Sitting of 20 December 1932

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
VIVISECTION.
Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to present a petition, signed by 5,684 persons during the year 1932. The petitioners, believing vivisection to be morally unjustifiable, scientifically useless and dangerous and demoralising to the community, earnestly pray this Honourable House to pass a Bill withdrawing the sanction of the law from the practice.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).
Resolved,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business as set out in the Schedule attached hereto be approved by this House:—

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).

  SCHEDULE.
  Standing Order 33, line 10, after "river," insert "or a Catchment Board having jurisdiction over the river."
  Line 10, after "Board," insert "or each such Board."
  Lines 15 and 16, leave out "an Ordnance Map," and insert "a map published, prepared, or approved by the Ordnance Survey."
  Standing Order 156, line 3, after "examined," insert "except where the parties shall have acquainted the Committee that it is not their intention to proceed with the Bill."
  Standing Order 157, that the Standing Order be repealed.
  After Standing Order 156, insert new Standing Order, as follows:
  "Where the Committee have agreed to the Preamble of the Bill, and have gone through the several Clauses, the Chairman of the Committee shall report the Bill to the House, and where any alteration shall have been made in the Preamble of the Bill, such alteration, together with the grounds of making it, shall be specially stated in the Report.
  Where the Committee have not agreed to the Preamble of the Bill, or where the parties shall have acquainted the Committee that it is not their intention to proceed with the Bill, the Chairman shall
  884
  make a Report to the House to that effect."
  Standing Order 232, line 4, leave out from "Bill," to end, and add "and where any Bill does not contain the several provisions required by the Standing Orders or contains any provisions which contravene Standing Orders, the Chairman of Ways and Means shall, before the consideration of the Bill takes place, so inform the House or signify the same in writing to Mr. Speaker."
  Standing Order 233, line 2, after "offered," insert "by the Promoters."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHESTER AND LANCASTER) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the counties of Chester and Lancaster," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (ETON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Eton Joint Hospital District," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL TRAINING CAMPS.
    Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the instructions issued on 9th November, 1932, by the War Office, in their circular letter concerning Territorial training camps in 1933 to all commands and Territorial Army associations, to the effect that Territorial commanding officers should influence men to remain with the colours until an authoritative statement regarding these camps can be made, may be taken as authority for deferring the re-engagement of men whose service would otherwise expire before the promulgation of such authoritative statement?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir. When a man's engagement runs out, he must make up his mind either to take his discharge or to apply to re-engage. The intention of the letter in question is that men who are contemplating taking their discharge should be encouraged to delay their decision until the last possible moment pending an announcement on the subject of next year's camps.
    Captain RAMSAY: In view of the fact that this delay is causing loss of valuable men and widespread anxiety among many of the associations, can the hon. Gentleman hurry on this important announcement, in order to minimise the loss?
    Mr. COOPER: I will do all in my power in that direction, but my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it is impossible to make any final statement until our Estimates have been passed.

    REMOUNTS.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how the number of Army remounts purchased from Northern Ireland during the past three months compares with the number purchased in the similar period in 1931; whether any of the remounts so purchased during the current year are of Irish Free State origin; and whether it is intended to continue to obtain so large a proportion of Army remounts outside Great Britain?
    Mr. COOPER: The number of remounts purchased in Northern Ireland during the three months September to November of the present year was 90, and during the same period last year was 87. I have no information as to whether any of these horses were of Irish Free State origin. The policy of purchasing as many horses as possible within the United Kingdom is being continued.

  SCOTLAND.

    BLIND PERSONS PENSIONS.
    Miss HORSBRUGHasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons in Scotland from whom the pension under the Blind Persons Act has been withdrawn during the years 1930, 1931, and until the latest convenient date in 1932?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I regret. that I am unable to give the information asked for. Under Section 8 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, as applied by the Blind Persons Act, 1920, claims for these pensions are dealt with by the local pension committees after inquiry and report by the local pension officers, and the function of the Department of Health is confined to determining appeals against the award, refusal or withdrawal of pensions. I may add that so far as the Department know almost every case of withdrawal of pension has been followed by an appeal. The numbers of appeals against withdrawals in the years 1930, 1931 and 1932 (up to date) are, respectively, 39, 31, and 40.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Is there any reason to believe that the procedure this year has been any different from that of other years?
    Mr. SKELTON: No, I do not think there is any reason to believe that. In 1931 a circular was issued by the Department of Health, in conjunction with the Scottish Education Department, standardising the features that amount to blindness. That was done not merely for the purposes of this Act, but wherever a certificate of blindness was required.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    MINE EKPLOSIONS (VENTILATING PLANT).
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary for Mines if, having regard to the large number of explosions in mines in recent times, he will insist on a wholesale renewal and extension of ventilating plant?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): In reply to a supplementary question on 13th December I stated the annual numbers of explosions and deaths from explosions since 1927. A study of these and of earlier figures adds emphasis to the imperative need for our utmost vigilance and effort in the application and improvement of preventive measures, but it does not justify the inference that ventilating plant is generally obsolete or inadequate.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the majority of accidents occur when the workmen do not know that they are actually working in the presence of inflammable gas?
    Mr. BROWN: That may be so, but my hon. Friend must also understand that ventilation is not just a matter of plant, it means many other things.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman's Department making a consistent study of this subject?
    Mr. BROWN: I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that nothing that can be done is left undone. Our attention is given to the subject regularly, daily.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to think that less attention has been paid to ventilation than formerly?
    Mr. BROWNNone whatever. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the statement on 13th December, he will see that the full facts given there do not warrant the inference in this question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that accumulations of fire damp can only occur when ventilation is stagnant?
    Mr. BROWN: That may be so, but the hon. Member must also understand that the regular maintenance of airways, the methods of carrying air to all parts of the mine, and the prevention of leakage all enter into the question, and often inadequate ventilation is due to omissions or bad practice in these respects rather than to lack of plant.
    Mr. BATEY: In view of the large number of explosions recently, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the time has come to call together the Government inspectors for a cunsultation on ventilation?
    Mr. BROWN: I will bear that point in mind.

    QUOTA SYSTEM (WEMYSS COAL COMPANY).
    Mr. ALBERT RUSSELLasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the Wemyss Coal Company will be compelled, owing to the restriction in output under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, to suspend production for several days prior to the end of the current quarter; that the company could have disposed of the coal which would have been produced during that period; and whether he is prepared, having regard to this and simi
    888
    lar cases, to introduce amending legislation to obviate the recurrence of such periods of enforced idleness and loss of work for undertakings engaged in the export trade?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I understand that the Wemyss Coal Company were granted an increased standard tonnage for the the current quarter by the Scottish Executive Board. The company were not satisfied, and appealed to arbitration, but were awarded no further increase. A complaint with regard to the inadequacy of its permitted output has been lodged by one of its customers with the Scottish District Committee of Investigation set up under Section 5 of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, and I must, therefore, regard the matter as sub judice. I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that at its meeting on the 14th December the Central Council granted in full the request of the Scottish Executive Board for an additional allocation of 150,000 tons for the current quarter.
    Mr. RUSSELL: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the recurrence of such circumstances as are disclosed in this question is entirely contrary to the national interest?
    Mr. BROWN: I cannot debate that now, but I would point out that export coal is a class of coal within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act and it is therefore open to the Scottish Executive Board of Coal Owners, under Clauses 28 and 33 of the scheme, to give separate quotas for export coal if the need arises.
    Mr. MARTIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Scotland is only one of many districts which have sent in such cases, or whether there have been other cases?
    Mr. BROWN: There are many assertions, but I get very few facts.
    Captain RAMSAY: Is it not a fact that it is almost impossible to differentiate between inland and export coal?
    Mr. BROWN: I do not agree with that statement. It is possible under the scheme, and quite simple.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the proposals for amalgamations in Fife have caused great anxiety in a neighbouring county?
    Mr. BROWN: That is another issue, but I may remind the Noble Lady that I am not the responsible authority there. The Commission is an independent body; it was so willed by this House.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    OTTAWA CONFERENCE (ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the committee which the Committee on Methods of Economic Co-operation at the Ottawa Conference recommended should be appointed has yet been set up; and, if not, whether he will take whatever steps lie in his power to expedite matters?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the DOMINIONS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have discussed this matter with the Prime Minister of Canada. I am glad to announce that the committee will be constituted very shortly.

    CANADIAN TARIFF BOARD.
    Mr. MABANEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has received any intimation as to when His Majesty's Government in Canada will appoint the tariff board, for which provision is made in Article 12 of the agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada in connection with the Ottawa Conference?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have discussed this matter with the Prime Minister of Canada, and I am glad to inform the House that I understand that the tariff board will be set up very shortly.
    Mr. MABANE: In view of the fact that on 20th August the Canadian Government undertook to constitute the tariff board forthwith, might it not be represented to the Canadian Government that four months is a somewhat liberal interpretation of the word "forthwith"?
    Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary, I would very much deplore a hastily conceived tariff board, such as would not give general satisfaction in Canada and in this country. The delay has been justified—according to my knowledge of the board as constituted.
    Mr. COCKS: Was not the Ottawa Agreement itself hastily conceived?
    Mr. BERNAYS(for Mr. PICKERING) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will, during the visit to this country of the Prime Minister of Canada, confer with him with a view to giving British manufacturers the right of direct approach to the Canadian Tariff Board to check the use made of preference granted to Canada by American manufacturers to import their products into this country, and to altering the present conditions that make it easier to export British goods to the United States of America than to Canada?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): On the first and third points I would refer the hon. Member to Articles 10 to 15 of the recent Trade Agreement with Canada. As regards the second point, the conditions under which manufactured goods consigned to the United Kingdom from a part of the Empire may obtain free entry or a preferential rate of duty are at present under consideration.
    Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he and the Prime Minister of Canada understand the same thing by Articles 10 to 15?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certainly.
    Mr. MAXTON: There was some doubt last week.

    AUSTRALIA (WOOL TRADE).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any understanding was arrived at between the British and Australian Governments over the question of sheep-shearing machinery at the Ottawa Conference?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No, Sir.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has yet received any information from the Australian Government as a result of his representations over the State manufacture of sheep-shearing machinery; whether he will state the amount of duty now imposed on imports from Britain of this machinery; and whether it has been increased or otherwise during the last 12 months?
    Mr. THOMAS: I understand that combs, cutters and duplicates for sheep-shearing machinery are at present being manufactured at the Government Small

    891
    Arms Factory at Lithgow, which at present supplies about one-fifth of the local demand. As regards the second and third parts of this question, hand-pieces under the British preferential tariff are admitted free of Customs duty. The duty under the British preferential tariff on most other parts of the machinery was reduced on the 2nd September from 55 per cent. ad valorem to 45 per cent. ad valorem, where it now stands.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will inquire of the Australian Commonwealth Government as to their intentions regarding the establishment of Governmental control of the wool trade, in order to assist the manufacturers of this country to prepare their plans for trade in wool with the Dominions?
    Mr. THOMAS: This matter is, I understand, under consideration by the Commonwealth Government in consultation with the interests concerned. His Majesty's Senior Trade Commissioner in Australia is being asked to report any developments that may arise.
    Mr. PERKINS: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that this comparatively recent action by the Australian Government is in direct opposition to the whole spirit of the Ottawa Agreement?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have already stated that the Senior Trade Commissioner is being instructed to report any developments and pending his report I have nothing to add.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the negotiations for effecting the new trading agreement with the Soviet Government; and whether the House may anticipate an announcement at an early date?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Negotiations have only just begun. I cannot say when I shall be in a position to make a statement on the matter.
    Mr. LIDDALL: In view of the fact that the House will rise on Thursday, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to inform the engineering firms of this
    892
    country, and especially the engineering firms of Lincoln, if an agreement is reached during the Recess?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot promise that an Agreement will be reached during the Recess, and, if I could, my hon. Friend's question is a hypothetical one to which I cannot give an answer.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very considerable anxiety, particularly among engineering employers, in regard to this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Oh, yes; not only among engineering employers, but among other people too.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very considerable anxiety is being felt by those who lost money in the Lena Goldfields?

    SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the President of the Board of Trade the approximate percentage of ships built in the United Kingdom and in other countries for the three years preceding the War and for the last three years for which figures are available?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    According to the returns published by Lloyd's Register of Shipping, of the total gross tonnage of merchant vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards launched in the world in the years shown, the following proportions were launched in Great Britain and Ireland and in other countries:

    Year.

    Great Britain and Ireland.

    Other Countries.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    1911

    …

    …

    68·1

    31·9

    1912

    …

    …

    59·9

    40·1

    1913

    …

    …

    58·0

    42·0

    1929

    …

    …

    54·5

    45·5

    1930

    …

    …

    51·2

    48·8

    1931

    …

    …

    31·1

    68·9

    AIRCRAFT AND ARMAMENTS (EXPORT LICENCES).
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give information as to the number of private firms engaged in the manufacture of military aircraft who have been granted licences for the supply of such aircraft to foreign Governments; and whether he is in a position to give the names of such foreign Governments?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A licence to export aircraft is required. only when the destination is Ethiopia and no such licence has been issued since 1st January, 1932. Exports to foreign Governments of armaments fitted to aircraft, however, require a licence, and licences have been issued to three firms of aircraft manufacturers since that date, the countries of destination being Brazil, China and Portugal.

    TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether any countries, now imposing exchange restrictions, have expressed a desire to discuss the question of tariff reductions; the names of any such countries; and whether he will undertake that no tariff or other concession will be granted by His Majesty's Government to those countries unless the exchange restrictions arc removed or so amended that they cease to inflict injury on British trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the following' countries, which have expressed a desire to enter into tariff negotiations with Great Britain, there is a greater or lesser degree of exchange control:
    Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Norway, Poland and Uruguay. In some cases however ordinary commercial transactions are not restricted.
    In negotiating with these countries His Majesty's Government will certainly not overlook the question of exchange restrictions in endeavouring to secure the best. possible terms for British trade.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is useless to sell goods unless we can be paid for them?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. That is rather a fundamental fact.

    CUSTOMS DUTIES.
    Sir V. HENDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the changes which have been made in the last 12 months in Customs duties, he will issue a White Paper on 1st January showing the then existing Customs duties, preferences, and articles on the Free List; and. issue a revised list every subsequent six months if subsequent Customs changes justify it?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): A publication showing the particulars referred to will be issued shortly by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. It is proposed to publish a revised list annually, as it is thought that more frequent revision is unnecessary. But any alterations which may be made in the interval will be published at the time, either in leaflets or notices.

    IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for alteration in the rate of duty have been made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which was given on the 15th December to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Caporn).
    Sir H. CROFTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many decisions by the Import Duties Advisory Committee have been announced to the industries concerned; and what length of time is taken in reaching a decision in each case;
    (2) whether he is aware that delay in dealing with applications submitted to the Import Duties Advisory Committee is causing discontent in the industries making the application; and if he is prepared to take steps to accelerate the present procedure?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In April last a comprehensive report was made by the Committee recommending the imposition of additional duties above the general

    895
    ad valorem rate on a wide range of commodities, including the great bulk of manufactured goods as well as some foodstuffs. In July a further omnibus report recommended additional duties upon an extensive range of horticultural products. Besides these reports, separate recommendations have been made for the variation of the duties on 42 items, and the Committee have announced that as a result of their inquiries they do not propose at present to make any recommendation in regard to 11 other items in respect of which applications had been advertised.
    I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that one of the declared objects of the committee in making their first general recommendations was to afford at once to industries generally a measure of protection which though not adjusted with nicety to all individual cases would be broadly effective. That this object has been achieved is, I think, evidenced by the fact that the imports of manufactured goods in the seven months from May to November have fallen by one-half as compared with those in the corresponding periods of the two preceding years.
    The committee indicated that they were ready to deal promptly with cases in which a variation of the general rate might prove to be a matter of special urgency. Adjudication upon other cases in which application is made from time to time for variation of duty, requiring as all such work does thorough examination and a careful weighing of considerations, can only be done gradually if it is to be done properly. This fact has, I think, been generally recognised by the industries concerned as well as by this House, and the figures which I have given indicate that substantial progress has already been made by the committee in their difficult task.
    Sir H. CROFT: Without in any way criticising the Advisory Committee, may I ask whether some of the industries which received the benefit of the 50 per cent. duty, with great advantage to themselves, did not find that there was a very great decline in their production when the duties were removed? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider if it is not desirable to use the utmost speed in
    896
    coming to a decision in regard to any possible revision of the duty?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the duties of 50 per cent. were put on for the special purpose of stopping forestalling. They were not intended to set the general level of duty. In regard to the second part, I agree that all speed should be, if possible, aimed at, but I think it must also be taken into account that this work requires very careful consideration.
    Mr. MANDER: Is not the Import Duties Advisory Committee wholly detached from any Government control or influence?
    Mr. CAPORN: Will it not be possible to appoint two additional commissioners so that, they can sit on sub-committees and deal with. important applications quickly and with the care that they are now showing?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the committee has considered whether it would be helpful to appoint further members and sub-divide, but up to the present they remain of the opinion that that would not really assist.

    IMPORTED SILK HOSIERY (CANADA).
    Mr. BERNAYS(for Mr. PICKERING) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantity and value of the imports of silk and art silk hosiery from Canada for the months of September, October and November; and what proportion of these imports is of American origin?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following table shows the total quantity and declared value of the undermentioned descriptions of hosiery imported into the United Kingdom and registered during the months of September, October and November, 1932, as consigned from Canada. I am unable to say what proportion of these goods may have been of United States origin, as imports into the United Kingdom are recorded according to the countries from which they are consigned and not according to countries of origin.

    Description.

    September, 1932.

    October 1932.

    November, 1932.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    Quantity

    Declared Value

    Hosiery (knitted, netted or crocheted goods).

    Doz. pairs.

    £

    Doz. pairs.

    £

    Doz. pairs.

    £

    Stockings and Hose:

    Of silk or of which the chief value is silk.

    980

    1,983

    4,718

    8,081

    2,463

    4,699

    Of artificial silk or of which the chief value is artificial silk.

    3

    6

    1

    3

    —

    —

    Underwear:

    Dozens.

    Dozens.

    Dozens.

    Of silk or of which the chief value is silk.

    71

    146

    —

    —

    —

    —

    NOTE.—No imports were registered as consigned from Canada during the above mouths in respect of (1) underwear of artificial silk or of which the chief value is artificial silk, or (2) fancy hosiery of textile materials other than cotton or wool.

  EDUCATION (CIRCULAR 1421).
  Mr. TINKERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state the number of written protests he has had against the putting into operation of Circular 1421; and is it his intention to modify it?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Board have received about 1,600 protests against the putting into operation of Circular 1421. As has already been announced in Circular 1424, they have decided that no necessity has been shown for modification of the terms of the earlier Circular. The Board are of opinion that the criticisms which they have received indicate in general a failure to appreciate that the terms of the Circular leave the Board ample discretion for considering the proposals of particular authorities in the light of local conditions.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the Board of Education, whatever elasticity they may permit, insist upon the £400,000?
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Can the Parliamentary Secretary state how many protests have been received from Welsh education authorities and other public bodies in Wales?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I cannot give particular information in regard to Wales, but I can inform the hon. Member that the protests from local education authorities and school governors have been comparatively few. The great majority of
  898
  the protests have come from branches of the Labour party, the Workers' Educational Association and its branches, the Trades and Labour Councils and Employés Associations, and from Women's Co-operative Guilds.
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Has any protest come from the University of Wales or from any body representing all the educational authorities in the Principality?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I cannot answer that question without notice.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can the Minister say how many of the people who made protests have taken the trouble to read the Circular?

  UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).
  Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Lancashire County Council have issued instructions to local public assistance committees that they must regard applicants for transitional payments who have left home and gone into lodgings to be considered as if they were still living at home; and will he give the matter his consideration with a view to the issue of a general instruction?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am aware that action of this kind has been taken where it appeared that young single persons had

  899
  left home and gone into lodgings merely in order to enable a claim for transitional payments to be supported. My right hon. Friend is advised that this is a proper exercise of the authority's powers.
  Mr. MAXTON: Can the Minister tell us how the Department established the fact that a young man has left home purely to escape this regulation?

  CATERING TRADE (WAITRESSES' HOURS).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of. Labour whether he is aware of the long hours of labour of adult waitresses in some catering establishments in this country for low wages on certain days from 9 a.m. until nearly midnight, with short intervals for meals; and if he will take steps to improve the conditions of this class of female labour?
  Mr. R. S. HUDSON: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, very careful consideration has been given to this matter, and I can only refer him to the answer given by my right lion. Friend to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on the 11th February last, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. DAVIES: In view of the worsening of the condition of these people, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider this problem once again in order to try and do something to prevent this exploitation?
  Mr. HUDSON:I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider any further information that the hon. Member is in a position to give him.
  Mr. DAVIES: Will the Department consider the setting up of a Trade Board for this industry?
  Mr. HUDSON: No.
  Colonel GOODMAN: Is the Minister aware that there are many thousands of juveniles who are working much longer hours, and will he give his consideration to legislation for them?

  OVERTIME.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that regular
  900
  overtime is being worked in factories at the present time; what complaints of this have been brought to his notice; and whether he will take steps to discourage the practice?
  Mr. HUDSON: The Department's information as to overtime working, which relates only to a few industries, is summarised each month in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. It does not show how far the overtime working can be described as regular. No complaints with regard to widespread working of overtime in factories have been brought to my notice. As regards the last part of the question, it will be generally agreed, I think, that overtime should be avoided wherever possible, but as the hon. Member will appreciate, the circumstances of each case must be taken into account.
  Mr. MANDER: Is the Minister prepared to investigate any case to which I may call his attention?
  Mr. HUDSON: I am always very glad to receive any information that the hon. Member has at his disposal.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain districts of Wolverhampton are doing very well out of these tariffs?

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD AND RAIL INQUIRY (RECOMMENDA TION).
    Mr. LEVYasked the Minister of Transport if he can now state whether the Government propose to carry out the proposals of the Salter Committee wholly or in part?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 19th December to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce), of which I am sending him a copy.

    ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport what steps are taken to enforce the conditions laid down by traffic commissioners on road service licences under Section 72 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930; and whether the commissioners inform the police of the conditions imposed by them upon road service licences?
    Mr. PYBUS: In this matter the commissioners proceed both under their own powers and in collaboration with the police, either by way of a warning or by prosecution or by suspension or revocation of the licence as may appear most suitable. Particulars of services authorised in their area are notified to the police, as required by Section 72 of the Act.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Am I to understand that it is the duty of the police to enforce these Orders?

    CREOSOTE OIL.
    Mr. LOGAN(for Mr. THORNE) asked the Minister of Transport if he has any information as to the number of omnibuses or other vehicles driven on creosote oil, and as to the selling price of this commodity and the approximate running cost for fuel per 100 miles?
    Mr. PYBUS: The use of creosote oil as a propellant for motor vehicles is in an experimental stage and the number of vehicles using it is small. The experiments are being watched, but I am not in a position to give the figures as to cost and consumption for which the hon. Member asks.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (GAS ENGINES).
    Mr. LOGAN(for Mr. THORNE) asked the Minister of Transport if he has any information as to the number of motor vehicles fitted with gas engines, and as to the running cost on this fuel per 100 miles?
    Mr. PYBUS: I am watching with interest the experiments which are now being carried out in the use of coal gas instead of petrol in heavy motor vehicles, but it is not possible for me to give the figures for which the hon. Member asks.

  MURDER TRIALS (EVIDENCE).
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue a circular to all police authorities drawing their attention to the remarks of Mr. Justice Humphries, at the recent Birmingham assizes, in reference to the police furnishing witnesses for the prosecution in cases of wilful murder with copies of statements which they have made?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I have asked for a full report on this incident, and will consider in due course what action, if any, it may be desirable to take.

  COURTS OF SUMMARY JURISDIC- TION (APPEALS).
  Mr. LYONSasked the Home Secretary if he will indicate the sources from which evidence has been invited or received by the committee considering the matter of appeals from courts of summary jurisdiction?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The question of the sources from which evidence is being invited or received by the committee is, like other questions of procedure, a matter for the committee.
  Mr. LYONS: May I ask how those parties who have valuable information to give can give it to the proper quarter? Would it not be advisable to issue a statement that the committee are open to receive information on this very important subject?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: If my hon. Friend knows of any body or responsible person who desires to give evidence, he might communicate with the secretary of the committee.
  Mr. LYONS: Have the committee considered any recommendations at all up to date?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. The committee, I understand, have not yet met, but they have collected a large number of documents from responsible people, which they will consider, and they are meeting shortly.

  SPECIAL CONSTABLES (POLICE BOOKS).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Home Secretary for what reason special constables in London are given access to confidential books which are not open to inspection by the lower ranks of the police service?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The Commissioner of Police has inquired, but cannot find that any members of the special constabulary are given access to books which would not be open to the lower ranks of the regular police service. He informs

  903
  me that special constables below the rank of Sub-Inspector are not usually given access to any Police books at all.
  Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an ordinary policeman must be in the Force a good many years before he is allowed to see these confidential books; and why should the opportunity be given to special constables, immediately upon their entering the Force, to see them?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have said, in answer to the question, that my information is that no one in the special constabulary is given access to books which would not be open to the lower ranks of the regular police force.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  Mr. LYONSasked the Home Secretary whether the report of the consultative committee upon cinematograph exhibitions, when received, will be made public?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Any recommendations made by the committee will probably be embodied in a circular letter to the licensing authorities of cinemas, and will, consequently, receive publicity.
  Mr. LYONS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to receive the recommendations?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Not without notice.

  ROYAL NAVY (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps are being taken to promote the consumption in the Navy of meat, fruit and vegetables sold under the National Mark Scheme?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The meat ordinarily used in the Navy is frozen meat of Dominion origin. It is only at a few outlying ports and at hospitals that fresh meat is bought, and these places are not in the vicinity of the centres at which the National Mark Scheme is in force. The descriptions of fruit and vegetables included in the National Mark Scheme are normally obtained by His Majesty's ships through
  904
  the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute's Canteens. The policy of that corporation is to buy Empire produce, including National Mark articles, where-ever possible. Only small quantities of canned fruits are purchased by the Admiralty, and in all such cases National Mark canners are invited to tender.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Home Secretary if he has any information as to the number of building societies registered during the past 12 months; the amount of capital in each case; and the number of directors who are associated with the building industry?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed by the Registrar of Friendly Societies that 12 building societies have been registered in Great Britain during the last 12 months, but that he has not the information asked for in the remaining parts of the question.

  DISARMAMENT.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now announce any decision relative to the holding of another meeting of the Five Powers who recently conferred on the work of the Disarmament Conference; where the meeting will be held; and what will be its object?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): As I informed by hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) yesterday, no decision has yet been taken on this subject.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now state whether it has been decided to hold a meeting of the principal naval Powers to discuss disarmament in accordance with the resolution passed by the Disarmament Conference last July?
  Mr. EDEN: The resolution in question invited the Powers parties to the Washington and London Naval Treaties "to confer together and to report to the General Commission." Conversations have been taking place between representatives of those Powers in accordance with the terms of the resolu-

  905
  tion, and, in particular, further efforts have recently been made by the British and American Delegations with a view to discover a solution of outstanding difficulties which would be acceptable to France, Italy and ourselves. These conversations will continue when the Conference reassembles, but there is no question at present of holding a meeting at which all these Powers will be represented.
  Mr. MANDER: In view of the very long passage of time since last July, cannot the hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of progress being made in the near future?
  Mr. EDEN: The resolution of last July was not in reference to a meeting, but asked that the parties should confer together. They have been doing that, and they are doing so.

  MANCHURIA.
  Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the difficulty felt by the United States of America Government in accepting the invitation recently proposed in the Assembly of the League by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to consult with the Assembly Committee of Nineteen as to methods for a solution of the Sino-Japanese conflict unless the basis for the proposed consultation is first defined by an Assembly resolution stating that no member of the League will recognise Manchukuo, and in view of the importance of securing American cooperation, as well as in view of the Assembly resolution of 11th March and of the terms of the report of the League commission of inquiry, the Government will press at Geneva for an Assembly resolution pledging the members of the League not to recognise Manchukuo?
  Mr. EDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) yesterday.
  Mr. COCKS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any communication on the subject has been received from the American Government?
  Mr. EDEN: Not without notice.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    MILK (PASTEURISATION).
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Minister of Health how many municipalities possess the power at the present time to compel the pasteurisation of all milk other than certified milk brought into their area?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is not aware that any municipality in England or Wales possesses this power at present.
    Mr. CHRISTIEasked the Minister of Health if he has information showing what proportion of the London milk supply is pasteurised before distribution to the consumer?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend cannot give any precise figure, but it is generally estimated that something over 90 per cent. of the milk supply of London is treated by heat before distribution to the consumer. He is unable to say how much of this milk is pasteurised in accordance with the method prescribed in the Milk (Special Designations) Order, 1923,
    Mr. GLOSSOP: Is is not a fact that, simultaneously with the increase in the consumption of pasteurised milk in London, there has been an increase in the amount of dental decay among children?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I should require notice of that question.

    BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (CHILDREN).
    Mr. CHRISTIEasked the Minister of Health how many children died in London during 1931 from bovine tuberculosis; and how many died from the same disease in the country as a whole during the same period?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is advised that there is no information available on which to base any reliable estimate of these numbers. My hon. Friend will, however, find some information on this subject in the Memorandum on Bovine Tuberculosis in Man, which was issued last year by my Department, and of which I am sending him a copy.

  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Health whether he will furnish figures of the cost of building materials in each of the three years ended July, 1932?

  STATEMENT OF PRICES, as shown in a leading technical Journal, of certain Building Materials on the 25th July, 1930, 31st July, 1931, and 29th July, 1932.

  Material.

  Description.

  Unit.

  Prices for—

  25th July,1930.

  31st July, 1931.

  29th July, 1932.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Bricks

  Best Stock

  1,000

  4

  3

  6

  4

  3

  6

  4

  3

  6

  Flettons

  1,000

  2

  12

  3

  2

  11

  3

  2

  11

  3

  Cement

  Portland

  Ton

  2

  6

  0

  2

  6

  0

  2

  6

  0

  to

  to

  to

  2

  8

  0

  2

  8

  0

  2

  8

  0

  Lime

  Grey stone

  Ton

  2

  10

  9

  2

  10

  9

  2

  10

  9

  Timber

  Good Building Deal, 2½" X 7".

  Standard

  21

  0

  0

  19

  0

  0

  18

  0

  0

  Flooring, 1" plain edge.

  Square

  1

  4

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Slates

  20" x 10"

  1,000 actual

  20

  17

  6

  20

  17

  6

  20

  2

  6

  Tiles

  Best machine-made Broseley.

  1,000

  5

  2

  6

  5

  2

  6

  4

  10

  0

  Lead

  Sheet

  Ton

  27

  0

  0

  21

  10

  0

  19

  0

  0

  White Lead Paint

  Best brands

  Ton

  70

  10

  0

  62

  0

  0

  63

  0

  0

  Glass

  15 oz. sheet, fourths

  Per ft.

  0

  0

  2¾

  0

  0

  2½

  0

  0

  2¾

  EASTERN CADETSHIPS (RECRUITMENT).
  Mr. HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the abolition of competitive examination for the Government service in the Federated Malay States is now under consideration; and what are the reasons for this change of policy?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer is rather long, but, in view of the importance of the subject, perhaps the House would wish me to read it.
  I decided, at the beginning of this year, that recruitment for the Cadet Services of Malaya and Hong Kong, which had formerly been by the method of competitive examination, should in future be carried out by means of the selection system which already applied to the great bulk of the appointments in the Colonial Service for which I was responsible. It is impossible to discuss fully the reasons for this decision within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but they were set out in a despatch to the Governor of the
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Since the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the statement:
  Straits Settlements, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.
  The main points may be summarised as follow:—

  1. The existence of a separate method of recruitment for a relatively small section of the Colonial Service was anomalous, especially in view of the policy of unification of the Service,which is now being developed.

  2. The selection system, as operated by the Appointments Department of the Colonial Office, has been established, after authoritative investigation, as that most suited to meet the particular requirements of the Colonial Service as a whole.

  3. I felt no hesitation in concluding, in these circumstances, that the change in the method of recruitment for the Eastern Cadetships was not only logical, but was in the best interests of the Dependencies immediately concerned and of the Colonial Service generally.

  Mr. HICKS: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us who are the selectors?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question; I cannot carry the whole of the names of the selection board in my head. If the hon. Member will put down a question for written answer, I will give him the names.
  Mr. HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Federated Malay States are opposed to this scheme?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, not a bit. I have had some Criticism from one or two officers in the Federated Malay States, but I have had, from a large number of officers and from unofficial opinion generally, the most complete and whole-hearted endorsement of what I have done.

  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS AND FEDERATED MALAY STATES.
  Mr. HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reasons for the delay in putting into force the Workmen's Compensation Act which was recently passed in the Legislatures of the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States; and when the necessary administrative orders will be passed?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It was considered desirable and convenient that similar legislation should be enforced concurrently in the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States. I am not

  The Salary and Fees of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General in the half-years ended 31st March, 1932 and 30th September, 1932, were as follow:—

  —

  Salary.

  Fees.

  Total.

  Attorney-General.

  £

  £

  £

  Half-year to 31st March, 1932:—

  Sir W. Jowitt (to 24th January, 1932)

  …

  632

  5,817

  6,449

  Sir T. Inskip (from 28th January, 1932)

  …

  352

  2,766

  3,118

  Half-year to 30th September, 1932:—

  Sir T. Inskip

  …

  1,000

  4,060

  5,060

  Solicitor-General.

  Half-year to 31st March, 1932:—

  Sir T. Inskip (to 27th January, 1932)

  …

  648

  1,380

  2,028

  Sir P. B. Merriman (from 28th January, 1932)

  …

  352

  1,047

  1,399

  Half-year to 30th September, 1932:—

  Sir F. B. Merriman

  …

  1,000

  1,985

  2,985

  The salaries drawn have been voluntarily reduced to £2,000 from £7,000 and £6,000 respectively; and in each case the figure for fees includes fees payable to the Law Officer's Clerk as well as those payable to the Law Officer himself.

  sure of the precise position in regard to these measures; and I am communicating with the Governor and High Commissioner in the matter.

  IRISH FREE STATE.
  Sir JOHN GANZONI(for Mr. BOULTON) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is in a position to make any further statement with regard to the relations of this country with the Irish Free State?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No, Sir, but the Debate on the Supplementary Estimate later to-day will afford a full opportunity for reviewing the position.

  LAW OFFICERS (REMUNERATION).
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what amounts have been drawn in the half-year ended 31st March, 1932, and in the half-year ended 30th September, 1932, as salary and fees by Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Solicitor-General respectively?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): As the answer contains a number of figures, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:

  KENYA (NATIVE LAND TRUST ORDINANCE).
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Bill has been introduced into the Legislative Council of Kenya and has been set down for Second Reading on Wednesday, 21st December, whereby it is proposed to amend the Native Land Trust Ordinance, so that, (1) land leased for mineral development may be temporarily excluded from a Native Reserve without the provision of an equivalent area of land in exchange, and (2) the requirement of notice to the local native council concerned is repealed; whether these proposals are made with the approval of the Secretary of State, and whether the question of amendment of the existing Land Trust Ordinance has been considered by the Morris Carter Commission?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the hon. Member will recall, the Kenya Native Lands Trust Ordinance deals only with surface rights. The amending Bill to which he refers has been introduced with my approval as an interim Measure to deal with immediate practical difficulties which might operate to retard the development of valuable minerals, the property in which is vested in the Crown. The amendments proposed to the principal Ordinance are two. The first provides that land may be temporarily excluded from a Reserve for mining leases, and that compensation for such temporary exclusions may be paid in money instead of in the form of an addition of land. Under the second amendment it will not be necessary for the Central Lands Trust Board to bring a proposed temporary exclusion to the notice of the local native council or the natives concerned; but each particular exclusion will have to be considered by the local board, on which the natives of the location or section concerned must be represented. Moreover, the chief native commissioner has already circulated to natives in the province a memorandum explaining in clear and simple language the process of prospecting licences and mining leases and how the interests of the natives will be safeguarded; and the Governor has himself met the natives and explained matters to them. I think it will be agreed that no more effective measures could have been taken to bring
  912
  the whole policy to the notice of the natives concerned.
  The provisions of the Bill have been agreed to both by the Morris Carter Commission and by the Central Lands Trust Board and I am satisfied that the arrangements for compensation and consultation provide ample safeguards for the interests of the native occupants of the areas in question.
  Mr. LUNN: What was the opinion expressed by the natives when the Governor met them? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Ordinance, which is only two years old, which scheduled the land as between the natives and the settlers was regarded as the natives' Magna Charta, and is he going to allow it to be violated, as they feel it is being violated, by this concession which is being given because there happens to be gold in the area?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I must say I think the hon. Gentleman has completely misconceived the purpose of the Ordinance and the opinion of the natives. After all, the Ordinance was made for the natives and not the natives for the Ordinance. What has happened is this. Valuable gold has been discovered on this tract of land, which is a part of the great native reserve. That gold is vested in the Crown. It is going to be worked. It is in the interest of everyone, and not least of the natives, that it should be worked, and I should be guilty of the greatest dereliction of duty if on a technical point I held up a development which is primarily in the interests of the natives?
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the gold to be mined on behalf and in the interest of the natives?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: All minerals belong to the Crown. Therefore, it will be for the Crown to grant the leases, and to secure in such leases proper terms of remuneration for the Crown, as any other landlord would.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman knows how suspicious natives are on the question of their land and how much they pin their faith to the Ordinance. Has he done, or can he do anything to get native approval of the change that has been made, and an understanding of the fact that it is not an infringement of their Magna Charta?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I said in my answer that the Governor has explained to them personally—the best way to make them understand is to go among them and talk to them—and that the Governor has done and the Chief Native Commissioner has issued a memorandum which is really simplicity itself—I never saw a better document—setting out the whole position. That will be issued to them in their own language, and those who can read are invited to communicate the substance of it to the old men who cannot read. I am quite certain that nothing more could be done by the Government, not only to let the natives know, but to safeguard their interests.
  Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say how much land is to be taken from the natives, and whether or not an equivalent amount of land of equal value, or compensation, will be given to them?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of course, nobody can tell when a goldfield has just been discovered how much land will be taken. Certainly, wherever land is available, the natives will be settled on other land. If there should be cases where it is not possible to find land for them, they will get full compensation, and the compensation will be at least as good as would be paid to any white settler if his land were taken.
  Sir H. CROFT: In view of the distress among the natives in East Africa owing to the drop in prices of the commodities of white settlers, will my right hon. Friend do nothing to prevent this great boon to the natives which undoubtedly will come and which is eagerly sought after?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has put that question. No one is going to benefit more than the native, who will get compensation to start with for any land which is taken. It will be very adequate compensation, and probably a combination of land and money. He will be employed at remunerative rates of wages if this is developed, and he will find an admirable market for produce which is selling at knock-out prices to-day.
  Mr. LANSBURY: In order that the House and the people of this country may
  914
  have an opportunity of reading it, will the right hon. Gentleman print the Bill which has been introduced, and also the statement which he tells us the Chief Native Commissioner has circulated among the natives and any other papers dealing with the subject, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What I suggest doing is to put copies of the original Ordinance, the amending Ordinance and of this Memorandum, which I would like everybody to see, in the Library. I am not sure that the printing in the OFFICIAL REPORT of a very technical Bill, with references to another Bill, would be very intelligible to people, but I think that if I put the Bill in the Library it will suffice.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the natives in East Africa do not suffer from unemployment but from too much employment?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"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.]

DANGEROUS MOTOR TRAFFIC.
Sir CHARLES OMAN: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abate the damage and danger caused to the King's lieges by motor vehicles too large, too heavy, and driven at excessive speed."
A good deal of eloquence has been spent in another place on the cause which I am advocating to-day, but nothing has been said here, and I am adopting the only method in my power of saying a word on behalf of the King's poor subjects, both pedestrians and householders, who are oppressed by the nightmare of motor traffic as it is at present conducted. I shall not enlarge on the subject of the massacre of the young and the old, because it has been largely spoken of in another place, but I must point out that, although the greater number of private motor owners are very considerate, courteous and harmless people, there is a minority who are public enemies. I come upon them now and then. I met

915
not so very long ago a man who said to me: "I have just come from Lincoln to Oxford in an hour and three-quarters, but that is nothing to the pleasure of a real swoop in an aeroplane." That man should be placed at once in confinement. Notice was brought to me last week of a man who, motoring late in the evening on a country road, lost visibility, and, as he said himself before the magistrates: "Visibility becoming practically nil, I slowed down to 30 miles an hour." Within a minute he had killed an unfortunate labourer, returning home on his pedal bicycle. What is to be made of people who consider that slowing down to 30 miles an hour on a country road where they cannot see an inch before them is safe and proper? That meant 44 feet a second of rapid progress. Really, when one considers some of the evidence one reads, one feels that there is a great deal to be said for the magistrate who just 100 years ago, in 1832, wrote to the effect that when a furious driver had killed his second victim, after conviction on the first, he should like to add corporal punishment to imprisonment. That is what speed megalomaniacs should be subjected to, and at present there seems to be no proper deterrent placed upon them.
But that is not what I am speaking about to-day. I am speaking about the loss of amenities, of property and of life, and the considerable daily danger among inhabitants of towns through which the great streams of traffic flow. I may incidentally, if I have time, remark upon similar things in the country. There are many towns in England which have lost the power of using their own roads normally because of intruders. Oxford happens to be a complete example of that kind. We see vehicles of enormous size going from North to South. They are labelled in large letters "Direct North-to-South Traffic," sometimes "Manchester to Southampton." From East to West we see enormous numbers of charsa-banes proceeding to various destinations, to Cardiff or Newport, or some such destination. The continual passing of these things makes local traffic impossible. They even choke up the byroads; when they get off the main line into a side street, they absolutely block all traffic. This occurs not only in Oxford
916
but in other places. In King's Lynn, a rather narrow-streeted place, I saw a builder's lorry full of bricks, labelled "Economic Transport," which had gone into a street, and, when endeavouring to get into a yard on one side, it had got its fore paws jammed against one wall and its tail against the opposite house, holding up all traffic both of pedestrians and vehicles absolutely and completely. These enormous things should not be allowed, especially when they have a trailer.
I am speaking from my personal experience. I once saw a long motor with a trailer laden with ladders in the middle of a road; when the leading vehicle swerved, the ladders, by the natural inclination, swept over the pavement and knocked down two women. In towns of narrow streets all traffic consisting of very heavy, large vehicles should entirely be prohibited. They monopolise the streets and I maintain that the inhabitant of Oxford has the right to say: "It is no profit to me when some firm in Manchester is making a slight profit, more than it otherwise would make, by delivering things at Southampton by means of a system of door-to-door collection and delivery." There may be some firm in Manchester or Southampton that will make profit out of the business, but 70,000 inhabitants of Oxford are getting the other side of it and arc having their ordinary rights of walking about absolutely prohibited.
Secondly, I protest from the point of view of speed. There is no doubt that these large, heavy vehicles, which go through on the long traffic routes, are driven much too fast. We find them going at from 40 to 60 miles an hour. Whenever the police interfere and one of the drivers is arrested, he says that the itinerary drawn up by the company is such that it would be impossible for him to keep up to it, if he did not go at these high speeds between the various stopping places. And then he would lose his job. After a second warning a company should be prohibited from running these cross-country things, as a public danger. I am sorry to say that not only are companies to blame in this matter but that sometimes the enterprise and greed of local tradesmen is responsible. They send out motor vehicles to sweep all the villages 10 or 15 miles around their

917
towns, and to destroy the trade of the village shops. Generally, these vehicles are driven by reckless boys. One of the two cases where I have been in serious danger happened on an arterial road. There rushed out of a village by-road a small commercial vehicle, which was driven by a butcher's boy of 16 years of age. He dashed straight into the vehicle in which I was sitting. He had come from a town 10 miles away, and his employer was trying to destroy the trade of the village butchers in the cheapest possible way, by sending out a little vehicle driven by an incompetent boy.
My third ground of protest is on account of noise and vibration. We are all agreed about vibration. I know about vibration much more than most people. My rooms in All Souls College, Oxford, as I told the House two years ago, had the mullions of their windows shaken out, and they fell into the street, because of the vibration from fleets of heavily-laden motor vehicles. I could quote thousands of examples of the kind, beginning with Westminster Abbey and going down to the smallest villages. But it is not merely the vibration that is so noxious; the noise also is intolerable. I have had a letter from a constituent, who has a fine house on the North Road, and he says:
"I have timed, two nights running, the machines at midnight passing my bedroom between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. On the average, only four minutes elapsed between each jangling juggernaut."
It is not merely the actual jangling of the individual juggernaut that prohibits sleep. As Mr. Thomas Carlyle said, it was not so much the crowing of the cocks at midnight that concerned him, but it was the waiting for the next crow. People who live on the great arterial roads cannot get any sleep. They are deprived of the ordinary right of a British citizen to use his house as a sleeping place.
Speaking within my allotted ten minutes, I will not enter into the particulars which will go into the dummy Bill which I hope to circulate. Whether anything will 'come of the Bill or not is in the hands of other people. It is in the hands of the Government. They confiscated the clay on which I had down a
918
Motion on this subject, last Wednesday. Nevertheless, I hope that I shall have some sympathy from the House in my protest against the way that motor traffic is endangering public safety and public comfort.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Oman.

DANGEROUS MOTOR TRAFFIC.
  DANGEROUS MOTOR TRAFFIC BILL,
  "to abate the damage and danger caused to the King's lieges by motor vehicles too large, too heavy, and driven at excessive speed," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 14th February, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

SELECTION (DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Five Members to serve on the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Doncaster Area Drainage Bill: Mr. Bernays, Mr. Boyce, Captain Briscoe, Colonel Sir George Courthope, and Mr. Daggar.
Report to lie upon the Table.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS (BASIC PRICES).
Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further and better provision with respect to the admissibility in evidence in the United Kingdom of entries contained in the public registers of other countries and with respect to the proof by means of duly authenticated official certificates of entries in such registers and in consular registers; and of other matters." [Evidence (Foreign, Dominion and Colonial Documents) Bill [Lords.]

AUSTRIAN LOAN [GUARANTEE].
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury, in pursuance of the Austrian Protocol drawn up at Geneva on the fifteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, to guarantee the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, a loan (being a portion of the loan for the raising of which by the Austrian Government provision is made by the said Protocol), of such an amount as will, after payment of the expenses of issue, produce the equivalent of a sum not exceeding one hundred million gold schillings. [King's Recommendation signified.] [Mr. Chamberlain.]
3.46 p.m.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The Resolution which I commend to the Committee has made a certain amount of noise, but it cannot be accused of too much speed, in view of its previous history. The proposition that I want to make to the Committee ought not to arouse any opposition, but I think it only right that hon. Members should have from me some statement, which I hope will not be a very long one, of the contents of the Bill and the various conditions that have led up to it. In order to make that statement I must give the Committee a very brief summary of the history of this particular affair. During the years 1919–20–21 Austria passed through a time of very great trouble. Her budget was totally unbalanced, her currency depreciated until it became practically valueless, and the population suffered very severely from want of food. Sir Arthur Salter, in an interesting memorandum upon the subject, declared that death or enfeeblement by starvation was probably greater during those years in Austria than in any other country in Europe, with the exception of Russia.
The sufferings which Austria went through at that time attracted, a good deal of sympathy in Europe, and various nations, not only former enemies, but also a number of neutral nations, came to her assistance and supplied relief loans, which amounted in all to some £25,000,000. In addition to that, a great deal of assistance was given to the
930
Austrian people without any obligation, that is to say, it was given freely to them, and it amounted to perhaps 'another £10,000,000 in value. But, although this help was given, no steps were taken in these years to cope with the fundamental causes of the trouble and assist Austria to put her house in order, to cope with the causes which had brought her so low. Accordingly, 'although she managed to scrape along by the aid of this help in 1922, things were no better, in fact, they were worse, and she was really on the verge of bankruptcy. The United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Czechoslovakia once again came forward and made temporary advances to Austria, amounting to £2,250,000. In October of 1922 the matter was taken up by the League of Nations who drew up an elaborate scheme, not merely for a loan, but also for internal reform, without which a loan did not seem likely to be of much permanent value. Guaranteed loans were then granted to Austria 'amounting approximately to £27,000,000, and out of them the temporary advances made earlier in the year were repaid. The loan was issued in 1923, and this time the assistance, combined with the scheme of reform, was a great success; indeed, it was a startling success. In a short time the Austrian Budget was balanced, the currency stabilised, and so far was the credit of the country restored that in 1930 Austria was able to raise a loan on her own credit.
Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. In 1931 the Creditanstalt, the principal bank of Austria, found itself in serious difficulty. It held securities of a great number of industrial concerns in neighbouring countries, and it was found that the assets were no longer sufficient to meet the liabilities. In that year the Creditanstalt suspended payment. In September, 1931, and again in the following March of this year, the Financial Committee of the League of Nations took into consideration the whole situation in Austria, and they recommended that again a number of guarantee loans should he provided by the Governments of other countries for the assistance of Austria and some of the neighbouring States in Central and Eastern Europe. In the following month of April a conference was held in London, and at that conference the recommendations of the Financial

931
Committee of the League of Nations were considered and referred to a committee of Treasury experts belonging to four countries, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy. As guarantees were being suggested on the part of these Governments, it was felt that an expert examination of the proposals was necessary.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Were the guarantees different or similar to those given in connection with the previous loan?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am now only relating the history of this matter, and the loans of which I was speaking were guaranteed loans which did not materialise. It was the recommendation of the Financial Committee of the League of Nations that a guaranteed loan should be issued, and that proposition was examined by the Treasury experts of the four countries.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the English loans were not guaranteed by us?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that the 1923 loan was guaranteed by us, with others. That was the successful loan.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: It has not been paid back.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not due to be paid back. This proposal was considered by these experts, and the representative of the British Government opposed the granting of guaranteed loans to these States as a general principle on the ground that a loan in their case was not really what was required. The real cause of the troubles of the Danubian States lay in the difference between the costs of production and the prices they could obtain for their products. But the British representative made an exception in the case of Austria. There were certain reasons which made Austria an exception to the general rule applying to the other States, whose situation was under consideration. In the first place, hon. Members must remember that Austria, under the terms of the Peace Treaty, was put in a position of exceptional difficulty. Austria was not really the creation of a new State, it was the remnant that was left after the boundaries of the Danubian States had
932
been fixed. The capital of Vienna, in which was concentrated a large population dependent on a system of trade industry and banking suitable to a great Empire, now found herself only the centre of a small country without any real sense of cohesion or unity. The rest of Austria consisted largely of agricultural provinces, and there was really no national sense to bind together these agricultural provinces and the great industrial and banking centre of Vienna. There is a responsibility on those countries which were the creators of that particular situation.
In the second place, by the position of Vienna anything in the nature of a financial disaster occurring there would be bound to have a greater effect, and a more serious effect, upon the general credit of Europe than a similar disaster in the adjoining States. Finally, from the British point of view, if Austria were to default on the 1923 loan, which we had guaranteed, it would mean this country would be liable for a sum of about £800,000 a year which we had guaranteed. In view of these considerations the British representative, acting on instructions, made an exception in the case of Austria and while he could not support the proposal that a loan should be made to the other countries he did propose that in the case of Austria a loan should be granted, and that it should be guaranteed. But he laid particular emphasis on the necessity for combining a loan of that kind with measures of budgetary and financial reform. Those measures were the foundation of the success of the previous loan in 1923, and it was felt that without some security of that kind we might as well throw the money away as guarantee a loan to Austria.
That was the position of the British representative on the committee of Treasury experts, but the Government of M. Tardieu was not prepared to grant a loan to Austria unless a loan was made to the other States. That Government fell shortly afterwards, and there came into office M. Herriot's Government, who were not so insistent upon the necessity of making this other loan as M. Tardieu had been. But both the Italian and the French Governments declined to join in any project for a guaranteed loan unless Austria were prepared to reaffirm her previous undertaking that she would not alieniate her economic independence. On the other hand, Germany refused to join

933
in any such loan if she did make any such reaffirmation, and, consequently, for the time being, there was a deadlock. It was only after the Lausanne Conference, and largely owing to the efforts of His Majesty's Government, that agreement was at last reached, and on 15th July the Protocol was signed which is now before the Committee in Command Paper 4207. The Protocol was approved by the League of Nations, and it was ratified by Austria on 23rd August this year. In order that. it may come into operation, it has to be ratified by 31st December by three other Powers, namely, the United Kingdom, France and Italy.
The Committee, no doubt, will ask itself what test should be applied to this problem in order to decide whether it is prepared to approve the Resolution which is now before us, and I suggest that the test which should be applied is whether if this loan is made with the guarantee of the several Governments, it does really offer a reasonable chance that Austria may once again recover her position, that she may be able to meet her foreign obligations and that she will be able to carry through those budgetary and financial reforms which are eminently essential. If the Committee will look at the Protocol, it will be seen that it does provide for a loan on one side, and, on the other, for the reforms which I have described. These reforms are to be carried out with the assistance of a representative of the League, a Dr. Rost van Tonningen, a Dutch subject, and with the advice also of the adviser to the Austrian National Bank who is at the present time a Belgian, M. Frère. The reforms included, in the first place, the balancing of the Budget; next, a programme of reorganisation and economies upon the railways; a currency policy which should aim at the abolition of the exchange control the resettlement of the affairs of the Creditanstalt and the straightening out of the Austrian National Debt. In the Preamble, the Austrian National Government undertakes to meet in future all its foreign obligations, and in that connection we have to consider the position of the previous 1923 guaranteed loan. We asked the Austrian Government to give us a specific assurance that that loan shall have priority, and on the 17th of this month the following declaration was
934
made by the Austrian Government to the British Minister at Vienna:
"The Austrian Government declare that the priority of the Austrian guaranteed loan of 1923–43 as compared with all other Austrian loans will on all occasions be faithfully observed, and that transfers covering amortisation as well as interest in respect of that loan will be resumed as soon as the Geneva Protocol of the 15th July has come into force."
Therefore, if the Protocol is ratified, transfers under the 1923 loan, which were suspended as from 1st July last, will again be resumed. On the other side, five Governments—the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Belgium and Holland—undertake that they will ask for whatever authority may be necessary under their respective municipal laws to guarantee a loan which may go up to as much as 300,000,000 schillings, equivalent to about £12,500,000 of our money. Each Government is to be a guarantor only in respect of the amount of issue in its own market. There is no joint guarantee, but each Government has set down the amount for which it is going to be responsible, and it will be responsible for that amount, and for that amount alone. The share of the United Kingdom is 1,00,000,000 schillings out of 238,000,000 schillings, which is all that has at present been undertaken, but we hope very much that if the Protocol is ratified some other Governments, particularly, perhaps, the Swiss Government and the Czechoslovakian Government, will be willing to come in, and also to undertake to guarantee a certain amount so that we may arrive as nearly as possible at the maximum of 300,000,000 schillings. So far as the proceeds of the loan arc concerned, the amount which is guaranteed by the British Government is to be utilised in repayment of a temporary advance made by the Bank of England in 1931. That temporary advance was of a similar amount, and it was made a condition of its advance that it should be repaid out of the first long-term loan which was issued by the Austrian Government.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was that advance guaranteed by the Government?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.
Mr. LAMBERT: Not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. That was made by the Bank of England on the condition that it should be repaid out of the first long-term loan issued. Of course, the fact that any money which may be subscribed here under this guarantee now being proposed will be utilised for the purpose of repaying that advance, makes it possible for the British Government to propose this scheme to the Committee at a time when we are not really able to make new foreign loans. The fact that there is that repayment to be made will make it possible to bring in the proposed reforms.
Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Did the Bank of England make this advance at the request of the Government?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will not say that, as I was not a member of the Government at the time, but that it was with the approval of the British Government I have no doubt.
Sir A. M. SAMUEL: The British Government have a moral responsibility in some way about this.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that the British Government can be said to have a moral responsibility. I really do not quite see how that arises at the present moment, because the obligation is the obligation of the Austrian Government to the Bank of England to repay this advance out of the first long-term loan issued. That is a matter which is not one between the British Government and the Austrian Government, but between the Austrian Government and the Bank of England. With regard to the rest of the proceeds, they will go towards repayment of part of the internal floating debt of Austria which at present is far too large, and the foreign exchange will be paid to the Austrian National Bank, and will serve to strengthen its resources and facilitate the meeting of foreign obligations.
I think it right to say that the Austrian Government has not waited for the completion of this instrument to begin the programme of internal reform. I am very glad to say that they have made great efforts to start at once to put their house in order. The Budget for 1932 has been balanced, and proposals have been
936
already laid before the national council for the balancing of the Budget in 1933. Then a great programme of reform has been commenced in respect of the railways. It will be finished in 1933, and it includes the reduction of capital expenditure, the cutting down of the staff and the raising of the rates. It is true that, in spite of that, there is a deficit which has got to be provided for out of the Budget, but that is due to the fact that, in spite of these economies, the revenue from the railway, owing to the reduction in traffic, has very seriously diminished, and so there is still a deficit; but, at any rate, it has been vastly reduced by the steps which have already been taken. With regard to the exchange, there is now a free market for commercial transactions at the natural rate of exchange, which is about 20 per cent. below what it formerly was.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: When you say a reduction of 20 per cent., you mean 20 per cent. below sterling?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, below gold. The affairs of the Creditanstalt have been settled in principle, and arrangements have been made so that the foreign creditors will be partly repaid by a series of annuities which are to extend over a term of years. I think what I have said shows that Austria is taking the scheme of reform seriously, that she is making a valiant effort to carry out her side of the bargain, and, as she has done that on the strength of the Protocol, it is now for those who signed the Protocol to carry out their side of the arrangement, and to guarantee the loan accordingly. His Majesty's Government took a leading part in the scheme of 1923 which did so much for Austria at the time, and are now taking again a leading part in this scheme. The Bill which will have to follow upon the Resolution will, of course, not be able to be introduced until after Christmas, but if the Resolution is passed in this House, the Government will take that as recording the approval of the House, and the Protocol will, on the strength of that, be ratified before Christmas, which is the only step remaining for us to take. I hope that that is a fairly complete statement of the position, and I trust that the Committee will see their way to pass this Resolution without undue delay.
4.10 p.m.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It is very seldom indeed that I have the audacity to intrude in foreign affairs, and I only do so to-day because I have taken some little interest in the situation which now prevails in Austria and some of the surrounding countries. I would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman right away that I hardly think it is correct for him to claim that he has told us the whole of the story. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained, undoubtedly, all that is necessary for the passing of this Resolution, and I was very interested indeed to hear him refer to the terrible privations of the Austrians during and immediately after the last War. I may say, from what I heard several times in Austria, that the blockade of the Allies on those people provides what is probably the most terrible chapter in the whole history of the Great War. The criticism I have to make on the right hon. Gentleman's statement this afternoon is that he claimed in what he said that the countries interested in this loan have already found the fundamental causes of Austria's troubles. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that the fundamental causes of Austria's troubles are to be found in the treaties that were made at the close of the War. Some of the troubles connected with this loan in Austria are, in fact, connected with the attitude of France towards Germany. I feel sure that as long as Austria remains in the political and economic position in which she finds herself at the moment no amount of injection of these sporadic loans into the coffers of Austria will ever get her out of the difficulty. I am sure of that.
Let me deal therefore with one or two of the most important points connected with this loan. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us only that this Government, along with other Governments, has guaranteed this loan. I do not think I am wrong in saying that what we are doing is to guarantee this new loan to Austria in order that Austria may pay back to the Bank of England what she owes to that Bank. There is a great deal of mystery attached to some of these loans, but in effect we come to this in the end: That Governments are sometimes lending money to each other in order that the borrowers shall pay the money back, in some instances to
938
the very countries from which the loans are raised—at any rate to individuals in the countries where the loans are raised. The Chancellor did not say anything about the interest on these loans. So far as I remember the interest on the first loan was about 6 per cent., and I think I am right in saying that the interest on this loan is to be about 7 per cent. If that is so, the Austrians are paying very dearly indeed for this money.
We on these benches shall not vote against this Resolution, but we have a few pertinent criticisms to make on the Resolution itself. The first question I ask on the main issue is, how comes it about that Great Britain, France and Czechoslovakia are bearing the greatest part of the burden of this loan? It will be noticed that we are bearing 241 per cent., and that. France and Czechoslovakia are bearing an equal sum in the guarantee.
Sir ASSNHETON POWNALL: That was the old loan.
Mr. DAVIES: I should have said that those figures relate to the old loan. I would ask whether the proportions are to be the same in this case, and how many of the Governments guaranteeing this loan have already secured the necessary authority from their parliaments to provide for the guarantees of their countries. Let me pass now to a subject with which I am a little more familiar. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there were certain conditions laid down for this loan to Austria, that Austria had to make economies in her expenditure, that she must balance her Budget, that she must see that the railways were conducted on certain lines according to the dictates of the bondholders. What I want to know is, what effect has the demand of the lending countries had on the social services of Austria? Is it true to say that even old age pensions in Austria have had to be reduced in order to meet the demands of the lenders of these moneys? I repeat that I would like to know definitely what effect this loan and previous loans have had or will have on the social services in Austria. Vienna, the capital, was built as a centre for an Empire of about 60,000,000 people. To-day the total population of Austria is only 6,000,000, and one-third of that population, or thereabouts, is resident in Vienna itself. I do not think I am wrong

939
in saying that at the moment Vienna is really the most tragic city in the whole of Europe. That is why I complain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is lending his aid to doing nothing more effective than pouring loans into the coffers of Vienna.
The test of whether a loan of this kind is successful or not must rest not only upon imports and exports, and not only on balancing a Budget. Has unemployment in Austria increased or decreased as a result of the loans that we have given in the past? That is a fair measurement of success. I have no quarrel with the dictum of eminent politicians in this country that you can measure the success or failure of a Government by the numbers of people who are employed and unemployed. Let me give figures supplied to me as to what is happening on that score in Austria at the present time. I am told that the number of unemployed in that very small country, with not more than 6,000,000 people, has risen from 237,000 in September, 1931, to 334,000 in September, 1932. That is to say, there has been a considerable increase in the number of persons unemployed there. They are on the register of the Employment Exchanges and benefits are ordinarily payable to them.
I remember that just before the last general election we were told that pressure had been brought to bear upon our own Government to reduce unemployment benefit in order to balance our Budget and it was said that otherwise we could not raise loans in some foreign countries. I would ask, is there any understanding anywhere between the several countries that are proposing to lend this money to Austria, that there is to be a further cut in the social services in Austria before this money is lent? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Austrian Government had issued an explanation of its attitude towards this loan, but he did not say that it was only in August last that this very problem came before the National Assembly in Vienna. It is common knowledge that when the vote was taken in the division lobby there was only one vote majority in favour of acceptance of the conditions laid down by the Governments that were lending the money. The criticisms in Austria against the conditions attached to the loan were very strong, and I think
940
they were very proper too. Once the Austrians decided, if they decided at all, to accept this loan, they practically put the whole of their country in pawn to the moneylenders.
Of course the Austrians are in such a terrible financial situation at the moment that I suppose they are bound to accept these conditions, but I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do one thing above all. France, so we were told this afternoon, has had a great deal to do with this loan. She apparently accepts the same proportion of the burden of the guarantee as we do, and it is stated in reliable quarters that the loan is granted on this occasion again in order to prevent Austria having any connection with Germany. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be drawn by France into an arrangement of that kind, because I am confident, with the little knowledge I possess, that until Austria has her frontiers extended, until she can make bargains with other countries across her own borders, until she gets a better understanding than she has now with her neighbours, none of these loans will in the end avail her at all. Some of us are apprehensive that we are bolstering her up at the dictates of France, because France is afraid that Germany may extend her frontiers and make more friendly arrangements with Austria. In spite of all that I think the policy of this country towards Austria ought to be a different and a better one than that which is dictated by the French Government.
The conditions of Austria compel us to support this loan, I agree, but I appeal to the Government to look into the problem once again. Let me repeat the two or three points that seem to stand out most clearly. The treaty that was made at the end of the War is tying Austria down in such a way that no loan of money of any kind can save her in the end. We ought not always to be dragged behind the French Government in our policy towards Austria. Above all, we ought to take a. very bold step in the near future and try to rearrange the Austrian frontiers in order that countries that want to be neighbourly to each other can come closer together for mutual trade and financial purposes. Great Britain ought to take a lead in these things instead of allowing Continental countries to do so.

941
Those of us who are on the Labour benches in this House have great sympathy with the people of Austria. They are very very poor indeed. If I remember rightly there are about 2,500,000 out of the 6,000,000 paying income tax. Every person who earns as little as 25s. a week of our money or over is at present paying income tax. The Austrians are already paying very dearly for these loans. Though we shall not oppose the proposal before the Committee at the moment, we do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look further into some of the points that we have raised. Above all I would say, do not let. the Governments which are guaranteeing loans lay down such harsh conditions for the people of Austria that they will be compelled to starve themselves in order to pay 7 per cent. interest to the moneylenders.
4.25 p.m.
Mr. LAMBERT: I join with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in sympathy with the tragic city of Vienna. Everyone who has any knowledge of that city must be full of sympathy. But my sympathy goes out to the tragedies in our own country too. There are tragedies here, in South Wales and the North of England, where you have idle men. There are 3,000,000 unemployed, as was stated in His Majesty's Speech. There are youths who have never had an opportunity of doing a day's work. I approach this subject from the point of view of an Englishman. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the Austrians had had loans, since the War, of about £35,000,000. He told us that the loan of 1923 amounted to £27,000,000, of which our share was about £6,000,000. Precisely the same arguments were adduced then as my right hon. Friend has adduced to-day. I have here the undertaking of the Austrian Government in 1923. This is the Protocol, the Declaration:
"The Austrian Government will, within one month, with such provisional Delegation of the Council of the League of Nations as may be appointed for the purpose, draw up a programme of reforms and improvements to be realised by stages and designed to enable Austria to re-establish the permanent equilibrium of her Budget."
That is in conjunction with the League of Nations. Then it is stated:
942
"This programme must place Austria. in a position to satisfy her obligations by the augmentation of her receipts and the reduction of her expenditure. It must further enable Austria to ensure her financial stability on a permanent basis by a series of measures leading to a general economic reform."
That was eight years ago and now there is another loan of £4,300,000. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an incorrigible optimist if he imagines that this will not be like throwing good money after bad. In this White Paper we are told that the Bank of England will be repaid this £4,300,000, but my right hon. Friend said that there was no moral obligation. I would like to inquire into that a little more closely. Supposing this money had not been advanced to Austria by the Bank of England, would the Government now guarantee the loan? That is a point which I think might well have elucidation.
I agree that my right hon. Friend was not a member of the Government in July, 1931. Very good, but let us know exactly what that Government did at that time. Was it owing to the late Government that the Bank of England advanced this money to Austria? Did they do it under instructions from the Treasury? Was there any implied recognition at that time by the Treasury of this loan by the Bank of England or did the Bank of England do it, "on its own." If it did, then it deserves to stew in the juice of its own stupidity. That is all I have to say about it. I do not understand why the House of Commons is not taken more into the confidence of the Government.. We know that the Cabinet are omnipotent in this matter and that whatever they propose will be carried here, but I warn them that they cannot play fast and loose with the taxpayers' money. That is a real danger, and I see, looking back over the last 10 or 12 years, an ominous similarity between this Government and the Coalition Government. They also spent money and raised loans, and I objected then as I object to this loan to-day.
This £4,300,000 loan coming on the top of our American Debt payment is a most surprising development. I have not had an answer to my question yet, but I cannot think that, unless there has been some implied obligation on the part of the Labour Government, this loan would never have been made. If there was

943
no implied obligation all I can say is that this is a matter which must do damage to our own country. I do not think that anybody however much they might have welcomed going off the Gold Standard, imagined it to be a sign of financial strength. We were forced off it. [HON. MEMBERS: "And a good job too!"] Yes, but it was then contrary to the policy of the Bank of England. Let us get that quite clearly. However, I am not going into that question now, but I say that these loans made without any return will weaken our financial position. The hon. Member for Westhoughton asked if this loan had anything to do with a condition that Austria should not join with Germany. That is an important point. I observed from the "Times" newspaper the other day, that one of the Austrian newspapers was very much exercised about the fall of M. Herriot. The statement appeared on 15th December to the effect that one of the Austrian newspapers had declared that the result of M. Herriot's fall would be to deprive Austria of the new loan and release her from her part of the Lausanne bargain which included reaffirmation of the pledge not to unite with Germany. I hope there is no condition of that kind with regard to this loan.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No condition of what kind?
Mr. LAMBERT: That Austria shall not have perfect freedom to do what she likes; that if she likes to join with Germany she may, and if she likes to remain independent, she may. I understand that it is part of French policy that Austria shall not join with Germany. It seems to me quite impossible in these days to say to nations like Germany and Austria that they shall not do what they like and follow the dictates of their own reasoning. It is quite impossible to keep nations like those constantly in a state of tutelage and I hope that no such condition as I have indicated will be imposed by the Government. I have seen enough of these endeavours to cure political grievances by boluses of public money. I am sorry to have to complain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I thought he was one of the most candid and open of men. But, getting wind that this loan, or something like it, was coming off, I
944
asked last Tuesday what was the amount of money advanced to Austrian banks within the last three years for which the Treasury took responsibility and my right hon. Friend replied:
"My right hon. Friend appears to be under some misapprehension. The British Treasury has taken no responsibility for any money advanced to Austrian banks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1932; col. 191, Vol. 273.]
I looked rather a fool in view of that answer but I have been made to appear foolish so many times in this House that it did not much matter. Having been told by my right hon. Friend that the British Treasury had taken no responsibility for any money passed to Austrian banks, I read two days later this White Paper informing us that the British Government were to guarantee this loan. I wish that my right hon. Friend would take us a little more into his confidence.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend asked his question about the past and not about the future.
Mr. LAMBERT: But I cannot understand being told that the British Treasury had taken no responsibility and finding this loan of £4,300,000 being made two days later. I have not the smallest doubt that my right hon. Friend was technically right. Still, as I say, he does not take us too fully into his confidence. He has absorbed all the tricks of the departmental trade which of course we know too well. This loan is to be administered by the League of Nations. I object to the League of Nations becoming the financial authority for this country. For the League of Nations to adjudicate upon disputes between nations—that is all right—but as a super-financial authority I object to it entirely. I do not believe that the League of Nations can proclaim the last word in financial wisdom. The League of Nations loans have been rather farcical. We were told on 18th October that out of £79,000,000 of loans which it had sponsored, something like £38,000,000 were in partial or total default—that is, nearly half. Therefore I have not much confidence in League of Nations finance. I want to be quite fair to them. They are a body of high-minded idealists but high-minded idealists are not always the best financial advisers.
If the British Treasury is going to guarantee a loan it ought to have that

945
loan under its own control never mind about the League of Nations. I have more confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer than in the advisers of the League of Nations. We can cross-question him here even though we do not always get a satisfactory answer. Still he is here and we can see him, while the League of Nations is a long way off. This Dutch gentleman, whose name I cannot pronounce, may be a very admirable person but I prefer my right hon. Friend. I have put down an Amendment to the Resolution but I understand that you, Sir Dennis, will not accept it because it is a direct negative. I take this opportunity however to raise my voice in protest against this loan. I believe that we should have first regard to the interests of the British taxpayer and I cannot think that the Government of their own volition have brought out this loan, in view of past disastrous experiences.
4.41 p.m.
Sir A. M. SAMUEL: The exhaustive statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made to the Committee is evidence of the importance which he attributes to this matter and he evidently appreciates the fact that many Members of the Committee are 'a great deal disturbed about the Resolution which we are now considering. I do not propose to oppose the Motion but I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has done a public service in putting down an Amendment to it in order to draw attention to the circumstances of the case. I shall vote for the Resolution because it represents an accomplished fact in relation to the Government's policy in foreign affairs. I must add that it does not lie in the mouths of hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say a word against this proposal because I remember a very strong piece of writing which appeared in the official organ of their party, the "Daily Herald" in connection with this matter and in view of past circumstances I do not think they can justly criticise the present Resolution. But I think that this Resolution ought to remind us of two apophthegms. One is "you may put a bankrupt on his feet but it does not follow that you can keep him there." The other is "it is folly for a manufacturer to lend money to a bankrupt
946
customer to enable that customer to buy goods from him with the loans which the bankrupt customer will not repay until another loan is granted."
That is what is going on here. We have tried to put these bankrupt European nations on their feet by granting them loans, and the last state will be worse than the first. This discussion raises the whole principle of granting loans to foreign countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) spoke about the loan being used for the benefit of the unemployed and for other social purposes in Austria, and he suggested that some condition of that kind should be attached. But if you pursued that to its logical conclusion you would be raising loans to provide for the social and moral uplift of young children in Ashanti by buying them red flannel petticoats.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The point which I made was that it would be unfair on the part of the Governments guaranteeing this loan, to attach any conditions which involved a reduction of the social services in Austria.
Sir A. M. SAMUEL: It is our business however to look after the interests of our own people. The object of the loan is shown in the White Paper. It will be remembered that the Austrian Creditanstalt got into trouble, and the Austrian Government asked the Bank of England to get it out of trouble by advancing a loan. I believe that questions of Foreign Office policy were involved in regard to the position of Austria and Germany, but as I do not know the facts I do not propose to touch upon that aspect of the question. But the already known facts as to the loan are as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No loan was given by the British Government; no loan was promised by the Government or guaranteed by the Government. The Bank of England thought it proper, and I have no doubt it was proper, to help the Creditanstalt, through the Austrian Government, to keep on its feet; but it has not kept on its feet. You put the Creditanstalt on its feet, but you could not keep it there; and, when it came down, it wrecked the whole financial structure of Europe and sent us off the Gold Standard 15 months ago.
With regard to the point raised by the right hon. Member for South Molton as

947
to France, I see from the Memorandum, Command Paper 4218, that France has promised, subject to ratification, to guarantee a loan of the same amount. I dare say the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us later whether the fall of the French Government will render that ratification impossible, because that would alter our opinions a good deal. I hope the French Government will ratify, but we have no assurance yet on that subject.
In a telegram from Vienna on Friday last we were told that, as a result of the granting of this loan, it is hoped that Austria will be able to resume transfers for the services of the 1923 Guaranteed League Loan. With what? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has a very pretty wit—he is not lacking in a sense of humour—but I think he forgot that it is not very humorous to give the reply that he did in this House yesterday, when he stated:
"I am just informed that the Austrian Government have now agreed to resume transfers on the 1923 Guaranteed Loan as from the 1st January, assuming that the Protocol of the 15th July, 1932, is ratified before the 31st December."
What a confession! It is feeding a dog on its own tail. We are providing money with which to pay the interest on the former loan, and the hon. Gentleman asks us to implement this guarantee on the part of the British Government in order that we may provide the means in cash with which to pay ourselves our own money. When my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton yesterday asked a question, the hon. Gentleman said:
"His Majesty's Government have guaranteed 24½ per cent. of the total service of the Austrian Government Guaranteed Loan, 1923–43."
Answering a further question, he said:
"The original amount was equivalent in all to about £24,500,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1932; cols. 752–3, Vol. 273.]
What did he mean by that? Let us be clear about these accounts. I understand the two Austrian loans in which Britain is chiefly interested are the 6 per cent. guaranteed loan of 1923, of which £10,000,000 is outstanding, and the 7 per cent. International loan of 1930 which amounted to £3,500,000. Since the middle of June the Austrian Government have
948
failed to pay the trustees of the guaranteed loan the whole of the pledged revenues, though the trustees had sufficient funds to meet interest and sinking fund payments due at the beginning of this month. In the case of the 7 per cent. International loan, the Austrian Government decreed a transfer moratorium in July last, the service of the loan being paid in schillings into a special account at the National Bank of Austria.
On the 15th December I heard questions answered in this House by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who told us that relief loans to Austria owed to this country amounted to £8,825,000, and he went on to say:
"The Austrian Government were indebted to various European Governments and also to the United States of America Government in respect of Relief Loans to the total amount of about £37,000,000. All these loans were funded in 1928 on identical terms representing a considerable reduction of the debt which was agreed to in view of the financial situation of Austria … Payments in respect of these loans were suspended under the terms of the Hoover Moratorium from 1st July, 1931, to 30th June, 1932, and a further suspension after the end of the Hoover year has been agreed to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1932; col. 508. Vol. 273.]
The whole thing is a farce. They get into debt, they get a suspension, and then they get a further suspension. It reminds one of the story of a very distinguished Member of this House of the last century, Sheridan, whose tailor applied to him for payment of an account. He owed £100, and he gave a bill payable at three months, signed it, leaned back in his chair, and said, "Thank God that's settled." These loans do not settle anything, but they get people into further trouble, and we have to lend them one loan after another. We are told:
"The Austrian Government reaffirms its intention of meeting punctually all its foreign obligations."
I might reaffirm that I would pay a debt of £16,000,000, but it would not mean that I am capable of carrying out that obligation.
My right hon. Friend below the Gangway referred to the reference in the White Paper to the League of Nations. The League of Nations will assist in the work of economic and financial reconstruction. As has been said, the financial experts of the League of Nations

949
have not done their reputations very much good. They have injured both themselves and the British investors; but they have also injured the moral force of the League of Nations, because they have created a feeling of irritation against the League by allowing the League to supervise loans of which we have just heard £38,000,000 were issued here, and most of them now in default. The League of Nations certainly deserves support; but when these so-called expert economists, these muddle-headed experts advised the issue of loans to the now defaulting countries, they overlooked the contingency of a failure of the currency systems, with the result, as the right hon. Member for South Molton has told us, that nearly all the loans to the bankrupt nations of the East End of Europe, issued under the supervision of the League of Nations, are in default for some part, and have dragged the good name of the League of Nations through the mud.
In Article 7 of the Protocol we are told that the Austrian Government will request the Council of the League of Nations to appoint a representative and to nominate an adviser to the National Bank of Austria. I should advise Austria to do nothing of the kind. It does not help matters at all. The supervision of the League of Nations did not save the British investor in the past. I am not going to vote against the Resolution. I shall vote for it, but I think the policy by which we grant or guarantee these loans to the nations in the East End of Europe does harm to all concerned. I can imagine that if the representative of the League of Nations were to go in and take charge of the pledged revenues of Austria in the same way as the various consortiums of Europe took charge of the pledged revenues of China, by the Chinese Maritime Customs, it would be all right. If Austria would submit to that, she would be wise, and I do not think it would be interfering with her sovereign rights. At any rate, the representative of the League of Nations would have some locus standi and power to see that those who had guaranteed or provided the loans received that to which they were entitled. My view is that the League of Nations ought to be kept entirely out of these loans and that we should go in on the principle of controlling the Excise and Customs receipts. There are no Maritime Customs, of course,
950
in Austria, as there are no ports there, but the principle of the Maritime Customs control in China would be very useful if applied to these loans.
The standard of living of the East European countries should be based upon their production; and unless a. country borrows, begs, or steals from an outside country it is not entitled to a standard of living higher than its productions warrant. It cannot consume more than it produces for use or exchange, without outside help. We have by lending them money been allowing these nations for years to live at a standard of life to which they are not entitled. Let them sink to their own level, and if there are a few wholesome slidings down, that will clear the air. I have no feeling that there will be a crash in Europe because we do hot lend more money to these people. We did lend them money before the War. We then had Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, and Austria all borrowing money, with what result? If there had not been the war, they would have gone into default sooner or later. Sir Robert Kindersley lately put forward some figures about the loans which have survived the wreck, in which British investors are interested—loans to foreign Governments and foreign municipalities, and British investors are told that of the surviving amount of £356,000,000 there is a total of £140,000,000 in default. This excludes Russia, Mexico and Brazil. What is the good of lending money to foreign countries on those lines I You might just as well call them gifts.
I heard the speech made in this House a few days ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir. Chamberlain). It moved the whole House. It moved me profoundly. It was a very noble speech, worthy of a great name, and I believe that every word he said was true. Indeed, I can confirm it from my own knowledge. We have slums all over England where health and even life are almost unsupportable, and here we are throwing away money to keen up, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton suggested, the unjustified high standard of life or the social amenities of countries like Austria or Greece. We have slums in England crying out for the money which we have wasted in South Eastern Europe. We pour out loans to put bankrupt nations on their feet; and we can-

951
not keep them there. If the money has to be lost, let us, as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said, use it in our own cities. Let us use it to clear away some of our slums, and if we get no interest in money from it, we shall get interest in the form of better health and a little more comfort for our own people.
I protest against these dole loans. If there are disasters, or floods, or earthquakes in various parts of the world, in Austria, Poland, China or Timbuctoo, Britain has, in the name of our common humanity, always had the reputation of devoting private funds to help those in distress. But I protest against the Government continuing this unsuccessful policy, which is nothing but a charity policy in order to keep bankrupt nations on their feet at a standard of life to which they are not entitled. Charity begins at home.
4.59 p.m.
Mr. ALBERY: I do not think this Committee should pass this Estimate without first getting some more information on the subject from the Treasury. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to tell us exactly what this loan will cost, for obvious reasons, but I think he ought to give us some idea, and bearing in mind the kind of loans we have recently issued for our own purposes, I presume it will be somewhere between 3 and 3 per cent., and not, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) suggested, 6 per cent. The Debate so far has turned on what are the real reasons for this loan. There is, unfortunately, no reason to doubt what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, namely, that the real reason is the obvious need of Austria. As to the question of helping the Bank of England, that is incidental. When one remembers that France, Belgium, Holland and Italy are participating, one must suppose that they are not participating for the sake of helping the Bank of England. There is another reason which has probably a good deal to do with it. It is generally supposed in the City that if further credit facilities were not given there would be a definite call on the guaranteed loan which was issued in 1923.
The whole business has a sad history, and nothing has been said in this Debate
952
and nothing could be said which makes it much more promising for the future. It is obvious that Austria, if she has to continue to exist under similar conditions to those under which she has existed since the War, is just as sure to get into financial difficulties again in the next few years as she has done in the past. One can only hope that the nations which are guaranteeing this loan are doing so in the knowledge that it is part of their own policy to do what can he done in future to help Austria to her feet.
5.2 p.m.
Mr. SMITHERS: I want to support the Government in guaranteeing this loan. The parochial outlook of many of the speeches is to be deplored. The object of this loan is to enable us to co-operate with other countries to help Austria, and I believe that the action of the Government is in the best interests of Great Britain. Something was said about chucking money away. I am not in a position to judge, but I am sure that the Government, having weighed the pros and cons of guaranteeing this loan, are quite certain that it is the best thing for England. We have only to cast our minds back on the events of the last two years to realise that it is in the interests of Europe and therefore of England—never mind what may happen this time next year or two years hence—to do our best to keep Austria on her feet for the time being. If we do not help Austria, we shall play exactly the same game which we are complaining that America is playing to-day. I understand from the extract read by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) that Austria will try and have a stable Government and a balanced budget. In the past we have lent money to help countries in their difficulties, and we have always made one mistake. Is it possible to do anything to ensure that Austria can earn her living and earn the interest on the loan? Can we take any steps to get Austria to break down her trade barriers and to give freer trade to her neighbours? I would be in favour of lending as much money as we can to those countries who would come in to the sterling area. I do not know whether it is possible to try and induce Austria to become another of the sterling area countries, and in that way to make our job of paying the American debt more simple. In the hope that

953
something can be done along the lines I have indicated, I shall certainly support the Government.
5.5 p.m.
Sir A. POWNALL: I happened to be in Vienna in the spring of 1923 at a time when one got over 300,000 Austrian kroner for the English pound. No one could be unsympathetic towards Austria at that time, because Vienna and the whole of Austria were going through the most appalling sufferings, and they are very vivid in my memory. There are one or two points which I would like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He referred to the amortisation of the 1923–43 loan. If the same proportion is to be repaid each year, 1933 should obviously see half the loan repaid. I should like to ask what is the position of the English taxpayers with regard to their liability in case of possible default in this amortisation, whether it is carried out up-to-date or whether it is not. Another important question arises. We are told that 100,000,000 schillings of this present joint loan to Austria is to repay money lent by the Bank of England. Were similar advances made by the Bank of France, or the French national banks, or the National Banks of Italy, Belgium and Holland? My reason for asking is that if similar loans were made by these other countries, Austria will get no fresh money from this loan because the 100,000,000 schillings which we are lending will be transferred to the Bank of England to put the Bank of England straight for a loan made in July last year. It is important to know whether there are other contingent liabilities of the Austrian Government which have to be made out of this loan.
There is a further point about which I am not happy. I happened to be on the Continent in August this year, and, knowing what had taken place in Geneva, I made inquiries with regard to the Austrian State Railways' position. I was told that they were keeping far too large a number of employés for the services that they were rendering. I also heard that they had a large scheme of fresh building, which is mentioned incidentally in this Agreement, and that while committees of inquiry, possibly of an international nature, had been set up in the
954
past, no action to speak of had been taken to put their financial house in order. We find in this Agreement
"the Austrian Government. undertakes to carry out without delay the general programme of economies."
In regard to the railways. The Agreement is dated 15th July, and it would be interesting to know whether, in view of the fact that it is now more than five months since they stated that they were going to take action without delay, what action, if any, has been taken. Furthermore, it states that an expert appointed to the Council of the League of Nations was going into the question of capital expenditure. Has that expert been appointed, and, if so, when may his report be expected? On the following page we read that the representative of the League of Nations will report to the League every three months on the execution of a programme of reforms. If they started last July, presumably the League has had a report in the last month or two. If so what is the nature of the report, and if the report has not been received, will it be available in the Library of the House of Commons to those of us who are interested in this question? Unless Austria will balance her budget, especially in regard to the State railways, there will continually be trouble in her finances in years to come. I know that for political reasons it is difficult for her to balance her budget, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will give some re-assurance on these points, because, from inquiries I have made, they are largely the cause of Austria's present trouble.
5.10 p.m.
Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I cannot possibly vote for this Motion, which is simply asking the House of Commons to throw good money after bad. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) criticised speeches which had preceded his by saying that they had a parochial outlook. If he means a national outlook, that is not at all a bad thing. One of the great drawbacks to the chief Ministers of our Government continually going to Geneva is that they lose to a great extent the national out look. They get an internatonal or a European or a world oulook, and I do not blame them, for they are always going there and having hard cases

955
brought to their attention. They are human beings with feelings like the rest of us, and they are naturally sympathetic when some other gentlemen with similar feelings and belonging to some othernation says, "This or that country is in a parlous state; cannot we lend them a hand?" All the other representatives say, "Oh, yes, we will lend them a hand if you will lend them a hand, but of course, we have to get our own handshakes ratified by our own Parliaments." Then we ratify our handshake, but the other Parliaments do not, and we are left with baby after baby of different nationalities to look after for the rest of their natural lives. So it goes on, and I deplore these Motions being continually brought to the House of Commons asking us to throw good money after bad.
The idea of thinking that £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 will put Austria on its legs is farcical. The only thing to be said for the Motion, as I understand it, is that the money will remain in this country and the country's credit will have the use of it at the Bank of England. But it is time we stopped using British credit for these international loans. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to other countries which, he hopes, will join in with us. Will he assure the House that this loan will not be issued until we have definite assurances and guarantees that the other countries will do their bit in the matter? Do not let us be the sole foster parent once again. These are the reasons which prevent me from voting for any Motion of this kind. This international finance is really getting a perfect blight on the country. We see it in Russia and elsewhere. I was told the other day, "We must continue to give credit to Russia, because, if we do not, her credit will be brought down and another European nation will suffer. We owe money to that nation, and you must have a broad outlook." I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to let this be the last instance of carrying European babies.
5.14 p.m.
Mr. RAMSDEN: I have been informed on reliable authority that there is a danger that once the Austrian Government realise that we are going to guarantee this loan, they may take steps to impose further prohibitions on certain imports,
956
notably of Lancashire cotton goods. I should like to ask whether the Government will take steps to ensure that arrangements are made with the Austrian Government that no such prohibitions are put into operation, because they will undoubtedly have the effect of still further reducing the volume of our trade with. Austria.
5.15 p.m.
Captain CAZALET: As one who was in Austria and Vienna both before and after the 1923 and 1924 loans, I recognise the great part loans have played in bringing some measure of prosperity back to Austria, and I presume the 1931 loan by the Bank of England prevented a crisis arising at that time. Now, as I understand it, the Government have taken on the responsibility first shouldered by the Bank of England, and it is quite clear that there must have been some definite understanding that the Government would do some such thing when the Bank made the loan. I understand there are no conditions attached to our loan, except those mentioned in the White Paper, and I think there will be a definite benefit and saving to Austria, because the loan from the Bank of England was at a higher rate of interest than prevails to-day. It was a short-term loan, and the loan the Government are now guaranteeing will, of course, carry only that rate of interest which the credit of the British Government commands to-day. I would like to ask whether there will not be a direct saving to the Austrian Government as a result of the transference of the responsibility for this loan from the Bank of England to the British Government. We have heard from various speakers that there may be a change of policy by France in regard to this loan. I want to ask whether, if France does not guarantee this loan by the specified date, the whole proposition falls to the ground, or do we carry on with our specific portion of it?
5.18 p.m.
Mr. J. JONES: Chickens sometimes come home to roost, and this particular one happens to have come home rather sooner than expected. If any country has a right to ask for international assistance it is Austria, for the simple reason that no other country has suffered so much as a result of the Versailles Treaty. The centre of one of the greatest Empires in Europe was practically dismembered, and

957
left with a skeleton population suffering under tremendous economic difficulties. Every year since 1918 we have been brought up against the impossible position in which Austria was left. Some of us supported our Government at the time as to the necessity of defending ourselves against German aggression. We thought Germany was threatening Europe with a military dictatorship of the worst kind, but we also knew that, although there was a kind of organisation and conglomeration between Austria and Germany, that, after all, Austria was only in exactly the same position as Germany was. As a consequence, when the war ended Austria found herself allied to a country which was in a far stronger position in every possible way than the Austrians themselves were; and the consequences are now that Austria has got to carry the baby. But the baby will not be carried by the people financially controlling Austria.
The suggestion is that the loan will be guaranteed at the expense of the poorest people in Austria. The social services have to be attacked. One hon. Member suggested that the railways must be tackled, and the railways there are national property. Are we to do the same with them as was done with the German railways, hand them over to a private company in order that the shareholders may get their pound of flesh? I was very sorry to hear an hon. Member talking about Eastern Europe when, judging by all his antecedents, he owes his very existence to the fact that there was such a place as Eastern Europe to give him birth.
Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I beg your pardon. I am not from Eastern Europe.
Mr. JONES: I am only suggesting that race will tell. I happen to be a Celt—born in this part of the world, but of Celtic ancestry—and I am proud of it; and if I had come from the same part of the world as the race to which he belongs came from, I should be proud of it. Therefore, I would not throw bricks at my father-in-law. But who is going to carry the baby when this guarantee is agreed to—and it will be agreed to, because the Government can always command a majority, however silly their actions may be? When all is said and done, the people of this country will carry the baby, and then the people of Austria
958
will have to go through the mill to do their part of it. I am absolutely certain that at the finish Phil Garlick will foot the bill all the way through, in England and everywhere else. This is a financial piece of jugglery. The bankers have got together. Sir Montagu Norman has not been travelling for the good of our health, but in the interests of the section of the community he so ably represents. He has travelled from Dan to Beersheba and back again, and we know who has got to produce the "spondulicks." When these loans come to be paid the common people, who produce the wealth of the world, will have to pay their share, and more than their share; they will have to pay interest on top of their share, and they will get very little out of it.
In so far as we are concerned, this is a regrettable necessity. It is part of the "doctor's mandate." We had to suffer from that at the last election. Now the doctor has gone away and left us with the mandate. Whatever happens, we know that medicine is very poor stuff to swallow. Later we shall have an operation performed on us to discover how silly we were when we began to play "hokey pokey" with the national interest, not merely in this country but in any other country. I am pleased to know that an hon. Member opposite has looked after the national interest. I do not know how the working class stand in regard to that. It appears to be a repercussion of these events that we should lead the way in cutting the social services so far as the victorious countries in the War are concerned, and we are now making it a condition of guaranteeing this money that the social services in Austria must be cut. An hon. Member spoke about having been in Austria. I have not been there, but some of my friends have, and I hope that the workers in this country will never come down to the situation in which the Austrian workers find themselves. They are paying very dearly for the victory of the Allies in the War, and I venture to suggest that this game of trying to make them pay still more, based not upon their capacity to pay but upon their capacity to continue to suffer, ought not to be allowed to continue. The time has nearly arrived when we ought to take a definite stand in this matter. We ought to say to all countries, in debt or out of debt, that these war debts and war loans must be

959
wiped off the slate, so that we may get back to something like the parity that existed before the War.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: It is easy in a Debate like this to throw out the idea that we must all have great sympathy with the people of Austria. I think no one in the House is lacking in sympathy with the Austrians, but it is a little difficult for the ordinary Member of Parliament—it may be easier for great financiers such as we have just heard—to explain to his constituents how it is possible for this Government, within 18 months of the great crisis which brought it into existence, to be guaranteeing a loan of some £4,500,000 to another country. It is a little difficult to explain to some of our local authorities. I make no reservation in saying that, having followed the extraordinarily clear speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I personally quite realise the necessity for the loan; but there was one point on which he was not so clear. Last summer four Powers, of which Germany was one, were consulting as to whether there should be some sort of international loan for the Danubian States. As far as I understand the White Paper and the Chancellor's speech, Germany is no longer one of the guarantors of this loan, and I think the House ought to be informed about the reasons for her withdrawal—whether it is through poverty or for some other reason that Germany is not a guarantor on this occasion. After all, the Germans have been let off rather more than we have in the last year or two, and I am here to represent my constituents more than the interests of any other country.
According to some figures given last March by the then Financial Secretary, the actual amount loaned by this Government is now in the neighbourhood of £12,000,000. As I understood the statement of the Financial Secretary yesterday, a sum of rather more than £500,000 will be used out of this new guaranteed loan to pay the monthly transfers which were suspended last July. I want to know whether any proportion of that amount will actually be paid to the Government of this country in consideration of the loans which we have made. I want some idea as to the proportion of
960
interest and repayment of loan which this first and the other instalments of the money we are being asked to-day to guarantee will cover, because a large part, if not the whole of this new loan, will be used merely for the repayment of loans. We are, in effect, guaranteeing a loan to repay former loans, and I want to know what proportion of it will be applied to repaying Government loans rather than Bank of England loans. That is a very important point, and one on which the House is entitled to a proper and clear explanation.
The only other point which I wish to emphasise is one which has been made before. I cannot see what is the good of going on guaranteeing these things for Austria. We are told that she is going to make various reductions. I do not think that we are told in the White Paper what will be the net revenue which Austria will have for the repayment of loans after those reductions have been made. Surely, there must he some estimate of that kind, and it is one that we are entitled to have. However much Austria may reduce, and however much we may hope to get back our loan, the one fact remains, clear and evident to every one of us, that it is totally impossible for Austria, as she is constituted, to continue as a separate nation. You cannot hope, with the present constitution of Austria, that she can ever repay the whole of her loan. Would it not be very much better if, instead of going on with these perpetual attempts to balance the Austrian budget in order to repay her loan, even to have another international conference? Heaven only knows there have been enough failures already, what with the failures of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I am the last person to encourage them. There has only been one success, and that was Ottawa.
Would it not be better to try to reorganise the central countries of Europe, so that they could be a real economic unit? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that at one time Germany was talking of this, and was negotiating. We ought to be assured that this new loan does not in any way make it more difficult for the people of Central Europe to reorganise themselves for the purpose of reducing unnecessary customs barriers,

961
and for the purpose of trying to set up economic units in the future. I do not know that I ought to have intervened in this Debate, which was supposed to be very select. Some of us who have listened for years in this House to the new guarantees which are always being asked for, are entitled, on an occasion such as this, to say that it is no good going on with these things. The only way to solve the situation is to try to reorganise entirely the position of the Central European countries.
5.33 p.m.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think that anybody in this House believes that this loan to Austria will do any good to Austria. Let us be quite frank in the matter. A year ago the Bank of England came to the assistance of Austria and of this country, and of the world's credit, in financing an advance to Austria. Whether they were right in doing so or wrong, I do not know, but obviously the Protocol is arranged for the repayment of the Bank of England and other similar banks abroad which made advances to Austria at the time of the collapse of the Creditanstalt. The loans made by the banks at that time were recommended to be made by the Governments of the various countries, but they were not guaranteed by those countries. We were not responsible for the payment of either interest or capital on those advances, but now we are shouldering the burden, as usual. We are giving a Government guarantee to provide money in order that the frozen credit of the Bank of England in Austria may be set free.
It may be right that we should go to the help of the Bank of England, but do not let us conceal the fact that this is one of the objects of this loan. We have not been told, but we ought to be told, how much of this 100,000,000 schillings are to be used for repayment of old loans, whether by the Bank of England or other banks. I am not clear, on all the other loans that are to be paid, as to whether they are of a similar character to those owing to the Bank of England and as to how much of the money is new money. Probably very little of it is new money which the Austrians can use for development. I judge that this is so, because the Austrian Parliament, when discussing this matter, only managed to carry the acceptance of the
962
loan, on the terms of the Conference, by one vote. Therefore, there cannot be much new money in it. It must be mostly for liquidating the old credits.
One of the things which we ought to be told before we conclude this Debate is how much of the 100,000,000 schillings is new money and how much is to repay loans. Unfortunately, I had to be absent during part of the Debate, and it is impossible to find from the White Paper what interest is to be paid upon the 100,000,000 schilling loan. The British Government guaranteed this loan, and therefore the interest on the loan ought to be as good, or rather as small, as on any British Government loan. We are borrowing money at 3½ per cent.; therefore I cannot see why this 100,000,000 schilling loan should carry a bigger rate of interest than 3½ per cent., which would be of great advantage to Austria.. The real reason, I take it, why that fact is not stated in the White Paper is that we are only guaranteeing part of the loan. It is only 30 per cent. of the total amount of the loan that we are guaranteeing. The rest of the loan is being raised and guaranteed by other countries. Other countries' credit is not as good as ours. We had better not go into the reason why, but some people are not paying, and therefore their guarantee is not as good as ours, and so they cannot raise money at 3½ per cent., as we can.
Is the same rate of interest going to cover the whole of the loan, or is it permissible for us to raise our 100,000,000 schillings at the best rate that the British Government can raise it? It makes a material difference, because our guarantee is a guarantee of interest as well as of principal. A guarantee of interest, therefore, if the loan is raised at 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., as was the old loan, will mean that the problematical and very possible burden upon the taxpayers of this country will be twice as high. Before we come to a decision it should be made clear what is the extent of the annual liability of this country? What is the liability that this country has taken on its shoulders?
The Committee will observe that this is a gold loan, and that the schillings are gold schillings. The present Austrian schilling is, we are told, at 20 per cent. discount, and therefore, if the Austrian schilling recovers, the burden upon

963
Austria will be less. On the other hand, if the Austrian schilling falls, which is not at all impossible, the burden on Austria will become far greater, and may become intolerable. That is not the really serious item, which is that the loan in which we are taking part is one in which the burden is in gold. This is one more desperate attempt on the part of the bankers of this country to anchor our currency to gold. Our liability is a gold liability. All our other liabilities, except the Debt to America, are sterling liabilities. Here is another gold liability. We have had nothing to do with it. It has been entirely arranged by our delegates, the expert financiers of this country. It is about time that we on these benches protested against these desperate attempts to re-anchor us to the old gold parity. Every hon. Member knows, and probably the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well, that we shall never go back to the old gold parity and that we are much better off it. The one good thing that has happened since this Government came into power is that that which they came into power to prevent has happened, and we have got off gold.
Why, therefore, is this Debt incurred in gold? Because the other partners to the loan, the French Government and the others, being on gold, insisted upon our taking our liabilities in gold too. This is one more example of the way in which the taxpayers of this country are sacrificed on every occasion to the interests of France and to the interests of the gold countries.
The two vital things about this are that our credit is far better than that of other countries and that therefore our liability under this loan ought to be less. It ought to be based upon 3½ per cent. interest instead of upon 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. That is one thing. The second thing is that we ought not to take on a gold liability when the one object of financiers and statesmen in this country is to increase the sterling area and to ensure that we shall not be driven back on to gold.
5.43 p.m.
Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I shall only keep the Committee a moment or two before the Financial Secretary replies. I wonder whether he can tell us the figure which he must have had in his mind when he con-
964
sidered this matter, of the total amount of guarantees which are outstanding to this country, under this guarantee and under all international arrangements, in order that we may weigh the sum by which we are increasing that amount in order to see how important a sum it is. We agree that this country has not only a sympathetic duty but a real responsibility so far as Austria is concerned. We took part in the Treaty of Trianon which led to the present Austria, an Austria which, standing isolated, must be wholly uneconomic. We do not see that the continuance of loans is ever going to cure that position. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has it in mind that something far more fundamental has to be done. I hope that the Financial Secretary, when he replies, will be able to assure us that active steps are now being taken either to have this matter discussed at the World Economic Conference or to have it discussed very shortly in connection with the Danubian position. Everybody realises that unless some system for overcoming the Customs barriers in the Danubian area is devised, we can only keep Austria alive by continually pumping in fresh credit none of which we shall ever get back again.
Although we have that duty to the Austrians, we also have a duty to our own people. I shall be very glad to hear the Financial Secretary explain how he is going to satisfy the unemployed in South Wales that the Government are justified in withholding credit from South Wales while giving it to Austria. We believe that the Government ought to do both. If it did both, it would be consistent. How is it consistent, when you are refusing help at home, to offer it quite lavishly abroad? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give his explanation as to how that is shown to be consistent. As regards another feature, namely, the repayment of the loan by the Bank of England out of this guaranteed loan which is now to be raised, it seems to us that that is an unfortunate incident of the arrangement. We are not very much concerned with the Bank of England's financial status; we are more concerned with the British Government and with the Austrian Government in regard to this arrangement, and, as far as we can make out, the Austrian Government is going to get nothing out of it at all from our

965
point of view. The money raised in this country is going straight to the Bank of England to repay an existing debt which the Government of Austria owe to the Bank of England.
Mr. ALBERY: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to suggest that the Bank of England made this loan purely for commercial purposes, or even at all for commercial purposes?
Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not want to suggest anything, but, as everybody knows, there were many firms of high financial standing in the City of London who at that time were vitally interested in the position of the Creditanstalt and the Austrian Government. Whether it was that which actuated the Bank of England, or whether it was the British Government that actuated the Bank of England, I am afraid I do not know enough about the matter to say, but I think everybody knows that there were many other factors besides Governmental factors coming into account in the position as between the Creditanstalt and financiers all over the world at that date. However that may be, I suggest that it seems a little hard that the Bank of England should get 100 per cent. of its capital returned at once out of this loan, whereas, as I understand it, the other creditors of Austria are going to take their chance in the future of getting back what they can. The Bank of England, in fact, is going to be a. preferred creditor to the extent of 100 per cent., and that feature does not very much attract our sympathy, at any rate.
There is one other factor, and that is the conditions which we understand are being imposed upon the Austrian people. We think it is unfortunate when one country, coming forward to help another, tries to impose conditions upon the people of the other country as to how they should regulate their life, particularly when those conditions may possibly result in particular classes in that country suffering to a particular extent in order that the interest may be guaranteed. The hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) said, "Let the populations there sink to their own level." We do not believe in that system of humanity. We think that perhaps the hon. Baronet might be allowed to sink to his own level.
5.50 p.m.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My right hon. Friend, when he moved this Resolution, gave the Committee the full narrative connected with Austria in the matter of loans, and it would be redundant if I were to tell again a similar story. But, in spite of the completeness of my right hon. Friend's account, certain questions have been asked by hon. Members, some of which my right hon. Friend had answered in advance, and some of which are answered by reference to the White Paper. Nevertheless, I will try to recall the various interrogatories that were put to me, and, if by inadvertence I should forget to reply to any of them, I trust that I may be reminded, for there were very many of them.
It is possible to look at this subject, and it has been looked at, from two points of view. Some hon. Members think that we are placing Austria in a condition of subserviency; others think that we are placing ourselves in a condition of subserviency. It all depends on the view that is taken of the inter-connected responsibilities of nations. The view of His Majesty's Government is that, if Austria were allowed to collapse, the effects would be felt severely in our own country. Indeed, that has already been proved to be the case, and I think it is the justification for the course which we are now taking. We are providing a portion of a guaranteed loan, our proportion being 100,000,000 schillings; it is hoped that the total of the loan will be three times that amount.
Before any negotiations were entered upon with regard to this particular transaction, the Bank of England had advanced 100,000,000 schillings to Austria, an amount which is now equivalent to about £4,300,000. The Bank advanced this money to Austria from charitable motives at a moment of very great distress. When it advanced the money, it obtained a clear understanding that it would be repaid from the first long-term loan that Austria raised. The moment is now approaching when that loan may be raised, if the British House of Commons and the Parliaments of the other countries concerned approve. It is an advantage that, in giving this guarantee to Austria, no strain will be put upon the British exchange, for, in fulfilment of the understanding which the Bank had

967
with Austria, it is to be imbursed out of the proceeds of the loan. If we were not a party to the loan at all, that understanding as between the Bank of England and Austria would still operate, and, if France and Italy were to provide the money, this obligation would still be due to the Bank of England. There is nothing, therefore, dishonest or suspicious about that transaction, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) will be reassured. My right hon. Friend, whose nod of assent I am glad to see, was afraid that in guaranteeing this money, which he did not wish to be guaranteed at all, we were imposing a political condition upon Austria—that we were saying to Austria, "You may not in any circumstances unite with Germany." There is nothing in this Protocol which in any way changes the status quo,or interferes with any undertakings that Austria may have given in a previous Protocol. The position is exactly the same as it was before, and we have not changed it in any particular.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Surely, the condition was made before.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I thank the hon. Gentleman for repeating what I was saying. The status quo is preserved, and we have imposed no further condition whatever. Indeed, it would not have been the policy of this country to impose any further condition whatever. My hon. Friend who has just interrupted me expressed in his speech some doubt as to whether Austria in her present form can survive. The opinion of the Government is that Austria is quite able to stand alone, provided that her affairs are properly managed, and we therefore think that it is a proper course to take, in conjunction with our prospective co-guarantors, to say that Austria's Budget should be balanced, and that her whole internal position should be improved. We have not placed any penalty upon the people, nor deprived them of any of their social services. I trust that my hon. Friend will be glad to have that assurance.
Several hon. Members have asked—I must apologise for the discursive nature of the remarks I am making—whether any other banks had
968
advanced money to Austria at the time when this advance was made by the Bank of England. That question was asked by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), and also, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). The answer is in the negative; the Bank of England alone took that magnanimous course. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham wanted to know whether the reforms which the Austrian Government has undertaken to operate were in fact being carried into effect. I could, if my hon. Friend so desired, answer his question at some length by giving a full statement of what is being done, but perhaps he will dispense me from that, in order that we may the more expeditiously proceed.
Sir A. POWNALL: Can I see it?
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly; I will show it to my hon. Friend. He will see from the statement that everything practicable is being done by Austria, not only to regulate her own internal finances, but also to put her railways on as sound a basis as the economic circumstances of the time permit. Several hon. Members want to know, and in particular my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), whether, if this country ratified and the other Powers did not ratify, the loan would he made. It certainly would not be made, for the Protocol makes it quite clear that the ratifications of the principal Powers have to be deposited before the loan is made. A unilateral ratification by this country, Austria being the only other country to ratify, would not be sufficient, My hon. and gallant Friend said that, although Austria had ratified, it had ratified by a very small majority vote, I think of one or two, in the Austrian Assembly. The exiguous majority was not in the least due to the fact that Austria did not want this money. I think that everyone in Austria wants this money, and realises the necessity for it. It was due to internal political feeling in Austria. I can assure my hon. Friends that it was not due to any reluctance by Austria to accept this money, but was due to a sensitiveness about their political independence—a point with which I have already dealt in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton. A great deal might be

969
said on that subject, but I trust that the Committee will spare me the necessity of developing it now.
As to the terms upon which this loan is to be raised, our portion of the loan will be raised on the British market with the British Government's guarantee, and therefore it will be raised on such terms as the British Government's credit in these circumstances can command. That, of course, will be, in the present financial situation, a great advantage to this country in diminishing the guarantee, which otherwise might be of a greater amount. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) was a little confused as to the real amount of the 1923 loan, and was very much struck by the fact that we had guaranteed 24½ per cent., and that the loan itself came to 24½ million pounds. That is a pure coincidence. These are the real facts. The liability of His Majesty's Government under the 1923 loan is about £800,000 a year. If we ratify this Protocol, and if the loan be raised, we have every reason to expect, in view of the Austrian Government's assurance, that the service of the 1923 Guaranteed Loan will be continued, thus sparing British taxpayers from any loss. They have not incurred any loss at all up to the present, because the trustees of the loan have accumulated a reserve out of which they have paid the last instalment.
Mr. ALBERY: Are we to understand from that statement that, if this loan had not been made, there would have been a default in the Guaranteed Loan?
Mr, HORE-BELISHA: The Austrian Government undertook to transfer the sum required for the service of this loan in monthly instalments. The transfer of these instalments has been suspended since 1st July, 1932, but the amount required, namely, £580,000, for the service of the loan has been available out of the reserve fund held by the trustees and, consequently, the British taxpayer has not yet been called upon to make any payment under the guarantee, and we hope he will be spared from making any payment and that the full service of the loan will be resumed, saving us from what would otherwise be a loss of about £800,000 in each year. Not only will the interest be forthcoming on the 1923 Guaranteed Loan but there will still re-
970
main in this country the sum that we are guaranteeing under this new loan.
Mr. LAMBERT: What rate of interest is Austria going to pay for this loan?
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I thought I had explained that by saying that the British portion of the loan will be raised on the British market under the guarantee of the British Government, and, therefore, such rates of interest as the British Government can command will be obtained in respect of this loan. I hope my right hon. Friend understands that foreign Governments are guaranteeing various portions, which they will raise in their own market—in Paris or Rome as the case may be. We shall raise our portion in London under the guarantee of the British Government, and the British Government rate of interest will prevail. Austria, of course, will get the advantage of that.
Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the two questions that I put, first, what is the total amount of guarantees outstanding of foreign loans, and, secondly, will the Government explain their attitude to the unemployed in making a guarantee of this sort to Austria while refusing to do it at home?
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I had not completely forgotten that. I thought I made some response to the first point when I said it all depends on the point of view that you take. If you look upon the world as a common whole, the various parts having obligations towards one another, it would not pay a country in our position to allow another country to fail. If you preserve that country, you preserve the work of your own people, because you preserve the whole commercial system. As regards Government expenditure, I am sure my hon. and learned Friend would rather be a workman in this country than in Austria. He will find the full particulars that he requires in the financial accounts of the United Kingdom, 1931–32, where there is set out a complete list of all loans in respect of which the British Government is a guarantor.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why is it a gold loan if it is raised in a sterling country?
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is being raised in various parts of Europe, and we have to make agreements with other countries.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Were not our representatives given instructions on that issue?
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The other guarantor countries are gold countries, and you must find some least common denominator, and gold was, therefore, chosen.
Colonel WEDGWOODIt is not a common loan. Our portion of the loan raised in this country from the British people is at a different rate of interest from the loans raised abroad.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It has not yet been floated. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the memorandum with the Financial Resolution, he will see among the amounts which have so far been promised,
"United Kingdom 100,000,000 gold schillings (at present rates about £4,300,000)."
That is the method by which we measure our share of the total obligation, and that is the purpose of selecting gold.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question, why Germany was in the negotiations up to a point and is not among the list of guarantors?
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Germany was in these negotiations because, when they originally took place, there was a discussion as to preferences as between some of the Danubian countries and Germany. But Germany is not a guarantor of the 1923 loan and has not, therefore, dropped out in any way. I am sure Germany is well disposed towards Austria, but she has not dropped out, as the hon. Member seemed to suggest.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not suggest that, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Germany was taking part in the negotiations this summer. If the negotiations were, as we understood at the time, for the purpose of raising this loan, I cannot see any other object in Germany taking part.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I may answer my hon. Friend. The negotiations
972
to which I referred were by a Committee of Treasury experts who were examining the League's proposals. They involved not merely an advance of money to these States, but also various economic alterations in their relations, for instance, the granting of certain preferences by one State to another in respect of particular products. Germany came in in respect of those economic arrangements. She was one of the countries which would have been invited to give the preferences, and it was that that brought her in. That is, perhaps, what misled my hon. Friend into thinking she was also concerned in the financial guarantee, which is not the case.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I also asked what is the position of the Austrian Budget and her power to pay back these loans? Before we guarantee the loan, we have some right to know.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I answered that point by saying that Austria has undertaken to balance her Budget, and we were perfectly satisfied that proper measures were being taken. My hon. Friend could hardly expect me to open in this Committee Austria's Budget and give details of expenditure and revenue, but we are perfectly satisfied that Austria is taking proper steps.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  REPORT [19 th December].
  Resolutions reported:

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1932.

      CLASS V.
      1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,010,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges and other Acts; Expenses of the

      973
      Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Removal of Workers and their dependants; Grants for assisting the voluntary provision of occupation for unemployed persons; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War."

      CLASS II.
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,410,955, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, in substitution for payments due from the Government of the Irish Free State."
      First Resolution agreed to.
      Second Resolution read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      6.15 p.m.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The Government do not usually like presenting Supplementary Estimates, and they present this one with even greater regret than usual. It is made necessary because of the default of the Irish Free State Government under a number of heads. I should like to say immediately that the Government feel deeply sorry at the state of affairs which exists between the Irish Free State and ourselves, especially after the high hopes, which, I think, we all entertained, that the foundation had been laid for far happier relations during recent years. We desire nothing but complete friendship with the people of the Irish Free State. We remember that they are not only citizens of a great self-governing Dominion, but that they themselves have been a parent stock of the population in other Dominions. They, too, are a mother country, and we are anxious that a satisfactory and fair settlement of the present disputes should be reached at the earliest possible moment. It may be a controversial subject, but, at any rate, I would claim that the Government have shown a conciliatory spirit throughout the matter. I do not intend to cover the ground again here, but my right hon. Friend has a certain reputation as a negotiator. He is always doing his best to get a reasonable settlement, and I think that he has maintained that reputation in this instance. I repeat, that the Government are anxious to get a satis-
      974
      factory settlement of these matters as soon as possible, not simply because difficulties like these are troublesome, and not simply because some of the economic consequences are unfortunate, but also because any disturbance of the good relations between the people and the Government of the Irish Free State and ourselves is a matter of deep concern to every Member of this House.
      This Estimate is in order to meet deficiencies in certain funds as a result of the default of the Irish Free State. It is divided into three sub-heads, the first of which is "Land Purchase." The Estimate is to provide, the sums necessary in order to repay advances which have already been made and to provide for further payments which will be necessary to meet deficiencies in the income of the Land Purchase Fund. Hon. Members will see that there is a difference between the sum which is to be provided and the total amount due from the Irish Free State. The sum to be provided under this Estimate is £2,288,000, whereas the total sum due under the head of "Land Purchase" from the Irish Free State amounts to £2,966,000. The explanation of the difference in those figures is that the liability of the Consolidated Fund is to a certain extent limited. The details are set out in page 5 of the Supplementary Estimate, but I will say a word or two upon each of those details in explanation.
      In the first place, as regards the Act of 1891, which was amended in 1896, the liability of the Treasury extends to making up any insufficiencies in the fund to meet dividends and sinking fund payments to the extent of 1 per cent., but in addition, under the Act as it was amended, the tenant purchasers have been paying an additional quarter per cent. which goes to the repayment of capital, but that additional quarter per cent. is not guaranteed in the same way. Under the Acts of 1903 and 1909 the liability of our fund only extends to meeting any insufficiency in the payment of dvidends. It does not extend to sinking fund payments in those two cases. Thirdly, under the Acts of 1903 and 1909, the National Debt Commissioners have authority to invest sinking fund moneys in further advances to purchasers, and the Treasury is advised that they have no liability to meet the interest on those

      975
      cash loans. Finally, there is a small sum of another £2,000. The Land Purchase Funds have certain small amounts of working capital which earn interest, and that sum also has to be taken into account in calculating the total deficiency. That is the explanation, in brief, of the difference between the sum which we are seeking to provide, and the total sum which is due from the Irish Free State under the item "Land Purchase." I would draw the, attention of the House to the paragraph which says:
      "The fact that these sums are excluded from the amount provided in the Estimate does not, however, in any way affect the liability of the Irish Free State Government to pay over the whole amount … of the Land Purchase Annuities due."
      There is a second sub-head which is described as "Annuities under Certain Acts," and those Acts are set out in page 4—The Public Offices Sites (Dublin) Act, 1903, and so on. It is necessary in this Estimate to provide for the total sum which is due from the Irish Free State under the sub-head. Finally, the third sub-head is described as "Appropriations in Aid of Civil and Revenue Votes," and the two principal items there are the cost of Royal Irish Constabulary and ether pensions, and the sum required to meet what used to be the Irish Free State contribution towards the payment of interest and sinking fund on Bonus and Excess Stock under the Land Purchase Acts. The House will see, on page 5, that a sum of £247,554 has been received from the Irish Free State during this year under that head. Molt of that is made up by two months' payment in respect of Irish Constabulary pensions which was made at the beginning of the financial year. In addition to that sum, which lightens the deficiency, the House will see that on page 4 there is a list of "Anticipated savings on other Sub-heads of the Vote concerned," and as a result of those two sets of figures we can reduce the amount which is necessary under the third sub-head to £1,103,652. To sum up the position, the Supplementary Estimate will provide for approximately £3,411,000, as against a total sum due from the Irish Free State under those heads of £4,113,000.
      The House will remember that the holders of Irish Loan Stock were paid when payment was due, and, of course,
      976
      the other payments have been met, but the Government were anxious that the burden of those payments should not fall upon the taxpayers of this country. They were anxious that, at any rate, as much of the burden as possible should be saved to the taxpayers of this country, and therefore we asked the House to pass the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, the purpose of which was to raise revenue on certain imports into this country with a view to meeting those payments. In addition to the sum which has been raised under the Special Duties Act must be added the sum raised upon Irish imports under the Import Duties Act since 15th November. The total sum raised in respect of both of those Acts up to 10th December was £1,357,160, and the Customs estimate of the yield to the end of the financial year—though naturally the estimate is of a very rough nature because the experience of these duties has not been a very long one. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] In reply to the interjections perhaps I may say that the figure apparently already exceeds some of the expectations of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. The calculation, rough as it is, is that something in the neighbourhood of £2,500,000 will have been gathered by the end of the financial year.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say by how much the £2,500,000 is less than the amount of the indebtedness of the Irish Free State? Is it not, roughly speaking, about £2,000,000?
      Mr. MacDONALD: As far as the subheads of this Estimate are concerned, the figure, if it proves correct, will fall short of the Irish Free State State dues by something like £1,500,000. That is the reason for the Supplementary Estimate, and I hope that the House will give it to the Government to-night.
      6.27 p.m.
      Mr. LUNN: I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.- Colonel Moore - Brabazon) upon the effect of his speech at the close of the last Debate on the Irish Import Duties in the fact that he has brought up the Under-Secretary, who has moved so delightfully the Supplementary Estimate on this occasion. I regret equally with the hon Gentleman the necessity for the Supplementary Estimate. It is a large sum of money—£3,411,000—which we are asking

      977
      the British taxpayer to pay in order to meet the so-called deficiency payments to the Irish Free State, although we have been told in each Debate that has taken place up to now that the British taxpayer would not be asked to pay a penny. That has been said emphatically by the Secretary of State for the Dominions on each occasion we have discussed the question of the Irish Free State and its payments. Among the many blunders of the Government, this is one of the most ridiculous and the least defensible we have had. The Government have never attempted to negotiate this business to a settlement. From the very beginning there was nothing in the nature of negotiations, as the Secretary of State and I understand negotiations, and whatever reputation he had—and I have admitted his reputation in negotiation—he has lost it in what took place with regard to the Irish Free State and its deficiencies.
      This matter was undertaken by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and another Member of the Government. I wonder sometimes how far the Secretary of State for the Dominions was able to have his own way in the business. I have repeatedly admitted his ability as a negotiator. I have always understood that he had a reputation in the trade union movement for wanting peace and avoiding war, but either he or someone else has never sought peace in this matter. They have brought about an economic war. Sometimes I feel that it is other Members of the Government who are more responsible than the right hon. Gentleman. We have had experience of some of the lawyers in the Government. There is one lawyer who is flying every other day to Geneva and back, who has lost the prestige and reputation of this country in foreign affairs. There is another lawyer who went to Dublin, the right hon. noble Lord the Secretary of State for War. We all remember that a few years ago he gave advice on another Irish question which cost this country a tremendous sum of money. I doubt the judgment of some of these men, and I feel that they have had a hand in the business.
      There were no negotiations. Immediately almost, without attempting to settle the matter, although the British Government admitted that there was a dispute and were prepared to go to
      978
      arbitration, and although the Irish Free State Government were prepared to go to arbitration, there was legislation. When it came down to that point, I suggest that it would have been wisdom on the part of the British Government to have accepted the suggestion of Mr. de Valera. I have said on other occasions that I would have accepted his suggestion, because I have never doubted that we had justice on our side. I would have immediately accepted the offer to go to arbitration that was made by Mr. de Valera when this matter was partially negotiated.
      Sir W. DAVISON: You would have introduced foreigners?
      Mr. LUNN: I have said all the time that I would have taken the offer of Mr. de Valera, although I would prefer an Empire tribunal, if it were possible. But there is no Empire tribunal set up. There has never been any agreement for an Empire tribunal. That has never been agreed upon. Therefore, I would not have allowed Mr. de Valera to have any reason for suggesting independence or separation from the Empire on this particular issue. I would have accepted his suggestion for arbitration, because I believe, as the Secretary of State for the Dominions believes, in the justice of our claim in regard to these financial matters.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Arbitration upon what?
      Mr. LUNN: Upon the land annuities—not upon the Oath.
      Mr. THOMAS: Hear, hear!
      Mr. LUNN: Upon the question of the Annuities. The right hon. Gentleman knows my views upon that matter. What happened? Without very much discussion, with very little negotiation, a Bill was presented to the House in order to impose Import Duties upon Irish produce. That Bill was carried through the House, after many days of discussion. That was a Bill which, perhaps, has caused greater bitterness and ill-feeling than most forms of legislation that have been brought before the House. The first Bill was not satisfactory. Therefore, on 8th November, the Secretary of State came forward with another Measure in order to double the duties that had

      979
      been enforced in July. Although I believe that other Members of the Government are at least equally responsible, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs cannot escape responsibility for what has happened. He is in charge of this business and in charge of the Department. Therefore, whatever blame has to be placed upon an individual Member of the Government, it, naturally, has to be placed upon his shoulders. He has seen the consequences of this legislation all the time. On 8th November, when we debated the subject, it followed a Debate on unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman's first words, in introducing his proposal to double the import duties on Irish Free State produce, were:
      "This is a subject which, it must be frankly admitted, does not tend to further employment."
      He visualised the position clearly. It has not meant more employment. It has meant diminished employment in this country. It has added to our unemployment, because the Irish Free State are not purchasing from us what they were purchasing before. In my own industry, the mining industry, we are suffering tremendously in certain areas through the loss of contracts as a result of the Government's policy. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
      "We would welcome any and every opportunity of negotiation to bring this unfortunate dispute to an end."
      The Under-Secretary of State has said the same thing, in so many words, to-night; that is, if we get our own way. That is what they mean. There is no question of negotiation, no question of meeting the other side. If we can drive home our own position, if we can have the way we desire and the arbitration we desire, then we are prepared to negotiate on those lines. Those are so many empty words. The right hon. Gentleman also said:
      "We intend to take all the steps that are open to us to obtain what we believe is due to us."
      There was the peaceful mind, the sweet reasonableness, the anxiety for negotiation. We passed the legislation, and the result has not been what we were told it would be. We expected to receive £5,000,000 from the Irish Free State up to now, but we have received only £1,300,000. We were not going to ask for
      980
      one penny from the British taxpayer. To-day, the Government are asking for £3,500,000 from the British taxpayer to meet the deficiency. I suppose it was never anticipated by the Government, although it was stated by various speakers, that there would be reprisals and retaliation. There have been reprisals and retaliation, and a good deal of it. The Irish Free State Government have met the position so far as their own people are concerned. I understand to-day that there is no desire on the part of the Irish Free State Government to negotiate on Land Annuities. There is no desire on the part of the Irish people to go to arbitration. I also hear that the people of Ireland are better off economically than they were before. I see in the newspapers that the Irish peasants are getting better food than they were getting before. I also see that they have found markets for their butter in other countries, even if they cannot come here.
      There is another important matter, and that is that while our railwaymen are fighting daily and hourly against a claim for a monstrous reduction in their standards of life, in the Irish Free State they have a truce, they have a peaceful settlement for their railwaymen for some time to come. Therefore, I suggest that it is not going to be an easy matter to secure a settlement from the Irish Free State Government. The point with which I am concerned is the point that I have made before. The Secretary of State for the Dominions said:
      "the Government, having made up their minds definitely and clearly to say that the British taxpayer shall not bear this burden …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1932; cols. 263–269, Vol. 270.]
      I hope that he will be able to justify his action in coming here to-day and asking the British taxpayer to find this money. We have said before, and I say it now, that this business was bound to create bitterness, ill-feeling and hatred. I wonder what our own people will say regarding this claim for additional taxation in order to meet what, I suggest, has been a blunder on the part of the Government in not securing a settlement before they introduced legislation. There can be no peace in this matter until both sides meet. However that end is to be brought about, it must be brought about. That is the way that disputes are settled. The matter ought to be settled by arbi-

      981
      tration. While I would prefer an Empire Tribunal to settle the matter, I would not object to an international tribunal. I believe in the justice of our case, but I would have the matter arbitrated upon at the earliest possible moment, and I should like to see the Government attempting to bring that about. Expressing my personal feelings, I wish to see the Irish nation a part of the British Empire. I have no desire to sec it separate or independent, but I think we are seeking that ourselves in attempting to justify Mr. de Valera on this particular issue. I would point out also that there can be and there will be repercussions in various parts of the world. During the Debate on War Debts, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said:
      "as long as the ridiculous dispute with Ireland continues, I am sure that we shall be jeopardising our chances of convincing the American people that we are entitled to give up paying our debt to America."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1932; col 371, Vol. 273.]
      I agree with that statement. There is, I believe, a larger population of Irish people in America than in Ireland, and this dispute is bound to have its effect. Therefore, I urge upon the Secretary of State that the Government should take up a different position in regard to Ireland, that they should endeavour to secure peace, that they should endeavour to open negotiations with the Government of the Irish Free State. This bitterness, hatred and ill-feeling which now exist will continue until we negotiate a settlement. Therefore, I urge the necessity upon the right hon. Gentleman of taking steps towards a settlement. Instead of asking our people to meet this deficiency, he should seek a means of going to arbitration and seeing that this matter is settled satisfactorily, not only to us but to another part of the Empire, the Irish Free State.
      6.45 p.m.
      Major HILLS: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) on one thing, and that is that he does admit the justice of our case. Other hon. Members below the Gangway do not admit the justice of our case, and while there may be good reasons why the constituents of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) should be taxed for the benefit of the Irish Free State people, I hope his con-
      982
      stituents will take note of his attitude. I do not want to impose any further taxation on the people of this country in connection with this matter, and I am convinced that the Government have gone the best way to avoid it. The hon. Member for Rothwell, in this matter, takes the side of Mr. de Valera and is encouraging him to hold out. He admits the justice of our case and supports an Empire tribunal, but just because Mr. de Valera is holding out against the National Government the hon. Member supports him. I will not argue again the question of the legality of the agreements. That is admitted by almost everyone perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who still contends that these agreements are not binding.
      Mr. MORGAN JONES: Like the Scotsman, I have my doubts.
      Major HILLS: The hon. Member for Bridgeton and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) of course think that these agreements are not legally binding. The hon. Member for Rothwell takes a more reasonable and a more national view of the situation and considers the interests of our own people more than hon. Members below the Gangway. Why are 'we wrong in this matter? Where has the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs gone wrong He is an able negotiator. He started with no prejudices against Mr. de Valera, but he met a gentleman with whom a settlement was impossible. Anyone who reads this document and realises all the excessive claims which have been raised by Mr. de Valera must recognise that a settlement with that gentleman was impossible. The right hon. Gentleman has gone as far as he possibly could. After all, you are not always obliged to arbitrate a claim in which you are clearly in the right; you can insist on payment. You arbitrate a doubtful claim, but where you are clearly in the right, where all the world acknowledges that you are in the right, there is no room for arbitration. The right hon. Gentleman has, however, waived all that and has agreed to arbitration. The whole matter between us is whether it should be an Empire tribunal or any outside court or arbitrator, or any other outside body. I support the action of the Dominions

      983
      Secretary. He is right, and he has behind him the great body of opinion in this country. His position is in line with the best opinion of international jurists, that all inter-Imperial disputes should be settled within the Empire. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East (Sir S. Cripps) shakes his head. The late Lord Phillimore, who was not a member of the Conservative party but a great lawyer and a great international lawyer, told me more than once that he would never agree to a dispute between Empire members going to the Hague Court or to any foreign tribunal.
      Sir S. CRIPPS: I shook my head against the proposition that it was a matter of international law. There is no international law upon it. It was Lord Phillimore's opinion.
      Major HILLS: I quoted the opinion of a great international lawyer as bearing upon an inter-Imperial dispute. Mr. de Valera is trying to treat this matter as an international question. It is not an international question: it is an inter-Imperial question. The hon. Member for Rothwell complains that the action of this country has created bitterness. Debt collecting is always a bitter matter. No one likes to pay up, and in this case the one who is paying up feels it very sorely. But somebody must pay up, and it is either those who are so fortunate or unfortunate as to live under the rule of Mr. de Valera or it is my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members. It may have created some bitterness, but I should feel far more bitter if the whole of the burden was to be put on the taxpayers of this country. I want to get as much as I can, and I hope that we shall in time collect the whole of the amount. Hon. Members opposite do not support the collection of the money in this way. They object to the charge being made on the British taxpayer and yet boggle at the means which the Government propose for collecting part of the charge. If we carry out their views to their logical conclusion, the whole of this charge will be cast on the taxpayers of this country. I want to collect as much as I can, and I hope we shall be able to collect more when a more reasonable attitude prevails on the other side of St. George's Channel. I do not rule out
      984
      that probability, but until that time comes I do not see how we can do other than try to save the pockets of the British taxpayers as far as possible. The right hon. Gentleman has gone to the limit of concession. He should go no further. I support the Government in the action that they have taken
      6.55 p.m.
      Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: It must be agreed that the present state of affairs is deplorable and everyone would like to see it brought to an end as soon as possible. The way in which this dispute has arisen is well known to the whole world. We were surprised when Mr. de Valera declared his intention of defaulting on the land annuities, and the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) is unfair to the Dominion Secretary when he says that he has made no efforts in the direction of arbitration or negotiation. The whole House has admired the Secretary of State for the Dominions for the efforts he has made. There has been no attempt to stand on dignity. He has made every effort to get this matter settled in a reasonable manner. I am glad that the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) has declared his preference for an Empire tribunal, and the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) has given some reasons why an Empire tribunal should settle inter Empire disputes. There is still another reason. We should always bear in mind the implications which would follow from a resort to a tribunal outside the Empire, the effect it would have on other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It would be difficult for one part of the British Commonwealth of Nations engaged in a dispute to suggest going outside the Empire to some foreign tribunal without considering the result such a move would have on the other members of the Commonwealth.
      Mr. de Valera has definitely and deliberately chosen his own policy. We regret that it is a policy which rather tends to estrangement and bitterness. It has been said already that the dispute has led to bitterness. I am thankful that on this side of the channel there is very little bitternesss. The people of this country have treated the matter with remarkable restraint, have kept their heads, not given way to passion on a matter where passions might easily be

      985
      aroused. The proof of that is that at the present moment there is just as much willingness to settle by arbitration or negotiation as there was when the dispute began. When parties to a dispute really want to come to an agreement some accommodation can always be found, but when you have a dispute in which one of the parties is not willing to come to an agreement you very often find that the first cause of the dispute is enlarged and other matters brought in, whereas if there is a real intention to come to an agreement the desire is always to narrow down the points in dispute rather than enlarge them.
      That is what has taken place in connection with this dispute. Matters have been brought in which are quite outside the original cause of the difference between Ireland and ourselves. Still there is a readiness to respond to any move on the part of the Irish Free State, to negotiate matters which can be negotiated and to arbitrate matters which can be arbitrated. I am not referring to questions which are really outside any arbitration or negotiation, questions which are matters of history, such as the over-taxation of Ireland in years gone by. These have been brought into the dispute, although they are quite foreign to the. original dispute. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. M. MacDonald) said that we all hoped after the Treaty that better times were coming, that better relatons would exist between Ireland and ourselves, that old memories would recede further into the background. It is a matter of great regret to us on this side of the Channel that this dispute should have occurred. In all our political history I suppose that no political party has done more, or has worked harder and made greater sacrifices in the cause of Ireland, than the party to which I have the honour to belong. I may, therefore, more freely say that we have seen as history has unfolded itself step by step in this dispute, that something in the nature of the action taken by the Government was inevitable. We have approved of that action, very distasteful as it was to us. In these circumstances I really feel that there is very little to be said now, except so far as we can send a message to Ireland that we have no bitterness on this side and that we are perfectly willing, as we were at the start, to arbitrate and negotiate as reasonable
      986
      men, and that we will wait patiently and hopefully for a response from the Irish people.
      7.1 p.m.
      Mr. MAXTON: I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary, instead of the Secretary of State, opened this discussion. The Parliamentary Secretary placed the matter before the House in a competent and purely business way. He cut out from his speech all those delightful homilies we have had on previous occasions when this matter was before the House, about the sanctity of treaties, and how business arrangements once entered into must be maintained for ever and ever; that a word once given must be kept for ever and ever, etc., etc. Perhaps these may come at a later date in the course of the discussion. I must say I come to my contribution to the discussion with less enthusiasm than would have been the case if I had been stimulated in advance by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions on the importance of honour and the keeping of promises. I have always treated the right hon. Gentleman's opinion as being of the highest importance. I miss it today. I am afraid I have got to ask him if he is satisfied with the results of his sermonising to myself, and to the Irish people.
      I suppose the right hon. Gentleman was present in the Cabinet when the question of the American debt was under discussion. Some future generation in Parliament will demand the publication of papers on that discussion. I would like to have heard, or seen, the remarks of the Dominion Secretary on the American question. I am told, but there may be no truth in this, that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is not being allowed to have the papers with reference to the 1923 discussion on the American Debt is because several of the Members of the Cabinet expressed themselves in somewhat frank and free terms. When it comes to frankness And freedom of expression I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions has no superior, and I would have liked to have known if his remarks on the American Debt question contained the same moral principles as he has enunciated here in dealing with

      987
      the Irish question. The American Debt has made a considerable difference in the situation. If the British Government can seriously consider the "bilking" of a debt of some £29,000,000 per annum, then we cannot stand on a very high pedestal and lecture the Irish people on defaulting on a debt of £3,000,000, particularly when the Irish people have something in the nature of a principle on which to stand—a principle which has been accepted and enunciated by the Irish people when they returned the Government of Mr. de Valera to power.
      I have never entered into arguments on the relative merits of Empire and international tribunals. I have taken the view that the two matters of the Oath and the annuities were inextricably bound together. There is no possibility of submitting an oath to arbitration by any tribunal, and if the Oath question cannot be submitted to a tribunal the annuities question, which is intimately associated with it, cannot be submitted to a tribunal either. Obviously, it is just trickery for the British Government to talk about an Empire tribunal. What is the essence of the Irish Government's demand?—a democratically elected Irish Government. It is that it shall get rid of all symbols, bonds and debts which indicate that Ireland, in the eyes of the world, is in a status subordinate to Great Britain. That is the essence of the attitude on which Mr. de Valera was elected. He was to demonstrate in the eyes of the world that Ireland is not subordinate to Great Britain and is an equally independent and sovereign nation. He took these outstanding things—the symbol and the cash payments which indicated the subordinated position of Ireland to England. He said: "These are to cease from now henceforth." Then our Government came forward and said, "We are prepared to discuss these things; we are generous and open; we are prepared to go to a tribunal, but it must be an Empire tribunal," which is simply a reassertion of Ireland's subordinate place, that she has no right to stand as one of the nations of the world on an equal footing with England before an international tribunal.
      The Government rushed at once to an international tribunal in the matter of their dispute with Persia. They recog-
      988
      nised Persia. Persia is not in the Empire. She is an independent sovereign country with equal rights to Great Britain in world affairs, and so they went to an international tribunal. But Ireland's status is somewhat lower and she must go to the tribunal to which you say she shall go. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) regards Mr. de Valera as not a man with whom you can negotiate on this matter. I think that is a very high tribute to Mr. de Valera. Mr. de Valera says, "No, I have no right to negotiate away the things that Ireland asked me to maintain." What we are discussing here to-day is a failure, from the practical point of view. Ireland says, "We will not pay," and England says, "We will make you pay." To-day the fact that the Government come forward with this Supplementary Estimate is the intimation to the world that we cannot make Ireland pay. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon suggested that my attitude was to make the British taxpayer pay. That is a matter for argument. It is really our nation which is paying this. Whether that be the true position, or not, the fact remains that the Government find that the duties are not collecting the amount.
      Major HILLS: Not the whole amount.
      Mr. MAXTON: They are falling very far short. I say frankly that my attitude would not be to make my constituents pay the interest on these Land Annuities. My attitude would be quite distinctly this: I would say to the people who hold the stock concerned, "We guaranteed you interest on these moneys on the basis of certain conditions. These are conditions which no longer exist. You have had your interest for a reasonable time, and you have done reasonably well out of it."
      Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Mr. de Valera is collecting the annuities. Does he not admit that the annuities are due by the fact that he is collecting them?
      Mr. MAXTON: I think Mr. de Valera is entitled to argue that the people who are using Irish land have a right to pay to the Irish State for the use of Irish land. That does not compel him to admit the duty of Ireland to pay rent to foreign

      989
      bondholders. I was in the middle of stating what my attitude would be. I said I would intimate to these bondholders that the conditions under which they were guaranteed their interest and that money are now changed, and that the British Government must intimate to them that it could no longer be responsible for the payment of that interest. I see one or two of my hon. Friends shaking their heads as if that was an impossible position. The great characteristic of the present state of society in which we are living is that, if we are to carry on at all, there must be repudiation and cancellation of bargains made some years ago. A trivial one like this is merely a drop in the general bucket of repudiation and cancellation.
      Behind it all there is the long-drawn-out history of antagonism towards Ireland. I have been reading with very great interest and some pleasure in the last two days a very interesting book called "Ireland for Ever" by a gentleman called General Crozier, who played a not unimportant part in the happenings in Ulster and Ireland generally in the period when the Irish trouble was at its height. He shows very clearly in that book, writing from the Imperialist point of view, how ill-feeling has been fostered over the years, between this country and Ireland, that always this House, in response to Irish agitation, was prepared to do things for Ireland, to grant them this and to make the other concession, but was never prepared to give Ireland the one thing that it wanted, recognition as an independent nation. Over the years there has been a long series of mistakes and troubles and quarrels and shootings and debts, all because we believed that as a nation we could beat an unwilling nation into voluntary and hearty cooperation with this country. You do not get hearty co-operation between two nations by methods of coercion. You cannot possibly get it by methods of coercion, whether those methods are physical force methods or economic warfare. We tried physical force methods and they failed. Ireland beat us.
      Ireland could not be forced into surrender by the most coercive measures that we could bring against her. The Government are finding it impossible to coerce her now by economic methods. The first blows of the tariff duties were a stag-
      990
      gering blow to Irish agriculture, but the Dominions Secretary knows that Ireland has rallied from the blow, that she is reorganising her economic life in a very capable and probably successful way, reorganising it on the assumption that she can have a complete economic life without dependence on this country. She is going to win out, and she will make herself a self-sufficing economic unit. Why cannot this House recognise the logic of the facts and say, "All right. We have struggled for hundreds of years to coerce Ireland by one way and another, but we have failed and we are failing now." At first it was a 20 per cent. duty that was to do the trick. Then the duty was increased to 40 per cent., but with the 40 per cent. duty the Dominions Secretary has to come to us and tell us that that is not enough, and that he will have to get something additional out of the Exchequer.
      Why cannot he admit defeat now? He cannot collect the money by economic devices. The public opinion of the world would not allow him to attempt to collect it by forcible methods. Why cannot he say to Ireland, "We recognise you as an independent nation, and we are prepared now to enter into discussion with you, to give you the fullest recognition and status that you can possibly want?" Once that is done I believe that you can open up a new era in the history of the relationship between Ireland and this country. Until you have granted the Irish people the one thing that they want, your relations will be one continued story of complications, difficulty and ill-feeling. I urge the Dominions Secretary to alter his policy, to get away from the idea that he is the big strong man representing the big strong Government of a big strong nation that can impose its will on a small people, and to make up his mind that numbers and strength, financial or numerical, cannot achieve anything. The one thing they cannot achieve is destruction of the spirit of nationality in the breasts of people who really believe in it.
      7.22 p.m.
      Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: There are one or two points in the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to which I wish to refer. His argument might apply if the Irish Free State were not in the British Empire, but I would remind

      991
      him that the Free State is still a part of the Empire, and that the rest of the Empire expects the Free State to behave as a member of that Empire. The hon. Member repeatedly used the expression, "The Irish people." Let me remind him that there is Ulster. At the last election Mr. Cosgrave, who governed Ireland for 10 years and observed the Treaty and acknowledged that the annuities were a lawful debt to the taxpayers of this country, obtained very nearly as many votes as Mr. de Valera. In speaking of the Irish people, the hon. Member must remember that fact also. It is true that there are very nearly as many supporters of Mr. Cosgrave as of Mr. de Valera, and those supporters are anxious and willing to continue to be members of the British Empire, and to meet their just liabilities to this country.
      Mr. de Valera gives away his case by collecting these annuities. He admits they are legally due to someone. To whom are they due? To the British taxpayer who advanced the money in order that the Irish tenant farmer might obtain his land on cheap and easy terms. It is that generous treatment by this country that Mr. de Valera and his followers are trying to ignore. We must also remember that while Mr. de Valera's aim is not to remain in the British Empire but to declare the Free State a republic, at the same time he wishes to retain the advantages of being in the Empire. We know that under the Statute of Westminster the Free State has the power to become an independent State. Why should the hon. Member for Bridgeton urge with so much passion that we should grant to the Irish Free State the power to become an independent country? It has the power under the Statute of Westminster. Why try to knock at an open door?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) made a statement with which I cannot agree. He spoke of the Liberal party as having done more for Ireland than any other party. I would remind him that in 1906, after a long period of Conservative rule in Ireland, the Liberal Chief Secretary for Ireland said that Ireland was never so peaceful or prosperous as in 1906. For 10 years the Liberal party ruled Ireland, and at the end of that time had to
      992
      send gunboats up the Liffey to batter down some of the buildings in Dublin. That was the result of 10 years of Liberal Government.
      Sir R. HAMILTON: If that is the way the hon. Member thinks that history is written I am afraid it will take too long to try to correct him.
      Mr. SOMERVILLE: It was the phrase used by the hon. Member that reminded me of what occurred. But that is the past. We do not feel any bitterness, and why should we? We want to make a fair and generous settlement with Mr. de Valera. But, as my hon. Friend has said, it is impossible to make a bargain or an agreement with another party when that other party is determined not to make a bargain. We have heard on all sides that Mr. de Valera is impossible. One of the best speeches on this subject was made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), with whom we can seldom agree. It was his expression that Mr. de Valera was "impossible," and he knew well all the negotiations that have taken place with Mr. de Valera. There is nothing to be done now but to stand firm. We have an unanswerable case. My right hon. Friend the Dominion Secretary has shown the utmost patience, and I hope he will continue as he has done.
      7.25 p.m.
      Mr. HASLAM: Before the Dominions Secretary replies I would like to offer a few observations and make a suggestion. I could not help noting that the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) in his speech said that the Irish people were doing well in agriculture, and that the Irish labourers were well paid and had improved their position. That hardly seems in consonance with the view that great bitterness has been aroused. This deficit which the British taxpayer has to meet is a very considerable one, and if it is a fact that the Irish people are reorganising themselves and doing well, I cannot see any reason why the Dominions Secretary or the Government should not increase the duty on Irish cattle coming into this country. There is a great difference between the wage, less than £1 a week, of the Irish labourer, and that of the British agricultural labourer. Therefore I do not think that an increased duty would be unjustified,

      993
      looked at from the point of view of British agriculture and the collection of the debt.
      Mr. SPEAKER: That would require legislation.
      Mr. HASLAM: I beg pardon for having strayed from the path of order, but I thought that as this £3,000,000 was a very large sum one might offer a suggestion as to how the gulf might be bridged and a lesser sum be required from the British taxpayer. That is the only reason that makes me a little reluctant about this Vote, though I heartily support the attitude of the Dominions Secretary in the matter.
      7.29 p.m.
      Colonel GRETTON: The history of this Irish question has always been the same. I have been in this House since the last century. We were told then by the Irish party that if we gave way in this respect and that, all would be well in Ireland. The Liberal party believed that story and adopted that view of the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) wisely and properly remarked that the results of Liberal policy were seen in Ireland during the War when hostilities broke out in Dublin and elsewhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It cannot be denied. The Liberal Government were in office for a number of years and that was what happened. However, I do not wish to go into these matters now, but it is no good hon. Members raising the old arguments on that point such as we have heard this evening. The facts are there.
      The Dominions Secretary who is mainly responsible for this Vote has been put into the same dilemma as others who have had to deal with Irish affairs. He has been almost subservient in his offers to negotiate so long as the negotiations could be consistent with the terms of the treaty. According to the treaty the Irish Free State, for the present at any rate, is one of the Dominions and has all the powers of a Dominion, but the present Government in the Irish Free State is not satisfied with that position. These circumstances do not seem to be appreciated by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). The Dail have passed an Act annulling Section 2 of the Irish Constitution Act—an Act which was the result of the treaty and embodies it—
      994
      and they have set on one side Commonwealth status. That Act of the Dail when it is no longer delayed by the constitutional action of the Senate will become effective. I think that will be in November, 1934, or rather less than a year hence, and Ireland will then be an independent country not bound by the treaty in any way.
      To come back to the question of this Vote, what could the Dominions Secretary have done except what he has done? I think that he will be able to show to the House that the Imperial Conference in 1930 unanimously agreed that in any case of disagreement or difficulty arising between different parts of the Empire, an Empire tribunal should be set up to deal with that dispute or difficulty. That tribunal is to be constituted within the Empire and the Irish Free State representatives at that conference are not recorded as having made any opposition to that proposal. Mr. de Valera's Government know very well that the Dominions Secretary is bound by the resolution of the Imperial Conference and by the terms of the treaty, and he has in fact no legal right to accept any form of arbitration in connection with this question outside those terms. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in that respect.
      I do not understand how the hon. Member for Bridgeton makes out that the Oath and the annuities are part of the same subject. The Oath has been done away with. It has been abolished by an Act of the Dail. I believe that Act is law at present; at any rate it is on the way to becoming law. But that has really nothing to do with this case, and no one wants to raise that question now. In this case we are dealing with a debt incurred under certain conditions and with the fulfilment of an obligation. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said that it was a debt owing to the British taxpayer. Perhaps he forgets that this money was raised on the money market here for the special purpose of enabling Irish land to be handed over to the occupiers of that land in Ireland. The money is not owing to the British taxpayer but to those who subscribed the very large sum necessary to enable those occupiers to become freeholders.
      The rights of landowners were taken from the previous owners and handed over

      995
      to the occupiers, who, when they completed their purchase agreements, became the owners of the 'arid and had all the rights of ownership, subject only to the payment of interest which was at a very low rate, and 1 per cent. as sinking fund. What is the attitude of Mr. de Valera towards this payment It is said that during the recent General Election in Ireland, in many districts candidates put forward to the occupiers of land the suggestion that if Mr. de Valera were elected they need no longer pay the annuities. It does not appear that Mr. de Valera ever said anything of that kind. What he said was that he would no longer pay the annuities to the British Government; that he would no longer collect these annuities for the benefit of those connected with the British Government but he is collecting them for the benefit of the Government in Dublin. What is happening now? The British Government guaranteed that very large sum for the purchase of Irish land. That guarantee goes on to-day, and it is in respect of that guarantee that the present position arises. We have to meet the guarantee, and that is the reason for this Vote.
      I ask, again, what could the right hon. Gentleman the Dominions Secretary have done other than what he has done? If there is an attempt to place this charge upon the British taxpayer he is bound to resist it, and it is quite certain that Mr. de Valera's Government never had any serious intention either of making these payments or of negotiating. They have never shown any intention of seriously negotiating the matter or making a settlement. In the mood in which the Dominions Secretary was I am sure that he would have listened to any plea as to difficulties in making these payments owing to agricultural depression in Ireland. I am sure that he would have been willing to consent to something in the nature of a moratorium. But that was not the kind of plea made by the Government in Dublin. They took up a non possumus attitude. They did not want to pay and they would not pay and they only suggested arbitration of a kind which was unacceptable. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was bound to do the best he could to collect as much of these payments as possible in
      996
      another form, and consequently the duties were charged.
      We all regret that state of things. Those of us who have been familiar with Irish affairs now for many years have always regretted these disagreements and quarrels with Ireland, and it has not been from any wish of ours that they have taken place. Unfortunately, they have taken place and what has the right hon. Gentleman done in these circumstances He has collected nearly one-half or perhaps more than one-half of what is due and to that extent the British taxpayer will be relieved of this charge. I am not going into the kind of arguments raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton as to who pays the duty. In some circumstances no doubt it is possible to find cases where the duty is not paid by the importer, but I would point out that Mr. de Valera's Government in Dublin is giving bounties on cattle and other agricultural products sent over for sale in this country. These help payment to be made of the duties which are being collected, in lieu of the annuities which ought to have been paid. It is a very remarkable position, and I do not think that hon. Members or the Irish people quite realise what is happening in Dublin, but in the stress of circumstances that is the course which the Irish Free State Government have taken.
      It is, as I say, most unfortunate that there should be this constant jarring and disputing in regard to these questions. We have always been told that the Irish people wanted amity with this country. They now have self-government and freedom which they formerly demanded. The period which is yet to run as regards these land annuities is some 30 years which is not very long yin the life of a nation. As to the other payments which are in question, they are on account of pensions and pensions are a terminable liability. These are all temporary and passing phases, and one would think that those in charge of Irish Free State affairs would look a little further ahead and take a broader view of this question in view of the fact that all these liabilities will come to an end within a comparatively short period. I do not know what hon. Members above the Gangway intended in the attack which they made upon the Dominions Secretary but I venture to think that that attack was quite ineffec-

      997
      tive. It had nothing to do with the facts of the case unless it is suggested that every demand which is made upon this country, whether right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, must be submitted to by us.
      The remarkable circumstance in this case is that the Dominions Secretary is making more resistance than any British Minister has made for some years in connection with such matters. On more than one occasion representatives of the Irish Free State Government came over to London by invitation to negotiate and Mr. de Valera's representatives apparently expected to receive the surrender of British Ministers when they came here. That was what they had to become accustomed to. But the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way on this occasion. Nor can he give way, if he is to have regard for the interests of the British taxpayer. Much as I regret the situation which has arisen and the necessity for the action which has been taken, I think that the right hon. Gentleman, in circumstances created for him and created against his will, had no course to take other than that which he has taken. We shall have to support. him in passing this Vote and in the other action which he has taken to collect, as far as possible, the deficiency in these annuities.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. TINKER: I would like to make an appeal to the other side. We are blaming de Valera for his attitude in this matter, but let us remember that for 10 or a dozen years de Valera has put this view before the Irish people, at election after election, and at the last election they gave him power to take the stand that he has taken. De Valera has the people, or a majority of the people, behind him—certainly he has the biggest party—and we have to look upon him only as carrying out what he promised the people he would carry out. I am not agreeing with his attitude. I agree that these debts are honourable debts, and in ordinary circumstances they ought to be paid, but seeing that the Irish people have been led into their present position, I would appeal to the Government to consider whether they are acting wisely in taking the stand they have taken. The figures given by the Under-Secretary of State show the total yield to be £2,500,000, and there will still be a deficit of £1,500,000
      998
      if we get the full yield expected, so we are going to carry on this economic war for a, long long period, and instead of narrowing the gulf between us and getting better relations with Ireland, I can see it widening. If the Irish people are able to carve out their own destiny and leave us on one side, we shall lose not only our money, but the good feeling that we ought to expect from the Irish people.
      I suggested on another occasion that although we were in the right, seeing that we were the more powerful nation, at least we could bend down graciously, and that we could, on the case that we have, allow it to go anywhere. I know very well that the understanding is that it ought to go to an Imperial tribunal, but seeing that we cannot get the other side to view it in that light, and everyone believing that we have an exceptionally good case, why cannot we say to de Valera, "Well, if you will insist upon it, though we know we are in the right, we are prepared to let it go anywhere, and to be judged by anyone." Then see how far he will go. In place of that we say, "No, we can force it by other means. We are the big powerful brother, and we are going to have it out of you." The Dominions Secretary, I believe, started with the belief that he could get the money in a short time, but events have proved him wrong. Is their anyone, in any, family or any assembly, who is not from time to time in the wrong? In this case, rather than go on as we are going on, creating further enmity with the Irish people, I would ask those on the Government side of the House, and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), who has just spoken, and who is always known as a Die-hard, at. least in his older days, not; to follow that policy which has been his guiding spirit all his life.
      Colonel GRETTON: I should be sorry for the hon. Member to tell me what the guiding spirit of my life has been.
      Mr. TINKER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has always been known as belonging to the Die-hard group of Conservatives.
      Colonel GRETTON: A label.
      Mr. TINKER: Judging by the speech to-day of the right hon. and gallant Member, he has got the Die-hard spirit at the present time, and he is urging the

      999
      Dominions Secretary not to relax in the least, in spite of all the trouble, but to stick to it and get our pound of flesh. That is what I mean by the Die-hard spirit. But in social life you cannot follow out that kind of spirit. There are times when you have to give way, even though you are in the right. You have to say, "The other man is unreasonable, but I must bring him round by trying to persuade him that at least I am generous." The Government to-night, with their all-powerful majority, are in a position to show that spirit to the Irish people.
      I am an Irishman, and I am conversant with the Irish feeling in this country, which is that de Valera is in the wrong. They think he ought to pay, but they also recognise the chaos we are in; and it would be a fine gesture to those people in this country if the Government would say, "We recognise the difficulty of getting this money by the methods we have hitherto adopted, and we are prepared to go anywhere." I know we are in the right, but at a time like this, when the world trouble is so great, we should do all we can to link with us the Irish people.
      7.51 p.m.
      Mr. ATTLEE: We had to-day a very clear statement from the Under-Secretary of State, and it was very typical of the statements that we get from the Government on almost every subject. A Minister gets up and says, "Our affairs are in a terrible state, and the Government are following a certain course." They never offer us any hope that they are going to get anywhere. They have no remedy for the present conditions, but they intend going on in the same way. We have an example of that when we come to deal with unemployment, and we have a very emphatic example of it to-day. The Government to-day, through the mouth of the Under-Secretary of State, said, "We regret very much that we have to bring forward this Supplementary Estimate," and we agree with them in regretting it. The hon. Gentleman said he would not go into the past or deal with how the matter arose, but here was this trouble, and he was obliged to ask the House to vote this money, which is to come out of the pockets of the taxpayers; and with that he sat down. He
      1000
      made no suggestion that anything was going to happen in the future, and we understand that this tariff war is going to continue right the way along. I always understood that it was a kind of brilliant raid by the Dominions Secretary, but now it seems to be settling down into a sort of trench warfare, and trench warfare, of course, is extremely costly to those on both sides of No man's land.
      I think the Dominions Secretary will realise the different atmosphere of the Debate to-day as compared with previous occasions. We have not had very much to-day about solemn treaties and obligations.
      Major HILLS: It is admitted.
      Mr. ATTLEE: There is no question about that. I am only drawing attention to the different atmosphere. When this question was discussed in November, the right hon. Gentleman said:
      "Agreement having been made between representatives of two Governments, after days and weeks of negotiation, and solemnly ratified and proclaimed to the world as a final financial agreement, we had no reason to believe then, and we have no reason to assume now, that those agreements were not legally and morally binding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1932; col. 266, Vol. 270.]
      That was repeated a great deal on the last occasion, but it is not repeated so much just now, because the whole attitude of people towards financial agreements solemnly ratified seems to have changed to a startling degree in the last month. We had responsible Conservative politicians talking in a remarkable way about the American debt settlement. On that settlement, a settlement made by representatives and solemnly ratified and proclaimed as a financial settlement, we have paid, it is true, but we paid with a reservation. We said, "This is the last payment of its kind, and the whole matter is to be opened up again." I warned the right hon. Gentleman that he was taking up a high line on this matter, and that, although this nation was a creditor as regards the Irish Free State, we were a debtor nation as regards the United States of America. We warned him that if he took that very high line, it might be awkward and that we might have to eat humble pie later. Now the right hon. Gentleman has his colleague coming down here and talking

      1001
      in a very different strain, and we had better realise that all over the world the question as to whether there should not be a review of agreements, however solemnly ratified, is being discussed and canvassed.
      Mr. HOWARD: That is another matter. The Irish people did not ask for a review, but simply repudiated.
      Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member has misrepresented what happened. The Irish people were willing to go to arbitration on the matter. I have followed this question very closely, and it is admitted on all sides that the issue is as to whether the matter should go before a Dominions tribunal or another tribunal.
      Mr. HOWARD: That was after the repudiation had taken place.
      Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member must follow this question more closely. There was a discussion the other day in this House in which the point was made by a right hon. Gentleman sitting near the hon. Member that we agreed too quickly to honour our obligations, and that France and Italy, by holding out longer, got better terms from the United States than we did. That has not been thought to be repudiation, but merely that they wanted to negotiate. We say that here is a matter for consideration and negotiation, and the sooner it is recognised that this Irish case is not a single case standing alone in a world where all the rest of the people are solemnly being bound by their obligations, the better. All over the world, and in other British Dominions besides the Irish Free State, you will find people claiming that, owing to the change in commodity values, they have a right to a revision of their agreements.
      Mr. HOWARD: I agree, but not repudiation.
      Mr. ATTLEE: It is curious that when debtor nations talk about a settlement, they always mean that their obligations should be ended. They say, "Let us have settlement," but you find that they really mean that they want to stop paying altogether. Whatever may be the hon. Member's ideas on repudiation, that attitude towards debts was not so obvious in this House on earlier occasions when we were discussing this Irish question;
      1002
      and, as a matter of fact, many hon. Members in this House would have been scandalised then at the suggestions with regard to international obligations which have been made by responsible people in this House and in the country generally, as well as in the Press, during the last few weeks. I think there is in this matter a certain degree of obstinacy, on the part, no doubt, of both Governments, and we want to know to-night whether we are going to stand pat on this question, whether we are going to have a continued obligation on the people of this country to pay this money, and whether we are going to have a continuation of the tariff war between the United Kingdom and Ireland.
      In these matters we cannot stand still. A question which begins with a discussion on economic matters is apt to shift to political matters, and similarly questions which begin on the political side tend to go across to the economic, and we may find that if this economic trouble goes further we shall get a very serious political situation. The line which the Government have taken in this matter has been that put forward by the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), that is, that we must put these people in their place. The same line has been taken with regard to the Congress party in India, and it is not really a statesmanlike attitude. I noticed, by the way, that the right hon. and gallant Member repeated that there was an obligation to go to an Empire tribunal. I thought that that had been cleared up and that it was recognised now that there is nothing whatever in any agreement to prevent this country and the Irish Free State going to any tribunal that they choose.
      We want to look at the actual effect upon the well-being of the people of this country and of the Irish Free State. The calculation was that the effect of these duties would be much more severe on the Free State than they have turned out to be. It was thought that the Irish Free State might find no markets at all for their produce. I understand that they have, and that they are, for instance, selling their butter in Belgium, Germany and France. The economic pressure has not been sufficiently great to swing public opinion away from Mr. de Valera. I imagine that that was the calculation of

      1003
      the Government, in taking this line. We never supposed that the right hon. Gentleman took this action as if he were putting the bailiffs in or as if he were taking the part of a debt collector. He wanted a settlement, and it was thought that economic pressure might bring it about, but it is clear that that is not happening. People who are well informed tell me that there is no swing away from Mr. de Valera at present. Other people now say that there is a swing towards him. However that may be, there is no effect of bringing the Irish Free State to its knees. Therefore, we are brought to a position when there does not appear to be any immediate likelihood of a solution or a settlement of this problem, and we want to know from the Government what the next move is.
      A further point is the effect on our own trade. I should like the Dominions Secretary to give us some estimate of what our losses have been. We have heard of the losses sustained by our coal trade, and we know that the fall in our exports to the Irish Free State are somewhere in the region of £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 in October, 1932, as compared with 1931. It is now becoming abundantly plain that this method will not collect the debt. It may collect part of it, but when the House was asked to agree to these duties it was assured that the Government meant by their action definitely and clearly to say that the British taxpayer should not bear this burden. There is no sign that we are not going to share this burden, or that our share will not be a heavy part of the burden. We cannot tell exactly what proportions of these duties have been paid by the people of this country and the people in the Irish Free State, but leaving that out of account, and even supposing the whole of the duties have been paid on the Irish side, we are still left with a heavy burden of between £1,500,000 and £2,500,000. We want to know from the right hon. Gentleman how he will carry out his assurance. He was most emphatic. He said:
      "Believing, as we do, that the British taxpayer should not be called upon to bear this liability, what other means are open to us than the course we have adopted? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1932; col. 271, Vol. 270.]
      1004
      If the course which he has adopted has not worked, we are entitled to ask him what his policy is. I suggest that so far from matters having improved since the putting into force of his policy, they have got steadily worse. We shall get an increasing bitterness and an increasing estrangement between the two countries, and I want to know what the outcome is to be. There is a great deal of shortsightedness on the part of the Government in dealing with these matters. It is the same when they deal with the Indian question. A number of people will get up and say that they are going to take strong measures, and they claim a certain success up to a point, but they never go beyond that point. They never show what is going to happen next. It is exactly the same with their handling of the Irish Free State. They can put on duties like this and carry them on for a time. As we agree that we are going to work with the Indians in India, so, whatever happens, we cannot avoid living as next-door neighbours to the Irish Free State. It is not the part of a statesman merely to look forward to the next six months or the next year; he has to look ahead and see what the course of events is to be in the future.
      We on this side have never suggested that Britain has not a good case in this matter. There is a good case for all the creditor countries all over the world. They have a very good case in law, honour and everything else, but the debtor countries say either that they cannot pay, or that they will not pay, or that, if they do pay, it will be too great a sacrifice for them. I do not think for a moment that in the modern world it is possible to isolate one particular case and say that, because of certain features of it, it is an inviolable bargain. We cannot say that we must have the letter of the bargain with the Irish Free State and at the same time ask on grounds of equity to be let off payment to the United States. It is not only a question of the American Debt. I believe that we shall have to deal very soon with the whole range of, not only War Debts, but of business obligations and long-term debts of every kind.
      We may say that we consider that this country is a creditor rather than a debtor country, and that therefore we shall stand pat as a creditor country. I think that that is an extremely dangerous attitude

      1005
      for this country to take up, and it is not very likely that any of the great creditor countries will be able to stand against public opinion throughout the world in favour of the debtor countries. Therefore, we feel that this is a matter which should and might have been dealt with at an earlier stage. When the right hon. Gentleman comes before the House and brings us the first fruits of his policy, it is a demand for a Supplementary Estimate which contains within it the knowledge that the British taxpayer is to be called upon to pay a large amount, and we are entitled to ask him how long this is going on and what his policy is for the future. Is there any policy at all on the part of the Government other than a day-to-day business of trying to collect debts and breaking up the Empire?
      8.12 p.m.
      Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not want, by a long speech, to prevent the House coming to a decision, which I am sure they are ready to do. I want to answer the few questions which were directed to me during the Debate. I want immediately to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) and the previous speaker, and to say that at no stage during the Irish Debate have I predicted or assumed or anticipated that we would obtain the full amount. It is not true, and I was most careful at the onset to say that we would obtain it if we could.
      Mr. LUNN: The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that be said definitely and clearly that it was not intended to ask for one penny from the British taxpayer?
      Mr. THOMAS: I not only deny it,but—
      Mr. LUNN: It is true.
      Mr. THOMAS: I could not have said it. What 1 did say, and what was made perfectly clear, is that we would take all the steps that we could to see that the British taxpayers were not called upon to meet the obligation.
      Mr. ATTLEE: May I quote the right hon. Gentleman's actual words, because
      1006
      they are emphatic. In the Debate on 8th November, he said:
      "… the Government having made up their minds definitely and clearly to say that the British taxpayer shall not bear this burden … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1932; col. 269, Vol. 270.]
      That is what the Government made up their minds to say, and it was their responsibility to take the necessary steps to obtain the amount.
      Mr. THOMAS: I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT in July, when I made it perfectly clear that
      "We intend by this Bill to recoup it if we can."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July; 1932: col. 528, Vol. 268.]
      I followed that up in November by indicating that I was continuing that process. I am sure I should be misinterpreting the feeling of the House if I were to enter into any further discussion on that point. The Opposition have indicated clearly and definitely what their view is. The hon. Member for Rothwell says that, as a result of our policy, Ireland was never happier than now, and in order to emphasise it he drew attention to the position of the Irish railwaymen. I make no comment on that except to say that the OFFICIAL REPORT will indicate what he said. He knows much more about the Irish railway position than I do. At all events, he said the Irish labourer, the Irish railwayman and the Irish people in general are really having a good time as a result of our policy. Very well. If that be his position, why should we quarrel? Then the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said that he had difficulty in appreciating the position because the people of this country will be called upon to pay. Lest this should be reported to the ordinary man in the street, I mean the working-man, the trade unionist, I merely indicate that a sum of £5,000,000 is owing to this country, and that in our judgment it is a debt which the British people should not be called upon to pay. Those who entered into an obligation have repudiated it, and we are taking the only steps open to us to see that the British people do not pay. The figures since I increased the duty justify the action which I took and show how wise I was. Hon. Members opposite said: "If you increase the duty, you will get less." Prior to the increase of the

      1007
      duty we received on an average £75,000 a. week. Since I increased the duty the average has been £120,000 a week. If they are complaining because I am obtaining more for the British taxpaper, then I am not in the least disturbed. That being the only point raised in this Debate, I am sure it would be unwise for me to prevent the House going to a Division, and I have no further comment.
      8.18 p.m.
      Sir S. CRIPPS: I think I have seldom heard, on an important matter, a Minister of the Crown make a speech which is so contemptible. He is treating a subject-matter of the greatest gravity, between two nations, as one for indecent levity, and if he thinks this side of the House is going to be satisfied with such a reply be is gravely mistaken; and I, too, shall he gravely mistaken if his speech does not have a very adverse effect in Ireland to-morrow. He dealt with only one point—that of the £5,000,000 which is owed, and said the British people should not be called upon to pay. With that we agree. What is the actual position? The money is being put aside in a suspense fund in Ireland, awaiting the decision of an arbitration. If the right hon. Gentleman likes to accept an arbitral tribunal from outside the Empire, and is certain his case is just, lie can get the money to-morrow from Ireland. The reason why the money is not coming from Ireland, on the offer of Mr. de Valera, is because the right hon. Gentleman will not take the steps that are necessary to decide the justice of the case on one side or the other.
      Mr. HOWARD: Have we no honour?
      Sir S. CRIPPS: The answer would be, "Probably very little," if I answered that question. The question which has to be decided by the House sooner or later is a much more important one than that of the mere collection of a sum of money. As some hon. Members have already pointed out, Ireland has perfect freedom to leave the Commonwealth of Nations if she wishes. The question is, "What do we wish Ireland to do?" and upon our conduct towards Ireland will depend the decision as to whether she does leave the Commonwealth of Nations or not. However right we may be, however convinced
      1008
      we may be of the justice of our cause, it is perfectly clear, if we look the facts in the face, that the present course of events is driving Ireland away from the Commonwealth of Nations. We are bound to face that fact, whether we think it is a wise action on their part or a stupid action, and I suggest that the matter upon which the House has really got to make up its mind is how far it is worth going in order to keep Ireland within the Commonwealth of Nations. An hon. Member opposite says that we cannot do it, whatever we do. People who take up that fatalist attitude will naturally say, "We will treat the Irish as foreigners and continue to treat them as foreigners, and the sooner they go out of the Commonwealth of Nations the better." That is not the view I take. I believe there is a very good chance, every chance, if we are reasonable, of Ireland remaining within the Commonwealth of Nations, and if there is that chance I think hon. Members would all desire to take it. I do not think there is in any part of the House any difference over the question that if an association with Ireland can still be maintained we all want it.
      The difference between us and those who sit on the other side of the House is that we are prepared to make almost any sacrifice on smaller matters to attain that end. We believe that if these smaller matters are sacrificed that end can be attained, and that is the point the House has got to face. These questions concerning the collection of sums of money are really comparatively unimportant, and it may occur that other questions which may arise will also be comparatively unimportant against the really big, main issue we have to determine; and I feel confident that if only we get down to the one fundamental question, sweeping aside the less important matters, we could then come to some decision as regards the relations between this country and Ireland. Whether this matter is negotiated in one way or another, whether we have a Dominion tribunal or a tribunal from outside the Empire is a comparatively unimportant matter beside the great issue of whether Ireland remains in the Commonwealth or not.
      The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) made a speech which, I am sure, will be accepted by every

      1009
      American Senator as an admirable model of what to say when debtors do not pay. It would be exactly the speech which any creditor could make at any time if for any reason his debtor did not pay. It was a speech which, I say with respect, I do not think assists in the solution of this problem. If we are going to stand pat on the position that we now take up, there is an absolute certainty of driving Ireland out of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We have tried repression before. It has always failed. We have now tried economic pressure upon Ireland in order to bring her nearer to our point of view. I do not think that any bon. Member believes that if the duties are put up to 60 per cent., 80 per cent., or 100 per cent., they will bring Ireland one whit nearer the point of view that we take.
      We have to accommodate our ideas if we want Ireland to remain within the Commonwealth. I hope that this House will look upon this immensely grave matter from the point of view of coming to a decision, which it will have to come to sooner or later, as to whether Ireland is wanted to remain within the British Commonwealth of Nations. If the House decides that Ireland is wanted, I ask hon. Members to brush aside the smaller matters and to give way on them for the sake of achieving a settlement which will accomplish that which all of us desire. I do not desire to detain the House, but I wanted to make an appeal to hon. Members to look at this matter from a broad point of view, and not from a mere narrow and niggling point of view such as that put forward by the Dominions Secretary.
      8.27 p.m.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to emphasise the appeal that has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol Sir S. Cripps). While I do not altogether agree with him, there was behind his appeal a statesmanlike attitude. The Dominions Secretary has treated this House to-night in what was described in not too extravagant language by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol as a "contemptible" fashion. Without joking, I say that he seems to be losing his nerve. The last time he spoke on this matter he bobbed up and down, as some of us said, like a, human yo-yo. It was not we who criticised him the most for that. The
      1010
      hon. arid gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) administered a very striking rebuke. The points which were raised by various hon. Members received no reply. The Dominions Secretary picked out one or two points in a very ordinary fashion and said: "That is our reply." He made no attempt to frame a reply to meet the Debate. It is not good enough.
      Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am sure that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) does not want to misunderstand my attitude. The points that he raised about our dispute with Ireland are not relevant to the present issue, as he knows. Therefore if I had attempted to deal with the whole of the political issues which are in dispute, I should have been legitimately ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker, and, moreover, it would have been unfair to other hon. Members. I want to assure the hon. Member for Gorbals and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) on this point that I dealt with the financial issues because that is the only matter involved in the Estimates. I will only say one sentence on the political issue raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals. Just as I said previously, so I say now, that on the political and the economic issues the Government are still prepared, and I hope will always be prepared, to enter into an arrangement that will enable Ireland to remain a member of the British Commonwealth. I could not give the arguments to-night for reasons that will be appreciated by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I cannot accept that. The right hon. Gentleman the Dominions Secretary will have it in mind that we were very careful when this Vote was allowed to go on to the Report stage, that it should be debated from the aspect dealt with by the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke before me and that dealt with by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Hon. Members who took part in the Debate on unemployment insurance yesterday well remember the latitude that was allowed by Mr. Speaker, and we were assured that the latitude allowed to-day would be no less wide. We expect some reply, in view of the changed circumstances—because there are changed circumstances.

      1011
      The American situation has changed the circumstances. Hon. Members cannot get away from that. It is common knowledge that there was a section of the Cabinet in favour of not paying the American Debt. It is common knowledge, and will not be denied, that the Treasury would not have been averse to not paying. It is not denied that in this House men of character and capacity on all sides would have voted for the nonpayment of the American Debt upon a free vote of the House. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) might not have put it that way, but he is in constant touch with good, honest Conservative opinion and he knows that what I am saying is perfectly correct. Government supporters on the back benches would have voted for the nonpaying of the American Debt, if there had been a free vote of the House and they knew that they were not embarrassing their Government.
      Sir JOHN WITHERS: Some.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: There was a strong and reasonable opinion for non-payment of that debt, not only in this House, but in the "Economist" and certain other papers which do not wish to embarrass the Government. I am not thinking of the papers that attack the Government in season and out of season. I do not think that it can be denied that it has been intimated in almost as plain language as you can get that this is the last time that the money will be paid on the old terms. Is that denied?
      Mr. HOWARD: The wish is father to the thought.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: No one who read the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deny that this is the last payment on the old terms. It is not said that this is the last payment, but the last payment on the old terms. What does that mean? It means that the bargain made by the Lord Privy Seal is to be ended because it cannot be carried out. Then Ireland comes along and says that her debt has to end.
      Sir J. WITHERS: But the Irish Free State Government have collected it.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: You are collecting taxation. Nobody has answered this
      1012
      argument: you put on duties rising from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. I agree with the last speaker that the problem of the tribunal, while it is great, is subsidiary to the larger problem. Nevertheless, it is important. These amounts have to be paid by someone. They have either to be paid by certain people in Britain, or they have to be paid by certain people in Ireland. I think they will have to be paid by a combination of both. The Irish Government can quite correctly collect the money and proceed to hand it back to Irish interests that have to pay the tax. As long as you impose this 40 per cent. tax and set out to collect it from their people, they are entitled to re-collect it and pay it back to the people upon whom the burden has been imposed. In addition to that, a nation at any time is entitled to collect rent, if it cares to do so, for any land within its own borders.
      The Dominions Secretary has not faced up to the new issue at all. I know it is the case—indeed, it would be surprising if it were not—that quite good and substantial reasons and excuses can be found for saying that the question of the American Debt is different from that of Ireland, but in the great world outside, which is really the judge, people do not look at this question in the same way in which we in this House of Commons look at it. This is a serious and menacing problem. People talk about what is to happen in the future. I know little about the inside movements of diplomats and financiers and so on that go to make for war, but anybody who listens to the speeches that are made nowadays will not deny that they are hardly ever free from the menace of war. Is there any man who can lightly contemplate a hostile Ireland in the event of a war—
      Mr. HOWARD: What about 1916?
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I opposed the War, but everybody in this House who has been in the Army knows that the great bulk of the Army was composed of Irishmen, including Irish Roman Catholics, and you could never have carried on the War without their backing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense !"] Hon. Members say that that is nonsense, but I say that there were far more Irish than Americans fighting, and they fought longer. It is sheer prejudice if that is denied. The Dominions Secretary need not be annoyed at

      1013
      these interruptions; I do not need them for the purpose of going on with my speech. There is this point about yesterday, that we did not debate this matter last night, although we could have done so and inconvenienced everyone in the House by keeping the Debate going until one or two in the morning. The test of human beings and their relationship to one another is that decency should never be badly treated, but decency has been treated wrongly to-night. Apparently decency is treated as softness, but, if we had liked to do so last night, we could have kept the Debate going at the cost of inconvenience to Mr. Speaker and to every official. We decently decided merely to register a vote and depart, and now we are treated to the off-hand and flippant reply that we have had to-night. The merits of the question have not been debated. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) raised a point on which he was entitled to a much fuller reply; and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and others have raised points which demanded reasonable and substantial replies. We have not been treated properly.
      There are Irishmen in every one of our Colonies; Ireland is a very powerful influence in the affairs of the United States of America; and in the various things that this country is going to do within the next few years Irish public opinion will play an important part. A Government that. makes a hostile Ireland is a stupid Government. You are going to save a miserable million or two, but you have never been told the cost of collecting this money, or the cost of administration; you have never really got at the proper facts. You may save £3,000,000, but what is that in comparison with creating a hostile Irish opinion in every part of the world? What is it in comparison with creating a hostile movement of that kind in every part of Britain? For an hour or two we were discussing an Austrian loan. How easy it was for the Government to get it through, without a single vote against it. But, when it comes to Ireland, there is nothing nasty or abusive enough for some people to say, and there is no question that appears to be more easy to ride away from.
      if a Conservative had been handling it, it would not have been handled in this
      1014
      way. I remember one right hon. Gentleman who occupied a Cabinet post—a Conservative of Conservatives—the late Lord Brentford—who used to get up and threaten what he would do, but he never did it; he always kept just going, but never actually doing it. He was more sensible; he knew human beings. He was a Tory, and I say that, if my right hon. Friend had been a Conservative, he would not have done this. Behind all this—I say it for the first time, but it is my belief, possibly drawn from me for the first time—behind all this is a desire to play up to the Conservatives. Everybody who knows about religious matters knows that the most dangerous thing in religion is the convert. My right hon. Friend is the convert, playing up to be looked upon as a decent fellow because he has gone a step further than the others went. But no one among the Conservatives, who knows Conservative opinion, who knows Irish Conservative opinion, would have done what be has done. They would possibly have made strong speeches, and uttered threats, but they would never have shut the door down like this. Conservative interests are involved here. If Ireland goes outside the Empire, as it is likely to do, Conservatives have great financial interests in land right throughout the Free State. No Conservative would have lightly handled the situation.
      The whole method of approach has been wrong. The total debt is £4,900,000. You have collected, or intend to collect, £2,500,000, and there is the balance that you cannot collect. For the sake of this sum of £2,500,000 you carry on a vendetta which is ruining you in every quarter of the world and making you an object of ridicule in America and of contempt in many quarters. A wise and decent nation would have said: "We will keep the door open. We will not be the first to do the wrong thing." The debt may accumulate from £4,000,000 to £8,000,000, but even that would be less costly to us than doing the wrong thing to a nation which, though small in numbers, has perhaps a greater influence in the world than many others. It is a world tragedy. I do not want to see a war in Ireland, because I know that religion will enter in, and you will arouse flames which will not easily be quenched. I do not blame the Dominions Secretary in one respect. He

      1015
      is not the free man that he would have been in a Labour Government. A wise man would not hesitate to retrace his steps and begin again on a surer and firmer foundation.
      8.48 p.m.
      Mr. LOGAN: I did not intend to take part in this Debate, and I only intervene because of certain interruptions that have been made. I know as well as anyone the old difficulty of the Irish question, and I am not anxious, in the changed conditions of the English nation, to arouse the antagonism of the Irish race. I certainly felt that the responsible Minister would have been able to make a more conciliatory statement than he has made. I know it is a delicate problem. [Interruption.] I have heard the whole Debate except when you spoke. I came in expecting to hear you and you had sat down. I asked if you had finished, and I was told "Yes." I thought it was an interruption, but I found you had made your speech.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. Member that I have not made any speech.
      Mr. LOGAN: I certainly expected that the right hon. Gentleman's speech would have been of a statesmanlike nature. We have a most unfortunate vendetta. It has been said that, if the Irish people did not pay, a certain line of action would be taken to ensure that they did pay, and we set about putting on tariffs. There has been a question of 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. Is it now to be a question of 100 per cent? We are told that the special duty on Irish imports has produced £1,357,160. We have heard to-day that we have lent money to Austria and that there is no possible chance of ever getting it back, but we must resuscitate her banking interests and put her on her feet again and make her financial position assured.
      What is the difficulty that confronts the National Government? It is merely the question of a tribunal. It should surely not be beneath the dignity of a Minister to say: "If our case is a fair and honest one, we are not afraid of it going before any tribunal." Mr. de Valera, if I understand him aright, demands a tribunal outside the Empire. I believe that, for the sake of peace, when men of all nations are so anxious to bring about a better understanding in the world, the
      1016
      British Government ought not to be afraid of facing the issue even though this tribunal should be outside the British Empire.
      I believe the Dominions Secretary has done his best under most difficult circumstances, but I cannot for the life of me understand why we cannot settle this matter in the same way that other difficulties are settled. The Irish race all over the world can and will create difficulties. I believe the days of difficulty with the Irish people ought to be gone for ever, and that we ought to be working in unity. No statesman should stand on his dignity so much as to bring back the old feeling of distrust which has been passing away. I feel that to-day public opinion all over the world is waiting for a statement to be made in the House. The question of the tribunal is only a matter of form, and, if the Minister would rise to the occasion, we could get honest men in other nations to adjudicate on a difficult problem and settle the question once and for all.
      If we want to get an Ireland reconciled, we must show that we wish for reconciliation. I think that we have been injudicious. It would be deplorable to say too much in regard to the Irish question. I do not wish to stir up throughout Lancashire, Yorkshire and the North any bitterness, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions to make a stronger effort to try to settle the Irish question, and to do away with the vendetta which is going on against a trading nation so close to our shores. Whether we like it or not, the Irish nation, until it severs itself, once and for all, from this land, must be treated in a different way and freed from this vendetta. I want to see the good will and prosperity of both the Irish and English peoples, and it is because of that fact that I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to arouse religious feeling. My 35 years in the Irish movement have shown me the bitterness of the past.
      I looked with pleasure on all the improvements as they came along. Even the settlement with which we are now dealing was looked upon by Irishmen as one of the finest pieces of diplomacy effected by the British Government. I recognise all those things. I know how much people outside are hoping and living for the time when an expression

      1017
      of opinion will come from the Government of this country giving hope to the Irish people. Hon. Members on the opposite benches have laughed when we have spoken of the sacrifices of Irishmen during the war. Right through the ages Britishers and Irishmen have fought side by side in defence of liberty. Surely, in the common fight of life, we are not going to measure nations by pounds, shillings and pence to-day. The question of money values is a thing of the past. Love is the essential thing to-day in the attitude of nations, and it can be made more binding and stronger by getting rid of the old vendettas and animosities which have obtained in the past. The Ministers of the National Government must recognise that the world has changed and that we are in a new era. The British nation wants all the support it can possibly get in the long travail and reorganisation of the nations of the world, and it is because of that fact that I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not anxious in the future to see any bitterness among the English and Irish races throughout the world.
      I am living in the hope that in my day I may be able to see, as I have seen in the past, many changes. I hope that we may be able to march along the road of progress, and that the hand which is held across the Channel will not make the position more embittered, but will enable the vendetta to cease. The Irish people look forward to the day when Ireland will be a nation again. It is the cry of the Irish nation and the feeling of the Irish nation all the world over. Where is there a Britisher who is not proud of his nation, and where is the Irishman who is not proud of the land which gave him birth? The British nation is a wealthy nation and can get rid of the difficulty of the £4,000,000 per annum. It is not a large sum for the British nation to wipe out. It would demonstrate the good friendship, honesty and sincerity of the British nation the world over. It would be a far greater triumph for the British nation than exacting payments under this system from an Ireland which is not able to pay.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. HALES: I feel that it is essential to-night that I should put before the House the feelings, not only of the Empire at large but of foreign nations which I have
      1018
      been privileged to visit during the last five months. It has been pictured to us that we are ridiculed in America and held in contempt by the rest of the world. It has been my privilege to discuss this matter with hundreds of people during the last five months, and I can tell the House candidly and sincerely, that the only adverse criticism of the Secretary of State for the Dominions was that his journey over to Ireland was a loss of dignity. Right away down to the Dutch East Indies, through Malaya, India and to the East, everyone is of the opinion that we have shown too much conciliation, that we have gone out of our way to satisfy Ireland, and that, after all, it is not a question of the Free State but of one man who is leading the nation to disaster. I believe that a referendum to-day in the Free State would show an absolute majority for the paying of the just debts and carrying on as they did before under President Cosgrave.
      The idea of going outside the Empire for arbitration is rather ridiculous. Abroad it is felt that this is a matter which should not be put to arbitration either inside or outside the Empire. It has gone on for 10 years without trouble, absolutely honestly kept as a bargain, and why any difference should be made because of a change of Government no one outside can understand. It is supposed that we are compelling Ireland to remain inside the Empire. I feel that the British Empire is held together by silken cords, and not by compulsion. What would happen if we were to offer to Norway, Sweden and Denmark the same privileges which Ireland has had? We should find that Ireland, within 24 hours, would say, "Do not go outside; we will pay our debts and continue inside the Empire." I feel, however, that if the Secretary of State for the Dominions would take the advice which I gave him three months ago and apply a duty of 100 per cent. on Irish goods this matter would be settled in a week, because the matter would become so grave and serious that this Iberian gentleman would be given marching orders.
      Mr. MAXTON: Is it in order, Captain Bourne, to refer to the head of one of the units of the British Empire in the terms of contempt used by my hon. Friend?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not hear the remark which the hon. Member made, but I would point out that in referring to the heads of any Government in the British Empire, it is customary to treat them in this House with the same respect which we would pay to the head of our own Government.
      Mr. HALES: There was no feeling of contempt. I did not think that he would be ashamed of the nationality of any
      Iberian country. I do not wish to keep the House any longer, but I would like to emphasise that the conduct of these negotiations from the very beginning has been looked upon throughout the Empire with satisfaction and respect.
      Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 26.

      Division No. 31.]

      AYES.

      [9.5 p.m.

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

      Guy, J. C. Morrison

      Percy, Lord Eustace

      Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

      Hales, Harold K.

      Petherick, M.

      Apsley, Lord

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

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

      Aske, Sir Robert William

      Harnley, Dennis A.

      Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

      Atkinson, Cyril

      Hartland, George A.

      Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

      Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar

      Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

      Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

      Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

      Ramsden, E.

      Bernays, Robert

      Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

      Ratcliffe, Arthur

      Blindell, James

      Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

      Ray, Sir William

      Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

      Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

      Rea, Walter Russell

      Boyce, H. Leslie

      Holdsworth, Herbert

      Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

      Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

      Hore-Belisha, Leslie

      Reid, David D. (County Down)

      Broadbent, Colonel John

      Hornby, Frank

      Reid, William Allan (Derby)

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Horsbrugh, Florence

      Remer, John R.

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Howard, Tom Forrest

      Renwick, Major Gustav A.

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

      Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

      Ropner, Colonel L.

      Burnett, John George

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

      Rosbotham, S. T.

      Cadogan, Hon. Edward

      Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

      Runge, Norah Cecil

      Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

      Hume, Sir George Hopwood

      Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

      Chalmers, John Rutherford

      Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

      Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

      Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

      Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

      Salmon, Major Isidore

      Clayton, Dr. George C.

      Iveagh, Countess of

      Salt, Edward W.

      Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D.

      Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Redcliffe)

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

      Janner, Barnett

      Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

      Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

      Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

      Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

      Conant, R. J. E.

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

      Savery, Samuel Servington

      Cooke, Douglas

      Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

      Scone, Lord

      Copeland, Ida

      Kerr, Hamilton W.

      Selley, Harry R.

      Craven-Ellis, William

      Kirkpatrick, William M.

      Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Cross, R. H.

      Knebworth, Viscount

      Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

      Crossley, A. C.

      Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

      Skelton, Archibald Noel

      Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

      Levy, Thomas

      Slater, John

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

      Liddall, Walter S.

      Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Llewellin, Major John J.

      Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

      Denville, Alfred

      Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

      Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

      Dickie, John P.

      Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

      Soper, Richard

      Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

      McConnell, Sir Joseph

      Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

      Donner, P. W.

      McCorquodale, M. S.

      Stones, James

      Doran, Edward

      MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

      Storey, Samuel

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

      McKie, John Hamilton

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

      Elliston, Captain George Sampson

      Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

      Summersby, Charles H.

      Elmley, Viscount

      McLean, Dr. w. H. (Tradeston)

      Sutcliffe, Harold

      Emrys-Evans, P. V.

      Magnay, Thomas

      Tate, Mavis Constance

      Entwistle, Cyrll Fullard

      Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

      Templeton. William P.

      Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

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

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

      Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

      Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

      Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

      Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Thorp, Linton Theodore

      Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

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

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

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

      Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

      Fremantle, Sir Francis

      Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

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

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      Morrison, William Shepherd

      Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

      Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

      Mulrhead, Major A. J.

      Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

      Gillett, Sir George Masterman

      Munro, Patrick

      Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

      Natlon, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

      White, Henry Graham

      Glossop, C. W. H.

      North, Captain Edward T.

      Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

      Goff, Sir Park

      Nunn, William

      Wills, Wilfrid D.

      Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

      O'Donovan, Dr. William James

      Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

      Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

      Oman, Sir Charles William C.

      Worthington, Dr. John V.

      Granvllie, Edgar

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

      Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Palmer, Francis Noel

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

      Penny, Sir George

      Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris-Jones.

      NOES.

      Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

      Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Milner, Major James

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Hicks, Ernest George

      Parkinson, John Allen

      Banfield, John William

      Jenkins, Sir William

      Salter, Dr. Alfred

      Batey, Joseph

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Buchanan, George

      Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

      Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

      Cocks, Frederick Seymour

      Logan, David Gilbert

      Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)

      Cripps, Sir Stafford

      Lunn, William

      Daggar, George

      McEntee, Valentine L.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Edwards, Charles

      Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. John.

      Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

      Maxton, James

      Question put, and agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  REPORT [19 th December].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, the sum of £21,420,955, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Hore-Belisha.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
    "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending en the 31st day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-three," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to he printed."—[Bill 48.]

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the rural district of Clitheroe, in the county palatine of Lancaster, and parts of the rural districts of Settle-and Bowland, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 22nd day of November, 1932, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the parish of Llangynwyd Middle, in the rural district of Penybont, in the county of Glamorgan, which was presented on the 22nd day of November, 1932, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Alton, Basingstoke, Droxford, and Winchester, in the county of Southampton, and part of the rural district of Guildford, in the county of Surrey, which was presented on the 23rd day of November, 1932, he approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the rural district of Blackburn, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 24th day of November, 1932, be approved "
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of the Isle of Thanet, in the county of Kent, which was presented on the 24th day of November, 1932, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in. respect of the urban district of Clay Cross and parts of the rural districts of Blackwell and Chesterfield, in the county of Derby, which was presented on the 29th day of November, 1932, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ROAD AND RAIL TRANSPORT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  9.17 p.m.
  Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: I fdesire to raise a matter of vital national importance and one of increasing urgency—namely, the future relations between rail and road transport in this country. It would not have been necessary for me to raise this question to-night if the private Member's Motion standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) had not been withdrawn, and rightly withdrawn, at the request of the Government to enable the Debate on the American Debt to take place last Wednesday. Nor would it have been necessary for me to raise the subject to-night if the Minister, in answering a question which I put yesterday, had been in a position to announce the Government's decision on this vital problem. It is now four and a half months since the Minister of Transport was presented with a solution of this problem in the form of a unanimous report, agreed upon without reserve, by the conference which he himself set up for that specific purpose. Nearly three months have elapsed since the original date which he prescribed for the obseravtions of highway authorities and other people concerned on that report. It is more than six weeks since a Motion was agreed to in another place urging His Majesty's Government to give a decision on this subject.
  What is the problem which confronts the Minister of Transport? The advent of motor transport, the rapid development of the internal combustion engine during the last 20 or 30 years, has completely upset the equilibrium which existed between the older transport agencies, and a new equilibrium will have to be established and should be established with fairness to all parties. No one will deny that the development of motor transport has been of inestimable benefit to the nation and to mankind, but at the same time we must not forget that for the past century the railways have been the life blood of the trade and industry of this country. They are to-day indispensable, and within the limits of human foresight must remain indispensable. It is clearly in the national interest that all forms of transport, whether road or rail, air or coastwise, or canals, should be given the fullest opportunity of developing to a limit consistent with efficiency to the public and fairness to all parties.
  1024
  Present conditions of competition between rail and road transport are far from fair. They are unfair for two main reasons. In the first place, the railways have to provide, maintain, police and signal their own permanent way without drawing on local funds or on the national Exchequer. The capital cost of the permanent way stands at £800,000,000, and that figure on to-day's valuation is not excessive. On the other hand, road transport has not had to provide its own highway, and it is estimated to have cost the nation between £1,600,000,000 and £2,000,000,000. The heavy class of commercial road vehicle, which competes directly with the railways, does not even contribute a sum equivalent to the current expenditure which it entails on our road system. In other words, the railways of this country are completely self-supporting whereas road transport is aided by subsidies from the public purse.
  The second reason why the conditions are unfair is this. The railways, as a public service, are regulated by Acts of Parliament in the public interest, so that the users of the railways shall receive fair treatment. Their rates are controlled; they are bound to publish their rates, and they are under a statutory obligation not to discriminate as between one customer and another. There is no doubt in the minds of the vast majority of people that the regulations imposed on the railways are in the public interest and should continue. But, on the other hand, the road transport of goods is entirely unregulated and uncontrolled, and I submit that the time has now come when both rail and road transport should be equally regarded as a public service and that the Government should make up their mind as to the policy they are going to adopt to bring that about.
  What has been the effect of this unfair road competition upon the financial position of the railways? The railway companies estimated the loss in net revenue in 1930 at no less than £16,000,000. It must be greater to-day. In 1931 no dividend was paid on £111,000,000 of capital. In 1932 no interim dividend was apid on £391,000,000 of capital as compared with £271,000,000 last year. Only one of the four great amalgamated main line railways maintains its full trustee status to-

  1025
  day. That is the Great Western Railway. Two of the companies, the London Midland and Scottish and the Southern Railway, have been relegated to the Chancery List and the London and North Eastern Railway Company has lost its trustee status altogether. As compared with 1931, a bad year for the railways, the traffic receipts this year have already dropped by more than £13,000,000.
  The Government realised that the railways were suffering a great injustice when they set up the Salter Conference in March of this year. They set up that Conference to consider and recommend what would be a fair basis of competition between the transport of goods on rail and road. They could not have appointed a more competent body or a body more representative of rail and road interests. The Conference consisted of four representatives of the railways and four representatives of road transport who were nominated by the standing joint committee of the Mechanical Road Transport Associations, with Sir Arthur Salter as an independent chairman. The standing committee which nominated the road representatives was not only the most powerful motor organisation in the country, but it represented the whole of the road transport industry in Great Britain with the single exception of the Road Haulage Association, whose name was then its chief asset, as it had only 400 members, and whose views were available and carefully considered by the Conference. The fact is that the Salter Conference was as representative a body as has been set up by this or any other Government to consider and advise upon a question of major national importance.
  May I say a brief word about the Report itself? It is not a railway report nor is it a road report. It is essentially a compromise and a unanimous Report which frankly recognises the inequalities in the existing competition between road and rail transport. Its recommendations are designed to remove those inequalities and to eliminate the wasteful and uneconomic duplication of transport services. We should all welcome that object, seeing that wasteful duplication must ultimately be paid for by industry. The recommendations were further designed to pave the way to a proper co-ordination between railways, road and other transport agencies which alone can ensure
  1026
  to the nation those conditions of stability which are essential to its economic well-being. Public opinion, as expressed in the general Press, has warmly welcomed the proposals of the Conference. The motor Press has opposed the proposals, and it is only natural that the criticisms in that quarter should exceed in volume the favourable comments made by disinterested sections of the community. There is only one criticism to which I wish to refer and that is the so-called case of trade and industry. A pamphlet has been issued which purports to have been composed and published with the authority of 66 national organisations. I believe it to be a fact that not one of those organisations saw the pamphlet before it was published and immediately after publication a number of them not only repudiated it but asked that their names should be withdrawn and actually communicated with the Minister of Transport to that effect.
  As far as the merits of this and other criticisms are concerned, they have been fully met by the statement issued yesterday morning by the members of the Salter Conference. The statement shows that the criticisms made to date have been, in the main, founded on misconceptions which have now been removed, that the Conference confined itself strictly to its terms of reference, and that it made no recommendations whatever with regard to road passenger transport. It showed that, unlike the Royal Commission on Transport, the Conference took fully into account the proceeds of the Petrol Duty in assessing the contributions that should be made towards road costs. The House may assume that this is the final document that the Minister was awaiting before making up his mind as to what the Government's policy should be. That document has been placed in his hands by the Conference which he himself set up. It has been conclusively proved that there is no substance whatever in the criticisms made against the report, which was in the hands of the Minister at the end of July, and the reasonableness and justice of their original proposals has been unanimously reaffirmed.
  I wish to put three very brief but simple questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. I regret the Minister is not in his place and that his place has been

  1027
  taken by the Parliamentary Secretary. I communicated a week ago with the Minister, informing him that I particularly desired him to be in his place when I raised this matter this evening, and he was good enough to thank me for it, so leaving me with the impression that he would be here. I want to put these three questions to the Parliamentary Secretary and I hope that he will be good enough to answer them. First, was it not because the Minister of Transport was impressed with the necessity of doing something to put road and rail transport on an equitable and fair basis that he set up the Salter Conference last March? Secondly, was it not because of the extreme urgency of the matter that he insisted on having the report of that Conference in his hands by the end of July and that he put on a time limit for receiving the observations of the highway authorities, and other people concerned, on the report? Thirdly, what steps, if any, do the Government propose to take to implement the undertaking given by Lord Plymouth on behalf of the Government in another place on 8th November when he said:
  "The Government do realise that this is a great and pressing problem which must be tackled and must be dealt with at the earliest possible moment"?
  If the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to these three simple questions, I shall be greatly obliged. In urging this matter upon him, I can assure him I speak, not only for myself, but for a great number of Members in all parts of the House, who are most gravely concerned about the position of the railways and as convinced as the Minister himself that the conditions under which they are labouring are unfair to them. We want to see the Government take action, and we shall be greatly obliged if the Government will announce their intention oil this subject.
  Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the last question, I fancy the hon. Member is asking the Minister to take action. It is difficult to see how he can take action without legislation.
  Mr. BOYCE: May I put it in this way? I have been most careful, as you may have observed, in trying to keep within the narrow four walls of procedure. I
  1028
  should prefer to put my last question in this way: When will the Government announce their decision as to when they intend to take action to implement the undertaking given by Lord Plymouth on behalf of the Government?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to me to be very little different. The Minister can only take action by legislation.
  Mr. BOYCE: I do not wish to detain the House, and I will only ask when the Government will be in a position to announce its policy on this very important and vital question?
  9.34 p.m.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to ask whether the Government are going to take any action, administrative or legislative, in this matter? In his speech, the hon. Gentleman has raised very considerable questions of policy, which I had no idea were going to be raised. As the hon. Member has raised them, I wish to call the Minister's attention to the fact that while we are discussing this and other matters connected with unemployment, a very prolonged inquiry into the wages and conditions of the railway men has been going on. The policy of the Government in relation to road transport, rail transport, and coastwise transport, will depend very largely upon what the condition of hundreds of thousands of workmen is to be. We are entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government are considering the matter. The Prime Minister told us that there were special men who were giving particular attention to these great problems. In my judgment, there is no problem so rotten-ripe, not for discussion, but for action of some kind. We have had it discussed by Commissions and Committees and by this House. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) told us that the railway companies have not paid. That was a confession of impotence on the part of those who manage the railways.
  Mr. BOYCE: No.
  Mr. LANSBURY: If it is not that, I will use another word and say it is the incapacity of those who manage the business so to manage it as to make it pay its way. On that, I want only to say, that whenever great companies and monopolies get into difficulties, they come to

  1029
  Parliament to get them out of these difficulties, and still they shout for private enterprise and private control. Why should Parliament interfere in this business? What has it to do with Parliament that the railway companies do not make money? The reason, of course, is that these monopolies have to do with our lives, and we are bound to interfere when the monopoly fails to provide a proper service under proper conditions.
  As to the issue raised by the hon. Member, the competition of road versus I noticed that the hon. Member spoke of the cost of putting down the rails and the fact that the new road users do not pay for their track. He proceeded to argue that something ought to be done to prevent that competition. When a new machine is introduced that crushes out of employment large numbers of workmen, they are told that it is all done in the name of progress, and that they must put up with it because it is impossible to stop the advance of machinery. Let me apply the argument of the hon. Member. My argument is exactly his argument, that when we come to that situation it is the business of Parliament to take the necessary steps to prevent the workmen being ruined and thrown on to the streets. We speak for these men just as the hon. Member spoke on behalf of the shareholders of the railway companies.
  Mr. BOYCE: I did not speak on behalf of the shareholders of the railways. Neither I nor any member of my family has ever held a share in any railway, but I do happen to represent a constituency 10 per cent. of whose voters are railwaymen, and I am very concerned that they should have the means of earning a decent livelihood.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not know where the hon. Member's interest in business lies. I did not mean to apply my statement to him individually. The whole of his argument was that because road transport has come into being and has reduced the earnings of the railways, something should be done. The hon. Member used the argument that the stock of none of the railway companies, except one, was trustee stock. He wants the Minister to take some action to deal with that fact. When a new invention hurts the railways they come to Parliament. My plea was that workmen who are hurt by a
  1030
  new invention should be dealt with in the same way, and it is a perfectly sound and reasonable argument.
  Mr. BOYCE: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my argument. I curtailed my speech, but there was a great deal more I would have liked to have said. The House was so indulgent to me that I did not labour the point. I contended that the railways are prepared to demonstrate, and can demonstrate, that to-day they are in many respects the most efficient and economical form of transport, but that they are bound hand and foot by Parliamentary Statutes, which make it impossible for them to put up an effective defence against the attacks made upon them by road transport that is not so regulated.
  Mr. LANSBURY: No railway could have existed for 24 hours unless it had been a monopoly. The State granted the monopoly. Then someone invented a small engine which could be driven by petrol, and put on the road huge wagons which in the judgment of a good many people are much more convenient for merchants and others than the railways. I can speak from a little experience on this subject. It is much better for certain businesses that I know in East London to load their goods on to these wagons, knowing that the goods will be delivered at the spot where they are to be used. It means only one handling. It is absurd to come here and tell us that the one thing that this House is to consider is how to preserve the dividends of the railway companies.
  Mr. BOYCE: No one suggested that.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am not misrepresenting the hon. Member. He put forward the argument about the loss of earning power of the companies and the loss of dividends, and my point was to stress the fact that at this moment railwaymen are fighting for a bare minimum of subsistence. I wanted to bring out that fact for the Minister to consider. I would stress also the point that this question of transport has been before the country for a very long time, and that no one seems willing to deal with it. I believe the reason is that there are so many vested interests on both sides, competing with one another and pulling at the Minister this way and the other

  1031
  way, all for the purpose of preserving their right to earn dividends. I ask the Minister to consider the other point of view, and that is the interest of the public. I am one of those who think that the canal system of this country was ruined by the railway monopolies. There is no doubt about that. Speaking for myself, I do not want to see road transport strangled in the same way. Even if I could own a motor car I could not drive one, but I love to ride in a motor coach. In a motor coach one can see the country just as nicely as any person in a Rolls-Royce.
  The economic development of the country demands that the transport of goods by road from one place to another shall not be strangled. I must not argue that matter, but I may say that what we want is a national co-ordinated transport system, organised for the service of the community, to give the community the very best service both for goods and passenger traffic. We hope that the Minister and his Department will work out such a scheme. We hope that it will be on more national lines than the electricity scheme. That we believe is the solution of the question. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to remember that the men whose wages are under discussion to-day are already below the minimum at which men who carry out their duties ought to be asked to live, and I press him to hurry his Department to a decision in order to prevent those men being squeezed down any further. I believe that if we co-ordinated the whole business, we should carry it on more cheaply and give the public a better service, while at the same time we should be able to take care of the people who would be squeezed out at the beginning because of any economies in working which would be involved.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Both the hon. Member who raised this question on the Motion for the Adjournment, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, while not directly asking for, have hinted at some action by the Government in this matter. Whoever speaks on behalf of the Government may indicate some administrative action which the Government can take in the direction asked for, but the question of legislative action cannot be gone into on this occasion.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry if I have offended. The hon. Member who raised the question covered a pretty wide field, and I only spoke because he covered such a wide field.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman who raised the question said, but it seemed to me that he had suggested some action on the part of the Government, and I must point out that only action of an administrative character can be dealt with on this occasion.
  9.47 p.m.
  Mr. REMER: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) or to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, except to say that the controversy which has been raised this evening was unexpected, though I knew that my hon. Friend had given notice of his intention to raise the matter at an early date. I agree with him on one point, and that is that the delay of the Government in coming to the decision on this matter is causing a great deal of injury to both sides. It is causing a great deal of unemployment in the motor-car and motor wagon industry. A great many people who would otherwise be ordering motor vans and motor omnibuses are not doing so because of that delay. Those of us who are in industry are willing to help the railway companies by every means in our power, but we are not prepared to support them in making an increased charge upon industry. We want to see the cost of transport reduced and not increased, because it is a very serious charge upon industry at the present time.
  As I say I did not know until a short time ago that this matter would be raised this evening, and I merely rise to express that view—that while we who are in business are prepared to help the railway companies, the railway companies must have a little common sense and must realise present-day conidtions in industry. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will impress that view on the Government. I do not expect that to-night he is going to announce any far-reaching decision by the Government, nor indeed could he do so under the Ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have just given. But I hope he will impress on his colleagues

  1033
  that there is a deep-rooted sense of injustice in connection with the report that has been issued. I hope that there will be no move to increase transport charges in order to bolster up the railway companies of this country.
  9.51 p.m.
  Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), I was unaware until a short time ago that this matter was going to be raised to-night, and I feel it incumbent upon me to say, that, while, as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) pointed out, this Salter Conference was neither a road conference nor a rail conference but a compromise conference, yet one is justified in saying that it did not deal with a great many considerations with which one would have expected it to deal. I rarely find myself in agreement with hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench, but I have a certain sympathy with some of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition to-night. Perhaps the big difference between us is that, whereas he looks forward to the time when all transport will be under the guidance and control of the Government, I am anxious to see private enterprise and keen competition between the various methods of transport to give us that efficiency for which we look. I do not think we can say that our railway transport arrangements and costs in this country are more favourable than those in other countries which are our keen competitors. It would be a calamity if any steps were taken by His Majesty's Government which would increase the transport charge on industry.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester expressed a wish for equitable arrangements for railways, road transport and canals. I, for many years, have felt that if the competitive influence of our waterways were exercised we should have cheaper transport in this country. Travelling on the Continent especially in Holland and in the areas fed by the waterways there, one realises the great handicap which our industries have to meet owing to the fact that even those waterways which we possess are not efficiently or adequately used. I fear that there is some truth in what the Leader of the Opposition said that on account of those waterways falling into the hands of the railway companies with
  1034
  whom they were in competition, there has been a lack of enterprise in connection with canals in this country. To-day we are often reminded that in a mechanical age the inventor and the engineer are perhaps responsible for creating some unemployment. I say, without any hesitation, that it is to these inventors, these men who make progress in the world, the engineers and others who are doing research work, that we must look in the future to find employment for more people. Had we more Marconi's in the world, we should certainly see more employment. Countless thousands have been employed by the results of that man's work, and hon. Members should remember that any steps that might be taken in the future to prevent the full effort of private enterprise and progress in new ways of transport might quite well reduce the numbers of those employed and keep us from competing thoroughly with our competitors in other lands.
  This country is ahead of the whole world in the development of that engine which is burning crude oil, which has been developed by many of our manufacturers during the last year or two, and any check or handicap that such a report as the Salter Report might impose if it were taken up by the Government would certainly he a backward step. I look forward to the time when that engine is fully developed in all forms of road transport, and when we shall show other countries something in which they will have to follow England instead of England following any other country. When abroad only a few weeks ago I came across a firm in Holland which had had to make arrangements with one of our British makers, because there is no engine in Germany, America, or any other country in the world that can compete with one of the makes of engines in this country. I feel seriously that we should be very careful indeed before we ask our Government to adopt proposals which will handicap that great industry of road transport.
  9.58 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I am a little bit regretful—it is only human, I suppose— that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) evinced so little pleasure at seeing me here to answer his

  1035
  questions. Anyhow, I shall make a paint of letting the Minister know how much his absence was deplored.
  Mr. BOYCE: No, commented on!
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: We have listened to a very interesting Debate, which has illustrated the extreme difficulty of the situation. We have had four speeches, and each speaker has put forward a different point of view. I would point out, therefore, to the House that the position of the Government is not particularly easy in any case, because it is quite certain that these various opinions exist and that they have to be very carefully considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester gave the House a short history of the events from the first appointment of the Salter Conference to the present day. I have no complaint at all to make of the accuracy of his description; and the reason why the Salter Conference was appointed was, of course, because the matter was, in the opinion of the Government, of extreme urgency. Therefore, the Salter Conference was asked to make its report by the end of July, and it did so. Then came the question of referring the findings of that conference to all the interests concerned. We hoped that all those interests would have sent in their replies to the Ministry by the end of September, but that did not come off, and it was not really until the end of last month that we got in all the replies.
  Mr. BOYCE: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean the end of October?
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, towards the end of November. Consequently the time we have had since then to codify the results of these replies and to study the very difficult subjects which are raised has not been very great. I quite appreciate that my hon. Friend, who has made up his mind and is entirely convinced of the line he will take, has come already to a decision, but unfortunately we cannot act in that way. As I think I pointed out in this House the other day, the first part of the Salter report deals with matters of finance, on which, of course, we cannot anticipate the Budget position. In the second part of the report are contained the various proposals for regulation which are now the subject of consideration.
  1036
  My hon. Friend asked me three simple questions. I have already, I think, answered two of them, because I have agreed that the Salter Conference was appointed on the ground of urgent necessity. Then the second question was as to a time limit. There again I say what I said in the House the other day in reply to a question, that we should proceed to act as soon as we had made up our minds, and that we were working as hard as we possibly could on the whole question at the present time. I appreciate just as much as other hon. Members the desire of industry, including manufacturers, to know what, if any, changes, either in taxation or in the regulation of the industry, the Government propose, but it is quite impossible for any statement to be made at the moment, for the reasons I have just given. In these circumstances, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by my discussing any proposals that are set out in the Salter Report.
  The Government will approach the problem from the point of view that there is a real problem to be solved. It is no good trying to brush aside the formidable problems that exist or to suggest, as some people suggest, that the matter should be put off till the Greek kalends. The fundamental question which the House should recognise is whether or not the existing conditions under which roads and railways compete with one another are fair and equitable. I would point out to hon. Members that the conference itself has pointed out that nothing would be more undesirable that to attempt, by taxation beyond what represents a fair share of road costs, or by regulation beyond what is in the public interest, to divert traffic back from the roads and deprive trade and industry of the conveniences of the new form of transport. But the conference has also indicated that neither in the distribution of the incidence of highway costs, nor in the conditions under which goods are carried, is there at present a fair and equal basis of competition.
  This is really a great matter which the Government have to consider, with the aid of the observations which they have now received from all quarters, and I would point out to my hon. Friend that only yesterday we had a further instalment of the Salter Report, which has proved, if it was necessary to prove, that

  1037
  there were matters even in this report which were not as clear as some would have us believe. Therefore, I only hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied, and that the House will be satisfied, that the Government realise the tremendous importance of this question, and are working now as hard as they can to get to the roots of the various difficulties, that they are bearing in mind the problems of industry, and that they will, as soon as they can, present their views to the House.
  10.5 p.m.
  Sir JOSEPH NALL: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the reply which he has given to the questions which have been raised, but it would be unreasonable to expect a definite answer to he given on this question to-night. Equally, the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend who raised the matter because it gives an oportunity at least to ventilate some views on the subject. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said, four different opinions have already been expressed before he replied, and I need not apologise for endeavouring to express a fifth. It should be borne in mind that there are one or two very grave omissions in the procedure which surrounds the publication of the Salter Report and the procedure which has subsequently been pursued. The Salter Conference was originally set up specifically for the purpose of considering the relationship between road and rail in reference to the carriage of goods. In their report they indicate that that was the case, and they also, in making certain recommendations, imply that those recommendations would have to be interpreted in terms which apply to the carriage of passengers by road.
  The Ministry, although the committee was originally set up to deal with the carriage of goods by road, have rightly realised that the recommendations very materially affect the carriage of passengers by road, and they have proceeded to invite from organisations representative of the road passenger interests observations on the report by this conference, which was deliberately set up solely for the purpose of considering the goods question. There is a curious anomaly in that procedure because, while the road passenger organisations are asked to give
  1038
  their observations on the findings of the conference, they were distinctly and deliberately precluded either from giving their views to the conference or from being represented on it. This is an extraordinary anomaly. To ask a number of associations and organisations to give their views on the findings of a conference to which they were not a party, and to which they were deliberately and definitely precluded from giving any evidence, is surely a very curious method of procedure. The first, and, as I think, the outstanding omission both in the findings of the Salter Conference and in all the observations of its various critics which so far I have been able to read, is this: neither the conference nor its critics endeavour to make a proper and clear distinction between the urban transit of passengers and goods and the long distance or inter-urban services.
  I will illustrate what I mean by mentioning, as an example on the passenger side, the omnibuses which are run for the purpose of carrying passengers from Putney to London Bridge. They do a minimum of harm to the railways, they are essentially needed by the public as local conveyances, they have not caused any large expenditure in the form of road widenings and arterial road construction, they do not form any undue proportion of the whole traffic of the streets; in short, they are an essential public service, and it would be a great hardship to the public in general if they were in any way curtailed or if the cast of operation were increased. On the other hand, there are the services in the London area run by the Green Line, which are operated by the same organisation which runs the service to which I have referred. The Green Line operating from Charing Cross to Windsor, Hertford, Watford, and many other places upwards of 40 miles from London, do a maximum of harm to the railways, they are one of the principal contributory causes of the need for constructing expensive by-passes and arterial roads, and they are a direct and important contributor to street congestion in the central area.
  The same thing applies on the goods side. We must have, and always will require, services for the distribution and collection of goods in every urban area. It is by no means certain that we need have long distance services for the trans-

  1039.
  port of goods over 100 miles and more along the arterial roads. The Salter Conference makes no distinction between those two categories, and it proposes a basis of taxation which will apply to both of them, entirely ignoring the facts which separately relate to each. One other point relating to the Salter recommendations on taxation is worthy of note. They indicate that the private car should be. relieved of a proportion of its taxation. The private car is perhaps the greatest cause of expenditure upon arterial roads. The next greatest cause of that expenditure is the public express carriage and the contract carriage. I would ask the House to observe a further anomaly in relation to taxation which is again ignored by the Salter Conference, and equally ignored by all its critics. A very large number of private cars and contract carriages are not licensed for the whole year.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This discussion is getting out of order. The hon. Member is now criticising the Salter Report, but the Government were not responsible for the Salter Report, and, if any demand is made for action because of the Report it is obvious that legislation will be necessary. In both these respects, therefore, the whole of this discussion is out of order.
  Sir J. NALL: I will try to keep myself within the bounds of order. I was not endeavouring to discuss prospective legislation so much as calling the attention of the House to one or two aspects of the matter which relate to what I understood to be the original question. A large number of cars and contract carriages are only in use for a short period of the year, although in that short period they are the greatest menace to the railway interests and the greatest contributory cause of road expenditure. Therefore, it seems wholly unreasonable to suggest that they should be relieved of a proportion of their taxation. I suggest that all licences should be for not less than 12 months.
  On the general question which I understand was the origin of this Debate, as to when the Government will indicate some line of policy, I hope that before the Government commit themselves to any proposals they will have regard, not only to the findings of the Salter Com-
  1040
  ference but to those of the Royal Commission, and have further regard to the legitimate and insistent needs of urban populations for local transit, which should not be penalised on an issue which really arises on questions of long-distance traffic. In any proposals brought before the House, that distinction should be had in mind. The distinction which is so clearly obvious to anyone associated with the passenger side of the problem is equally obvious in regard to goods traffic—that local services which are essential to the well being of industry and of urban populations should not be penalised on an issue which mainly arises over the use of the highways for long-distance journeys, which are obviously better performed by the railways. I hope that before the Minister brings in proposals further considerations will be given to the urgent need for drawing a distinction between these two types of public services. I hope the Government will not be long in coming to some conclusion, in order that the great railway industry of this country may not suffer as it has suffered in recent years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, I hope the matter will be dealt with very early in the next Session.
  10.17 p.m.
  Captain FRASER: I rise to add a voice by way of urging on the Parliamentary Secretary that we should have a decision in this matter without undue delay. I did not have the advantage of hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce), nor your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the narrow limits within which this Debate could be conducted, but I shall try to keep within those limits as I understand them. I hope I may be in order if I seek to fortify my plea that a decision should be come to swiftly by pointing out some of the very grave disadvantages under which the railways now operate. No one would wish that a new method of transport should be held back unduly or even at all in its fair competition with the older methods. No progress is to he enjoyed if artificial restrictions are put in the way of mechanical developments or the creation of new types of organisation. May I say, in passing, that an hon. Member who feared that the development of certain kinds of engines might be inhibited or retarded if the terms of the Salter Report were carried out does not realise, probably,

  1041
  that modern railway practice is beginning to envisage the use of just such types of engines, and there is, therefore, no reason to think that the discouragement of one form of transport or the encouragement of another should stifle invention or delay progress in the matter of deriving power from liquid fuels or manufacturing liquid fuels from coal.
  It appears to me that the Parliamentary Secretary very properly laid down a principle which the Government would have in mind when he said that penal taxation which inhibited the development of a new service could not be tolerated, but, nevertheless, it was a question whether the newer method of transport and the older were competing upon fair lines. I cannot help thinking that the examination of a few figures would answer that question. The House will forgive me, I hope, if I do not give the exact figures, because one did not know that this Debate was coming quite so soon. I believe it is a fact that the capital value of railway assets have been depreciated by something like £300,000,000, and that a similar amount has been spent upon the roads, mainly with the object of relieving unemployment. It is a very great handicap that the railway industry should have to compete against another method of transport whose merit is not merely that it is novel or that it fulfils a need which the railways could not satisfy, but that it is being subsidised by the rest of the community. The railwaymen who live in my constituency and whose wages are going to be cut, are helping to pay for the roads upon which the motors run to bring about their own ruin.
  That is hardly a fair situation, and it is one in regard to which I feel that we are entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to urge the Government to come to a swift decision. Another hon. Gentleman observed that industry could only give support to, for example, the recommendations of the Salter Report if it was assured that there would be no increases in railway rates. It is not that the railways desire an increase in rates necessarily; what they desire is a fair chance. Some of the proposals which they would like to have put into effect would relieve the difficulties under which they are suffering at the present time. I am not going to make reference to pro-
  1042
  posals which would involve legislation, but perhaps I am within the limits of order in indicating some of the difficulties under which the railways suffer. They cannot at this moment, for example, make with individuals contracts of a nature similar to those which road contractors may make. They recently had in mind the introduction of methods of charging for transport over a wide area, whereby a flat rate charge would be made, but they found that that was not allowed, whereas it is allowed to those who operate upon the roads. There is a grievous handicap which ought to be attended to.
  The Government should be urged to declare their policy in the matter without delay. Although it is uneconomic that you should stifle a new service from being as useful as it reasonably can be, it is also uneconomic that you should subsidise that service and allow it to put out of business a great organisation which not only represents vast capital; that is not the only side of the matter. This is not a plea solely for shareholders. The Government must remember that a great many poor people, people of limited means and a great many trustees, hold railway shares. It is not only that, but it concerns the employment of a very large number of persons—about 250,000 or more—all working men, and the destruction of a great organisation representing generations of thought. It concerns the destruction of that organisation under conditions that are not fair to a service that can be infinitely more efficient than the new modern road transport.
  Where it is a question of carrying large amounts of goods over long distances, no road transport can possibly compete, cost for cost and on fair terms, with the machines that run on steel roads. There is no doubt about that. Where a regular service is required and where guarantees are to be given, the railways again are above competition. If you wish to send a parcel to a particular town, you can go to a railway station and require that it shall be sent. If you were to ask a road haulier, he would say: "No fear; not unless I can fill my carriage up! It would not pay me." That is an argument for the railways which justifies us in asking that the Parliamentary Secretary should bring home to the Minister

  1043
  the necessity of action in this matter. I do not want to delay the House, but merely want to emphasize what I believe to be a real injustice. The Salter Report, as it appears to me, is backed by very wide and general authority, and the Government would do well, in my judgment, not to spend more time in consulting a whole variety of interests which, after all, were the interests which the Salter Committee sought fairly to judge and assess. When you have a unanimous report from widely representative men of great experience, it seems to me that there ought not to be months of delay before the Government are able to declare their policy.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I think it is most unfortunate that this subject has been brought on at such a late hour to-night. A large number of Members of the House are keenly interested in this question, and would have been anxious to hear and to take part in the Debate. I very much hope that the Government will take the advice that has been given to them to-night, and will deal with this matter at an early date. I confess that I did not quite like the tone of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech. If I may be allowed to use a vulgar but expressive word, I hope that the Ministry are not going to funk this question, but I confess that the tone of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech rather left the impression in my mind that that might be so.
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not see why it should.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: At any rate, that was the impression that it made on my mind. This is a matter which calls for urgent treatment. In my constituency there are several very ancient towns, which are being knocked to pieces by the huge juggernauts that tear over streets and roads made for the traffic that prevailed before the internal combustion engine was discovered. I would press upon the Government the importance of dealing with this question, for it is felt very strongly, both in this House and outside, that it urgently and clamantly calls for attention.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. HOWARD: I hope the Government will not be in too great a hurry to deal with this matter on the lines suggested by the last speaker. I feel that the interests of the community and the right of using the King's highway are so important that we should hesitate very much before we come to a decision to tax road transport out of existence.
  10.29 p.m.
  Captain STRICKLAND: I, too, regret that a question of such importance as this should have been brought before the House at a time when so few of us expected it, but, representing, as I do, a constituency which is so greatly interested as mine is, from its industrial position and otherwise, in road transport, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without challenging some of the statements that have been made in the House to-night. I suggest that the Government should make up their minds swiftly as to their intentions in this matter. Naturally, I approach the question from an angle rather different from that of the last speaker or of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser), and I want to put the matter to the Government from that angle with all the force at my command. So long as the present uncertainty hangs over the industries which are concerned with the manufacture of those large goods vehicles which have done such excellent work in the past, so long is there bound to be a very deleterious effect on those industries, with their thousands of employés who up to the present have been getting their living, but who are now being thrown out of work because of the uncertainty engendered by the inaction of the Government.
  We have heard of the efficiency of the railways. I agree that, within the limits of their capacity our railways are more efficient than any others in the world. My hon. and gallant Friend invited you, Sir, to go to a railway station with a parcel and demand that it should be taken. I agree that you could put it on the railway and it would be taken, but you could never be sure that it would be delivered, because the railway might put it on a siding, and there might be a delay of days or weeks. There is not only the inconvenience of taking it to

  1045
  the railway, but at the other end there is the inconvenience arising from delay. I do not think there can be any question as to the efficiency of road transport, particularly in the case of fragile articles where careful handling is of the utmost necessity, and where a manufacturer can load up at his own works the goods he wants to send by road and have then delievred with much more care taken of them in transit than he could possibly hope for by the railway service.
  I am not here, however, to put up any case for roads versus rail. If we are going to make our industries prosperous and put them in the best possible position, it is not a matter of rail versus road but a matter of deciding which is the best and cheapest way of getting the goods about the country with the least injury to trade that can possibly be effected. An hon. Member opposite said that long-distance goods traffic by road was unnecessary. That shows the kind of approach that many people make to the question. It is just as necessary for long as for short distances to have the possibility of putting your transport on the road. I think the railways themselves are seeking, not so much release from the disadvantages under which they suffer, as to impose such penalties on road transport that people will have to come back to the railways. That is the wrong end to start consideration of the problem. The thing that we have to consider, and the thing that I hope the Government will give its immediate attention to, is what manner of transport is best adapted to the industries of the country and, by enabling them to thrive, will help to re-establish men and find work for them. That seems to me the whole point. I can say, on behalf of the motor industry, that there is no sense of antagonism to the railways, nor any sense of rejoicing in the burdens that the railways have to bear. If the motor industry to-morrow could see those restrictions removed from the railways, there would be none more willing to help them in the legitimate pursuit of their occupation than the motor transport organisations, When one reads the Salter Report from end to end, there is no mention of any inefficiency on the part of the' railways whatever, but I defy anyone to say our railway system could not be improved.
  Mr. BOYCE: Or your motor transport.
  Captain STRICKLAND: I am trying to keep it on the proper level of the commercial enterprise best suited to the people of the country. Fair competition is all that we desire to see, and not the penalising of the roads in order to drive traffic back to the railways.
  Captain FRASER: May I submit to my hon. and gallant Friend that it is not a question of penalising anybody. It is a question of trying to secure fair conditions for those people who, instead of laying down their own steel rails, ride on rails for which my railwaymen and I have to pay, those rails being the high road. The railways had to make their own road, but we have had to make the road for motor transport.
  Captain STRICKLAND: That entirely endorses the point I have been trying to prove to my hon. and gallant Friend. It is the very point that I have been emphasising all the way through. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it is not a matter of penalising anybody, but, if you are going to increase the taxation of goods vehicles from £60 to £380 a year—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That cannot be done without legislation.
  Captain STRICKLAND: I am not seeking legislation, but the avoidance of legislation. The point is that if you suggest an imposition of that magnitude upon road transport you are actually penalising road transport. The very thing that my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned enters into the question, namely, that the way of salvation of the railways is by penalising the road traffic. The road traffic says that the fair way out is to relieve the railways of some of their burdens and to give them a chance of competing fairly—not by penalising one or the other, but by removing the restrictions which I know at the present time press upon the railways. But where in the Salter Report appears any appeal whatever for the removal of the restrictions on the railways? It is all directed against the road goods traffic. The railways never enter into it. The four members of the railways out of the eight members of the conference, besides the chairman, unitedly demand that there shall be something done in order to

  1047
  penalise the road traffic, and that is the point with which I disagree. There is another point upon which I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. He emphasised that railways have paid for their steel rails and the steel road on which they run, but I did not hear him at the same time, in a spirit of fairness, point out the vast amounts which have been taken out of the pockets of the motorists for the benefit of the road. For years and years the motorists have been paying for the roads.
  Captain FRASER: Not entirely.
  Captain STRICKLAND: No, but motorists do not use the roads exclusively. They are not the only people who use the roads. When you count the cost of the roads you include all sorts of streets and pavements, and repairs to roads caused by Post Office telephones, and roads being taken up and repaired. All those things have to come into the cost of the roads, and to say that in future the motorists shall bear the entire cost of the roads—
  Mr. BOYCE: Nobody in the House to-night has suggested that for a moment. The conference unanimously suggested that road transport should pay for its user of the roads and no more than that. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are really getting into a discussion as to the taxation of motor cars which would be entirely out of order upon this Motion.
  Captain STRICKLAND: I do not want to get into that side of the argument. The point I want to emphasise, and which I will leave with the House, is that the way is the way of advance and of pro-
  1048
  gress. When the railways came into existence they had no mercy for the stage coach. They did not say: "Here is an industry employing thousands of men up and down the country, and yet we are going to have the sole right of running on these roads from one centre to another, permitted by the State." They did not represent that out of the profits which they might make they should give anything towards the upkeep of the stage coach at the time. To-day we are living in an age of advancement and progress. It is just as stupid to-day for the railways to seek to cast burdens on road transport and to keep them from enjoying the legitimate use of the roads, to which they are entitled, as it was for the stage coaches to seek to stand in the way of the progress of the iron road. From the point of view of employment in the motor industry, and having regard to the uncertainty that hangs over the trade at the present time, I hope the Government will take an early opportunity of declaring where they stand in regard to this matter. I am new to the House and I do not know how far they can go, but there ought to be something given out to the trade so that it will know from this time forward what it is likely to expect, whether it is to go on and enjoy free and open competition for goods transport in this country, or whether it is to be penalised in order to save the railways from disaster.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I only want to say a few words. This wrangle between the vested interests has finally and firmly convinced me that the only solution is nationalisation.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes before Eleven o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  MEAT SUPPLY.
  MEAT SUPPLY.
  BUILDING CONTRACTS (DOMINION WOODS).
  BUILDING CONTRACTS (DOMINION WOODS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CAPITAL EXPENDITURE).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CAPITAL EXPENDITURE).
  CHILD'S DEATH, LIVERPOOL.
  CHILD'S DEATH, LIVERPOOL.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  INTERNATIONAL TELEGRAPH AND RADIO - TELEGRAPH CONFER- ENCES (DECISIONS).
  INTERNATIONAL TELEGRAPH AND RADIO - TELEGRAPH CONFER- ENCES (DECISIONS).
METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS AND CHIEF CONSTABLES.
  ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS AND CHIEF CONSTABLES.
  ENVELOPES (QUALITY).
  ENVELOPES (QUALITY).
  PRISON SERVICE (GOVERNORS).
  PRISON SERVICE (GOVERNORS).
  CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (CAPITAL EXPENDITURE).
  CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (CAPITAL EXPENDITURE).
  STREET REFUGES, LONDON.
  STREET REFUGES, LONDON.
SCOTLAND.
  LOAN, WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL.
  LOAN, WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1929.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1929.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  HOME-GROWN BEET SUGAR (DUTY),
  HOME-GROWN BEET SUGAR (DUTY),
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK FUND (INVESTMENTS).
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK FUND (INVESTMENTS).
  COMPANIES ACTS (STOCK EXCHANGE NEW ISSUES).
  COMPANIES ACTS (STOCK EXCHANGE NEW ISSUES).
  IMPORT DUTIES ACT (DRAWBACK).
  IMPORT DUTIES ACT (DRAWBACK).
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  GOLD (STATISTICS).
  GOLD (STATISTICS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (DARTFORD URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name upon the Parser.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments. Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the urban district of Dartford, and laid before this House on the 7th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL. H.L.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provisions with respect to the discipline and internal administration of visiting Forces.
(3) Where any sentence has, whether within or without the United Kingdom, been passed upon a member of a visiting Force by a Service Court of that part of the Commonwealth to which the Force belongs, then for the purposes of any legal proceedings within the United Kingdom the court shall be deemed to have been properly constituted, and its proceedings shall be deemed to have been regularly conducted, and the sentence shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of the court and in accordance with the law of that part of the Commonwealth and if executed according to the tenor thereof shall be deemed to have been lawfully executed, and any member of a visiting Force who is detained in custody in pursuance of any such sentence, or pending the determination by such a Service Court as aforesaid of a charge
474
brought against him, shall for the purposes of any such proceedings as aforesaid be deemed to be in legal custody.
For the purposes of any such proceedings as aforesaid a certificate under the hand of the officer commanding a visiting Force that a member of that Force is being detained for either of the causes aforesaid shall be conclusive evidence of the cause of his detention, but not of his being such a member, and a certificate under the hand of such an officer that the persons specified in the certificate sat as a Service Court of that part of the Commonwealth to which the Force belongs shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble and learned Lord said: When this Bill was before your Lordships on Second Reading a discussion took place upon the subsection which is the subject; of my Amendment. It was a discussion which, I cannot help thinking from a careful re-reading of the debate, was greatly misunderstood. It was thought that the remarks made by myself and by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin, who is unfortunately unable to be here this afternoon, were directed against the principle of the Bill. They were not directed against anything of the kind, but nearly the whole of the speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House (Viscount Hailsham) in reply, dealt with the necessity of having a Bill of this kind to secure the discipline of the Forces visiting this country who are referred to in the title "Visiting Forces." He also reflected upon the fact that I had made comments upon the Statute of Westminster, and that I had suggested that it was objectionable because this Bill was necessary to carry out the provisions of the Statute of Westminster when, he said, it had only been rendered necessary by its passage. I admit that there is a distinction between the two phrases, but a distinction which, for the purpose of the matter I was then arguing, appears to me to be infinitesimal.
The point I was on had nothing whatever to do with the necessity for providing that there should be military control exercised by the military officers of a visiting Force. It was with regard to another and a very different matter. It was that subsection (3) as it stood wholly removed from the members of the visiting Force the protection which our Common Law has always afforded to soldiers

475
who are resident in this country. In order to make that plain I fear I must trouble your Lordships a little in detail in regard to the way the matter stands to-day. Our Forces over here are, as you all know, regulated by Statutes which have been passed from time to time, of which the latest is the Army Act of 1881. That Statute regulates the powers which confer upon military officers the control and discipline of their troops. It sets out the nature of the tribunal, it states the way in which it should be constituted, it provides for the periods during which a man may be detained before he is brought to trial, and it provides for the punishment of every class of offence from mere detention in the barracks up to sentence of death, and from all these sentences whatever they may be there is no appeal of any kind whatever to any civil authority. I want your Lordships thoroughly to realise that the Army Act has taken out of the civil power the whole of the jurisdiction relating to the control of soldiers who are under officers in this country, and has left them with an appeal only to the military authorities and not to the Civil Courts.
If that matter stood alone any excess or irregularity either in sentence or in procedure would be wholly incapable of being remedied, but the law has provided—and I sincerely hope your Lordships this afternoon will see that it is maintained—a protection which I hope you will not think is archaic or uncouth because it comes down to us from a time when all the processes of the law were clothed in the Imperial purple of the Latin tongue. There were two great writs—the writ of certiorari, and, above and beyond all others, the writ of habeas corpus, to which any soldier was at liberty to appeal if he was suffering from a sentence which the Court had no power to inflict or which had been inflicted by a Court that had been irregularly constituted. I will not detain you discussing the writ of certiorari at any length. It is a very old writ of the highest consequence because it is a writ that enables the procedure of any Court, where it has exceeded in any degree the powers it possesses by the authority of Parliament, to be brought up to the Court of King's Bench, and there declared wrong or void, and if to-day any one of your Lordships presiding at Quarter Sessions were, by a mere mistake, to give a man a sentence a
476
day longer than the Act provided, that sentence could be brought up before the Civil Court and the whole thing declared void. It is a vital thing; it is of the utmost importance that Courts entrusted with these solemn powers over the liberty and the lives of the people whom they have to judge should know that beyond them there is a power that can restrain any excessive use of jurisdiction.
While that is true of the Civil Courts, it is equally true of the Military Courts. But the writ of far greater consequences than that is the writ of habeas corpus, the great writ which any man can issue out on behalf of any person whom it is alleged has been unjustly dealt with. Of course these writs are not issued until a case has been made to show that they should be issued, but let that case be made and the writ goes at once to the person in whose custody any person may be, directing him that he shall bring that person up before the Court of King's Bench in order that it may be determined whether he shall remain in custody or not. I do not believe it possible to exaggerate the importance of that Act. It applies equally to all Military Courts, to all Naval Courts and to all Civil Courts. I should like to read to your Lordships what Chief Justice Coke, one of our greatest Judges, said in a matter of this kind in 1861, when the question was whether a man had been detained too long before being brought to trial. He said:
"If a Court-Martial acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction the Court of King's Bench could exercise its controlling authority by writs of prohibition or certiorari against the governor of the prison, or whoever improperly detained a person by a writ of habeas corpus. Writs are issued in protection of the Common Law rights of a soldier against a military officer or a Military Court."
Now, my Lords, these writs are not mere names. It is perfectly true that proceedings are conducted in our Civil Courts and in our Military Courts with clue regard to the authority that is conferred, but is anyone going to say that that must of necessity remain so for all time? Because things move smoothly now, is there any man so bold as to say that that will always be the case? These writs are issued under strange circumstances. There was a man sentenced to death by a military tribunal at the end of the last century, and on the day fixed

477
for his execution application was made for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he had been irregularly tried. The Court of King's Bench issued a writ, and the Provost-Marshal refused to obey, saying he would only obey his superior officer. They came back at once to the Court and the Court's order was that both the Provost-Marshal and his superior officer should be taken under arrest and brought before the King's Bench. Believe me, these writs are of the highest possible value, unless you are going to permit a soldier to be subject to a disability which affects nobody else in this country.
This writ, a writ extorted from the reluctant hand of the King, we believe to be the very key beam of the whole architectural structure of our liberties. To take that away from the soldier is something that this House ought not to do. The answer that has been suggested is this: "Oh! no. You do not take it away from a man at all." I will read exactly what the noble and learned Viscount said. He said:
"What happens is this. A Dominion soldier can only challenge in a Dominion Court the act of a Dominion officer, and similarly a United Kingdom soldier can only challenge it in a tinted Kingdom Court. That may be a wise or an unwise provision, but it is not accurate to suggest that once this Bill becomes law then, whatever happens to any Dominion soldier in this country, nobody can ever interfere."
I want to say that unless I am gravely mistaken that is a profound mistake. When you are dealing with a writ of habeas corpus, the first thing to remember is that originally that writ ran throughout the whole of the King's Dominions. From time to time, in regard to various parts of our Empire, the power of issuing a writ here was withdrawn, and by the Act of 1862 no writ of habeas corpus can issue out of this country to any country where Courts are set up by which such a writ can legally be issued. Take Canada and South Africa. In both those countries these writs can be obtained and the result would be that you could not issue here a writ of habeas corpus to protect a British soldier in Canada or South Africa. Do you really think that the Courts of this country are going to recognise a writ issued out of their jurisdiction If you do you must be strangely unfamiliar with the peculiar jealousies that attach to territories with
478
regard to the exercise of writs. At the present moment a writ of habeas corpus issued in this country will not run in Scotland. It is a strictly local thing. There would be no power whatever if this Bill were passed to protect the British soldier overseas by issuing a writ of habeas corpus here, and there would be no protection for a Dominion soldier over here by getting a writ of habeas corpus issued in Canada. If, therefore, I am right in saying that this writ is of the highest possible consequence which we ought to do all we can to preserve, I say that this subsection takes those rights away.
It has been suggested that we can do nothing here because we could not interpret the Acts of Canada or of South Africa. It was an argument brought forward in another place and it must have been brought forward by somebody who is wholly ignorant of the fact that in Downing Street the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sits day after day determining these very things. When it is said that we should not know in the first place what was the law of Canada, and I think also of South Africa, I would reply that they have adopted the provisions of our own Army Act and so we should be construing our own Statute. Apart from that, we should only have to ask for a Statute to be sent here and it could be construed here as well as anywhere else. I should like to go further and say that it might be better construed, but at any rate it is capable of being construed here. The law enforced would, I agree, be the law applicable to the particular soldier by virtue of the particular spot in the Empire from which he came, but that law can be maintained here and it can be examined by the King's Bench as easily as can our own laws. There can be no possible reason for suggesting that the Dominion soldier over here is protected because it may be possible, given a proper lapse of time, to get a writ issued over in Canada.
I have passed by a matter which is apparent to everyone, and that is a question of time. Let me assume the case of a man sentenced to death. Are you going to be sure that you are going to get your writ in Canada or South Africa in time to save the man? Of course, you know perfectly well that time would be of the utmost importance. Take the

479
minor case of a man kept in detention beyond the period permitted. You are going to keep him in detention another six weeks at the very least, even assuming when you got your remedy that the remedy was effectual. I can see no conceivable answer to the fact that the remedy of a writ issued over there would be wholly inoperative here as our writ is wholly inoperative there. The suggestion put forward on the Second Reading of this Bill that the Dominion soldier is protected is, I venture to think, an entire fallacy. He has every protection stripped from him by this Bill. That is a matter which appears to me of the utmost gravity.
If you think that I have simply been raising a legal technicality, or a legal quibble, or a legal plausibility, if you think that my Amendment comes within the meaning of any of those phrases which are too often and too lightly used to the discredit of a great profession, then I would unhesitatingly ask your Lordships to reject my Amendment. But if I have made you feel, as I feel myself, that of all the discussions that it has been my privilege to take part in this is one of the very gravest, then I would ask you not to reject my Amendment merely because it is a lawyer who has called your minds to the matter. After all, this is not the first time that lawyers have attempted to protect and maintain public rights, and this is not the first time, and I hope that by many occasions it will not he the last time, when your Lordships' House has been called upon to afford protection against the consequences of hasty and ill-considered laws.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 9 to 36, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Buckmaster.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSITAM): Whenever I listen to the noble and learned Lord opposite I realise, as I am sure most of your Lordships must realise, that he speaks with an enthusiasm and an eloquence which are apt almost to carry us away and sweep us off our feet. He speaks with a sincerity and depth of feeling which show how convinced he is of the righteousness of his own cause and tempt one to think that if he is so satisfied about it, it must be right, whatever one's own judgment might lead one to believe. Nevertheless, I am sorry to say
480
that it is my difficult task to oppose the noble and learned Lord and to try to satisfy your Lordships that no such grave constitutional consequences are involved as the noble Lord would invite your Lordships to believe. In order to do so I think I must go into some little detail into what this provision does and into the position with which this clause has to deal.
The noble and learned Lord has pointed out what is familiar to all of us, that if there is a military force at all it is an essential that there should be some law for enforcing discipline and that, to a certain extent, by reason of the fact, when a soldier either voluntarily or involuntarily joins a military force he surrenders a certain amount of personal liberty and submits himself to a jurisdiction which otherwise the ordinary citizen is not liable to obey. As far as military forces in this country are concerned there are three possible classes. I want your Lordships, if I may trouble you, to follow why I classify them because, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord, he has mixed up two different classes with one of which this Bill has nothing in the wide world to do—namely, English soldiers enlisted in the United Kingdom. The first of the three classes is the one with which we are normally familiar, the soldiers enlisted over here in the Regular or Auxiliary Forces of the Crown. The second possible class is that of soldiers of foreign Powers who come here on a visit either in time of peace to take part in a competition or display, or in time of war as allies to help us in the struggle. There is, thirdly, the class of soldiers enlisted oversea, either in one of our Colonies or India or one of the Dominions, who come over here for the like purpose, either to assist in some peaceful gathering or to help us in the sterner realities of war.
I want to deal with these classes separately. So far as soldiers enlisted here are concerned, the Regular Forces of the Crown, the Territorial Army and other Forces enlisted under the authority of the United Kingdom Parliament in the United Kingdom, this subsection has nothing to do.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend. This does not alter their legal position

481
in any way at all and the reason why I emphasise the fact is that the noble and learned Lord, having described the provisions of the Army Act and having pointed out that under its provisions there was no appeal to a Civil Court from any determination of a military Court-Martial on any matter within its jurisdiction, said there were these prerogative writs to which he referred and which he begged you to uphold to protect English soldiers from being at time mercy of a tyrannous or bureaucratic military Court-Martial. It is important, therefore, to make it clear that this Rill does not affect that in the slightest degree. If this Bill is passed with this subsection in, the soldier enlisted in the Forces of the United Kingdom will have no more, and no fewer, rights than he has at present.
The two writs to which the noble Lord drew attention are the writ of certiorari and the writ of habeas corpus. I am informed there is no instance of the writ of certiorari being successfully applied for by a serving man or officer, and that there is no instance of a writ of habeas corpus since the Army Act of 1881. There were some a good deal earlier, most of which were founded on some defect in form which, since the Act of 1881, is no longer a suitable objection; but the right to apply for the writ exists, and the only importance which attaches to the fact that it has not been successfully applied for in the last half century in the one case or at all in the other, is that the danger which he fears is not very likely to happen.
My second class comprises the Forces of foreign Powers, and it is important to realise their position because all this much attacked subsection does is to put the Dominion Forces in the same position, as far as discipline in concerned, as every foreign Force is in when it visits our shores. With regard to a foreign Force the recognised principle of International Law is that if one country invites or permits the Force of another to come within its territory, then that Force brings with it the privilege of extraterritoriality and no Court of the country visited can interfere in any way with its discipline. I do not think the noble and learned Lord won d challenge that statement of the law, but I have here Oppenheim's International Law and Hall's
482
International Law, both recognised authorities, in which that principle is laid down quite plainly. If, therefore, we invite or permit, say, a French Force to come here to take part in some tournament, or we invite an American Force to come here and assist in our defence when we are fighting any European War, those French soldiers and those American soldiers have no right to apply to a British Court. They are subjected only to the discipline of their own country.
Their remedy, if there be a wrong clone them by their own officers, is to make whatever application their law gives them to the Courts of their own country, and that is the only right they have. And the fact that they come here does not give jurisdiction to our Courts to interfere in any way with the exercise of discipline or with sentences pronounced by the French or American Courts-Martial in the particular instances which I have given. Not only is that the recognised rule of International Law, but, in order that there should be no question raised at all when the American Forces did come over here in very large numbers in the period of the Great War, there was a regulation passed under the Defence of the Realm Act which stated in terms what their position was, which stated it as I have now explained it to your Lordships, and which stated it in exactly the language which you find in this subsection (3). The subsection which is now being impugned is copied word for word from the provisions which were enacted during the Great War in respect of the American Forces when they came over here. And, again, as showing that the dangers about which the noble and learned Lord feels so deeply are imaginary, I do not know that I have ever heard, and I doubt whether your Lordships have, of any attempt made by any French or American soldier to upset that regulation or to challenge in any way its provisions, or of any injustice which is said to have resulted therefrom.
Now I come to the third class, the Colonial and Dominion Forces. Up till two years ago the position with regard to the Colonial and Dominion Forces was that there was a section of the Army Act, Section 177, by which, when their own law made rules as to discipline, those rules could be applicable although they came over here. So far as India and what

483
we now normally call the Colonies are concerned, that is still the position. But, in view of the alteration in the position of the Dominions which was agreed to in 1930, which is now enshrined in the Statute of Westminster, an alteration was made in the Army Act, either two or three years ago, in the definition of the word "Colony"; and, whereas Section 177 has the provision which I explained to your Lordships with regard to the Forces of India or a Colony, and whereas in the old definition "Colony" covered all the overseas possessions of the Crown except India, which was named separately: now the expression "Colony," under Section 190 means any part of His Majesty's Dominions exclusive of the United Kingdom, of British India and of any of the Dominions. It includes any protectorate. So that now your Lordships see that the Forces of the Dominions which come over here are no longer subject to the provisions of Section 177. There remains therefore no disciplinary provision to be maintained in this country with regard to the Dominion Forces.
I think your Lordships will readily agree that it is not a tolerable position that, if a Canadian or other Dominion Force is invited over here or comes over to help us, there should be any doubt with regard to that Force remaining subject to the discipline under which the men enlisted. The question was: What provision could we make to deal with that situation? and the provision that the Bill makes is to put them in exactly the same position as any Force from any foreign country which came over here. That is to say, that they will have in their own Courts whatever remedies their Courts give to them. I cannot tell your Lordships—because I do not know—what particular writs may or may not be obtainable by a South African in a South African Court or a Newfoundlander in a Newfoundland Court, or, for that matter, by a Canadian in a Canadian Court, although I think that a writ of certiorari can be applied for there because there is a case where the application failed. But, whatever rights are given them by their own law, those rights they continue to possess when they come over here, just as if they remained in Canada, or wherever it was.
What we have said is that, just as we will not enquire into the jurisdiction of
484
a foreign Court-Martial, into the exercise by a foreign officer of jurisdiction over his own men, so we will not in the English Courts enquire into the exercise of jurisdiction by a Dominion officer over his men. In other words, we will not put the Dominion Forces in any different or inferior position to those of any foreign country coming here, and we will not say that the Dominion Courts are less able to vindicate the rights of Dominion citizens who happen to be members of the Dominion Forces than a French or American Court is able to vindicate the rights of French or American soldiers. That is what the Dominions say, and we have agreed to it, and that is what this subsection seeks to do. And it is quite inaccurate to say that by this subsection we are depriving anybody of recourse to the Courts. What we are saying is that a Dominion soldier over here shall have recourse to the Dominion Court and shall have whatever rights the Dominion Courts choose to give him. He can, for instance, if their law is the same as ours, bring an action for false imprisonment. Whatever action he can bring depends on the law which that Dominion enacts; but, whatever it is, he has the same rights as the law gives him.
What this does is to say that his remedy shall be pursued in the Dominion Courts, and that he shall not come to the English Courts or ask the English Courts to enquire into the exercise of Dominion jurisdiction by a Dominion officer. It is confined to members of a Dominion Force. If, for example, a Dominion Court-Martial were to purport to exercise jurisdiction over an Englishman who was not a member of its Force, then there is express provision in the subsection that that person shall have a right to apply to an English Court. The only case that the subsection deals with is the case of a Dominion soldier in a Dominion Force who happens to be over here, and what it says is that that soldier shall continue to apply to the Dominion Courts and to have the rights only that the Dominion Courts give him, and no other.
My noble friend has said that we can interpret these laws quite well over here. That is not the question. It is not a question of whether we can interpret South African or Canadian law over here: the question is whether we shall

485
put a Dominion Force which is over here in an inferior position compared to a foreign Force. The Dominions say—and, after all, one has to accept their own view of themselves—that they resent the suggestion that they cannot be trusted just as much to look after the interests of their own men as any foreigner, and they have asked us to pass this subsection in this form—in the form in which, in fact, it was drawn to have reference to the Americans, and, in fact, the form in which it has already been passed in South Africa with regard to the United Kingdom Forces which happened to be there. Whether or not we pass this, of course, will not affect the law in South Africa or Canada. I only tell your Lordships that to show that the Dominions are themselves carrying out the same principle of legislation which they are asking us to pass.
In these circumstances I ask your Lordships to believe that really this great point of constitutional law does not arise, that there can be no question of interfering with the right of any United Kingdom soldier at all, because this Act does not touch it. All that is done with regard to the Dominion soldier is not to deprive him of the right of applying to the Courts but to limit his right to the right to apply to his own Courts instead of coming to an English Court. And that—although it may seem shocking to an English Judge—I venture to suggest does not seem quite so shocking to a Dominion Judge, or, for that matter, to a Dominion soldier. For this reason I ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I regret to say that the speech of the noble Viscount has not in any way allayed my anxiety. I agree entirely with him that this Bill does not affect our English soldiers who are here. Nobody ever thought it did; but the next question which I think your Lordships have got to ask is whether the protection that the English soldier enjoys by virtue of his right to this writ of habeas corpus, in the event of his being improperly sentenced or dealt with under the Army Act, is a right to be maintained or to be cast away. If you think it should be maintained (and I think it is of the highest possible consequence) then I
486
want to know why you are going to deprive the Dominion Forces of that remedy as soon as they come over here. The remedy over here has always been a remedy open to a person who is in the country. It is independent of nationality. It is the right of every person over here. Just as he is subject to our laws, so he is entitled to avail himself of their privileges, and, although it may be that you may get special conditions with regard to the rare occasions when foreign Forces are here, about which I am not prepared to dogmatise, that seems to me to have no application whatever to the case of our own Dominion Forces when they are over here.
I must say that I was a little surprised to hear it said that this subsection was enacted by regulation directly the American Forces came over here, because, if what the noble and learned Viscount said is correct, there appears to me to have been no need for that to be done. Let us see what it is that this subsection provides. It provides that in the case of any man sentenced by a Court of one of these visiting Forces—and a Court may include a single officer—you must assume, whether it be true or not, that that Court was properly constituted, that its proceedings were regularly conducted, that its sentence was in accordance with law, and that the person who is detained in custody, either pending the sentence or pending its determination, is in lawful custody. In other words, if a man is detained in one of these visiting Forces for a period far in excess of the time for which he enlisted, you must 'assume that it is right, and he has no possible remedy. I want to repeat that he has no remedy. The only remedy open to soldiers with which I am acquainted beyond the writ of certiorari is the writ of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus is taken away from him in this country, and it is wholly inapplicable in the country where he was born, because the writ of habeas corpus, issued there, would not run in this country even if it could be issued.
There can be no doubt that the effect of this subsection, beyond all question, is to take away from men of our Dominions, who are part of a Force visiting this country, a protection which they would enjoy in their own country and which an English soldier enjoys in his

487
own country, and for which he has no compensation beyond the fact that his British brother is deprived of that right somewhere else. If South Africa realised why this subsection is objected to, I think they would take care to object to it. I cannot believe that this subsection can have been deliberately passed by people unless they were prepared to say: "Your writ of habeas corpus is an old fashioned and useless remedy; things are going on very well and we will get rid of it altogether." There can be no greater danger, surely, than to get rid of something which has been found so important to our

CONTENTS

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Chaplin, V.

Greville, L.

Wellington, D.

Devonport, V.

Hampton, L.

Salisbury, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hanworth, L.

Goschen, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hailsham, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Jessel, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Ampthill, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Askwith, L.

Lamington, L.

Munster, E.

Butler, L. (E. Carrick.)

Marks, L.

Onslow, E.

Carrington, L.

Ormonde, L.

Peel, E.

Chesham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.)

Remnant, L.

Rothes, E.

Somerleyton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Stratheona and Mount Royal,L.

Wicklow, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Buekmaster, L. [Teller.]

Rhayader, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Snell, L.

Allen of Hurtvvood, L.

Redesdale, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed with accordingly.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

EVIDENCE (FOREIGN, DOMINION AND COLONIAL DOCUMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Proof and effect of foreign, Dominion and Colonial registers and certain official certificates.
(4) In this section the expression country "means a Dominion, a British
liberties, because for a long time it has not been exercised. The man who will declare that occasion for its exercise will never arise in the future is bolder than I care to be. Unless your Lordships are satisfied in your minds that it is right to take away from these people a right which they would otherwise enjoy if they came over here, you will support this Amendment, and I must press it to a Division.
On Question, Whether Subsection (3) shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 8.
I Colony or Protectorate, a foreign country, a colony or protectorate of a foreign country, or any mandated territory:
Provided that where a part of a country is under both a local and a central Legislature, an Order under this section may he made as well with respect to that part, as with respect to all the parts under that central Legislature.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR. moved, in subsection (4), after "Dominion," to insert "the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I am going to ask your Lordships to make one small Amendment to this Bill. You will remember that the Bill deals with a very technical matter—namely, the proof of certain documents made in our Dominions, in our Colonies and in foreign places. By a small drafting mistake the power of extending Clause 1 to the rest of the Empire does not apply to the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. The

489
earlier draft did apply, but when subsection (4) was redrafted to meet the views of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies the new wording failed to cover the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The omission has, fortunately, been discovered by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. These Islands are included in the Evidence Act, 1851, under which judgments are admissible in evidence both ways, but unfortunately documents such as birth certificates are only admissible one way. For example, a Jersey birth certificate is not evidence in the United Kingdom. There is, therefore, a point of substance in making the clause applicable to the Islands. The proposed Amendment will rectify the omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, after ("Dominion") insert ("the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the, House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Stanhope.)
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF' ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.

PART I.

1. Session and Chapter.

2. Short. Title.

3. How far continued.

4. Amendment Acts.

…

…

…

…

(14)

20 & 21 Geo.

The Public Works Facilities Act 1930.

The whole Act.

—

LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved to omit the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, from the Schedule. The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is to leave out from the Schedule the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930. I move it on the
490
ground that this Act cuts deep into the system of Private Bill legislation which at present exists. It gives power to local authorities to frame certain schemes which, if necessary, after inquiry, but on the order of the Minister concerned, may come to Parliament and escape their Committee stage. There may be many criticisms to be made of the system of Private Bill legislation for which, along with the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, I was for some time responsible. It doubt is somewhat lengthy, and it is somewhat expensive, but at the same time it may be said that a fairer and more searching and, I may add, a cleaner system does not exist, and I think your Lordships should be very careful not to allow its working to be impaired by side winds.
The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, the other day said that this would only lie used in small schemes, and schemes that were unopposed; but the point I want to make is that even in unopposed schemes the Committee stage is often of great importance. I think you may sometimes latet doles in concordia; where things arc agreed it does not necessarily follow that they are right. On the unopposed Bill Committee in another place very frequently an unopposed Bill was found to embark upon somewhat dangerous ground. For example, there was a Water Bill under which the promoters took power to acquire a considerable extent of land in order to guard their supplies from pollution. The Bill was unopposed, but it came out on examination that some of this land was very valuable and attractive land, and that there was nothing on earth to prevent the promoters of that Bill from turning themselves from a statutory water undertaking into an ordinary land development company under power that had been given to them under Statute. That was stopped. In another case of a Dock Bill the undertakers sought to get compulsory powers to be used solely for their own advantage without any corresponding service to the public. That again was an unopposed Bill. In another case—the case of a very old and well-established and flourishing statutory company—provisions were proposed, again unopposed, which would have created a most mischievous precedent, for there were strange and privileged terms under which large

491
issues of money might be made. The Bill was unopposed. There was some real mischief in it which could only be detected by Parliamentary examination.
There is another point. Undoubtedly there is a steady tendency for Departments to encroach on the province of Parliament. I do not say that this is deliberate; I am inclined to think it is not, but it undoubtedly does exist. It probably arises from the hard-working men at the head of Departments thinking out what would work quickest and be most convenient. Undoubtedly the Parliamentary procedure is sometimes a matter of annoyance to them. It delays their schemes, or it may delay them, and it requires the attendance of somebody to lay the case before Parliamentary Committees. If this Bill is passed as a mere item in the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill a. further unfortunate precedent would be created. This Bill was first brought in at a time of emergency as part of the effort of the Government of the day to deal with the emergency of unemployment. That emergency, unhappily, has not passed, but I think it is quite clear that this Act has not been of much value. There were a certain number of schemes in the first year, but in the second and third years only one was promoted.
I do not think we should on any punctilio decline to give assent to anything which the Government on their responsibility seriously regard as for the mitigation of unemployment, and if the noble Earl who represents the Government tells us that he regards this as an important provision to that end, I would say that in that case it ought to have been brought in as a separate Bill for renewing the lapsing Act as was done in the case of the Rent Restrictions Acts and other Acts, the importance of which prevented them from being put in the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I think it is necessary to prevent a further precedent being created, and for that reason I ask your Lordships to take serious notice of this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out lines 38 to 40.—(Lord Rankeillour).
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: As I raised this question on the Second Reading of the Bill here it is perhaps my duty to
492
add a few words to what I said on that occasion, and so I am taking the rather unusual course of addressing your Lordships while the Bill is in the Committee stage. This procedure is, of course, entirely exceptional procedure—that is admitted on all sides—but we are living in exceptional times and under exceptional circumstances. I am sure that if that is made perfectly clear you will have no hesitation in agreeing to this prolongation of the Act. But I think we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, for raising the question, because your Lordships are very jealous of the procedure of this House and will not make any alteration therein without being perfectly certain that it has had the fullest consideration both specifically and particularly.
The two points which were raised by my noble friend Earl Stanhope on the Second Reading were the advantages of expedition and of economy. My noble friend Lord Donoughmore, my predecessor, speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill when it was originally introduced, mentioned to your Lordships that the elasticity of procedure in your Lordships' House made it possible for Bills to be passed at considerable speed. It is rue, as my noble friend Earl Stanhope said the other day, that an ordinary Private Bill is governed by dates fixed by Standing Orders. It must be introduced in the autumn and then it will get the Royal Assent some time in the following year. There is, however, a procedure known as the late Bill procedure by which a Bill may be introduced at any time. All that is required when a late Bill is introduced is that there should be sufficient time for it to go through its stages in both Houses. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for a Bill to be introduced in May or even later and receive the Royal Assent by July. In the case of a late Bill both Houses are asked to suspend the Standing Orders as to dates and that is done whenever reasonable cause is shown.
Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend Lord Donoughmore said on the Second Reading of the Public Works Facilities Bill that the advantage of this particular Bill was possibly greatest at the end of July. The Government might have a lot of schemes ready which could be proceeded with during the Recess and then, under the provisions of the Act,

493
they could pass immediately Parliament met in the autumn. Of course, no scheme can go through without Parliament sitting because confirmation has to be given by Parliament in a Bill. We were told by my noble friend Earl Stanhope that it was not intended to bring forward opposed schemes under this procedure but only to deal with small matters and unopposed schemes. He referred to three which the Minister of Health had in mind. As far as I can see those schemes might be proceeded with by the late Bill procedure, and I do not think that much time would be lost. They could be brought in as soon as they are ready—I gather they are Lot yet ready—and it would be possible to pass them without any emergency procedure.
I would like to mention also the question of economy. I think it is rather dangerous to lay too much stress on economy in these matters. We are all very anxious indeed for economy, but we must be rather careful, I think, of stressing the advantages of economy too far where our procedure is concerned. After all, you might make a great many economies by altering the procedure of this House, but whether they would be desirable or worth making is a very different question. I think myself that stress should be laid on expedition and other advantages rather than on the advantages of economy in this particular instance. I would like to give your Lordships a few details as to the difference in cost as between this procedure and procedure by private Bill. I find that the cost of printing in both cases would be approximately the same. Agents' fees vary according to the size of the Order or of the Bill. They would be about £120 or more. Under this; emergency procedure they might be a little less, perhaps £100. The great economy effected by this procedure is the saving of fees in the two Houses. These amount to about £220. The emergency procedure would be about £200 cheaper than ordinary Private Bill procedure. Those are the points on which I thought your Lordships would wish to be informed.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: There are two points to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention. The first is that when the Bill was originally introduced into the House of Commons it was stated that it was to last until the end
494
of 1933. In Committee, Sir Kingsley Wood introduced an Amendment whereby "thirty-three." was left out and "thirty-two" inserted. Further, it was an agreed Amendment because there was no argument and the Government accepted it. Then, when this Bill was before your Lordships on July 28, 1930, the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, then Leader of the House, said:
" The powers are only conferred for that purpose and the powers altogether come to an end in the year 1932. It is not as though we were superseding for all time the well-known forms of procedure that the noble Earl the Lord Chairman has referred to. We are bringing in a Bill providing a form of procedure which he, with all his experience, knows to be a valuable means for dealing with unemployment, but only for that purpose, and which is not to he in operation in any ease beyond 1932."
That is a very strong statement for the Leader of this House to make and one which doubtless induced your Lordships to allow the Bill to pass. I hope your Lordships will support my noble friend if he goes to Division.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): I am well aware that this House is very jealous as to its procedure and I am certain that no one on the Government Bench would desire to cavil at the description given by the noble Lord of the value of Select Committees either in this House or, perhaps as we think, to a less degree elsewhere. If this were an Act to abolish our Private Bill procedure, I doubt very much whether I should find myself standing at this box, and at least I should feel very uncomfortable. But that is not the question. As I said on the last occasion, this is only for use for minor Bills.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: It is not limited to minor Bills.
EARL STANHOPE: I admit that, and I can only repeat the statement of the Minister of Health that he does not intend to go outside minor Bills under this procedure. Nothing except minor Bills has so far been produced by this method. If, of course, a major Bill were brought up the House has complete control over any Bill under this procedure. What happens is that the Bill is presented by the Minister of Health and it comes before both Houses as having passed Committee. The first stage at which it appears before either Honse is the Re-

495
port stage, but, as your Lordships are aware, you can make any Amendment on the Report stage, and of course throw out a Bill or make further Amendments on the Third Reading. The House has therefore complete control over any Bill. Although it does in fact miss the critical examination referred to by Lord Rankeillour, these Bills are examined because, if any objection is raised to them locally, then the Minister of Health holds a local inquiry at which any objections are made; the Minister considers the report of that inquiry and is required to submit that report to both Houses when he lodges his Bill. Your Lordships therefore get the advantage of the inquiry made by the Ministry of Health when the Bill is presented before you. I do not pretend that that is likely to be as critical an examination as the inquiry upstairs of your Lordships, but anyone with a real objection to a Bill has ample opportunity to obtain a hearing in one or other House of Parliament and to have the point fully discussed.
The Public Works Facilities Act is not confined to one clause. There are other clauses of value. It is true, as the noble Chairman said, that not many schemes have been brought forward under Clause 1—I think eight schemes by the Ministry of Health, five by the Ministry of Transport and three by the Scottish Office. Under Clause 2 power is given to make orders authorising local authorities and statutory undertakers to purchase land compulsorily for certain purposes—aerodromes, amongst others. It enables land to be compulsorily purchased without a Provisional Order. I understand that a Provisional Order takes from twelve to eighteen months to come into effect and therefore the saving in time where a Provisional Order would be necessary is considerable. That is of real value, and so far from there having been only a few schemes I understand the Ministry of Health has made something like 200 orders under this clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I be permitted to ask whether all these schemes of which the noble Earl speaks were with a view to helping unemployment?
EARL STANHOPE: I think under Clause 2 not entirely, because there was a prospect of making aerodromes, which probably would not give much work to
496
the unemployed although on the other hand they might. But under the whole scheme of the Act the general idea is to assist employment by schemes likely to help in that matter. As regards Clause 3 that enables local authorities to obtain easements over land where it is necessary to make a bridge over a statutory undertaking—that is to say, over a railway or a canal. The Ministry of Transport is very anxious to try to abolish level crossings and to make corners easier where there is considerable traffic. This enables land to be acquired or schemes to be made by a much simpler procedure than before. There is a small amendment which enables the Minister to make schemes in regard to the Electricity Commissioners. Where an objection is made which is not withdrawn and the Minister is satisfied that it is a trivial objection or that it has been met by amendments in the scheme, he can make an Order allowing the Electricity Commissioners to go ahead. In that particular case it is obvious that no assistance would be given as regards obtaining employment for the unemployed. I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment because the Act is really of considerable value in small ways in which we are able to help unemployment. He suggested that it ought to be put forward again as a separate Bill, as was done in the case of the Rent Restrictions Act, but Part II of this Schedule shows that the Rent Restrictions Act is actually in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I think some of the earlier renewals were not.
EARL STANHOPE: That is because they were so framed that they could not be, but here is the Rent Restrictions Act in this Schedule. I know that it is not in Part I but in Part II, but at any rate it does appear in the Bill. I submit that, as I have already pointed out, if a scheme came before you which you thought was dangerous you would have complete power both to amend it and to reject it, and if at any time you found that the Ministry of Health or any other Ministry was taking advantage of this Act to cut across the procedure of your Lordships' House and to dodge (if I may use the expression) the Select Committee procedure, you could at any time move that such an Act should then be dropped out of the Expiring Laws Continuance

497
Bill and that Act would then come to an end. I hope very much, after the explanation I have given, that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have not infrequently heard discussions rather of this description upon this stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but I do think that perhaps those who sit on dm Treasury Bench—I have had some experience of it—forget the kind of way in which those who are not on the Treasury Bench regard the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. For what happens is this. A Bill or some measure of a controversial character to which a good many people object, and in regard to which there is a great deal to be said on both sides, is submitted to Parliament and comes to your Lordships' House; and, in order to get the Bill through, a clause is put in, either in the original draft or in the course of the Bill through Parliament, which limits the duration of the Bill for a certain period. That is done continually, and then Parliament is assured: "You are not pledging yourself beyond such and such a year; do not be uneasy. This is purely a temporary Bill. After all, no great harm can happen in two or three years"—or whatever the period named may be. "We think your Lordships may without any uneasiness pass this Bill."
We are all very innocent people, and we always accept not only the good faith—of course, we accept the good faith of what we are assured—but also the foresight of the Ministers who give those assurances. And so the Bill is passed. And then, when the period comes to an end, do your Lordships imagine that the Bill is allowed to drop? I was almost going to say very seldom, but at any rate continually it does not drop. It is then nut into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and all the assurances that have been given as to its temporary character are forgotten, laid aside, and we are asked to go on with the Bill just as if it had never been given a temporary character.
The noble Earl just now mentioned the Rent Restrictions Act. That, of course, was a temporary Act. That has always been put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill—over and over again. Although it would not be in order for me to discuss it, I believe we are going to
498
discuss a Rent Restrictions Bill shortly. That has a limited duration, and no doubt your Lordships will be told when the Bill is going through that we need not be uneasy, that its provisions are all of a temporary character, and that it will not be for ever. But no doubt when the time comes it will go into the same receptacle as this Act is going into now—into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Of course, I do not snake complaint of Ministers doing this. Very often it has to be done. But I would suggest to them that unnecessary action of this kind is gradually deteriorating and depreciating the value of the assurance which is made that a Bill is of a temporary kind. Very soon you will not get anybody to believe it at all. Even the most innocent of your Lordships—if I may venture to use the phrase—will not be misled.
Then we turn to the Bill itself. I must say that as I listened to my noble friend I realised hat he, on behalf of the Government, laid considerable store by the, passage of the Bill, and that must have great weight with your Lordships; but still there were several things that he said which made me uneasy, because it appeared in the course of his argument that the Act which we are now to continue was not wholly directed to unemployment. But I think unemployment was the only argument to be used in its favour. There may be some other argument, but I was not convinced that, because the Minister of Transport wanted to snake bridges over canals and over railways, that was a reason why the ordinary procedure of Parliament should be dispensed with. It appeared to me that, to be consistent, according to the arguments of my noble friend the clauses which would enable the Minister of Transport to do this ought to be left out when we re-enact the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I think he said something about an aerodrome. There does not appear to be any reason why we should facilitate the procedure of establishing aerodromes and dispense with the ordinary protection of Committees upstairs.
I am sure your Lordships will not despise the protection of the Committees upstairs. My noble friend said, as he was quite entitled to say, that, even if this procedure is continued, there will always be the Report stage and the Third Read-

499
ing stage here. It is quite true it will always be here, but everybody knows that in matters of intricate detail which these Private Bills, or Bills analogous to Private Bills, deal with, the procedure on the floor of the House is quite inappropriate. You cannot go into the detail, neither can you examine the witnesses whose evidence is of importance. I do not know that I need have said this because you have got the assurance of what I might perhaps call the two greatest authorities on Private Bill procedure in your Lordships' House. There is the Lord Chairman himself, who has called your attention to the importance of our ordinary procedure, and there is my noble friend who has moved this Amendment, who was for years responsible for exactly the same procedure in another place. Therefore both are able to assure you of what I think most of us know—how important this procedure of the Committees upstairs is. Unless you are going to scrap the whole of our procedure it is of the greatest importance for the protection of public and private rights to preserve this procedure.
Therefore I am rather uneasy at several of the remarks which my noble friend made in his speech. What it comes to is this. Do the Government say that, for the purpose of checking unemployment, it is necessary to continue this procedure? Do they say that, for the purpose of making all due effort to restrict unemployment, this procedure is necessary? If they say that, I for one have nothing more to say. The situation in regard to unemployment is so grave that I think none of your Lordships would desire to interfere with any adequate remedy which may be proposed. But if this is merely one more effort on the part of the Department to short-circuit the procedure which is so necessary to protect private rights, and also the public interests, then I should very much regret if this Act were continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. As far as I am personally concerned, it all turns on that. If my noble friend, or any other member of the Government tells us on the responsibility of the Government that the continuance of this Act is really important for the purpose of checking unemployment, I should myself assent to its being continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but, if not, then I hope your Lordships will cut it out.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My noble friend Lord Salisbury has asked a direct question of the Government, and therefore I think probably it is appropriate that I should seek to answer it. May I say a word or two about his preliminary remarks? For a moment I thought he was going to discard that innocence which he claimed and approach something very near cynicism when he discussed the views or misdeeds of those who sit on the Treasury Bench. He seemed to have some consciousness, probably, of uneasy recollection of lapses of his own whim he used to occupy the place which I so unworthily fill. There are one or two preliminary points to which I wish to refer. It is quite true that some of the later sections, with regard to aerodromes, are sections which I cannot say very specifically refer to unemployment, but equally it is true that those are not sections which interfere with the procedure of this House. They are matters which accelerate work which ought to be gone on with. They limit the time with regard, for instance, to obtaining Provisional Orders, but they are not matters which deal with the procedure of this House under which we investigate Private Bills.
There is this further observation which I would make. It is perfectly true, as pointed out by the noble Marquess, that a Bill goes through for a limited period and then, possibly, when that time elapses it may take its place in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. It is true to say that the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act has been very drastically cut down from the dimensions which it reached two or three years ago. I think we can have that accounted to us for righteousness, that we have very drastically limited and reduced the Bills which appear there. There is this advantage about the limited character of an Act of Parliament, even if it is afterwards included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and that is that it comes up for review by Parliament and it is for Parliament to say whether it shall go on or not. It is easier then for either House to say that this Act ought not to go on any longer, than it would be in the case of an Act without any limit of time. It ensures that the matter shall be reviewed, and conveniently reviewed, and put an end to if either it has not worked well or the

501
particular emergency which it was intended to meet has come to an end.
Dealing now with the particular section to which attention has been called, it was avowedly brought in to deal with an emergency created by unemployment, and I know I shall have the assent of all your Lordships when I say that that emergency is certainly not less grave today than when the Act was passed three years ago. I have been asked a specific question—namely, can I say, as a responsible member of the Government, that it is necessary, in order to check unemployment, to continue this Act? If by that is meant that some tremendous catastrophe would happen, and there would be a very grave increase of unemployment, if this Act were not continued, I could not give you that assurance; but I can give you this assurance, because I have had the question specifically put to the Departments concerned, that they do regard this provision as very useful in dealing with unemployment, and would regard it as a matter of very considerable regret if Parliament did not see fit to continue the Act for the current year. I want to put the thing absolutely frankly and not too high. I venture to think that that assurance of the Ministers more directly responsible does exactly represent the position of the Government, and I venture to hope that it is sufficient to induce your Lordships to allow this Act to remain in the Schedule for another twelve months.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: With regard to the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, they seem to me to be an excellent argument Why this Act should be brought in as a separate renewal
502
measure. It may be that it includes clauses to which my argument does not apply, but we have to take or reject the Act as a whole and one cannot leave good clauses and take out bad ones. It is simply a case of the acceptance or rejection of an Act, and therefore I do hope that if he is in the same place at the end of next year the noble Earl will not be in the position of defending this provision as an item in the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but will be in the position of proposing an amending Bill. I think it would be most unfortunate if there was any suggestion that this House had done anything to reject something which might mitigate the horrors of unemployment, and after the assurance of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before we adjourn I would like to call your attention to the fact that there is on the Paper for to-morrow, in the name of Lord Rankeillour, a Motion with regard to the disclosure of secret documents. It does not appear in the Notice which has been circulated, and in case any of your Lordships should desire to attend the debate I thought you would excuse me if I called your attention to the matter to-day.
House adjourned at six o'clock.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS (BASIC PRICES).
Report from the Joint Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that, by virtue of the powers invested in him by Section 2 of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, he had nominated the Viscount Goschen and the Lord Darcy (de Knayth) to be members of the Ecclesiastical Committee established under that Act, and to serve for the duration of the present Parliament, in the room of the Viscount Brent-ford (deceased) and the Lord Irwin.

BUXTON GAS ORDER, 1932.
CLITHEROE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1932.
LLANGYNWYD MIDDLE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
MID SOUTHERN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION &c.) ORDER, 1932.
HAMPTON COURT GAS ORDER, 1932.
BLACKBURN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1932.
MINSTER AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
NORTH DERBYSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
COATBRIDGE GAS ORDER, 1932.

WEYMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1932.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
LIVERPOOL GAS ORDER, 1932.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, that they have received and considered a report from the Board of Trade upon the Order, and that there is nothing to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
GRANTHAM GAS ORDER, 1932.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, that they have received and considered a report from the Board of Trade upon the Order, and that the Order contains departures from precedent: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

MACHYNLLETH AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Machynlleth and part of the rural district of Machynlleth in the County of Montgomery:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.