Sitting of 4 July 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Birkenhead Corporation Bill,
Nottingham Corporation Bill,
South Suburban Gas Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords],
South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Warrington Extension Bill [Lords],
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Humber Bridge Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Elham Valley Water and Herts and Essex Water) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Hailsham Water) Bill [Lords],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Henley-on-Thames Water) Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Leven Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Kilmarnock Gas Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Shrewsbury Corporation) Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  INDIA.

    SITUATION.
    Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for India if he will give the House the latest information he has as to the present political situation in India?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement as to the present political situation in India?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): Attempts to hold District Political Conferences still continue, but are achieving little success in their object of reviving interest in the Civil Disobedience movement. In Bombay there has been a regrettable revival of communal rioting resulting in a number of casualties. I regret also to have to report the murder of an Indian magistrate in the Munshiganj sub-division of Dacca on 27th June.

    FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to set up the Joint Select Committee for drawing up a federal constitution for India before the end of the present year; whether any preliminary negotiations will be necessary with Indian organisations; and, if so, Whether they will take place in India, or in Great Britain?
    Sir S. HOARE: The date of the setting up of the proposed Joint Select Committee must depend upon the rate of progress in preparing the material it will have to consider. I cannot commit myself to a date. I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 27th June as to the procedure preliminary to the Joint Select Committee stage.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: May we take it that touch will be kept with representative Indians who are prepared to assist in the administration of these difficult matters?
    Sir S. HOARE: Certainly. I tried to make that as clear as possible in my statement the other day.

    PRESS EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1931.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for India how many orders have been passed in the various provinces during the past nine months under the provisions of the Indian Press Act, 1931, as extended by Section 63 of the Emergency Powers Ordinance; and whether he can give particulars of the newspapers concerned?
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for India whether he
    4
    can give a list of the newspapers which have been ordered to find security under the Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931 and the Emergency Powers Ordinance of 1932; and the amount of the security in each case?
    Sir S. HOARE: As the lists asked for are rather detailed, I am sending copies of them to the hon. Members.

    PRISONERS.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for India for what purpose four members of the Servants of India Society received permission to visit Mrs. Naidu in Yeravda gaol?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have no information beyond what appeared in the Press regarding this visit.
    Sir A. KNOX: Are these agitators who are in prison allowed to receive as many visitors as they like?
    Sir S. HOARE: No. Under the prison rules they may receive one visit a week of a non-political character.
    Sir A. KNOX: Does not my right hon. Friend think, generally speaking, that, if the rules were made stricter, this agitation might be discouraged sooner?
    Sir S. HOARE: No, I have no reason to think there has been any abuse of these privileges.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for India whether any political prisoners or detenus in detention camps in India are subjected to solitary confinement, and for what reason?
    Sir S. HOARE: I understand that the answer is in the negative.

    DETENU'S SUICIDE.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information regarding the suicide of Mrinal Kanti Roy Choudhury, a detenu who had a few days previously been removed to Deoli Camp, Ajmere-Merwara?
    Sir S. HOARE: The magistrate who held the inquest found that this detenu committed suicide through apprehension of his bodily safety at the hands of his fellow detenus. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the magistrate's finding.

    DISTRICT GAOL, FATEHPUR.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information regarding the disturbances in the district gaol at Fatehpur on 5th June; whether firing was resorted to by the authorities and what was the number of casualties resulting; and whether he can state the origin of the trouble?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have no official information but will inquire.

    DETENUS (ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. MOLSONasked the Secretary of State for India how many dependants of Mr. J. M. Sen Gupta are in receipt of allowances; their relationship to Mr. Sen Gupta and the amount paid to each; and what is the total sum disbursed on this account since Mr. Sen Gupta's arrest?
    Sir S. HOARE: Allowances amounting to Rs.1,000 a month have been sanctioned for the support of Mr. Sen Gupta's family, which, I understand, consists of a wife and two sons. He has now been under detention for roughly five months, and the total cost of the allowances is therefore Rs.5,000.
    Sir A. KNOX: Why is this sum paid?
    Sir S. HOARE: The regulations have been in force for a great number of years. In the present case we have examined the charges which have been made and reductions are actually taking place.
    Mr. MOLSONasked the. Secretary of State for India what is the basis upon which allowances are made to the dependants of detenus; whether he is satisfied that the allowances in no cases exceed the earnings of the detenu before his confinement; and what is the total sum disbursed in allowances since 1st January?
    Sir S. HOARE: Government are required by law to grant to detenus and their families monthly allowances adequate for the supply of their wants, taking into account other sources of income. As regards the second part of the question, reductions have recently been made in the scales of allowances paid, and I am satisfied that these are now reasonable. As regards the third part of the question, I have asked for a list of all detenus in receipt of allowances but have not yet received the information.

    AIR MAIL SERVICES.
    Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information as to the revenue obtained by the Government of India from profits on the British air-mail services from India to Great Britain in the past three years; and whether he will draw the attention of that Government to the desirability of drawing the smallest possible profit from such air-mail services during the development period, in view of the advantages accruing to Anglo-Indian trade by rapid and cheap mail communications between the two countries?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have no information. In regard to the latter part of the question, the Government of India are fully alive to the desirability of encouraging air mail traffic.

    POLICE (UNFOUNDED CHARGES).
    Mr. MOLSONasked the Secretary of State for India if he has investigated the charges made against Mr. Jameson, of the Indian police, by Dr. Khan Sahib; what action he proposes to take if they are true; and, if they are untrue, whether he will facilitate the bringing of an action for libel against Dr. Khan Sahib by Mr. Jameson?
    Sir S. HOARE: These charges, which have recently reappeared in certain organs of the Press in this country such as the "India Bulletin," relate to events of August, 1930. They were carefully considered by the Government of India at the time and found to be entirely without foundation. I do not propose at this date to take any further action in the matter.
    Mr. MOLSON: Would Mr. Jameson be at liberty to bring a libel action?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of law.

    BURMA.
    Sir REGINALD CRADDOCKasked the Secretary of State for India if the election which is to decide whether Burma is to remain a unit of India will be held before the future constitution of India has been decided; and whether, in view of the danger of leaving a decision of such importance and finality to an inexperienced electorate, he will reconsider his decision?
    Sir S. HOARE: The elections in Burma will probably be held about the end of October or early November. I am not sure in what sense the hon. Member uses the expression "decision of the future constitution of India"; but the broad outlines of a constitution for a separated Burma and for Burma as a province of India under the future constitution are already clear from the statements of the Prime Minister at the end of the Burma and India Conferences, and His Majesty's Government have no intention of withdrawing the opportunity offered to the people of Burma to choose between them.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: Is there not a risk of a decision being given which is against the real wishes of the people?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have some difficulty in answering that question off-hand. If my hon. Friend will put it down, I will see if I can find an answer to it.

    CONDITIONS, BELLARY.
    Mr. THORNE (for Mr. HICKS)asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement as to the famine conditions in Bellary and the steps that are being taken to cope with these conditions?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has no information but will make inquiries.

    LABOUR CONDITIONS (COMMISSION'S REPORT).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Major MILNER)asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to introduce legislation at an early date to give effect to any of the recommendations of the Whitley (Labour) Commission Report and the nature of the proposed legislation?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Bills have already been introduced to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission in regard to recruitment for Assam and the Amendment of the Indian Workmen's Compensation Act. The Government of India are also consulting the provincial Governments on the text of a draft Bill to amend the Indian Factories Act.

    RAILWAY INQUIRY.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Major MILNER)asked the Secretary of State
    8
    for India whether the Government of India have arrived at any decisions with regard to the report of the recent railway court of inquiry; and what action they recommend regarding the employés discharged as a measure of retrenchment?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: My right hon. Friend has not yet received a copy of the communique issued by the Government of India to which he referred in the reply given to a question asked by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on 6th June. He hopes to receive copies shortly and will send one to the hon. and gallant Member.

    "UNITED INDIA."
    Mr. KIRKWOOD (for Mr. McGOVERN)asked the Secretary of State for India the reasons for disallowing "United India," edited by G. S. Dara, from being circulated in India; and will he withdraw any ban upon this journal being sent from London to India?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The entry of copies of "United India" into India is prohibited under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, on the ground that it contains matter of an objectionable nature. My right hon. Friend sees no reason to interfere with the discretion of the Government of India in the matter.

    HUNGARY (BRITISH INVESTORS).
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he will ascertain from the Hungarian Government the grounds upon which the National Bank of Hungary is being prevented from transferring in the stipulated currencies certain funds now in the custody of that bank and belonging to the trustee representing British investors in various pre-War loans raised in Britain by Hungarian nationals;
    (2) if he will inquire of the Hungarian Government whether that Government has taken steps to prevent the infraction of the Ostend Convention to which it was a party and by which British investors, who had entrusted their savings to Hungarian nationals, were by agreement accorded rights over receipts from Hungarian municipal electricity, gas and water undertakings?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The reasons for the existing transfer moratorium in Hungary are stated in the communique issued by the Hungarian Government on the 23rd December, which was published in the Press at the time. It would appear that the Ostend Convention was concluded between the municipality of Budapest and its foreign creditors and that the Hungarian Government was not a party, it being merely provided that the Convention was subject to that Government's approval within a given time. I do not therefore consider that the inquiries suggested by my hon. Friend would serve any useful purpose.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.

    CHINESE MARITIME CUSTOMS.
    Sir A. M. SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet obtained from the Japanese Government a declaration of its intentions regarding the Dairen customs or, alternatively, any undertaking by the Japanese Government that the integrity of the Chinese maritime customs organisation and the debt services shall be maintained in accordance with the 1907 Treaty?
    Mr. EDEN: As stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) on the 30th June, representations have been made to the Japanese Government on this question. In reply, the Japanese Government have now promised to endeavour to effect a satisfactory arrangement. I should however add that the 1907 agreement deals only with the establishment by China of a Customs House at Dairen and the prevention of smuggling.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if the 1907 Treaty were broken, the result would be that the whole of the overseas trade with Manchuria would fall under Japanese control?
    Mr. EDEN: I am quite aware of the importance of the agreement; hence our representation, and the reply which we have received.

    MANCHURIA.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will obtain an assurance from the
    10
    Japanese Government that their policy with regard to the State of Manchukuo will conform with Article X of the covenant, and Article I, paragraph 1, of the Washington Nine Power Treaty?
    Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member will recollect that the Assembly of the League of Nations, in the Resolution adopted by them on the 11th March, quoted Article 10 as being among the provisions of the Covenant applicable to the Sino-Japanese dispute. The Japanese delegate stated on that occasion that the Japanese Government were particularly glad that attention had been called to the principle of scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations, to which they attached the greatest importance. Further, the Japanese Government have publicly declared that Japan is fully prepared to stand by her obligations under the Nine Power Treaty. In these circumstances, I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by asking for an additional assurance on the lines suggested.

    PROPOSED CONFERENCE.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a report has yet been received from His Majesty's Minister in China as to the resolution jointly signed by the various chambers of commerce in Shanghai proposing a round table conference; and, if so, what action it is proposed to take in connection therewith?
    Mr. EDEN: The text of the resolution has just been received and is now under consideration.

    EGYPT.
    Mr. ATTLEEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations for a treaty between this country and Egypt have been reopened; and, if so, when they are likely to be concluded?
    Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative: the second part does not, therefore, arise.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (CHINA).
    Mr. DUGGANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information concerning arrangements between China and

    11
    the League of Nations to secure payment of the outstanding arrears of China's contributions as a member of the League, and the steps taken to put these arrangements into effect?
    Mr. EDEN: As stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on the 9th May last the Assembly of the League of Nations decided that the unpaid balance of China's contributions for the years 1922–30 should be payable by equal annual instalments over a period of 20 years. I am happy to add that at the beginning of 1931 the Chinese Government undertook to pay the instalments for that year, a sum of 481,121 gold francs, in May and September; and these payments were duly made at the dates specified. The whole of the instalment of arrears for 1932, a sum of 484,583 gold francs, was paid in March of this year. These sums are equivalent to £38,728 at gold parity.

    MONTENEGRO (LOAN).
    Captain. ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information as to the extent of the repayment of the Montenegro loan; whether this is now guaranteed by Yugoslavia; and whether the proceeds of the loan are all devoted to Montenegrin interests?
    Mr. EDEN: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the 5 per cent. loan of 1909, which was issued in London on behalf of the Government of Montenegro. I have no information regarding the present position of this loan and I would suggest that my hon. Friend refers his inquiry to the Council of Foreign Bond-holders.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Pensions if he will inquire into and explain the delay in dealing with the appeal of Mrs. H. Johnson, 58, Ham Park Road, Stratford, reference No. O.A.F. 156,676; and whether he is aware that this case has been under consideration for six months?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have inquired into the facts
    12
    of this case and find that following rejection of her claim by the Ministry, Mrs. Johnson submitted her formal appeal and evidence at the beginning of April. On completion of the necessary procedure the case was referred to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in May. I understand that the appeal will be heard on Thursday next and that a notification of the hearing has been sent to the appellant.
    Mr. GROVES: While thanking the Minister, may I ask him if he is aware that the decision to appoint a date was subsequent to the question being put on the Order Paper?
    Major TRYON: I have no information of that sort. The appointment of the date is a matter for the Appeal Tribunal and not for me. I do not think that they could have appointed such an early date.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been drawn to the work dune by the Ex-services Welfare Society for ex-service men suffering from neurasthenia at the village settlement in Leatherhead; and whether he will consider the possibility of making provision in the estimates of the Ministry of Pensions for a grant-in-aid?
    Major TRYON: The activities of the Ex-services Welfare Society are well known to me. It is contrary to the practice of the Ministry to make grants to voluntary institutions and, in view of the fact that ample provision (amounting this year to £2,650,000) is already made by this House through the organisation of my Department for the treatment of ex-service men suffering from mental and nervous disease whose disability is the outcome of their Great War service, I am unable to entertain the suggestion.

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HARBORDasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the German Government is about to guarantee advances to German fishing-boat owners through the German banks to encourage them to prosecute the herring trawling during the summer and early autumn, and that, as a corollary of this, the import into Germany of English-caught herring will be forbidden at any rate until the end of November; and will

    13
    he take steps to safeguard the interests of the men engaged in the English fishing industry?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I have made inquiries and have failed to obtain confirmation of the statements contained in the first part of the question. If, however, my hon. Friend has further particulars on the subject perhaps he will be good enough to forward them to me.
    Mr. LAWasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of countries which are now making any discrimination, which did not exist at the beginning of 1932, in respect of the importation of British fresh, salted, or cured fish into their respective countries; and what the nature of this discrimination is?
    Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am not aware of any case in which discrimination of the kind suggested has been introduced since the beginning of this year.

  AGRICULTURE.

    BARLEY.
    Captain HEILGERSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the study of the question of dealing with barley is being energetically pursued by the Government, he will be in a position to make a statement of the Government's intentions as regards barley before the adjournment of the House?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I do not see my way to make a further statement on this matter before the adjournment of the House.

    IRISH LABOURERS.
    Captain HEILGERSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that Irish labour is being employed for sugar-beet hoeing in Suffolk at a time when there are still local agricultural labourers unemployed; and if he will take steps to discourage the employment of Irish labourers who exclude local men?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the reply I gave on the 30th Jane to a question on the subject by my hon. Friend
    14
    the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Cook), to which I have nothing to add.
    Captain HEILGERS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great resentment in Suffolk on this question, that Irish labourers' huts have been burned, and will he not take the present moment, which is the appropriate moment, to end the importation of Irish labour?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no authority-to do that in existing circumstances.
    Mr. MAXTON: Can the Minister tell us why the Suffolk farmers persist in doing this sort of thing?

    LIVESTOCK PRICES (WALES).
    Mr. RICHARD EVANSasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the alarm caused to agriculturists in West Wales by the fall in cattle, sheep, and pig prices during the last four weeks; and whether he is now in a position to state if and when the Government will take remedial action?
    Dr. MORRIS-JONESasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the present low prices received by Welsh farmers for cattle, sheep, and pigs; and what action he proposes to take to help livestock farming in Wales?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the difficulties of livestock producers generally in this country, but I am not at present in a position to add to the statements which have already been made in the House with regard to the Government's agricultural policy.
    Mr. EVANS: Are we to understand that no pronouncement is to be made by the Government before the Adjournment of the House for the Summer Recess?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. I think that that is so.
    Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position as far as the Welsh agricultural industry is concerned is infinitely worse than it is in England, and cannot he take some steps immediately as far as cattle, sheep and pigs are concerned?
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Cannot my right hon. Friend make representations to the Advisory Committee on this subject, and why are those products alone left out of the whole policy?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As we are going to discuss the whole of those problems with the Dominions we had better wait until we have had that discussion.
    Mr. EVANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that next October or autumn is rather too late for a large number of those farmers?

    IRISH AND CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORT REGULATIONS).
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the same Regulations are applied to cattle entering Great Britain from the Irish Free State and Canada, respectively; and, if not, what is the reason for any differentiation in the treatment of these two Dominions?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It will be recollected that following the report of the Royal Commission on the Importation of Canadian Cattle in 1921 Parliament passed Resolutions in favour of such importation. The precise conditions under which Canadian cattle were to be admitted into Great Britain were then agreed at a conference between representatives of the home and Dominions Governments. This agreement was embodied in the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, which is still operative. In the case of Canadian store cattle, however, the conditions governing movement after landing in Great Britain are identical with those applying to cattle from the Irish Free State.
    Sir P. HURD: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is true to say that in any respect cattle of the Irish Free State are more favourably treated than cattle from Canada?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Only in one respect. As far as I understand, non-pedigree breeding heifers are not permitted to come in from Canada at the present time.

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Minister of Agriculture the annual loss to the Exchequer and to the local authorities for land settlement since 1919; and what is the average annual cost for each smallholder established?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the reply is long and includes a number of figures, I propose, with my night hon. Friend's per-
    16
    mission, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In preparing the statement, will the right hon. Gentleman also make a statement of the intention of the Government with regard to ex-service men settled on the land after the War?
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Will my right hon. Friend say, when the statement is issued, the advantage to local authorities by increased rateable value as well?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member had better wait until he has seen the statement. If he requires further information, he must put down a question.
    Following is the statement:
    (i) Up to the 31st March, 1926, the actual losses on smallholdings provided by councils were repaid in full by the Ministry. The total amount so repaid was £5,100,000, this being almost entirely in respect of holdings provided under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919. Figures for single years would be misleading because (a) the number of holdings was increasing each year up to 1923, and (b) the amounts repaid in any one year did not correspond exactly to the losses incurred in that year.
    (ii) As from the 1st April, 1926, the Ministry pays to each council a pre-determined annual contribution for the whole of the council's smallholdings estates as existing at that date. The total amounts so paid each year have been:—

    For the year.

    Amount.

    1926

    737,000*

    1927

    902,000

    1928

    892,000

    1929

    865,000

    1930

    845,000

    1931

    839,000

    * The full contribution of about £900,000 was reduced to this figure in consequence of overlapping with payments made under the arrangements in force up to 31st March, 1926.

    The total number of smallholdings concerned is approximately 29,500, but the contributions relate mainly to the post-War holdings numbering about 16,500. The contributions represent the excess of councils' loan charges and other payments over the income from the estates and will diminish progressively as the loans on the properties are paid off. The

    17
    figures reflect the high rates of interest and high costs of building prevailing after the War.
    (iii) Since 1926 further holdings have been provided by councils under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926. In respect of any such holdings involving a loss the Ministry pays contributions not exceeding 75 per cent. of the estimated annual loss, the remainder falling upon the councils' smallholdings accounts. The number of smallholdings comprised in schemes approved up to the 31st December, 1931, was 946, the aggregate loss in the first normal year being £26,732 or £28 5s. 2d. per holding and the Ministry's contribution towards that loss £19,997. As in the case of the holdings referred to in paragraph (ii) the annual loss and contributions in respect of these holdings, without taking account of any further holdings provided, will diminish progressively as loans raised on the properties are repaid.
    A few holdings have been provided by councils under the Act of 1926 without incurring any loss.
    (iv) Some smallholdings have been established by the Ministry itself under the Small Holding Colonies Acts 1916 and 1918 and the Sailors and Soldiers (Gifts for Land Settlement) Act, 1916, but it is impossible to separate the cost of providing these holdings from the total expenditure incurred in operating the Acts.

    No. 4, CARLTON GARDENS.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Minister of Agriculture, with regard to No. 4, Carlton Gardens, the residence of the late Lord Balfour, which it is proposed to pull down, whether it is contemplated that any building should be erected in its place, and, in that ease, what is the nature and height of the proposed building?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Negotiations are in progress for the letting of the site of No. 4, Carlton Gardens on building lease, but no agreement has yet been reached. Any new building to be erected en this site will be subject to the provisions of the London Building Act and the Commissioners of Crown Lands have further stipulated that the plans must be submitted to the Royal Fine Arts Commission.

    GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY).
    Mr. COCKSasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the agreement between himself and the British Broadcasting Corporation providing for the payment of a subsidy to grand opera, whether he will state the names of the directors of the Grand Opera Syndicate and what are their emoluments?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The directors of the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate (1930) are Mr. F. A. Szarvasy, Viscountess Snowden, Colonel Blois and Mr. A. Clark. The articles of association of the syndicate provide that no remuneration shall be paid to the directors with the exception that any of them may receive special remuneration up to £150 a year for any special journeys or special services which they are called upon to perform on behalf of the syndicate. There is, of course, special provision for payment to the managing director.
    Mr. COCKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us anything more definite about the salary of the managing director?
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not think it is any concern of mine.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Postmaster-General what would he the net saving to public funds if the agreement between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Covent Garden Syndicate were terminated forthwith?
    Sir K. WOOD: The direct saving to the Exchequer would be at the rate of £17,500 a year from the date of determination of the agreement until the 31st of December, 1935. I cannot say to what extent this saving would be reduced by loss of revenue in respect of entertainment tax or income tax, or by additional expense for relief of unemployment, or to what extent payments would have to be made by way of compensation for breach of contract.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that even this sum is worth saving at the present time?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have bad these figures given to me as to what it would mean in loss of Entertainments Duty. For the year 1931 the syndicate paid in respect of

    19
    performances covered by the opera subsidy Entertainments Duty amounting to £12,547. Income Tax deducted from foreign artistes' salaries amounted to £5,769.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend us to understand that if there had been no subsidy nothing would have been done?
    Sir K. WOOD. No, Sir. I am just giving information to my hon. Friend.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is this any concern of the right hon. Gentleman or not?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is why I have gone to such pains to give the information.

  POST OFFICE.

    AIR MAILS.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at present the profits derived by the Post Office from mails carried on British aeroplanes are used in part to make good the loss incurred by sending British mails on foreign air lines; and whether he will take steps to cause a change in this policy, which subsidises foreign services at the expense of the British public?
    Sir K. WOOD: In accordance with the normal practice of the Universal Postal Union, the British Post Office receives payment in gold francs for the conveyance of the mails of other administrations on British air lines, and makes payment in gold francs for the conveyance of British mails on foreign air lines. The additional receipts from other countries resulting from the depreciation of sterling are a set-off against the increased outpayments which have to be made to other countries. If this policy were not pursued, it would be necessary, in order to avoid a loss to the Post Office revenue, to increase the charges made to the British public for the use of foreign air services, while no appreciable reduction could be made in the charges for Imperial services.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to encourage the commencement of air-mail services to those parts of the Empire not already provided with such
    20
    facilities; and whether, in view of the advantages to Imperial trade in developing such services as soon as possible, he will allocate some portion of the profit from existing Empire air-mail services to the encouragement of new lines by guaranteeing a minimum payment for the carriage of mails during the initial period?
    Sir K. WOOD: It is the policy of the Post Office to make full use of all air services which may be established in any part of the Empire; but the establishment and subsidising of new air services fall within the province, not of the Postmaster-General, but of the Secretary of State for Air. In any case, the charges for Imperial air mails are fixed at so low a point that the profit is extremely small, and quite inadequate to afford an indirect subsidy of the character suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    LETTER SORTING (SPEED TEST).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Postmaster-General for what continuous period were sorting clerks and others submitted to the secret speed-test expected to sort letters at the rate of 30 to the minute?
    Sir K. WOOD: The test is applied to the sorting of 100 letters. The time taken in sorting this number of letters during a test has ranged from 2 minutes 20 seconds to 7 minutes 25 seconds.

    POSTAGE STAMP PURCHASES (RECEIPTS).
    Mr. ROBINSON (for Mr. HOPE)asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to state why postmasters are prohibited from giving receipts for purchases of postage stamps to a lesser value than £25; and whether, with a view to obviating the inconvenience in auditing the books of business firms and the prevention of possible abuses, he will consider amending the Regulations so as to bring the practice into conformity with that obtaining in the case of health and unemployment insurance stamps?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have now arranged for the reduction of the minimum value of a purchase of postage stamps for which a receipt is given from £25 to £3.

    ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of

    21
    the work now being performed by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, he will consider the abolition of the Economic Advisory Council?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. The functions of the two bodies are quite distinct.

    MUNITIONS (TRANSPORT).
    Mr. DAVID ADAMSasked the Prime Minister if he has considered the resolution sent to him from the Poplar Borough Council, protesting against the action of the Government in permitting the export of munitions for use in the Far East and particularly against the despatch of 640 tons of explosives now lying in the West India Dock, produced in a Government factory by Government workers and transported by train from Bramley to Woolwich in contravention of the safety regulations, thus endangering the lives of workers engaged in transport and loading; and if he will state what he proposes to do in this matter?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have been asked to reply. The explosives referred to were shipped to meet British service requirements in Singapore and Hong Kong. The normal safety regulations dealing with the carriage of explosives by rail were waived under the authority of a warrant issued on behalf of the Secretary of State. This procedure was adopted in the interests of economy and for the sake of expedition as the ship on which freight had been specially arranged was ready to sail.
    Mr. LANSBURY: As a resident in that district, may I ask whether it is right that we should be subject to this kind of danger when there are regulations laid down in order to avert any possibility of such danger?
    Mr. COOPER: The regulations laid down are for the purpose of diminishing the risks as far as possible. In this case, a greater risk is taken in only one respect. There is always a greater risk if you put all your eggs into one basket. That was the only risk.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Member will admit that this is a very serious
    22
    matter for the people in the neighbourhood. For the sake of delaying the ship one day, is it right to subject them to the risk which the War Office admits exists. They are all poor people in Poplar, and we do not think the same thing would happen in Westminster without a protest. [Interruption.]

    HYDE PARK (BATHING FACILITIES).
    Captain NORTHasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the widespread appreciation of the facilities for bathing in the Serpentine, he will consider the advisability of extending these facilities to Sunday afternoons?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am prepared to authorise the opening of the bathing facilities at the Serpentine bathing place between the hours of 2 p.m. and 6 p.m., as well as before 10 a.m. as at present, for the next four Sundays experimentally. The question of any further continuance of these additional facilities must depend on whether sufficient numbers of the public pay for admission to justify the additional expense for attendants, boatmen, and police.
    Captain NORTH: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman?

    PICTURES, PALACE OF WEST-MINSTER (REPRODUCTION).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the right of reproduction from certain pictures in the Palace of Westminster is a private monopoly; what sum was paid for the privilege; and when it is proposed to terminate this monopoly?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The copyright of certain pictures is, under the Copyright Act of 1911, vested in the artists, who have made arrangements with publishing firms to sell reproductions. I am quite unable to say what the financial arrangements may have been. The property cannot be abolished in the absence of new statutory provision.

    SOLICITORS (FRAUD).
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Attorney-General if he will inquire of the Law Society whether they are by internal regulation taking action to protect the public against loss as a result of fraud by solicitors convicted in the criminal courts, or whether they propose to introduce a Bill, based upon the two private Bills which were before the House in the last Parliament, designed for this purpose?
    Lord SCONEasked the Attorney-General if his attention has been drawn to the recent bankruptcy of a fraudulent solicitor, sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, in which the liabilities were £85,351 and the assets £1,567; if he will inquire of the Law Society whether they are applying to Parliament for powers for the future protection of the public in similar cases or, alternatively, whether he will take the necessary steps to impose upon the Law Society responsibility for the protection of clients against fraudulent solicitors?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): My attention has been called to the case referred to by my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) and in reply to his question and to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Sir B. Falle), I am informed that it is the intention of the Law Society to introduce legislation dealing with this subject.

    SMALL-PDX AND VACCINATION.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health how many deaths have been registered as due to small-pox during the first six months of this year?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): During the first five months of 1932, three deaths have been classed to small-pox. The figures for the month of June are not yet available.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health what were the ages of the two deaths from infection of vaccination wounds classed to pyaemia and septicaemia in 1930?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The death classed to pyaemia was at the age of five months, and that classed to septicaemia was at the age of 19 years.

    RATING RELIEF, CHESHIRE.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health if he has any information as to the total amount of money of which industrialists and others in the administrative county of Cheshire have been relieved in rates due to the derating system?
    Mr. E. BROWN: It is estimated that the occupiers of agricultural, industrial and freight-transport hereditaments in the administrative county of Chester were relieved of rates to the extent of about £202,000 in respect of the half-year ended 31st March, 1930. Similar information is not available for subsequent rating periods, but there is no reason to suppose that the amount of relief has varied substantially.

    MILK INDUSTRY (WAGES AND HOURS).
    Sir P. HURDasked the Minister of Labour the average weekly wages and hours of work, at the present time and in 1913, both of milk roundsmen in London and of cowmen employed on farms producing milk for the London market?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): At the present time the minimum rate fixed under the Trade Boards Acts for milk roundsmen in London is 56s. in respect of a week of 48 hours. The minimum rates under the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act in the areas from which the London milk supply is mainly drawn range, in the case of ordinary agricultural workers, from 28s. to 34s. for a week varying from 48 to 56 hours; most cowmen work longer hours than ordinary workers and thus become entitled to overtime payments. The information available does not permit of the desired comparison with 1913, nor is information available as to average wages actually paid or hours worked at the present time.
    Sir P. HURD: Does it not strike the Government that there is an astonishing difference in the rates of payment?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS (PENDLETON AND ROTHERHAM).
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour whether his atten-

    25
    tion has been drawn to the refusal of transitional payment to two young men resident in Pendleton, aged 25 and 20, respectively, on the ground that they are living with their mother, who is in receipt of a pension as a war widow; and if this action is in accordance with instructions or regulations issued by the Ministry?
    Mr. HUDSON: I have no knowledge of these particular cases, but in any event the matter is one within the jurisdiction of the local authority. It is the duty of the authority to determine the need of applicants having regard to all the resources available to the household for their support.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Does the hon. Member approve of the treatment of these men?
    Mr. HUDSON: Obviously, I cannot answer that question without a knowledge of the details of each case.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour the date on which he intends to take over the duties of the public assistance committee at Rotherham in the matter of transitional payments; the name of the commissioner..who will be in control; what salary he will receive; and what are his previous qualifications?
    Mr. HUDSON: The Rotherham Council have decided to comply with the law. No action, therefore, is being taken for the tame being with regard to the appointment of a person to perform their duties in respect of the administration of transitional payments.
    Mr. G. MACDONALD: May I ask what is the law in this matter?

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. LEWISasked the Minister of Labour how the number of persons unemployed in this country, in the United States of America, and in Germany in May, 1932, compares with the number unemployed in August., 1931?
    Mr. HUDSON: As the reply is somewhat long and contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The numbers of persons on the registers of the Employment Exchanges in this country were 2,762,219 at 31st August,
    26
    1931, and 2,741,306 at 23rd May, 1932. In Germany, there were 4,214,765 registered unemployed at 31st August, 1931, and 5,582,620 at 31st May, 1932. Statistics of unemployment are not officially compiled in the United States of America. The official index of employment in manufacturing industries, based on an average index of 100 for the year 1926, was 71.2 in August, 1931, and 59.7 in May, 1932. The American Federation of Labour have estimated that there were 5,100,000 persons unemployed in the United States in August, 1931, and 10,634,000 in March, 1932. I understand, however, that the method of arriving at these figures was somewhat different at the two dates, and it is possible that the earlier figure would have been somewhat higher if it had been estimated by the later method.

    ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour if the Government have arrived at a decision regarding the inclusion of agricultural workers in unemployment insurance?
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is in a position to state if the report of the Commission on Unemployment Insurance has yet been received by him; and, if not, can he state if any special reasons have arisen as to the delay in producing this report?
    Mr. HUDSON: The report of the Royal Commission has not yet been received, and, pending its receipt, it is not practicable to consider whether new classes should be included in the scheme. So far as I am. aware, there is no reason why the report has not yet been made other than the very difficult problems—especially in present circumstances—with which the Royal Commission have to deal, coupled, I have no doubt, with their desire to deal with the subject thoroughly.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Has the hon. Member any idea when the report is likely to be presented?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that the Government have been expecting this report for some time, will the hon. Member give us the reason why it is not yet forthcoming?
    Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member must understand that my right hon. Friend has no control over the deliberations of this Commission.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the wrangle in this Commission to go on for ever and Parliament to be held up while this inside row is proceeding? Why cannot we get the report?
    Mr. HUDSON: This Commission was appointed by our predecessors.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member is aware that I have no responsibility in the matter. In view of the fact that we have all been waiting for some time for this report, cannot the hon. Member take any steps to expedite it?
    Mr. HUDSON: No one is more anxious to receive it at an early date than my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Member convey the information to the Royal Commission that there is grave dissatisfaction about this matter?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Has my hon. Friend invited the Commission to expedite their report?
    Mr. HUDSON: I think they are getting on with it as fast as they can, having regard to the difficult problems with which they have to deal.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORT DUTIES, NORWAY.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he has any information in regard to the recent Act passed by the Norwegian Government increasing the tariffs; and if he can state whether the increase applies to exports from this country?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I understand that a measure was passed by the Norwegian Parliament on 28th June empowering the Government to increase or impose duties during the Parliamentary recess. The measure does not of itself increase or impose duties.
    Mr. HANNON: Is there any discrimination against British exports implied in this new law?
    Mr. COLVILLE: No, Sir. The Norwegian Government has taken powers to impose duties on imports from any
    28
    country, but the Act itself does not impose duties, and we have now powers to deal with any discrimination should it arise.

    NEW UNDERTAKINGS.
    Mr. LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade how many new factories that have been established in this country since the end of October,, 1931, either by British firms to manufacture goods formerly imported or by foreign firms for the same purpose, have actually started production?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The Board of Trade have received information of 144 new undertakings which have been established in this country since November last by, or with the assistance of, foreign concerns and which are now in production. It is known that a number of British firms have extended their production but no precise figures are available.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member give us the exact number of persons these new firms are employing, and also tell us the number of those unemployed to-day as compared with the 1st October?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have already given figures. I can give later figures of the number of persons employed in undertakings established here with the assistance of foreign firms. Of course, there are a large number of factories established here by British firms, and of these I have not full particulars.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member tell us whether more firms have been established in Yorkshire than the five referred to and which are employing 69 persons?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can tell my hon. Friend a number of things if he will put a question on the Paper.

    BACON IM PORTS.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of bacon imported from Estonia, Lithuania, and the Argentine republic for the years 1928 to 1931, inclusive, respectively?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 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 bacon imported into the United Kingdom and registered during each of the years 1928 to 1931 as consigned from Estonia, Lithuania and the Argentine Republic.

    Year

    Imports of bacon into the United Kingdom consigned from

    Estonia.

    Lithuania.

    Argentine Republic.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    Quantity.

    Declared Value.

    Cwts.

    £

    Cwts.

    £

    Cwts.

    £

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    …

    40,845

    154,573

    1,875

    7,458

    48,533

    186,850

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    …

    25,436

    126,171

    5,366

    23,367

    58,464

    229,421

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    …

    24,773

    94,055

    73,333

    252,135

    37,672

    135,489

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    …

    63,586

    163 413

    362,381

    876,978

    50,194

    128,632

    ARMY CHAPLAINS.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can give the numbers of the Royal Army Chaplain's Department, and the cost, including 'salaries, in the year 1913; and the numbers of that Department and cost, including salaries, in the year 1931?
    Mr. COOPER: The numbers of the Royal Army Chaplains Department, excluding the Chaplain-General, the Deputy Chaplain-General and civilian officiating chaplains, are 154 in 1913 and 140 in 1931. The cost of the pay of this Department, including officiating chaplains, was £67,000 in 1913 and £91,000 in 1931.

    FOREIGN COUNTRIES (BUDGET DEFICITS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can present a statement showing the Budget deficits for the last financial year and the estimated deficits of the current financial year in the United States of America, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Walter Elliot): As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HANNON: Can the Financial Secretary say for the benefit of the public of this country whether this is the only country which is balancing its Budget this year?
    Major ELLIOT: I think that the financial achievement of this country has been even more remarkable than that.
    Following is the statement:
    The deficit on the budget of the United States for the year ended 30th June, 1932, was $2,885,000,000. I understand that the measures of taxation and economy recently dealt with by Congress have been designed to balance the Budget for the current year. The deficit on the French budget for the year ended 31st March, 1932, is estimated at 4,748 millions of francs. The budget for 1932 (a period of nine months in consequence of a change in the financial year) was passed in a form showing a small surplus, but the position is now apparently receiving further consideration in the legislature. In the case of Italy the deficit for the year ended 30th June, 1932, was estimated in May last at 1,04,3 millions of lire, and the budget for the current year shows an estimated deficit of 1,413 millions. In the cases of Germany and Japan I regret that no comparable figures can be given owing to their accounting systems and particularly the division into ordinary and extraordinary budgets.

    FIVE PER CENT. WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state in outline the plan of campaign which will be undertaken by Major-General Sir John Seely in bringing before the public the importance of active co-operation with the Government in carrying out the conversion of the Five per cent. War Loan?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As the House is aware General Seely has undertaken this duty at the request of His Majesty's Govern-

    31
    ment. A committee has been formed and is in permanent session under his chairmanship at the offices of the National Savings Committee, 18, Great Smith Street. Much work has already been done and wide publicity given to the terms of the War Loan Conversion offer. Every available form of publicity will be used but General Seely informs me that he will be glad to receive any further suggestions from my hon. Friend or any other Member of the House.
    Mr. HANNON: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this is not possibly the best appointment that could be made?
    Mr. McENTEE: May I ask whether it is proposed to extend conversion to other issues?

    TRANSPORT (LIVERPOOL-MANCHESTER ROAD).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Transport the estimated cost of the making of the Liverpool-Manchester road, and the amounts paid by the various areas through which it passes?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): The answer contains a number of figures and I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The total estimated cost of the Liverpool East Lancashire Road, including the length within the city of Liverpool is £3,000,000.
    The allocation of the total estimated cost is as follows:

    £

    Ministry of Transport (Road Fund)

    2,250,000

    Lancashire County Council

    313,123

    Liverpool County Borough Council

    300,664

    Mersey Docks and Harbour Board

    83,056

    Bootle County Borough Council

    29,070

    St. Helens County Borough Council

    24,087

    £3,000,000

    CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport the number of units of electricity sold by the Central Electricity Board in 1931; the receipts from their sale; and the amount paid for them to the generating authorities?
    Mr. PYBUS: The number of units of electricity dealt with by the Central Electricity Board in 1931 under temporary or special arrangements of various kinds was upwards of 900 millions. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the reply which I gave on the 29th June.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the Minister of Transport explain why the Central Electricity Board in their recent statement referred to the generation of electricity as having been about 15 times as much as they themselves sold? Does he not think it rather misleading that they should publish figures relating to the whole generation of the country and not to the generation for which they are responsible?
    Mr. PYBUS: I cannot accept that statement and I regret that it has been made. I cannot accept the statement that the Central Electricity Board published any misleading or inaccurate figures in their statement.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Seeing that they referred to a generation last year of 12,800,000,000, and that more than 90 per cent. of that generation was in no way concerned with their undertakings, was not that statement rather misleading.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (RENTS).
    Mr. THORNE (for Mr. HICKS)asked the First Commissioner of Works what is the annual sum paid in rent for buildings housing the staff, or sections of the staff, of various Government offices in London and the provinces; what percentage of the staff of Government offices are accommodated in buildings owned by the State; and what buildings to house staffs of Government offices are in course of erection, and the estimated cost?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is £455,160 per annum for London and £412,790 per annum for the provinces; and to the third part, 16 buildings at an estimated cost of £300,685. These figures exclude Post Office buildings, for which the Postmaster-General is responsible, and buildings of the three Defence Departments other than Civil Headquarters offices in London. As regards the second part of the question, the percentage for headquarters offices in London is 70. The corresponding information for ex-headquarters offices in London and provincial offices is not- available and could only be secured at the expense of considerable time and labour. The Crown buildings in course of erection are practically all Employment Exchanges.
    Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that at any time the Government will build their own buildings, so that they can accommodate their own staff?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A good many Government buildings have been built in recent years, but it is not always economic to build Government buildings.

  IRISH FREE STATE.

    FINANCIAL RELATIONS.
    Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE (for Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums of money have been credited or paid over to the Irish Free State; for what services they were intended; and to what extent these funds have been utilised for such services?
    Major ELLIOT: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the main heads under which payments have been made to the Irish Free State. My hon. Friend will realise from the statement that a considerable expenditure of time and labour would be necessary to give an itemised account of the sums involved and any partial statement given might be misleading. I should, however, be glad, if my hon. Friend desires, to discuss the matter further with him.
    Following is the statement:

    (a) Adjustments of revenue and expenditure for the months immediately
    34
    following the separation of the Governments, particularly as regards revenue attributable to the Irish Free State and collected during 1922–23 by the Irish Government as agent for the Provisional Government.

    (b) Sums paid in consequence of the statutory apportionment of the assets and liabilities of such funds as the Development Fund, the Local Taxation Account, the Post Office Savings Bank and the Road Fund.

    (c) Payments of the British Government's share, under the earlier Agreements, of awards of compensation for malicious injuries in the area of the Free State. The British Government should, however, receive reimbursement of such payments through the annuity of £250,000 payable by the Irish Free State Government under the Boundary Agreement of 1925.

    (d) Certain continuing payments which have been made regularly to the Irish Free State Government up to the present and which include the cost of services rendered by Irish Government Departments in the payment of War pensions and other Irish Government pensions; the quarterly adjustments of accounts between die British and Irish Free State Post Offices; the bounty payable in lieu of rates to Irish local authorities in respect of British Government property not transferred to the Irish Free State Government; and an annual payment for a limited number of years for United Kingdom silver coin repatriated from the Irish Free State.

    Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Dominions whether he had received any further communication from Ireland?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Yes, Sir. I will read a despatch which I received only this morning. It is as follows:
    "The Government of the Irish Free State has considered your Despatch No. 137 of the 22nd of June.
    "2. It is noted that the British Government is unwilling to agree to the removal of the restriction which it desires to place on the choice of the personnel of the proposed arbitral Tribunal. Mindful of the

    35
    importance of arbitration as a method of settling international disputes the Government of the Irish Free State would regard it as deeply regrettable were artificial restriction on the personnel of the Tribunal to be allowed to stand in the way of acceptance of arbitration in the present instance. Freedom of choice by the parties in the selection of their nominees on the arbitral Tribunal is of the very essence of arbitration, and the Government of the Irish Free State does not abandon the hope that the British Government will reconsider its attitude in this regard.
    "3. With reference to the matters adverted to in pargraph (4) of your despatch, the Government of the Irish Free State disputes the claims of the British Government not only in regard to the Land Purchase Annuities, but in regard to all other annual or periodic payments, except those made in pursuance of agreements formally ratified by the Parliaments of both States. These disputed claims include those in respect of:
    Bonus and Excess Stock under the Irish Land Acts, 1903–1909;
    Pensions and compensation allowances to ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary under the Constabulary Acts;
    Civil, including Judicial Pensions;
    Annuity in respect of advances made from the British Local Loans Fund through the Commissioners of Public Works and the Land Commission in Saorstat Eireann before the 1st April, 1922;
    Annuities arising under the Public Offices Site (Dublin) Act, 1903; the Telegraph Acts, 1892–1921; and the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, and Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902;
    the payments on which in the aggregate, added to the Land Purchase Annuity payments, impose on the people of the Irish Free State a financial burden which they are unable to bear.
    "4. The Government of the Irish Free State is in full accord with the British Government in the view that bath parties must agree in advance to be bound by the arbitral award. As pointed out, however, in the last paragraph of my Despatch No. 89, it will he necessary to obtain the prior approval of the Oireachtas for any agreements which may be reached between our Governments in regard to the acceptance of arbitration, the constitution of the Tribunal, and the issues to be submitted to the Tribunal for determination.
    "I have the honour to be, Sir,
    Faithfully Yours,
    (Signed) Eámonde Valera,
    Minister for External Affairs."
    The House will no doubt like to know the amounts involved in the various items referred to in the third paragraph of this despatch.
    They are as follow:
    Roasts and Excess Stock under the Irish Land Acts.
    An annual amount of £134,500. Payment not due until next December.
    Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions.
    An amount of just over £1,000,000 a year payable monthly on the 15th of each month.
    Payments made up to May. June payment (about £93,000) not yet made.
    Civil and Judicial Pensions.
    Civil Pensions.—An amount of about £60,000 a year, payable monthly. Monthly payments for May and June (about £5,000 each) not yet paid.
    Judicial Pensions.—An amount of about £20,000 a year payable quarterly. No outstanding claim at present.
    Local Loans Fund Annuity.
    An annuity of £600,000 a year, payable half-yearly. Payment of £300,000 due 1st July not paid.
    Works Annuities.

    (1) Telegraph Acts.—An amount of about £16,000 a year payable quarterly. Payment due end of June not yet paid.

    (2) Public Offices (Dublin) Act.—An annual payment of £13,200. Payment due 22nd May not yet paid.

    (3) Railways (Ireland) Act and Marine Works (Ireland) Act.—An annual payment of £10,000 not due until September.

    All these are payments resulting from solemn agreements made between the two Governments.
    This reply leaves no doubt that Mr. de Valera, while agreeing in principle to our offer of arbitration, definitely refuses a Commonwealth tribunal. The form of tribunal proposed by us was strictly in accordance with the recommendations unanimously agreed to at the Imperial Conference of 1930. Moreover, the reply goes beyond the Land Annuities and seeks to repudiate generally the financial settlement between the two countries.
    This leaves no alternative to the Government, but to proceed with the financial resolution to be moved this afternoon.
    Mr. LANSBURY: In view of the very controversial statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in communicating

    37
    that despatch, I only wish to say that I do not intend to attempt to elucidate the matter any further at this stage. We shall, of course, deal with the matter during the Debate which is to take place later.
    Mr. MAXTON: As I expected that the right hon. Gentleman would give us the total amount involved, I neglected to make a note of the different items as he read them. Perhaps he will oblige the House by giving the total?
    Mr. THOMAS: It will be a very easy matter to do so, and I will have these items totalled up before the Debate. It is a very simple calculation. I want the House to observe that the Motion which I am about to move deals exclusively with the Government's method of meeting the default on the Land Annuities. When these other matters were specifically raised, I assumed that the House would like to know exactly what they were and how much the amount was. I have given each detailed item, and it will be a simple matter to total it up, and someone will do that for me before I speak later.
    Mr. MAXTON: I only wanted to make a comparison between the total amount involved and the indebtedness of Germany.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has given these figures in several cases as annuities. I understand that they are annuities running for certain periods. Will he, therefore, give us, not merely the annual charge, but circulate with the Votes a statement showing the period for which each annuity runs?
    Mr. THOMAS: They vary as my right hon. Friend knows. It is only fair to point out that it was well known, in fact it was on the Order Paper on Thursday night, that I was to move this Motion this afternoon, and my last communication with the Irish Free State was on the last visit of Mr. de Valera. It was only this morning that I received this communication, and I am sure the House will realise that I have given them all the information that I could. I will see what can be done to meet the suggestion, but I think the better plan would be to arrange for someone to put a question to me to-morrow, and I will have the full details set out properly.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As it is a question of figures, I thought it would be more convenient to circulate them.

    FIVE PER CENT. WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS (by Private Notice)asked the Lord President of the Council whether he could usefully make any further statement in regard to the position of trustees under the War Loan Conversion scheme?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me this opportunity. As I have also stated in a written reply to the question by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), the operation is governed by Part III of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, and Section 13 (1) of that Act is therefore applicable. That Section gives a specific assurance by Parliament that trustees and other persons acting in a fiduciary character are expressly authorised to make continuance applications. This fact is briefly referred to in the Explanatory Note now in the hands of holders. It is well that it should be widely known.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Trustees are very much in doubt as to the meaning of the statement in the explanatory note W that the cash bonus shall belong to the person entitled to the income of a bolding. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the person is entitled to receive that cash bonus as income or as a capital increment payment?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I must, see that question on the Paper.
    Sir S. CRIPPS (by Private Notice)asked the Lord President of the Council whether the holders of stock of the 3½. per cent. War Loan will be chargeable to Income Tax for the year 1933–34 upon the amount of their dividends for that year, or by reference to the dividend for 1932–33 upon their corresponding holdings of 5 per cent. War Loan?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am not sure whether the question I have before me and the hon. and learned Member's question are identical. The answer to the question I have here is in the affirmative. As some doubts have been expressed, I am glad to make the matter clear.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Does the answer the right hon. Gentleman has given show that Income Tax will be charged upon the basis of the 3½ per cent. Loan and not the 5 per cent.?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps I might, with permission, read the question as I had it. The question was:
    "to ask whether it is the case that the holders of stock of the 3i per cent. War Loan will be chargeable to Income Tax for 1933–34 upon the amount of their dividends for that year, and not,"
    etc. The answer is in the affirmative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council how far he proposes to go if the Resolution standing in
the name of the Prime Minister is carried?
Mr. BALDWIN: The first two Orders and the Motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. LANSBURY: That is, the Motion regarding the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, and the Lords Amendments to the Children and Young Persons Bill?
Mr. BALDWIN: Yes.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 35.

Division No. 271.]

AYES.

[3.49 p.m.

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

Colville, John

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Conant, R. J. E.

Golf, Sir Park

Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Cook, Thomas A.

Goldie, Noel B.

Albery, Irving James

Cooke, Douglas

Goodman. Colonel Albert W.

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

Cooper, A. Duff

Granville, Edgar

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Copeland, Ida

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

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

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Aske, Sir Robert William

Cowan, D. M.

Grimston, R. V.

Bai ie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cranborne, Viscount

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Balniel, Lord

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Hales, Harold K.

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

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

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

Crossley, A. C.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Harbord, Arthur

Bernays, Robert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harris, Sir Percy

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

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

Hartington, Marquess of

Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.]

Davison, Sir William Henry

Hartland, George A.

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)

Bossom, A. C.

Denville, Alfred

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

Boulton, W. W.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

Donner, P. W.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

Doran, Edward

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Boyce, H. Leslie

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Duggan, Hubert John

Hornby, Frank

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

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

Horsbrugh, Florence

Briant, Frank

Dunglass, Lord

Howard, Tom Forrest

Broadbent, Colonel John

Eales, John Frederick

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Eastwood, John Francis

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

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Eden, Robert Anthony

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

Edge, Sir William

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Butler, Richard Austen

Eilliston, Captain George Sampson

Hurd, Sir Percy

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Eimley, Viscount

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Castle Stewart, Earl

Fermoy, Lord

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Fleming, Edward Lascelies

Ker, J. Campbell

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. (Blrm., W)

Flint, Abraham John

Kerr, Charles (Montrose)

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Kimball, Lawrence

Chotzner, Alfred James

Fox, Sir Gifford

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Fraser, Captain Ian

Knebworth, Viscount

Clarke, Frank

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Knight, Holford

Clarry, Reginald George

Ganzoni, Sir John

Knox, Sir Alfred

Clayton, Dr. George C.

George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

Lamb, Sir Joseph Qulnton

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Colfox, Major William Philip

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Law, Sir Alfred

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

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

North, Captain Edward T.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Leckie, J. A.

Nunn, William

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Palmer, Francis Noel

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Peake, Captain Osbert

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Levy, Thomas

Pearson, William G.

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

Lewis, Oswald

Percy, Lord Eustace

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Liddall, Walter S.

Petherick, M.

Stevenson, James

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

Stones, James

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-

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

Storey, Samuel

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Pickering, Ernest H.

Strauss, Edward A.

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

Pike, Cecil F.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

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

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Pybus, Percy John

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

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

Sudden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Mabane, William

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

Summersby, Charles H.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Sutcliffe, Harold

McCorquodale, M. S.

Ramsden, E.

Tate, Masts Constance

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Rathbone, Eleanor

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

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Rea, Walter Russell

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

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Thomas, James P, L. (Hereford)

McKie, John Hamilton

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

McLean, Major Alan

Remer, John R.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Train, John

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Robinson, John Roland

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Ross, Ronald D.

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

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

Rothschild, James A. de

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

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Runge, Norah Cecil

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Millar, Sir James Duncan

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

Salmon, Major Isidore

Wedderburn, Henry James Serymgeour

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

Salt, Edward W.

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Mitcheson, G. G.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Molson, A. Hugh Esdale

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Womersley, Walter James

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Savery, Samuel Servington

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

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

Scone, Lord

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Moreing, Adrian C.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

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

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Morrison, William Shepherd

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

Moss, Captain H. J.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Muirhead, Major A. J.

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

NOES

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Maxton, James

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Price, Gabriel

Batey, Joseph

Healy, Cahir

Thorne, William James

Buchanan, George

Hirst, George Henry

Tinker, John Joseph

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

John, William

Wallhead, Richard C.

Cove, William G.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Daggar, George

Kirkwood, David

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Devlin, Joseph

Lawson, John James

Edwards, Charles

Logan, David Gilbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Lunn, William

Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

McEntee, Valentine L.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Charles Iain Kerr, Esquire, for Mont-rose District of Burghs.
EAST INDIA (BUDGET).
Address for "Return of the Budget of the Governor-General of India in Council for 1932–33."—[Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Rights of Way Bill,
Lindsey County Council (Sandhills) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Road Traffic Act, 1930; and for purposes connected therewith." [Road Traffic Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  IRISH FREE STATE (SPECIAL DUTIES).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That (1) the Treasury, if it appears to them that any failure of the Irish Free State to implement their obligations has resulted or is likely to result in a loss to the revenue of any public fund of the United Kingdom or in an additional charge on any such fund, may make an order charging duties of customs on articles of such classes or descriptions as may be specified in the order which are either imported from the Irish Free State into the United Kingdom or exported from the Irish Free State to any other country and thence brought into the United Kingdom.
  (ii) The duties to be charged as aforesaid on any articles—

  (a) shall be such duties as may be specified in the order not exceeding one hundred per cent. of the value of the articles;

  (b) may be charged by reference to value or to weight or any other measure of quantity, as may be provided in the order;

  (c) shall be chargeable in addition to any other duty of customs for the time being chargeable on the articles.

  (iii) Articles chargeable with the duties to be charged as aforesaid shall not for the purposes of the Import Duties Act, 1932, be deemed to be chargeable with a duty of customs by or under any enactment other than that Act.
  (iv) Any Act of the present Session for giving effect to this Resolution may include all such incidental and consequential provisions as may be necessary or expedient in connection with the duties to be charged as aforesaid, and in particular may include provisions for authorising the making of regulations for the purpose of preventing evasion of the duties aforesaid in the case of articles brought into the United Kingdom from a country other than the Irish Free State, or otherwise for carrying the said Act into effect, and for amending any enactments relating to customs."
  4.0 p.m.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): There can be no Member in this House sitting for any party or in any quarter of the House who will not agree with me when I say that I deeply regret the circumstances which have necessitated this Motion. I suppose there has never been a time within the memory of any Member of this House when anyone
  50
  could say with greater truth that this is above all a time for peace, and not conflict. There can be no Member of any party who would not, in broad outline, agree with me that the one hope at the moment is to bring people together, and not do anything which widened any breach. The British Government are no exception to that principle, and I venture to submit to the House that, whatever their view of the particular dispute may be, no Government could have gone further, could have shown more anxiety and could have done more than we did to try to find an amicable settlement if possible. That has been our attitude up to this moment, and so it is while I am addressing the House. We still desire a peaceful settlement. We want a peaceful settlement as everyone else wants a peaceful settlement. But, after a consideration of the facts of the case, and after a moment's reflection on the dispatch which I have just read to the House, I venture to ask anyone Who is going to oppose our action, what is the alternative, and what other course is open to the Government, having regard to the treatment we have received in this matter up to the present moment?
  The history of land purchase in Ireland covers a period of over 60 years. There are some Members in this. House who will remember discussions altogether different from the discussions taking place to-day with regard to the Irish land problem, but it is sufficient for me to say that we had reached a stage when this British House of Commons and the Government of the day said, "Very well, if we can ease the situation, if we can do anything to facilitate peace and good will, and enable the Irish farmer to feel that he is master of his own household, and bring contentment that way, we are prepared to take our stand in doing it." In a sentence, it was with a single-minded desire to ease the land agitation in Ireland, and make the farmer his own landlord, and all that that meant, that the British Government passed that particular legislation. I want this House and the great mass of democracy outside not to get confused with the idea that any constitutional issue is involved in this matter, because there is none. I want the British democracy and the Irish democracy clearly to understand that it was a short and simple transaction which the

  51
  Government undertook, namely, to find the money, to guarantee the money, and provide that easy means whereby they should become their own landlords.
  That, in essence, was the means by which the British Government facilitated the arrangement. They did it by first undertaking the money; secondly, by guaranteeing the payment to the lenders of the money, and, over and above that, supplied large sums themselves, so that the tenant farmers, as a result of our assistance, bought their land on easier terms than they otherwise could have done. The landlords were paid partly in cash raised by the issue of the stock, and partly in the stock saleable in the open market. All that the Government did, having passed the necessary legislation, was to say to the people, "Here is your chance; here are facilities open to you unexampled in any previous kind of legislation. All that we want from you is the assurance that, so far as the payments are concerned, there will be no doubt about it." Here let me say that there were some people in this House who doubted the wisdom of this legislation. There were some who said, "Not only is this wrong, but you will be faced one day by repudiation." But the folk who took that attitude then, did not have in mind repudiation by Governments. On the contrary, they had in mind repudiation by individual tenants, and it is very significant that the spokesmen of that day for the Irish people felt it their duty to give an answer on that point of repudiation. I will give a few brief extracts from those whose sincerity as champions of Ireland and statesmen in great Imperial affairs those of us who were privileged to sit in this House with them will not challenge for one moment. First, there was Mr. Parnell, who said in 1891:
  "I have always been desirous that, in connection with land purchase, there should be no repudiation, because I believe that the use of British credit would very materially facilitate a solution of the land question."
  That was Parnell's advice, given to the Government of the day, on which they acted. Mr. Dillon, in 1903, said:
  "I entirely agree that we might dismiss from our minds all idea of repudiation."
  He went on to say that he believed repudiation, as far as the Irish people were concerned, was entirely out of the ques-
  52
  tion. Then Mr. John Redmond, in 1909, said:
  "I would remind the House that liability has never been disputed by any of us who speak in the name of the tenants."
  That is, the Irish tenants. Mr. Tim Healy said, in 1903:
  "Every shilling under this Bill, in my opinion, is absolutely safe. It will be absolutely impossible, in my judgment, to suggest any doctrine of repudiation."
  I will quote one other—Mr. Swift MacNeill, in 1903:
  "The gentlemen farmers of Ireland were an honourable as the gentlemen farmers of England or Scotland, and would fulfil their obligations to the very letter."
  I answer that they have. We have no complaint against the farmers of Ireland. They have met their obligation in the main, and paid their dues. Our complaint is against those who withhold our money. But it will be observed that the quotations which I have just given clearly demonstrate that, even as far back as 1891 and right up, whenever the honour—for that was what it meant—of the Irish people was challenged, their representatives in this House did not hesitate to defend their honour, because they knew it was essential to do so. While keeping that in mind, observe for a moment the effect of the Act which was passed. It was passed notwithstanding all the misgivings, notwithstanding all the difficulties, and the result at this moment is—and I wish quite sincerely I could say the same for the farmers of this country—that 300,000 farmers became their own landlords. The quotations which I have given are quotations from the period when there was a dispute, when folk had doubts. Let me show the House in a sentence what the Irish Land Commissioners, which are essentially and exclusively Irish Free State administrative bodies, reported for the years 1930–31 on this very question. They said:
  "In a period of 50 years, over 300,000 holdings, occupied by tenants who previously had no fixity of tenure, have been vested in the tenants, subject to a terminable half-yearly payment representing practically in all cases a substantial reduction in the amounts payable as rents to the Commissioners, either by way of judicial reduction in rent or conversion of rent into annuities. They have secured a total reduction of over £3,500,000 per annum on their original rental of approximately £7,500,000, so that the average tenant purchaser is now repaying to the State as purchasing

  53
  instalments little more than half the amount payable to the landlord as rent prior to the Land Act of 1881."
  What more conclusive proof is there of the value and benefit of the Act and the way the Act was and is welcomed by the Irish people? Indeed, so far as I know, up to the moment of this particular dispute, no Government received intimation of any sort or kind that the Irish tenants—who have benefited as I have already described—did other than desire to meet their real and genuine obligations. That shortly is the history of the Land Act.
  When the Treaty was made and the Irish Free State became a Dominion, the Irish Free State Government accepted the position, and that position was embodied in two agreements which are public property to-day. That was the position when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in presenting his Budget to the House in April, budgeted for the receipt in this financial year of £3,000,000 which he intended to meet himself and which he assumed he would receive from the Irish Free State. That money was due to the bondholders on the 1st July. Hitherto it has been received by us in the latter weeks of June. We knew a few weeks ago that we were not to receive this money. We had budgeted for this amount, and we knew that unless steps were taken there would be a. deficit of that amount. We had to say, "What shall we do? Shall we repudiate our obligations? Shall we on the 1st July say, 'Ah, well, we have not received it, and, although we guaranteed it to you, we do not propose to pay it'?" The people who would have been affected by that action are not only in England but in Ireland. There was no question. There was no doubt. We did not hesitate a moment, and we said, "No, although we have not received the money, although we have budgeted for the money, we will meet our obligations on the 1st July." The cheques to all those who were entitled to their interest were sent and have been received. That was the position.
  It must be realised that there is considerable interest and misapprehension in regard to the history of these Land Annuities both inside and outside the country, and it is necessary for us here to state the actual facts as far as the Government are concerned. Let me sum-
  54
  marise them. It was only on the 22nd March this year that I received any communication from the Irish Free State Government. In that communication they dealt exclusively with the Oath and said nothing whatever about Land Annuities or any other financial differences. On the day that I received that communication Mr. de Valera made a speech in Dublin and stated that he intended to withhold the annuities. Please observe that, although I had received a communication from him, there was no mention of Land Annuities. The first intimation of Land Annuities was in the speech which he made in Dublin. Therefore, in replying to his note on the 23rd March I immediately drew attention to his speech, and said: "Although you have stated that you propose withholding the annuities, I want to remind you that these annuities are the result of agreements solemnly made between the two Governments." He replied on 5th April, and said: "What do you mean by this undertaking to pay? I am not aware of any such undertaking. Please let rue know all about it." I replied at once on the 9th and gave the terms and dates of the agreements.
  Nothing further happened until the meetings in Dublin and London. In the course of the discussions in London on the Land Annuities, we said: "Very well, if you are so sure of your case, and if you believe that your case is as watertight as you proclaim, surely there is some means open to us. Let us go to arbitration." That was the first offer of arbitration, made by us. We made it with a genuine and sincere desire to find some solution of the difficulties. The only qualification we made—and it is important to keep it in mind—is this, we said: "Remember that the last Imperial Conference provided ways and means whereby internal differences could be settled. It was by an Empire tribunal, and we offer you, in accordance with the decision of the Imperial Conference, an Empire tribunal for this dispute. "Mr. de Valera said: "No; an Empire tribunal is too restricted and will have the dice loaded against us." Then he said: "Beyond that, I shall want a large number of financial agreements examined as well." In other words, be said:" I want practically every financial clause of this Treaty reexamined." We said: "That is an impossible solution." We also said: "When

  55
  we made that Treaty, with all that it involved, with its give and take on both sides, we meant it to be a binding instrument, and only on points of interpretation or difference would we submit it to an Empire tribunal." Unfortunately, he refused to accept that. I repeated it in a further plea, and I have just read to the House the latest message, which says in substance: "While agreeing to the principle of arbitration, I refuse to accept an Empire tribunal; and, over and above that, not only do I now raise the question of Land Annuities, but I raise every issue made by my predecessors in the last 10 years on financial matters, and I want them re-examined as well."
  Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Every settlement.
  Mr. THOMAS: I meant settlement. I put this point clearly to the Committee. If that be the attitude, the only alternative to us, speaking for the British taxpayer, is this: Are we to take the responsibility, and are those who will oppose us to-night going to take the responsibility, of saying that the £3,000,000 for which we budgeted this year, in a Budget which threw an immense strain on every section of the community, is to be carried by the British taxpayer, because the other people repudiate their obligations? The answer which I give on behalf of the Government is "No." There were open to us many courses. We had to consider every difficulty, however delicate—and, frankly, I am not going to disguise from the Committee that this may involve much harm. There are certain things with which you can compromise; there are questions on which you should take every opportunity of reaching an amicable agreement. If Mr. de Valera had said: "Here is a burden, let us argue it: here is a difficulty, let us consider it; here is something that can be removed by negotiation, good will and consultation," none of these things would have been refused by me on behalf of the Government. Mr. de Valera has taken no such steps. He has calmly and deliberately said, without consultation first: "No, it is our business, it is our money, and we are going to withhold it."
  4.30 p.m.
  Therefore, I am submitting to the Committee a Resolution that makes our intention perfectly clear. I am not going
  56
  to define to the Committee what may be done. It is no good any Member asking us to exclude butter, eggs, cheese or anything else. It is no good any Member getting up and asking me which will be the first or which will be the second. The Government ask with confidence for power from the Committee to impose in their own way, at their own time, but immediately—[Interruption] —to impose it, in such a way as they feel the circumstances warrant, but only to obtain the amount due and not one copper more. When that amount is obtained we shall cease. Let there be no misunderstanding or misgiving. We intend, if possible, to receive that amount of money. That, therefore, is the position with which we are faced this afternoon. I want to make it clear that this is not intended as any tariff war. It may be others will develop it into that, but that must not prevent us putting this simple question: "Do you intend to allow the other people to get away with your money, or do you not?" It is to giving a simple answer to that question that the House must direct its attention this afternoon.
  I observe, and with some surprise, the Amendment which stands in the name of the official Opposition. I observe that the name of neither my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition nor of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) is attached to the official Amendment. I do not know whether that is intended to be so, but I hope it is. They will correct me if I am putting the wrong interpretation on it, because they are the only two Members on that bench who were responsible for the Empire Tribunal. Prior to the Imperial Conference being held, the question of settling disputes between one member of the British Commonwealth and another was a matter that occupied the very serious and daily attention of the Government of that time. The late Government were themselves responsible for proposing it to the Imperial Conference, and the Conference unanimously accepted the recommendation, and the first time that that decision of the Imperial Conference is being called upon to function it is repudiated by one section of the British Commonwealth; and I want to know quite clearly from my right hon. Friends whether the omission of their names from this Amendment is

  57
  due to that, or do they throw over the decision of their late colleagues in this matter?
  Mr. LANSBURY: If the right hon. Gentleman will possess his soul in patience he will get an answer.
  Mr. THOMAS: In the absence of an answer, I am going to interpret it as association with the Amendment. If it is association with the Amendment, I put to them, and I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), who, with me, was a party to much of the detail, that they should hesitate before they become a party to throwing over- board the machinery for which they were responsible. I ask the Mover of the Amendment to tell us, in the course of the Debate, whether he is satisfied that, so far as the British Government are concerned, they have done all that was possible to get this matter settled by arbitration, because I again assure the Opposition, and it is the only point of the Amendment I want to emphasise, that according to our last dispatch, and even at this moment, if Mr. De Valera were prepared on the Land Annuities question to accept an Empire Tribunal we would welcome the opportunity; but we will not be a party and cannot be a party to allowing a question of this kind, which is a solemn obligation made between two peoples, to be treated simply as if it were a scrap of paper.
  In conclusion, I want also to say this to the Opposition. I have endeavoured throughout the whole of this dispute to keep clear of any constitutional issue or constitutional difference. I have endeavoured to make it a simple issue of the breaking of agreements between two peoples. I have done that because, on the benches opposite, are the representatives of the great trades unions of this country, who have fought—and I fought with them—more than once, and have taken part in trade disputes, in order to prevent employers breaking agreements with impunity. If the sanctity of agreements is good as between workers and employers, how necessary it is to emphasise that principle as between Government and Government. That is the simple issue. It is a difficult task we are undertaking, it is an unpleasant task. Even at this moment I would welcome a peaceful solution. We have gone to the limit of compromise, we have gone to the
  58
  limit of concession. We regret the circumstances that compel us to ask for this power. We hope even now that the Irish Free State people will see the reasonableness of our case and our claims, but if they do not we submit to the House that, however unfortunate, however difficult the task may be, and however unpleasant the consequences, there is no other course open, and we intend to proceed with it.
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: We have had this afternoon a speech of the greatest seriousness from the Secretary of State for the Dominions. Unfortunately, most of that speech did not deal with the realities of the situation. A good deal of it dealt with history with which some Members of the House are familiar. It is true that the history of Ireland is bound up with the history of land annuities, and that it is a very long and tangled history, and one which the present situation shows cannot he discussed in vacuo apart from other considerations. The relations between England and Ireland have in the past been relations of misunderstanding, relations of tragedy. Wherever the blame lies, in this particular dispute the primary fact is that there is a dispute, and because of this complicated history that lies behind us we are to-day faced with a serious situation. I do not understand all this talk about "limits of concession". So far as I understand, the British Government have not made any. The British Government have said what they have said before. On the other hand, the Irish Free State have declared their intention not to pay over the sums due with regard to the land scheme, and certain other payments, though I think it is only fair to remind the House that the Free State do intend in the interval, pending the financial settlement of all the outstanding problems, that the income which the State receives shall be put into a quite separate fund.
  Mr. THOMAS: This is a new piece of information. We have had no intimation to that effect.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: My information is that that is the fact.
  HON. MEMBERS: How do you know?
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: On what authority?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: This was merely said in passing. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite would give a moment's thought to this, and if there be truth in my statement, they will see that it is an earnest of the good intentions of—
  Mr. BOOTHBY: On a point of Order. If an hon. Member states that he has authority for saying that a certain decision has been arrived at by a foreign Government, are we not entitled—[An Hon. MEMBER: "Shut up and sit down "]—to ask that the hon. Member shall lay before the House the papers on which he bases that information?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that applies to a Member of the House of Commons who is not a responsible Member of the Government.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman stated, as a fact, that this was the intention of the Irish Government. The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs says that His Majesty's Government of Great Britain have had no intimation to that effect. Is it unfair or unreasonable to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) to tell the Committee upon what authority his statement is made, as a matter of fact, that this is the intention of the Irish Free State Government?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: What I said was that it was a fact that—[Interruption.] I am not in a position to speak for the Free State. Government; indeed I have had no communication with them. [Interruption.] There are other sources of information than the President of the Irish Free State. I say that, according to my information, it is the intention of the Free State Government to set aside the receipts from these funds—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who says so?"]—until such time as a settlement has been made. Far from being a matter for levity, I would say that that is an indication that the Free State Government realise that the matter is one which still may be open for further discussion.
  Mr. THOMAS: This is too important. The Committee must realise what is the statement made. I read to the House the last despatch from Mr. de Valera, and I read out certain items of money now overdue. The right hon. Gentleman now
  60
  says that he has received information from a source that satisfies him, that these moneys, including Land Annuities, are being placed to a separate fund for some purpose until there is an adjustment of the difference. This is vital, and we are entitled to know where he got that information.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: There are two entirely different questions. [Interruption.] The question in dispute during the passage of despatches between the two Governments has been the payment of these annuities, and not what is to happen to them if they are not paid. If the right hon. Gentleman has not asked that question of the Irish Free State Government, he might have done, and he can do it now. But, whatever may be the right and wrong of this dispute, the fact of the dispute is one which is undeniable. The question is one which involves a good many legal considerations, and involves the consideration of historical facts, but I attach less importance to the particular merits of the dispute than I do to the possible consequences of the dispute. Hon. Members who have not had as much experience as the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs may smile, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is not always the issue or magnitude of a dispute that matters; its possible consequences matter infinitely more.
  The history of Anglo-Irish relations in the past ought to have been a warning to the Government to think, and think again before they took action such as they have done. It is the common fate of statesmen—there are three right hon. Gentlemen present in the Committee today who took part in the negotiation of the Treaty with Ireland—to have to exercise infinite patience when the man in the street would throw up the sponge. In matters of this kind patience i perhaps the greatest gift of statesmanship when there are serious matters in dispute. No important agreement between nations would ever have been reached if the first word had been the last word. During this dispute—only a few months—we have had a few despatches, and we have had a hurried visit by the Secretary of State to Dublin, and an equally hurried return visit by Mr. de Valera to London, and at the end of that we are told that we have arrived at the limit of concession.

  61
  There have been no concessions. I appeal to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who has had unrivalled experience of industrial negotiations, far greater than that of any hon. Member of this House and who knows that negotiators have to learn the art of hanging on when there is hardly a gleam of encouragement anywhere. He knows that the negotiator who means business never says "No" as long as there is a single ray of hope. Unless this essential quality of patience is exercised at Lausanne and Ottawa, what is going to be the result? At Lausanne this very day, after days and days of negotiation, with telegrams to newspapers saying, "We have arrived at a deadlock," or somebody "has arrived at a deadlock," Lausanne has continued, and as long as statesmanship is in evidence their discussions will continue, and will not come to an end until there is some result.
  If the right hon. Gentleman, when this difficulty became a real one between the two countries, had gone to Dublin and stayed in Dublin—[Interruption.]—we could have spared him from the House—and if he had shown the same pertinacity as the Prime Minister is showing at Lausanne and tackled this question of Ireland on the spot, I feel sure he might have achieved good results. Remember that, from the point of view of Ireland, arid from the point of view of the future of this country, this dispute is not one which can be ignored. Far from it. It is going to be very serious for the future of both nations unless there is a peaceful settlement. It is barely three months since this question was first raised, and now, after these hurried visits and a series of despatches, the Government issue their ultimatum and propose to arm themselves with the necessary powers to take drastic action, although, as the Secretary of State says: "We still desire a peaceful settlement." Not only so. The Government did not wait until alter the time that the payment was due, but they announced their decision to take action quite unnecessarily before the payment was legally due.
  Mr. THOMAS: Just a moment. It is very important to make it quite clear that we waited a week after the period in which it had always been paid. Please remember that it is collected months in
  62
  advance in Ireland. We only receive it about the second or third week in June. That is the first point, but Mr. de Valera, when we said to him, "We have to pay this money on the 1st July," gave as his answer to us, "We intend to withhold it." How could we wait any longer?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman is a past master of this kind of evasion. In the first place, there is all the difference between what has been the practice and what is the law. In fact, that payment was not legally due until the 30th June. In the second place, it may be that M r. de Valera said that he was not going to pay, but nobody would put the brokers in until they were legally entitled to do it. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have not done it."] You have started a legal process to enable you to do it. I submit to the Committee that it is serious enough to take a step which might prove to be irrevocable, but it is even more serious to take it before you are legally entitled to do so. There is bound to be misunderstanding. The Government have to be condemned for declaring war before there was real casus belli—[Interruption] —and they have put themselves in the wrong by introducing legislation before the need for it has been proved to have arisen. It is not a case of taking time by the forelock. There was no sense of urgency about the matter. It is merely ill-timed and precipitate action which cannot have good results, and may conceivably do very serious harm.
  Now as to the method which the Government have adopted. The sweet reasonableness and patience which they are prepared to exercise in negotiation with other Governments have been thrown to the winds, and the Government have, by this Motion and the Bill to follow it, simply seized the thick stick. Instead of the Free State being treated as a coequal, as she is entitled to be treated, she has been treated with a lack of courtesy and with a brusqueness—and indeed a brutality—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]—which is bound to create the most serious effects upon enlightened opinion outside this country.
  5.0 p.m.
  What is the method? I do not propose to go into details at this moment, but, if the Government mean to use their powers, there is little doubt that there will be certain serious economic consequences. The right hon. Gentleman has

  63
  told us that the Government do mean to use their powers, and that they mean to use thorn "in their own way, and in their own time, but immediately," from which I gather that it is the intention of the Government forthwith to impose these new duties. [Interruption.] Very good. Let us see what follows. We are dealing here with inter trade relations between the Free State and this country amounting to over £75,000,000 a year. You cannot disturb those trade relations by a method of this kind without repercussions on the whole of that trade. Eighty per cent. of Irish imports come from this country; over 90 per cent, of Irish exports come into Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There are imports from the Free State to this country of over £36,000,000, and there are exports from this country of over £30,000,000, quite apart from a re-export trade of nearly £9,000,000. What is going to be the effect on that trade? Assume, if you like, that these new duties, these 100 per cent. duties, are going to achieve their object and keep out Free State goods. I will give one simple illustration of what may happen. Half the exports of boots and shoes from this country go to the Irish Free State; every year 5,000,000 pairs of boots go to the Irish people in Southern Ireland. What is going to be the effect on Leicester, Northampton and Kettering if we have duties on foodstuffs which are successful enough to keep them out, or successful enough to impoverish the ordinary producer in Ireland who may have to pay the duty? I submit that the economic reactions of this policy, if it is put into effect, will be reactions which this country will live to regret.
  But this is not the worst of the story. What is far graver than the actual imposition of the duties is that this Motion is an act of economic warfare. The Government's idea of tariffs, we have been told—the Lord President of the Council has told us, and other members of the Government have told us—is to bring down tariffs in other countries; but this Motion, if the Government implement it, may easily be the beginning of a tariff war, and a tariff war which can do nothing to improve the economic position of this country or of our customers in the Free State, but which will certainly injure
  64
  them. There is a statement in the "Statist" which I should like to read, because that newspaper generally supports the Government and is in favour of Protection, and, therefore, hon. and right hon. Members opposite will probably regard it as an organ of great authority. In its most recent issue, referring to the Motion which is now before the House, the "Statist" says:
  "The effects of this move, if it is allowed to remain in force, will probably be serious for the Free State farming community and at least inconvenient for our own livestock industry. Moreover, there can be little doubt that the Free State Government will retaliate with similar measures. The scene, therefore, seems set for an idiotic tariff war which, while no doubt gratifying to the rabidly nationalistic politicians on both sides, will impair the livelihood of large sections of both nations."
  That, from the "Statist," seems to me to be rather strong language, which proves that this august organ regards the situation as one of the greatest gravity.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is that the Editor of the "Statist"?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I imagine so; I do not know who is responsible; it is not signed. It is an editorial note. But the situation may be even more serious than that. This action by the British Government will demand a reply. The Free State Government must have regard to its own public opinion; it will not be able to sit still and do nothing, and what the political consequences of this move may be no man can tell. I do not wish to prophesy, but this is an economic reprisal. There are some of us in the House who know that the word "reprisal" has a very ugly connotation in Southern Ireland. It is reminiscent of the dark days of Black-and-Tanism, and the Government may in this matter be embarking on a course of action which will have very far-reaching consequences.
  I am not trying to make any party capital out of this Debate, and my hon. Friends are not; the situation is far too serious; but I should be shirking my duty if I did not say that I believe this action may lead to the possible disintegration of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I do not think that the House realises the forces that it may liberate as the result of the action that it is taking to-day. There is a prospect of even wider political consequences both in Europe and the United States of America. I do not

  65
  want to dwell upon that aspect of the question; it is, perhaps, rather too delicate for discussion here; but there is not an hon. or right hon. Member of the House who does not know that this action will have an effect upon public opinion elsewhere outside the British Empire, and I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that it is not always wise to stand on the letter of the bond, it is not always wise to insist on the pound of flesh. Nations that have tried to do so have almost invariably been defeated. We agreed to a Peace Treaty, which has been the subject of constant adaptation and modification, and, in the light of hard economic circumstances, we have had to let the letter go in order to try and engender a spirit of agreement and understanding. This policy of economic reprisal is, in the view of my hon. Friends and myself, a policy of short-sighted folly. It is bound to be regarded as a proposal for an economic boycott; in fact, that is its purpose. Its purpose is to strangle the economic life of a struggling nation still in the throes of nationalism, and with a long tragic history behind it.
  What is the alternative? The alternative is not an easy one. It is the exercise of patience, and still more patience, and a determination to find a solution which will leave no festering sore. We cannot by force majeure impose our will on a member of the free commonwealth of nations—[An HON. MEMBER: "We are not trying to do so!"] We have, in this world of nations, to learn to live together; we must learn to live in amity even with nations with whose policy and actions we are not in agreement. We come, therefore, to the only way out of this difficulty. The Government have applied the thick stick. The Government insist on going through with this policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] As I have said, I think we shall live to regret it. The Government themselves supported arbitration—indeed, proposed arbitration; but, as soon as they were met with difficulty, as soon as there were obstacles to be overcome, as soon as there were determined men to meet, as determined as they were, they threw their hands in. Arbitration, the way they suggested themselves, is still the way.
  The right hon. Gentleman quoted what happened during the days of the Labour Government. I do not, myself, think that
  66
  his account was strictly accurate; he put a. higher value and importance on the recommendations of the Imperial Conference than the Conference itself did. But I am not running away from that, and neither is my right hon. Friend. We would still prefer, and we would still try and try again, to get arbitration under the auspices of the Imperial Conference. Because it has been turned down once or twice is no reason—[interruption.] It has happened in his lifetime many a time. There is no reason why this painstaking, long-distance industrial negotiator should become a narrow nationalist. It is his business to try again. I would quote a phrase which I have heard him use scores of times: it is his duty to explore every avenue; and pertinacity is needed. [Interruption.] Hon. Members do not know the Secretary of State as well as I do. I know of.his industrial negotiations, and I am appealing to him, and not to Members who know nothing about them. I am saying to him that he is facing a situation now which is no more difficult than those he has had to face in his old days with the National Union of Railwaymen, when he could give way, not once, but a hundred times; and I say this for the right hon. Gentleman, that, so long as there was the slightest ray of hope, he hung on.
  Here we have the fate of millions of people at stake, with consequences which short-sighted people cannot now foresee, but which may be, and probably will be, serious, not only to this country and to the Free State, but possibly to the Empire, and it may be to the world; one does not know. This matter cannot be treated lightly, and, so long as it is possible to hang on with a demand for arbitration, so long ought the British Government to do their best, and in that matter we should support them. If arbitration fails, then some other way must be found, but not the way of force and domination, because that settles nothing. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we shall never agree to the use of force, whether military or economic, in the settlement of this question. We have to live with the people across the Irish Sea, not merely to-day and to-morrow, but in the generations to come, and the future of the world depends, not on creating new sores, but on healing old ones and preventing new ones. I should hope that even now the Government will put out, not a stick, but

  67
  olive branch, and will hold their hand what I am bound to consider a most sastrous step, fraught with serious sequences.
  Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: ay I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) to clear up one point which he left uite obscure? He has given us to understand that these revenues would be put meanwhile to a suspense account. An normous lot depends on the reliability of his information; cannot he give us the source of his information?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I think that before the Debate is over one of my hon. Friends may be able to give the infornation—[Interruption.] I must say that I think it is quite open to the right hon. Gentleman himself to find out from official sources, and I hope he will do that to corroborate my information. If I am in a position to make a statement, I will certainly do so, but I must ask for permission.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am one of the three Members of my party who, in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), signed the Irish Treaty. Two of those who then represented the party to which I belong have passed away, and I remain to carry what I have always known was a great responsibility, but what, I would add, I have always thought was something for which I might claim the gratitude of my country. Anything which touches the sanctity of that agreement must intimately and deeply concern me, and I regret that, in the speech to which we have just listened, the right hon. Gentleman could not spare a single word to dwell upon the sanctity of the obligation which the Irish Free State had undertaken. There is a twist in the minds of some men that always causes them to feel that it is easier to agree with the opponents of their country than with their countrymen. There was just one sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that I was glad to hear for it is up to the present, I think, unique in his mouth or in the mouth of his colleagues. He paid a well-justified tribute to the Prime Minister for his patience, perseverence, and courage at Lausanne. I
  68
  only regret that he paid that compliment merely for the purpose of being disagreeable to his other late colleague, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. I should have preferred that it had stood alone.
  But I do not want to dwell upon these matters. The issues at stake are far too large for that. The right hon. Gentleman dismissed history in a sentence. You cannot dismiss history in that way. He confined himself to the narrow question of the Land Annuities. We are not allowed to do that by the Irish Free State Government. This is not a policy standing by itself. It is part of a larger policy, and the House has to ask itself whether we are prepared, not merely to make some concession here or there, but how far we mean to insist on a solemn Treaty being kept and how far we mean to allow the Irish Free State Government to claim successfully all the advantages of being a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and to repudiate all the corresponding obligations. Was there ever an obligation more founded in justice and merit or more solemnly and freely undertaken?
  The land settlement out of which these annuities arise was the most generous agrarian legislation ever undertaken in any country to place her people in possession of their own soil. So generous was it that, as the Dominions Secretary has said, the tenants purchased their holdings upon payment of an annuity less than the rent that they had been charged for their occupation. Such an operation would have been impossible without the credit of the United Kingdom, and that credit was invoked to raise the money necessary to carry out this great scheme of purchase, this vast transfer of property, and to guarantee to those who provided the money that they should receive interest on the debt. There can be no question that one penny of that money was spent upon any but an Irish purpose. There can be no question that the beneficiaries were not the tenants of Ireland, nor that the Free State Government to-day reaps, in what has been even in these difficult times a prosperous peasantry, the result of the credit which this country extended to Ireland for the purpose of land purchase and which the Irish Free State Government now repudiate.

  69
  I must say a word about another matter. The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if we had driven a hard bargain over finance at the time of the Treaty.
  Mr. GREENWOOD indicated dissent.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to see that he repudiates that. I wish he had not used language which lends itself to that suspicion. I wish he had not gone seeking everywhere through the world for an unquiet spirit who would judge us wrongly. Why did he not tell them that they would be judging us wrongly instead of giving a sort of ground for their suspicion in the innuendoes which he whispered across the Floor. This was not a hard bargain—the exacting of a pound of flesh, as he said. This was a most generous settlement made in pursuance of the Treaty for the settlement of all financial questions between us, in which we forewent a great part of what we had a right to claim under the Treaty. Mr. de Valera takes it upon himself to say: "I shall collect the moneys due to you for the payment of our creditors. I shall not relieve the Irish farmer of the annuity which he is bound to pay. All I do is to intercept it en route and to put the money which belongs to someone else into my own pocket."
  Mr. MAXTON: Surely that is not fair—"my own pocket."
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That must not be interpreted as a charge of personal dishonesty. Let me say: into the pockets of the Irish Government. He collects the money. Admittedly it is not due to the Irish Government, but he refuses to hand it over to those to whom it is due and he retains it for the Irish Government. There are also the Local Loans which went to the building and improvement of Irish harbours, the telegraphs, of which the Irish Government are in the enjoyment and from which they are deriving revenue, and the railways for the development of the country. Even the claims of the judges and the police were recognised by those big and broadminded Irishmen who negotiated the Treaty with us. They told us that they would not be ungenerous in their treatment. The men who negotiated the Treaty kept their word. Throughout the long years that I have sat in this House it has been the common observation of Members of all parties that, how-
  70
  ever bitter the strife—and bitter it was—between the Irish Nationalists who used to sit on those benches and other parties in the House, if an Irishman passed you his word you could rely upon it. I do not believe Mr. de Valera speaks for a race which, bitter as it may have felt, is never ungenerous, and which was always faithful to any cause that it upheld or any word which it plighted.
  The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Government should pursue the project of arbitration. They have pursued it. They have pressed it. They have subjected it to one condition, that the tribunal of judges between brother and brother in this Commonwealth of Nations shall be a tribunal chosen from the nations of the Commonwealth itself. Does Mr. de Valera undertake to say that to offer him such a tribunal is to ask him to play with loaded dice? Let him take that story to Ottawa. Let him take that story to Australia. Let him take it to South Africa.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Mr. Justice Feetham!
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Let him see whether the Dominion of South Africa would give the verdict that he gives on that distinguished South Africa Judge. That is nonsense. It is not because he does not think he can get a fair verdict, but because he is as unwilling to recognise the British Commonwealth of Nations as he is to maintain the Treaty that was signed between the Irish Free State Government and our Government. I hope, whatever difficulty we may have to face, we shall all stand fast to this great principle, that between Member and Member of the British Empire we will admit no foreign interference. This Government was the first to propose arbitration. It has repeated its offer. My right hon. Friend has again said that even at this moment, subject to that one essential principle, the Government are ready to arbitrate. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? That we are to wait until the other party consents to it and that in the meantime we are not to receive the money which we have to pay out to third parties? The charges which should fall, and do fall, upon individual Irishmen shall remain in the possession of the Irish Government? I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who did after all agree with the Imperial Conference that an Imperial Tribunal was the right

  71
  tribunal for Imperial differences, and who in other spheres of life recognises the duty of the faithful discharging of honourable obligations, instead of encouraging Mr. de Valera by speeches such as we have heard to-day or the other day, will use that source of influence from which they have backdoor messages as to the intentions of the Irish Government to convey plainly to them that they will not stand for the repudiation of obligations and that they will not stand for bringing foreigners in to decide among different members of the Empire.
  5.30 p.m.
  What we are going to vote on to-day are not the issues put by the right hon. Gentleman. There never was a time when it was more important that the sanctity of Treaties should be upheld. Without them, you cannot restore the world's confidence, and without the restoration of its confidence you cannot restore its prosperity. There never was a time when it was more important to uphold the sanctity of Treaties. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends had their way we should be voting to-night that any party to a treaty is at liberty to repudiate that treaty without agreement with the others. We should be deciding that anybody may collect money due to another person, or, shall I say, that any nation might collect money due to another nation and keep it for itself, arid we should be saying that not £3,000,000 but more than £3,000,000 collected from the Irish people, in the possession of the Irish Government and due for payment to the stockholders in this country or in Ireland, should be charged' a second time upon the taxpayers of Great Britain. That is what the right hon. Gentleman means when you bring his phrases down to the facts of the situation. I do not believe that if we refuse to follow that course we shall fail in obtaining the support of our own countrymen or the approval of those other foreign nations to which he has referred.
  Mr. MAXTON: I have not previously taken any part in the discussions on the Irish problem in this House, but I have been deeply interested from the very start of the dispute. I regret very much that the Government have seen fit to rush, in my view, into this action without
  72
  proper consideration and without adequate previous discussion in this House. Of all the actions of the Government this one shows the greatest lack of perspective and the greatest failure to tackle in a realistic way a problem which, from the point of view of the major problems affecting this country, is a matter of very minor importance indeed. To attempt to say that the question of £3,000,000 justifies us in upsetting our relationship with Ireland and the other nations of the world end jeopardising Anglo-Irish trade of a very much higher volume at a time when every pound's worth of trade is of vital importance to this country is to me an act which is not in keeping with the experience of the various individuals who sit on the Front Bench opposite.
  The main and fundamental consideration involved is a consideration of democracy. The British Commonwealth of Nations, I have always been told as an anti-Imperialist, is something different from Imperialism, because each. of the constituent elements is a self-governing Dominion with a right to define its own destinies and direct its own development in its own way, and that all that binds us together is a bond of sentiment, friendship and good feeling. That is the thing which distinguishes the relations of the various parts of the British Dominions as compared with the relationship of Great Britain with countries which are not inside the Empire. When I examine the attitude, temper and general tone of the utterances with reference to this action of Ireland and compare it with the attitude towards every other country in the world, I can see a bitterness, an antagonism, and a dogged attitude, something entirely different from the bond of friendship and blood relationship which is supposed to characterise the relationship between different constituent parts of the British Empire. If a part of the British Empire is granted self-government and establishes an electoral system on a democratic basis, it implies that it is entitled to elect its own Government and that it is to carry on all the functions which any sovereign nation is entitled to carry on.
  Mr. de Valera has carried on since the Treaty a perfectly constitutional political agitation for his point of view as against the attitude of Mr. Cosgrave and the others when they accepted the Treaty.

  73
  He accepted the fait accompli that Ireland had become a sovereign nation within the Empire. He became the constitutional Parliamentary Opposition. He did not accept at any time the Cosgrave-Collins agreements. But, from being the great national leader of the Irish people from 1915 or 1916 up to the time of the Treaty, because he could not honestly and genuinely accept the Treaty, he fell from the position of greatest influence in Ireland to being the leader of a Parliamentary fraction, and for a dozen years he has patiently by agitation, by Parliamentary opposition, by all the methods which are open to a constitutional democracy—[An HON. MEMBER: "Backed by gunmen!"] Not including the gunmen and not including the murders, because my hon. Friend has got his dates mixed up. The Treaty we are talking about was made succeeding all the murder. The Treaty which we are asked to regard as sacred was made at the point of the gun.
  Mr. THOMAS: This is very important. The agreements with which we are dealing, namely, the Land Annuities, were neither made in the circumstances my hon. Friend mentions nor at that period. The dates were—the first, 1923, and the second, 1926. Therefore, do not let us mix the periods, but keep in mind those dates.
  Mr. MAXTON: I am not mixing them at all. I was in this House at the time they were made and passed. Every one who was a Member of the House at that time—and it is a quibble on the part of the right hon. Gentleman—knows that these were consequential on the Treaty and were delayed by the difficulty of putting the Treaty into full operation.
  Mr. HENRY HASLAM: Not made at the point of the gun.
  Mr. MAXTON: The Treaty was made when both nations had got sick of the warfare which had continued for a number of years. The point I am making is simply—and the interruption was scarcely relevant—that in the intervening years Mr. de Valera has carried on the political work which any constitutional Parliamentary democrat was entitled to carry on and has turned himself from being a minority point of view in Ireland into a majority point of view. At the last General Election he secured the mandate of his people which put him into
  74
  governmental possession. He was elected upon a definite and specific programme laid fully before the Irish people, and two of the items of that programme were the abolition of the Oath, and the denunciation of the Land Annuities. He is elected. He gets power. He gets the mandate of the Irish people. He assumes office under the constitution which has been laid down for Ireland along perfectly constitutional lines and then proposes, by Parliamentary action again, to put into operation the things which he was elected to put into operation. [Interruption.] My interest in this matter is not Mr. de Valera's interest. I do not know Mr. de Valera, and I do not know any of his friends. I do not know their political ideas. I do not know their conceptions for the development of Ireland in the future. I imagine that they have ideals of a developed, contented and a prosperous Ireland, but as far as I know they are not similar to mine. But if I put myself in Mr. de Valera's place and if I were sitting in the seat of power in Ireland with my point of view, elected by the votes of my people, I also would do what he has done, attempt to put into immediate operation the things I was elected to do. As far as repudiation is concerned, I am afraid that I should have a very strong disinclination to be hound by the agreements which had been entered into 50 years before by people whose political views were diametrically opposed to mine. [Interruption.] Oh, yes.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: If in the next few years, for example, a German Government was elected by a democratic vote with power to denounce the Treaty of Versailles, would the hon. Member approve of the action of that Government?
  Mr. MAXTON: I am coming to that point. It is not a question of whether I approve or disapprove. I have already said that if I were handling Ireland's affairs to-day I should be handling them from the point of view of a different social objective from that of Mr. de Valera. I should do things which Mr. de Valera is not doing. But you can take it as being very definite, that the repudiation of the Oath of Allegiance would be one thing and that the repudiation of Land Annuities would be a minor detail on the economic side. According to all

  75
  the rules of democracy which have governed the world hitherto, I should be entitled to do it. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says: "What about Treaties?" I am not learned in foreign affairs. I have never regarded myself as one of the experts on foreign affairs in this House, but I have heard, in the last Parliament and in the present, strong agitation from the Conservative benches for the denunciation of certain treaties which stood in the way of the full development of a tariff policy in this country. [Interruption.] "Repudiation" was not the word used. "Denunciation" was the word used. The point made by hon. Members up to now, including the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), who has been a distinguished Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and, as stated by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, is that a Treaty once entered into between two or more nations can never be departed from at any time.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member makes two mistakes. In the first place, I was speaking only of Treaties which run indefinitely, not of Treaties which run for a fixed time, and may or may not be renewed. It is customary, in diplomatic phraseology, when you give notice not to renew or to determine a Treaty in accordance with the terms of the Treaty itself, to call that denunciation. I am far from saying that a Treaty which is in the other class is never to be changed at all, but it should only be changed by agreement between the parties to the Treaty.
  Mr. MAXTON: I understand the different grades of Treaties and the different degree of importance that may be attached to them, but I cannot imagine that any two intelligent nations would enter into any Treaty and say: "We will be bound by this Treaty to all eternity." If no one makes that assertion, then the only question that arises is not whether Mr. de Valera and the Irish people are breaking a Treaty, but whether they have adopted the proper manners in setting about the breaking of it. That is all. We start an economic war because they have not written the right kind of invitation, because they have not read a book of etiquette on how to be a perfect political gentleman. They
  76
  have not learned how to do it. It is a matter for regret that all of us have not the manners of the British Foreign Office or of the Quai d'Orsay—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Or of the Dominions Secretary.
  Mr. MAXTON: Or of the Dominions Secretary. We start a new war with the Irish people, who are our blood brothers—[HON. MEMBERS "Who started it?"] Even if they started it, my first appeal to this House is not for the setting up of an arbitration court. I support the submitting of this dispute to an international court of arbitration. I support the view of even submitting it to the Dominions, if the proposal for an international court fails, but my first appeal to the Government is that they should accept the will of the Irish people, and say, "You have decided these two things"—
  Sir W. DAVISON: And the British taxpayer is to pay.
  Mr. MAXTON: I am surprised at the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). He has devoted an undue proportion of his Parliamentary efforts to the collection of debts from Russia.
  Sir W. DAVISON: For the sake of the British taxpayer.
  Mr. MAXTON: I know, and up to date the British taxpayer has not got one halfpenny. If the hon. Member had applied his mind to developing trade with Russia, British people would have recouped themselves far more through the ordinary processes of trade than they have lost in their unfortunate investments under the Czarist regime. We are told that the Land Annuities were a great act of benevolence on the part of this nation towards the Irish people. It gave them possession of their land. I regret that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made his public appearance, after his extended absence, the occasion for supporting this congerie in their attitude towards Ireland, and particularly on the question of Land Annuities, because I can remember, as a very callow youth politically, hearing the great song about God giving the land to the people, and the fervour which was worked up by the right hon. Gentleman.

  77
  That has to be modified to meet the practical exigencies of the Irish case. God gave the land to the Irish people on condition that the bondholders should continue drawing rent in perpetuity. [Interruption.] I beg pardon. To all intents and purposes.
  HON. MEMBERS: No!
  Mr. THOMAS: A large number have already paid up. Others have nearly finished.
  Mr. MAXTON: I know. The easy way in which the Government supporters take alarm or begin to laugh whenever there is a slip made by an Opposition speaker is very clear evidence to me of the discomfort they are feeling about their action in regard to this matter. I have been in this House long enough to know just exactly how we laugh off a lot of things when we are a little bit distressed and nervous about them. If there is any Member of this House who is happy about the line of action which is being taken to-day, he is a man of very curious mentality, or one who has not given very much consideration to the relations between the Irish nation and our own. Sixty years' payments. How much has expired now?
  Mr. THOMAS: It is not a question of 60 years' payments. It varies. Some tenants are in a position to pay off earlier than others. Some pay more than their particular proportion every half year. Let the hon. Member bear in mind this fact, that if his policy were adopted those who have already paid would have a grouse, because they would say, "What about us?"
  Mr. MAXTON: I have not the statistical capacity of my right hon. Friend, and my memory for figures is always defective, but when I went into this matter I found that, whether it was a long or a short payment, the individual landowner paid about three times the original capital value of the land before he became the possessor of it. That is a fact. This great benevolent act meant this: the Irish landowners were nominally drawing a rent of £7,500,000, I think the figure was, a large proportion of which they could not collect and the collection of which was always a grave personal risk. For that risky, insecure, indefinite £7,500,000 they substituted a secure
  78
  £3,500,000, with the whole financial power of the British nation behind them.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has forgotten that the rents of which he is speaking were not rack rents but fair rents fixed by the courts and the tenants were able to purchase at about one-half the cost of those fair rents.
  Mr. MAXTON: I am not denying that, but what I am denying is that it was a great act of benevolence, arising out of the goodness of the British Parliament. It was a stroke of business which substituted a Government bank security for an insecure right to draw rent. That was what precisely took place. Hon. Members opposite may shake their heads, but the fact remains none the less true. Is not a nation, a self-governing nation, entitled to say after the expiry of years: "On this business we made a bad bargain. To continue this bargain will destroy the future of our economic life. Our ideas on how Ireland is going to be developed in the future cannot be applied if we agree to continue these payments. Moreover, we regard it as the greatest indignity that a sovereign people can suffer that they should have to pay toll for the use of their own land to persons outwith their own borders"?
  What is the device for collecting this money? I should like the Financial Secretary to answer this question when he is replying to the Debate, as I assume he will. Is the Financial Resolution that we are passing to-day designed to raise sufficient revenue to cover Land Annuities only, or is it also designed to raise sufficient revenue to cover the additional payments that were read out by the Dominions Secretary to-day?
  Mr. THOMAS: This Bill was drafted and intended to deal with Land Annuities alone, and I informed the House that when we had obtained the money required we did not want a copper more. But if other money is withheld from us, we shall not hesitate to use these powers.
  Mr. MAXTON: Will this Financial Resolution be regarded as giving sufficient power to cover that additional raising of revenue?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): Certainly. The object of this Resolution is budgetary.

  79
  We have been informed that there will be a certain shortage on the Budget, and we are taking powers to collect a certain sum of money. It has been represented that there will be a further shortage. If that materialises, it will be necessary to collect still more money. This gives us full authority.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. MAXTON: I have been looking at the terms of the Resolution, and I see that it is wide enough to cover the collection of revenue to any amount, and that it is a very much bigger scheme than the House originally believed it to be. The device for collecting the money is that we should stop Irish food, eggs, butter, bacon, cheese, livestock from coming into this country. We are to impose such a very high tariff as will make it prohibitive, but if produce comes in it will come in under such a penalty as to make essential foodstuffs for the poorest section of the British people excessively dear. The poor in the part of the country from where I come eat Irish butter, Irish eggs and Irish bacon— [Interruption]. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) must not be unfair. He knows perfectly well that Irish foodstuffs form an important proportion of the food supply of the working population in various parts of the country, and if this 100 per cent. tariff is going to be effective in producing the revenue then these foodstuffs must pay 100 per cent. duty. [Interruption.] The duty may be 100 per cent. so far as this House is concerned. The matter is left entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman to decide, with a simplicity and trust which do them credit but which are not in keeping with the attitude of responsible parliamentarians who know the right hon. Gentleman. The people who are going to pay this, if it is paid, are the people of Great Britain, and the poorest section of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] What it boils down to, this practical measure of high Imperial statesmanship, is that the poor of Great Britain are to have their incomes taxed to pay the land annuities of Irish bondholders. [Interruption.] I cannot see it in any other way.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is the hon. Member aware that the British taxpayer will have to pay the Annuities just the same?
  Mr. MAXTON: I agree, and I do not mind if the Income Taxpayers, including the hon. Member, have to pay. I am not worried at all about that. What I am worried about is that my constituents will have to pay.
  Mr. HALES: Are there not other sources of supply?
  Mr. MAXTON: If there are other sources of supply, if the people of Great Britain turn to other countries to get these particular commodities, then this will not raise the necessary revenue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am surprised that the interjection should come from the traditional Free Trade party, the Liberal party. How quick they go down the slippery slope. The doctrine that I am enunciating is not Socialism, but a doctrine taught to me by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I have said sufficient to show that this is not a practical device for collecting the revenue. It is only a device for embittering the feelings between this nation and the Irish people. I thought that these national disputes belonged to a past period in history. The problems of to-day are economic. They are problems of poverty and the distribution of wealth, of intelligent trade relations between nation and nation. This Government is spending a tremendous proportion of its effective energy on the Continent in trying to get arrangements and bargains with nations in all ends of the earth; and they are going to Ottawa next week to try to get arrangements and bargains with all the various nations of the Empire. Here we are to-day sitting solemnly in this House and the rump of the Government announcing to the whole world that with our nearest neighbour, with those who are most closely akin to us, with those who have had an integral say in the working of this House itself, with those nearest and closest in blood and association, we cannot come to an intelligent and reasonable arrangement about a miserable matter of £3,000,000.
  A Government which has a Budget running into hundreds of millions of pounds is intimating to the world that it cannot manage to work in peaceful association with its nearest neighbour, and is announcing to the other self-governing Dominions of the British Empire that self-government is only a reality as long

  81
  as self-government is only exercised to the extent that the home Government thinks right, proper and desirable. That is what we are announcing to the world to-day. [Interruption.] This National Government is announcing to the world its complete failure to apply in practice the general principles which it has enunciated to other nations of the world. I oppose in the strongest manner possible the Resolution because it is the negation of the democratic rights of an independent nation, it tends to spread ill-will between two nations which ought to be friends, gives to all other nations of the world a demonstration of the ineptitude of the Government of this country and in its practical details is incapable of producing the result which the right hon. Gentleman and his Government expect.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is usually so attractive a speaker that we always await his intervention in Debate not only with interest but with pleasure. When he fails to convince, he often tries to persuade, and many are found drawn gradually into a comprehension of his point of view, if not of sympathy with him. But I must say that the speech he has made this afternoon has left a wider gap between himself and the great majority of this assembly than any speech I have ever heard him deliver. A long string of errors of fact, of half-truths, of partial statements and of wrongful deductions, have been presented to us upon what is, after all, a matter almost squalidly plain and simple. The hon. Member used an argument which was put forward to some extent by the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. He says that the Irish are an independent, self-governing Dominion; that they are exercising only their constitutional right, and proceeding in a Parliamentary manner, and so forth. He says that Mr. de Valera obtained a mandate from the country to abolish the payment of the annuities; that he proposes to take office and obtain proper sanction from his own Parliament, and that, therefore, there is no ground of complaint. But where do we come in? The hon. Member talked about the will of the people. He says that the will of the Irish people must be given effect to, even if that involves an extra burden of taxation upon the people of this country.
  82
  After all, we ourselves are a self-governing country, and we still possess some control over our own burden of taxation. The mere fact that Mr. de Valera obtains a mandate from the Irish people—not much of a mandate either, a few votes and a very questionable Parliamentary bargain with the Labour party, which there, as here, has fallen into evil days—to take a course of action which is entirely wrong—action does not cease to be wrong because it is constitutional or Parliamentary—and which is most injurious to us, does not mean that we are not entitled to consider our own course. To say that we are not is absolutely to deny us the most primary rights of self-government. The Secretary of State said that we were a Dominion. I am not sure about that definition of our exact status, but, at any rate, we are a Sovereign, independent State, and we are entitled, in the presence of any action by any Power or any country, inside or outside the British Empire, which is injurious to our well-being, to take such steps as we choose to protect our own people. That is all that we are doing.
  We have heard in this Debate from both hon. Members who have spoken for the Opposition a repeated recurrence to the language of war. A "peaceful solution," it is said, it to be abandoned; there is to be "a new war"; you have launched your "ultimatum." The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) used the expression "brutality." If we were going to war, I should be the first to resist His Majesty's Government in their proposal. If we were going to use lethal weapons in order to extract duties, it would be an act of wrong and folly. If proposals were being made to land armies at Cork, Limerick and Dublin, and use armed forces against the Irish people, all the arguments which have found expression from the Opposition Benches would be repeated by the overwhelming masses of the people of this country, and all such action would be absolutely prohibited. Why use the language of war when there is no question of violence of any kind? What we are proposing to do is to take peaceful action. I deprecate the suggestion that there is no peaceful settlement. An amicable settlement is what we are hoping, and if we cannot obtain that we will take steps to obtain a just settlement by peaceful means. That is all we are proposing to do.

  83
  I listened to what the hon. Member for Bridgeton said about the Land Annuities, and I thought, what a poor encouragement he gave to future statesmen and Governments in this House to make sacrifices in order to mitigate the lot of working farmers and poor people! This was the legislation of one of the greatest statesmen we have had in this House, Mr. Gladstone, and afterwards Mr. George Wyndham, who gave an amount of enthusiasm and personal effort to the framing of these Bills and carrying them through, which is not to be seen often in the conduct of our Parliamentary affairs to-day. Here is Mr. Gladstone's Measure to build up a peasant proprietary in Ireland, a thing which, as is well known, we have never been able to achieve in this country—here is his Measure spoken of with scorn and in terms which would mock and discourage the hopes of responsible reformers in every generation. I do not know how, upon the doctrines which the hon. Member put forward, any business can ever be done by any Assembly in the world, how any negotiation can ever be conducted on the basis that at any time all may be repudiated.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield said that there is a dispute, that the matter is very tangled. It is not tangled a bit. The right hon. Member said it is very complicated, and that much may be said of both sides. It is said, "Because there is a dispute you are to give way, or, at least, you are to make a compromise solution apart from the merits of the case at all." Where is the use of making any agreements at all, if you make an agreement and the next year or the next week up come the other side, having taken your sacrifices, after taking all they can get, and they say, "We have looked into that contract and think it is not good business, and we are not going on with it any more." What that is doing is to reduce civilisation to chaos and anarchy. I thought the hon. Member for Bridgeton was a Socialist. He must be an Anarchist. He has gone after Bakunin, and left Lenin in the lurch. "On the eve," he says, "of going to Ottawa, you behave in this manner." But it is just because we are going to Ottawa and are labouring at Lausanne for settlements by agreements that it is essential that the Gov-
  84
  ernment should mark with reprehension the attempts to render settlements by agreement nugatory. That is the very reason. What is the use of going to Ottawa or staying on at Lausanne if the next week or month either side were entitled to say, "We are going back on all we have signed"? The hon. Gentleman is not only destroying the generous impulse which moved Mr. Gladstone to aid the Irish peasantry, and thus darkening and narrowing the hopes and prospects of future Parliaments, but, at the same time, he is throwing a handspike into the whole machinery of international agreement.
  Mr. MAXTON: I was wanting to get the statesmen of the day to extend a generosity in proportion to that which Mr. Gladstone extended in his time.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As I say, I do not think this country has been ungenerous. All the financial arrangements with the Irish people were declared by them to be most generous. I remember well. When it was found that there were some difficulties, they came over here and asked us—I was at the Exchequer at the time—to consider their position. We considered it, we made further sacrifices, considerable sacrifices, to meet them, and Mr. Cosgrave went back to Ireland and said they had met generous men who had treated them in a generous manner. But that is not the language we get now. We meet with very different treatment. Now it appears that we are Shylocks, insisting on our bond. We have made a settlement which in every way went. to the utmost limit and was accepted as generous.
  There was one remark made by the Dominions Secretary with which I very cordially agree. That was that if the Irish leaders, the Irish Ministers, had come to us and said, "We find the burden oppressive; it is more than we can bear. We would like to discuss it with you and ask for mitigation," and so forth, we would be bound to hear what they had to say arid bound to go into the matter in a spirit of good will. We would be bound to go into it with the spirit which should distinguish one of the greatest and the wealthiest Powers in dealing with a small weak, poor, agricultural community. I have been sometimes anxious as to whether the burden of cross-channel payments upon Ireland, however legal and however

  85
  well established by agreement, was perhaps unduly severe. I have made some inquiries. I understand that the amount which is now to be withheld by Mr. de Valera amounts to £5,000,000 a year, out of a Budget of £27,000,000. It would be a very great mistake to assume that that was the end of the story. You have to look behind these figures and see what are the actual facts. First of all, there are the Land Annuities which are all paid for beneficial services, which cannot be in the slightest degree compared with War Debts or Reparations arising out of the sterile and devastating operations of war. I am bound to say that until I obtained the following figures I was not fully apprised of the facts.
  Does the House realise that if there is £5,000,000 paid for Land Annuities and other matters across the Channel of St. George from Ireland to England, there is more than£3,250,000 paid back out of that very money to residents in Ireland? £2,000,000 in pensions goes back to be spent in Ireland by the brave Irish soldiers who fought for the cause of the Allies in the Great War. There is £1,250,000 for the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and others, and although the money is paid under some heads to us, this vast flow goes back across the Channel, and the net balance of payments is less than the £2,000,000 a year. Payments which go out of Ireland to be spent elsewhere are less than can be accounted for by these Land Annuities, as a result of which the Irish have a peasant proprietary, which through all that country's misfortunes has enabled them to have a very great measure of happy rural life.
  I felt bound to intervene for a few minutes in order to congratulate the Government not only on the course they have adopted, but upon how little there is found to be said against it by those who are its professed opponents. I consider that the Dominions Secretary has acted with extreme patience and forbearance. He has gone to the limit of courtesy and of good will, and he has not at any time allowed anger to disturb his judgment. The right hon. Gentleman used a great many homely phrases which will be echoed by the ordinary British workman in every street and village in this country. Everyone under-
  86
  stands the simple language which the right hon. Gentleman talked, the language of ordinary honesty and fair play. I know there are some who are his critics on this and that, but in this matter it seems to me that he has trod with success a path at once of moderation and of firmness. For my part, I shall certainly give him any support that is in my power.
  I agree with one thing that was said by speakers on the opposite side—that this is a serious matter. The House, I have no doubt, is convinced that it can embark upon it, and that there is no other course open, turn where you will. How could you say "All right. We will put on the extra taxes arid collect this money from our own people and wait for better days, until the Irish Free State has wiser rulers"? Would that be the way to bring about, perhaps, a condition of affairs in which a more happy and more convenient relationship would be established? All we are doing is to withdraw for a time some of our custom from a shop where we have—I am abandoning the phraseology of war, and using more peaceful similes—been treated not only with great incivility but with very open and palpable dishonesty. We are withdrawing our custom for a time. We may return. It will be free to us at any time to return to our old and intimate commercial arrangements. But there are very great numbers of people in this country who have the greatest reluctance to deal with Mr. de Valera's Government.
  With regard to the point that if the supplies are purchased elsewhere the tax will not be collected from Ireland, that, I do not think, corresponds at all with the facts. The commodities which will be the subject of this tax are produced in enormous quantities in many different markets, and a very great deal is produced in our own market, or is capable of being produced in our own market. I am told that if these taxes are imposed skilfully and judiciously, and careful selection is made, the supplies from many quarters will be so abundant that the price of the commodities will not be markedly raised, and if the price is not markedly raised, it will be the Irish exporter who will have to pay the tax by taking a lower price still and forgoing a share of his profits. That, I believe, is a wholly

  87
  feasible and orthodox economic line of argument.
  I offer my congratulations to the Government on the course which they have taken. But, do not suppose that this is a resolution to be taken to-day and forgotten to-morrow. Do not suppose that it will all be plain sailing. The Dominions Secretary pointed out the hardships and inconvenience of having to change a market with which you have dealt for long and to go to another. Undoubtedly some inconvenience is to be caused, but if it is for good reasons we ought to face it. Do not let us lose heart or patience or change our views if a few months hence we find that there are still friction and difficulty. For my part I have every sympathy with the Irish people. I know that we have millions of friends in that sister island, people who love this country although they are proud of their own. Besides those there are great numbers of Irishmen whose self-respect makes them loathe the course on which they are being led now.
  I have the greatest sympathy with the Irish people. I have no anger or malignity against them, nor, I am sure, is there any on the Treasury Bench. It is our honest hope and desire that although for the time being there may be friction, after a period not too remote we may again have those close and amicable arrangements which were being built up under Mr. Cosgrave's long and memorable tenure of power. He made a Treaty and kept a Treaty. He did more. He built up the structure of the Irish nation. He made this small Free State a reality. He made it live when many people thought it had no chance of life. He made it respected in many quarters all over the world. He made it a centre chosen for conferences which appeal to all those of his communion in every land in the most intense manner. Now for the time being there is a setback. I am sure that the course we are adopting will not only give us the only means of doing justice to our own people, but I believe that, in the long run, it will do more to abridge the period of friction which must now ensue, than any other action which His Majesty's Government could take.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr.
  88
  Churchill) has said that this is a very simple question, and I intend to approach it from that point of view. In listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), I was struck by the pathos with which he uttered those eloquent declarations with regard to the sanctity of treaties. I think he said that in all his negotiations and associations with the constitutional representatives of Ireland in this House during the period when he had dealings with them, they always kept their word. I wish he could say so much for his own party. I wish that that had been the case in the long record of Ireland's relations with this country because if anyone chooses to go back on the past—and I do not propose to do so—he will find that it has been one long road strewn with broken promises and broken contracts by English politicians towards Ireland. Whatever view may be taken by Members of this House on the issue which we are now discussing I venture to say that the less said about the sanctity of treaties by British politicians past and present the better.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping has said that he has no feeling against Ireland, and I believe that that is true. I believe it is equally true that the Irish people have no feeling against England. It is one of those peculiar psychological facts that, even in times of the most bitter relationships between this country and Ireland, there never was any hatred between the peoples. I have never known an individual Englishman in Ireland being either attacked or disliked. I have always heard the English people personally spoken of in the highest terms. The difference and the hatred were largely political, and caused mainly by the breaking of Treaties on the part of British politicians towards Ireland. I, therefore, say that we ought to deal with this question to-day, apart from the past and as a very simple proposition.
  What is that proposition? To hear English Members one would imagine that this was a most preposterous demand which Mr. de Valera was making. He is asking the right to withhold or to keep for Irish purposes—and in my judgment to relieve the Irish farmers who

  89
  are in a much worse position, in Southern Ireland, than this House can understand—a sum of £3,500,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is taking it."] What is the good of quibbling about words? He is claiming the right, if you want to put it in bat way, to hold this £3,500,000 which he says belongs to Ireland and not to this country. He goes further and he says: "I am not withholding it if an impartial tribunal set up to discuss the question decides that I have to pay it. In that case I will pay it, but if they decide that we have not to pay it then England will not press for it." That is his position.
  What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of setting up an impartial tribunal? [HON. MEMBERS: "A foreign tribunal!"] I do not know what is meant by a foreign tribunal. There was one occasion on which a tribunal was set up to adjust differences in Ireland. That was the Boundary Commission. The suggestion of a British tribunal to adjust differences in Ireland has always left a bad taste in my mouth from then until now. The Treaty declared that the boundary was to be determined by the will of the people, yet this Boundary Commission which you set up cast two counties into Northern Ireland which were overwhelmingly in favour of going into the Free State. We have suspected those Commissions ever since. May I put this question to the Dominions Secretary? If this is to be a British Commission and if Mr. de Valera agrees to the appointment of this Commission, will the right hon. Gentleman be satisfied with two members appointed by the British Government, two members appointed by Mr. de Valera and myself as arbitrator?
  Mr. THOMAS: I have known my hon. Friend for a great number of years, and I am delighted to feel that he has now reached that judicial stage as far as he himself is concerned. But I want to make it clear that we have never suggested a British tribunal. We have never even gone to the length of suggesting the personnel. We have never even said that we wanted a representative of this country on it. None of these things have we ever said. All we said was that it should be a tribunal limited in its personnel to the British Commonwealth of Nations, and once that principle is accepted we will discuss the personnel with Mr. de Valera right away.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I do not force the point, but I make a recommendation which will get you out of your difficulties. I am not a supporter of the Government here, nor am I a supporter of Mr. de Valera. I belong to neither side. I am in this controversy an impartial and judicial person. Like the right hon. Gentleman the Dominions Secretary, I have grown older even if I have not grown wiser, like him. I do not suppose I will ever grow so wise as to be a Member of any Government, but, sometimes, wisdom is to be found outside Governments. What is all this about? It is about a sum of £3,500,000. But would you believe it—these gentlemen who are going to have an economic war with Southern Ireland over this sum, have already relieved Northern Ireland of £7,000,000 and there was not a word about it. I should have thought that to an Englishman, judging the matter according to the English mentality, from the practical and material point of view, would think that £7,000,000 was twice as good as £3,500,000. Yet there has not been a word about that sum. I would like the attention of someone on the Treasury Bench. Why is there to be an economic war between this country and the Free State, which is the best customer this country has, about £3,500,000 which they propose to withhold, when you have made a free gift of £7,000,000 to another part of Ireland without a word of protest?
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: In the one case it is breaking a Treaty, and in the other case it is not.
  Mr. DEVLIN: No, they are friends of yours—
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: It is the breaking of a Treaty.
  Mr. DEVLIN: These are friends of yours. You belong to the party who traditionally believe in breaking Treaties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] If no one will listen to me on the Front Bench opposite and if I can get attention only from hon. Members who are behind me I, naturally, address myself to them in a spirit of intellectual reciprocity. If the people concerned are friends of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, they need not pay £7,000,000, but if they are hostile, politically, there is to be an Act of Parliament and weapons of economic warfare are to be introduced to fight

  91
  Southern Ireland. I notice that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been specially requisitioned to answer on this point, and I will give him some figures. After it was agreed that Northern Ireland should pay £7,000,000, she paid, in 1922, £4,641,000; in 1923–4, £3,900,000; in 1925–26, £2,700,000; in 1927–28, £1,680,000; in 1929–30, 21,253,000; in 1930–31, £1,489,000; in 1931–32, £1,128,000. [Interruption.] No, I should say that these were sums she received. She did not actually pay that. At any rate, last year—to come down to the very year as to which you are now going to wage economic war on Southern Ireland—the contribution of Northern Ireland was not £7,000,000 but £400,000 and she has been receiving contributions from this country as well.
  In these circumstances, is it not perfectly clear that you are subsidising one section of Ireland against the other; that you are maintaining and fostering a disunion in Ireland which has brought misery and ruin to Ulster, because Ulster is a derelict in the industrial shipwreck that has taken place in recent years? You have kept Northern and Southern Ireland asunder by subsidising Northern Ireland against Southern Ireland, and you are forgiving Northern Ireland £7,000,000 or £6,500,000, while you are going to wage economic war on Southern Ireland because Southern Ireland refuses to pay £3,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham seemed really to think that this action of Mr. de Valera was part of a truculent and aggressive movement against this country; that the farmers of Southern Ireland were living on milk and honey; that there was abounding wealth and that they were ready to pay the instalments of these annuities. The fact of the matter is that, to my knowledge, in one county in Ireland alone 30,000 of these farmers are not able to pay the annuities at all and the Government could not collect the payments. It is no argument to say that these people could pay the annuities and want to pay the annuities and that the annuities are simply being withheld in order that this country should not be paid.
  I have no desire to see anything done here unless something to avoid a deep and bitter political and economic quarrel between this country and Ireland. What
  92
  are you going to do if these proposals which you have submitted to the House are carried out? You will tax Irish produce coming into this country until you secure your £3,500,000. Mr. de Valera will proceed to tax your goods in return until he repays himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is already doing so."] Very well, but where is the advantage to accrue to this country by that? Ireland is your best customer, and you are the best customer of Ireland. Is this a patriotic method to adopt? [An HON. MEMBER: "What do you suggest?"] I suggest the appointment of an impartial committee within the British Empire. I made that suggestion, and it will be within the ambit of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman; and I say that if that is done, we can avoid this war. We know what the physical war, the political war, the religious war, the racial war has meant for these islands in the past, in Ireland and in England. We know the misery and ruin it brought to Ireland, the dishonour and the shame it brought to this country. We know that beyond the shores of Ireland, in Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, apart altogether from the countless millions of people in America, there are people whose hearts beat in unison with Ireland and who are with Ireland, right or wrong.
  At a time when the whole heart of all Christian men is moving them to desire and to labour for universal peace and friendship among the nations and the peoples, are you going to engage in a puny war of reprisals of this character? The principle of good win is more to you than your petty £3,500,000. It would he a far more generous thing to do than even setting up a commission. [Interruption.] It would be sure of success if I was president of it. It would be far better to say that you would do in Southern Ireland what you have done in Northern Ireland, that you are willing to wipe out the debt altogether. You are ready to wipe out all that is due to you by almost every country in Europe, millions and millions of pounds. Why not wipe out this petty £3,500,000, and stop this war? It cannot mean so much to this country. If you could lose £7,000,000 to Northern Ireland, it cannot be such a great loss to lose £3,500,000 to Southern Ireland, and I say that this

  93
  House ought to take the view expressed by the right hon. Member who opened this Debate and remember that there is something much greater involved than the mere securing of this petty sum in great national finance of this character, and that good feeling and good will would be worth the £3,500,000 that you are attempting to collect, which you may collect, but which will be collected in return by Ireland.
  Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I have the privilege of being the first Liberal to speak in this Debate, and if I may express the view of some of my Friends and myself on these benches, I want to say to the Opposition that on this matter they will have no kind of support or sympathy from us. We believe in arbitration just as much as does any hon. or right hon. Member opposite, but we do not believe in the policy that has been advocated by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), which is merely a surrender, not of our own interests, but of the interests of people for whom we act as trustees. We Liberal Members on these benches, in the course of this Parliament, have expressed constant and sustained opposition to tariffs in general and food taxes in particular. We dislike the use of those methods, and we are always inclined to regard anything of that kind with very great suspicion, but I think I can speak for my colleagues here, as I do for myself, when I say flat on this matter we feel that the only possible course open to us is to give the Government our whole-hearted and ungrudging support.
  The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) referred to the bitterness and antagonism which appear to be present in this House with regard to Ireland. That is a charge which cannot be brought against the party which sits on these benches, and we gladly accept the assurance given by the Government that there is no question of keeping out Irish produce or penalising the Irish producer. This is not a question of economic reprisals at all. It is not a penalty inflicted upon Ireland, but, properly conceived, the one aim of this policy is to avoid placing upon the shoulders of the British taxpayer a burden which it was never intended that he should have to bear. The hon. Member for Bridgeton raised the question of who was going to pay these duties. As has already been
  94
  pointed out, if we put on these duties, it may be arguable whether it is we who are going to pay or whether it is the Irish who are going to pay, but if we do not put on these duties, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it is we who are going to pay.
  As a general rule, most of us on these benches will agree that when you put on import duties over a wide range or over the whole source of supply, it is the home consumer who has to pay the tax. That is true whenever you put on a duty over a large part of your source of supply, but in this case we are only putting it on a very small part, an almost infinitesimal part. In the last year in this country we imported from Empire and foreign countries altogether over £475,000,000 worth of food, drink, and tobacco. The share of that sent by the Irish Free State was only £35,900,000. That is to say, the supplies that came from the Irish Free State of food, drink, and tobacco were rather less than 7 per cent. of the whole of our importations, and when you take into account as well our home produce, the proportion is smaller still. Further, as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) pointed out, we are imposing these duties, not at a time of scarcity, but at a time of abundance, when there are great surplus stocks in nearly all the producing countries of the world, so that, without abandoning any of our principles on tariffs and Free Trade, we on these benches believe that in this instance it will be possible to get the debt from the Irish producer and not from the British consumer.
  We heard just now from the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Devlin) that it would be a comparatively simple matter for the Irish Government to impose counter-tariffs. Would it? I notice that that has been suggested in the Press and, I believe, by Ministers in Mr. de Valera's Government. After all, in order to collect a specific sum of money, you have to have a revenue tariff, and in the matter of imposing a revenue tariff in order to collect money we have a very great advantage over the Irish Free State, because in this matter of tariffs we have the advantage that we start from scratch. We have no tariffs at all against the Free State, and we have only to put on a revenue tariff, which is a comparatively simple matter, but it is a very much more

  95
  difficult matter to impose a revenue tariff on top of a tariff already in existence.
  We were told by the right hon. Member for Wakefield—and this is the chief point that I want to put before the Committee—that we had made no concessions to Mr. de Valera, and all the references that were made from the benches opposite represented this country as if we were demanding our pound of flesh. I submit that it cannot possibly be said that this country has behaved ungenerously in the matter of these Land Annuities. It is true that the Land Purchase Acts were not originally intended to involve the British Exchequer in any ultimate liability. It is true that the payments to the stockholders were originally guaranteed by the British Government, on the credit of the British Government, but for any deficiencies they were entitled to recoup themselves from a guaranteed fund which would otherwise apply to certain services in Ireland. Under the Act of 1909, however, the Birrell Act, the British taxpayer has in fact been involved in a very heavy and a very considerable liability, a liability which has had to be borne by the taxpayers of this country alone.
  Under the agreement of 1923, which was laid down in respect of the bonus and excess stock, that is to say, the stock that we issued in 1909 at a discount, that the Irish Free State should pay £160,000 a year and that any further payment that had to be made in that respect should be made by the British Government out of moneys provided by Parliament. Then, in the ultimate financial settlement of the 19th March, 1926, signed by a Free State Minister and by the right hon. Member for Epping, the Irish Free State contribution was reduced from £160,000 a year to £134,500. That left the British Exchequer responsible for payments which have amounted in the last few years to the best part of £1,000,000 annually. In the financial year 1927–8 this House voted £976,000 for the payment of this stock, and in this year in the Estimates there is provided £809,000 for the same purpose; and in addition to that we have to provide over £20,000 a year to the banks of Great Britain and Ireland for the service of this particular fund.
  The point that I want to make is that it cannot possibly be said that this
  96
  country has behaved in any way ungenerously in regard to Land Annuities, because at the present time and for the last few years the British taxpayer has been mulcted to the best part of £1,000,000 a year, not for his own benefit, but for the sole and exclusive benefit of the tenant purchaser in Ireland. In 1923, followed by the agreement in 1926, we said in effect to the Free State, "We will take over these liabilities in regard to these particular stocks, and the only contribution that we ask you to make is a mere fraction of what was to be paid. We only ask you to pay £134,500 a year." I think everyone will agree that that was a very fine bargain from the Free State point of view, and yet in the announcement made by the Dominions Secretary to-day we were told that Mr. de Valera intends to withhold even that small compounding sum which the Free State was asked to pay in respect of bonus and excess stock.
  7.0 p.m.
  We have been told that Mr. de Valera has fortified himself with legal opinion. It is not the first time that, the legal authorities in the Irish Free State have been consulted upon this question of the Land Annuities. The payment of these annuities was challenged in the Dail in 1929, and only last year Mr. Cosgrave's Government determined to examine the question snore closely and to get an authoritative legal opinion. First of all, they got the opinion of Mr. Costello, who was at that time the Attorney-General for the Irish Free State. He produced a very long and comprehensive examination of all the facts in dispute, of the whole history of the Land Annuities, and of the agreements which have taken place since 1922. He examined the matter very fully, and I would like to give the Committee one quotation at the end of his report. Referring to this proposal for the diversion of the annuities into the coffers of the Irish Free State, he said:
  "Such an act would amount to nothing less than misappropriation of moneys to which the State have no legal or moral claim, and would cause permanent injury to the fame and to the credit of the State."
  Not content with that opinion, the Government of the Free State determined to seek a further and, perhaps, more impartial opinion. They submitted all the facts of the case to the notice of five of the leading jurists of the Irish Free State

  97
  for their joint opinion. They returned an opinion not quite so full, but very much in the same terms as that of the Attorney-General. They came to precisely the same conclusion and their report ends with the words:
  "We are of opinion that the Government of the Irish Free State has not and never had the right to retain the Land Purchase Annuities for its own use."
  Those are the two reports completed only last year not merely for the use of Mr. Cosgrave's Government, but presented in a White Paper to the Dail. Yet Mr. de Valera in his last despatch declares that he does not know of any legal agreement on which the payment of these annuities can be founded. He must be aware that a very large part of authoritative legal opinion in the Irish Free State only last year declared that the payment of these annuities was legally and in honour binding on the Government of the Free State.
  May I refer before I close to the question of arbitration, which was raised in the speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield We on these benches are as much in favour of the method of arbitration as any Members of this House. We entirely agree that the Government should do as they are doing, and should go on offering the arbitration of a Commonwealth tribunal. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone like Mr. de Valera apparently objects to an Empire tribunal. I fail to understand precisely what the objection is. Surely you could not have a fairer form of arbitration than a tribunal, in which Mr. de Valera is entitled to appoint two of his own representatives to two of ours, and in which it is necessary to agree upon a chairman. The machinery was provided by the Imperial Conference of 1930, which did not make it an optional form of machinery but said that, if arbitration was to be resorted to between members of the British Commonwealth, this should be the form of arbitration that should be used. Mr. de Valera wishes to go to the Imperial Conference of 1932 while throwing over the decisions of the Imperial Conference of 1930. By all means let us keep open the offer to arbitrate, this offer of a perfectly fair, equitable and just form of arbitration, but in the meanwhile, while this dispute is being settled, while Mr. de Valera is making up his mind as to what form of arbitration he will or will not accept, let us support the policy of the Government
  98
  in this regard and make sure that in the meantime, before the dispute is settled, the burden shall not be placed upon the already overburdened shoulders of the British taxpayer.
  Mr. ATTLEE: We have just had a very interesting exposition of the view of the modern young Liberal, and I am quite sure it interested some of the old Liberals. I understood that in this House there were distinct divisions of opinion in the Liberal party on Protection, that one section might believe in it while another might believe in Free Trade. But, while the former section is prepared to support Protectionist measures in the interest of the trade of this country, the other section will reject them for that purpose but is prepared to support them as a method of coercing Ireland. The only point I want to make about the hon. Member's speech relates to his endeavour to quote a legal opinion. You can get a legal opinion in favour of almost anything. He quoted seven distinguished Irish jurists, but Mr. de Valera has got another seven distinguished Irish jurists who say, in contradistinction to what the hon. Member says, that no question of misappropriation or repudiation arises. I am not in a position to say whether his team of lawyers is better than Mr. de Valera's team, or which team is right. It only goes to show that here is a dispute on which lawyers differ, and which is therefore a justiciable dispute.
  The other thing that struck me about the speech was that the hon. Member seemed to strike very much the same note as the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). All three of them struck an attitude which is very often struck by people in this country and which accounts very largely for a certain amount of unpopularity we have with other people, and that was the unctuous self-righteousness of our position. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham read us a long sermon, and was extremely indignant that anyone should dare to hint that this country might not be right. We on this side are not making any decision on the rights or wrongs of this case. That is not what this House is discussing now but a piece of legislation introduced by this Government, though no one could

  99
  have told that from the speech of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs or from the speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. They all went off into the question of the rights of the matter. They all held that the rights are entirely on one side. Most people who go into a legal question think the rights are all on one side. The speech of the Secretary of State is exactly the sort of speech that a lay client makes when he goes to a solicitor or into Chambers. He assures you he has got a perfect case and will not hear a word on the other side. I have no doubt that Mr. de Valera will say the same.
  The point we are discussing to-day is whether, in these conditions and circumstances, the Government are taking the right course. They have the support of the elder statesman in the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and they also have the support of the junior statesman in the Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot). I confess that what struck me about the speeches of the elder statesmen, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was that they were such very elderly statesmen. They were obviously all pre-War. During the last few years I have read a very great deal of the diplomatic history that preceded the War and the kind of speeches that they make is exactly the same kind of speech that statesmen on every side then made about their case. They were all sure that they were quite right, that they were quite reasonable, that, if only other people accepted their point of view, everything would be all right. Many of them said, like the right hon. Member for Epping, "Of course we do not intend to go to war. We are only taking certain steps. We are merely asserting our rights." Everybody knows that you cannot arrange these things in that careful way. You take one step, you have to go on to another, and you go on and on. That is the danger we fear if a different tone and temper are not adopted in this matter. I am not in a position to argue the rights and wrongs of this matter. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; he thinks he is. It is equally clear that Mr. de Valera thinks he is right. We think it is
  100
  a case for arbitration. The Secretary of State thinks he is absolutely right in saying that Mr. de Valera should accept a, Dominions tribunal; Mr. de Valera is absolutely certain that he should not be bound to accept a Dominions tribunal.
  What have the Government done? They have rushed into this with a somewhat violent action. It would appear so if we were dealing with the actions of a continental country. They have acted in a hurry. I cannot see what the enormous hurry was about dealing with this matter in this way. I believe it would have been possible for them to have had a great deal more patience. There is one point on which I would like to correct the Dominions Secretary and the hon. Member for Dundee. The right hon. Gentleman constantly tells us that this idea of an Imperial tribunal was decided at the last Imperial Conference. He knows perfectly well that it was not, that no agreement was come to with regard to the setting up of an Imperial tribunal. He says that Ireland agreed to it last year but this year does not, although he knows perfectly well that no tribunal was set up. It was nothing more than a pious opinion, and he knows perfectly well that there was no agreement on it.
  Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member challenges me on a point of fact. He has made a statement that my reference to the last Imperial Conference having agreed to an Imperial tribunal was not true. I want to repeat again what I have stated, and what is confirmed in this document. There was a dispute going on with Ireland, as my hon. Friend knows, on another principle—
  Mr. LANSBURY: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to quote from the private proceedings of the Imperial Conference, I shall claim the right to bring the documents here. I dissent altogether from his interpretation. If we are going to have this conflict, we must have the documents here. My recollection of the matter is that the reason this was not put in the Statute of Westminster was that there was no agreement among the Dominions.
  Mr. THOMAS: I am not quoting from any private document—
  Mr. LANSBURY: Lay it on the Table.
  Mr. THOMAS: I cannot lay something that is public property. My right hon.

  101
  Friend can go to the Vote Office and obtain this document. I assure him that I will not quote from any document that is private or confidential, but I am entitled to quote from the official documents that are public property and open to every Member of the House and the public. The document from which I am quoting is the "Summary of Proceedings" of the Imperial Conference of 1930. I repeat that the late Labour Government, because of a difference with the late Irish Government on another matter, agreed to raise the issue of an Imperial tribunal at the Imperial Conference on their own initiative. I was responsible for the Government in putting it forward. We discussed it, and here is the Summary of Proceedings:
  "COMMONWEALTH TRIBUNAL.
  This matter was examined by the Conference, and they found themselves able to make certain definite recommendations with regard to it…As to the composition of the tribunal, it was agreed: (1) The tribunal shall be constituted ad hoc in the case of each dispute to be settled. (2) There shall be five members, one being the chairman,"
  and so on. That was the unanimous decision of the Imperial Conference, and that was the tribunal which I offered to Mr. de Valera.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I will now supply the lacuna. The right hon. Gentleman made an omission. The Summary of Proceedings says:
  "Some machinery for the solution of disputes which may arise between the members of the British Commonwealth is desirable. Different methods for providing this machinery were explored, and it was agreed, in order to avoid too much rigidity, not to recommend the constitution of a permanent court, but to seek a solution along the line of ad hoc arbitration proceedings. The Conference thought that this method might be more fruitful than any other in securing the confidence of the Commonwealth. The next question considered was whether arbitration proceedings should be voluntary or obligatory, in the sense that one party would be under an obligation to submit thereto if the other party wished it. In the absence of general consent to an obligatory system, it was decided to recommend the adoption of a voluntary system.
  The point is that there was not a conclusive agreement.
  Mr. THOMAS: This is very important. If my hon. Friend will read on, he will see this important point:
  102
  "There shall be five members, one being the chairman; neither the chairman nor the members of the tribunal shall be drawn from outside the British Commonwealth of Nations."
  Mr. LANSBURY: That was only a recommendation.
  Mr. ATTLEE: The point is that it is not obligatory that every dispute between two members of the Commonwealth of Nations shall go to a Commonwealth tribunal. The matter was left voluntary and not obligatory. If that be so, the right hon. Gentleman's argument falls to the ground. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of what was done at the Conference, and he knows that it was not accepted that all disputes between the Dominions should as a matter of obligation come before a certain tribunal.
  Mr. THOMAS: Is it true or not that, while it is not obligatory on the part of all Dominions to accept arbitration, it is obligatory on them, if they do accept it, to accept an Empire tribunal?
  LANSBURY: That is another mutter altogether.
  Mr. ATTLEE: That is an entirely different point. The whole point which we are discussing is what form of arbitral tribunal is suitable in a case that might arise between this country and the Irish Free State. The right hon. Gentleman says that the membership of the tribunal shall be entirely drawn from within the Dominions. The Irish Free State say that they do not object to having Dominion members, but they do not want to be tied absolutely to accept membership entirely drawn from the British Commonwealth. As a matter of fact, it is not absolutely decided that every dispute between two members of the British Commonwealth of nations shall go before this particular tribunal. Some, the right hon. Gentleman will admit, would go before the League of Nations. The point here however is that it is not absolutely agreed that the Empire tribunal is obligatory. That point is perfectly clear now.
  We are concerned with considering what will be the sequence of events owing to the actions of the Government. I suppose that the Government's calculation is that their action will bring the Irish Free State to heel. They conclude that the pressure will be sufficient either to ex-

  103
  tract the money or to bring about submission or agreement. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would much rather have an agreement. It is certain that the Government's action will give rise to a discussion which will occupy the Liberal party a few days as to whether this money will come out of the pockets of the Irish farmers or the pockets of the English workers. Events will tell us what will happen.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that directly the Government have collected the amount they wanted the duties will come off. So year after year we shall not be quite sure when the tap will be turned on or turned off; it will depend on whether the right amount has been collected. That is ridiculous, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that is possible. As a matter of fact, this is a method of bringing coercion to hear on the Irish Free State. It is the method of war. We do not say that it will necessarily lead to other forms of warfare, but it is not the method of conciliation and arbitration. It is a method of force and of bringing pressure to bear. You are seldom able to live in friendly relations with the man who puts the brokers in. We have to realise that, after all, we have to live with these people. It is easy to be short-sighted in these matters. The cause of half the wars and troubles is that people do not realise that they have to live together. If France and Germany had realised that they had to live side by side in Europe, we should not have had a war. We are living next to Ireland, and, whether we collect the duties or not, we shall have to deal with them afterwards and find some modus vivendi.
  We believe that the Government have adopted the wrong method here, and that, even if they collect all the money required, it will not pay them in the long run. The Government have been too precipitate, and in the long run the burden of payment will fall on the British workers in this country. We do not see any reason why the people of this country should bear the burden. The burden of the speeches on this subject is: "Because you do not like the Government plan, you are approving everything that Mr. de Valera does." That is quite untrue. We are not passing judgment on the case: we are not saying whether Mr. de Valera
  104
  is wrong or right. We are saying that there is a dispute, that there are many elements in that dispute, and that when you have a dispute of this kind it is worth while doing everything possible to get it before some arbitral tribunal. There was no occasion to rush this matter. By their action the Government are creating a bad atmosphere and doing irreparable injury to the growth of good relations between the two countries.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. DAVID REID: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Devlin) has argued that Northern Ireland has been forgiven £7,500,000 per annum and that the Free State should in like manner be allowed to retain the sum now in dispute. Whether his argument is logic or not, his facts are inaccurate. It is true that in the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, Section 23, provision was made for an Imperial contribution from Northern and Southern Ireland. The amount fixed for the first two years was £18,000,000 a year, and of that 56 per cent. was to be paid by Southern Ireland, and 44 by Northern Ireland. In subsequent years the rate of contribution was to be
  "such as the Joint Exchequer Board, having regard to the relative taxable capacities of Ireland and the United Kingdom, determine to he just."
  No particular sum is named for any period after the first two years, and there was a provision that even as regards the first two years the Joint Exchequer Board might revise the amount if they found it expedient to do so. The Government of Northern Ireland was set up under this Act of 1920, and those financial provisions still apply to Northern Ireland, and every year since the Government of Northern Ireland has been in existence a contribution has been paid to the British Government at the amount fixed by the Joint Exchequer Board in accordance with this Act. The amount is absolutely immaterial. If the Joint Exchequer Board were to hold that sixpence was the proper amount, that would be paid, as it would be the amount legally due. It is absolutely untrue to say that any amount has been forgiven Northern Ireland in regard to her obligations under the Act of 1920. No amount has been forgiven, and the contribution has been paid every year.
  The hon. Member put forward his argument once before in Debate, and I then

  105
  had only a very few minutes in which to reply to him, but I do hope that now that the facts have been brought to the notice of the House again—and I hope that they will also be brought to his notice when he reads the report of the Debate—we shall have heard the last of his argument, because what he alleges to be facts are not facts at all. His statement is based on an entire misunderstanding and misreading of Section 23 of that Act. I would like to point out that the two matters are not comparable. Northern Ireland does function under the Act of 1920 and pays its contributions under the machinery set up by that Act. All these contributions from Southern Ireland, whether they are payable or not, are claims under a set of agreements between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Southern Ireland, and there is no connection between the financial relations between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom and the financial arrangements between the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I beg to move, in line 1, After the word "That," to insert the words;
  "in the event of the Secretary of State for the Dominions certifying that there has been a decision of a court of arbitration, set up by agreement between His Majesty's Governments for the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State, or, failing such agreement, appointed by representatives of the Dominions assembled in Imperial Conference, that the Irish Free State have failed to implement their lawful financial obligations to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom."
  The speeches we have listened to from the Government benches so far have reminded me somewhat of the statements that are made by a plaintiff when he comes to his first consultation. He is always perfectly satisfied that he is right, and that the defendant is not only wrong but dishonest; but his view is not always borne out when judgment is subsequently given. It is important to bear in mind a matter of which I think the right hon. Gentleman now has official notice, that the sums which Mr. de Valera is holding in hand are to be paid to a suspense account. They are not being dealt with by the Irish Free State as moneys which are inevitably their own possessions, but as moneys which have got to abide the decision of some arbitral tribunal in the future. Indeed, one would rather imagine
  106
  that, reading from Mr. de Valera's letter of 5th April, 1932, where he stated:
  "The British Government can rest assured that any just and lawful claims of Great Britain or of any creditor of the Irish Free State will be scrupulously honoured by this Government."
  If that was to be so, clearly the sums of money as to which there was a dispute must have been put aside in order to meet the judgment of the arbitral tribunal, if necessary. I think the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) suggested that we had come by this information by a backstairs method. I can assure him it was not so. We were informed of this as a matter of apparently common knowledge by the Chairman of the Irish Labour party.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly what I supposed, but why did not the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) say so? Why was he ashamed, after making a confident assertion of a fact, to give the source of his information?
  Sir S. CRIPPS: The reason why he did not say so was because he had first to ask the permission of the gentleman who made it to him to use his name. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that was ordinary courtesy. We naturally assumed, and I do not think it was a very large assumption, that the Government would be in possession of the information, of which I understand they now are in possession.
  Mr. THOMAS: I had better clear this up. I had absolutely no knowledge of it, of any sort or kind, until I heard my right hon. Friend make his statement. I challenged it at once, because, not only had I no information, but it was contrary to the facts as I understood them; because the facts were that when I asked Mr. de Valera about the collection of the money and accused him—I mean accused across the table—of being responsible for some of the tenants themselves withholding the money, he challenged me on the point, but never said a word about this; but he indicated that in his election address he had decided upon this policy, and he intended to withhold the money. The first I heard about what was being done with the money was when the statement was made this afternoon. I challenged it then, and I have since had this message—that is, since my right hon. Friend made his speech:

  107
  "Dear Mr. Thomas,
  I have made the inquiry I promised, and find that it is a fact that the moneys received for the Land Annuities and other charges are being set aside by the Irish Free State Government in separate suspense accounts in anticipation of arbitration.
  Yours faithfully,
  (Signed) JOHN DULANTY.
  "I want the Committee to observe the importance of this. I received this since I challenged my right hon. Friend, and not before. When next I speak, I will deal with Mr. de Valera's first speech. On the other hand, I agree that if Mr. de Valera is holding this money in suspense accounts, because he believes that there will be arbitration, then the issues are narrowed and are now much simpler. The task is much easier.
  Mr. LOGAN: More businesslike.
  Mr. THOMAS: Much more businesslike—only I wish I had known it before. Now the only issue is the form of tribunal.
  Mr. LOGAN: Accept our Amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is not helping us much. The position so far as the British Government is concerned is this: I had better emphasise it, because the Opposition are again parties to what I am now going to say. When we signed the Optional Clause, on which there was so much controversy, we, as a Labour Government, specially reserved inter-Imperial disputes from submission to The Hague Court. We deliberately did so because we said inter-Imperial disputes are a domestic matter for ourselves. Now, therefore, that Mr. de Valera agrees that arbitration must ultimately decide as to this money, I repeat, even at this stage, that the Government will agree to arbitration before an Empire tribunal, but they will not allow any foreign country to determine what is an Imperial domestic matter; this is what the Imperial Conference of 1930 intended.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: However the information has come to the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge, I am sure everybody is delighted to know that this is the fact, and that it has narrowed down the issue, because we on this side are anxious to do nothing which will exacerbate opinion in any quarter, and are ready to do everything we can to assist in bringing the parties together. Our Amendment is put
  108
  forward with a view to making a definite suggestion for a further step forward towards a solution, but, before dealing with the exact machinery which we propose, I want to consider the position in which we find ourselves. I think there can be no doubt in the minds of anyone in the Committee that we have here a justiciable dispute. Whatever we may think of the views of Mr. de Valera or of the lawyers who support him, or whatever we may think of the lawyers who support the view of Mr. Cosgrave, we must admit that there is here, bad or good, a case which may be made out before some tribunal and which is a fit case for some tribunal to decide.
  After all, the whole genius of the British people ever since the beginning of the 19th century has been shown in their ability to bring about arbitration with foreign countries in the most difficult circumstances. In many ways we were the pioneers of international arbitration. We have always prided ourselves on the vast number of complicated subjects which we have been able to get referred to arbitration, sometimes in circumstances of great difficulty and where feeling has run very high. Indeed, every spokesman of every party has again and again emphasised in this House and elsewhere the importance of managing, even after a long time, to bring questions between nations to arbitration or to committees of inquiry, or to find some means which will enable the deadlock to be merged into a settlement. When we are considering this question of arbitration, it seems important to us that we should realise, whether we like it or not, that the Free State is of as independent a status as we are at the present time and that we are treating with the Free State as two free nations treating to gether—subject, of course, to any Treaty obligations which they may have entered into as regards the settlement of disputes.
  The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs asked me when he was speaking to reply to the question whether we were satisfied that the British Government had done all that was possible to get the matter settled by arbitration. If he wants to know, we are not satisfied. After all, five days after due demand is rather h short period of time in which one party should sign judgment in its own favour and put the bailiffs in. I am sure the

  109
  right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we think that rather more than four letters and two interviews might well have been spent upon an effort to explore a possible line upon which he and Mr. de Valera could agree, especially when both of them are apparently agreed that some form of decision, whether we call it arbitral decision or some other form of decision, must be come to at some time between the two views which are expressed as regards the rights and wrongs of this situation.
  I would like to deal with the position which the right hon. Gentleman has commented upon as regards the recommendations of the Imperial Conference, because I agree with him that it is a matter of considerable importance. The passage to which he referred is to be found at pages 22 and 23 of Command Paper 3717. It starts with a report of the Conference on the operation of Dominion legislation. In paragraph 125 it sets out the desirability of having some form of tribunal to decide matters of difference between members of the British Commonwealth and ends with the statement:
  "We recommend that the whole subject should be further examined by all the Governments."
  Further examination was given to the matter as to the result of that report to the Imperial Conference, and they then proceed to say this:
  "The matter was examined by the Conference, and they found themselves able to make certain definite recommendations with regard to it."
  What follows are the recommendations. They are not the unanimous decision as regards the putting into operation of certain forms. They are recommendations as to what might well be done between two members of the British Common-wealth if a discussion were to arise between them.
  Mr. THOMAS: I want to get this clear. My hon. Friend may not be aware, but the functions of the Imperial Conference limit them exclusively to recommendations. They are not empowered to give decisions. That is why they have made recommendations and not decisions.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Certainly. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He has dotted the "i's" and crossed the "t's" of what I was saying. The only way in which definite decisions could
  110
  come about is by the Parliaments of different Dominions coming to an agreement. That decision has never been come to. That was why I ventured to suggest at the time when the Statute of Westminster was being passed by this House that, in view of the fact that the Statute of Westminster was being put into legal form both here and is the Dominions, it would be wise to associate with it in legal form some of those recommendations which have been made by the Imperial Conference. If one proceeds with the recommendations, one sees that they are limited recommendations. They say:
  "Some machinery for the settlement of disputes which may arise between the members of the British Commonwealth is desirable. Different methods for providing this machinery were explored, and it was agreed, in order to avoid too much rigidity, not to recommend the constitution of a permanent court, but to seek a solution along the line of ad hoc arbitration proceedings."
  That means to say that, instead of having any permanent fixed method by which disputes are to be decided, you are, on each occasion, to set up a particular arbitral tribunal in order to arrive at a decision. It then proceeds:
  "The Conference thought that this method might be more fruitful than any other in securing the confidence of the Commonwealth. The next question considered was whether arbitration proceedings should be voluntary or obligatory, in the sense that one party would be under an obligation to submit thereto if the other party wished it. In the absence of general consent to an obligatory system, it was decided to recommend the adoption of a voluntary system."
  The Committee will see from the next paragraph that it was to be voluntary for either party to agree to this form of arbitration. It did not mean that if they did not agree to this form of arbitration, they could not have any other. What it meant was, "We think this is the best form of arbitration, and you can agree to this form of arbitration if you wish it." It did not preclude a decision by any other way that was open, or that was chosen by the parties provided that you could get agreement. If two Dominions like to get a Frenchman to arbitrate between them there is nothing in the world to stop them from doing it; they are absolutely at liberty to do so. But if one of them wants a Frenchman, and the other wants the sort of tribunal that is set out in this paragraph, there will be a difference, and they

  111
  will not be able to agree. Nobody can possibly suggest that, in those circumstances, there is a compulsion upon the one who wants to go outside to submit the matter to the tribunal set out by the Imperial Conference. That is not a voluntary system. The whole essence of the voluntary idea was that we could not impose this upon the Commonwealth as long as certain Members of the Commonwealth did not wish to accept it. It was perfectly well known at the time. The position is that we have an Imperial Tribunal which is recommended for acceptance by any two members who may disagree. When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that it is obligatory upon the Irish Free State, if they are going to have arbitration at all, to have arbitration in this form, I suggest to the Committee that no such inference can possibly be drawn from this paragraph, or was ever intended to be drawn, or ever thought that it could be drawn, at the last Imperial Conference.
  Mr. JANNER: If that is the case, will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is definitely stated later on in this report that, by a consensus of opinion, without any exception at all, certain definite terms were laid down in regard to the constitution of a tribunal in the event of arbitration being agreed to, and, if he agrees that this was by a consensus of opinion, how can he now suggest that any other form of arbitration would be acceptable?
  Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member does not appreciate what I have been saying. No doubt it is my fault, and I am not suggesting it is the hon. Member's fault. The whole essence of this Clause was a recommendation by the Imperiad Conference, because they could not get agreement to a compulsory form of arbitration for a British Commonwealth. They therefore said, "As we cannot get you all to agree to refer your decisions to any arbitral tribunal that we can think of, all we can do is to recommend you, if you are willing, to refer it to a Commonwealth Tribunal. This is the Commonwealth Tribunal which we recommend for that purpose." The hon. Member shakes his head. I think that the meaning is perfectly clear, and neither the hon. Member nor anybody else could construe this into a binding agreement by Canada, South Africa, or 'anyone else to refer inter-
  112
  Dominion disputes to any definite tribunal. There is no such thing. That is the only value of it so far as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs is concerned. I have not read through the rest of the paragraph, but it proceeds in this way:
  "It was agreed that it was advisable to go further, and to make recommendations as to the competence and the composition of an arbitral tribunal, in order to facilitate resort to it, by providing for the machinery whereby a tribunal could in any given case be brought into existence."
  All of which shows perfectly definitely that there was no agreement of any sort as regards bringing such a tribunal into existence. It was to provide handy machinery to be used, if wanted, by any two members of the Commonwealth. That is as far as it went. As far as this dispute is concerned, unfortunately no two members of the Commonwealth see eye to eye. The position, therefore, is not that we can insist upon it, because we have no right to insist upon it. We can say that the tribunal is the only one that we can accept, and Ireland may say that the only one that they will accept is another method. The result is that we arrive at an impasse, and the only thing to do is to find some way to cut the Gordian knot. What is to happen? Are we to accept the spirit of reprisal and revenge which seems to he in the ascendant at this moment I [Interruption.]
  Mr. THOMAS: That is quite untrue.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is quite untrue. I suggest it is not untrue. If anybody cares to read through the speeches in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, I suggest that every single one of the speeches made from the Government Benches proceeds upon the basis that this country is indubitably right and has the right to enforce its demands upon Ireland.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. What he said was that the speeches from this side of the House were imbued with the spirit of revenge. I say to him across the Floor of the House that that is not true. He has no right to say that.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited until the end of

  113
  the argument on that particular point he would have learned why I said it.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not care why you said it. It is not true. [Interruption.]
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Nor do I care—[Interruption.]
  Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order, may I ask for future guidance if it is not the rule in the conduct of debate that, if one hon. Member says that what another hon. Member has said is not true, it is not admissible? I have heard your predecessors who have occupied your seat, and also the Chair, rule in that way.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is only partly right. There are several different ways in which hon. Members may say that they do not believe what another hon. Member has said. It would be quite impossible to debate unless hon. Members were permitted to differ from what each other has said.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that it depends upon who says it?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I withdraw my phrase if it was harsh, and say that the statement was without foundation in fact?
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that I did not feel in the slightest degree perturbed by the remark that came from him, because I knew that there would be no ill feeling behind it. If I may just continue the explanation I was giving to the hon. Gentleman when I was interrupted: What I was saying was that, quite clearly, the speeches proceed upon the basis that this Committee and the Government were entitled to take the judgment of this thing in their own hand, and to act forthwith upon that judgment. That seems to be accurately described as a spirit of reprisal for money lost, and revenge for a wrong act done, and in that sense I believe that all the speeches from the Government side in this Debate have been imbued with that spirit.
  8.0 p.m.
  The Committee will remember that there have been disputes in recent years with foreign countries, of a far more acrimonious nature than the present one,
  114
  which have never been solved in this way. If the Committee remembers, there was the Dogger Bank case. I do not think anybody was in any doubt as to the justice of the situation so far as this country was concerned. The Russian ships had fired on the trawlers on the Dogger Bank. There were no other ships which could have fired on them, and it was perfectly clear to everybody. In order to satisfy international feeling in the matter, a commission of inquiry was set up to find out the facts. Subsequently, when all the heat had cooled down, it was decided that Russia should pay £65,000, or whatever the stun was. How very different to the procedure in the present case when we are dealing, not with a foreign Power—[interruption]. I quite agree that there is no comparison, because in that case we were dealing with a foreign Power and not with a Dominion or a fellow member of the Commonwealth, and we were dealing with the lives of British subjects and not with mere money. In that case, nobody suggested that we should institute an economic war against Russia to get back the value of the trawlers. After years —[Interruption]—the hon. and learned Member will find that it took a long time for the Commission to report, and, after their report, there were negotiations. They only found in that case the basis of fact; they did not find whether damages were due. They found the basis of fact, and, upon that basis of fact, negotiations proceeded. I only give that as an instance of the way in which the Government and the House of Commons can deal with a very critical situation by allowing the heat to simmer down before any desperate action is taken to prejudice either the one side or the other.
  We believe that there is no excuse for putting these measures into execution after so short a time—even admitting that there might be an excuse later on—as five or six days after the case for them has arisen, when, since the cause for them has arisen, there has been, apparently, no communication except the one which the right hon. Gentleman read this afternoon from Mr. de Valera. There has been no communication from the right hon. Gentleman to Mr. de Valera. We suggest that that is being unduly and unnecessarily speedy with the retribution which

  115
  is being dealt out. Any hon. Member who is interested in the matter and looks up the long record of hundreds of international arbitrations on every kind of point which have been held between this country and other countries, will find that it is very seldom less than two years after the cause of trouble has arisen before the agreement to refer to arbitration takes place. Here we have five days. What a striking difference! When the right hon. Gentleman asks us whether we are satisfied that the British Government has done everything possible to get this matter referred to arbitration, the answer is, "No, we cannot be satisfied in five days that everything possible has been done."
  Let me come to the actual suggestion which we have put upon the Order Paper. We suggest that this action by the Government should be suspended until after the Secretary of State for the Dominions has certified that there has been a decision of a court of arbitration in this matter. That, first of all, raises this point: Under the Resolution as it stands, the Treasury,
  "it it appears to them that any failure of the Irish Free State to implement their obligations has resulted or is likely to result in a loss to the revenue of any public fund…"
  are to act; that is to say, the Treasury are specifically made judge in the matter. It does not seem to us to be right to refer a dispute, in which you are yourself a litigant, to yourself to decide. The suggestion which we make is that some form of arbitration must precede that decision by the Treasury. The view which is expressed in the Resolution seems to us to be an impossible view for anyone to take who really believes in the fundamental necessity for international arbitration. If you are to decide the matter by arbitration, and there is an impasse, what is one to do? How can one get over the impasse? Our suggestion is this: The Irish Free State appoint their two members, and the British Government appoint their two members. It then remains to decide who is to be the chairman. The right hon. Gentleman says that it must be someone from the Empire; Mr. de Valera says that he will not have someone from the Empire. We suggest that, in case of the parties disputing as to who shall be the referee in an arbitra-
  116
  tion of this sort, it must be left to some outside power to decide. In this case there is only one possible outside power, and that is the Imperial Conference itself. That is entirely and absolutely consistent with the idea that this dispute should be kept within the British Commonwealth.
  I venture to suggest that there can be no objection by anybody, however they may feel the impropriety of going outside the British Commonwealth, to leaving it to the Imperial Conference to decide who shall be chairman. Here are two members of the Commonwealth, who both want arbitration, and who can agree on four members of the arbitral tribunal, but cannot agree on the fifth. How is that difficulty to be solved? I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider the proposal that the Imperial Conference should be asked, not to decide the difference, but to say who is to be the chairman. Putting it at its very lowest, assume for a moment, as one would be anxious not to assume, that Mr. de Valera did not accept the decision of the Imperial Conference. What happens then is just what happened in a recent arbitration between the Soviet Government and certain British nationals. One of the parties does not appear; the other party has to make out its case; and the other party has then at least done its best to place before a duly constituted tribunal the arguments which it believes to be in its favour, and it is then entitled to the judgment of the tribunal according to the case that it has proved. That, as I say, is putting it at its lowest, but you have then at least the satisfaction of saying "These matters have been decided by an arbitral tribunal; we have not ourselves decided and given ourselves judgment and ourselves levied execution in a cause in which we were parties." I do not, myself, suppose that there would be any difficulty if one could once refer the matter to the Imperial Conference, leaving them a completely free hand as to whom they should appoint as the independent chairman; but at least one can say that this is a method which is worth exploring, and we suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, at least until that method has been explored, we ought not to take this hasty action.
  That is the method which we suggest here. There are many other methods which will occur, I am sure, to the fertile

  117
  mind of the right hon. Gentleman. There is the method of a commission of inquiry to find the facts, and thereafter of negotiations. That has been a common method of settling international disputes—not by appointing an arbitral tribunal to decide upon the quantum of the award, but a commission of inquiry to find the facts, and, upon the basis of the facts so found, negotiations between the parties. That has often proved to be a way out of discussions of this sort, where neither party was prepared to accept as binding the absolute decision of an arbitral tribunal; and that, again, is a proposal which we feel sure should be put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. I want to impress upon the Committee the fact that in this Resolution we are embarking upon a path which we believe to be fraught with the utmost danger, not only to Ireland and ourselves, but to the whole Commonwealth; and we feel that, before we embark upon that path, we ought at least to try some further suggestion. All the negotiation that there has been so far is that one side insists on a Commonwealth tribunal, and the other side says that it will not have it. There are many paths between those two extremes which might be explored, and during the period since there has been a default, or since the last letters passed, there has been no time to explore. We beg this Committee not to confuse strength with stubbornness, and not to think that reprisals are necessarily the sign of great statesmanship.
  Mr. THOMAS: I propose right away to intimate the decision of the Government with regard to this Amendment. I cannot but resent the implications that the Government, and myself in particular, are guided or influenced in any way by a spirit of either vindictiveness or revenge. I am entitled to say that, because I had more interest in Ireland than any other trade union leader in this country. My union was the largest union of any in Ireland, North or South, and I can give much more testimony than most folks of anxiety with regard to Ireland in the dark days prior to this Treaty. I want to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that, from the moment that I was faced with this difficulty, my anxiety has been to find a peaceful solution. The hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House himself, but some on that bench were, in 1924, when I was called upon to deal with
  118
  the Irish situation—a grave and difficult situation; and I was not guided then, and am not guided now, by any spirit of revenge. There are courses which are difficult. This is one of the difficult courses. But there are also occasions when the difficult course, in the end, is the right course.
  I want to put this quite clearly and definitely to the hon. and learned Member. The man in the street, the man who reads the Debates of this House, and the man in Ireland—the peasant—as well as our own working class in this country, will not be concerned with this legal quibble. They will not say to themselves, "The Imperial Conference did not compel this to be done, or did not say that it ought to be in that particular way." I want the hon. and learned Gentleman to answer me this question: If the Imperial Conference did not intend that all Imperial matters should be discussed by an Imperial tribunal, why did they discuss it at all?
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I can easily answer the right hon. Gentleman. Because they hoped they would be able to arrive at a. unanimous agreement to set up an Imperial tribunal. They failed. All they could do was to make the recommendation of this tribunal.
  Mr. THOMAS: That does not answer my question. If they did not think that an Imperial tribunal was essential for an Imperial matter, there was no need to discuss it at all. But why did the late Labour Government themselves unanimously decide upon the reservation in the optional clause? They did it because on Imperial matters, on matters in dispute between one Dominion and another, they were not going to be a party to any outsider determining the issue. The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me not to close the door. He said in substance, "You have had four letters and two interviews, and surely that is not sufficient." Is that fair statement of the case? Let me state the facts. Mr. de Valera never wrote to me on the matter at all. Those of us who have been engaged in industrial disputes all our lives know that, if an employer intimated without consultation of any sort or kind that on and after Monday an agreement is to be broken, the first people to challenge it would be the

  119
  organised labour movement. Those sitting there and myself have done it for years, because we believe that the keeping of agreements is the very basis of collective bargaining.
  Then the hon. and learned Gentleman casually says: "You have had four letters and two interviews." Let us examine that. On 22nd March Mr. de Valera made a speech in Dublin and said: "I intend to withhold this money." That is pretty clear and definite. He did not write and say: "Let us discuss it." There was no communication of any sort. On the 23rd I wrote and said: "I observe this. Surely you are wrong. This is a legal and moral agreement." He replied: "I did not know it was an agreement. I did not know there was one in existence." Then I gave him the two dates of the agreement. He replied straight away: "I do not accept those agreements." When I put the specific question to him across the table, "Surely by your refusal of an Empire tribunal you are admitting to the world that there are not three honest people in the British Empire," his answer was, "I believe the dice would be loaded against us." That was his answer, not yours. If he believes that the dice would be loaded against him, he believes obviously that not a single Dominion could be trusted to give him a fair deal. The hon. and learned Gentleman says we have acted hastily. In March, April, May and June we had the intimation that we were not to be paid, and it was repeated in April, May, June and July, and it is not paid. My answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is this: How much longer are the British people to bear the burden? We seem to forget that this money was budgeted for. It is being paid out, and Mr. de Valera is collecting it. So far from being hasty, I think we have been very considerate.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a suggestion. Let us see what it means. He says, on behalf of the official Opposition: "Go to Ottawa and say to the delegates there: 'You appoint a Chairman' and, if that is refused, your action is justified."
  Sir S. CRIPPS: No, that is not what I said. I said, if the Imperial Conference appointed a chairman to the tri-
  120
  bunal, and agreed upon that tribunal hearing the dispute, even if Ireland would not appear before it we should be entitled to put our case and get a decision from the tribunal.
  Mr. THOMAS: Let us see what is the difference in procedure. I said to Mr. de Valera: "I am not dictating or even suggesting a particular tribunal in number. I am not even suggesting the Dominions that they are to be chosen from. I am not even suggesting who shall be the chairman. We can talk about all these things afterwards. All I want you to do is to agree that this matter shall be referred to a tribunal within the Empire. The British Government need not go on it at all." Mr. de Valera's answer was: "No, I do not propose to allow an Empire tribunal to determine the matter."
  Sir S. CRIPPS: The point I was trying to put was that, if it were left to the Imperial Conference to decide absolutely at large who the chairman was to be, whether from outside or inside the Empire, that matter of dispute between us and the Irish Free State, that is as to who the chairman should be, would be left absolutely to the decision of the Imperial Conference.
  Mr. THOMAS: I hope the Committee will take this simple issue. If there are two people in dispute, and one says, "I refuse to have any tribunal exclusively connected with the British Commonwealth," and then adopts the hon. and learned Gentleman's policy and the Imperial Conference merely said, "Here is a chairman," how much forwarder are you, if that gentleman says, "No, I have already told you I am not having an Empire tribunal."
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Wait until he says "No."
  Mr. THOMAS: I see. We are now in this position, that, although the money is withheld, although I have read to the House to-day an intimation that other moneys due are going to be withheld, we have to go to the Ottawa Conference and say: "We want you to appoint a chairman, but in advance we want to warn you that the other side do not agree with it."
  Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman has no right to say that. He may

  121
  know it, but I certainly do not. The discussion is as to who shall be the chairman. Mr. de Valera wants a foreigner, and the right hon. Gentleman wants someone from the British Commonwealth.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: He is a foreigner himself.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Never mind whether he is a foreigner or not. He is a national of the Irish Free State. I am only suggesting that the dispute shall be left absolutely to the Imperial Conference to decide.
  Mr. THOMAS: May I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a White Paper? If he has any information other than that, I have not.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Nor have I.
  Mr. THOMAS: There is not a word in the White Paper about the chairman. The dispute has never been as to the chairman or the personnel. Mr. de Valera has been quite consistent. He has left me in no doubt whatever. He says: "I want a court not limited to the British Commonwealth." [Interruption.] There is no question of a chairman or anyone else.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the only material person is the chairman, because if the Irish Free State appoint two members and the British Government appoint two members, a neutral chairman is the important factor, and it is on that factor that the whole question turns.
  Mr. THOMAS: I would again remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we have never come within miles of discussing either two or four members. I put it quite clearly that Mr. de Valera is capable of stating his case, and do not forget that we had two days, one in Dublin and one in London, and we went into detail far more than can be the case across the Floor of the House. I begged and pleaded. In fact—and let our Friends of the Opposition observe this fact—I put the question to him quite -clearly. I said, "You, as the representative of the Irish Free State have intimated, and we have evidence, that you love your country. You realise that if there is an industrial dispute in Ireland and the employers take one attitude and the em-
  122
  ployés take another, the country which you love will suffer. When you say to them, 'Surely, you ought to trust to some independent body to arrive at a judgment,' it will be awkward for you, Mr. de Valera, to refuse arbitration in such circumstances." That was put quite clearly in the debate across the floor, and therefore do not let the hon. and learned Gentleman assume that he is introducing something which is new. Mr. de Valera's opinion is quite clear, and it would be an insult for me to assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman could speak for him; but if anyone now speaking in a responsible position, and on behalf of Mr. de Valera, would intimate at this stage that they would accept arbitration on this matter within the British Commonwealth, the Government would accept it. But we cannot and will not allow this matter to go outside the Empire.
  With regard to Ottawa, let me remind the Committee quite clearly about the position. This agreement and other agreements were broken without any consultation with us. We have made it clear that we do not propose to enter into fresh agreements with people who have acted in that way. That is the broad view which we take. Therefore, I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment, but it is not because we do not desire peace. We do desire peace. We would welcome peace. We will welcome overtures made by anybody, but it will be deceiving you, it will be deceiving our own people, and it will be deceiving the Irish people if we leave them in any doubt as to where we stand. It is arbitration within the British Commonwealth. The personnel and the chairman can be discussed. That is the first condition.
  Mr. MAXTON: Why? The right hon. Gentleman has made that assertion half-a-dozen times, and he resents the suggestion of Mr. de Valera that an Imperial tribunal would be loaded against them. He resents it, but he says, "We must have an Imperial tribunal." Why?
  Mr. THOMAS: Because the British Commonwealth of Nations has a constitution which has changed and developed, and the inevitable results of that changing and developing situation are so interwoven and so much attached, and they themselves having said that they

  123
  are going to settle their domestic matters themselves, I am not going to be a party to departing from what they themselves have decided.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. COCKS: I do not intend to say anything of a provocative character in this Debate. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs is a very skilful negotiator, and all I want to say which might be thought provocative, but which is not intended to be so, is that I do not think that his speech to-night was quite as conciliatory as it should have been regarding the seriousness of the situation. I am prepared to say that all through the negotiations he has been conciliatory. I am prepared to admit, although I was not present, of course, that in his negotiations with Mr. de Valera he put his case without any undue prejudice or force. But that is not the point I want to make. I do not intend to deal with the question as to whether the Irish Free State has a legal right to withhold the Annuities or not, but it is not—and it has been admitted that it is not—a simple issue. It is not very clear to the ordinary man-in-the-street as to what are the rights upon that particular point. The hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks) in a previous Debate said that it was a very complex issue, and that it was necessary to read many documents and treaties and to study other matters, and that therefore it was essentially a matter for arbitration. That is the first point. The Government have accepted the principle of arbitration. Mr. de Valera has also accepted the principle of arbitration. So that the difference can be narrowed down to the point that both sides have accepted the principle of arbitration, and the trouble now is the question of a tribunal. I read on Sunday in a Conservative paper, the "Sunday Times," that the Irish Free State correspondent of that paper said:
  "The gulf is really not wide, for the principle of arbitration has been accepted, and the composition of the court is the only essential matter is dispute. One suggestion is that the Ottawa Conference should be asked to find some means for arbitration, and there is the possibility that this might bring the twofold blessing of both arbitration and conference, and still further testify to the value of the Free State's association with the Commonwealth."
  Mr. HOWARD: He has refused it.
  Mr. COCKS: I have read that to show that only yesterday a correspondent in the Irish Free State said that the gulf was not so wide as some Members of the House might imagine. I believe that the difference can be narrowed down. In fact it has come down to the rather narrow issue almost of one man. As everybody knows, even a narrow issue not handled in a very careful way by methods of the highest statesmanship may lead to disaster. We found that out in 1914. Many people believe now that if certain negotiations had been carried on at that time the whole War could have been avoided. Both sides agree to arbitration but they differ as to the tribunal. The Government want an Imperial tribunal. When they say that they want an Imperial tribunal, we cannot get out of our minds the idea of the tribunal suggested in 1930 by the Imperial Conference. What was the nature of that suggested tribunal? It was suggested that the composition of the tribunal should be this: that one party, in this case Ireland, would be entitled to select one person from Ireland and one person from the Dominions outside Ireland. This country would be entitled to select one person from outside England and one person from England, or if they preferred they could choose two people from outside England. The problem is as to the chairman. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in connection with tribunals of Arbitration the selection of the chairman is the greatest difficulty. The difficulty is to select an impartial chairman. Mr. de Valera's suggestion is, I understand, that he should be entitled to select someone from outside the Empire, such as a jurist from the Hague.
  Mr. HOWARD: We believe in Home Rule.
  Mr. COCKS: I am not disputing that.
  Mr. LOGAN: Ireland believes in Home Rule.
  Mr. COCKS: I am trying to put the case as I see it at the present time. I am trying to put the difference between the two parties, and I want to narrow it down. It is a question of one person, and Mr. de Valera would prefer some jurist from the Hague while the British

  125
  Government insist upon the fifth member of the Tribunal being from within the Empire.
  Mr. THOMAS: Statements are repeatedly made which imply that there is a very narrow difference, and that either Mr. de Valera is acting stubbornly or that I am acting stubbornly over this matter. Let me again say that until it was mooted here by speakers from the opposite benches it was the first that I had ever heard of it. Mr. de Valera had a chance in the document which I read to the House to-day, which I received this morning, to say something about it, but he does not say one word such as is now indicated. I want to make it quite clear that if we had got to that narrow stage we should have reached a point where we could have argued, and I should have said: "Why are you withholding the money and keeping it in suspense if you have not a doubt yourself as to the validity of it?" Do not let it go forth that we have even discussed the personnel. Mr. de Valera swept that on one side.
  Mr. COCKS: The right hon. Gentleman will admit that the Irish Free State favour the principle of arbitration, but the difficulty is the question of the tribunal. I have no access to any unpublished official documents but I have read everything I could in the newspapers and in telegrams from Ireland. I have no private source of information. I have gathered, however, that on the question of arbitration the issue is narrowed down to one person, either a foreigner or a person from the British Empire. The British Government in their last despatch to Mr. de Valera insisted upon an Imperial tribunal, but Mr. de Valera in the despatch read this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The Government of the Irish Free State does not abandon the hope that the British Government will reconsider its attitude in this regard."
  Those are not the words of a flat refusal. They express the hope that the British Government will not insist upon its position but will reconsider its attitude in this regard. That leaves the door open for further negotiation. If the right hon. Gentleman was in an industrial dispute he would seize upon such a point and say: "That means that we must argue about matters a little further." I
  126
  have seen in statements from Dublin, from circles near Mr. de Valera, that Mr. de Valera might perhaps weaken on that, point and that he would be prepared to accept someone like General Hertzog. I was disappointed that in the despatch read to-day from Mr. de Valera some such suggestion as that was not made. But all that this means is that Mr. de Valera is a hard negotiator, a quality which the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. However, that is an issue which might be pursued. Similar issues have been pursued in the last few weeks at Lausanne, and some have led to satisfactory conclusions. Is it less important that we should have peace in Ireland than peace with Germany? I suggest that the method that has been pursued by the Government in proposing this Resolution is unfortunate and that the Government should hold their hands a little longer. There is no need to impose the duties right away. The imposition of the duties at this moment may have the effect of banging and barring the door against a peaceful solution of this business.
  There are two main parties in Southern Ireland, the party of Mr. de Valera and the party of Mr. Cosgrave, who have been in office for the last 10 years; but there are some parties even more extreme than that of Mr. de Valera. On his left there is the Irish Republican Army and the party which is led by Miss McSweeney. If the Government proceed with their policy they will strengthen the hands of the extremists in Ireland. Mr. de Valera is in a difficult position between his left and his negotiations with this country. If he shows that he has surrendered it will probably mean that he will be deposed and someone more extreme will be placed in his position. We are told that we must not consider Irish history, but the Irish people do consider their history. They have very bitter memories, not merely of 100 years ago but 14 or 15 years ago. At that time, I walked the streets of London with downcast head feeling ashamed at being an Englishman because of the things going on then in Ireland in our name. I am sure the Irish people must feel far more deeply. It will take very little to range the whole of Southern Ireland as a solid block behind Mr. de Valera if we are Act very careful in the attitude we take up. That is a matter which the Government ought to consider

  127
  very carefully. There is also the very dangerous position of the Ulster frontier. When these duties are put on Ulster will not be included in Ireland, and there are many sympathisers with Mr. de Valera's party in Ulster.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not forget that we cannot have a general discussion on this Amendment.
  Mr. COCKS: Our Amendment is that there should be arbitration before the duties are imposed. The object of the Government is to impose the duties. I was pointing out that that might lead to great dangers in Ireland.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that when an Amendment is before the House he is not entitled to talk on the main Resolution. He cannot on the ground that the Government are resisting the Amendment, discuss the Resolution as it would he without Amendment. That will not do.
  Mr. COCKS: I bow to your Ruling. I have said enough to suggest to the Government that it is wiser to adopt the path of high statesmanship and conciliation in this matter. No harm would be done if the Government accepted the Amendment. This country is great enough not only to be generous but to be sensible. As we are great let us be sensible, and not allow any prejudice created by the conduct of Mr. de Valera, whose diplomacy resembles that of Germany in being extremely tactless, divert us from the path of statesmanship and serenity and patience, but right to the very end, until the last minute of the last hour, let us pursue the path of arbitration and not until that fails—I do not think it will—consider taking up the weapon suggested in the Resolution.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has spoken of the procedure of the Government as being a very summary process, but Mr. de Valera has announced his intention to refuse payment of these annuities for some time and in my view the action of the Government is fully justified. I suggest to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, as a member of the higher branch of his profession, that he must know the ordin-
  128
  ary process in the case of a recalcitrant debtor. I as a member of the lower branch of the profession know that the usual way is to engage in endless discussions and endless correspondence. When I was acting for a debtor and I knew that he wanted time I used to try and entangle the opposing solicitor in a long correspondence, but when I was trying to recover a debt I served my writ first and negotiated afterwards. The hon. and learned Member says that this is putting in the bailiffs. In this matter Mr. de Valera, and his Government are a mere debt collector, just like a house factor or a collector of debts, and he says that he is not going to hand over the money he has collected. In ordinary life that is not a civil debt at all, and you do not put in a bailiff but a constable. It is what we should in ordinary circumstances call an impudent embezzlement; and yet Mr. de Valera and his Government will not arbitrate about it. The suggestion put forward by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol is to give Mr. de Valera, the recalcitrant debtor, more time. I do not think he has had any word from Mr. de Valera, but in a little time Mr. de Valera will say that he will not agree to it.
  I am glad that the Colonial Secretary has not been led up the garden. When he first suggested going to Dublin I thought that he was making an awful mistake. This is like a bill of exchange. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol knows that if you have a bill of exchange of an ascertained debt you do not negotiate about it, you pay it; and in Scotland if you do not pay it you are made bankrupt in six days. I say that the action of the Government is merely serving the writ; we can negotiate afterwards. Nor will this mean any increased price of foodstuffs. If the Irish Free State had their way the hon. Members for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) will not be Members of this House in future because they are returned purely by the Irish vote. The House will be relieved of the presence of very capable debaters, probably the better for the House. If the Colonial Secretary weakens on this matter at all it will only mean fresh delays and give Mr. de Valera an occasion for triumphing over all his enemies. He has got into a hopeless difficulty, and it will be

  129
  a very good lesson for politicians and statesmen throughout the British Empire not to make rash and foolish promises which involve the repudiation of agreements if the result is that they are ultimately brought to account. We have sufficient supplies in our own country, and I should like to see the land of Scotland cultivated in order to replace some of the supplies which may fall short from Ireland.
  Mr. THOMAS: May I appeal to the Committee—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I object. Some of us want to reply to some observations that have been made.
  Mr. THOMAS: There are several Amendments on the Order Paper mainly covering the same wide aspect of the matter, and the Government do not want to keep the House sitting late. At the same time, we hope to get the Motion to-night, and I appeal, therefore, to hon. Members to allow us to get it by agreement.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman should appeal to his own side. Statements Save been made by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) about my constituency which I must answer, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to appeal to the Committee then he must appeal to the Government supporters not to make speeches. I want to be called to answer the slander which has been cast upon my constituents.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am anxious not to stop hon. Members more than I can help, because I know that it is inclined to prolong the Debate. I am afraid that I mast plead guilty for having allowed the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) during one or two asides to refer to matters which cannot be discussed in the Debate.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire, with the dignity of a King's Counsel and a Scots connection, has made a most serious suggestion when he deliberately said that we shall not come back here because our constituents are aliens—
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Irish.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, but meaning that they are aliens. I have a right to defend my constituents in this House, and I say that it is an unfair thing to say. These poor people, whatever may be their faults, are subjects of Great Britain and the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) knows very well how they joined the Army. Now they are to be maltreated and not allowed to vote for me. I say that whether it is three years or five years hence I shall fight my Division and whether the hon. and learned Member comes back to this House or not I shall remain a Member much longer than he will.
  Mr. HEALY: I agree with what has been said by an hon. Member opposite that there are many debtors of this nation who have refused to pay their debts, and they stand in a different category to Mr. de Valera, who has told us very frankly that the British Government can rest assured that any just and lawful claims of Great Britain will be considered. That is a different thing from repudiation of debt. It is at once a challenge as to whether the debt is legally and morally due. The Secretary for the Dominions said that Mr. de Valera was in doubt whether an Empire tribunal would not be in the nature of dice loaded against him. Mr. de Valera has good ground for suspicion of that kind. He remembers the composition of the Boundary Commission that arose out of this Treaty. He remembers how the provision to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants was interpreted by the Chairman of the Commission as the decision of himself. In other words he refused to carry out Article 12 of the Treaty. Therefore it is that Mr. de Valera and the Irish people, North as well as South, have the most profound suspicion.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Supposing that a foreigner had taken the place of the distinguished South African judge and had done exactly the same, would the hon. Gentleman guarantee that he would not have been repudiated?
  Mr. HEALY: The provision was that the wishes of the inhabitants should be ascertained. They have never been ascertained to this moment, and we say that in that respect the Treaty has not been carried out. There were two matters left undetermined after the Treaty was

  131
  set up. One dealt with the financial question that we are now discussing, and the other with territorial matters. Article 5 of the Treaty assumed that the Free State would be responsible for a certain proportion of the National Debt. But there was a certain condition inserted:
  "Having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counterclaim the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire."
  That Article was completely set aside by an agreement entered into in 1925 by members of the Imperial Government and members of the Irish Free State Government. The agreement was signed by the present Lord President of the Council, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), Mr. Joynson-Hicks, Lord Birkenhead and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). It was that:
  "The Irish Free State is hereby released from the obligations under Article 5 of the said articles of agreement to assume the liability therein mentioned."
  In other words the Free State was released from any demand to contribute to the National Debt.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to rule the hon. Member out of order, and I trust he will explain how his speech relates to the Amendment that we are now discussing.
  Mr. HEALY: I want to show that any arbitration must take into consideration these matters which so far have not been considered by anyone.
  The CHAIRMAN: The arbitration that we are now discussing is not a general arbitration.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. HEALY: The Dominions Secretary, in his speeches, has gone into the agreements of 1923 and 1926, but has omitted all reference to the agreement of 1925, which was supplementary to the Treaty. Therefore one must take into consideration what the real case of the Irish Free State is. The people of the Free State believe that they were absolved from the obligation of Article 5 of the Treaty by the agreement of 1925. The agreements made in 1923 and 1926 were in the nature
  132
  of departmental agreements, and were concerned entirely with the transition stage, the payment of the Land Annuities until an ultimate financial agreement could be reached. The ultimate financial agreement has never been reached. One cannot surely say that the agreement signed in 1926 had any authority behind it. It was never ratified by this House and it has never been ratified by the Free State. And for a very good reason, that it would have repealed both the Articles of the Treaty and the agreement of 1925. But the most extraordinary thing of all to my mind is that the agreement entered into in 1923, with regard to land annuities, has never been published up to the recent correspondence, has never been presented to this House and has been kept secret both in London and Dublin.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting beyond the terms of the Amendment. It is not sufficient for him to keep within the terms of the Resolution; he must keep within the terms of the Amendment.
  Mr. HEALY: I am trying to establish a connection between these agreements and the Amendment which is upon the Paper. It is well known that 30 years ago the Childers Commission sat and determined the position of this country in relation to Ireland. It was then held that Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of £2,000,000, and that was the relevant fact in connection with Article 5 of the Treaty. It had not been decided then how much Ireland was entitled to receive out of this partnership, because of course it could not have been held that the British Empire was all liabilities and no assets in 1921. Ireland was obliged to pay a certain sum for Land Annuities, as well as certain sums with regard to public buildings and other matters, but Ireland, on the other hand, could make no claim to the assets of the British Empire and had made no such claim. Therefore, that Clause was put into the Treaty, so as to enable some independent tribunal to be set up to decide what assets the Free State was entitled to on the dissolution of the partnership. I maintain that such a tribunal has never been set up and that the financial settlement of 1926 was not the ultimate financial settlement at all, inasmuch as the Irish Free State never ratified it. It was not sufficient to correct it by

  133
  means of a Minister coming here and meeting the Chancellor of the Exchequer and coming to an arrangement. Neither that agreement nor the agreement of 1923 has ever been ratified. What you are asking the Irish Free State to do is to collect £3,000,000 which is part of the National Debt of this country which was forgiven under the 1925 Agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the bon. Member has, so far, completely failed to connect the points which he is making with the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is not one of the contentions at present before the Committee that this matter should be submitted to arbitration; and is not the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone and Fermanagh (Mr. Healy) that the Land Annuities, the payment of which is one of the subjects to be submitted to this arbitration, are part of the National Debt according to certain Acts of Parliament passed before the setting up of the Irish Free State.
  The CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member is arguing does not lead me to alter the Ruling I have given. The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment.
  Mr. HEALY: I shall try to keep to the Amendment. Any arbitration set up would necessarily have to take into consideration the position as between the Irish Free State and the Imperial Government, both in 1921 and in 1925. They would be obliged to consider all these circumstances which I have mentioned. Mr. de Valera and the people of the Irish Free State hold that under the only relevant agreement which is in existence they are not entitled to pay this £3,000,000 of Irish Land Annuities which properly belong to the National Debt of this country. It may be argued that they do not form part of the National Debt, but it must not be forgotten that any loss on Land Stock was to be financed from the Consolidated Fund of this country. That fact surely connects the Irish land legislation of 1891, 1903 and 1909 with the National Debt Act of 1870. In every one of the Irish Land Acts, the Act of 1870 was quoted, to show that the debt so created was part of the National Debt. Therefore, when the Secretary for the Dominions says that this is not a debt owed by one Government to another, he
  134
  surely forgets these circumstances which, to my mind, show that it must be regarded as such a debt. The stockholders never had any connection with the Irish tenant purchasers.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now apparently trying to argue matters which he or some of his friends propose to submit to the arbitration. He cannot do so, but must confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. HEALY: I am giving these facts to show that any arbitration which is set up will have to take these matters into consideration—matters which so far have not been considered. It is on these facts very largely that Mr. de Valera is relying and the Irish people, certainly, are not satisfied that the Land Annuities form any part of their indebtedness to this country. They believe that the money was advanced, as all other such moneys are advanced, from the Treasury, and that the Consolidated Fund was to bear any losses. It has also been said that Mr. de Valera has been collecting these Land Annuities, but I do not think that is quite correct. I believe very little of that money has been collected.
  The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the matters in dispute are to be submitted to arbitration. I have called the hon. Member to order several times. I must now warn him that I shall not do so again more than once.
  Mr. HEALY: I hope to be able to keep within the ambit of your Ruling for the remainder of my speech. Some discussion took place earlier in the afternoon with regard to the contribution made by Northern Ireland.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going back on matters which were discussed before this Amendment was called. He cannot discuss the general merits of the case on this Amendment.
  Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order. Please let us know what we can discuss.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes. The hon. Member can discuss the proposal which is on the Order Paper and, possibly, it may be well for the hon. Member to read it.
  Mr. HEALY: I have read the Amendment on the Paper and during my observations I have been trying to connect my speech with the Amendment. I am sorry if I have not succeeded but that was my intention. Reference has been made to counsel's opinion on Mr. de Valera's contention and while it is true that certain legal opinion is against that contention, it is equally true that Mr. de Valera has also fortified himself with the opinion of eminent counsel, some of whom do not agree with him politically.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am not going to question your Ruling, Sir Dennis, I merely wish to ask your guidance. The last part of our Amendment contains the words:
  "have failed to implement their lawful financial obligations to His Majesty's Government."
  Are we not entitled to talk about those "lawful financial obligations"?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I several times called the hon. Member for Tyrone and Fermanagh (Mr. Healy) to order for not doing so.
  Mr. JANNER: I found some difficulty in following the speech of the hon. Member for Tyrone and Fermanagh (Mr. Healy) and I must say that as far as I am concerned the terms of this Amendment seem to upset the whole argument put forward by the Opposition on the general proposal before the Committee. I cannot, in the first place, understand, if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are serious in their suggestion that Mr. de Valera should have the option of choosing a tribunal outside the Empire, how they can, consistently with that view, put an Amendment of this description on the Paper.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I think the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, when the hon. Member reads it, will convince him that none of us have said that we want Mr. de Valera to have a tribunal outside the Commonwealth.
  Mr. JANNER: If that is the case, I am surprised that there has not been absolute unanimity, with the exception, of course, of a few hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, with regard to the
  136
  Motion as it stands. I understood from the speeches that have been made from the Opposition benches that they disagreed with the point of view that was put forward in respect of the recommendations contained in the Summary of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference of 1930. I understood that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was arguing that those recommendations were not binding either upon Mr. de Valera or upon anybody else, and that the intention of that argument was to show that Mr. de Valera was correct in insisting upon having a tribunal which was not constituted according to those recommendations. If my right hon. Friend now says that he agrees that the whole of these matters should be conducted by a tribunal constituted according to these recommendations, then all that I can say is that the Amendment is entirely futile.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry my hon. and learned Friend is not here at the moment, but the point that I understood him to make, and which I should have tried to make if I had spoken on the subject, was that it ought to be a tribunal within the British Empire. Mr. de Valera does not agree with that, and, as I understand it, he takes his stand upon the fact that it is not obligatory, even according to the statement made in the Summary of Proceedings from which the hon. Member quotes, that the tribunal should be within the Empire.
  Mr. JANNER: I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend 'agrees with our point of view that the tribunal itself should be constituted according to the suggestions contained here. I go further and say that he has no alternative but to agree to that, and that if Mr. de Valera or anyone else suggests anything different, he is not entitled to do so, because the recommendations are perfectly clear. In my view, the question of whether arbitration should be resorted to or not depends upon the wishes of the parties. It does not say that the arbitration must be compulsory, but that it may be voluntary; in other words, that the parties can resort to arbitration if they choose, but it definitely says that in the event of the parties resorting to arbitration, the arbitration tribunal should be constituted in a specific form.
  "The next question considered was whether arbitration proceedings should be

  137
  voluntary or obligatory, in the sense that one party would be under an obligation to submit thereto if the other party wished it. In the absence of general consent to an obligatory system it was decided to recommend the adoption of a voluntary system."
  In other words, it means quite clearly that you could not compel the parties to go to arbitration, but, in view of the fact that we now have an agreement on both sides that arbitration is necessary, the recommendation states how that arbitration should be conducted. It states that there shall be five members, and so on. It is clear that it was definitely agreed how that body was to be constituted, and, that being the case, what do our hon. Friends opposite really want? They ask that
  "in the event of the Secretary of State for the Dominions certifying that there has been a decision of a court of arbitration, set up by agreement between His Majesty's Governments for the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State, or, failing such agreement, appointed by representatives of the Dominions assembled in Imperial Conference,"
  and so on. In other words, as soon as the Conference is convened, the Imperial Conference will state there and then that they fix the arbitration court, and they can do so in precisely the same terms as in this report, which they undoubtedly would do, and in a very short space of time you would get a decision, irrespective of what Mr. de Valera wanted. Ultimately it would mean that you would be driving the matter to a worse issue than now, because you would be calling into your body the Imperial Conference, which is being held now, and incidentally you would be creating a precedent, because if you ever wanted to bring matters before an arbitration court again on these terms, you would have to call a further Ottawa Conference.
  In this instance you would merely be delaying the evil day, if you call it an evil day, for a matter of about a fort-night. In these circumstances, and in view of what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said, I would ask him to withdraw the Amendment and to say that he is in full agreement that arbitration should be held and that the tribunal should consist of members constituted in the manner set forth in these recommendations. Instead of having two or three weeks' dilly-dallying about the matter, he should assist in persuading Mr. de Valera that after all this
  138
  is the right way of going about it. No one wants to suggest that there are not two sides to the argument with regard to the Land Annuities, but at the same time we are definitely of opinion that this is the method of arbitrating the matter, and the Amendment would merely mean the same thing with a fortnight's delay.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Two or three of us have a similar Amendment on the Paper, and I wish to express our point of view. We differ from the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition in the sense that he wants to keep it to arbitration within the Empire, and we take the view that Mr. de Valera, rightly or wrongly, suspects any tribunal set up within the Empire. When I have wanted to go to arbitration, I have always taken the view that I want to be certain that I shall get what I think, maybe wrongly, will be proper justice. Mr. de Valera thinks, rightly or wrongly, that he cannot get justice from that source. That is his case, and it is useless talking about an Empire tribunal when one of the parties to the dispute thinks he cannot secure justice from such a tribunal. There cannot be arbitration if one of the parties thinks that he cannot get a square deal from it. The arbitration is rejected on different grounds by both sides. Mr. de Valera rejects any Empire arbitration, and this country rejects anything but Empire arbitration.
  That is the issue. From the point of view of the history of Ireland, Mr. de Valera feels that he is in the right, for to Ireland the Empire represents all that is worst. For the great bulk of the Irish people, the Empire is hostile to their views and aspirations, and they are anti-Empire. The great bulk of the fight in connection with Ireland, although it is true they compromised because they hated bloodshed, was for Ireland to be a nation again, and to have its independent national status. Ireland is anti-Empire. From his point of view, Mr. de Valera cannot and could not propose an Empire tribunal, seeing that if he does he cannot get a fair and square deal, and the point of view of those on these benches is that he is entitled to ask for a, tribunal outside the British Empire.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am not a lawyer, and, as an ordinary person, I understood that this matter came up for discussion to-day, as the right hon. Gentleman has

  139
  said, because there was disagreement in the Imperial Conference as to this particular business, and because of that disagreement no definite decision was arrived at. It was left voluntary, as was read out just now. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) says that we are all in agreement that it ought to be a Commonwealth tribunal. As far as I am concerned, I think that is the best method of dealing with the subject; but we are in a difficult situation, and what we are proposing is that, because of that situation, we should appeal to the body which represents the whole of the Dominions. The hon. Member said, "Yes, but Mr. de Valera does not agree." The Amendment is quite specific. We leave it to the Imperial
  Conference. Our Amendment says definitely:
  "or, failing such agreement, appointed by representatives of the Dominions assembled in Imperial Conference."
  We do not say whom they shall appoint, or how the whole tribunal shall be appointed. We say that here is a dispute between members of the Commonwealth. We do not see our way out of it, so we ask the Imperial Conference to help us out. That is quite an intelligible proposition, which leaves it to the Imperial Conference to decide how the tribunal shall be made up, and its personnel. That is clear in the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 321.

  Division No. 272.]

  AYES

  [9.30 p.m.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Maxton, James

  Batey, Joseph

  Healy, Cahir

  Milner, Major James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Buchanan, George

  Hirst, George Henry

  Price, Gabriel

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cove, William G.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Thorne, William James

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Wailhead, Richard C.

  Daggar, George

  Kirkwood, David

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Edwards, Charles

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Groves, Thomas E.

  McGovern, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

  NOES

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

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Bracken, Brendan

  Cooke, Douglas

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

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

  Copeland, Ida

  Albery, Irving James

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

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

  Briant, Frank

  Cowan, D. M.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

  Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Broadb nt, Colonel John

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Buchan, John

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Curry, A. C.

  Bailey, Eric Alfred George

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Dalkelth, Earl of

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Burnett, John George

  Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

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

  Bainlel, Lord

  Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

  Davison, Sir William Henry

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Barrie, Sir Charles Cougar

  Caporn, Arthur Cecll

  Dickle, John P.

  Bateman, A. L.

  Carver, Major William H.

  Dixey, Arthur C. N.

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Castle Stewart, Earl

  Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th, C.)

  Cauti y, Sir Henry S.

  Doran, Edward

  Belt, Sir Alfred L.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Bernays, Robert

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

  Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

  Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Dunglass, Lord

  Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

  Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Blaker, Sir Reginald

  Clarke, Frank

  Edge, Sir William

  Bilndell, James

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Boothby, Robert John Graham

  Clayton, Dr. George C.

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Elliston, captain George Sampson

  Boulton, W. W.

  Colfax, Major William Philip

  Elmley, Viscount

  Bowater, Col. sir T. Vanslttart

  Colville, John

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'side)

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Salmon, Major Isidore

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Invernela)

  Salt, Edward W.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

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

  McKeag, William

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Glucksteln, Louis Halle

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

  McLean, Major Alan

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Goff, Sir Park

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Savery, Samuel Servington

  Goldie, Noel B.

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Scone, Lord

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander

  Selley, Harry R.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Maitland, Adam

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Malialleu, Edward Lancelot

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Grimston. R. V.

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Slater, John

  Hales, Harold K.

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

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

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

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)

  Harbord, Arthur

  Millar, Sir James Duncan

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Hartland, George A.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

  Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-

  Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

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

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Hasiam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Monsen, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

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

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Stevenson, James

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Stones, James

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

  Morrison, William Shepherd

  Storey, Samuel

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Hornby Frank

  Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Nunn, William

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  O'Connor, Terence James

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

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

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Summereby, Charles H.

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

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

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'at'n,S.)

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

  Peaks, Captain Osbert

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

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Peat, Charles U.

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

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

  Penny, Sir George

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

  Janner, Barnett

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Jennings, Roland

  Petherick, M.

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstapie)

  Titchfield, major the Marquess of

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

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

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

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

  Train, John

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

  Pike, Cecll F.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Wallace, John (Dunferml ne)

  Kerr, Charles (Montrose)

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

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

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

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Ramden, E.

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Knebworth, Viscount

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Knight, Holford

  Ray, Sir William

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  White, Henry Graham

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

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, s)

  Leckie, J. A.

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

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

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel Georges

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Lewis, Oswald

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

  Womersley, Walter James

  Liddell, Waiter S.

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Robinson, John Roland

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe,

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Ross, Ronald D.

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

  Liewellin, Major John J.

  Rose Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Rothschild, James A. de

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Lord Erskine.

  Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, in line 2, after the word "a," to insert the word "direct."
  We hope that the Government will be able to see their way clear to accept this Amendment. We are concerned that the
  142
  language in a Resolution of this character should be definite and convey what it is intended to convey, that is to say, that any loss of revenue is intended to be loss of revenue from the Land Annuities only. We are apprehensive lest, if the language

  143
  of the Motion remain as it is, it be possible by some circuitous means to bring in some third party in respect of loss of revenue in some other direction. We want this to be a direct loss of revenue and that losses on account of administration should not be included. The Motion refers to "their obligations." The Secretary of State stated to-day that there were other arrears that may accrue from Ireland in regard to judges' pensions, telegraphs, and the Royal Irish Constabulary, and it may be Possible, if the language of the Motion is not definite and clear, to make it apply to contingencies other than that for which it is intended.
  Major ELLIOT: We desire to look sympathetically at this Amendment, but I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. With his Amendment the Motion will read:
  "That (i) the Treasury, if it appears to them that any failure of the Irish Free State to implement their obligations has resulted or is likely to result in a direct loss to the revenue of any public fund of the United Kingdom or in an additional charge on any such fund, may make an order charging duties of customs on articles,"
  and so on. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be anxious that indirect losses should not be brought in, losses, let us say, that might follow if the Irish Free State took some tariff action which might bring in a claim from a third party that they had suffered some loss. I want to be quite clear on the fact that even with this word included the Resolution would certainly cover the further short falls which were indicated by the Irish Free State Minister for External Affairs in his Note and were enumerated by the Secretary of State for Dominions this afternoon. The withholding of the Local Loans Annuities would result in a direct loss to the Local Loans Fund and it would be reasonable to say that that direct loss is a loss exactly similar to the loss of the Land Annuities. Similarly failure to pay compensation annuities or charges in regard to judicial pensions would cause a loss of revenue to the Exchequer. As long as it is quite clear that no charge of breach of faith is in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite I am certainly prepared to look into this question sympathetically with a view to having this word inserted in the Bill. Of
  144
  course, the hon. Member will understand that this is merely a Resolution on which the Bill is founded. If he will be satisfied with that—I shall, of course, have to consult with our officials, now that I have heard what is in his mind, before the drafting of the Bill—I hope we may be able to pass on to other discussions.
  Sir W. DAVISON: I am at a loss to know what is the difference between a loss and a direct loss. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell us of a case in which the word "loss" would not cover a direct loss?
  Mr. LANSBURY: My legal Friend will.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Supposing the hon. Member had been in receipt of some money from the Irish Free State, and he ceased to get that money, he would then be able to pay less Income Tax, and there would be an indirect loss to the Consolidated Fund, and we should not like to think that in order to recoup himself for that indirect loss he was putting pressure on the Secretary of State for Dominions to put on tariffs against the Irish Free State.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Oh, that is all right.
  Mr. HICKS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LUNN: I beg to move, in line 4, after the word "may," to insert the words:
  "after consultation with the Secretary of State for the Dominions."
  The object of this Amendment is to ensure that before the Treasury put into force this Resolution there shall be consultation with the Secretary of State for the Dominions. We should have preferred that a previous Amendment had been carried, and this matter adjourned to the Ottawa Conference. We have misgivings about this idea of handing over the power of government to a dictatorship. Nearly everything is in the hands of the Treasury. Nearly every Government Department is under the control and fear of the Treasury. In this Money Resolution we make the Treasury absolute without any reference to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and we think that before any duties are imposed on the Irish Free State he and his

  145
  Department ought to be consulted. After all, it is the Secretary of State who is in communication with the Dominions and the Irish Free State and who knows the facts of the situation. After we have passed this legislation the Dominions Office seems to go out of the business altogether, and we are again in the hands of the Treasury, as we have been in most of the legislation passed during the present Session. Personally, I am opposed to duties of this character. We feel that in this business we have not seen the best that can be done by the Secretary of State for the Dominions in negotiations. If it had not been for the over-riding, monstrous powers of this Government we feel that we would not have been discussing this question to-day. The Government seem determined not to accept any policy which means peace and amity between the two countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That seems to be the idea. In any event, we feel the Dominions Office ought not to be left out of the matter where two Dominions are mostly concerned.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): There is obviously substance in the point of my hon. Friend, but it is primarily a machinery point and therefore does not have to be dealt with in the Resolution. It is no part of the intention of the Government that the Dominions Office should disappear from the picture from now on, so far as this question is concerned. It is the intention of the Government to cover this point in general terms in the Bill itself.
  Mr. LUNN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move, in line 4, after the word "descriptions," to insert the words "(other than food)."
  We feel that it would be quite wrong to include duties on food in these duties in view of the fact that legislation imposing duties on a large number of foodstuffs has been passed so recently by this House. This Resolution would appear to be imposing taxes upon the Irish nation, but that is more apparent than real, for if we come to examine the matter we shall find that, properly speaking, it is not the Irish nation which will meet the charges which are being imposed but,
  146
  in the last instance, the consumer. The poorer people will feel these charges more directly than anybody else, as time passes. It has been stated here to-night that the consumer will eventually have to pay all the duties which are being imposed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not under this Bill."] That was stated by an hon. Member opposite, and I never heard anybody challenge the statement. These duties cannot be imposed without somebody paying them, and they will not be paid by the Irish exporter, but by the poorer people who consume the goods.
  Mr. PRICE: In supporting the Amendment I wish to draw attention to the fact that if this money is to be got in the way suggested in the Resolution it will certainly mean that the people of this country will pay the duties. We do not think that all the efforts at negotiation which could have been made to secure a just settlement of this dispute have been made, but if the Government are intending to use reprisals we strongly object, in view of present depressed conditions, against the people who depend on imported food being made to shoulder this liability. It is no good anyone suggesting that if these duties are laid on imports it will make no difference to retail prices. Hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite me, have, on many occasions during the discussions on the Import Duties and their consequences, totally denied that they have made any difference to the retail prices which the housewife who is dependent upon a small wage has to pay. We who live in the districts and are watching the conditions that have already arisen, know perfectly well, whatever the Board of Trade figures may suggest, that in many instances foodstuffs have gone up in cost. We cannot be led to believe that, if these imposts are imposed, the working class will have no higher prices to pay for the commodities that come from the Irish Free State. In various parts of the country, in regard to butter and eggs and other forms of food, a large proportion comes from the Irish Free State. If you are going to challenge the position and use any kind of force, there are other ways and means of doing it without imposing the liability on, the poorest classes in the country, who will have this position to meet if the duties are imposed upon their food. We ask the Government to find other ways and means of asserting their authority with-

  147
  out putting imposts on the people's food. We say very seriously that, in the position of the country to-day, people cannot afford to pay any further increased prices for their food on top of the heavy import duties that they are now having to meet, and which affect thousands of homes with small incomes. We suggest that the Government ought to take up some other attitude than the imposition of taxes on the food of the people.
  Mr. HASLAM: Neither the Mover of this Amendment nor the Seconder gave us any reason why they considered that the action proposed in the Motion would cause any rise in the price of food. Both of them referred to the existing tariff which affects food prices, and neither of them offered evidence that existing tariffs had raised the price of any food products. Neither did the Mover or the Seconder discuss the position that would be left, presuming that their Amendment were carried. They did not point out what articles would be left on which the tax might be levied, and how the people of this country might escape the burden which Mr. de Valera is seeking to impose upon them. They offered us no evidence as to what articles might be taxed if food were left out.
  10.0 p.m.
  An hon. Member who spoke previously in this Debate has given us figures, and has pointed out that the proportion of food products derived from the Irish Free State is not more than 7 per cent. of the whole of the food products imported into the United Kingdom. In addition to the food products imported into the United Kingdom there is yet, I am glad that rural hon. Members will be able to say, a considerable amount of food raised in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the amount of the food consumed by the people of this country and on which this tax may fall, must be less, and very distinctly less, than 7 per cent. Do the hon. Members who have moved and supported this Amendment expect the Committee to believe that a tax on this minute fraction of the amount of food consumed in this country is going to have any effect on the price Before the Committee even considers this Amendment, it will want a little evidence to show that a tax of, say, four or five percent. of the food consumed in this country, is going to have any effect on the
  148
  price. Perhaps some other hon. Member will give us that evidence. Until that evidence is forthcoming the Committee should not consider the Amendment. As a Member representing those who produce food, I do not mind saying unhesitatingly that the rural population of this country will be able to produce all the food to equal all that may no longer be sent in on account of this Resolution, and that the people of this country will be able to eat home-grown food at the same price as if the food were coming in from outside.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Why do they not do it now?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I support this Amendment. I can see that the working-class has to pay because the Irish Free State has refused to pay. This stupid Government is going to saddle it upon the working class of this country. This is not the first time that this statement has been made to-day; it was made by my colleague the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and when he was making it, Tory hon. Members shouted from different parts of the House, particularly the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) who, I am sorry, is not in his place at the moment. What the Tory shouted at the hon. Member for Bridgeton was that the working-class did not get butter, but margarine. If ever there was an attack on the Tories, that was it. They do not give the working classes of this country money enough to buy butter, and the people are reduced to margarine. There is a good deal of truth in the statement that it is margarine. The artisan class for whom I can speak authoritatively in the West of Scotland get Irish butter, Irish eggs, and Irish pork. As I said to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs, if he had had some more Irish stuff he would have been a better looking man than he is. [Interruption.] Here you are going to deprive the artisans of Britain of good, fresh food, and you are going to condemn them to Egyptian and Chinese eggs. [Interruption.] The English Tory, whenever he gets the bit between his teeth, is prepared to do anything, even to go to war, to accomplish his ends. It is all right for them to stand at that Box today and say, "We do not intend to do them any harm; we are going to be generous," but where is their generosity?

  149
  They are the predominant partner, and it has always been so, both in England and in Scotland.
  They are going to tax the food of our folk. If our folk could afford it, it would not be so bad, but, to take the people in my own trade of engineering, they are driven nearly desperate with reductions all round, and the National Government not only stood for reductions in their purchasing power, but put them, into practice. They did that openly and above-board, for I will say this about my opponent at the General Election—he said he was in favour of the means test. When I told him, during the election, that the means test meant hell for the working-class, they thought I was exaggerating. But this is another and scientific method of again reducing the workers of this country; you are taxing their food. This is what is called indirect taxation, and the individual who introduced it was the Earl of Chatham. He was the great Tory, the old die-hard Tory, who gave the statesmen of the world the idea how to tax the folk, how to reduce their wages so that they did not know they were getting a reduction. Here is another reduction for my class.
  I want to ask the Government if they can see no other way of legislating in order to prove that they are statesmen than by hammering the British working-class? Every trouble that this Government get up against they heave on to the British working-class. Here they are up against a tight place with the Irish, and again they make the British working-class pay, because it is not the well-off folk that buy Irish butter and Irish eggs in this country; they get fresh eggs—[Interruption.] It is all right for Members to laugh when I make a mistake. I can see a learned individual laughing who last week was making nothing but mistakes. Those who can afford them buy fresh eggs, country eggs,, not Irish eggs coming from across the sea, and everybody knows what I mean; but hon. Members have such acute brains, and can see when a mistake is made. No doubt they are so brilliant in the hope of getting a judgeship, but they can take it from me that they will not get it.
  I suggest to the Government that they try another way of getting round their difficulties than throwing them off on to
  150
  the poor working-class, because let them remember that it is on the working-class that they depend for their votes, and they cannot go on indiscriminately crushing the British worker in this fashion and thinking that the British working-class will not notice what is being done. The Committee can take it from me and my colleagues that we are going to do what we can to draw the attention of the British working-class to what is being done, so that they may not be gulled by any racial prejudice against Ireland, or by any religious prejudice—because that is abroad in the House to-night, though it ill becomes the Government to do anything of the kind. I hope that my comrades in every part of Britain will do what they can to draw attention to this dirty attack on the working-class by the National Government, and I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  Mr. DIXEY: I very much regret that the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was not delivered in different circumstances from those of this particular Motion. I cannot understand the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) saying that this Motion is likely to increase the cost of food, because the hon. Member must know quite well, and his hon. and learned colleague must know quite well, that a small tax, dealing with possibly 7 per cent. of the food imported into this country, could not be alleged, even by the most ardent Free Trader, to have any effect upon wholesale imports of food into this country. I am very much surprised that the Leader of the Opposition should have given his blessing, as I take it he has, to such an absurd and idiotic suggestion. In point of fact, the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment knows quite well that the Free State food producer thoroughly understands that the person who is going to pay this tax is the gentleman resident in the Free State. If not, he would not object to the tax at all. I am not always as firmly with the Government as I am upon this occasion. A very proper action has been taken, and the only taxes that could be levied are those upon food and livestock. No farmer in the Free State is under any delusion, as the hon. Member for Wigan is, that this is going to be borne by the consumer in this country.

  151
  He knows quite well that the full effect of these duties is going to fall upon agriculture in Ireland, and that is why Mr. de Valera is so anxious to find a way out. Surely it would be far more dignified for the Opposition to content themselves with moving series Amendments and withdrawing this.
  Mr. TINKER: We on this side have always stood against the imposition of food taxes, and that alone is an adequate reason for opposing this Resolution. In the second place, this Amendment, if carried, would defeat the Resolution. I make no bones about that. An Opposition has a. perfect right to use every legitimate means to defeat the intentions of the other side. A third reason for bringing the Amendment forward is that eventually, even though it affects only 7 per cent. of the food that comes into the country, it will make some material difference. [Interruption.] Of course, whatever we say will have no effect on the hon. Member. I am not attempting to convince thim. I am addressing other Members with whom my words may have greater weight. He has always been a pronounced taxer of food. The taxation of 7 per cent., of our food imports will, in my opinion, gradually come to be borne by the consumers.
  Mr. DIXEY: Is it not obvious that, if less is imported from the Free State, more will be imported from other countries?
  Mr. TINKER: We often hear the argument that, if we restrict food from overseas, it can be produced here. But, if we restrict our supplies from Ireland, most probably the food that we grow or import to take its place will go to a higher price because of the absence of competition from Ireland. I am not arguing the merits of the £3,000,000. All I am arguing is that this is a wrong method of trying to get the money, and I am very much afraid that in the end it will come on the backs of the working community. That is our point of objection, and the reasons we give are quite adequate why we should try to prevail upon the Government to withhold their hand for a time. I will try to prevail upon the Dominions Secretary once more to see where he is going.
  I do not want the people of this country to have to find the £3,000,00000
  152
  eventually. I want it to come from those who borrowed the money, but I think the Government would be wise at a time like this not to let it go on imported food. Let them stay their hand and see if we can bring to bear upon Ireland some sense of reason in what we think is the fair claim we are making upon them. The only result of doing it in this way will be to arouse antagonism amongst our own working-class people and amongst the vast numbers of Irish in this country. On the whole, it would he far better for the good will of both countries if the right hon. Gentleman could accept this Amendment. It would lead to a much better decision than will be got if he goes through with his Money Resolution.
  Mr. THOMAS: The last sentence of the speech of my hon. Friend gives the key to the situation. There can be no one who will go to a Division and vote for the Amendment knowing the facts without saying to himself, "I am now going to vote for something which will nullify absolutely the intention of the Government." My hon. Friend knows that quite well.
  Mr. TINKER: I admit it.
  Mr. THOMAS: Therefore we do not want any quibbling. We will strip it right away, and we shall have this position, namely, that my hon. Friend proposes something which renders everything contained in the Financial Resolution non-effective. Is that a wise course? The underlying motive of my hon. Friend is, first of all, not to antagonise British democracy, that is, the great mass of the working classes, and, secondly, the great mass of Irish people in this country.
  Mr. TINKER: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct.
  Mr. THOMAS: I think I am putting the position fairly. Let me take the latter consideration. If I were convinced for one moment that the mass of the Irish people stood for the principle of the repudiation of agreements, I should have no hesitation in saying that it must be fought regardless of the consequences. But I am not convinced that the great mass of the Irish people stand for that. I have had too long an association with them not only in this country but in Ireland, and in their name I say "No." Whatever may be the constitutional diffi-

  153
  culties upon the short simple issue of being bound by an agreement made on their behalf, the Irish people as a whole, when the issue is put to them, will be the first to repudiate those who repudiate their obligations. That is my answer. With regard to British democracy, I suppose that it will be argued from the other side that only they speak for British democracy. [Interruption.] I want to be quite fair. I do not pretend to speak officially for organised labour, and I shall never make that claim.
  Mr. MAXTON: You were speaking five minutes ago for the Irish people.
  Mr. THOMAS: Yes, because I have had much more experience in Ireland even than my hon. Friend. When we talk about democracy in this country let us be fair and try to interpret what the average man-in-the-street desires above everything else. I have endeavoured in this Irish difficulty to put myself in that position, and I have said, "Suppose this was a body of ordinary working men whose daily worry was work for themselves and the maintenance of their families." That is a fair view of the great British democracy. They desire to do the right thing and they desire work in order that they maintain their families. Putting myself in that position, as I. have done in this Irish situation, I am convinced that the course that I am now submitting to the Committee, is, in the long run, the right course for British democracy. I took my stand, and I may be pardoned for repeating what I said to Mr. de Valera, face to face. He expressed surprise at my note. He said:
  "I was amazed to receive your document."
  I said:
  "You may know, and you do know, a lot of Irish history, and I believe in your sincerity, but I am sorry that you did not look up the history of English democracy. You did not even look up the record of this Government, because you have expressed surprise at my attitude in challenging your right to repudiate an agreement. Do you forget that in 1917 I was the head of the greatest trade union in the world, as well as in this country. I made an agreement on their behalf and they repudiated it, and I resigned my position, because I refused further to lead an organisation that repudiated their agreement. If "—
  my hon. Friend opposite will know the significance of this—
  "I could demand in 1917 a standard of honour from the humble platelayer, I have
  154
  a right to expect a standard of honour from those who speak for the Government of a nation."
  That is the simple issue now.
  Mr. TINKER: I am not disputing about the right to demand that an honourable agreement should be kept, but I am disputing the method of getting at it.
  Mr. THOMAS: Then we are agreed that we have the right to observe agreements.
  Mr. TINKER: I agree.
  Mr. THOMAS: We agree that we are entitled to enforce an agreement. The only point in dispute is the method.
  Mr. TINKER: I agree.
  Mr. MACLEAN: No.
  Mr. THOMAS: I am dealing with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who says "Yes." The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) says "No."
  Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman is begging the whole question. We dispute that there is an agreement.
  Mr. THOMAS: I am sure there will be complete silence on that side in regard to that statement. My hon. Friend is the only one who will associate himself with that statement.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Oh, no.
  Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. I am very interested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to know how exactly this cross-talk arose on an Amendment to omit foodstuffs.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): It appeared to me that the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the taxation of foodstuffs as a, method of keeping an agreement was in order, but any argument as to whether or not any agreement exists cannot possibly arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: How can an argument as to whether the railwaymen in 1917 had an agreement or not arise on the question whether or not we should exclude food?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman was using it as an illustration, and he had just finished as I was preparing to interrupt him.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. THOMAS: I put to the Committee this simple proposition, that this is an Amendment to exclude foodstuffs, and it is admitted that if it were carried it would destroy the whole purpose of the Resolution. Therefore, if the Committee is satisfied that we have exhausted every means open to us to find an amicable settlement and are left with this alternative, they will say that it is far better to have a straight issue; that the course before the Government is clear and definite; that this is the only way open to the Government and that no alternative has been proposed.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I rise to associate myself with the Amendment. I should have been content with an open and straight issue and to have voted for or against the measures which the Government propose instead of dealing with the various amendments, which only lead to the same conclusion. The argument has been used in connection with this Amendment that the people who are going to pay the proposed taxes on foodstuffs are the people in the Irish Free State. I have asked before, and I ask again, if it is the case that by tariff reform and the taxation of foodstuffs the foreigner pays why do you not place sufficient taxation on goods coming in from foreign countries to wipe out the whole of the Debt? I believe, however, that a certain section of the House are not concerned only with the differences which have arisen between the Irish Free State and the British Government. They see in the proposals which are put forward something which is very dear to their hearts—the imposition of taxation on foodstuffs coming in from what is termed a part of the British Empire, and they are prepared to try it out and impose food taxes on the exports from the Irish Free State in the hope that it will be extended to all countries. Then they will have completed their ideas in regard to the taxation of food. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may grunt and groan like their brothers do in other fields, and it only proves that I am beginning to arrive at the right conclusion, that that is what they are aiming at at the present moment.
  156
  I was rather interested, coming up from Scotland this morning, in a speech made by the Secretary for Mines in regard to this proposed taxation of food. I want to know where the Liberal dissenting Ministers are at the moment. What is their idea of the taxation of foodstuffs? If they believe that the one predominant issue in this country is the question of tariffs as against Free Trade, I want to know how they can support the taxation of foodstuffs from the Free State. The Secretary for Mines put it very cunningly. He said that while it is true that a general tariff on foodstuffs would have the effect of raising the cost of living, in this case it is not going to have that effect because of the small amount of food affected. I understood that it was always the first bite that was the most deadly portion of any poison that one was going to swallow. If Liberal Members swallow the first bite of taxation on food, how can they oppose the taxation on foodstuffs from other parts of the world? If the Liberals can square that they can square anything. Personally I believe that they can square anything and I am not a bit annoyed.
  We are told that in this special Measure we must deal with the people of the Free State because they have broken a contract and a bargain. Are we to take it that the people in any part of the world or the Empire, when they get a change of Government, have no right to repudiate the actions of past Governments, and that if they do they are to be punished like naughty boys by the great Imperial British Government? The Government are imposing a tax on food to-night. I am not particularly worried about that, because this is 'a dispute which has a bearing not only on foodstuffs. The Government are here making a defence of their whole policy of keeping the Empire together. They are attempting to keep control of the Empire by every possible punitive measure. In this case they are opposing the democratic instincts and the will and aspirations of the Irish people by declaring 'an economic war. I hope that before long we will find the backbone of the Scottish people developing on the same lines, and that they also will take their stand against English domination, and will develop the democratic instinct.
  I recognise that this is a dangerous experiment for Ireland to be allowed to continue in, for if Ireland is allowed to

  157
  continue all the other parts of the Empire might persist is the same method, and your glorious Empire would disappear like all other Empires. We have heard from the Dominions Secretary about his varied experiences. No one would deny that he has had varied experiences. But we say that just as one trade union leader enters into an agreement regarding conditions of work and in due course, after notice has been given, the agreement can be ended by his successor, so the Irish people are free to discontinue what was decided by their predecessors. The Irish people have declared against an agreement and against the Annuities, and the Government are attempting to bring them to book. But the Government will find that they have scored another gigantic failure. I am confident that Mr. de Valera and the Irish people are quite capable of looking after themselves, but, before you have finished, you will have aroused democratic sentiment throughout the world, and instead of gaining a great victory you will probably find that you have brought down upon yourselves the condemnation of democratic peoples throughout the Empire.
  Mr. HALES: I only wish to put forward one or two comments upon this proposal. It seems to be taken for granted that prices in this country will go up as a result of these duties. May I suggest that immediately the duties are put on other sources of supply will be found? It required a great stretch of the imagination that Denmark, Holland, Norway and Sweden—[HON. MEMBERS: "And England!"]—will not take the opportunity of a preferential tariff to jump into a market from which they have been largely excluded. This is not really a matter for Imperial discussion; it is purely a family squabble and one which never should have arisen. The only reason why Mr. de Valera wants arbitration is in order to avert the evil hour because his action is such as to jeopardise the trade of this country and is at the same time a base betrayal of the Irish nation.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 346.

  Division No 273.]

  AYES

  [10.43 p.m.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Maxton, James

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Milner, Major James

  Batey, Joseph

  Healy, Cahir

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hicks, Ernest Gaorge

  Price, Gabriel

  Buchanan, George

  Hirst, George Henry

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cape, Thomas

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Thorne, William James

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

  Daggar, George

  Kirkwood, David

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lawson, John James

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

  Edwards, Charles

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lunn, William

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  McGovern, John

  Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr.

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  John.

  NOES

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Bait, Sir Alfred L.

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

  Browne, Captain A. C.

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

  Bernays, Robert

  Buchan, John

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

  Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

  Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Birchen, Major Sir John Dearman

  Burnett, John George

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

  Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Apsley, Lord

  Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Asks, Sir Robert William

  Blaker, Sir Reginald

  Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Boothby, Robert John Graham

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Carver, Major William H.

  Bailey, Eric Alfred George

  Boulton, W. W.

  Castle Stewart, Earl

  Benne, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Briant, Frank

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

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

  Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

  Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Bateman, A. L.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

  Clarke, Frank

  Howard, Torn Forrest

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

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

  Clayton, Dr. George C.

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

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Colfax, Major William Philip

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Colman, N. C. D

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Pearson, William G.

  Colville, John

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Bring)

  Peat, Charles U.

  Conant, R. J. E.

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

  Penny, Sir George

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Cooke, Douglas

  Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

  Petherick, M.

  Copeland, Ida

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

  Pete, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Janner, Barnett

  Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Jennings, Roland

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

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

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Power, Sir John Cecil

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

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

  Pybus, Percy John

  Crossley, A. C.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

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

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Ker, J. Campbell

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

  Curry, A. C.

  Kerr, Charles (Montrose)

  Ramsden, E.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Davison, Sir William Henry

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Ray, Sir William

  Dixey, Arthur C. N.

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Rea, Waiter Russell

  Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Knebworth, Viscount

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Donner, P. W.

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

  Doran, Edward

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Dower, Captain A. V. G.

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

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Remer, John R.

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

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

  Dunglass, Lord

  Levy, Thomas

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Lewis, Oswald

  Robinson, John Roland

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

  Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Rothschild, James A. de

  Eimley, Viscount

  Llewellin, Major John J

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Entwistle, Cyrll Fullard

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Russell, Hamer Fleld (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Salmon, Major Isidore

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Salt, Edward W.

  Fernmoy, Lord

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Savory, Samuel Servington

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Scone, Lord

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

  McKeag, William

  Selley, Harry R.

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

  McLean, Major Alan

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Goff, Sir Park

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Goldle, Noel B.

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Maitland, Adam

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

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

  Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

  Slater, John

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Mender, Geoffrey le M.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Grimaton, R. V.

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

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

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Hales, Harold K.

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

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

  Millar, Sir James Duncan

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Hanbury, Cecil

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Milne, Charles

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Harbord, Arthur

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

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

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Hartland, George A.

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Stevenson, James

  Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

  Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

  Stones, James

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

  Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

  Storey, Samuel

  Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

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

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Morrison, William Shepherd

  Summersby, Charles H.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  North, Captain Edward T.

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

  Hornby, Frank

  Nunn, William

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

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  160

  161

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

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Womersley, Walter James

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

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

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Train, John

  White, Henry Graham

  Wragg, Herbert

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

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

  Major George Davies and Mr.

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Blindell.

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in line 4, after the word "descriptions," to insert the words "save as regards livestock."
  This Amendment is to exclude all livestock from the ambit of the Motion. The previous Amendment dealt with food, but I think it will be recognised that there is a different principle involved here. I suggest to the Dominions Secretary that this ought not to be treated as a joke. It is a serious matter, and he should put himself on a level with other Cabinet Ministers. This is put down seriously as a separate Amendment, because we have had the question of livestock before us a good deal. I understand that at least 75 per cent., if not 90 per cent., of the cattle coming into this country come from the Irish Free State or Northern Ireland. My information is that the store cattle which come into this country come practically exclusively from Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland. The argument brought against food being excluded was that the food coming into this country from Ireland was not of such large quantity and value as was likely to affect the market price.
  A totally different consideration enters into the question of cattle, because practically the whole cattle trade is confined to Ireland, and, if you put on a prohibitive tax, as the Government have power to do, it will stop a large source of supply. It may be said that the Government do not intend to use the power, or only partially use it, but the fact remains that the Government have the power to put on a prohibitive tax. If such a tax is put on a certain commodity and our only source of supply is the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, a serious position will arise not only for those who export the cattle, but for those in this country who depend on this business for their livelihood. There are large numbers of people in Scotland and England whose whole livelihood is gained by buying Irish
  162
  store cattle and grazing and fattening it. These people are not involved in the dispute. It may be said in regard to food that we have great supplies from other parts of the world and that if the supplies are cut off from Ireland we can go to other sources of supply, but nobody suggests that there is another market at hand for store cattle.
  11.0 p.m.
  I am surprised at the attitude of the Financial Secretary, for his family has largely been built up in connection with the Irish store cattle business, and they have worked in alliance with people who have grazing land for cattle. These people are not Irish, and, if the Government overtax the supplies of Irish cattle, they will be smashed. Many of them have put in the business what small capital they have, and are only struggling along. Because we have a dispute with Ireland their cattle is to be taxed, and the result will be that they will be ruined. The Financial Secretary must be well up in this question. If these people are cut off from their supplies for even a month, they will be in an impossible position. They have fixed charges. In some, business people can alter contracts, but these men have to take land on a long tenure, and cannot cancel their commitments if they find their supplies of livestock cut off. The Financial Secretary knows that this is a serious subject. The people who have approached us on this matter are Scottish people who know nothing about the Irish problem or its cross currents. They are people who have devoted their lives to pasture and the fattening of Irish cattle, and have built up a very good industry. When we already have millions of unemployed, deliberately to take a step which will throw more people out of work, for a time at least, is a wrong way of tackling the Irish problem. Whatever we may do as regards other things store cattle and livestock ought to be excluded from the operations of this Resolution. In Lanark there is some of the very best grazing

  163
  land, and the people there live largely by this trade, and it would be a wanton act on our part to place these poor people in such a predicament. They are people who know nothing of the cross currents of our diplomatic quarrels with Mr. de Valera; they carry on a peaceful industry in a peaceful way, getting their supplies from Ireland, which is the only place from which they can get supplies.
  There is another aspect of the question. I do not stress it so much, because I do not think it bears quite the same aspect of the case of the grazier, but it must be taken into account. We have built up great markets in the West of Scotland—at Ayr, Greenock and in the city of Glasgow. We have shipping lines that are almost exclusively engaged in bringing cattle from Ireland to these markets, and one of the features of that trade is that on the outward voyage the ships carry coal to the Free State. It is an important element in the shipping business that a ship shall be sure of being able to secure a return cargo. Here great quantities of coal are exported to the Free State and the shipper can be certain of a return cargo of cattle. I am not going into the question of our coal exports to the Free State, but everyone knows that the Free State must buy coal from Britain. It is one of Scotland's best markets. The fact that we send out that coal allows shippers to charge cheaper freights, because they know that they will be able to secure a cargo of cattle for the return voyage. There are the people who handle livestock at the docks. You may say that this is a mere turning of the wheel, a transferring of food from Ireland to this country and from this country to Denmark. Nobody can argue that the cattle trade, and particularly the trade in store cattle, is confined to the Free State and to Northern Ireland.
  I want to make this last point, which has never been argued in connection with food from the Free State. Everyone here assumes that the trade of Northern Ireland is not to be affected, but merely the exports from the Free State. Livestock can be easily moved and transferred, and I suggest seriously that you may be setting up an industry, which it will be almost impossible to trace, in the shifting of cattle backwards and forwards across the border. I hope that this country is
  164
  not going to embark upon a policy which will drive decent folk into a trade which may partially become illegal. From whatever angle you view this matter, the conclusion is the same, and I ask the Minister to accept our Amendment.
  Mr. M. MacDONALD: The Amendment has been put down as a, serious matter, and I think that the Committee will take that point of view. It is true to say that a large percentage of the store cattle that come into this country come in from Ireland, but I am bound to resist the Amendment, because of the simple fact that it will be impossible for the Government both to accept it and to achieve the purpose of the Resolution. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has spoken of the cattle that are coming into this country from the Irish Free State as though they were imported as food, or for the purpose of becoming food. That, of course, is not the whole case. A good deal of livestock comes in for other purposes. Those two categories of livestock, for food and not for food, both of whcih would be covered by this Amendment, compose something like 50 per cent. of the total imports from the Irish Free State into this country. It is estimated, for instance, that the total value of livestock coming in this year, in normal conditions, would be £15,000,000 out of a total import value of something like £3,000,000, and therefore the effect of this Amendment would be that the Government would have to confine the proposed duties to the other £15,000,000 worth of imports.
  The object of the Government is to raise at least £3,500,000 to meet a certain emergency, but it must be clear to the Committee that, if we were limited in that way, we should have to put on such duties that the trade would almost cease before anything like the amount had come in. I think that the hon. Member has exaggerated the danger. He spoke the whole time about a prohibitive tax, and about the evils that would follow—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I said that we were giving the Government power to put on a 100 per cent. tax, which is prohibitive. I am only arguing on the facts as they are before the Committee; I do not know what the Government are doing. I am entitled to argue as to the power that is being given to the Government.
  Mr. MacDONALD: The 100 per cent. tax would, of course, be a maximum tax, but the whole point of imposing the tax at all is to raise revenue, and, therefore, it is certainly not the intention of the Government to put a prohibitive tax on an important item of imports from the Irish Free State. We believe that we can put a tax on livestock which will help us' considerably in raising the money, and which at the same time will be nothing like a prohibitive tax, and will not bring that extent of evil upon consumers or upon people engaged in industries or shipping in this country which the hon. Member fears. For these reasons, I must make it clear that it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I should like to support the Amendment very strongly, and in doing so to correct what I think is the wrong impression as regards these figures which the hon. Gentleman has just given, I am sure quite unwittingly. He stated that there was a very large quantity of livestock imported from Ireland that was not for food. If he will look at the trade returns for the first five months of this year, he will see that, as regards living animals for food, out of a total import of the value of £5,105,000, all except £102,000 comes from Ireland, that is to say, £5,000,000 worth. As regards other animals not for food—leaving out horses, which come from the Irish Free State to the extent of £604,000—the total from all countries of all other animals not for food is £639,000 in the same period, so that it is obvious that the vast bulk of the importation of animals from Ireland falls under the category of animals for food, that is to say, really store cattle, because, out of that sum of £5,000,000, £4,148,000 represents cattle.
  The argument that the farmer here will not have to pay the tax because there is an alternative source of supply falls altogether, because this is the only source for the importation of live store cattle into this country. The farmers in the West of England, who are accustomed through the Bristol Channel ports to get their store stock from Ireland every year, and who have arranged the whole of their farming on that basis, will find themselves confronted with the alternatives of not having store cattle or of paying the tax on store cattle, and they will be the people who will make good, as far as this amount
  166
  is concerned, any loss as regards Irish Annuities. It will not be a question of the Irish farmer making it good, because there is no alternative supply, and, on the argument already put from the other side of the House, where there is no alternative supply the importer pays, and not the exporter from the other country. This, therefore, is a very important aspect of the question, and one to which I think the Government ought to give more attention, because the farming industry, surely, is not in such a position in this country at the moment as to be able to bear an extra tax for the purpose of assisting the Budget. If half the imports from Ireland are livestock, which are purchased by the farmers of this country, and there is no alternative supply to which they can look if this one is raised in price, the farmers of this country will pay half the £3,500,000. Surely, although the Government may think it wise to cut off their nose to spite their face, it is not going to be the farmer's nose that is cut off in order to spite the face of the Income Taxpayer.
  Mr. D. REID: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman sure that there is no other market?
  Sir S. CRIPPS: Certainly. It is shown quite clearly from the returns that there is no other source of supply.
  Mr. REID: There is no other market.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: That is really a different question. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may think it a very laughable matter that store stock in this country is going to be cut off from supply. A great number of these cattle can be fed and slaughtered in Ireland and exported as meat. Alternatively the Irish need not continue to breed cattle for this country. [Interruption.] I am glad hon. Members think this is a joke. I can assure them that the country will not think it is a joke when this economic war has been launched and the country feels the effects of it.
  Mr. MAXTON: I do not think we should rush so hastily to vote on this matter as some hon. Members seem to desire. I understand that the placing of agriculture upon a sound basis was one of the important efforts that this Government was making. I understood from various speeches of the Minister of Agri-

  167
  culture that before certain things could be done in the way of interfering with our sources of supply from other countries, the Government had to have time to make necessary reorganisations in this country. I have the impression from the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the whole of their action in this matter is actuated more by spleen than by common sense and cool reason and I have the feeling that, in drawing this Resolution as widely as to include the livestock industry, they are doing something that is going to strike a serious blow at an important part of the agricultural interest in this country before the Government's plans in other directions have been carried to completion. We are not arguing on this Amendment the question of the Government's general attitude towards Ireland. We are not now questioning what is agreed to by the House, that they are going to raise the amount to pay this Land Annuity interest by this process of imposing taxes. All we are arguing is that, since the Government have decided to adopt it, they shall not at one and the same time injure an important industry in this country and make the food problem of our people very much more difficult than it is to-day. Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I could not follow the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary. He was much too cryptic. I wish he had been more specific as to what he meant as between the two categories of Irish livestock imported into this country. I should fancy it does not matter very much for the practical purposes of the Government, in so far as the raising of this revenue is concerned, what happens to the live stock after they are brought over here. Their interest in it is the raising of revenue. They tell us that, as far as regards this particular Measure, they are not concerned with its effect upon the industrial position in this country and the food supplies of the people. They are only concerned with it as a revenue-raising device for a specific purpose. I think that they ought to have some consideration in this proposal for raising £3,000,000 as to the effect it will have on the general industrial and employment position in this country.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says, you can
  168
  ill-afford at this time to take the risk of throwing additional people on to the unemployment market. You can ill-afford to throw a number of struggling trades into bankruptcy, and in our terrible anxiety to hit the Irish people, or, to put it in a more benevolent way, to consider the welfare of the few thousands of people who happen to be owners of Irish Land Annuity Stock, it is scarcely fair game to hit other citizens of this country who are just as reputable citizens and probably more useful citizens than those who draw interest from the Land Annuities. The right hon. Gentleman laid tremendous stress upon the necessity of keeping faith with those who hold this particular stock. Their interest must be paid, so that Britain's honour may be preserved, but is there no honourable responsibility to citizens of this country who are carrying on a perfectly legitimate industry and have done so for many years 1 Are the Government going to say quite coolly and deliberately that graziers, feeders of cattle, auctioneers, dealers of one kind and another, people at the docks, stevedores, shipping people, are all to be placed in danger of financial ruin and bankruptcy in order that mere interest drawers must get the income to which they have been accustomed from Irish Land Annuities?
  That is the position, as I understand it, put to us by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. [Interruption.] That is how I understand it. The Under-Secretary, in reply, has just said that they must do this if they are to get the necessary revenue. The necessary revenue must be raised. Neither the Dominions Secretary, the Under-Secretary, nor the Financial Secretary dare stand up in this House and say that this interference with all the persons who engage in this industry is not fraught with very great danger to the people in that trade. Now we come to a position that in these days when the principal task confronting the nation is to place industry and production on a sound and prosperous footing, and since the Government have held that the establishment of the British agricultural industry on a sound footing is a primary part of their policy, the Government say that they do not care. The interests of agriculture, production and employment are all secondary to the interests of the bondholders in Irish Land Annuities.

  169
  I and my hon. Friends here cannot accept that view for a minute. We say that the whole scheme is conceived in sin and born in iniquity. That is no reason why the Dominions Secretary should adopt it as his child. Conceived in sin! The whole scheme is foolish and actuated by bad temper rather than considerations of statesmanship. It is National Government policy, the policy of the Government who are going to Ottawa next week to join closer the bonds of Empire. Go ahead with it and in the doing of it you can take care to safeguard the interests of an important section of your own people. I ask the Dominions Secretary again to consider this Amendment and the issues involved, which I am certain he has not considered up till now.
  Captain TODD: I had no intention to intervene, but the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has brought me to my feet. I represent a Division which probably absorbs as many Irish cattle as any part of the country. The hon. and learned Member seems to imagine that British agricultural interests are in the hands of the Irish farmers. He suggests that if we do not buy their store cattle they will sell their beasts as meat. To what market do they propose to send their meat? He suggests that they will no longer breed for our market. Where will their cattle go if they do not come to our market? We buy in Northumberland thousands of heads of Irish cattle and I frankly own that if this tax is put on it will to a large extent disorganise the agricultural industry in Northumberland, but I can assure the Ministry and this House that, however great the hardship to Northumberland, the Northumbrian farmers are behind the National Government. If this Measure has to be carried long enough, Northumbria will breed her own cattle.
  Mr. J. JONES: Up to now no Irishman representing an English Constituency has had an opportunity of saying what he thinks about the policy of the Government. I was born and bred in Ireland and I am proud of it. I landed in Liver- pool, a bare faced boy, and my face was not the only bare part about me. The notices on the factory gates at the time were: "No Irish need apply." At that
  170
  time it was a political exclusive policy. Now it has become an economic exclusive policy because Mr. De Valera does not agree with Mr. Thomas. The right hon. Gentleman knows that this question is not a mere matter of political convenience but a matter of economic strategy. The majority of the people in the Free State are not antagonistic to Great Britain. That has been proved by the fact that Mr. De Valera cannot get a complete majority of the people. In consequence of the difficulties that have been created since the last election for the Dail this policy has been put forward, because a section of Irish politicians have decided upon a certain line of action.
  11.30 p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member should have made his speech in the beginning of the Debate on the Motion. The Amendment we are now discussing is to exclude live-stock.
  Mr. JONES: I am trying to get back to that. I am one of those who came from Ireland to this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Any duty?"] There was no duty at that time on livestock.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is mistaken. He could not come within the definition of livestock.
  Mr. JONES: No, but I suppose I should come within the definition of livestock. Here you are hitting at one of the largest trades between Great Britain and Ireland. What is the object? Are you hitting Mr. De Valera and his friends 7 Livestock in Ireland is raised in the fertile plains of the south and west, not on the mountain side where Mr. De Valera comes from. [Interruption.] You are doing no good to England or Ireland by this policy of economic reprisal. This attempt to enforce a policy of coercion will only unite the people of Ireland. Those who do not agree with Mr. De Valera will come together and fight you. They are prepared to make any sacrifice. You have tried coercion in days gone by. [Interruption.]
  The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will not be led away by these interruptions.
  Mr. JONES: No, Sir. This is a question of livestock, which is the greatest

  171
  trade between this country and Ireland. England is not the Empire; Scotland is not the Empire. You must remember that there are Irishmen in Australia; in every part of the Empire. I have known the Secretary of State when he was a vehement advocate of Home Rule for Ireland. Does he realise that there are Irish citizens in all our Colonies? We want to know the implications of this policy to break up the trade relations between Great Britain and Ireland. I do not know much about it—[Interruption]—in that ease, I am as ignorant as other hon. Members, but I suggest that it is the worst policy any Government could adopt. The Government think they are going to win with this policy. They are not going to win. They are going to bind Irishmen together in every part of the Empire against the policy of reprisals. I would like to see something done in the way of sending over some of our livestock—
  The CHAIRMAN: I must again ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Amendment.
  Mr. JONES: We should send over some of our livestock from the Front Bench to meet the livestock in Ireland.
  Mr. LOGAN: I make no apology for intervening in the debate at this hour. I have waited all the day, and it is now twenty-five minutes to twelve. I represent a Division where there is a large Irish population as much concerned with this question as anyone in this Committee. I have listened to a lot of nonsense about many things during the debate.[Interruption.] Liverpool will be greatly affected by this proposal. The Amendment has been supported by our friends from Scotland, and I pay my tribute to them. We have built in Liverpool one of the finest abattoirs in the world, and have made special arrangements for this cattle trade. Here is an industry which could provide much work. One hon. Member opposite who hails from Northumberland said just now, "If the Irish are not able to get their cattle over to this country there is no doubt that we shall raise the necessary stock in Northumberland and get over the difficulty in that way." Is that the spirit of the Committee? If so, let us understand at once,
  172
  and the challenge will be taken up. Is this a vendetta against the agriculturists and stock breeders of Ireland? If so, let us be told. If hon. Members want to raise the difficulties of an Irish question they can have all the difficulties that they require. If they want conciliation they should adopt a better way of dealing with the people of Ireland, who are an integral part of the community. That would be a safer solution. I would advise some of the younger bloods, the livestock of this House, who are here to-night and who do not understand the Irish problem and do not know how it has perplexed the House of Commons in the past, to take some notice of one who is an old negotiator—I speak of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Resolution—in what he has said about this complex and difficult position.
  The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will not get away from the Amendment.
  Mr. LOGAN: I will not get away from it. I am getting close to it. What I am pointing out to the Committee is that a Vote is to be taken on the imposition of a tariff on livestock, as a vendetta, or as a means of raising £3,000,000 of revenue. Whatever you may do, I ask you not to imperil business in this country, or the loss will be felt here in the near future. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member wishes to throw anything across I will be quite capable of dealing with him, just as well as with livestock. I want to say quite seriously that I am at one with the Mover of the Amendment. It is a proposal which would be beneficial to our people. As regards the question of Ireland, I do not care a tinker's curse, if you raise the duty to 300 per cent., because it would aggravate the position and we would understand the position better from the Irish standpoint. But from the point of view of the relationships of this country and better understanding, I would advise hon. Members to accept the Amendment in the interests of peace and for the benefit of our own people.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 310.

  Division No. 274.]

  AYES.

  [11.43 p.m.

  Adams. D. M (Poplar South)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Batey, Joseph

  Healy, Cahir

  Maxton, James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Milner, Major James

  Cape, Thomas

  Hirst, George Henry

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Price, Gabriel

  Gripes, Sir Stafford

  John, William

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Daggar, George

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Day es, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kirkwood, David

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Edwards, Charles

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lawson, John James

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Grefell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.

  NOES

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

  Cooke, Douglas

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Copeland, Ida

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Albery, Irving James

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hornby, Frank

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

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Apsley, Lord

  Crossley, A. C.

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Curry, A. C.

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Bailey, Eric Alfred George

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

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Ba e, Sir Adrian W. M.

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

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Davison, Sir William Henry

  Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

  Bainiel, Lord

  Dickle, John P.

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

  Donner, P. W.

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

  Bateman, A. L.

  Doran, Edward

  Janner, Barnett

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Jennings, Roland

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Bernays, Robert

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B

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

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

  Dunglase, Lord

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

  Birchen, Major Sir John Dearman

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Blaker, Sir Reginald

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Kerr, Charles (Montrose)

  Boothby, Robert John Graham

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Eimley, Viscount

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Boulton, W. W.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Knebworth, Viscount

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Lackie, J.A.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Leech, Dr. J.W.

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

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Lennox-Boyd, A.T.

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Levy, Thomas

  Briant, Frank

  Fox, Sir Gilford

  Liddall, Water S.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

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

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

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Buchan-Hepbury, P. G. T.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Lloyd, Geoffery

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Goldie, Noel B.

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Burnett, John George

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Mabane, William

  Carver, Major William H.

  Grimston, R. V.

  MacAndrew, Capt. J.O. (Ayr)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  McCorquodale, M.S.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  McDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

  Hales, Harold K.

  Mcdonald, Capt. P.D. (I. of W.)

  Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

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

  McKeag, William

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Clayton, Dr. George C.

  Harbord, Arthur

  Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  McLean, Major Alan

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Hartland, George A.

  McLean, Dr. W.H. (Tradeston)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

  Macmillian, Maurice Harold

  Colville, John

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnee)

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

  Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

  174

  175

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

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

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

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Stones, James

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Remer, John R.

  Storey, Samuel

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Milne, Charles

  Robinson, John Roland

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

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

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Molson, A. Hugh Esdale

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

  Rothschild, James A. de

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

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

  Runge, Norah Cecil

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

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Morrison, William Shepherd

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Salmon, Major Isidore

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

  North, Captain Edward T.

  Salt, Edward W.

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Nunn, William

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Train, John

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Sandeman, Sir A.N. Stewart

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

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

  Savery, Samuel Servington

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Scone, Lord

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

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Peaks, Captain Osbert

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Penny, Sir George

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Shapperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Petherick, M.

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Wells, Sydney Richard

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

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Slater, John

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

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

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Power, Sir John Cecil

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

  Wise, Alfred R.

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

  Smith-Carington, Neillie W.

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon, Viscount

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

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Ramsden, E.

  Somervillie, Annesley A. (Windor)

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Ray, Sir William

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Southby, Commander Archibald R.J.

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Mr. Womersley and Mr. Blindell.

  Mr. RHYS DAVIESI beg to move, in line 9 to leave out from the word "exceeding" to the end of line 10, and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "the maximum amount of duty payable under any other enactments on similar articles imported from any other country into the United Kingdom."
  This Amendment is rather an important one, and I hope to make my statement as simple as possible. The Amendment has nothing at all to do with the merits of the case as to whether duties shall be imposed against goods coming from the Irish Free State. Its intention is to see that none of the duties on such Irish goods shall be higher than the duties imposed against any goods coming from foreign countries. I think that would be a very fair proposal, and now that the Dominions Secretary has been good enough to give way on one or two previous Amendments, I am almost inclined to believe he will accept the Amendment I am now moving. May I in a few minutes put one or two arguments in favour of the Amendment. I feel sure that, in introducing this Motion, all the Government desires to do is to settle a financial account with the Irish Free State. I do not think
  176
  the Government want to be vindictive in this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman tells the House that he does not want to be vindictive, I am sure I can carry him with me when I say that it would be grossly unfair, if there were duty of 10 per cent. against foreign butter, to raise the duty against Irish butter to 50 or 60 per cent. If the Amendment were accepted, it would mean that there was no vindictiveness at all in this transaction.
  This country, whatever its opinions about this trouble, does not desire to put Ireland in a worse position in relation to import duties than foreign countries. However keenly the right hon. Gentleman may feel towards de Valera, I am positive that he must feel as keenly towards Mussolini; yet he should not be less vindictive towards Italy than towards Ireland. We do not want to intensify the trouble with Ireland, but we shall do so if we put higher duties against Irish Free State goods, even though they are only 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. higher than the duties put on foreign goods. I understand that the Tariff Advisory Committee will not be consulted about these duties. The Com-

  177
  mittee determines very largely the policy of the Government with regard to duties on foreign imports, but in this case the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs will more or less tell the Treasury what shall be done without consulting anybody. Therefore, we want to avoid any political bias percolating into his duties in such a way that he will be more bitter towards his brother than towards his neighbour. I appeal to the Government to see that, whatever they do, it will never be said about them that they were more vindictive with these customs duties against Ireland than against foreign countries.
  Major ELLIOT: The hon. Gentleman has put the matter very clearly, but has he conceived the matter as clearly? It is not a question of a vindictive or a non-vindictive duty, but of a deficit in the Budget which we have to get filled. There is no question of being vindictive against other countries; they have not defaulted to us. It is simply that we are informed by a certain gentleman in whose veracity we have great confidence that he is about to cause a default, and we have to take steps somewhow or other to meet it. To say that we are not to impose duties higher than a certain maximum is simply to say that we are to fill the deficit but that we are not to raises the duties to the height which may be necessary to do so. Who would condemn us more unsparingly than the hon. Gentleman if in the next Budget, when he comes with his eloquent plea to reduce the Tea Duty, we say that we cannot because we could not collect the debt that was due to us from the Irish Free State? The hon. Gentleman will say, "Why didn't you?" We shall say, "Because we accepted the hon. Gentleman's Amendment," and he will go to the Box and ask, "What business had you to accept the Amendment?" No, we must retain the power of collecting an adequate sum of money. We must have the power
  to impose duties.at the rate which is necessary to bring in that sum, and it is from that angle and not in comparison with other duties that if is necessary for us to consider the matter. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
  Mr. DAVIES: Therefore, it is within the bounds of possibility that there will be a higher customs duty on an article coming from Ireland than from a foreign country or elsewhere?
  Major ELLIOT: Of course there is, and that is inevitably so, because there are many articles coming from other countries within the British Empire on which, in point of fact, there are no duties at all. Is the hon. Gentleman to say that we must put a duty on Canadian live cattle because we put a duty on cattle from the Free State, for example That position reminds me of the story of the Scottish gardener who, having locked up his little son in one garden house because he had been naughty then bound up another little boy and locked him up in another place at the opposite end of the garden, and when asked why he had done it, said, "It's just for symmetry"! We must be reasonable in these matters. I can foresee the great indignation which my hon. Friend would exhibit if we were to impose a tax on Canadian live cattle, because we were about to impose a similar duty on cattle from the Irish Free State. We should have to tell him: "We had to do it because we accepted your Amendment," and then he would heap the most unmitigated condemnation on our heads for having done anything so silly.
  Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 33.

  Division No. 275.]

  AYES

  [12.3 a.m.

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

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Bateman, A. L.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Bracken, Brendan

  Albery, Irving James

  Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

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

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

  Bernays, Robert

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Allen, Lt-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Bilndell, James

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

  Bailey, Eric Alfred George

  Boothby, Robert John Graham

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Ba niel, Lord

  Bossom, A. C.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Lesile

  Burnett, John George

  Hornbrugh, Florence

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Ray, Sir William

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

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

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Janner, Barnett

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Jennings, Roland

  Robinson, John Roland

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Rose Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Colville, John

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cooke, Douglas

  Kerr, Charles (Montrose)

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Copeland, Ida

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Salt, Edward W.

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Knebworth, Viscount

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leckie, J. A.

  Savory, Samuel Servington

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Scone, Lord

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

  Levy, Thomas

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Liddell, Waiter S.

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Liewellin, Major John J.

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Curry, A. C.

  Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick

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

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

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Dixey, Arthur C. N.

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Slater, John

  Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Loder, Captain J. de Vera

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Donner, P. W.

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

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

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Mabane, William

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Duggan, Hubert John

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

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

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Dunglass, Lord

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  McKeag, William

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hop. Herbert H.

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  McKie, John Hamilton

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

  Elmley, Viscount

  McLean, Major Alan

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Stevenson, James

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Stones, James

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Storey, Samuel

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Malla eu, Edward Lancelot

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Manning ham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

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

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

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

  Milne, Charles

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

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

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

  Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Goff, Sir Park

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

  Train, John

  Goldie, Noel B.

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Morrison, William Shephard

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

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

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

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

  North, Captain Edward T.

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Hales, Harold K.

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

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Harbord, Arthur

  Peake, Captain Osbert

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

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Pearson, William G.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Hartland, George A.

  Penny, Sir George

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenning t'n)

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

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

  Petherick, M.

  Womersley, Walter James

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stafybridge)

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hors-Belisha, Leslie

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

  Captain Austin Hudson and Major

  Hornby, Frank

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

  George Davies.

  NOES

  Adams, D.M. (Poplar, South)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Buchanan, George

  Cripss, Sir Stafford

  180

  181

  Dagger, George

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Milner, Major James

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Kirkwood, David

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Price, Gabriel

  Edwards, Charles

  Lawson, John James

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Healy, Cahir

  McGovern, John

  Hirst, George Henry

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Maxton, James

  Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

  Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in line 15, to leave out paragraph (iii).
  This paragraph is a very complicated one. I understand that it brings the new duties into the same category as those imposed by the Import Duties Act. If that is so, this paragraph needs some explanation as to why the Government take such a course. As I understand it, the object of the Motion is to collect what the Government conceive is a debt. Why the Government should bring the collection of that debt into line with the Import Duties Act I fail to understand.
  Major ELLIOT: In what way does the hon. Member think that this is being brought into line with the Import Duties Act?
  Mr. LAWSON: That shows the necessity of a further explanation of the paragraph. The Committee will notice that it says:
  "(iii) Articles chargeable with the duties to be charged as aforesaid shall not for the purposes of the Import Duties Act, 1932, be deemed to be chargeable with a duty of customs by or under any enactment other than that Act."
  As I see it, what it means is that the duties are to be brought into line with that Act. I conclude also, from the reading of it, that the Import Duties Advisory Board may even impose these duties. I do not know whether that is a proper reading of that paragraph, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seems to disagree. I am sure that the Committee will see that the inference that I make is a fair one. If, after the Ottawa Conference, duties are placed upon imported goods from the Dominions, these duties on goods from Ireland would be in addition to the duties imposed upon goods from the Dominions. There is another point if my inference is right. If the duties are brought into line with the Import Duties Act, it will bring the Irish duties into line with foreign duties. One thing is certain. If this is going to have the effect of a tariff, we shall very probably have the reply of a tariff from the Free State. In every way
  182
  the great mass of the working people of this nation are going to be struck and it is really they who are going to pay for this action of the Government, because the poorest people will feel the weight of this more heavily than anyone else. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give an explanation which will make it clear that it is not the intention to bring these duties into line with the Import Duties Act, thus not carrying out the intention of the Resolution of collecting debts, but imposing a tariff against the Free State.
  Major ELLIOT: I hope to be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman. In the first place this paragraph does not bring these duties into line with the Import Duties Act. In the second place it does not make foreigners of the Irish. It simply says the duties are of an exceptional character and are not to be treated on the same ground as other duties, which may have been imposed for revenue or tariff purposes. It is true that other duties of Customs take the articles upon which they are imposed out of the purview of the Tariff Advisory Committee and the procedure of the Import Duties Act. It is provided here that the imposition of duties under this Act shall not have this effect, therefore the Irish people do not suffer the indignity of being regarded as aliens. It is true that they suffer the disadvantage that possibly in the future an additional duty may be imposed upon them—I give the hon. Gentleman that—but that is necessarily consequential on regarding them for legislative purposes as entirely exceptional and not removing from Southern Ireland its birthright of being regarded as a Dominion. It remains a Dominion to which for the moment a special procedure has been applied. If after 15th November privileges are withdrawn, an additional duty will fall on goods from the Southern Irish Dominion, but that is necessary to preserve the entirely exceptional character of this legislation.
  Sir S. CRIPPS: I understand from the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman that this paragraph is put in to make it certain that the taxation can be added to by other taxation as a result of the Ottawa Conference. So it opens up a vista, not only of a special 100 per cent. tax upon Irish Free State goods, but over and above that 100 per cent. tax, as a result of the Ottawa Conference, in which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs has told us he does not intend to treat with Ireland, of further taxation to be put on as a result of what is there decided. The
  prospect as regards trade between Ireland and this country I should have thought was such as to lead the right hon. Gentleman not to imagine that Ireland would not become a foreign country, but such as to lead people to expect that, if the system of taxing Irish imports was to continue, the obvious result would be to drive Ireland out of the Commonwealth.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 253: Noes, 33.

  Division No. 276.]

  AYES

  12.19 a.m.

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

  Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Donner, P. W.

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Kerr, Charles (Montrose)

  Albery, Irving James

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  Kimball, Lawrence

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

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Knebworth, Viscount

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

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

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Dunglass, Lord

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

  Ansley, Lord

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Leckie, J. A.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Bailey, Eric Alfred George

  Eillston, Captain George Sampson

  Levy, Thomas

  Balniel, Lord

  Elmley, Viscount

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Bernays, Robert

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Loder, Captain J. de Vera

  Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Boothby, Robert John Graham

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Mabane, William

  Bossom, A. C.

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

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

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

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

  McKeag, William

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Goff, Sir Park

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Go dle, Noel B.

  McLean, Major Alan

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

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

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

  Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

  Burnett, John George

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Hales, Harold K.

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Harbord, Arthur

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Hartland, George A.

  Milne, Charles

  Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

  Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

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

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Morrison, William Shephard

  Colville, John

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Hornby, Frank

  North, Captain Edward T.

  Cooke, Douglas

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Copeland, Ida

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Courtauld, Major John Sewell

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

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

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Pearson, William G.

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

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

  Penny, Sir George

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Janner, Barnett

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Culverwel, Cyril Tom

  Jennings, Roland

  Petherick, M.

  Curry, A. C.

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

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

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

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

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

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Ra kes, Henry V. A. M.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

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

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

  Sinclair, Ma). Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thnese)

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Train, John

  Ray, Sir William

  Slater, John

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

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

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

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Wedderburn, Henry James scrymgeour-

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Robinson, John Roland

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Rosbotham, S. T.

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

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Stevenson, James

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

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Stones, James

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Storey, Samuel

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Womersley, Walter James

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Salt, Edward W.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Wragg, Herbert

  Savory, Samuel Servington

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Scone, Lord

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

  Captain Sir George Bowyer and

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Captain Austin Hudson.

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  NOES

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Healy, Cahir

  Maxton, James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hirst, George Henry

  Milner, Major James

  Buchanan, George

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Parkinson, John Alien

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Price, Gabriel

  Cringe, Sir Stafford

  Kirkwood, David

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Daggar, George

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Edwards, Charles

  Lunn, William

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  McGovern, John

  Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

  Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in line 18, after the word "Resolution," to insert the words:
  "shall provide that any order made under the Act aforesaid by the Treasury imposing ally duty of customs shall cease to have effect at the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date on which the order is made unless at some time before the expiration of that period it is approved by a Resolution of this House, and that in reckoning any such period as aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which this House is adjourned for snore than four days; and."
  I regret more than I can say to have to intervene for a minute or two, but I do not make any apology because the Amendment which I have put on the Paper has nothing to do with any party or the Government or Ireland, but it is of vital importance to the House of Commons in its function from the point of view of taxation. There is nothing wrong with the words of the Amendment, because they are taken straight out of the Money Resolutions of the Import Duties Bill and the Abnormal Importations Bill, so that, presumably, they were drafted by the Government draftsman. They are
  186
  therefore correct for the purpose to which I want to direct the attention of the Committee. The procedure outlined in the Amendment is that, if an Order is made, it shall cease to have effect at the end of 28 Parliamentary days unless the House affirms it. It does not interfere with the discretion or the power of the Government to put on any kind of duty by Order at any moment it thinks expedient. If it does not want the Order to continue for a longer period than that mentioned, it may refrain from bringing it before the House, and it will lapse. It is not hampering the day-to-day executive authority of the Government. It is three months ago that this kind of procedure was introduced, and it was considered absolutely revolutionary that power of taxation should be given to a Government Department in this way, but, in view of the new technique of the whole fiscal system, the House thought that was the most satisfactory way to proceed in this difficult and complicated question of taxation.
  I want to preserve as much of the powers which still remain to this House as possible. It is very dangerous indeed

  187
  to suggest that the Government of the day should have power to tax by Orders and that this House should not have to affirm these Orders. It is a. principle I should not willingly accept. I do not know of any precedent lay which the Executive of the day—this has nothing to do with Ireland or this Government—is given powers to impose a special tax without the specific approval of Parliament. Therefore, I do urge the Government to consider very carefully before they refuse this Amendment. I may be told that these provisions could be inserted in the Bill. I believe that is correct, but I would remind the Committee that on the Import Duties Bills it was thought.right and proper to put it in the Money Resolution to make sure it was put in the Bills. If the Government are prepared to accede to this request, it would perhaps be unnecessary to press the matter at this stage. It could be put in the Bill later. Everybody who studies this problem is agreed that an affirmative resolution is of great value. There are so many members fresh to our procedure that I may remind the Committee that when an Order is laid on the Table it can only, generally speaking, be debated if some group of members can find a suitable day and then make quite sure that the House is kept. That may be all right for some categories of Orders, but it would not add to the dignity of this House and its powers of taxation should only be discussed in that manner late at night. It should be the duty of the Government of the day, if they should think fit to impose taxation by Order of the Treasury, to come before the House and ask for an affirming Order.
  Mr. THOMAS: Everyone interested in Parliamentary procedure and in the rights and privileges of this House would naturally sympathise with the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. If we were only concerned with that aspect of the question I would have no hesitation in accepting it. I want also to tell the Committee that the procedure.outlined in this Amendment was considered very carefully by the Government because, as my hon. and gallant Friend quite rightly points out, the Amendment he now moves is strictly in accord with the procedure under the Import Duties Act. He himself, however, drew atten-
  188
  tion to the very reason, which I am now going to submit to the Committee, why the Government cannot accept his proposition. There never was a Bill asking the power that this Bill asks, but neither were there ever similar circumstances.
  Mr. COCKS: Or a similar Government.
  Mr. THOMAS: That is a fortunate advantage. What we have to keep in mind is that we have to deal with an abnormal situation, and we have to deal with it in an abnormal way. We had no precedent to guide us, and we had simply to say: "Can e first say to the British taxpayer that you must bear that burden?" We said, "No," and, having made up our mind on that side of the question, we said we must come to the House of Commons and ask them to trust us to get this money. We frankly say to the House of Commons that it is an innovation. I put it to my hon. and gallant Friend that, in short, the difference in procedure is this. Whatever tax we impose, we say in our procedure that if the House of Commons wants to challenge, let Members challenge right away, because they do not agree with our action. My hon. and gallant Friend wants to reverse that procedure and compel us to accept the affirmative position. I admit that, if I were viewing this question from the Parliamentary point of view, I should be inclined to accept the Amendment. But I do ask him to realise the unprecedented position. The Government on the Second Reading or on the Committee stage of the Bill cannot inform the House of any particular tariffs.
  They cannot do it, because they must reserve to themselves the right to obtain this particular amount of money in the circumstances as they arise and they cannot foresee those circumstances. I frankly admit that this is asking for an unprecedented authority, but I again repeat that the circumstances are unprecedented and that we have to deal with them. If between now and the framing of the Bill any circumstances arise, I promise my hon. Friend that we shall keep this point in mind. I ask him, however, to remember that this is not being blindly done or done without consideration to the position on the other side of the water. I ask the Committee to give us this power and to trust us at the same time to use this power wisely and well.
  Mr. ATTLEE: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman has been no answer whatever to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). All the right hon. Gentleman has told us is that this is unprecedented, that this is a strange occasion, and that, therefore, we are going to do something very odd. He has made no attempt whatever to meet the case put up or to show that this Amendment would in any way hinder him in what he wants to do. He is asking the Committee to give the Treasury power to put on a tax up to 100 per cent. He asks power to do that immediately. All that the Amendment proposes is that any Order made shall have to come before the House of Commons at the expiration of 28 days from the date on which the Order is made and that the time during which the House is not sitting shall not be counted. We all know that Parliament is going to rise in a few days. He has all that time during which the House of Commons is not sitting in which he can do as he pleases. When the House re-assembles, under this Amendment he will have to get the approval of the House for his Order. How is he prevented from doing what he wants? He does not know what the repercussions of these measures are going to be. During the course of this debate it has been many times pointed out what far-reaching effects they may have. The House of Commons has a right to retain its power over taxation. The right hon. Gentleman has not given a single practical reason why this course should not be adopted. He has simply said: "You must trust us." The House of Commons is going to rise and, if the Amendment is carried, we shall have to trust the right hon. Gentleman while the House is not sitting. It is regrettable, but we have to do it. But the right hon. Gentleman wants to keep the House silent, too, while it is sitting. He has given no reason why the House should abandon its power over taxation.
  We have had new precedent after new precedent. The precedent set in the Import Duties Act would have shocked all previous Parliaments and all previous Chancellors of the Exchequer. Now we are carrying it even further. On the previous occasion we were told that we were leaving these matters to a judicial body, to the committee of three. Now we are
  190
  leaving it to the Treasury. It is an example of the way that the Executive are gradually taking away all the powers of Parliament. We shall yet regret such an abandonment of the rights of Parliament. The unanswerable proposal put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough has not been met by the Government with the slightest attempt at any argument but with the mere assertion that this is a crisis. All that that means is that the right hon. Gentleman is flurried; he has got the wind up; he does not know what he is doing, and he says, "For goodness sake do not interfere with me. Let me go on as I am."
  Mr. MAXTON: The answer of the right hon. Gentleman to this Amendment is the most preposterous of all the preposterous things he has said to-day. Such a reply is only possible in such a Parliament as this, where all the senior Cabinet Ministers are sitting on the Government Front Bench. If there were on this side of the House any Member of the Opposition who had held high Cabinet rank and experience, the Government would not dare to make the preposterous proposal that the right hon. Gentleman makes now in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). He asks Members on his own side of the House to trust the Government and to allow the Government to suspend all the ordinary powers and responsibilities of Parliament. He cannot ask that of the Opposition; he is not entitled to ask that of the Opposition. We were not sent here to give plenary powers to the Government to suspend the ordinary rights and responsibilities of the House of Commons. He says it is because this is unprecedented that we are to divest ourselves of all responsibility. It is because it is unprecedented that the House should keep control of what it is doing. Do not let us go off our heads entirely because we have to collect £3,000,000 of debt. It is not unprecedented in the sense that it is a new situation, but it is an unprecedented thing for the Government to impose taxation to meet a specific charge. It is unprecedented for a Government to say, that they will put on this taxation and that, as soon as they have collected the necessary amount, the taxation will cease.
  It is a, completely new principle in British methods of taxation that you

  191
  should apply a tax for a specific purpose to meet a particular debt. Taxation in this country has been general to meet the general expenditure of the nation. This is for a specific purpose to pay certain dividends to certain bondholders. Another thing that makes this taxation unprecedented is that, when the amount is collected, the taxation will terminate. These are not reasons why the House of Commons should abandon its control; these are very strong reasons why the House of Commons should insist on all its rights being preserved to the fullest point. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will carry the Amendment to the Division Lobby, and I and my Friends will give him all the support in our power.
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: There are a number of us who are frankly a little perturbed by the definitely new precedent which it is proposed to set here. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) was not correct when he said that the Import Duties Act set up a new procedure, because that procedure was invented in 1921 when the Safeguarding of Industries Act was passed, but, if we pass this, it will be a new procedure because it will have no check at all. It is not because I believe that the Government will abuse their powers that I take this view; I do not believe that they will. I am completely in favour of the Resolution. I am thinking, not of this issue, but of other issues. Parliament should not lightly sacrifice its rights. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution told us that, even if this Amendment is not pressed to a division to-night, there will still be time for reconsideration. It might be wise that we should give them time for consideration. I am certain that no one on this side wishes to hamper them in the slightest degree. I think the Committee owe a deep debt of gratitude to my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Crookshank) for the service he has performed to-night. He has performed the proper rights of the Opposition in safeguarding the subject against the Executive. He has noticed something in this
  Resolution which many of us did not see.
  Mr. CURRY: I should like to express my appreciation of the action of the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Crook-shank) in putting down this Amendment. The measures, which it is proposed to adopt, would have been dangerous in ordinary circumstances, but this procedure is even a greater danger, when proposed to a Parliament, the great majority of whose Members are new to Parliamentary procedure. I speak as a new Member myself. I came here under the obligation and with the opinion that the real foundation of the liberties of the people rested upon the control of finance by this House. I believe that this House should, as its first duty, safeguard that privilege and thus discharge its duty, not merely to the electors, but to posterity.
  Colonel GRETTON: I have only a. very few words to say, but I should like to express my thanks to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) for raising this matter. Obviously, the reply on behalf of the Government was quite inadequate, and the real reason was not stated, and one can only surmise it. We shall be told that the reason is the saving of Parliamentary time, but it will not be possible to keep these Orders secret. These Orders will have to be public property. At any rate, I hope that this matter will be raised again on the Bill, and I hope that the Government will be pressed further to insert this Amendment in the Bill when it comes up. Parliament as a matter of principle should not sacrifice its power of control.
  Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: I should like to add my request to the Government to reconsider this matter. I understand the difficulties to-night, but, after all, this is a very serious precedent. I feel that this Amendment should receive rather more consideration than that which has been given it by the Government up to the present moment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 191.

  Division No. 277.]

  AYES.

  [12.55 a.m.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Bralthwalter, J.G. (Hillsborough)

  Champman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

  Brocklebank, C.E.R.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Attlee, Clement Richard

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

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Buchanan, George

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

  Curry, A. C.

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Dagger, George

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Price, Gabriel

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kirkwood, David

  Storey, Samuel

  Edwards, Charles

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Lawson, John James

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  McGovern, John

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

  Hirst, George Henry

  Maxton, James

  Janner, Barnett

  Milner, Major James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

  NOES

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

  Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

  Penny, Sir George

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Petherick, M.

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralg e M.

  Goldie, Noel B.

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

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Apsley, Lord

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

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

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Ray, Sir William

  Bailey, Eric Alfred George

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Balniel, Lord

  Hales, Harold K.

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Hartland, George A.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

  Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Robinson, John Roland

  Minden, James

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hornby, Frank

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Salt, Edward W.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Savery, Samuel Servington

  Burnett, John George

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Scone, Lord

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Kerr, Charles (Montrose)

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Knebworth, Viscount

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

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

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

  Slater, John

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Leck e, J. A.

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Colville, John

  Levy, Thomas

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Cooke, Douglas

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

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

  Copeland, Ida

  Mabane, William

  Stevenson, James

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Stones, James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  McLean, Major Alan

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Tate, Mavis Constance

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

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

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

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

  Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Donner, P. W.

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Titchlietd, Major the Marquess of

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

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

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Train, John

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

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Yard, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Milne, Charles

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

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

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Morning, Adrian C.

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Morrison, William Shepherd

  Womersley, Walter James

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Wragg, Herbert

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Captain Sir George Bowyer and

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Pearson, William G.

  Captain Austin Hudson.

  Main Question put,
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 223 Noes, 31.

  Division No. 278.]

  NOES

  [1.4 a.m.

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

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Petherick, M.

  Albery, Irving James

  Goldie, Noel B.

  Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'ptn, Bliston)

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

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

  Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

  Asks. Sir Robert William

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

  Bailey, Eric Alfred George

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Baln el, Lord

  Hales, Harold K.

  Ray, Sir William

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

  Hartland, George A.

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

  Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

  Head am, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Bndell, James

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Hornby, Frank

  Robinson, John Roland

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

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

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Brooklebank, C. E. R.

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Salt, Edward W.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newby)

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

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Janner, Barnett

  Savery, Samuel Servington

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Jennings, Roland

  Scone, Lord

  Burnett, John George

  Jesson, Major Thomas E.

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

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

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Slater, John

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Kerr, Charles (Montrose)

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

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

  Knebworth, Viscount

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Clarry, Reginald George

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

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

  Colville, John

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Stevenson, James

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Levy, Thomas

  Stones, James

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Llddall, Walter S.

  Storey, Samuel

  Cooke, Douglas

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Copeland, Ida

  Liewellin, Major John J.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrld Hart

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Mabana, William

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Ga nsb'ro)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

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

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Curry, A. C.

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

  McLean, Major Alan

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

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

  Macmillan, Maurice Harold

  Train, John

  Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

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

  Donner, P. W.

  Mallaileu, Edward Lancelot

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

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

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Milne, Charles

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

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

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

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Womersley, Walter James

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Morrison, William Shepherd

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

  Mulrhead, Major A. J.

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  North, Captain Edward T.

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Sir George Penny and Mr. Shakespeare.

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

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

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

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  NOES

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Buchanan, George

  Daggar, George

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Krikwood, David

  Millner, Major James

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Edwards, Charles

  Lawson, John James

  Price, Gabriel

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Tinker, Gabriel

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-col. David

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Hirst, George Henry

  McGovern, John

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Maxton, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, 1931.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move,
  "That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, regulating the marketing of English hops, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 30th day of June, 1932, he approved."
  This is the first scheme put forward under the Agricultural Marketing Act and deals with the marketing of hops. The House will recollect that the hop industry has for some considerable period experienced difficulty in marketing its products, and this is an effort to combine the producers of hops under the marketing Act, for the sale of their products. The House will observe that the proposal has been brought to the Ministry by the Farmers' Union, and particularly by the hop committee of the Union, and that, following the procedure laid down under the Act, a very full inquiry was held into the proposed scheme, presided over by Mr. Konstam. He reported to myself and in his judgment certain parts of the original proposal, which included the question of quotas, should, in his judgment, be modified. I have considered the report of Mr. Konstam and have accepted his recommendations. I should like the House to understand that, while I agree that in the existing circumstances some parts of the proposals should be modified, that does not rule out the problem of dealing with quotas either by this or any other scheme. I think it is quite clear that every interest which is likely to be affected has had an opportunity of putting any of its proposals forward and that now this is a modified scheme which, if I may say so, like all such schemes depends upon the manner in which it is operated whether it is to operate with good will on the part of all those concerned or not.
  198
  I trust, above all things, that in carrying out this scheme all those who are concerned will realise that it is of material advantage that a, scheme of this kind should be worked temperately and with due regard to all the interests. Some of these interests are in a certain measure slightly conflicting, but this is an honest attempt to bring together the producers. May I emphasise the fact that when this House gives, as I hope it will very shortly give, its assent to the Motion on the Paper, there will follow immediately the next step of taking a poll of the producers. It is clear that unless two-thirds of the producers vote in favour of this scheme it lapses. Every opportunity is given for carrying out this test. I hope that test will be carried out, as the Act directs, by the Board. I have heard from certain quarters strong ideas that this test of voting will not be secret. May I remind the House that under the Act anyone who gives publicity to anything which takes place under this system of taking the vote is liable to very heavy penalties, so that, in fact, secrecy is assured. As to safeguards against abuse of the powers in the scheme, any producer who is aggrieved in any way as to what is done has a right to refer his grievance to arbitration. The consumers' interests are watched by representatives of consumers. I believe that there is machinery for the careful consideration at every stage of the proper conduct of this scheme. I hope the House will agree to it, and I commend it to the House.
  Major MILNER: I rise but for a moment to commend the right hon. Gentleman for adopting yet another of the Acts passed by his predecessor. It is a, great satisfaction to us on this side of the House to know that, in this particular, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman and the National Government are proposing to substitute co-operation for competition and to take a small step towards the national planning and organisation of industry. All of us on this side have pressed that on the Government for some time past, and it is a satisfaction for us

  199
  to know that the right hon. Gentleman in agricultural marketing is taking the first step towards it. There are one or two notable features about the scheme, and more particularly about the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave for being satisfied with the representations which have been made. The first is that these representations appeared to emanate almost wholly from the National Farmers' Union, although at the time that this Act was passed their representatives in this House opposed it for all they were worth. I feel that, on their part too, there is a change of view. It is extremely satisfactory if that is the case, and I hope that this scheme will be the precursor of many schemes which the right hon. Gentleman will bring forward at an early date under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I also express a welcome to this, the first of all the Orders made under the Marketing Act, 1931. I agree entirely that the measure of success of the National Government will be exactly in relation to the extent that it pursues the policy of the Labour party. We are pleased with this first step. We know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were utterly opposed to the terms of the Marketing Bill and opposed to it from beginning to end. There were notable exceptions, but, generally speaking, the Conservative party were entirely opposed to the Marketing Bill. The National Farmers' Union opposed it to the hitter end. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that they brought forward a scheme, because it was clear to the Committee, representing all the counties where hops are grown, that there was an overwhelming feeling among hop growers that the National Farmers' Union should prepare a scheme, which the Union did in spite of the opposition of its Parliamentary Committee to the Bill. Nevertheless, we welcome this scheme, and I hope that, when the time comes to take a bold step forward, the hop growers will see the wisdom of co-operating, since competition has failed them lamentably in the past and has brought many of them to the verge of bankruptcy. I would like to ask one question. I see that of the list of 16 names on the front page of the Order there is not a single name representative of Labour. I also notice that the second
  200
  name is that of a vicar. If so, what connection has he got with hops In conclusion, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue the work that he has started with the Agricultural Marketing Act and do all in his power for the agricultural industry.
  Colonel GRETTON: The Government have obviously adopted a very inconvenient procedure in bringing this scheme before the House at this very late hour. Nevertheless, I shall endeavour to deal with it and to compress my remarks into the smallest possible compass. The object of this Order is to get a higher price for hops. As there is only one class of person that buys hops now, the brewers, it is to get a higher price out of the brewers. The Government are not acting fairly in this matter. With the one hand, they diminish the consumption of beer and the demand for hoes; with the other, they come down to the House and, without giving the main reason why the demand for hops has fallen, ask for a higher price for hops from the brewers. The demand for hops has fallen to considerably less than it was when the brewing industry was set going again at the end of the war. Successive Governments have increased taxation. Taxation has decreased the consumption of beer, and less hops have been wanted. Even under those conditions there has been no difficulty among the growers of the best class of hops in selling their hops at a price which is satisfactory to them. This measure is an attempt to get a higher price for the lower class of hops.
  Efforts of this kind have been made before. During the War there was the Hop Control, on which merchants, hop growers and factors were in the majority, and of which there was an independent chairman. This went on for some years and was then wound up because it did not give satisfaction. Then the hop growers set up another organisation, a combine among themselves, brought pressure to bear on those who were unwilling to join the combine, and worked it entirely as a hop growers' concern. The scheme which the National Farmers' Union brought forward is not, as a matter of fact, the scheme which is now before the House. The scheme of the National Farmers' Union has been the subject of some inquiry. It included quotas, which have been struck out of

  201
  the scheme now before Parliament. There were to be quotas given to each grower, fixing how much hops he might grow in a particular season.
  This new scheme is now to be set up by Statute. Under this scheme, it is prohibited to anybody except the combine to sell English hops in this country. Nothing so drastic has ever been proposed before for the sanction of Parliament. No wonder the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench and the hon. Member behind him, who are both Socialists, are very delighted with these proposals. My great anxiety as a brewer in this matter arises out of the quality of the hops. I am not going to buy inferior hops in any circumstances. For a certain class of beer the brewer must get the best class of hops, get them wherever he can, and not use inferior hops. My great anxiety, as a brewer, is lest these combines and rings, aided by Statute and applauded by the Socialist party, should mean that hops will deteriorate. It does not matter to the grower who becomes member of the combine. The combine takes his hops, and it does not matter to him whether they are sold or not. I see that In their scheme they are reviving the old type of combine, under which all the hops belonging to members of the combine are put into the combine's store. When the season comes to an end and the amount obtained is divided pro rata among those whose hops are not sold, and the result is that the growers of the best hops, who have a ready market, get seventy or eighty per cent. of the price, and they are mulcted of twenty per cent. for those whose hops have not been sold. That appears to be the main reason why the voluntary scheme broke down.
  I will not detain the House at this late hour of the night for no doubt there are others who want to speak on this subject, but, as a brewer, I confess that I and my friends in the trade are looking with anxiety and a great deal of doubt as to the result of this scheme. We are convinced that this method, which the Government have adopted in order to patch up as well as they can the injury that they have done to the hop grower by the continual over-taxation of beer, will produce, not better hops, but worse hops, and that it will not help
  202
  anybody, except the grower of inferior hops to get the same price for his hops as other people. We shall watch with anxiety how this scheme works and judge it on its merits.
  Mr. STRAUSS: I am in a somewhat invidious position here to-night, as I am not only a hop grower, but a hop merchant. Speaking as a hop merchant, I must say that the Hop Merchants' Association state that this is a matter which concerns the growers themselves. Speaking as a hop grower, I cannot conceive any hop grower who knows his business and produces the right quality of hop being in favour of the scheme. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying I am opposed to this scheme or any other scheme. I can only consider the hop grower in favour of the scheme as nothing less than a fanatic. After all, the scheme involves the combining and pooling of the whole hop crop of this country, and, in this way, the inefficient grower will benefit at the expense of the efficient grower. The whole trouble with regard to the hop industry is that we have too many inefficient growers, and the quantity of low hops continually found on the market very seldom gets a sale at all. After some time they are generally sent to the country and thrown on the land in the shape of manure. The result will be that the grower who produces the choice commodity will suffer at the expense of the inefficient.
  In my humble opinion, there are two sorts of growers: the man who is the expert and who turns his attention entirely to growing good quality hops, and the grower who is a farmer and looks upon the growing of hops as rather incidental, just as if he were growing hay or other crops. That latter grower invariably produces poor hops, and these cause the depression in the hop industry. Looking back on the past ten years I cannot remember a single instance where choice hops did not find ready buyers. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) has said that buyers generally are very interested to purchase choice commodities as early in the season as possible and these hops are invariably sold at remunerative prices, and, speaking as a grower for 10 years, I have no hesitation in saying I have never lost money in growing hops since I have been a hop

  203
  grower. That clearly shows that the man who understands his business does not require to combine in a scheme of this sort.
  When I heard hon. Gentlemen opposite, who know nothing about hops, congratulating the Government on the wise steps that they are taking it only shows how in the House of Commons we talk about things we know nothing about. I have been connected with the hop industry for fifty years, and, if this scheme eventuates, I hope that those Gentlemen who form the board will not make the same mistake as those gentlemen who directed the efforts of the English Hop Growers, Ltd., and that they will take into consideration, not only the cost of production, but the position of the beer trade, which we have heard, is in a very parlous condition. I might add that the hop trade also is in a parlous condition. The last crop had a percentage of low crop which was much greater than usual, and those growers who were fortunate enough to grow good quality hops had rather inflated ideas as to the price they should get. They did not realise how bad the beer trade was, and they did not appreciate that the brewers were holding large stocks, and also that choice Continental hops, with the £4 duty were selling at or £8 while they were asking £10 or £11. If they had sold at £7 or £8 they would not be in the parlous condition in which they find themselves to-day.
  I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he intends to make any arrangement for dealing with the surplus of the 1931 crop. Is it to be left on the market or is it to come into the scheme. That is a very important question, and at the present time it is exercising the minds of many who are directly or indirectly connected with the hop industry. All I say, in conclusion, is that, if this scheme becomes law, I sincerely hope that the Board will be fortunate enough to help the distressed and impoverished hop growers, and, if they do, I am sure that they will earn the gratitude of those who are connected with the trade.
  Viscount WOLMER: The House has just listened to two most interesting and valuable speeches from two of my hon. Friends, one of whom is one of the biggest brewers in the country, and the other of
  204
  whom is one of the biggest buyers in the country. May I be permitted to say a word on behalf of the hop growers. I speak, as one who represents hop growers in this House, and as one who is a hop grower myself. I have taken an active part in promoting this scheme, because I believe in co-operative marketing. I should like to thank the Minister for having made it possible to bring this scheme forward to-night, and, in spite of the usual party catchwords which we have heard this evening, I should also like, as a Conservative, to pay a tribute to Dr. Addison for having brought forward the Agricultural Marketing Act. I was one of those who said and believed that once we got a tariff which prevented the flooding of this market by imported produce, the Agricultural Marketing Act might be of great value to the agricultural industry in this country. I stick to that statement to-day, and I am delighted that the Minister has proceeded on those lines, not only with regard to hops, but with respect to other products of agriculture.
  May I assure the House that this is not a scheme to bolster up the inefficient grower. The hop acreage forty years ago was something like 70,000 acres, and now it is about 20,000 acres. The bad times through which the brewing industry has been passing in recent years has weeded out a very high proportion of the inefficient growers already. Moreover, it has not been the experience of those countries which have gone in for combined marketing and co-operative societies that such a practice tends to inefficiency in production. On the contrary, a Board having control of the supply can do a very great deal, and I am sure—and I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues on the Provisional Board when I say this—that we do intend to do everything we can to improve the quality of hops in this country and to give our customers the article they require. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), in his remarks on the scheme, omitted to state that all hops would be valued by the Board. We do not intend to place a value on any hops above their market value, and I can assure the hon. Member who has just spoken that if he and other experts in the business are willing to co-operate with the Board in the valuation and appraisement of the

  205
  relative values of different parcels of hops, we shall welcome such assistance.
  We shall do everything we can to discourage the bad grower. I admit there are bad growers, but to say that the only way the bad grower can be eliminated is by the law of the jungle and of the survival of the fittest is, I believe, the wrong attitude, an unprogressive attitude, and an unsportsmanlike attitude. Surely it is right for all hop growers to combine to see if they can get a standardised article and an article which their customers require, and to get their members up to a good level, and then, having the advantages of combined marketing, get a fair price for the growers. My hon. Friend has said that there has never been a lack of buyers for good hops, even in these distressing times. No doubt that is perfectly true, but there have been hundreds of pockets of good hops sold below the cost of production in the last few years, and he knows that perfectly well. I do not believe such a state of affairs is going to help even the brewing industry in the end. Hop farmers, any more than any other farmers, cannot continue to produce their crops at a loss, and, if the results of the last few years are perpetuated, it can only lead to a further great reduction in the hop acreage, with the result that ultimately there will be a shortage and the brewers will have to pay famine prices for their hops. That would not be good for the brewing trade, and it would bring disaster to those villages in the South and West of England where hop-growing is the staple industry of the countryside. Whenever a farm goes out of hops, it means the discharge of more agricultural labourers than would be lost by the disappearance. of any other crop, and, besides that, it means depriving thousands of workers in the great cities, such as London, Birmingham, Portsmouth and the like, of a most profitable holiday in September. Many thousands of pounds are paid out every year to the hop-pickers, and the destruction of that industry would inflict a very great hardship on some of the poorest families in our great cities as well as upon agricultural labourers.
  Therefore, I ask the House to allow this Motion to go forward. After all, it only gives the growers a chance of voting on a poll as to whether they want to share in combined marketing themselves. If
  206
  they get the required two-thirds majority—two thirds of the big growers and two thirds of the small growers—then we can make the experiment. I do not disguise from myself that the experiment is attended by many difficulties. It is not going to be an easy matter. The scheme is not in the exact form in which we submitted it. The Minister has made certain amendments which we have loyally accepted and which we are going to try to work. If we find the scheme cannot be worked in the form in which it now stands, we are going to respond to the Minister's invitation to-night, and go to him for permission to bring before this House any amendments which experience may prove to be necessary. This is the first experiment that is being made under the Agricultural Marketing Act for combined and co-operative marketing among farmers. We are pioneers, and we recognize that there are great difficulties. We recognize that we have to satisfy our customers and that we have only one set of customers. We ask for the co-operation and the help of all the parties concerned—brewers, merchants, factors and growers, and of the three great political parties in this House. We believe that in making this experiment we shall have the goodwill of all who take an interest in the agricultural industry and that the results of this experiment will have a great effect on the future of co-operative marketing in this country. Therefore, we hope the House will allow us to go forward. I should like, on behalf of the Provisional Board, to appeal to the brewers and the. hop-merchants to give us a fair deal, as I am sure they will be willing to do, and we, on our part, will do our best to provide as good quality hops as the soil of England is capable of producing.
  Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I will not keep the House more than a, moment or two, but like the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and the. hon. Member for Southwark North (Mr. Strauss) who preceded him, I am a hop-grower and I cannot allow the speech which has just been made to pass as the voice of hop-growers as a whole. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I think a marketing scheme of some kind is necessary, but I cannot share his enthusiasm for the details of this particular scheme. I am afraid it will inevitably keep in production a quantity of really inferior hops which it would be much better if they

  207
  were not produced at all. I grow inferior hops myself. I regret it. I believe the only way to eliminate the production of hops of a really bad quality is that they should be altogether unsaleable under this scheme. All hops, provided they are presented by a registered grower to the Board, must be accepted by that body which this Order will set up, and, although they may be valued at a low figure, it would be infinitely better if power was taken to refuse altogether to accept, or allow to be sold, hops of really inferior quality. The result of a certain quantity of very inferior hops being taken year by year by the Board under this Order will be that there will be an accumulation—a growing pile—of hops unfit for any use. The growers of good hops will get a smaller and smaller proportion of the prices they should get while the inferior grower is maintained. I hope this matter will be very carefully watched, and, if it is found that too great encouragement is given to inefficiency, I hope that there will be drastic amendment. I share the aspiration of my noble friend, for the improvement of the general standard of hops and trust that it will be realised.
  Resolved,
  "That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, regulating the marketing of English hops, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 30th day of June, 1932, be approved."

  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
  Order for further consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be further considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. O. Stanley.]
  Lords Amendments further considered accordingly.

  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
    CLAUSE 84.—(Interpretation and construction of references.)
    Subsequent Lords Amendments,; page 86, line 13, agreed to.

  FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Adaptations and modifications of this Act in its application to Scotland.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 86, line 36, leave out lines 36 to 40.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  My object is that, with regard to Scotland, the Bill should be re-put into the same form as it is in regard to England, namely, that whipping should be abolished. It was in that form that the Bill left this House. In another place, the power of whipping by summary juvenile courts was restored, and the first part of my motion relates to that. If I may say a word with regard to the second part of the motion in my name, I would like to say that we restore certain words in the Bill for a technical purpose, the getting rid of a difficult section in one of the Scottish Acts which would exist but for that second part of the motion I shall move in a moment. I do not think I need go into details.
  Amendment made to the words so restored to the Bill: In page 86, line 40, at the end, insert the words:
  "and section seventy-four of the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1860, shall, except in so far as it applies to cases tried on indictment, cease to have effect."—[Mr. Shelton.]
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 97, line 27, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: In page 99, line 13, leave out lines 13 to 15.
  Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is consequential upon a previous Amendment, and therefore this Motion is consequential upon the restoration of the words abolishing flogging.
  Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Ordered, "That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill."
  Committee nominated of Mr. Buchan-Hepburn, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Skelton and Mr. Stanley.
  Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Stanley.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Stanley.]

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL [LORDS].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three Minutes after Two o'Clock.

POST OFFICE.
  AIR MAIL SERVICES.
  AIR MAIL SERVICES.
  POSTAL DELIVERY, WISHFORD, SALISBURY.
  POSTAL DELIVERY, WISHFORD, SALISBURY.
  TELEGRAPH POLES.
  TELEGRAPH POLES.
  (OIDER IMPORTS).
  (OIDER IMPORTS).
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MOVEMENTS, UNI FED KINGDOM.
  MOVEMENTS, UNI FED KINGDOM.
  CIVILIAN CLERKS (PAY).
  CIVILIAN CLERKS (PAY).
  COAL INDUSTRY.
  COAL INDUSTRY.
  INDIA (SARDA ACT, CONVICTIONS).
  INDIA (SARDA ACT, CONVICTIONS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (ACTON).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (ACTON).
  PENTONVILLE PRISON (UNIFORM STAFF).
  PENTONVILLE PRISON (UNIFORM STAFF).
  ROAD SCHEMES.
  ROAD SCHEMES.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (STAFF).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (STAFF).
  FIVE PER CENT WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).
  FIVE PER CENT WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
His Royal Highness The Duke of Connaught and Strathearn—Took the Oath.

LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL (SANDHILLS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ISLE OF MAN CUSTOMS (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (MORT- GAGES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
RATING AND VALUATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (HERTFORD) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GATESHEAD EXTENSION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WATFORD) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. My task in commending this Bill to your Lordships' House for a Second Reading is neither a pleasant nor an enviable one. No task is pleasant which is confronted with such Herculean difficulties as those in which the country is so unfortunately placed to-day—difficulties that are being gradually, but nevertheless certainly overcome, if one may judge by the success already attendant upon the Conversion Loan campaign. The main object of this Bill is to make certain changes in the national health insurance scheme in order to ensure its financial stability. As the financial provisions of the scheme are somewhat intricate the Bill is necessarily of a rather technical character and not perhaps altogether easy to follow. I must therefore crave the indulgence of your Lordships while I endeavour to explain in some detail its general provisions. Fortunately, when carefully studied in conjunction with the White Paper the Bill is not so complicated as it appears at first sight.
490
The national health insurance scheme has now been in operation exactly twenty years. It covers 17,000,000 insured persons and is administered through 7,500 approved societies and branches. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is rendering a very important and most useful service to the workers of this country in providing cash benefits and medical benefits in periods of sickness, maternity benefits, and in more recent years dental, ophthalmic and other additional benefits for the members of those societies which, on an actuarial valuation, are found to have a disposable surplus of assets over liabilities.
I submit that it would be difficult to exaggerate the value and importance of the national health insurance scheme. In fact, it is not over-stating the case to say that it is far and away the finest, the safest and actuarially the soundest social insurance scheme in the world. I scarcely think the magnitude of the scheme is always realised. Some idea of its dimensions may be gauged from the fact that the amount contributed by insured persons and their employers last year was £25,870,000, while in addition the State paid to the assistance of the fund £6,320,000. The rest of the revenue is derived from interest on accumulated funds amounting to about £5,000,000 a year. I am most anxious not to weary your Lordships with unnecessary figures, but permit me to add just these. In the course of the twenty years that will be completed next week of the scheme's existence the stupendous sum of £434,000,000 sterling has been paid out to insured persons in the form of benefits, and in addition reserves to the extent of £117,000,000 have been accumulated, the greater part of which are ear-marked against the positive actuarial liabilities of the scheme.
Whatever criticism I may have to meet as to certain details of the Bill, so vast are the ramifications of the scheme and so gigantic its obligations that I am sure your Lordships will agree there can be no question as to the absolute and imperative necessity of ensuring not only its solvency, but also the unqualified financial strength and stability of the whole scheme. Up to six or seven years ago the scheme was exceedingly prosperous—in fact, the great majority of societies had a disposable surplus, after making allocations to reserves on a generous

491
basis, and most insured persons were thus able to get additional benefits. Gradually a change has come over the scene. Largely as a result of prolonged and widespread unemployment the contribution income of the approved societies has steadily fallen, while sickness claims, especially among women, and more especially among married women, have steadily risen. A position has now been reached in which, unless some change be made in the financial provisions of the scheme, it will certainly drift into a state of insolvency, and to prevent that is the sole raison d'être of this Bill. The Minister of Health in the late Labour Government, in a praiseworthy effort to grapple with the situation, issued circulars early last year to approved societies and medical practitioners, with a view of securing a more careful supervision of schemes and an improved standard of medical certification. Shortly after the present Government assumed office the Report of the Government Actuary on the third valuation of approved societies was issued. That Report made it abundantly clear to the Government that something more radical than administrative reforms was necessary, if the financial stability of the scheme was to be assured. As a result of careful examination of the whole subject by the Government the present Bill was introduced. It is dictated by sheer necessity. It is designed to protect the interests of those who are contributors to the scheme, and to preserve the contributory principle of the national health insurance system on a strictly actuarial basis.
I want to emphasise, my Lords, that this Bill does not take away one single penny from the moneys available for benefits for insured persons, nor does it, on the other hand, involve any increase in the contributions, either from employers, employees or the Exchequer, so far as the national health insurance scheme is concerned. The Bill falls into three main parts. Firstly, it deals with the heavy expenditure on sickness and disablement benefits of insured women, and particularly married women. Secondly, it deals with the serious loss of contribution income by reason of unemployment among insured persons. Thirdly, and incidentally, it deals with the continuance in insurance of persons who have paid no contribution for long
492
periods by reason of unemployment, and who are due to fall out of insurance at the end of this year, when, but for this Bill, their health insurance and widows' and orphans' and old age pensions rights would cease.
As regards the first point, Clause 3 of the Bill makes certain adjustments in the rates of sickness and disablement benefits payable to insured women. In the case of unmarried women and widows the present rate of 12 s. a week for sickness benefit remains unaltered, but the rate of disablement benefit is to be reduced from 7s. 6d. to 6s. per week. In the case of married women the rate of sickness benefit is to be reduced from 12 s. to 10 s. a week, and the disablement benefit from 7s. 6d. to 5s. a week. Needless to say it is with great regret that the Government have found it necessary to propose these reductions, but they are satisfied that if the solvency of the scheme of national health insurance is to be maintained some such adjustment of women's benefits is absolutely essential.
I have already mentioned that the national health insurance scheme is administered through 7,500 approved societies and branches. Each one of these is a separate, self-governing financial unit. The recent Report by the Government Actuary shows that, taking all the societies and branches together, there was a total surplus on the third valuation of nearly £36,000,000. At first sight this figure seems very impressive, and suggests that there is no need to feel uneasy about the financial stability of the scheme. The Government Actuary points out, however, that the surplus is attributable in very large measure to the reserves carried forward from the previous valuations and the interest earned on those sums, and that if these items are excluded, and also certain other sources of profit which have now ceased to exist, the balance of profit earned over the valuation period was very small, so that in fact many societies may now be said to be living solely on their past accumulations. The Government Actuary in his Report calls particular attention to the very serious growth during recent years in the expenditure of approved societies on the sickness and disablement benefits of their women members, and he reports that the claims of women for these benefits have risen to such an extent as to exceed the actuarial provision made

493
for them by no less than £850,000 a year. The continuance of this state of affairs would inevitably result, in the near future, in the insolvency of the whole scheme so far as women's insurance is concerned, and it therefore becomes a matter of vital importance that there should be, without delay, such a readjustment of the benefits payable to women as is necessary to prevent the outgoings from exceeding the revenue of the scheme.
Admittedly adjustments there must be, and there are three alternatives before the Government. The first would be an increased Exchequer grant, the second an increase in the weekly contributions paid by insured women and their employers, and thirdly, a reduction in the rates of benefit payable to women. The first alternative, I think your Lordships will agree, is absolutely ruled out by the state of the country's finances. As to the second, the Government Actuary has advised that if the present rates of benefit are to be maintained the contributions would have to be raised by 1½d per week. I am sure your Lordships will agree with the decision of the Government that in the present economic condition of the country no increased Exchequer grant is feasible, and that no increase in the weekly contributions, either from the employers or the employees, can be contemplated for this purpose. The Bill accordingly provides for a reduction in the rate of benefit payable to women.
The loss of £850,000 a year to which I have referred is attributable in almost exactly equal measure to unmarried and married women, but as the unmarried outnumber the married in the scheme in the proportion of about four to one, the loss is relatively very much greater in the case of married women than in the case of unmarried, and regard is had to this fact in the proposals contained in the Bill, which provide for rather larger reductions in married women's benefit than in those of the unmarried. It will be remembered that in the case of the insured married woman, the husband, as a general rule, is also an insured person, and a portion only of the family earnings is suspended when the woman ceases to work; added to which the husband's benefits are not being reduced under this Bill.
The reductions proposed in the Bill are the very smallest which can be made in
494
order to meet the needs of the situation. As a matter of fact, they are not in themselves really sufficient on the basis of a continuance of the recent sickness experience amongst women, and the Government Actuary has advised that even at the reduced rates of benefit proposed in the Bill the contributions should be increased by a halfpenny a week. The Government have decided, however, against demanding any increase in contributions, nor do they desire that any reductions in benefits should be made which are not absolutely imperative, and it is hoped and believed that the position will to some extent be met by improved administration and more careful supervision of claims on the part of the approved societies, and in this way such a reduction effected in the volume of claims as will be sufficient to secure financial stability at the rates of benefit proposed in the Bill, and thus obviate calling for any increase in contributions, even to the extent of the halfpenny suggested by the Government Actuary. Before leaving this subject, let me add that although the new rates will become standard rates of benefit for women from January next, any approved society which on valuation is found to be in the position to increase those rates by reason of having a disposable surplus will still be at liberty to do so.
I now pass to the clause in the Bill dealing with the serious loss of contribution income by reason of widespread unemployment amongst insured persons; that is, Clause 4. It has always been a cardinal feature of the national health insurance scheme that the rates of benefit payable to insured persons are graduated according to the number of contributions paid in respect of each person during the preceding contribution year. From the inception of the scheme until the year 1928 insured persons who were in arrear with their contributions were required to redeem their arrears by a cash payment, failing which the rates of benefit were reduced during the following benefit year. I think your Lordships will agree that this was undoubtedly a hardship to persons who were suffering from prolonged unemployment, and in 1926 the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance recommended that provision should be made which would protect an insured person from incurring any loss or penalty by reason of arrears due

495
to genuine unemployment, but no recommendations were made as to how societies were to meet this additional liability.
In 1928 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Minister of Health, when introducing the National Health Insurance Bill of that year, made an effort to grapple with the problem. He found that there was a sum of money available amounting at that time to £500,000 a year from stamps sold at post offices, but not claimed, owing to a certain number of insured persons not returning their contribution cards to their approved societies. In other words, insured persons—through their employers—were purchasing stamps from the Post Office and putting them on the cards, as they were compelled by Statute to do, and then neglecting to return the cards to their societies, because, forsooth, they did not appreciate the value of being included within the scheme. The consequence of that has been that the money which accrued to the Post Office was sent to the Ministry of Health, but they on their part had not to meet the liability in respect of which those stamps had been purchased. Mr. Chamberlain made an arrangement with the approved societies under which, in return for the £500,000 a year being handed over to the societies under an appropriate scheme, all arrears due to proved unemployment would be totally excused. At that time the unemployment figures were falling, and the residual liability to be met by societies out of their own funds only amounted to about £200,000 a year in round figures. Experience has shown that this total excusal of arrears is too generous under present conditions, and the consequent loss to societies is really more than they can bear.
Two things have happened since the Act of 1928. There has been a steady rise in the unemployment figures, and it is found that for the year 1931–32 the grant of £500,000 will only suffice to provide one-fifth of the losses from arrears. The burden to be borne by societies consequent on unemployment will thus amount to no less than £2,000,000 in respect of the past year. Further, the amount of money in the unclaimed stamps sales account is already falling, largely owing to the very interesting fact that the great popularity and attractive-
496
ness of the benefits of the contributory pension scheme, which is interlocked with health insurance, is making insured persons much more careful about returning their contribution cards to their societies. The result is that, instead of being able to count upon £500,000 a year from this source this year, the sum now available is only about half that figure. It is obvious, therefore, that the arrears scheme of the 1928 Act must be recast, and power is taken in Clause 4 of the Bill, under which only part of the arrears due to unemployment need be excused. It is proposed in future that arrears due to unemployment shall only be excused to the extent of one-half; the remaining half, less an allowance of two contributions, is to be met by the insured person himself if he wishes to cover himself for full benefit. I should mention that arrears due to sickness are not counted against the insured person.
The proposal in the Bill will result in a scheme of arrears very much the same as that in operation prior to 1928, when insured persons were enabled to pay arrears penalties roughly of the value of half the missing contributions in order to qualify for full benefit. If, as we all hope, there is an improvement in the unemployment position later on the Bill provides that the arrangement can be varied to give more generous treatment to insured persons by allowing excusal of more than one-half of the arrears due to unemployment. The scheme will have the effect of reducing the total burden of approved societies from £2,000,000 to £1,000,000 a year. In order to protect those societies which find themselves unable to bear their share of the burden of £1,000,000, Clause 7 of the Bill provides that any society that is likely to be in deficiency on valuation, as a result of this liability, will receive a grant from the Reserve Suspense Fund of a sum representing the loss due to excusals of arrears, and this grant will be given in priority to any claim upon the societies' own contingencies fund. I think you will agree that it would be obviously unfair to cast upon a society the slur of being in deficiency, when that deficiency was due to the generous response of societies in giving help to their unemployed members. In order, therefore, to meet this new liability on the Reserve Suspense Fund, Clause 7 of the Bill provides that all future moneys available in the

497
stamps sales account shall be transferred to the Central Fund, which Fund guarantees the solvency of the Reserve Suspense Fund.
I now pass to the third main provision of the Bill, which is a much more pleasing one for me to deal with, as it provides for the continuance in insurance of persons who have paid no contributions for a long period by reason of unemployment, and about 80,000 of whom are due to fall out of insurance at the end of this year. Under the Act of 1928 an insured person who ceases to be employed is given a period of free insurance of between two and a-half and three years. Towards the end of 1930 the late Labour Government introduced a temporary measure, the Prolongation of Insurance Act, 1930, to keep in insurance for another year those unemployed persons whose rights under the permanent scheme of 1928 would have expired at the end of 1930. As the approved societies were unable to bear this further liability, the cost of the extension was borne by the Exchequer. After the present Government assumed office a similar problem arose as regards persons whose insurance was due to terminate at the end of last year, and, pending a detailed examination of the whole subject, the present Government passed a further Prolongation Act extending the insurance rights of these persons until the end of the present year. Under the able advocacy of my noble friend Lord Gage, your Lordships passed that Act, I think I am correct in saying, without even a Division, and I hope your Lordships will be equally as considerate on this occasion.
Unless something further is done some 80,000 men and women will pass completely out of insurance at the end of this year owing to unemployment. They will be losing all their insurance rights, including the right most appreciated and valued of all, the right to widows' and old ago pensions. The Government, in examining the problem, have two objects in mind. First, we must not do anything which will have the effect of inflicting it mortal injury upon the contributory principle, and second, we must remember that the loss of insurance rights, and particularly pension rights, is a hardship to the unemployed, and we ought to go to the utmost limit possible in protecting those rights without sacrifice of the contributory principle and without sacrificing the essential solvency of the
498
scheme. Fortunately, the first provisions of the Bill, which ensure financial stability, justify the Government in stretching a point in order to give some further extension of insurance to all unemployed persons who are due to go out of insurance at the end of this year in order that they may be maintained in health insurance for a year up to the end of 1933, but they will only be entitled to medical benefit during that year.
In the case of last year's Prolongation of Insurance Act, to which I have already referred, the persuasive powers of my noble friend Lord Gage were such your Lordships passed it notwithstanding that it entailed the Exchequer finding the additional money. The Exchequer has been appealed to again on this occasion, but in vain, for the Government is not prepared to put up the £50,000 which is the cost of this concession, and as the approved societies are unable to do so, Clause 2 of the Bill provides that the societies will be compensated for the extra liability by a slight adjustment of the transfer values which are debited to societies when members cease to be entitled to health insurance benefits. The continuance of health insurance for 1933 ensures the continuance of pension rights during that year. In view of the relatively greater importance of the widows' and old age pension rights the Government in addition propose under the Bill to continue the pension rights of those persons during the year 1934 and, if a person remains unemployed throughout that year, the pension rights will be continued until the end of 1935, so that there will be two years of additional pension rights at the end of the additional year of medical benefit.
In the year 1935 the Government Actuary is required by Statute to examine and report to Parliament on the financial position of the pension scheme, and it is fervently hoped that by that time the unemployment position in the country will have so much improved that the great majority of these persons will have returned to full insurance. In view of the fact that the balance to the credit of the Pensions Account is substantial, the Bill makes no provision to recoup the account by way of additional Exchequer grant or otherwise for any loss arising from the extension of pensions rights. It was estimated last year that the

499
annual Exchequer contribution to the Pensions Account fixed by the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act of 1929 would be adequate for at least ten years and the proposals of the present Bill do not involve sufficient additional cost to modify this position.
I have now dealt with the main clauses of the Bill and I do not propose to weary your Lordships further with detailed reference to the minor clauses many of which are of an administrative character. It is proposed that at the end of 1935 we shall revert to the ordinary permanent proceedings of the scheme with some slight modifications. There will be no further special years of prolongation after the transitional period, but it has been found possible, as part of the permanent scheme, to grant the unemployed the continuance of their pension rights for one further year after the expiration of their health insurance rights. Certain other provisions of the Bill will enable persons who resume employment shortly after they have ceased to be insured, to get back to full insurance on somewhat easier conditions than the ordinary new entrant into insurance. In addition, the position of certain elderly persons who have lost employment and find it difficult to get back to work has been eased with a view to preserving their old age pensions at 65 and their medical benefit.
I hope your Lordships will agree that the Bill is a courageous attempt on the part of His Majesty's Government to grapple with a problem which brooks no delay, and that its three main objects have been achieved—the financial stability of the scheme, the unimpaired maintenance of the contributory principle, and the largest possible measure of protection consistent with those principles for the unemployed who, through no fault of their own, are threatened with the loss of insurance rights. In conclusion, let me say it is of course very easy to criticise the reduction in benefits embodied in the Bill, but I would remind the House that the alternative is not between existing benefits and reduced ones, but between reduced ones and endangering all benefits. It is therefore with confidence that I submit the Bill to your Lordships' consideration and move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Rochester.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the House has obviously enjoyed the emphatic and exhaustive explanation of this Bill which has been given by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, and I think the House is to be congratulated on taking more interest in the Bill than another place. During the Second Reading in another place the House was twice counted out there being only thirteen members present. In this House there are no fewer than nineteen. We on these Benches of course oppose this Bill. We look on it as being an attack on the workers. It attacks the workers' standard of life, by lowering the benefits which they receive from health insurance. It is an attack on the unemployed, who are specially selected to be hit, and it is an attack on women. The excuse given by the noble Lord is that the Government wishes to maintain the solvency of the insurance principle. It would be interesting to have an explanation as to why in 1926 the Government grants were reduced by no less than £2,750,000 a year. Had that reduction not been made then the Fund would have been practically solvent at the present moment.
Of course, the principle of the insurance will not hold water, because in the ordinary sense of the word it is not an insurance scheme at all. An insurance scheme involves equal benefits for equal payments, and in this scheme we do not have that. In the first place we have approved societies coming in, and in the case of a society whose members are in a healthy occupation, that society may have a big surplus and pay considerably increased benefits. On the other hand you may have a society whose members are engaged in an unhealthy occupation and, although their need is greater, they get a less payment because there is no surplus. Dependents—wives and children—have never been included. Therefore, in that sense of the word it is not an all-comprehensive insurance scheme. In particular it is extraordinary that women are so offensively attacked by the measure now before the House. Women are attacked merely because their claims have been higher than those of other sections of the community. You might equally well argue that certain sections of men's occupations show higher claims than other sections. Why not attack them? In any case most of the claims of married women arise as a result of illness due to

501
childbirth, and there is no doubt that women's extra claims are often brought about by economic causes. In a family where the amount of money coming in week by week is reduced, it is always the mother who is first to go without and therefore it is the mother who first falls sick and whose claim on the fund is most insistent.
There is no doubt that sickness will be increased by Clause 3 of the Bill now before your Lordships' House. We believe that the Government should have examined the scheme as a whole. They should have extended payments to dependents and they should have restored the Government grants which were reduced in 1926. Whatever else we may say about economy, it is clearly a false economy to save money on the health of the people. In the end this Bill must mean more bad health for the ordinary people of the country. We have had a number of interesting reports on health recently, including a report by the Archdeacon of Northumberland and six other clergymen who have said that in visiting they have observed that mothers are suffering from under-nourishment, particularly in families where there are several children. This report has been endorsed by clergymen in the Shoreditch rural deanery who have pointed out that many people in their area are suffering from under-nourishment. From that there must arise sickness and therefore this Bill will mean further sickness. Again, the reduction of maternity benefit must tend to check the fall in maternal mortality which has taken place during the last ten or twenty years. I am very glad to see the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his place because he said in your Lordships' House last Wednesday that of course we must discriminate as to economies. He went on to say:
"I would be sorry if there had to be any grave changes in the health services. They certainly stand first for expenditure."
Therefore we hope that the noble Marquess will be with us in opposing this Bill, which does mean a grave change in the health services of the country by cutting down benefits from national health insurance.
We on these Benches believe that it is only by means of a public medical service, free and open to all, that the health of the individual can be preserved, disease prevented, epidemics controlled and the
502
physical welfare of the community promoted. That is the only way in which you can really secure a healthy population able to carry on their productive work in the interests of the national wellbeing. We are not going to divide the House against this measure, because we have agreed for business purposes not to do so, but that does not mean that we are not entirely opposed to the whole theory of this reduction of health insurance benefits. We realise that if we had a Division we should be beaten, as is usual in this House. We realise that, but we know that while that is the case at present there will come a time when the Tellers in the Not-Contents' Lobby will have a curious crowd of new voters —thousands of children who are not content with the present system, who are not content with reduced benefits and reduced allowances, who are not content with bad health. Tens of thousands of mothers will crowd the Not-Contents Lobby. I do not know what the Tellers will say on that occasion, but that is what will happen in days to come—I cannot say when. Meanwhile we can only oppose this measure which we believe to be unjust, unfair, and not good for the nation as a whole.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord who has just spoken is as anxious as we are on this side to do the very best that is possible within our resources for the beneficiaries of the national health insurance scheme. I listened to his speech with very great care, because I was anxious to know whether he had any constructive proposal to make to meet the undoubted problem that we have to face. As far as I was able to gauge his position it was that if the £2,750,000 had not been withheld by the Exchequer in 1926 then, I think his words were, we should not find ourselves faced with the present problem. That statement, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so is not—I am not quite sure how far one may go in your Lordships' House, but the relationship between that statement and the truth is so distant as to be scarcely recognisable. The fact is that if the Exchequer grant had not been reduced in 1926 the Royal Commission recommended extended benefits and therefore the money would not be available now. What would have happened would have been that insured people would have had

503
that money in additional benefit, either cash or medical treatment benefit.
The Royal Commission set out in full their recommendations under that head on page 276 of the Report. They said:
"the balance of the margin should not be devoted to decreasing the present weekly contribution, but should be applied to its full extent towards meeting the cost of extending the statutory benefits."
And on page 280 of the Report they set out the order of priority of extension of benefits. They said:
"The extensions of statutory benefits, to be made as and when funds are available to meet the cost, should be placed in the following order of priority:—(a) extension of the scope of medical benefit; (b) the provision of allowances in respect of dependants of insured persons in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit."
I suggest there can be no question that if these Exchequer grants had not been withdrawn they would have been used in accordance with these recommendations in extended benefits, so that we should not have the money available now.
In regard to the other point, if the noble Lord will put down on the Paper any Amendment he suggests to meet the difficulty to which he has referred, I can assure him on behalf of the Government that it shall be given the consideration it deserves. But I hope your Lordships will give the Government this Bill this afternoon because time presses, we are getting towards the end of the Session, and we want to secure the remaining stages if possible this week.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RIGHTS OF WAY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Negligent driving resulting in death or bodily injury.
1. Any driver of a motor vehicle who, owing to his negligence, kills any person, shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years; and any person driving a motor vehicle who, by his negligence, causes bodily injury to any person, shall be liable on conviction to im-
504
prisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both, and in both of the cases referred to in this section the person driving the motor vehicle shall on conviction as mentioned above, unless the court for special reasons think fit to order otherwise, be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for such period as the court thinks fit, but not less than twelve months from the expiration of his term of imprisonment, if any, or, where no term of imprisonment is imposed, from the date of the conviction.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE moved, after "motor," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "or other." The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is really immaterial whether I had made this protest against the Third Reading of the Bill or on the Amendment that I have put down because in my Amendment I seek to bring within the ambit of the Bill all those other users of the highway who, under the Bill as it comes before your Lordships, are definitely excluded. I think a protest is necessary in the first place because to my mind this is an absurdly drastic and quite unnecessary Bill and, secondly, because if you are going to put special disabilities on certain people who use the roads I submit it is quite fair that you should extend those disabilities—or obligations, if you prefer so to call them—to all who use the road, especially if, as I hope to prove, those who are excluded from the purview of the Bill are just as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, motor drivers.
In my opinion, and the opinion has been expressed by the spokesman of the Government, the Road Act of 1930 is amply sufficient to deal with the troubles on the road if that Act were really properly imposed on the users of the road. If the Act were put in operation properly a great amelioration would take place in the conditions on the road. You may say that does not carry us very much further because magistrates and juries, and even Judges, in so many cases do not seem able to make up their minds definitely to punish severely those who obviously transgress good manners or kill and injure people on the roads. But that is really not the matter with which we are dealing this afternoon. What we are dealing with is a proposal to increase the penalties for misbehaviour, and if you do that in my opinion the only result, in the present frame of mind of magistrates and juries and Judges, would be a still further weakening in the

505
application of the law—because if they do not apply the law now owing to a soft corner in their hearts for the erring motorist, then, if you give them no alternative but to apply severe punishment on conviction, I think the last state of the administration of the law will be worse than the first.
I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, is not here, because I was going to say to his face that I think he has a bee in his bonnet on this question and, frankly, that he does not approach it in such a judicial and impartial frame of mind as you would expect from a noble Lord who has had such a long and distinguished career in the law and has occupied such great positions. I am sure he regards every motorist as a motor bandit in esse or posse and the only tribunal he would approve of would be one consisting of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, Lord Lamington and himself, a drumhead court martial from whom there should be no appeal. That is not the view of one who has had experience in these matters and served in the Ministry of Transport with great distinction—I refer to Lord Ponsonby. He said in the Committee stage:
"I have been struck by the insistence there has been in the arguments brought forward by various Lords on the criminality of the motorist and the entire innocence of the pedestrian."
Perhaps that is painting the picture with rather a broad brush, but there is a great deal of truth in this—that so many of your Lordships regard the motorist as almost outside the pale of the law and think that the pedestrian in anything he does is within his rights.
I do not drive myself. I am much too careful a man to do that. I prefer someone else to do it. But anyone who drives about the country and watches the antics of pedestrians is astounded at their indifference to other forms of locomotion on the roads except their own. If you are driving along a narrow lane in the country and there are three pedestrians, it is perfectly certain that two will keep on one side of the road and one on the other. If you provide, as we do in Hampshire, extraordinarily good footpaths, as likely as not one of the three will walk in the road and the other two on the footpath. In London the last thing that pedestrians will do is to use the subway to get to the other side of a
506
street. If they come from behind stationary vehicles they usually do so without looking to see what is coming; and lastly, and not least, they allow oncoming traffic to come up behind them, and turn their backs to it. It is also a fact that in 1930, according to the report of the Chief of the Metropolitan Police, 70 per cent. of the fatal accidents in the Metropolitan area to pedestrians were due to the carelessness or want of judgment of the pedestrians, and I think a protest is appropriate against such a Bill as this, which seeks to saddle on the unfortunate motorist—of course there are some who ought to be punished very heavily—this stigma and this great disability.
Remember, that this Bill does not touch tram drivers, the drivers of horse-drawn vehicles, or the users of pedal bicycles. It is most unjust to take out one road user and saddle him with penalties which you do not impose upon the other users of the road. We are often told to think of the number of accidents which are caused by motor vehicles. I agree. Not an overwhelming majority, but a majority of the accidents are caused by motorists, but that is because the majority of vehicles which use the road are motor vehicles, and if it were not so it would be thought an extraordinary thing. A very considerable principle is involved in your Lordships' decision to-day, and I therefore ask you to consider these figures.
In 1931 755 fatalities were attributed by the Metropolitan Police to horse-drawn traffic and pedal cyclists, an increase of 11 per cent. over 1929. Then why are these people left out of the Bill? If they are increasingly dangerous to the public surely they ought to be included in the Bill. In 1931 there were 2,200,000 motor vehicles in use and 13,000 electric trams and trolley omnibuses. The fatality rate for motor vehicles was 2.6 per thousand and for trams and trolley omnibuses 9.1. Yet trains and trolley omnibuses are not included in the Bill. Then consider this. In 1930 there were 7,305 fatal accidents on the road, of which 861 were due to tramcars and trolley omnibuses, horse-drawn vehicles, horses ridden or led, and pedal cyclists—what I call the "good boys" of the road. In 1931 the fatal accidents on the road had decreased to 6,691–614 fewer people were killed on the roads than in the previous year. That

507
is all to the good, and yet that fact is suppressed by the supporters of the Bill. The excluded people killed 874, or thirteen more, while the total deaths on the road had decreased by 614. To sum up this statement, in 1931, as compared with 1930, there were 614 fewer fatal acidents in this country. The people excluded from the Bill, those using horse-drawn vehicles, etc., killed thirteen more, and the motor car people killed 627 less.
Is this a time to bring in a Bill such as this, when you see that the people excluded from the Bill are killing more people every year, while the motor car people have such a large decrease in fatalities? What do these statistics show? They seem to me to show conclusively that we do not want any more legislation, but we want a continued application of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, with a tightening up of the administration and penalties included in that Act. What I am expressing are not my own opinions only. May I draw your Lordships' attention to what Lord Plymouth, as representative of the Government, said in Committee, because it is well worth recording what he said, and I think it was a very sensible and commonsense speech? He said that the Road Traffic Act was not two years old, and it should be given a proper trial; that you should now deal with the problem by administrative means rather than by legislation. He said that the Ministry and the Government had not been idle, and that the Home Secretary was about to issue a circular to justices of the peace drawing attention to the gravity of the situation in the light of the published statistics, and also that the Home Office in May had issued a circular to chief officers of police on the subject of the enforcement of speed limits for heavy vehicles. That is the official attitude with regard to this question.
May I draw your Lordships attention to a very significant report? It was issued only this week by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. On page 7 of that Report they make a very encouraging statement and do not at all bear out the moans and groans of the supporters of this Bill. They say this:
"In the first six months of 1931 the total number of persons killed and injured in accidents recorded in the Metropolitan Police District was 25,717 while in the cor-
508
responding period of 1930 the number was 28,010."
So in the six months there was a diminution of 2,293 fatal and other accidents in the Metropolitan area. I submit to your Lordships that that is a very considerable diminution in the toll of the road and gives hopes for the future. They go on to say:

"In these circumstances we are inclined to the hope that the attention given to the subject, the safeguards provided in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the appointment of police motor patrols and the various improvements which have been carried out in traffic signals, road signs, and the improvement of dangerous road junctions and corners have all contributed to greater road safety."
I do not pretend, no one pretends, that all is well upon the roads. Some motorists I feel I should like to shoot at sight. But for heaven's sake do not let us in an assembly like this be carried away by the ill deeds of a minority to do foolish things which would hamper the majority.
Let us remember that this Act of 1930 is not yet two years old. A great deal has been done under it. The Government say that administratively they are convinced that a great deal more can be done, and I feel sure that if you will go on with the policy, within reason and as far as the money goes, of cutting off blind corners and above all having roundabouts where main roads cross in the country, and, last but not least, of helping the Safety First Association, who are doing extraordinarily good work in the London schools to teach the younger generation to avoid the dangers of the streets, then we shall be on the right road.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("motor") insert ("or other").—(Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I think those of you who have not followed the proceedings very closely would hardly realise to what issue the speech of the noble Lord has been directed. He was moving an Amendment to a Bill which has been read a third time. The Amendment related to this point only, that you should extend the liability for these accidents to other vehicles than motor vehicles.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: If I could have my Amendment I should not oppose the Third Reading.
LORD DANESFORT: But the Bill has already been read a third time, so I see no point in my noble friend's suggestion. As a matter of fact, the speech of the noble Lord has been to my mind of a very singular type. He is nominally moving an Amendment of a very limited character, and a very improper character, but he has made a speech which ought to have been made on Second Reading, a speech directed against the whole of the Bill. It is rather a useless piece of declamation, because the House has already decided against the proposition which he was endeavouring rather irrelevantly to raise. No necessity for this Amendment was suggested either on the Second Reading or on the Committee or the Report stages, and now at this late period he moves an Amendment as an excuse, I suppose, for making a speech directed against the whole policy of the Bill. I put on one side altogether such arguments as he used against the Second Reading of the Bill. I greatly regret that the noble Lord thought fit to make almost a personal attack on my noble friend Lord Buckmaster in his absence. He spoke of him as a man with a bee in his bonnet, and made use of other expressions which seemed to me singularly inappropriate, and not particularly fitted for expression in this House.
I come to the Amendment, on which he said very little, but he did make one astonishing statement, when he said that the persons who drive horse-drawn vehicles are just as dangerous as those who are included in the Bill. Your Lordships had the statement, even from the noble Lord himself, of the vast number of deaths and accidents due to motor vehicles. In 1930 the deaths were over 7,000. He did not mention in his extraordinary statement as to the innocence of motor drivers that in 1930 there were nearly 200,000 accidents caused by motor vehicles, and in 1931 202,000. The whole scope and object of the Bill is directed to the dangers caused on the roads by motor vehicles. Therefore it is rather an unusual experiment on the part of the noble Lord at this stage of the Bill to introduce an Amendment totally outside its scope.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Surely, if it were outside the scope of the Bill my
510
Amendment would not have appeared on the Paper.
LORD DANESFORT: I am not quite sure about that. Amendments get put down sometimes which, if not technically outside the scope of a Bill, are extremely irrelevant and highly objectionable.
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, while I am not altogether without sympathy with the protest which the noble Lord has made against some of the criticisms of motorists, I hope now that he has made his protest, he will be content to withdraw his Amendment. Lord Buckmaster asked me to move the Third Reading, supposing that all controversy was ended, and I do put it to the noble Lord that it is a little unreasonable after the Third Reading to move an Amendment which so widens the scope of the Bill. It would make it a very different Bill from what it is.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Certainly. In response to the appeal of my noble friend I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out ("thinks") and insert ("think").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Penalty for failure to stop, &c., after knowingly causing damage or injury]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: There is another drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("thinks") and insert ("think").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSRAM): My Lords, the Bill which I invite your Lordships on behalf of the Government to read a second time this afternoon is in the nature of a compromise, and, in order to

511
make the Bill intelligible, it is, I am afraid, necessary to explain in a few words the history which leads up to the controversy, and which makes some solution essential. The story begins with Section 1 of the Sunday Observance Act, which was passed as long ago as the year 1780, and that section enacted that:
"Any house, room or other place which shall be opened or used for public entertainment or amusement, or for publicly debating on any subject whatsoever, upon any part of the Lord's Day called Sunday, and to which persons shall be admitted by payment of money or by tickets sold for money, shall be deemed a disorderly house or place,"
And there was a penalty of £200 payable to any informer in respect of any breach.
Although that Act is still the law, there has been, I think, a considerable change in the habits of our people since the day when it was passed. In the latter part of the last century a practice grew up of carrying on Sunday concerts, generally of quite a high class, to which the public was admitted free, but in which a charge was made for certain reserved seats, and in the year 1897, in the case of Williams versus Wright, the High Court decided that that was not an infringement of the Act of Parliament. I am not concerned to discuss whether that decision was right or wrong, but the Court of Appeal has since said that it rested on a somewhat slender foundation. At any rate, after that decision the practice of holding concerts became general in London, and not uncommon in other parts of England, especially in the seaside towns.
Cinemas are, of course, a more recent development, but in the early part of the present century some cinemas began to give performances on Sunday in aid of charity. That began about 1909, and in the year 1916 the London County Council, who were the licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act, decided to exercise control over those Sunday performances. The arrangement which the London County Council then began to put into practice was that they made agreements with the cinemas that they, the London County Council, would take no steps to enforce the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act if the cinemas on their part complied with conditions—first of all, that the entertainment should be of a healthy character; secondly, that no performance should begin before six
512
o'clock or continue after eleven o'clock in the evening; thirdly, that none of the employees should work for more than six days in the week; and finally, that an amount determined by the Council as representing the profits from the performances should be paid to an approved charity. There were special concessions for private film societies and for some special occasions when a particular performance was organised purely for charity in the afternoon.
That practice continued for some fourteen years, but in the year 1930 some other purveyors of entertainment did not see why the cinemas should enjoy this privileged position. By way of registering their protest they initiated proceedings against the London County Council for granting licences containing these conditions, and it was held, first in the Court of First Instance and afterwards in the Court of Appeal, that the London County Council had no right to exercise a dispensing power and to excuse people who break the law. The result of that was that all the Sunday performances were declared to be illegal, and anyone who had carried on one of them became liable to the penalty prescribed by the Act of 1780.
That was obviously a position which called for some legislative interference. The Socialist Government of that day brought in legislation which they left to a free vote of the House of Commons. The Bill which was then introduced received a Second Reading by a comparatively small majority, and in the Committee stage there was a good deal of difficulty in making progress. There was an Amendment to include theatres, and that was defeated by a large majority. Before any further stage could be reached the Socialist Government resigned and the National Government came into office in September of last year. They were able only at that time to deal with emergency legislation and matters which were non-controversial. Accordingly, since this obviously was controversial, it was announced that the Government could not proceed with the Bill, but, instead, there was a short Bill passed which regularised the position for twelve months—that is to say, until October 7, 1932.
I think it is manifest that something must be done before October 7, 1932, when the temporary regularisation will come to an end, and when, unless some

513
legislation is passed, all these Sunday performances, certainly all cinemas, probably all concerts, and very likely all the opening of museums and the like, will become illegal. In those circumstances the Home Office in March of this year introduced a Bill on the lines of the Socialist Government Bill of the previous year, but, like their predecessors, the Government of the day made it clear that it was not a Bill which was to be treated as a Government measure, and was one which could be dealt with by the free vote of the House of Commons. The Bill was carried by a very small majority on Second Reading, and in Committee an Amendment was carried on the second day which limited the application of the Bill to London, and which made it quite clear that it was hopeless to proceed with that measure with any chance of success. Since compromise by agreement had failed, and since some legislation was essential, it then became incumbent upon the Government to find a solution which should be fair to both sides. I do not suggest that the solution which we found will satisfy either side completely. Compromises, if they are fair, hardly ever do. On the one side one has the extreme Sunday observance point of view, which would desire to prevent any sort of Sunday performances and would insist on the rigour of the old law, and on the other side you have, at the other extreme, the point of view which would wish that every kind of performance should be allowed to take place on Sunday as freely as any day of the week.
The Government have not thought it right to accept either of those positions. What we have done in the Bill which we are asking your Lordships to read a second time to-day is, in effect, first of all to exempt such displays as museums, zoological gardens and debates from the operation of the Sunday Observance Act of 1708; secondly, to give power to the licensing authorities who have authority to grant music licences to give licences for Sunday concerts and with express power to attach conditions as to the suitability of the entertainment given on the Sunday; thirdly, with regard to cinemas, to allow Sunday performances to go on in those areas in which they are at present going on, which is in effect London and, I think, some ninety-seven other areas in the country, on conditions which will secure that there is no
514
mole than a six-day working week and that a portion at any rate of the profits, and, if the licensing authority sees fit, the whole of the profits, should go to charity; and, finally, to give power for authorities in those areas which have not at present allowed Sunday cinemas to apply to Parliament for such powers by a less cumbersome and a less costly procedure than the ordinary Private Bill procedure, with sufficient safeguards, as we hope and believe, to ensure that, due regard shall be had to the opinion of the people living in the district.
That is an outline of the general character of the Bill. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at the Bill you will find that Clause 1 authorises the grant of licences for Sunday cinematograph entertainment on conditions. The first condition is that no person shall be employed more than six days in the week, and secondly—I am of course stating the matter broadly—that there shall be set aside such proportion of the estimated profits as the local authority sees fit to be devoted to charity. There is an excuse for employing a person on Sunday although he has worked on the previous six days, if the employment is due to an emergency, to meet a sudden mechanical breakdown or some unexpected and unforeseen contingency, provided that the person so employed gets another day's holiday later on.
In Clause 2 there is provision for the establishment of a fund called the Cinematograph Fund. Perhaps I ought to give your Lordships a short outline of the circumstances in which that clause came into existence. It was not in the Bill as originally introduced, but on the Committee stage Mr. Buchan introduced an Amendment which provided that a percentage of the profits should be devoted to a fund for a particular institute recommended to be set up by a Committee which was then on the eve of reporting. The Government did not think that the Amendment in the form in which Mr. Buchan moved it was one which could be accepted, but they undertook to consider the object in view and to introduce a clause on Report. That is now Clause 2. It was left to a free vote of the House of Commons and was carried. The effect of Clause 2 is that there shall be established under the direction and control of the Privy Council a Fund into which there shall be paid a certain per-

515
centage, not exceeding five per cent. at the most, of the amount payable out of the profits to charities, and the money so paid is to be applied as the Privy Council may direct for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What part of the Privy Council is to be called upon to make these directions?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Fund will be handed over to the Privy Council as a whole, and the Lord President will act as my noble friend knows he acts in various other matters in connection with the Committee over which he presides. Clause 3 makes provision with regard to musical entertainments. Power is given to the licensing authority in any area to allow musical entertainments on Sundays and to attach special conditions in respect of such Sunday entertainments. Clause 4 provides that those who open places of entertainment in accordance with the provisions of Clauses 1 and 3 shall not be infringing the Sunday Observance Acts, and Clause 5 is a definition clause which makes clear what meaning exactly is to be attached to the phrases used in the Bill.
In the Schedule are the powers which I indicated to your Lordships regarding areas in which at present there are no cinemas open. Provision is made in the Schedule, that in the case of an urban district council there shall be a town meeting and a poll taken if necessary. In the case of rural areas, where obviously that procedure would be inapplicable, due advertisement and notice is to be given and power is given to any body of electors, either numbering one hundred or one-twentieth of the total number of electors, whichever is the smaller number, to raise an objection. If an objection is raised then an inquiry is to be held and the inspector holding the inquiry is to make a report as to which way public opinion goes in that particular locality. If the report is in favour of the grant of the power, and the Secretary of State thinks it right to make an order, that order has to be approved by an affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. In that way it is hoped that we shall retain in Parliament the power to supervise and control the extension of these Sunday entertainments and see that
516
they are only introduced in new areas after due consideration of the wishes of the inhabitants and if Parliament sees fit.
I do not suggest than any compromise is going to prove completely satisfactory, but we believe that in this Bill we have reached a solution which is fair to both sides, and which having regard to the previous history of this thorny question, and especially having regard to the deep feelings—religious feelings and feelings of conviction—which it necessarily stirs up, is one which ought to commend itself to the great body of reasonable people on each side and which is worthy of the sanction of Parliament. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has given such a lucid explanation of the Bill that I hope he will not find it difficult to answer one or two points which appear difficult to some of us. The first is concerning Clause 1, from which it appears that the licensing authorities are granted power to specify the amounts of money which, when collected, will come into their hands—a certain percentage of the Cinematograph Fund and the rest of the money—and which they will then have to distribute among such charities as they think fit. A very great power is thereby put into their hands. The point on which I should like to have information is whether, supposing it was proposed that the amount that goes to the Cinematograph Fund should be altered or taken away altogether, that would be such an Amendment as would not be within the powers of this House and would be a privileged Amendment, making this Bill as far as the Cinematograph Fund goes almost watertight.
My second question is with regard to Clause 2. This Cinematograph Fund is to be handed over to the control and direction of the Privy Council. The Privy Council, of course, have a Committee for Research. Are they entitled under this Bill to spend part of that money on payments to experts or others? It is not likely that members of the Privy Council themselves will care to examine into this question of the development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction. Can they establish a board such as the B.B.C. appears to be and pay it out of

517
this Fund, and under what control, for the purpose laid down in the Bill? There will also arise the question as to what kind of a board. Is it to be outside the industry or composed of members of the industry—experts, producers and exhibitors, and possibly artistes—to consider the question of what entertainment and instruction can be derived? Those are two points on which I should be glad of a little light. I am not saying anything about the great importance of this Bill from the point of view of the use of Sunday and how far it opens the door to a number of entertainments which it may be difficult to control.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, any question affecting Sunday in English life affects the physical, moral and spiritual welfare of the people so closely that I am bound to make some remarks upon the Bill now before your Lordships' House. Moreover, I think the great attention given to this matter in another place, and the very great interest which it has aroused throughout the country, rather demands that your Lordships should give the general principles which underlie the Bill some real consideration and that we should not at once proceed, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, to matters of detail which had better be treated when we reach the Committee stage. One thing is clear, and I think beyond controversy—that the Sunday Observance Act of 1780 can no longer be enforced, depending as it does on the obsolete procedure of the common informer. Indeed it is perhaps worth mentioning that an attempt to propose that the Act of 1780 should be retained, when brought before the National Assembly of the Church of England, found only four to support it out of a company, I suppose, of five or six hundred. The truth is that the mere fact that in many places that law has been completely ignored without challenge for many years proves the futility of keeping on the Statute Book laws which have in the process of time become obsolete and inefficient.
I am only going to speak about the Bill as it affects cinema entertainments. No doubt in this matter there is, as the noble and learned Viscount has admitted, a logical defect in the Bill. It seems very strange that more privilege should be given to places where the law has been
518
ignored than to places where the law has been observed, and it is not my concern either to defend or to attack that obvious logical defect. It is enough that this Bill comes before your Lordships' House as a compromise, perhaps a characteristically English compromise, accepted both by those opposed to allowing any form of Sunday entertainment and those who not only would approve but welcome it.
I am well aware—how can I be otherwise?—that this proposed legalising of Sunday cinema entertainments, and the extension of the permission under certain conditions to places where these entertainments have not yet been given, arouses the very strongest misgivings and fears among those who care most for the religious character of our English Sunday. Your Lordships will not suppose that I am otherwise than full of sympathy with the motives of those who are thus deeply concerned. No one is more convinced than I am of the increasing value to the community of a quiet Sunday. It is perhaps necessary here to remark that there is no question of bringing in the restrictions of the Jewish Sabbath. I am not going to inflict on your Lordships a treatise as to the difference between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday. There is no identity between them. They differ in many respects. They differ in the day observed, the seventh in the one case and the first in the other. They differ in respect of what they commemorate, the creation of the world in the one case and the resurrection of Our Lord in the other. They differ in the purpose for which they were instituted, the strict cessation of work in the one and the duty of the Christian body assembling for worship in the other. They differ as to the sanctions, as to the degree of authority behind them—in the one case a Divine commandment, in the other the institution of the Christian Church. It is no good confusing, as people often do, the Sabbath and the Sunday, but they have this great principle behind each of them: the principle, which we believe has a Divine sanction, that it is necessary for the good of mankind that there should be one day in seven kept as a day of rest, refreshment and recollection.
Never was there a time when there was more need of that principle being observed in our social life. The increasing haste and rush and hurry of modern

519
life make it more and more essential that people should have one day at least when they can be quiet and have an opportunity of recovering their souls, for I need hardly remind your Lordships that a great poet has said:
"By the soul only is a nation great and free."
If our Sunday is going to become, as it is, not merely not a day of rest, but a day of increasing rush and entertainment, I do not see how this nation is to possess its soul, and if it loses its soul it loses, apart from higher considerations, its capacity to meet the demands and sacrifices of this most anxious time.
On the question of keeping Sunday as a day of rest there is really no controversy and this Bill makes adequate provision to see that, if passed, no employee in a cinema house will be deprived of at least one day in seven of complete rest. That is, however, only cessation from work and Sunday loses its main value if it is not observed also as a day of remembrance and worship, that men may so pass through things temporal that they finally lose not the things eternal. I would with all my heart that all our people would attend some place of worship on Sunday, but the desire that our people should go to church is one thing and it is a very different thing to seek the achievement of that desire by preventing them from going elsewhere. I cannot approve of such a method. I do not think it serves the highest interests of religion. In my judgment those interests are best served by teaching the duty of assembling together for the public remembrance and witness to God by Christian people, and by making the services of religion so attractive and so full of the true spirit of fellowship and worship that men will be freely moved to attend them. In point of fact, I wonder whether there is any proof that the opening of these cinema houses does prevent people, if they so desire, assembling for public worship. It would be very interesting to know whether attendance in church or chapel is worse in London, where these entertainments have been customary for many years, than it is in other parts of the country. In any case let us look at the plain truth, which is this. People go to church because they want to go. They do not go because they do not want to go. If there
520
be any who come because there is no other comfortable place that they can go to, I doubt whether their presence is an acceptable act of worship or of much use to themselves. As to others who do not want to go to church, in their case the alternative is not between the cinema and church, it is between the cinema and the public house or the street.
I know it is sometimes said: Why not let people enjoy a quiet evening at home? No doubt it is possible for us in this House to enjoy a quiet evening at home, if we are wise enough still to make use of it, but that is quite an irrelevant observation as regards the great majority of our people. How can those who are cribbed, cabined and confined in a single room, shared by the whole family, find rest or recreation there? Therefore it is that the older of them naturally find their way to the public house, and the younger of them to the street. In the street, if the weather is bad, they become wet and cold and miserable. I see no moral advantage to the community in that. If it is fine, they roam about and betake themselves to aimless loafing. Among the many sources of evil I believe a very high place must be given to Sunday loafing. There is hardly any form of healthy recreation that is not preferable to that. Therefore I find it very difficult, even in the interests of religion, to oppose the proposals which are legalised in this Bill. It seems to me that the real policy is to endeavour to secure that on Sundays, in these places of entertainment, the films produced are refined, educative, or at the very least whole-some.
I know it is said that it is very illogical to make these special requirements about performances on Sunday; that what is good on weekdays should be good on Sundays. I am not very much impressed by that argument. Sunday has, and I hope will continue to have, in this country, special traditions and associations of its own, and it seems to me most reasonable that the community, which under the Bill will have the right of determining whether and under what conditions licences for the opening of these houses shall be given, should use their opportunity to see that on Sundays at any rate the films produced are refining and not vulgarising, that they have some intrinsic merits of their own. I believe

521
that in this matter the film producers have made a great mistake in estimating the taste of our people. We all know by experience that when our people can have it they prefer the best music to the most trivial. I believe that if our film producers had more courage they would find that our people preferred good films to the rotten ones, if they could only have them, and I believe that the provisions of this Bill, especially in regard to new districts which will desire to come under its operations, will give a very great opportunity to test and educate the public taste, and to stimulate the production of just that sort of film that we feel to be best, whether on Sundays or weekdays.
Under the Bill it is open to the proper authority to impose any conditions which it pleases, in addition to those specified in the Bill, and here is a great opportunity, for those who care that in this respect the special character of Sunday shall in some measure be retained, to influence public opinion, so that the local authorities may impose and require conditions securing that the cinema entertainment shall be of the most healthy and wholesome kind. I may mention, as an illustration within my own knowledge, that in the borough of Croydon special arrangements have been made for the establishment of a committee representing the religious communities, the members of the Borough Council, and the proprietors and managers of the cinema houses, and it has been agreed that no film shall be produced on Sunday which is not approved by that representative committee. There is every prospect of it working well. No doubt it might receive further assistance from any institute established by the Cinematograph Fund, as to the advantage of which I reserve any opinion until we reach the Committee stage.
That is an experiment in being, and I suggest that those who really care about our English Sunday would do well, especially in cases where public opinion is necessary before the Act can come into operation, to do everything possible to secure that a similar arrangement is made, or at least to see that the local authority makes it its business to see that a standard is set for films which will be useful to the whole community. Certainly it seems to me, in the circumstances of modern life, that the best way to keep what we can
522
keep of the special character of our English Sunday is, so far as worship is concerned, to rely upon teaching, persuasion and example and not upon any direct or indirect compulsion; and so far as entertainment is concerned, to see that what is offered is as wholesome and helpful to body, mind and spirit as it can be. No doubt the Bill is capable of amendment. No doubt useful Amendments will be brought forward on the Committee stage. I have only been speaking of the principle which it seems to me ought to be in our minds when we consider this Bill on the Second Reading. I have great reluctance—how can it be otherwise?—to see any further inroads upon the quietness and sanctity of our English Sunday. When I look back upon my early days I am conscious of having received nothing but the greatest benefit from the old English Sunday, with its provision for the worship of the family, for quietude, friendship and reflection, and I naturally cannot view with enthusiasm anything which tends still further to draw the community away from these old and honourable traditions; but, accepting life as it is, and I believe in the truest interest of religion, as one who cares more than I am able to express for keeping all that is best in the traditions of our English Sunday, I am prepared to accept this Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, there is one point of procedure on this Bill to which I think I should draw your attention as Chairman of Committees. If you turn to the Schedule on page 8 of the Bill you will see in paragraph 9 that there is a provision that orders under the Schedule shall not be deemed to be Special Orders
"for the purpose of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament…"
I understand that this provision was included in the Schedule for the purpose of ensuring that draft orders under the Bill should not be subjected to the complicated procedure of the Special Orders Committee. I think that your Lordships would not wish to upset that arrangement, but it is also undesirable that a provision should be introduced into a Bill to regulate the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, especially as there is a procedure which is quite well known to the House, whereby the same

523
result can be obtained and which I think would be preferable to the one which is proposed in the Bill.
If you would look at Standing Order No. 212 you would see that Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act and Rules under the Government of India Act are exempted by the Standing Order itself from special Order procedure. I think it would be desirable that orders under this Bill should be dealt with in the same way. I believe that the Government are quite ready to accept this proposal, and if they would be good enough to bring forward an Amendment in Committee to delete from the Bill paragraph 9 of the Schedule I would, with your Lordships approval of course, undertake to move an Amendment to Standing Order No. 212 excluding from its operation draft orders under this Bill in the same way as Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act and Rules under the Government of India Act are exempted. If your Lordships would agree to that course I think it would be the best plan. It would follow precedent, and would not create a new precedent.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it is necessary for me to say, first of all, that, as the noble and learned Viscount has explained, this is a non-Party measure, and that what I have to say represents my own opinions and not necessarily the opinions of those with whom I sit in your Lordships' House. I wish to say how greatly gratified I was at the speech of the most rev. Primate, and especially because he said many things which I should have wished personally to say, I need not therefore on those lines trouble your Lordships at any great length. We may, however, first of all acknowledge that this question does arouse the very greatest feeling in the minds of sincere and well-meaning people, and the first thing we have to do is to learn to respect the opinions of those from whom we may differ. I personally do not share what one may call Sabbatarian views, but I think I understand how sincerely they are held by those who feel bound by them. As I have thought about Sunday and the use of it, it has seemed to me that the Sabbath was made for man and was meant to serve a human purpose: it is our business in every generation to
524
see that it serves the highest human purpose to which we can devote it. If we are to keep the Sabbath day holy we have to realise, as the most rev. Primate points out, the conditions under which we live, and none of us, whether he is a Sabbatarian or whatever he may be, can feel that the loafing around an East End public house, and the crowding into the noisy slums on a Sunday, contributes to keep that day holy as our fathers understood it.
I would wish to say one word on this point because I was for some years a member of the London County Council, and I sat on the Theatres and Music Halls Committee when this great question came up and important matters of administration had to be faced. We have in the County of London 117 square miles of streets, a wilderness of mean dwellings, where people are dreadfully overcrowded, and the result of that is that there is no privacy, distance cannot be maintained between human beings which permits of human dignity, and youths and maidens are thrust out of these small tenements into crowded streets under conditions which can bring them neither physical nor moral good. Therefore, in considering the use that is to be made of the Sabbath we have to consider the conditions under which these young people live. Let me say that those who take another view of this question from that which I take have done their very best to provide some alternative. The amount of devotion that has been put into the organisation of Sunday schools and churches and chapels, where wholesome conditions obtain and a warm welcome is given to young people, is beyond all praise. But to offer to young people a hospitality that they will not accept does not solve the problem, and therefore we have really before us just the alternative of allowing these young people to drift about the streets on Sunday nights, with the temptation of the public house always before them, or of meeting the conditions of our city life by agreeing that cinemas should be opened.
The Sabbatarian would of course wish that they should go to church, and the most rev. Primate has himself expressed a similar wish. May I also—whose orthodoxy is not above suspicion—say that I, too, believe that it would be an

525
entirely good thing if everybody in the community could be persuaded to devote one hour at least per week to the consideration of the higher purposes of life? But the difficulty arises that, if people will not go, what are you to do? The Sabbatarian would say: "Do nothing." But doing nothing in this matter is really doing a very great deal. It is leaving these people exposed to moral, spiritual and physical dangers that I dare scarcely contemplate. I have only one further word to say on this aspect of the matter, though it is intensely interesting to me. It is this. I believe that we have reason to be proud of the growing sobriety of our young people in this country. It is one of the most hopeful things that we have to contemplate, and if you shut the cinema whilst you keep the public house open you are putting a temptation before these young people the magnitude of which I cannot sufficiently emphasise, and about which I am full of fear.
Passing to the details of the Bill, there is one matter of a semi-general nature first of all, that is in regard to Sunday labour. In my judgment the institution of one day's rest in seven would not necessarily be endangered by allowing recreation of this kind. One day s rest in seven is far too precious to mankind for that to happen, and if I may impart a Party note into this matter it is this. So far as its strength allows, organised labour in this country will see to it that one day's rest each week is provided for every worker in the country. I cannot enlarge upon that, but I feel it worth while to say that those of us who favour this Motion agree with preserving one day's rest in seven.
I wish to give this Bill my general support, with some reservations, because I think in some ways it is timid and it is inadequate. It is admitted we are an illogical people, but if Sunday recreation is right in London it ought to be right everywhere, in all its decent forms, and this Bill satisfies neither one side nor the other in that respect. I have the very greatest fear in regard to its provisions for new areas, believing that the result of them will be to stimulate local turmoil of a very unsatisfactory and dangerous character. I believe that at municipal elections civic issues will be submerged under this controversy, and we shall have exhibitions of the clash of temperaments which, for a moment, I will
526
call mediæval on the one hand and modern on the other, but in any case between these opposite points of view, and that will be bad for the general tolerance of the community and it will be bad for the civic issues that are concerned.
There is another point, and that is in regard to theatres. It leaves the theatre problem entirely untouched. I would remind your Lordships that under present conditions what happens is that these cinemas are open, so that you are providing further good profits for Hollywood that it may continue to debase our language, and put before our people views of life which at least are not English, whilst another side of culture on Sunday is forbidden—that is to say, a young girl, or a young man, may go to the cinema and see a film "Her First Affair," but he or she may not go to a theatre to see Hamlet or the dignity and glory of Lear. Now the curse of piecemeal legislation of this kind is that we never get the subject off our hands. Therefore, at no distant time, there will be other claims, rightly made, for other departures, and over and over again this tiresome subject will be before us. One wishes that our love of compromise was really not so persistent as to make this always necessary.
A final word I would like to say in regard to the quality of films. The improvement of the film's tone is a crying necessity. As I pointed out to your Lordships a little time ago, at the time when I was Chairman of the Colonial Films Committee we had the very gravest apprehension as to the kind of film that was sent out into our Colonies and other places for people under the rule of the King in those places. But it is not less dangerous, or scarcely less dangerous, in London on a Sunday or any other night, and it seems to me—I believe the statement could be verified—that precisely because on Sunday there is no competition in the shape of higher forms of artistic presentation the cinema people put on the greatest rubbish they have on Sunday nights—that is, films of a lower quality than those they show on week-days. Therefore to that extent I am entirely favourable to increasing the quality of films that are to be shown.
Whether the five per cent. on the profits of this industry on a particular day is the right way to deal with the question

527
must be reserved for discussion in Committee, but I do support that proposal in principle, because it represents a matter of very real significance. In the House of Commons a Tory Member of Parliament, supported by the National Government, advocated it. They feel it necessary to tell the Primrose League and the Mothers' Union about all the dangers of Socialism, but they here propose to take five per cent. of the profits of a particular industry for the higher needs of the nation. That is a most interesting proposal. I welcome it as a principle that has been too long delayed in legislation, and I shall wish to see it extended as quickly and as far as possible. But in spite of the limitations of this Bill and its obvious attempt at compromise, to the disadvantage I think of the subject in hand, I trust nevertheless the Bill will pass your Lordships' House.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I am desirous as your Lordships are of proceeding as soon as possible to the important question of Indian affairs, and I will, therefore, confine what I have to say on the Second Reading of this Bill to a very few sentences. I rise solely for the purpose of expressing a view which is not generally held in this House but which is very strongly held in Wales. There is a strong opposition in Wales to the principle of this Bill. I know very well the circumstances under which some kind of legislation became necessary, and I also recognise that the Bill in its present form is a compromise, but the fact that it is a compromise in the form in which it is now presented to the House does not do away with the serious objection by the country which I particularly know and represent here, to the change which it will produce in regard to the conditions of Sunday in that country.
In one or two sentences let me summarise my case for the separate treatment of Wales in relation to this Bill. First of all there is a legislative precedent. This is not the first time that Wales has asked for separate treatment. Many noble Lords in this House will remember one or two cases in point. There is the Welsh Sunday Closing Act of 1881, which I cannot but take a special personal interest in. It is a long time ago, and it happens that. I heard a speech as a boy sitting under a gallery in the other place upon the Second Reading of that Bill, made by the late Mr. Gladstone, who was then
528
Prime Minister. He put my case so well that I will quote just one sentence. Mr. Gladstone said:
"Wales is after all a country with a people of its own, with a language of its own, with a tradition of its own, and especially with religious feelings and associations of its own."
Although that is a long time ago I can assure your Lordships' House that there has been no change in that respect. Then there is another precedent for separate legislation to be found in the Welsh Intermediate Education Act setting up a system of secondary education for Wales and Monmouthshire. In a variety of ways the claim of Wales for special treatment, having regard to its particular conditions and circumstances, has been recognised by Parliament. The point I wish to urge this afternoon is that the House should at all events give sympathetic and, I hope, favourable consideration to the claim which will be made on the Committee stage for the exemption of Wales from Clause 1 of the Bill.
The present state of feeling in regard to the Bill has been very forcibly expressed in another place by the Parliamentary representatives of Wales. When the Bill was introduced in its first form five Welsh members voted for it and twenty-five against. In a Division on the Welsh Amendment to the present Bill eighteen Welsh representatives voted for the Amendment and only two against. I, and everybody else connected with Wales, have received a great number of letters and resolutions on this subject, and I may say after a somewhat long experience of Welsh public life I have not the least difficulty in believing the genuineness of the feeling which has been expressed against this Bill. I know, as the most rev. Primate has already stated, that a great change has come over the attitude of the country generally in regard to Sunday observance. I am not going to criticise in any way the development which has taken place, but I venture to submit to your Lordships that when you have a portion of the country like Wales, where the people have very deep feelings and entertain strong convictions as to what is right in accordance with their conception of the claims of the Sabbath upon thought and conduct, it is only right that this House should favourably consider the request made that from this par-

529
ticular legislation Wales should be exempted. For that reason when we reach the Committee stage I propose to move an Amendment exempting Wales and Monmouthshire from the operations of Clause 1.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I was not in the House when my noble friend Lord Askwith spoke, but I understand that he expressed some doubt as to the value of the Cinematograph Fund that is being created by this Bill. I think it ought to be omitted altogether. It cannot be a vital part of the Bill, because after very lengthy proceedings in another place it was only thought of in the last stages of the Bill. One must imagine that owing to the many difficulties which the Government have had in connection with this Bill they have introduced this provision for setting up a Cinematograph Fund in order to make this Bill more palatable. I think it is a great mistake. It is very vague. No one knows how much money will be allotted to the Fund, and it is left to a very nebulous body. It seems to me to be a bad innovation to try to make a measure palatable—a measure which deals with illegalities—by taking away some of the profits of the industry concerned. I do not see why it should stop there. Why not have horse-racing on Sunday and say that a portion of the takings should be devoted to putting racing on a better footing? If it is necessary to have such a Fund as this then it ought to be provided in a proper way. It may be a good thing or not, but if it is good the Fund ought not to be dependent on Sunday takings. I trust the Government will see fit to drop the clause.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think the Government can possibly complain of the tone of the debate or of the way in which this measure has been received by your Lordships' House. I hope I shall not in any way seem to be derogating from the merits of the other contributions to the discussion if I venture to say how specially grateful we are to the most rev. Primate, not only for the general approval which he was able to give to the Bill, but more particularly for the high level to which he raised the debate. Most of the criticisms directed against the Bill by other speakers were, I think, on points of detail, and I will say only a few words on
530
those points because we shall more appropriately discuss them in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Askwith asked two questions. He asked first, as I understand, whether an Amendment dealing with Clause 1 (1) (b) as to the allocation of profits would come within the rules of Privilege. It is not because I wish to shirk answering the question, but because the subject of Privilege is such a very delicate one and one which it is undesirable to generalise about, that I reply that I would prefer to see the actual Amendment before expressing an opinion as to whether or not it infringes Privilege. Then he asked with regard to Clause 2 whether the Privy Council could set up a body analogous to the British Broadcasting Corporation and pay salaries out of the Fund. I speak without having had the specific point brought to my attention before my noble friend spoke, but I think the answer would be that they could not do anything of the kind. I do not think there is any power to set up a corporation of that kind or to delegate to a special body the powers entrusted to the Privy Council. I think the answer would be "No," but I will have the matter looked into. Then he asked what control there would be over the Fund set up in Clause 2. The answer to that is to be found in Clause 2 (3), which provides that there is to be an annual audit and that the report of the auditor is to be laid before Parliament. Therefore Parliament retains the right to see that the money is properly expended and to criticise the responsible Minister if that wish is disregarded.
My noble friend the Earl of Onslow raised a point about paragraph 9 of the Schedule. You will see from the wording of that paragraph that the Government were very anxious not even to seem to interfere with the right of either House of Parliament to regulate its own business in its own way, because whereas it is provided that no order laid before Parliament shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament, to be a Special Order, it went on to say,
"unless that House, by Order made after the passing of this Act, directs that such orders shall be deemed to be Special Orders."
Therefore we have been careful to leave it to each House of Parliament to decide how its own affairs should be conducted. But I think the wishes and authority of

531
the noble Earl the Lord Chairman would have very great weight and if, as I gather, the noble Earl thinks that the method he suggests is the more satisfactory, I am sure we shall be able to find means of giving effect to his wishes.
The noble Lord, Lord Snell, and the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, took two opposite views. One said that we do not go nearly far enough and the other that we are going much too far. One said "Put in theatres" and the other "Put out Wales." The fact that we have not completely satisfied both sides shows, I think, that at any rate our compromise is not one-sided. For myself, and I speak here for myself and not for the Government, I should have been very sorry to see the opening of theatres included, but it is sufficient to say, from the point of view of the compromise, that I think it would have raised very acute controversy. The suggestion was heavily defeated in the last Parliament in the Standing Committee. It would also be an innovation, whereas what we are trying to do is to preserve a practice which has grown up. I cannot agree with the suggestion that because there are no theatres open on Sunday, and people who like the high-class theatre entertainment are therefore driven to the cinema, the cinema would for that reason be induced to run a lower class of entertainment. I should have thought the exact opposite would be the logical result of the argument, because the cinemas would have to cater for the class of customer who was driven from the theatre and therefore would be likely to attempt to approximate as nearly as they could to the high level which the noble Lord thinks the theatres nearly always attain.
The noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, says that Wales ought to be excluded and he pointed out that there are precedents in legislation for such an exclusion. All the noble Lord asked me to do was to consider the matter on the Committee stage and of course I will consider any Amendment which may be brought forward very carefully, but I hope my noble friend will not think me unreasonable if I say that he will have to find a stronger argument or one which more persuades my mind, than the suggestion that Wales has sometimes been exempted from legis-
532
lation in the past and therefore we ought to exempt her in the present. As to the suggestion that the people of Wales are going strongly to object to this legislation and object to the sort of Sunday which, I suppose, he fears that this legislation may legalise, I think there is no area so far as Wales is concerned which will be allowed to open cinemas at present because I do not think there is any area in which they are at present open; and it seems hard lines on the people of Wales, if in the future they should desire to make a change in the direction of opening a theatre in any district, that they should be compelled to proceed by the cumbersome procedure of a Private Bill instead of under the more simple procedure of this Bill, which is specially designed for ensuring that the people of the district shall have their way in the decision whether or not any such legislation shall take place or any such area be included. I will of course consider the matter in Committee, but there will be those points for my noble friend to consider when we come to the Amendment which he suggests.
With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, who reinforced what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, about the Privy Council Fund, it is true that it did not appear in the Bill in its original shape. It was not introduced as a sop to try to persuade the House of Commons, because the question was left to the free vote of the House of Commons, and it is not quite true to say that you are taxing the industry because the Fund is established out of the sum the local authority has already taken from the industry by setting it aside for charitable purposes and the like. It is a sum therefore which in no event would go into the pockets of the industry. I am glad to hear that the standard of cinema displays, on which the noble Lord is much more an authority than I can pretend to be, is so much higher now than it used to be, but perhaps it may be that there is still room for improvement and that such a Fund may serve a very useful purpose. However, these are matters we can debate later on in the week in Committee. For the moment I can only thank your Lordships for the reception you have given to the measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDIA'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS WAR COSTS.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the Resolution which figures on the Order Paper, and which was described by the Secretary of State for India in another place as a very formidable Resolution, need not, I think, detain your Lordships very long. In essence it is a mere matter of bookkeeping. Under the present constitutional position it is not possible for the Legislature in India to vote money for military purposes outside India without the covering authority of Parliament. In the early stages of the War the arrangement was made between the India Office and the Government of India that India should defray the ordinary cost of the Indian Forces when they moved outside India and that this country should defray any additional expenditure which might be incurred on their account. In 1917 the Indian Legislature made to this country the extremely generous gift of £100,000,000 as a contribution towards the cost of the War and in the following year, 1918, the Legislature made a further vote of £45,000,000, a vote to which it attached certain conditions. One condition was that account was to be taken of the economic position of India; another was that account must be taken of any warlike expenditure that might be incurred in connection with Afghanistan. The War ended a good deal earlier than people either in this country or in India expected and the actual sum expended was only £13,600,000, the figure mentioned in the third clause of the Resolution.
In the ordinary course this House would have been asked to authorise that expenditure some time ago, but an acute controversy arose between the War Office on the one side and the Government of India on the other, because the War Office regarded India as liable for a number of other charges—counter claims on other accounts—and was anxious to treat these sums as an advance payment on account of those charges and not as part of the free gift which India had passed in favour of this country. That controversy has been pursued ever since, and it has now been fortunately settled. I believe that if there is an ex-Viceroy in this House he will agree with me in congratulating India, and the Government of
534
this country, upon having at last wiped the slate free from this controversy. It has been settled by the time-honoured method of wiping the slate, claims and counter-claims wiping one another off. Another obstacle has been the well-known controversy about the capitation grant, and that has been referred to an Advisory tribunal, presided over by Sir Robert Garran, who was Solicitor-General in Australia. That Committee is to assemble in this country towards the end of this year. Therefore a controversy which prevented the formal passage by this House of the Resolution authorising the payment of this £13,600,000 has been settled and the Resolution can now be brought before your Lordships' House. This payment does not cover certain additional sums for which India has accepted liability as part of the settlement. Against these there must be set certain receipts accruing to India and arising out of the War. I beg therefore to move the Resolution which stands in my name, which will give the final authority for this payment to be made and end a controversy which has been going on for a very long time.
Moved, Whereas by Resolutions passed on the 16th September and 26th November, 1914, respectively, this House consented to the charge upon Indian revenues, subject to certain conditions, of the ordinary pay and other ordinary charges of British and Indian troops despatched out of India for service in the Great War, as well as the ordinary charges of any vessels belonging to the Government, of India that might be employed in those expeditions:
And whereas, by a Resolution passed on the 14th March, 1917, this House consented to a contribution of £100,000,000 charged upon the revenues of India towards the expenses of the war:
And whereas the Government of India, desirous of affording further assistance to His Majesty's Government, provisionally and subject to the consent of this House met out of the revenues of India in 1918–19, with the concurrence of their Legislative Council, further extraordinary charges in respect of the Indian troops employed in the war to the extent of £13,600,000:
And whereas the Government of India are desirous of bearing finally such further extraordinary charges.

535
That this House consents that the extraordinary charges of £13,600,000 aforesaid shall be borne by Indian revenues.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my noble friends desire me to say that they will give every support to the passing of this Resolution.
LORD IRWIN: My Lords, I would like to add, in half a dozen sentences, my word of congratulation to the noble Marquess upon finding himself in a position to bring this Motion before the House. It is, as he has pointed out, technically in the nature of book-keeping, and the discharge of a technical obligation imposed by Statutes relevant to Indian revenue. I am sure that any one who, like myself, has had from time to time the melancholy duty of treading the jungle of controversy which has grown up around these financial questions in India, must be outspoken in gratitude to the noble Marquess, from the point of view both of this country and of India, that he has contrived to render that jungle no longer existant. I do not think anybody could have followed that controversy in any degree without being amazed at the ability and ingenuity of Government Departments, both in India and in this country, in the way in which they have produced new matters of controversy whenever the old seemed to be approaching settlement, and have maintained this question in being, the despair of everybody concerned with it, for the last fourteen or fifteen years.
Therefore no praise is too high for those who have finally brought it to a conclusion. The noble Marquess said quite truly that one of the matters which had delayed the settlement was the fact that it had become connected with the vexed question of the capitation rate. That is not indeed directly referred to in the Resolution, but it is very good news to hear that that old controversy is to be referred to arbitration in the course of the coming autumn. I understand that the arbitration is on an advisory basis only, but I venture to hope that it is reasonable to expect that the award which is likely to be forthcoming will be of such a character that its own merits are likely to win for it acceptance both in India and in this country. Any one who has examined this matter will agree that it is quite unworthy of the arrangement which ought to exist between this country
536
and India. It has taken fifteen years to settle these somewhat petty problems of finance, and I hope we are not to take it as an omen or measure of the time likely to be taken to settle the graver problems that are shortly to come before His Majesty's Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices.
The Committee reported as follows:—
1. SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Sub-Committee reported the resignation of Mr. R. C. Vaughan, who has been Controller of the Refreshment Department since April, 1920.
The Committee authorised the Sub-Committee to make suitable arrangements for carrying on the Refreshment Department.
2 YEOMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD (HOUSE ALLOWANCE).
The Committee sanctioned the payment to the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod of House Allowance up to the 28th April, 1931, the date on which his official residence was ready for occupation.
3. RETIREMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL CLERK OF PRIVATE BILLS AND TAXING MASTER OF PRIVATE BILL COSTS.
The Committee heard with regret that the Hon. Edward A. Stoner, who holds the appointment of Principal Clerk of Private Bills and Taxing Master of Private Bill Costs, is about to retire under the age limit on the 16th October next. Mr. Stonor will then have completed 41 years' service in the House.
The Committee sanctioned the payment to Mr. Stonor of a pension of £600 per annum, and supplementary pension, subject to quarterly revision, calculated on the current rate of bonus.
They also approved the payment of a capital sum by way of additional allowance calculated on his present salary, together with 75 per cent. of the current bonus amounting to £1,951 0s. 6d.
These payments are calculated according to the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1909, under which Mr. Stonor's pension is assessable.
The Committee were informed that, as a result of Mr. Stonor's retirement, the amalgamation of the Committee Office and Private Bill Office, agreed to by the Committee in 1919, will come into force, Mr. Vigors, the present Principal Clerk of Committees, becoming the head of the combined departments without additional remuneration.
The scheme of 1919 provided also for an establishment of 13 clerks in the Parliament Office. A vacancy is thus created by

537
Mr. Stonor's retirement. In the interests of economy, the Clerk of the Parliaments does not at present propose to fill the vacancy, and is arranging to carry on with the existing staff until March, 1933, when he proposes to make a new appointment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the house to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment as to cheques drawn by a bank on itself.
1. Sections seventy-six to eighty-two of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (which relate to crossed cheques), as amended by the Bills of Exchange (Crossed Cheques) Act, 1906, shall apply to a banker's draft as if the draft were a cheque.
For the purposes of this section, the expression "banker's draft" means a draft payable on demand drawn by an office of a bank upon itself, or upon some other office of the same bank.
LORD DANESFORT: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Atkin, I wish to move the Amendment standing in his name, to leave out all words after "by" ["by an office of a bank"] down to and including "same" and insert "or on behalf of a bank upon itself whether payable at the head office or some other office of the".
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out from ("by") to ("bank") in line 14 and insert ("or on behalf of a bank upon itself whether payable at the head office or some other office of the").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

HOPS MARKETING SCHEME, 1932.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the scheme as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that the Earl De La Warr, Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, attended the Committee; that in their opinion the provisions of the scheme raise questions of policy and principle which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, under which the scheme is submitted for approval; that the provisions of the scheme are not founded on precedent; that the question as to whether the scheme is intra vires is at present the subject of an appeal to this House from the Court of Appeal; that in their opinion the scheme cannot be approved by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision upon the Resolution approving the said scheme: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: Is the noble Viscount the Leader of the House able to make any statement with regard to the time of meeting of the House to-morrow?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in view of some little doubt as to how long the Town and Country Planning Bill may take on Report stage, and in view of the fact that it is very important to get the Bill back to another House in time for our Amendments to be considered properly, I would suggest that this House should meet at a quarter to three o'clock to-morrow. There are two introductions, which will take some little time, and we cannot effectively begin our discussion until a little after three o'clock.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.