERBURN.
AGRICULTURE
  BACON (IMPORT).
  BACON (IMPORT).
  IMPORTS.
  IMPORTS.
  FOREIGN BULBS.
  FOREIGN BULBS.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  LAND VALUES TAX.
  LAND VALUES TAX.
  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (INCOME TAX).
  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (INCOME TAX).
  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
EXPIRING LAWS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
KILMARNOCK GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, this is a Bill which gives legislative effect to an International Convention, signed in 1929, for the safety of life at sea, and of another Convention for the load line, signed in 1930. It is in all essentials the same Bill as that which your Lordships dealt with in June and July last. There are a number of drafting amendments which have been made in the Bill—they are purely drafting in character—and three very minor amendments, with which I do not really think I need trouble your Lordships. The only one of any importance whatever is a new Clause 70, which gives power to the Board of Trade to recover costs of detaining a ship whilst she is being examined for load line offences. I understand that the new amendments have been agreed to by all those concerned, and I imagine that your Lordships would not wish me to discuss the Bill again, because, as I have said, it is really identically the same Bill that passed through the House and received a Third Reading on July 7 last.
Since the Bill was before your Lordships' House a number of nations have
116
brought into effect the load line section of the Bill. The Governments of Belgium, Norway and Sweden have issued decrees enabling ships to be marked with the Convention load lines at the request of their owners. A French decree has been issued putting into force the provisions of the Convention with regard to the load mark for timber vessels, and I understand that the German authorities are doing the same thing with regard to their ships. Therefore, the Board of Trade are particularly anxious to be given the powers which this Bill confers upon them of dealing with the new load lines. They are also anxious, as I am sure all your Lordships are, that British shipping should have the advantage conferred by this Bill. Therefore, if your Lordships agree to give it a Second Heading today I would ask you to be kind enough to allow me to put down the Committee stage for to-morrow and the Third Reading for Thursday, so that the Bill would go to another place at the earliest possible moment in the hope that it might receive the Royal Assent before Parliament goes into the Christmas Recess. I do not know if that would meet with your Lordships' views. As I have said, it is identically the same Bill as that dealt with by your Lordships' House at considerable length in June and July. Therefore, perhaps, your Lordships might agree to a rather unusual course. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I need not say that we not only offer no opposition to this Bill, but we are very anxious to help the noble Earl to expedite its passage through your Lordships' House. It is, if I may say so, an old friend and I am glad that the noble Earl, who was, perhaps, rather a critic of the Bill, is now its sponsor. I have not had time to go through its voluminous pages, but I am glad to hear from the noble Earl that it is, to all intents and purposes, the identical Bill that we worked at in the summer. I was rather frightened lest he might have inserted some of the Amendments which were rejected when we were discussing it previously in your Lordships' House.

117
AS I say, I am glad to hear that it is to all intents and purposes the same Bill. I entirely agree with what the noble Earl had said as to the extreme importance of getting this Bill through Parliament at the earliest possible moment. It has been hung up in the most unfortunate way on more than one occasion, and I hope that this time we shall successfully put it on to the Statute Book in order to bring ourselves into line with the other nations who have signed the Conventions in question.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, with the representatives of both the official Parties in your Lordships' House supporting a Bill of this kind it is an exceedingly anxious thing for one of your Lordships who has no political associations at the moment to offer some observations upon the course it is now proposed to take. I venture to say that no uninformed observer who came into this House and heard what has been said from the Front Bench on this side and the Front Bench on the other side could have had the least impression that, among a great body of people vitally interested in the matter, this Bill in its present form is believed to involve serious risks, mortal risks, to a large number of men engaged in the merchant service. No body would suppose that there had been a change in the representatives of the Ministry in office last year when the Bill was opposed by people who at any rate knew something about the views of the men engaged in the merchant service. They have been ignored on this occasion. There are great organised bodies in this country, representative of mercantile marine officers and seamen, and one of the foremost representatives of them writes to me to-day that the Mercantile Marine Service Association and the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, the two representative bodies of captains and officers of the merchant navy, have presented petitions to another place containing 10,871 signatures of masters, officers, and men in active service afloat, against the proposed change.
What is in question among the opponents of this change, the opponents who are the petitioners to another place and I think have been petitioners to your Lordships' House, is this. The Bill in its present form proposes to reverse the helm
118
orders which have been in use time out of mind in the British mercantile marine. It is proposed to reverse the simple order by which the man at the wheel knows whether the vessel's head is to go right or left. By some nondescript means—nobody has said what it is to be, but it will be a penal offence to continue the present mode of communication—the man at the wheel is to be given some other mode of directing his helm action. Anybody who has ever stood on the bridge of a ship will know what this may lead to. In normal times if there is a slip it can be corrected; but on one of those critical occasions when a slip involves a collision and an order has suddenly to be given to a seaman who all his active life has followed a particular helm order, he is called upon to take some other mode of action to secure the intended object—I do not know what it is.
If a, man at present is intended to bring his vessel's head to the right he gets the order: "Port your helm." If he is intended to bring her head to the left he gets the order: "Starboard your helm." He knows it. Anybody who is familiar with this matter will know that the process has gone on with absolute safety—I think I might say with absolute safety—to the lives of His Majesty's merchant seamen. How many there are I do not know, but anybody knows that our mercantile marine is at any rate not far removed one way and another from half of the whole mercantile marine of the world, and it is the seamen who are engaged in that service who, as many of them feel and still larger numbers of them know, are put into peril by this proposal to introduce some unascertained mode of communicating helm action to the man at the wheel. There is no purpose beneficial to our mercantile marine for which it is wanted. Most of the objects which are in view here are the objects of the mercantile side of the marine— commercial objects, which owners of ships know quite well will be beneficial to them, and they have been promoted by merchant shipping associations and by bodies representative of shipowners. I am not suggesting for a moment that they are indifferent to the well-being of their crews, but that is not their first consideration.
I do not propose to occupy your Lordships' attention long, but as some of

119
your Lordships know, I happen to be the administrative head of the department in which justice is administered in the Admiralty Courts of this country—the Admiralty Division. I have sat there during a good many years, and I have had as my colleagues three men in succession—the late Sir Maurice Hill, who unfortunately retired because of ill-health something over a year ago, and my two present colleagues. No man was more absolute in his condemnation of this proposal than Sir Maurice Hill, and I venture to say that there never has been a man who has had so close an acquaintance with the perils of navigation which are exemplified in conflicts with regard to collisions as Sir Maurice Hill had. He was an inveterate opponent of this proposal because he knew it to be at risk, and at needless risk, to the lives of His Majesty's subjects engaged in the mercantile marine.
As for my own view about the matter, I have considered it from such experience as I have had in collision cases. I have discussed it with almost numberless people and I have not found a man of practical experience who views this proposal with other than grave anxiety. Yet in this Bill, which is entitled "an Act to give effect to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea," a salient proposal is that from the coming into operation of this Rill as an Act no person on any British ship shall give the at present recognised helm orders, and that if he does so he shall incur the penalties prescribed in the Act. An Act to give effect to a Convention for the safety of life at sea! It seems a mockery to the men who are immediately concerned. It is for those in this House who represent authority to take the course which they think fit to take. This Bill can be brought into operation when it has passed the two Houses, if it does in its present form, by an Order in Council. You know how promptly action under an Act of Parliament by Order in Council can take effect, so, if the views noble Lords have exchanged across the floor are effective, by about this day fortnight you may have this revolutionary proposal in its full effect. All I say about the matter is that this wide risk to the lives of seamen is not one which a man who feels an individual responsibility in the matter would allow to be incurred, he sitting silent, and so
120
far as I am concerned, while this proposal is in this Bill any opposition I can make to it I shall make here, and any influence I can exercise I shall exercise here and elsewhere. I venture to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the word ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day three months").—(Lord Merrivale.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I did not argue the case in regard to helm orders again before your Lordships, because I think it will be in the recollection of the House that we had a very long debate about the same subject as recently as June. I think your Lordships will also remember a very forcible speech which was made by my noble and gallant friend Lord Jellicoe, whom I am sure we are all sorry not to see in his place to-day. He showed how clearly, from a practical seaman's point of view, the matter had been reviewed in the past. Your Lordships will recollect that he told you that in any ship which he commanded he insisted that a hole should be cut in the compass platform in order that he should be able to see what the helmsman was doing, and that on more than one occasion in his experience the helm had been put the contrary way to that in which the order had been given, in spite of the order being, as the noble and learned Lord said, one which has been followed for many generations. The whole reason for this change, which everybody admits is one that none of us really desires, is that foreign nations insisted, if there was to be an International Convention at all, that this country should come into line with other countries in this matter. We either have to agree to this Convention as it stands, including a change in our helm orders, or we muse agree to let the whole Convention drop with the benefits that it brings with it.
Those advantages are very material for the safety of life at sea. They include such things as wireless in all ships over 1,600 tons, and of someone being on board who is capable not only of sending but of receiving signals by wireless, and of a watch kept on ships so that a signal shall at once be received. They include such matters as the streng-

121
thening of hatchway covers, which are of immense importance, to those who spend their lives at sea. Various other matters are included which in the opinion of those concerned tend very greatly to the safety both of passengers and crew. My noble and learned friend quoted two federations which are opposed to this, change. On the other hand I could quote him the opinions in favour of the change of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners, who, after all, are connected with the sea and all of whom have been masters of ships, the Officers (Merchant Navy) Federation, a far larger body than the two which he mentioned if their figures are combined, the National Union of Seamen, the United Kingdom Pilots' Association, Trinity House, the Chamber of Shipping, the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association and, last but not least, Lloyds. I venture to suggest that in view of the very strong support which this Bill has from the majority at any rate of those who are connected with the sea, and in view of the very recent debate and the decision which was arrived at without a Division that these changes in helm orders should be made, I hope your Lordships will agree to support the Second Heading of this Bill now.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, before this matter is put to the vote perhaps the noble Earl sitting on the Front Bench (Earl Stanhope) would tell us why it would be impossible to introduce an Amendment to I his clause during the Committee stage. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, said that other nations would not agree to it. Is that quite certain? Would they throw over all the advantages—and I believe they are many—which are contained in this Bill if we, the principal maritime country in the world, pointed out that it was a very unfortunate alteration for us to have, and if we asked them to agree to an amendment of the Convention in that respect? Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us why it would be impossible for us to carry that out, and why other nations should object to what appears on the face of it to be a desirable thing?
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, if your Lordships will forgive me for speaking yet again, may I say that it was made quite clear in the 1929 Convention that a number of foreign nations felt they
122
could not enter into a Convention unless we were prepared to agree to this change. Several nations did not like all the provisions of the Bill because they imposed severe expenditure on their shipping. Some of them objected, for instance, to the wireless provisions in the Bill. Therefore, if we had made a reservation in regard to helm orders, it would have been followed by reservations from other Powers and the whole purpose, of the Bill, which is to get international uniformity in matters relating to shipping, would have gone by the board. There is another matter which I forgot to mention before. The noble and learned Lord spoke about the great danger to shipping which the change would involve. May I say that other nations have made this change—other nations who, in our opinion, have not such fine seamen as ours. I refuse to believe that British seamen are unable to make with safety a change which has been made with safety by other seamen.
LORD MERRIVALE: Perhaps the noble Earl could help the House if he would tell us whether any interim period could be introduced during which experience could be obtained and there would be an opportunity of training men before making the change. At present what is proposed is a sudden change. That is the gravity of the matter.
EARL STANHOPE: I ought to have said—and I apologise to the House—that there is no intention of bringing the whole Bill into operation by an immediate Order in Council. The Board of Trade proposes that there should be ample warning of the change in helm orders before the Order comes into effect.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OUTRAGES IN INDIA.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the number of outrages and murders inflicted upon British citizens in India during the past twelve months; and what steps the Government of India is taking to prevent a recurrence of similar events; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, although I am standing at this

123
Table on the Opposition side of the House that must not for a moment be taken as meaning that I am in opposition to the Government. I have consulted the officers of the House, including the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and my information is that if I so desire I may speak from this position. It so happens that I have papers and that there are quotations which I want to read to your Lordships and therefore I hope the House will forgive me for speaking from this perhaps unusual position.
I hope that the Government will be able—I see no reason why they should not—to give a satisfactory answer to the Question which appears on the Paper in my name. I think it is really time that in one House or the other inquiries should be made of the Government in reference to the long accumulation of murders and attempted murders of Englishmen and occasionally Englishwomen, most of the men being officers of the Indian Civil Service and some of them officers in His Majesty's Army, during the last eighteen months. If one looks back to the time when Mr. Gandhi and the Congress started their civil disobedience campaign it will be found that at least twelve men who were out in India as representing the Government of this country, men who were members of the Indian Civil Service or men who had gone out there as officers in the Army have been brutally murdered. I want further to enquire what is the reason for this increase of attacks upon Englishmen and occasionally Englishwomen in India during the last year or eighteen months.
You will find that in February last one of His Majesty's officers, a lieutenant in the Army, Lieutenant Hawkes, was murdered at Landi Kotal. In May a police superintendent was killed at Peshawar. In August an attempt was made to assassinate Sir Charles Tegart, Police Commissioner of Calcutta, as he was driving to his office. After all, the Police Commissioner of that great City occupies really one of the most important offices in upholding the British Raj in India, and a very definite effort was made to murder him. Fortunately the attempt failed and Sir Charles Tegart, I am glad to say, is still alive. In August another desperate effort was made to murder two Englishmen, and one of them, the Inspec-
124
tor General of the Bengal Police, was killed. Sir Charles Tegart after that quite definitely said in public that the reason for these attempts at assassination was undoubtedly the existence of a terrorist organisation with tentacles in all parts of the country and particularly in Bengal and the Punjab. He added:—
"This is only the beginning. No one knows where it will end."
I am going to ask His Majesty's Government this afternoon if they know where it will end, and if they are taking steps to prevent these outrages.
After that, in December last year, another Captain in the Army was killed—shot on parade—and a sergeant was also seriously wounded. Again, in December last year perhaps one of the worst attempts was that on Sir Geoffrey de Montmorency, who, as your Lordships know, was Governor of the Punjab. He was engaged in his official duties. He had been attending the Punjab University, where he was delivering an address to the students. That was not merely a strictly Governmental piece of business but a piece of business which he was doing for the benefit of Indian students and in order to make closer the friendship between Great Britain and India. As your Lordships will probably remember, his assailant drew two revolvers and fired at him. Fortunately the shots missed him, but unfortunately one of them struck a police inspector and killed him, and another wounded a lady doctor. It is not merely the men who are shot at, it is not merely the men whose murder is attempted, but as this and other cases show unfortunate people who may be there at the time may suffer even more than the man at whom the attack is aimed.
Since that time there has been the case of Sir John Hotson, the Acting Governor of Bombay during the time in which the Governor, who is very well known to many of us and a personal friend no doubt of many of your Lordships, was away in England owing to illness. Sir John Hotson, as Acting Governor, had gone to inspect the Fergusson College in Bombay. That again is an institution carried on for the benefit of young Indians. No sooner had he entered the library than he was fired at. The bullet fortunately was turned aside by something in his pocket. The aim was

125
much better in this case than in some others. Again the assailant had two revolvers. He said he wanted to kill Sir John Hotson as a protest against his appointment, which he said ought to have gone to an Indian. That is to say, the sole reason why this young man took upon himself to attempt to assassinate the Acting Governor of Bombay was, as he said, because an Englishman was appointed to that post when the English Governor himself was over here on leave, and because he thought that the appointment should have been given to an Indian instead of an Englishman.
We can now begin to realise something of the reason which is at the bottom of these attacks on Englishmen. It is in hardly a single case a question of personal revenge—there was one case which I will mention later on—but nearly always the attack was against an English officer because he was English and because he represented the British Raj. It is because of that that I want to ask His Majesty's Government, today, whether they do not consider, for the safety of the lives and the well-being of every single English officer in India, whether in the Army or the Civil Service, that it is their duty to take every possible step to prevent assassinations of this kind, or attempted assassinations.
A few days after that Lieutenant Hext and Lieutenant Sheehan were attacked in a train. One was wounded and the other killed, merely because they were English officers, and the young Indian who attacked them thought it a clever thing, perhaps, to murder an English officer. Again, an English Judge, a Mr. Garlick, was shot at by a young Bengalese when in his Court administering justice. The assailant jumped on the clerk's table, fired at point blank range and killed the Judge. Mr. Garlick happened to have been President of a Special tribunal, appointed by the Indian Government for the purpose, which sentenced the man Dinesh Gupta to death for the murder of Lieutenant-Colonel Simpson. Obviously, these men who attempt to murder, or succeed in murdering, must be tried by Judges, and if guilty must be sentenced. Merely because this Judge, a man of the highest character in India, sentenced a criminal, another murderer, to death, this young
126
Bengalese took the opportunity of murdering the Judge, and when he was captured a letter was found on him stating:
"This is the reward for injustice done to Dinesh Gupta."
There are other cases. Another district magistrate was shot at and wounded at Dacca, and quite recently Mr. Villiers, President of the Indian Association at Calcutta, was murderously attacked and injured but fortunately not done to death.
There must be some reason for this constant succession of murders or attempted murders in India of British officers. If we take the trouble to look we shall find that they are contemporaneous with the attempts of the Indian Congress and of Mr. Gandhi to foment disaffection in India, and they give in fact public notice to us that so long as we remain in India, and decline to give them the independence they ask for, similar troubles will take place. Mr. Gandhi, after all, is a responsible man, a member of the Round Table Conference, and sitting in London to-day, discussing with His Majesty's Government a form of Constitution for India. If he is to be believed, in regard to the speeches he has made in the past, no Constitution which the Government or Great Britain can possibly grant would be acceptable to him. In May of last year he said this:
"I do not believe the slightest good for India can come of the Round Table Conference in London.… I hope myself that my movement will not lead to deeds of violence, but even in this case there can be no going back for me."
Then there was the speech made in India in March of last year, and I call very special attention to this one, because it seems to sum up the political faith of this man.
I want your Lordships to notice, and particularly the noble Marquess, what is said, and to try to imagine what would be the effect of these speeches, published in the vernacular Press throughout the length and breadth of India:
"I regard British rule as a curse and am out to destroy this system. I have made it my religion to destroy it as early as I can. I pray God night and day that the Government may be destroyed once and for all. I am convinced that the Government is so monstrous that it is a sin to allow it to exist. Sedition has become my religion."

127
Imagine an uneducated Indian reading that speech. The British Government is declared to be so monstrous that it would be a sin to allow it to exist. If it is a sin to allow it to exist—and Mr. Gandhi is a man of very great influence in India—young Indians inclined to sedition, and reading a speech of that kind in regard to the British Government, would not, find it more than a short step further to say that while the British Government is a sin the men who administer that Government should not be allowed to exist.
Then this year just before he came over here Mr. Gandhi said:
"I see no justification in the Premier's speech for calling off the civil disobedience movement. I want the substance of independence: the British can keep the shadow."
On October 16 last, while ho was over here and during the time the Conference was sitting, and he was present at the Conference presumably endeavouring to come to reasonable terms for a reasonable Constitution, he said:
"Time was when I prided myself on being a British subject. I would far rather be called a rebel than a subject."
In the Daily Herald, a paper which I do not always read, on the 6th of this month he was reported as having addressed some English Post Office workers as fallows:
"Possibly we shall get nothing from the Hound Table Conference. In that case there might be a violent time ahead."
I want the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, to be able to tell me whether the Government have taken into consideration that threat that there may be a violent time ahead.
I am not going to discuss the Round Table Conference this afternoon, but it is more than probable that the Round Table Conference will come to an end in some form or other within the next week or two, and Mr. Gandhi has warned the Government that there might be a violent time ahead. Even in the same month, addressing some Indian students at Cambridge, Mr. Gandhi seems not merely inciting to trouble in India but also here as well, because on November 1 he said to young students at Cambridge that in the event of the Conference failing he means to resume the civil disobedience movement. The resumption, he said, was an "absolute certainty." I
128
have no doubt the noble Marquess has seen these speeches. He must have been supplied by his Department with these speeches, and after reading these speeches in the morning he is compelled by his position to sit side by side and attempt to come to reasonable terms with this gentleman. There are other speeches, the speeches of Mr. Patel, President of the Congress, but I have said enough to show that Mr. Gandhi is, in essence, the Congress itself. He is the one man who has come here for the distinct and definite purpose of representing the Congress view at the Round Table Conference, and he goes outside the Conference to tell the people of England, those who will listen to him, what he intends to do in the event of the Conference failing.
There is another statement he has made to which I would like to call the attention of the noble Marquess. These men who have been murdered and those who undoubtedly will be in jeopardy in the near future, even if they are not assassinated, are men whose lives are given for the benefit of the people of India. There must be many noble Lords who have stayed with members of the Indian Civil Service in town and country and have seen them go about their work out in the districts unarmed and unafraid. I admit that it was ten j-cars ago that I was there. They went unarmed and unafraid because they knew that behind them was the power of Great Britain, because they knew that behind them was the Government of India and the Government of Great Britain determined that their position should be maintained as long, of course, as we were in India. If the noble Marquess were going to say—as he will not for a moment—that we were going to clear out of India, the position would be very different, Behind the maintenance of British rule in India are the prestige of the British Government and the honour of the Englishman and behind that the power of the British Army in India.
I understand that an effort is being made by the gentleman I have quoted to have the British Army delivered over to him. This was not a speech made to a meeting of Indian students at a University. The noble Lord, who was Chairman of some of the Conference Committees, was present when the speech was made and I want a declaration from

129
the Government in regard to the speech. There was not then—as I thought there might have been—a declaration from the noble Lord.
"I have no difficulty,"
said Mr. Gandhi at the Conference, actually saying this to His Majesty's Ministers,
"in saving what should happen to this Army. That is to say, I would say emphatically that the whole of this Army should be disbanded if it does not pass under my control before I could possibly shoulder the burden of running the government of India under the terrible handicaps from which we are labouring as a result of alien rule."
Mr. Gandhi seems to take upon himself a great deal there. I would not take upon myself the responsibility of governing India.
"Therefore, that being my fundamental position, I would say that if you … really wish well to India, if you will transfer power now to us, then regard this as a vital condition, that the Army should pass under our control in its entirety."
I wonder what these other young men in India thought, who have not yet been assassinated, who are in the Indian Civil Service, and who have seen this long line of assassinations during the past year, assassinations of men, many of whom must have been known to officers of the Indian Civil Service or of the Army. What must t they think to-day when they see this demand openly made? It was not only made by Mr. Gandhi but by Pandit Malaviya, who did not say that the demand for the withdrawal of the troops was impossible but that it was perfectly possible, and added:
"I have not asked for it because I want to carry my British friends with us as far as we can."
He also said that the British Army should be handed over to the control of whatever Indian Government was established. I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who I regret is not on the Woolsack at the moment, would have said that that was outside of the discussion altogether. He should have said that Mr. Gandhi and Pandit Malaviya were braver men than he was to suggest handing over the Army to the Government of India.
I want to ask His Majesty's Government whether in their view the time has not come to announce some far more definite and stringent means of protec-
130
tion of the British in India, whether in the Army or civilians or European merchants; secondly, for a definite definition as to what their views in regard to the Army are. I shall refer to one more document, which is a document by the present Secretary of State for India, Sir Samuel Hoare. Sir Samuel Hoare issued in March this year an article in the Morning Post which has subsequently been reprinted as an official statement of Conservative policy in regard to India. It is the latest official document, on which Conservative candidates all over the country have been basing their views and putting them before the people of this country at the last Election. I have no reason to suppose that Sir Samuel Hoare has in any way modified the views then expressed. He speaks of "the obvious feeling of uneasiness in the minds of many good Conservatives" and adds:
"They have the uncomfortable feeling that grave issues are dangerously drifting."
I am bound to say that I concur in the views of the Secretary of State. He makes no criticism of any Conservative who holds these views, but says:
"Indeed, I fully agree with them that there is good cause for anxiety."
He has laid it down and this is the basis of the policy, which I have never heard contradicted by any responsible Conservative statesman, of at least the Conservative wing of the National Government to-day.
The answer will be given this afternoon by the noble Marquess who is a member of another wing of the National Government. Will he agree that
"so far as the Conservatives are concerned, there will be no repetition in the case of India of the dismal events that preceded and followed the Irish surrender. There will be no truckling to the terrorists, no treaty with the men who are determined to drive us out of India"?
I would not have quoted this article if it was by an irresponsible politician, but it is by the gentleman who is to-day Secretary of State for India and we have no objection whatever to the written statement he made in March this year that:
"Our command of the Army must be clear and undisputed."
There is the statement of the Secretary of State. Since that time men have been assassinated and open hostility has taken

131
place in India. I feel the very gravest anxiety and I ask this Question in. no sense of hostile criticism of the Government. I devoted the whole of my time during the Election to doing my best to put them into office. I want to maintain them in office. I do not want to criticise; I want to stimulate them, I admit.
While the noble Marquess may perhaps think I am criticising, I should like to say a word of cordial congratulation to the Secretary of State on the appointment of Sir John Anderson as Governor of Bengal. I suppose there is nobody who knows Sir John Anderson's ability and character better than I do. He and I worked together at the Home Office; he was the Permanent Under-Secretary while I was Secretary of State for nearly five years. I formed a very high opinion of his abilities and character, and, I think I may say, of his firmness as well. I congratulate my right hon. friend most sincerely on that appointment, and, moreover, I congratulate Calcutta, I congratulate the British Raj there on having a man appointed who has been used to the Government Departments of this country. It is perhaps an innovation in the appointment of Governors. I can assure the Government that they could not possibly have made a better appointment.
I conclude by asking His Majesty's Government what they are going to do for the protection of the British; secondly, are they going to truckle to the terrorism in India? thirdly, what steps are they going to take to prevent the recurrence of these outrages? Are they going to take the necessary steps to restore and uphold the prestige of Great Britain, the loss of which is very largely responsible for these outrages? Lastly, will the noble Marquess make a definite statement that under no circumstances and under no conditions will the British Army be handed over to Indian control? I ask those questions with a desire to invite and elucidate a really definite and useful statement, a statement which I think it is time should be made, not merely for this country but for India. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My Lords, may I be allowed from a Back Bench, which is my only place in this House, to support the Question put by my noble friend
132
Lord Brentford? I honestly believe that if it be not satisfactorily answered we are bound to drift in India into chaos and disaster. It seems to me that not only your Lordships' House but the whole country are under a debt of obligation to my noble friend for recalling us to what I will call, borrowing a phrase of recent use from the Prime Minister, the "objective realities" of the Indian situation. He is rescuing us, too, to some degree from the hopeless atmosphere of illusion and delusion in which the Round Table Conference have elected to carry on their proceedings. Swaraj has been called a dream, but there is no reason why that dream should be wrapped up in a November fog.
I often think that Mr. Gandhi has performed a service of inestimable value in bringing the people of this country to grips with the stark realities of life in India. It is useless for us to believe that Mr. Gandhi has sacrificed, by his intrigues and equivocations here, his power over the Congress Party in India. It is quite true, no doubt, that there is a large body of people in India who are of more moderate views, and who would willingly take a line of their own if they were not timid or intimidated—they are both the one and the other. There are some—including, I am told but I do not know, and I do not wish to make a statement that is not justifiable, the Undersecretary of State for India—who believe that there is a Liberal Party among the Hindus who are capable of standing up to Mr. Gandhi and will do so. I venture to think that is a complete mistake. I have myself heard Mr. Sastri, who is one of the leading Hindus now attending the Conference, a man of conspicuous ability and eloquence, describe Mr. Gandhi as "the most Christlike man now living upon earth." He is himself an example to prove that Liberals in India have no Party or following except so far as they toe the line to Congress. I very much doubt whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with his experience, would describe Mr. Gandhi as the most Christlike person upon earth.
The notable thing to which I would ask attention is how thin is the line that separates the Left Wing of Congress from the revolutionary and terrorist faction. It can hardly be said that there

133
is a dividing line, because they merge into one another. Mr. Gandhi's position itself is very peculiar. Whilst I was acting on the Statutory Commission I had brought to me a letter from a highly responsible body which had been asked to make sure of his views as to the use of physical force. As a matter of fact it was the Y.M.C.A. In reply to that question Mr. Gandhi said he was against organised violence, but he could not be held responsible for individual outrages. I am not complaining of this attitude. It is obviously one which gives great latitude for misunderstanding, and that is, of course, the whole point at issue. The Congress has two sides. Mr. Gandhi has left in India as his representative and best-loved colleague the Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the son of the Pandit Motilal Nehru, and speaking on November 18, as reported in The Times, he said:
"It is impossible for India to achieve Swaraj without a fresh struggle, which may commence soon."
He was addressing a public meeting at Calcutta. He went on:
"The present truce presents an impossible situation, which must soon terminate. If necessary we shall revive an All-India satyagraha without waiting for Mr. Gandhi's return, although we would prefer to have him as commander here."
He finished up by urging Bengal to revive satyagraha as a protest against recent events at Hijli and Chittagong, although it is only fair to say that he condemned terrorism as a gospel of despair.
My noble friend has alluded to these outrages and the atmosphere in which they are committed as proceeding from the loss of our national prestige in India. There is one factor that threatens to be constantly growing in Governments, and that is a loss of confidence, a loss of the belief almost universally held in the impartiality, beneficence, and strength of the British Government. I will quote from the Indian Empire Review a letter to a member of the Indian Civil Service now on leave from a tahsildar belonging to the subordinate executive Civil Service, and it is merely typical of evidence forthcoming from many quarters. This tahsildar says:
"I am of opinion that the Congress has done more solid work after the Delhi Pact, inasmuch, as it has fully prepared the village folk for a mass civil disobedience, and I find that in villages the awe which the
134
Government servant used to inspire no longer exists. There is much freedom and unbounded disregard of authority in the hearts of the villagers. It is generally believed in villages that all the concessions which the Government is granting them are mainly due to the force brought on its shoulders by Congress. Congress conferences and picketing have again started."
This is from the November number of the Review.
My noble friend Lord Brentford enumerated a number of those outrages which have been committed and which we have all read of during the past year and more. He did not mention, I think, but I do not know that adding one strengthens the case very much, the murder of which we read recently at Dacca, though he spoke of an outrage at Dacca. But of course there is none that made a bigger impression than when the presiding Judge of the Court which tried the murderer of Colonel Simpson was himself murdered. If your Lordships will allow me, I will give the account a little more in detail because it leads up to certain consequences. Three Indians went into the offices of the Bengal Government at Calcutta, and entered the room where Colonel Simpson, a member of the Indian Medical Service in Bengal, was seated at his table working. The Indians shot him with revolvers and killed him. Two of the murderers shot themselves. The third was arrested and brought for trial. He was tried at the Court of Session and convicted and sentenced to death. The presiding Judge of the Court which tried him was Mr. Garlick. What followed? On July 8 the Corporation of Calcutta, the largest City in India, passed a resolution recording "its sense of grief at the execution of Sj. Dinesh Chandra Gupta, who sacrificed his life in pursuit of his ideal."
Colonel Simpson was a doctor of medicine, whose work should particularly appeal to all humanists. There was no animosity against him personally. He was murdered for political reasons because he was an Englishman. The elected city fathers of the Calcutta Corporation, the capital of Bengal and the most important City in India, felt no "sense of grief" that a cold-blooded murder was committed in its midst or that a loyal servant of their country should have been shot down. They do not mention that his life was sacrificed; but, as a mark of

135
respect to his murderer, the Corporation of Calcutta adjourned its meeting. On July 27, less than three weeks after the Corporation had recorded its "sense of grief at the execution of Dinesh Chandra Gupta," Mr. Garlick, the Judge of the Court of Session before whom the murderer was tried and convicted, was himself murdered in open Court "as an act of revenge for the execution of Dinesh Gupta, murderer of the late Lieutenant-Colonel Simpson." Surely, it is of some consequence as pointing to the trend of opinion in Bengal at least, that the Corporation of Calcutta should have taken this action, which is repeated again, not only of condoning but of glorifying the murder of one of the most respected of British Judges there. Nobody denies that the Government of Bengal are in a difficult situation, but it must also be admitted that when they show such extraordinary irresolution as they have recently it no doubt adds still more to the force of their toleration of crime.
There is, as your Lordships know, a man of some notoriety in the Eastern part of India, Mr. Subhas Bose. He was, I think, Mayor of Calcutta. With other members of the Bengal Congress Committee he announced his intention of going to Dacca to investigate happenings during the recent riots. An order was made prohibiting his entry into the Dacca district because of the fear of disturbance. The police prevented his entry and conducted him to Chandpur. From there he made entry by another route and was arrested and, on refusing bail, was taken to the police station. The next day he was released by the Magistrate on conditional bail. An appeal against conditional bail was made and was successful, and, with unconditional bail, Mr. Bose was able to visit a number of houses where raids had been made and to obtain statements from the occupants which have since been published. It is announced that the authorities have withdrawn the prosecution against him for defiance of the order, and that there will be no further proceedings. You cannot expect that when the Government of a Province acts in this sort of way it tends to the maintenance of law and order. It justifies what we are told frequently now, that the growth of terrorism in Bengal and of terrorist activities in the United
136
Provinces is a very serious menace to public order.
It is natural that your Lordships should want some better evidence than I can give of the apprehension of the European community in India in regard to what has been done. Several meetings have been addressed recently by Mr. Villiers, who himself was nearly murdered in the last few weeks, and that is very good evidence because he is President of the European Association. Addressing a European audience at Kankinarrah on November 7, Mr. Villiers said he was in a position to state that the Government of Bengal was on the eve of introducing vigorous measures for the suppression of the terrorist movement. The real challenge, he thought, might be civil disobedience and if there was a recrudescence of that it must be crushed promptly and ruthlessly. Mr. Villiers went on to say:
"If the Government is prompt and strong, as I have every reason to believe it will be, if by promptness and strength it shows India that the staying of its hand in the past was of choice and not necessity, then I believe there will flock to the standards of the Government untold millions in the country who however misled in the past, ask nothing better than that they should be allowed to live their lives in peace and to reassert their loyalty to the Crown."
You could not have better evidence than that of Mr. Villiers.
Only in to-day's newspapers there is a report of another meeting in which he said that he and his fellow-citizens of the European community of Calcutta-were prepared to take action for themselves if they were not properly defended by the Government. As a matter of fact, I read that there was a big parade of force of all arms through Calcutta as a demonstration of a new mind on the part of the Government. It is very difficult for the Europeans there now. There is no doubt that our sympathy ought to go out to them because they and their families are enduring great anxiety as well as great peril. They cannot support, they say, the transfer of power from the agents of Parliament to Indian politicians until the latter have shown, in the most clear and unmistakable manner, that they will not flirt with the followers of violence. In Bengal recently we have witnessed the struggle for political power between two rival Con-

137
gress groups. The leader of one group has never made any secret of his support of those who would pursue the method of violence. His rival's attitude in this matter can scarcely be considered to be better, because he said that if they did not get complete independence after the Round Table Conference he would have no objection to the believers in violence having their own way. I do not suppose anybody imagines that, in spite of the demand of Mr. Gandhi, the Round Table Conference, which, I would remind you, is not a constituent assembly and has no power in this matter, was intended to grant complete independence to India. Therefore, you have a coalescence of the two wings of the Congress which are at work and which, after all, are able to influence all such opinion as can be got together in the cities and villages of India, pulling one way.
I confess that it is rather difficult to come to general conclusions. Sir John Simon said in his Report and in his speeches has frequently said that you will not solve the Indian problem by general propositions. I agree. We are told that if we look to the winds we shall never reap, and I for one fully recognise that further legislation is inevitable, even if it is not desirable; but I respectfully urge upon your Lordships that it should be in harmony with reason and justice. One of the greatest men who ever sat in this House is said to have been "rich in saving common sense." It is just the "saving common sense" that is required in dealing with Indian affairs. Surely it is time Parliament got back to its old methods. Four years ago, without a dissentient voice, it passed an Act appointing, subject to the Royal Warrant, a Statutory Commission to report on the development of representative institutions in India in accordance with the terms of the Government of India Act. That Commission duly reported but, so far—and I speak from careful observation—its Report has been relegated to the files of the India Office. I know that at the Round Table Conference every effort has been made to avoid making any mention of the Report of the Simon Commission. I do not know whether it has been entirely successful, but that certainly vas the desire on the part of the Indian representatives. We were appointed—I am talking of the Statutory Commission
138
—specially to advise Parliament. I would ask whether the time has not come now when, following the failure of the Round Table Conference to agree on any report, the Report of the Simon Commission should be seriously considered with the purpose of its being embodied—and I say that deliberately—in the next Government of India Bill.
I beg His Majesty's Government not to make the great surrender but to stand firm in their shoes. By the great surrender what I mean is this, not to interfere with the scales of justice which we have used with perfect fairness and evenness in India now for at least the last 100 years for the benefit of the heterogeneous collection of races and religions which divide the sub-continent among them. I hope and believe that His Majesty's Government are going to act in that sense. Speaking with such experience as I have, and I do not claim great knowledge—after all our work only extended over three years, and I see the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Reading) who has a longer and greater experience of India—I hope that the answer given will not only satisfy my noble friend Lord Brentford but will also satisfy all those who have the welfare of India at heart.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I never speak on the subject of India without real anxiety, and a sense of deep responsibility lest any word of mine should hinder rather than help the work of real peace and progress among the great Indian people, and lest it should make more difficult the unenviable task of those who, far away from their own kith and kin, have to administer the law impartially and with a certain amount of constructive sympathy. Therefore if to-day I have to make one or two words of comment upon what has fallen from the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, I do so with a real desire to help and not to make things more difficult. One can have the very deepest sympathy with the motive of the noble Viscount, because all of us are distressed beyond words when outrages of the kind to which he has referred occur either in India or elsewhere. They make it more difficult for the friends of India over here, or in India, to prosecute their work, and, therefore, one can sympathise with the object that the noble Viscount has in view

139
without approving of the method in which he approaches this great problem.
I cannot help feeling that the two speeches to which we have listened really suggest that behind this rightful protest against outrage in India there is a deep hostility to the work of the Round Table Conference itself, and I beg His Majesty's Government not to be influenced by that aspect which has been put before your Lordships this afternoon, not stated with frankness but which nevertheless it has not been possible to hide. The noble Viscount said it was the duty of His Majesty's Government to prevent the assassination of British officers in India who were doing their duty. Outrage of this kind is not new either in India or other countries, and there never was a time when to deal with it required a more far-seeing vision. These periodical outbreaks of lawlessness have occurred in many countries and in many times. In India they are specially reprehensible, because they exacerbate racial feeling within India itself. They tend, because of one's anger, to destroy one's sense of proportion, and if the Government of India undertakes special acts of suppression it arouses criticism among those who have no sympathies at all with crime.
Therefore I wish to say to your Lord ships that I do not condone or try to minimise the seriousness of this subject, but I am anxious lest any act of suppression such as the noble Viscount invites His Majesty's Government to undertake should promote new crime, which is a very possible thing. We should weigh carefully the matter before we accept the advice that has been given to us. Forcible suppression of crime such as the noble Viscount invites His Majesty's Government to take does not provide any sort of lasting remedy. My own approach to it, for what it is worth, is that this matter can be more efficiently, or as efficiently, dealt with by the moral teacher and the political and social engineer as by the soldier or the policeman.
I should like in passing to enter a solemn word of protest against the discriminating selection which the noble Viscount has made of speeches of Mr. Gandhi and other people. I do not admire everything that Mr. Gandhi says by a long way, but we are entitled to remember that he has made speeches of
140
an entirely different character. I have heard him say over and over again with what horror he receives the news of such outrages. I would like also to say that I have attended every meeting except one of the Committees of the Round Table Conference, and I have been impressed almost beyond words with the deep anxiety there is amongst the delegates attending that Conference to be fair. It is not helpful to select from propagandists of advanced thought in India particular speeches and to forget the vast number of speeches of an entirely different character that have been made by other people. No one will suspect the noble Viscount of any intention to promote mischief either in this or in any other matter, but what he could not be coerced to do if he thought it was wrong, he is very ready voluntarily, enthusiastically and without any sort of hesitation, to do out of sheer moral aggressiveness. In the old days when he and I were colleagues, and I hope friends, in another field of labour, you only had to mention the word "Arcos" and the Prayer Book to him to transform him from the genial friend of mankind into a fiery, remorseless crusader capable of slaying his ten thousand.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Do you object to crusaders?
LORD SNELL: On one of these matters I was his humble though perhaps embarrassing follower. But what he asks us to do to-day is a vaster and more difficult matter. India is not Moorgate Street and we cannot settle her problems by the policy of raid and seizure and punishment. There are vast issues involved which must be carefully weighed and we have to consider what the reaction would be from such advice as he chooses to give us. There are, for instance, the economic issues which cannot be overlooked. India has been, and is now, one of our best customers, if not our best customer, and we do not want to add the force of racial discrimination to the economic forces that operate at the present time. So I repeat that I do not wish to defend crime or the criminal. Punishment must follow crime of this character, but why the selection of British only in this discussion? Punishment must be the same for the murderer of an Indian as of an Englishman.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Hear, hear.
LORD SNELL: The law is for the protection of all citizens in a country on a basis of strict equality. But in the existing circumstances it might be better to leave this unpleasant duty to the sure and impartial dignity of the law and its officers. They have a right to expect from us and from the people of India complete support because they labour for the good of the community, and I believe they do possess that support in full measure. I wonder if I might suggest to your Lordships that, the policy of repression does not carry us very far in this matter. Those who commit crimes of this kind are, as a rule, ready to pay the price of death. You can only take from them what they are perfectly willing to give. Any spectacular act of repression might really put round people of this kind a false glamour which would add to their number. That is what we have to remember—that these things are nearly always done by impulsive and immature youths and there is a type of agitator and incendiary journalist who is ready to influence immature minds of this character. They sought to glorify Bhagat Singh and make a halo round his name, but responsible leaders of Indian thought and opinion were as horror stricken as any of your Lordships in this House. Assuming that that is so, that these people are ready to throw their lives away, how can you alter it by some act of general repression?
I venture again to utter a word of protest against selecting casual indiscretions from those engaged in the work of the reform movement in India. It is easy to produce illustrations of foolish words, but if we were all to be judged for foolish things that we have said how many of us would escape whipping? Only the man who himself has sometimes been aflame with a sense of great wrong and anger against some real or imaginary wrong can understand how easily foolish words are produced. I am thankful that most of my own indiscretions were never reported. The noble Viscount has been less fortunate because there was a time when there was something that roused his soul so much that he used words that I dare not repeat in your Lordships' House. Let us, therefore, trust rather to the ordinary operation of
142
the law and let us keep our heads cool about it. There will be plenty for them to do in the coming months.
I repeat that these spasmodic murders are unfortunately associated with every national movement at any time in the history of the world. They took place in Ireland and it may be right to remind your Lordships that for every one Irishman there are eighty Indians. We can hope that a sense of responsibility in India will grow and that Indians will co-operate in removing this reproach from their name. Therefore, I would suggest that we should be ready to let the law take its own calm and dignified way of meeting the need that exists with its own prepared and practised weapons. If we take it upon ourselves to play any part in the matter it should be that of trying by education and by the removal of economic and social grievances to weaken the motives that engender and promote crime. I believe you get the most out of a people, as you get the most out of an individual, by putting it on its honour and I have not the least doubt that if we approach the Indian problem in this spirit we shall have as our allies the moral force and the free co-operation of the Indian people.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, the remarks I have to make will take up only a very short time. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Snell, with very great interest and I agree with the noble Lord that in theory a great deal of what he has said might very well be applied to most countries, but when it comes to India and the East I believe that all of us who have had anything to do with the races there know that we cannot apply these Western ideas and these Western methods to the governance of those peoples. They entirely misunderstand conciliation in the ordinary way, as you would use it in this country. They regard conciliation as a sign of weakness. The only thing they understand is firmness, tempered by justice. I do not wish to traverse again the various murders and attempts at murder which have led up to this debate, because the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, has done this very fully indeed, and Lord Burnham, but I do wish to refer to one matter which was dealt with, particularly in the speech of Lord Brentford. That is with regard to the

143
Mahatma Gandhi. Lord Snell has stated that you should not extract what I think he called "casual indiscretions" from the speeches of any individual, and hold them up to obloquy, but in the case of Mahatma Gandhi these are not only casual indiscretions of words or speeches, but they are actual indiscretions of act, which have been committed by him and which have very largely caused the serious conditions which exist in India to-day.
Does he call it a casual indiscretion that Mahatma Gandhi should lead a great campaign for civil disobedience against the law of the Government of India? Does he call it casual indiscretion that Mahatma Gandhi should initiate one of the biggest boycotts of British trade that has ever been carried out in the world? I do not think when he uttered those words that he believed that they were true, or if he did so then he had not examined thoroughly the facts of his case before he delivered his speech in this House. There is absolutely no doubt that the main reason why we have these serious happenings in India is due to Mahatma Gandhi, and I suggest that when he comes to this country, and tries not only to break up the Round Table Conference, as he has consistently done in the last few weeks and months, when the British Government is doing all they can, in every possible direction, to meet the new conditions in India and to present to India a Constitution which will embrace all these races in India and bring peace and quiet to India—I suggest that when Gandhi comes to this country and not only tries to break up that Conference but flings defiance in the faces of those sitting in that Conference, and demands independence, he is doing one of the greatest harms and injuries to the country from which he comes.
He has told us definitely that he wants us to get out of India. We do not intend to go out of India. We have no intention of leaving India, and if that is his proposal let us do unto Gandhi as Gandhi will do unto us, and if Gandhi returns to India after the Conference, and foments further disorders in India, I suggest that the only way in which you can deal with this gentleman, in order to relieve India of the harm that he is doing, is not to shut him up in India but to deport him, together with his fellow
144
conspirators, and others who are fomenting these troubles, to some island in the Indian Archipelago, such as the Andaman Islands. I say this with a full sense of responsibility. I think this has gone on long enough. The Government of India have tried those methods of conciliation, which have been so tenderly outlined by Lord Snell, and those methods have obviously failed. If they had not failed we should not have had this large number of murders and attempted murders which are taking place in India practically every week. Not only that, but as a result of that gentleman's operations we have had the massacre at Cawnpore, and the recent troubles in Kashmir, where I understand there was another massacre of a similar kind, and unless we relieve India of his presence it seems to me we shall never have an atmosphere created in that country in which we can provide them with a Constitution and a new form of government.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, it is with the same sense of responsibility that was expressed by the noble Lord who spoke from the Bench opposite, that I rise to deal with the Motion which has been brought forward by the noble Viscount who opened this discussion. I do not want to say anything which can make the problems which confront our officers and administrators in India more difficult, nor do I want to say anything which could imperil in any way the proceedings of the Indian Round Table Conference. I should like to confirm everything that the noble Lord opposite has said about the proceedings of the Round Table Conference, and I venture to express the view that if some of the noble Lords who have spoken tonight had sat, as I have sat, for week after week, at that table, and listened to the speeches from the Indian side, from all parties in India, including Mahatma Gandhi himself, as well as from the British benches, they would not have uttered some of the sentiments which have fallen from their mouths to-night. I have never felt more impressed with the sincerity and earnestness of a body of men approaching a problem of unexampled difficulty—a problem which can only be solved by a resolute facing of the facts, by a frank statement of points of view, and by a readiness, on the basis

145
of the facts, to compromise not on essentials but on matters of less relative importance.
The noble Viscount who introduced this Motion asked me a number of direct questions, one of which concerned the attitude of His Majesty's Government to the question of the Army in India. If he will allow me to say so, he travelled in his speech rather widely from the terms of the Motion which he put down and which I understood I was to deal with. The only answer I can make to that specific question is that it is not possible to give any reply to it until the Government is in a position to make up its own mind as a result of the proceedings of the Round Table Conference, which decision and which policy it will announce to Parliament in due course, when presumably an opportunity for discussing it will be given. It is not possible for me to anticipate in any way the final conclusions which the Government may reach on the vitally important matters which at the moment are under discussion.
I therefore turn to the specific matter which is the subject of this Motion. There also I feel a great sense of responsibility. The list of outrages which the noble Viscount has given is a terribly heavy one and I endorse to the full his description of the gravity of the situation which has arisen as the result of the terrorist menace. I can assure your Lordships that that situation is engaging, as it must engage, the most earnest attention of the Government of India and of the Secretary of State. How serious the position has become may be seen not only from the very considerable list of out rages which was given to your Lordships by the noble Viscount but also by further statistics which I am in a position to give you to-night, statistics of terrorist offences which include murders, attempted murders and other similar offences including the illegal possession of arms and ammunition.
In Bengal the figure for 1929 was 8, for 1930 34, and for 1931, up to the end of August, 51. In the Punjab the corresponding figures are 3 for 1929, 17 for 1930 and 9 for 1931. In the United Provinces the figures are 3 in the first year, 4 in the second, and 25 in the present year. The totals exceed 150 for the three years. In Bengal alone since last December three
146
British officers and two Indian police inspectors have been murdered and attempts have been made on the lives of five other Europeans, including the most recent attempts to murder Mr. Villiers, President of the European Association, and Mr. Durno, the Dacca Magistrate, who fortunately was not killed as the noble Lord thought. In the Punjab there was the attempt to murder Sir Geoffrey de Montmorency, the Governor, when leaving the convocation of the Lahore University in December last, and in Bombay the attempt on Sir Ernest Hotson, the acting Governor, at the Fergusson College, Poona, in July of last year. In most of these cases the culprit, I am glad to say, has been arrested and sentenced by the Courts. These are very formidable facts.
It is the primary duty of any civilised Government to take the most resolute action against terrorism of the kind described. It is its duty to protect the lives of its own servants and of the public against terrorism and murder. It is no less its duty to make it impossible for any group of men to deflect the course of orderly government or of political progress by bringing, not reason and argument and constitutional methods, for which the amplest opportunities now exist in India, but terrorism and assassination to bear. It is the view of the Provincial Governments concerned, of the Government of India, and of the Secretary of State that drastic action must be taken to end this menace to individual liberty and social peace.
There is yet another reason why drastic action is necessary to-day. At this moment free discussions are taking place between representatives of all sections of Indian political opinion and representatives of both Houses of Parliament as to the future developments of responsible government in India on constitutional lines. The tolerance of terrorism is the negation not only of individual liberty but of constitutional government itself. Self-government, in the constitutional sense, can only develop when there is government. As experience in many countries in recent years has shown, real self-government is impossible where anarchy or terrorism has been allowed to thrust constitutional government aside. It is precisely because I want to see responsible self-

147
government extended in India and because we are actively engaged in considering with our Indian colleagues at the Round Table Conference how that can best be done, that I am convinced that, in the highest interests of Indian freedom and constitutional advance, the resolute suppression of terrorism is imperatively necessary to-day.
Before proceeding to describe the action which has been taken, may I take this occasion to pay a tribute to the splendid services rendered by the police in India in dealing with this terrorist problem. From its very nature their work is both difficult and arduous and in carrying it out the police are in some places exposed to almost daily danger of their lives; while the arrest of an armed revolutionary is a task that demands courage of the highest order. It is also their duty to unearth and discover many other serious plots, the successful carrying out of which would have added considerably to the already heavy list of casualties. Their task of preventing these outrages is, however, becoming more and more difficult. Formerly most of these outrages were committed by organised gangs. Latterly, however, several of the crimes have been committed by young students who have been stimulated to murder either by older revolutionaries who themselves remain in the background or by the incessant incitements of the revolutionary Press. The sudden actions of obscure students in these circumstances are something that no amount of vigilance on the part of the police can forestall.
The noble Lord who spoke from the opposite Bench urged that, in dealing with crime of this kind, moral teaching was more important than repression. I do not dissent from the statement that the remedy for a great many of these evils is moral teaching and constitutional action, but in a situation where the lives of both British and Indian officials are in daily danger it is not possible to rely upon the moral pressure alone. The actual protection of the individual against menaces, which are known to be being organised against him, is and must be one of the primary functions of Government.
The measures taken by the authorities in India to assist the police to deal with this situation are these. In the first
148
place, action has been taken against incitements to violence by the Press. Since the initiation of the civil disobedience movement at the beginning of last year, the tone of the vernacular Press, particularly in Bengal, has suffered a notable deterioration and during the summer of this year it poured out daily a spate of writing which, in effect, has been a steady incitement of its readers to crimes of violence. In some cases this inflammatory propaganda took the form of open and undisguised incitements to murder, in others the incitement was more insidious. Terrorists such as Bhagat Singh, who threw the bomb in the Indian Legislative Assembly, and who later was condemned to death for the murder of Mr. Saunders, a police officer, were extolled as national heroes who had sacrificed their lives for their country, and it was stated to be the duty of a good patriot to follow their example. There can be no doubt as to the potent influence exerted by the dissemination of inflammatory teachings of this kind, and, if evidence were needed, it could be found in the admission of several of those on trial, who have confessed that their initiation in a career of crime dates from the time when they took to reading this kind of revolutionary literature.
It was essential that action should be taken to check this evil, and in September a Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly and passed into law. This Act, which applies to the whole of India, enables security to be demanded from the keeper of any printing press or newspaper, and provides for the forfeit of that security or, in default of the security, the printing press itself, and of copies of the offending newspaper, if thereafter anything is published by the printing press or newspaper which contains direct or indirect incitement to murder or violence. Prosecutions have recently been instituted under this Act, and prosecutions will continue until the incitement to violence ceases. Equally mischievous, of course, are speeches which eulogise murder, and when such speeches contain definite incitements to violence they are dealt with under the ordinary law.
I turn now to the Province of Bengal which, as your Lordships are aware, has

149
a long record of revolutionary crime, and still remains to-day the headquarters of the cult of terrorism. Between the years 1922 and 1925 an outbreak of violent crimes on a widespread scale necessitated the enactment of special measures to deal with the terrorist movement. With the approval of His Majesty's Government an Ordinance was promulgated by the Viceroy, which was subsequently followed by legislation, known as the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, which came into force in 1925. This Act contained two main provisions. First, it enabled the Local Government to set up Courts of Special Commissioners to try terrorist offenders without a jury, and with an abbreviated procedure which did away with the necessity for committal proceedings. Secondly, it provided for the arrest and detention, without trial, of persons who, there were reasonable grounds for believing, had committed, or were about to commit, terrorist offences, although definite evidence against them was either insufficient or not producible in Court. These two provisions were designed to meet the twofold difficulty experienced in dealing with terrorist cases—namely, the impossibility of securing a conviction by a jury owing to fear of reprisals and the increasing difficulty of securing witnesses (approvers bad, for instance, in several eases been murdered after having given evidence) which made it impossible to prove the cases in open Court.
This Act was in force for five years, and, by making possible the arrest of most of the leading terrorists, succeeded in improving the situation. By 1928 it had been considered possible to release most of the détenus, and when the Act expired in 1930 and the question of its extension was considered, it was decided that the power of detention without trial might be dispensed with and only the special trial procedure continued. Unfortunately the hope that the terrorist movement was dead and that the special measures could be dispensed with was not justified. It is significant that a few days after the expiry of that Act there occurred the Chittagong Armoury raid in which two Europeans and five Indians were killed. The occurrence of this raid made necessary the immediate resumption of the powers under the Ben-
150
gal Criminal Law Amendment, Act, which had been allowed to lapse. That these powers have subsequently been utilised will be seen from the fact that 621 persons have been arrested since their resumption, of whom 530 are still detained.
Before going on to discuss later developments in Bengal I should mention here the passing of legislation similar to the Bengal Act in two other Provinces. In the Punjab an Act was passed in November, 1930, which was extended also to the Delhi Province, providing for the setting up of special Courts to try terrorist offenders, with the same procedure as in Bengal; while in Burma an Act was passed early this year containing all the powers of the Bengal Act. This was made necessary by the fact that a number of the Bengali terrorists who had escaped arrest after the Chittagong raid had taken refuge in Burma, and they could not otherwise be dealt with. Eight arrests have been made under the Burma Act.
In Bengal during last summer, despite these measures, the commission of outrages had not been stopped. Although the action that has been taken by the local authorities undoubtedly hampered greatly the work of the terrorists, and prevented the perpetration of the schemes for outrages on an extensive scale, which the Government knew they had been planning, it had nevertheless failed, as the record of six murderous outrages in Bengal alone since towards the end of July abundantly shows. It had been unable to check the activities of small groups of dangerous revolutionaries, or to secure the reasonable safety of officers of Government, particularly those whose duty it is to undertake the arrest or trial of terrorists.
One of the difficulties of the police in making arrests under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act lay in the fact that before any person could be arrested reasonable evidence had to be produced before two Judges, sitting in camera, that he had committed, or was about to commit, a terrorist offence. Such evidence in regard to individuals was naturally not always forthcoming. The police might know that a group of terrorists was about to commit an outrage, and they might know the names of all the members of that group, but they

151
could not be sure of knowing the individuals of the group who were to be the actual perpetrators, and consequently they were powerless to make arrests. To remedy this difficulty, an Ordinance was promulgated by the Viceroy on October 29, which amended the wording of the Act in such a way as to enable the arrest of any person who is known to be a member of a, terrorist association, or is being instigated or controlled by a member of such an association. The Ordinance also added certain other offences under the Indian Penal Code to the Schedule of offences contained in the Act, in particular the offence of harbouring absconders from justice. This common practice of sheltering terrorist offenders has added considerably to the difficulties of the police. The effect of this Ordinance has been, as your Lordships will realise, to widen considerably the powers of the police, and a number of arrests have been, made already under these extended powers.
Your Lordships will also have been glad to see in this morning's newspapers that Sir John Anderson, at present Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, has been appointed to succeed Sir Stanley Jackson, whoso tenure of the difficult post of Governor of Bengal is drawing to a close. I need add nothing to the eloquent testimony that the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion has already paid to his eminent abilities and services. The task which will befall him will be an extremely difficult one. The situation at the present time is one of the greatest gravity. It is no exaggeration to say that in some districts of Bengal every officer of Government goes about his duty in deadly peril of his life. As I have already mentioned, two attempts at murder were made in the last week of October alone. On November 1 a meeting was held between the Government of Bengal and representatives of the Government of India to dis-
152
cuss the situation and the steps necessary to deal with it. I cannot yet give your Lordships the result of this Conference, but I can give you the assurance that the Government of India, acting in full accord with the Local Government, are determined to take all necessary measures to deal with the terrorist movement, to secure the lives of their officers, and to restore the respect for law and order which organised terrorism seeks to destroy. In these measures the authorities in India will have the complete support of His Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, with great respect, I desire to thank the noble Marquess for the statement he has just made in reply to my Question. If he will allow me to say so, his speech has been far more grave than my speech. I was only able to give your Lordships facts which were in the public eye culled from the public Press; but the noble Marquess has made a speech the gravity of which it would be impossible to exaggerate. In those circumstances I need hardly say that I would not offer one word that could possibly interfere with what the Government of India deems to be right in this matter. It is clear from the statement of the noble Marquess that certain events have taken place and certain measures have been passed. I gather from his statement that the Government of India, and also of course the Government of this country, are fully alive to the gravity of the facts which he has put before us. I do not wish to press the matter further at the present time. It may be that before the House rises for the Recess the noble Marquess will be able to give us further information, but I do not press for it at the moment. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past six o'clock.