Sitting of 10 November 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Portsoy Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,
Renfrew Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    RELIEF WORKS.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD CHALMERSasked the Minister of Labour what was the average cost to the State per man per annum of providing relief works during the years 1929, 1930, and 1931?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): It is generally estimated that the average cost of putting a man to work on relief works for a year is approximately £500; or, if indirect employment is taken into account, approximately £250. The cost to the Exchequer depends, of course, upon the amount of the contribution which the Exchequer makes towards the expenditure on any particular scheme.
    Mr. CHALMERS: In view of the very high figure, may we take it that it is the settled policy of the Government not to indulge in such relief works?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not think that I can usefully add anything to what was said in the Debate last Friday.

    ALIENS.
    Captain NORTHasked the Minister of Labour whether, in drawing up any future legislation in connection with unemployment insurance, he will consider the advisability of providing that no alien worker in Great Britain shall contribute to or be eligible for benefits under the scheme?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I will note my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Captain NORTH: May I ask why it is necessary to allow aliens to be admitted?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the hon. and gallant Member knows, there is a strict inquiry made before aliens are admitted. Many of those who are of alien origin have been here for a great many years and many of them are naturalised British subjects.
    Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any figures of the numbers of aliens who are now receiving unemployment benefit or transitional benefit?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir, nor do I think I could get them, but I will look into the matter.

    PENSIONERS.
    Mr. HEPWORTHasked the Minister of Labour if he possesses any information indicating how many retired civil servants and ex-policemen who are in receipt of pensions are now competing in the labour market; and what is the policy in the Employment Exchanges in respect of the re-employment of men with pensions?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I regret that I have no information which would enable me to reply to the first part of the question. As regards the second part, in submitting workpeople for vacancies, the Exchanges proceed on the principle of selecting the best qualified applicants.

    PERTH.
    Lord SCONEasked the Minister of Labour (1) the numbers and professions of unemployed persons registered at Perth Employment Exchange to the nearest convenient date;
    (2) if he will state, to the nearest convenient date, the numbers and professions of the unemployed persons registered at the Employment Exchanges in Perthshire?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Insured persons recorded as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Perthshire on 24th October, 1932.

    Industry.

    Perth Employment Exchange.

    Other Employment Exchanges in Perthshire.

    Building

    …

    …

    318

    240

    Public Works Contracting

    …

    …

    265

    187

    Distributive Trades

    …

    …

    248

    138

    Laundries, Dyeing and Dry Cleaning

    …

    …

    138

    10

    Hotel, Boarding House, etc. Service

    …

    …

    82

    55

    All other industries and services

    …

    …

    1,331

    545

    Total

    …

    …

    2,382

    1,175

    WORKING HOURS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour the attitude taken up by the British Government's representative at the meeting of the International Labour Office at Madrid recently on the subject of the 40-hour week?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The representative of His Majesty's Government at the Madrid meeting announced that his Government had decided to participate in the Preparatory Technical Conference which the International Labour Organisation has arranged to hold in Geneva in January next to consider proposals regarding the reduction of hours of work, and he made suggestions designed to secure a thorough investigation of all aspects of the problem by that conference. In accordance with his instructions he proposed that pending the report of the Preparatory Technical Conference no decision should be taken with regard to placing the question of hours of work on the agenda of the International Labour Conference to be held in June, 1933; but by a majority vote it was decided to place the question on the agenda forthwith.
    Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that it has been placed on the agenda, do I understand that the Government are prepared to consider and discuss the proposal sympathetically?
    Mr. HANNON: Would it not be better to leave this question until there has been some substantial manifestation of approval?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the matter is now on the agenda for the conference it will be necessary to consider the matter.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the Government not only take a part in the discussion, but also endeavour to secure universal agreement on this matter, which is the only way of dealing with the large volume of unemployment?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The difficulty in this matter is that it has been placed on the agenda without any previous examination at all, and there is, therefore, very little prospect of anything useful arising out of the discussion.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we had the Washington Convention in 1919, and that so far this Government and other Governments have failed to ratify it?

    RELIEF WORKS.
    Mr. HEPWORTHasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a circular setting out the views of his Department on the nature and meaning of reproductive work for the information of local authorities which are being pressed to undertake some kind of unemployment relief schemes?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I do not think a further circular is necessary. Where doubt arises it is best to consider the particular proposal, and that I am always prepared to do with the local authority before they incur any expenditure on plans and the like.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. WALL-HEAD)asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for unemployment insurance benefit whose claims have been disallowed during the last six

    481
    months to the nearest available date on the respective grounds that they were not normally in insurable employment or under any one of the disqualifications imposed by the Anomalies Act; and the number of cases in which, by the operation of the means test, benefit has either been reduced or completely withdrawn?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:

    DISALLOWANCES by Courts of Referees in Great Britain, 1st April, 1932–30th September, 1932.

    Ground of disallowance:

    Number.

    Not normally insurable and/or will not normally seek to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment

    66,749

    Anomalies Regulations:

    Class (b) Seasonal Workers

    4,214

    Class (c) Persons normally working for part only of the week

    1,086

    Class (d) Married Women

    27,717

    DETERMINATIONS by Public Assistance Authorities in Great Britain on applications for transitional payments, 4th April, 1932, to 1st October, 1932.

    —

    Initial applications

    Renewals and Revisions.

    Payment allowed at rates lower than maximum benefit rates.

    209,977

    1,578,370

    Needs of applicants held not to justify payment.

    123,045

    162,079

    The figures relate to claims and, except as regards initial applications for transitional payments, the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.
    I should all that transitional payments are not insurance benefit.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTORING ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIANS).
    Viscount CRANBORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
    482
    ment the total number of deaths of pedestrians attributable to motor vehicles during the last period of a year for which figures are available: and in what proportion of these cases the coroner's report has shown that the driver of the vehicle was responsible?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): During the year ended the 31st December, 1931, 2,860 persons, other than persons on any vehicle or horse involved, were killed in street accidents attributed to motor vehicles in England and Wales. I regret I cannot give the information asked for in the second part of the question.
    Viscount CRANBORNE: In view of the fact that, if a satisfactory policy for avoiding accidents is to be devised, it is necessary to know who is responsible for them—what proportion of the accidents is due to pedestrians and what proportion to motor vehicles—will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions for such an inquiry to be made?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: If my recollection is correct, when the Road Traffic Act was before the House some proposal was made for imposing the duty on coroners to make this return, but was defeated.

    TRAFFIC SIGNALS (AMBER LIGHT).
    Sir HENRY JACKSONasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the use of the amber light in light signal installations has been abandoned by certain cities abroad; and whether, in the interests of economy, he will consider the desirability of discontinuing its use in this country?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): My attention has been drawn to this matter, and on the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Road Signs I am arranging, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Police and the responsible highway authorities, for an experiment to be tried in London with a view to ascertaining whether the use of the amber light in traffic signals is, or is not, necessary. It has, therefore, been arranged that for an experimental period commencing on Sunday next, the 13th November, the use of the amber light shall be discontinued in the installations along the whole length of Oxford Street and also at the junction

    483
    of Sloane Street and Pont Street. The experiment will continue for such period as may be sufficient to enable a reliable judgment to be formed as to the necessity for the amber light.

    RIVER SEVERN (PROPOSED NEW BRIDGE).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to erect a bridge over the River Severn at Arlingham; and, if so, when is it proposed to start erection?
    Mr. PYBUS: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the proposal of certain private interests to erect a toll bridge. On this assumption I would refer him to the answer which I gave to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Lord Apsley) on the 26th October last, of which I am sending him a copy.

  UNEMPLOYED MARCHERS (DEMONSTRATIONS).
  Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary what weekly remuneration, if any, was paid to the Metropolitan special constabulary for personal service and for horse-hire during the recent demonstrations?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No weekly remuneration was paid to the Metropolitan special constabulary for personal service or for horse-hire during the recent demonstrations. Expenditure was incurred by the Commissioner to the amount of £47 6s. in respect of the hire of horses supplied for the use of special constables.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Home Secretary what was the cost to public funds of the special police arrangements necessitated by the three demonstrations recently organised in London by the body of persons calling themselves hunger marchers?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the information on this point contained in the answer I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. G. Peto).
  Mr. STOURTONasked the Home Secretary if, in view of the public concern caused by the recent demonstrations of the unemployed marchers in London, the strain imposed on the police, and the
  484
  opportunities given for the creation of civil disturbances, he will now state if he intends to take measures to prevent similar concentrations from outside the Metropolitan area in future?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: As I informed my hon. Friend last week, the matter is under consideration, but there are a number of related questions which have to be taken into account, and I cannot at present say when it may be possible to make any statement on the subject.
  Mr. STOURTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these demonstrations have a very bad effect on our prestige abroad, and does he realise that all decent citizens strongly resent the exploitation of the genuine unemployed by Communists being tolerated by the Government?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I think it is the case that damage is done by reports of these occurrences abroad, but the ill effect of these reports may easily be exaggerated.
  Mr. MAXTON: Is the Communist organisation an illegal organisation, denied the rights that are allowed to other political bodies?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that when we find people are doing illegal acts we take steps to deal with them, as we are now doing.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the facilities available in the Royal parks and open spaces of London for public demonstrations, he will prohibit processions of persons with banners to and from these demonstrations in order to avoid dislocation of traffic and disorder?
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Home Secretary what steps the Government propose to take to protect the genuine unemployed from being incited to illegal activities by Communist agitators subsidised from abroad; and whether the Government will consider as to the strengthening of the law as to processions in London and other cities which obstruct traffic and interfere with the freedom of the general public in the use of the streets?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Proceedings can be and have been taken on various occasions recently against persons for offences of the nature indicated in the first part of

  485
  the question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). As regards the holding of processions, I am considering whether any further powers are required to strengthen the existing law.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it not a fact that a procession is now illegal as causing an obstruction? I do not understand. Is it legal for any body of persons to march through the streets at any time?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Under certain restrictions and if they obey the orders of the police controlling traffic, they can do so, certainly.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Does my right hon. Friend not realise the urgency of this matter, seeing that it is now admitted that these processions were directly organised by the Third International; and having regard not only to the exploitation of the unemployed but the great inconvenience to the workers of this country who are unable to reach their homes owing to the dislocation of traffic, ought not the matter to be pushed forward as soon as possible?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think there has been any unnecessary delay in dealing with it.

  SOVIET CITIZENS (PERMITS).
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Home Secretary the numbers of Russian subjects with permanent residence at, or in connection with, Russian trade agencies in the United Kingdom; how many of these permits are for lung periods; and if any of them are for short periods only?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: According to my latest information, 241 Soviet citizens are employed by the Soviet business organisations in this country. All Soviet citizens proceeding to the United Kingdom to take employment in these organisations must be in possession of permits issued to the prospective employers by the Ministry of Labour. On admission they are allowed to reside for a definte period which may be extended by the Secretary of State from time to time, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that extension should be granted. Without investigat-
  486
  ing each individual case, I could not give figures as to the length of residence, but in no case is an extension granted for more than 12 months at a time.
  Colonel GRETTON: May I ask whether there is any limitation on the number of permits?
  Sir J, GILMOUR: Each case is judged on its merits.
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of those who hold permits are in the position of enjoying diplomatic immunity?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The figure of 241, which I have given, does not include the permits supplied to the Soviet Trade Delegation, in which 24 Soviet citizens are employed.
  Mr. LEVY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the investigation into the character of these aliens is adequate, having regard to the Communist propaganda that is now taking place?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, I think it is.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he will publish, for the information of this House, copies of the correspondence which has transpired between his Department and the Birmingham authorities with reference to the recent decision that cinemas should be allowed to open on Sundays within the Birmingham city area?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the correspondence which has passed between the Home Office and the Birmingham Justices on the question of voluntary labour in connection with the opening of the Birmingham cinemas on one particular Sunday, namely, the "Cinema Hospital Sunday," which took place on the 16th October last. It would be contrary to practice to publish correspondence of this kind; but in any event, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already made a very full statement about this matter in reply to a question on Monday last by the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons).
  Mr. HANNON: Is it not the case that the men employed on this Sunday gave their labour voluntarily, and in a good cause?
  Mr. DAVIES: Is it not the case that the employés engaged in the cinemas which opened on this particular Sunday in Birmingham are not satisfied with the interpretation given by the Home Office?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no information as to that. In reply to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), I understand that the position was as he has stated it.

  GAMBLING FACILITIES (CLUBS).
  Mr. HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the number of tote clubs being opened for the purpose of providing facilities for gambling; and whether, in view of the fact that these clubs holds licences for the sale of alcoholic liquors and that in some cases the membership runs into thousands, any special steps are being taken to ensure that the law is observed?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. So far as the licensing laws are concerned, tote clubs in which intoxicants are supplied to members are subject to the same requirements as any other kind of club, and I have no reason to think that steps are not being taken by the authorities concerned where necessary to secure compliance with those requirements.
  Mr. HARVEYasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the growth of tote clubs all over the country; and what steps he proposes taking to arrest this evil?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and in regard to the second part, I have this matter under consideration.

  ROYAL LICENCE (NAMES AND ARMS).
  Mr. CHALMERSasked the Home Secretary how long it ordinarily takes to obtain a royal licence to change name and arms; and how much it costs?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: In straightforward cases of application for change of name and arms which can properly be recommended to the King, the necessary formal procedure occupies about a month. The fees payable (including stamp duty) are £63 12s. 6d. in the case of an application submitted in pursuance of a will or settlement.
  Mr. CHALMERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one case at any rate it has taken over four months and is not yet completed, and is costing considerably more than the sum stated?
  Mr. LAWSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman see his way clear to extend the time and increase the expense?
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I ask how long it would take to change a Liberal into a Samuelite?

  WOMEN AND GIRLS (EMPLOYMENT ABROAD).
  Mr. FLEMINGasked the Home Secretary if he has any information as to the present whereabouts of the London girls who were left stranded in a Paris hotel by one Luis Fernandez, who was recently convicted of murder in that city?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I have made inquiry, but I can find no confirmation of the statements which were made recently in a newspaper that the man referred to has decoyed six English girls to Paris on the pretext of finding them theatrical employment.
  Mr. FLEMING: Does that reply mean that inquiries have been addressed directly to the Prefecture of Police in Paris?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. Scotland Yard has been in communication with the French police.

  EDUCATION.

    SECONDARY SCHOOL FEES.
    Sir WILLIAM JENKINSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if the pupils who are now at the secondary schools, and under agreement to remain for the period prescribed

    489
    and at the same fees, will be asked to contribute a higher fee, or is Circular 1421 only applicable to new entrants?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): I would invite the attention of the hon. Member to paragraph 6 of Circular 1421. In cases where an in- creased fee is approved, it will be for the Local education authority or governing body to consider whether the terms of the agreements with the parents of fee-paying pupils, who are already in the school, admit of an increased fee being charged to them, and if they do, whether the increased fee shall actually be charged. The right of existing free place pupils to continue to receive their education free of charge is preserved by the Regulations.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Does the reply actually mean that a child now enjoying a free place can be compelled, under the Regulations, to pay a fee in respect of the same place?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I have already answered that in the last part of my reply: "The right of existing free place pupils to continue to receive their education free of charge is preserved by the Regulations."
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is the means test, which is related to this subject, a test applied to the family or a parental test?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I do not think that that arises out of the answer.
    Sir PERCY HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether since the introduction of fees into Bradford secondary schools there has been a decrease in the number of entrants; and how the number of entrants into secondary schools there, in September of this year, compares with the number in the same month last year?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The number of entrants to secondary schools in Bradford which were previously free was 793 in September of this year as compared with 1,034 in September, 1931. It would be incorrect to infer that this reduction was in any way connected with the introduction of fees.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the proposals submitted to him by the Glasgow town council to charge fees in the secondary schools in that city; in what respects the proposals constitute changes from the present methods; and whether he will publish such proposals prior to any definite action being taken to enforce them?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend has these proposals under his consideration. At present fees are charged in five out of the 23 secondary schools in the Glasgow area. The corporation now propose to charge fees in all these schools, subject to a, provision of 20 per cent. free places in the 18 schools in which fees are not now charged. As to the last part of the question, there is no statutory duty on the Department to publish the proposals, but I shall be glad to send the hon. Member the names of the schools therein mentioned.

    BLACK-LISTED SCHOOLS.
    Sir W. JENKINSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what was the number of blacklisted schools demolished in 1930, 1931, and up to 30th September, 1932, and the expenditure incurred upon rebuilding such schools, giving particulars for elementary and secondary separately, and the figures for England and Wales separately?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The following numbers of public elementary schools previously on the Board's "black list" have been closed or replaced:
    During the year ended 30th September, 1930–61 in England and 5 in Wales.
    During the year ended 30th September, 1931–42 in England and 5 in Wales.
    During the year ended 30th September, 1932–52 in England and 3 in Wales.
    The Board have not compiled any "black list" of secondary schools. As regards the second part of the question, I am afraid that it is not possible to analyse the total expenditure incurred on new schools so as to show how much is directly referable to the replacement of unsatisfactory buildings, as schools which

    491
    serve this purpose frequently serve at the same time to meet other needs such as increases in population or the improvement of educational facilities.
    Sir W. JENKINSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what was the number of elementary schools condemned through insanitary and other conditions and placed on the black list on 30th December, 1930, 30th December, 1931, and the number on 30th September, 1932, or the latest available date; and will he state the number of secondary schools for the same dates and give separate figures for England and Wales?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMThe total numbers of public elementary schools included on the Board's "black list" were as follow:

    England.

    Wales.

    30th September, 1930

    …

    1,531

    184

    30th September, 1931

    …

    1,381

    169

    30th September, 1932

    …

    1,264

    158

    No schools were added to the list during these years. The Board have not compiled any "black list" of secondary schools.
    Mr. HICKS: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider it advisable, in view of the grave state of unemployment in the building trade, to make sanitary these insanitary schools?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Progress is being made with the rebuilding of schools so far as financial circumstances permit.

    REORGANISATION.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state how many school buildings erected prior to the issue of the Hadow Report have been reorganised to meet the recommendations of that report and how many surplus places exist; what was the school accommodation recognised by the Board of Education of these premises before reorganisation and after reorganisation; what was the cost of the structural alterations necessary to give effect to the reorganisation; what was the cost of building and fitting new schools or departments of schools consequent on reorganisation; and what is the gross annual cost per child in the Hadow
    492
    schools before reorganisation and after reorganisation?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I regret that it would not be possible, without a, disproportionate expenditure of time and labour, to ascertain the figures for which my hon. Friend asks in the first three parts of his question. In regard to the fourth and fifth parts, I am afraid that it is impossible to separate the expenditure incurred in consequence of reorganisation from the expenditure attributable to other educational developments which have been taking place concurrently. In regard to the last part, the Board do not obtain from local education authorities information as to the cost of maintaining individual schools or departments, but in many cases reorganisation has, in fact, resulted in a saving to public funds by making possible a reduction in the number of teachers required. Under present conditions no new proposals involving reorganisation are approved unless they are likely to lead to a reduction in expenditure.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of the importance of the particulars asked for, will not the hon. Gentleman go to a little extra trouble in order to get them?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: If my hon. Friend will put on the Paper a question in a form which will enable me to give him such information as the Board possesses, I will do my best to supply it. Perhaps my hon. Friend will see me afterwards.

    PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he can state what action is to be taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Private Schools?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am not in a position to add anything to the answer given on the 2nd June last by the late Sir Donald Maclean to the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). There can in any case be no question of proceeding in the near future with the legislation which would be required to give effect to the main recommendations of this committee.

    LONDON UNIVERSITY (NEW BUILDINGS).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the plan and elevation of the proposed new buildings for the University of London in Bloomsbury will be referred to the Fine Art Commission for approval, apart from the question of the effect of the proposed new buildings on the amenities of the British Museum?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I understand that the Royal Fine Art Commission have been asked to consider the Southern frontage of the new building of the University of London in relation to the Northern frontage of the British Museum, and that they have reported on this matter that "the new buildings do not interfere with the museum buildings in respect of height, of lighting, or of material employed." I am not in a, position to say whether any further reference is contemplated by the University.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does not my right hon. Friend think, in view of the large grant from the Exchequer towards re-housing the University of London in Bloomsbury, it is very desirable, and that the Exchequer has a right, to ask that the plans for the new buildings should be submitted to the Fine Art Commission for approval?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think it is a case of having the right to ask. I think the authorities of the University of London are fully alive to the importance, from the point of view of London and of the country, of having in the new Bloomsbury buildings a. monument of which the city can be proud, and they have certainly employed one of the most outstanding of modern architects.

  HOUSING.

    BRIDGEND.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether he is now prepared to consider the proposals and plans submitted by the Bridgend Urban District Council for the erection of 50 houses, particularly as their present housing scheme has proved a financial success?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I informed this council some months ago of certain cir-
    494
    cumstances which, in my view, rendered it difficult for me to consider a further application from them. No application is at present before me, and if one is submitted it should be supported by any available evidence that the circumstances have altered.

    BUILDING SOCIETIES' SCHEME.
    Mr. LEVYasked the Minister of Health what reply he has returned to the scheme submitted from the National Association of Building Societies for the provision of houses by building societies under State guarantee against loss; and, if so, what action, if any, is being taken on it?
    Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Health what is the present position of the negotiations with building societies with a view to their taking over the erection of small dwelling houses to let?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Certain proposals made by the National Association of Building Societies are still receiving my consideration.
    Mr. HICKS: Is the Minister aware of the request made through the building industry's national council that before this becomes a matter of Ministerial policy his Department should consult with the other sections of the industry?
    Mr. LEVY: Having regard to the fact that the matter is under consideration, can the right hon. Gentleman state approximately the date on which he expects to be able to send a reply?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am afraid I cannot specify a date for the reply, but the matter is receiving consideration as a matter of urgency.

    STEVENAGE (TENDERS).
    Mr. HICKSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Stevenage Urban District Council advertised for tenders for the erection of 80 non-parlour houses; that the lowest tender, £26,000, was sanctioned by the Department, subject to certain alterations which reduced the tender to £25,583 17s. lad.; that upon the contractor being invited to sign he discovered an error of £1,119 in the original estimate which increased the price by this amount; that the next lowest tender was for £27,120, and by deducting £720 on

    495
    account of the Department's proposed alterations it became the lowest tender; that the Department has refused to sanction this tender and has asked the local authority to advertise for further tenders; and whether, in view of the delay which this will cause and of the unemployment in the district, he will reconsider this matter?
    Sir H. YOUNG: As the price of the lowest effective tender was considerably in excess of the prices now being generally obtained, I asked the Council to invite fresh tenders on the basis of amended plans and specifications. I see no sufficient reason to alter this decision, which need involve no serious delay.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the existing law as regards rent restriction which expires in December?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The Government do not propose that the Rent Restrictions Acts should cease to operate at the end of this year.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LAND PURCHASE).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health the names of the local authorities which have obtained by local Acts the power to establish reserve funds for the purchase of land?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The following local authorities have been authorised by local Acts to establish reserve funds for the purchase of land:—Sheffield, Chester, Bournemouth, Leicester, Cardiff, Stockton-on-Tees, Birkenhead, West Bromwich, Reading, Tamworth, Taunton, Gillingham, Scarborough.

  ISLE OF AXHOLME (WATER SUPPLY).
  Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that delay is being caused in the provision of a water supply for the urban district of Crowle and the rural district of the Isle of Axholme owing to the lack of co-operation between these two local authorities, and that this locality can be more suitably
  496
  treated as one water area; and whether he will take steps to bring these two authorities together in view of the need for an adequate supply of water for the parishes west of the River Trent?
  Sir H. YOUNG: So far as I am aware the delay in the provision of a scheme in these areas is due not to lack of cooperation between the two councils, but to the difficulty of the problem. Loans have been sanctioned to the Crowle council for the sinking of a test borehole, but, so far, water of suitable quality has not been found, and the council are now awaiting a further report from the expert. I am keeping in close touch with the situation.

  BERESFORD DALE.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the proposed sale by auction of Beresford Dale, an area referred to in the report of the National Parks Committee as of outstanding national importance; and what action it is proposed to take with a view to preserving the site for the nation?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of the matter referred to by the hon. Member, but I regret that I have no funds at my disposal for use in such cases, nor do I think that I should be justified at this time in putting pressure on local authorities to intervene.
  Mr. MANDER: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this very beautiful spot was the favourite fishing place of Izaak Walton and Charles Cotton, and will he use all the influence he has to preserve it?
  Mr. HANNON: Perhaps the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mandel) would purchase it for the nation?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. HEPWORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider in the next Finance Bill the desirability of making a statutory allowance in respect of payments by children for the maintenance of unemployed parents?
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, now that the financial condition of the country has improved, he will consider the advisability of granting a rebate in income Tax to those persons whose earnings are taken into consideration by public assistance committees in the application of the means test?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given on the 25th October last to a similar question by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel).
    Mr. WHITEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the hardships arising in cases where employed children are obliged under the working of the means test to (maintain their parents and other relatives, without enjoying the benefit of any statutory Income Tax allowances; and if he will consider this matter in connection with future legislation?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given this afternoon by my right hon. Friend in reply to questions by the hon. Members for East Bradford (Mr. Hepworth) and Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that as from 17th August, 1932, the Board of Inland Revenue, in granting relief under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act., 1918, in respect of trading losses, limit the addition for wear and tear to any wear and tear of the year of loss which has not been allowed in the assessment for that year, and no longer allow the addition to trading losses of the amounts of annual interest and charges; and, as these restrictions of the concessions granted under this Section increase the burden of taxation on manufacturing industries suffering from trade losses, will he consider reverting to the former procedure which was in operation for several years?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I fear it would not be possible to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. The Board of Inland Revenue have, however, had brought to their notice certain cases in which it is claimed that hardship is involved by the modification of the former procedure. The
    498
    Board are investigating the matter, and I hope to be able to communicate further with my hon. Friend at an early date.

    EXPENDITURE (PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY).
    Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the report, published and circulated in August, 1932, of the Public Accounts Committee with reference to the expenditure by the late Government, in anticipation of legislation, amounting, in one instance, to £300,000 incurred in one year in anticipation of Parliamentary authority which was not in fact given; and whether he will introduce legislation to make illegal the expenditure by a Government Department of money which requires specific statutory authorisation in anticipation of such authorisation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I have read the report of the Public Accounts Committee on this matter. The views of the Board of Treasury will be published in due course in the Treasury Minute on the report. I am in general agreement with the observations of the committee, which did not apparently think that fresh legislation was required, but pointed out the necessity of observing the principles of sound finance.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the Ministers who were directly responsible for this irregularity?
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I do not know why that supplementary question should not be answered. Can any steps be taken for the replacement of that money which has been improperly spent by those Ministers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: Why not?
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Why not reply to the other supplementary question?

    OTTAWA AGREEMENT.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the additional number of staff to be employed consequent upon the operations of the Ottawa Agreement, and the estimated annual cost to this country?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is not possible to say what, if any, additional staff will be required until the Agreements come to be worked out in practice. There is no reason however to expect that any increase will be large.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest by the words "if any" in his answer that this work can be done for nothing?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

      SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1859.
      Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since the operation of the Superannuation Act of 1859, the powers conferred upon the Commissioners of the Treasury under Section 7 of that Act, have been exercised in favour of any civil servant retired on account of abolition of office; and, if so, will he give instances showing to what extent the section has been exercised and the department or departments concerned?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Section in question applies to all awards of compensation on abolition of office made to civil servants who entered the service before the passing of the Superannuation Act, 1909. Such awards in accordance with the practice in force for some years before that date continue to be calculated in all cases with reference to the actual years served, without any addition of years thereto.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Is this Section still in operation?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Section is still in operation in regard to persons who entered the service before the date of the passing of the Act of 1909.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether in view of the fact that many cases are brought before local pensions committees of persons of British nationality who have resided in Great Britain for the greater part of their lives, but who, during a part of the period of
      500
      12 years since attaining the age of 50, have resided in the Dominions and subsequently returned to this country and thus rendered themselves ineligible for receipt of the old age pension, he will consider so amending the Old Age Pensions Act as to eliminate this hardship?
      Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on the 27th October.

    AGRICULTURE.

      BRITISH CANNING INDUSTRY.
      Mr. STOURTONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give information showing the output in the British canning industry to the latest convenient date compared with 1930 and 1931; and the number of men employed in that industry?
      The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I regret I am unable to supply the information asked for in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the second part, I have no information as to the number of persons employed in the British Canning Industry as a whole, but it is estimated that approximately 6,000 persons, mainly women, are employed in the home fruit and vegetable canning industry alone.
      Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is that an increase on last year's figure?
      Major ELLIOT: I should require notice of that question.
      Mr. STOURTONasked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of canned fruit and vegetables consumed in this country are canned at home; and if he will take steps to organise on a national basis the cultivation of fruit and vegetables in factory areas, with a view to developing the canning industry, increasing employment, and ensuring the maximum consumption of home-grown produce?
      Major ELLIOT: The proportion of canned fruit and vegetables consumed in England and Wales which is canned at home was estimated in 1931 to amount to about 26 per cent. If the varieties which cannot be grown in this country are excluded the percentage in 1931 was approximately 75 per cent. for canned

      501
      fruit and 95 per cent. for canned vegetables. No estimate can at present be given for this year, but it is expected that the proportions of home canned to total consumption will be higher. The question of extending the cultivation of fruit and vegetables suitable for canning is receiving my close attention.

      INFORMATION.
      Mr. HORNBYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the appointment of visiting representatives to be in personal contact with agriculturists, with the object of disseminating and explaining the information provided by the Ministry for their use, as well as for the purpose of keeping the Ministry in close touch with their views?
      Major ELLIOT: I think that the important purposes to which my hon. Friend refers are already served, as adequately as present circumstances permit, by existing agencies. If he so desires, I shall be happy to send him a full statement as to the nature and scope of those agencies.

      MEAT MARKETING.
      Major CARVERasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is prepared to institute a system of meat marketing so that the producer may be certain of receiving a fair price as against the present method of so-called rings and knock-outs at auction sales?
      Major ELLIOT: The organisation of marketing is, I think, primarily a matter to be initiated by producers themselves, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I have given and will continue to give them all the help within my power.
      Major CARVER: May I have a reply to the last part of the question? Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that an Act of Parliament exists for dealing with these rings and knock-outs, and has never been put into force?
      Major ELLIOT: I am only prepared to answer that part of the question dealing with the institution of a system of meat marketing, and I said that I think the organisation of marketing is a matter primarily to be instituted by the producers themselves.
      Mr. PRICE: In giving consideration to the question of guaranteeing wholesale prices to farmers, will the Government in any new legislation include some protection for the retailer?
      Major COLFOX: Would not the Minister help the producers to get better prices if he were to repeal or modify some of the more irksome regulations which prevent farmers themselves acting as retail traders?
      Major ELLIOT: I am perfectly prepared to examine any suggestions which my hon. Friends may put forward.
      Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman encourage or discourage farmers killing their own meat and selling it themselves, as many farmers are being driven to do?
      Major ELLIOT: I do not think that at the moment I am called upon to encourage or discourage the practice.

    CYPRUS (EDUCATION).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether primary education in Cyprus is now controlled by the Government; and what steps are being taken to train and appoint qualified teachers?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As I intimated during the discussion on the Colonial Office Estimates, the policy of His Majesty's Government is to bring elementary education in Cyprus under the control of the Government. A local Bill has been drafted and recently submitted to me with the object of giving effect to this policy; and its forthcoming enactment will establish a system by which virtually all powers relating to elementary education will be vested in the Government. Under a Law passed in 1929 the Government assumed control of certain matters such as the appointment of the teachers, and by virtue of this provision it is already in a position to ensure the recruitment for the teaching staff of persons of suitable qualifications and training.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible for any teacher to be appointed from this country who acquired a knowledge of the Greek language?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would like to consider that point. I am afraid that the question of the standard of remuneration received by teachers in Cyprus would probably arise.

    TRADE AND COMMERCE.

      AUSTRALIAN SPIRITS.
      Lord SCONEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state, for each of the last three years, the amounts, respectively, of Australian brandy and other Australian spirits im-

      The following table shows the total imports into descriptions of spirits registered as consigned from Australia during the periods specified.

      —

      1930. Proof gallons.

      1931. Proof gallons.

      1932(Jam Sept.). Proof gallons.

      Brandy

      4

      85

      2,051

      Rum

      3,558

      433

      —

      Geneva

      —

      5

      —

      Unenurnerated spirits—

      Sweetened (including liqueurs, cordials, mixtures and other preparations containing spirits, if tested).

      13

      18

      2

      Not sweetened (including liqueurs, cordials, mixtures and other preparations containing spirits, provided such spirits can be shown to be both unenumerated and not sweetened, if tested).

      74

      126

      41

      Liqueurs, cordials, mixtures and other preparations containing spirits in bottle, entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested.

      4

      4

      1

      Spirits, perfumed

      7

      7

      —

      CONGO BASIN.
      Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if early steps can be taken with reference to the Congo Basin Treaties, with a view to helping the textile trades of this country in any renewal of these treaties?
      Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I regret that at present I am unable to add o the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 2nd November.
      Mr. CHORLTON: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say what hope there is of any preference being given to our trade in this area?
      Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Important legal considerations are involved in these
      504
      ported into this country, together with the rate of ditty at present paid on such imports?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): As the answer involves a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer any Noble Friend to the particulars of the rates of duty applicable to imported spirits given on pages 170–1 in the Twenty-second Report of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
      Following is the answer:
      Treaties, and it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to consult the trade interests concerned in this matter.

      GIFT-COUPON TRADING.
      Mr. DENMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up a Departmental Committee to examine gift-coupon trading and to report what legislation, if any, is required on that matter?
      Dr. BURGIN: In the Government's view, this question could be more appropriately examined by a Select Committee of this House rather than by a Departmental Committee. If agreement to refer this question to a Select Committee can be reached by hon. Members interested, the Government would be

      505
      ready to move for the appointment of such a committee during next Session.
      Major COLFOX: Why should the Government interfere with this perfectly legitimate trading and prevent people doing what they like in these matters?
      Mr. MABANE: Is it not a fact that this gift-coupon trading prevents retail prices falling?

      INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (RESEARCH).
      Mr. MANDERasked the Lord President of the Council what action it is proposed to take on the Report of the Economic Advisory Committee on New Industrial Development, with particular reference to Clause 4 of the Summary of Conclusions, proposing that a small fund should be made available for research developments?
      The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I have asked my Advisory Council for a recommendation concerning the provision to be included in the Estimate of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for 1933 for expenditure on research developments or unforeseen or uncertain requirements such as the committee contemplated.

      MEAT IMPORTS (RESTRICTIONS).
      Mr. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Argentine Government have agreed to the proposed limitation by the shippers of meat products from the Argentine?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): This matter is under discussion with the Argentine Government, and it is undesirable to make any public statement on this point at the moment.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Will my right hon. Friend take some counsel with the Argentine Government to watch the profits made by the importers of these products, as the price will fall in the Argentine and rise here?
      Sir J. SIMON: The matter is one which is being considered by a number of Government Departments, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend's observations will be noted and taken into account.

    NEW FOREST (ELECTRICITY PYLONS).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Transport the number of pylons that the Electricity Commissioners propose to erect over the New Forest, the height of these pylons, and the area of land enclosed by each pylon?
    Mr. PYBUS: The application of the Central Electricity Board would involve the construction of 19 towers. The height of these may vary from 60 to 70 feet, and the bases of the towers are from 14 to 20 feet square.

    MINISTERS AND DEPARTMENTS (POWERS).
    Mr. DENMANasked the Attorney-General whether effect has yet been given, or is intended to be given, to the recommendations of the Committee on Ministers' Powers with regard to the drafting of departmental orders and regulations?
    Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. As has already been announced, the report of the Committee which dealt with this matter is being considered, and my right hon. and learned Friend hopes that a statement as to the intentions of the Government will be made at the first opportunity.

    SCOTLAND (POOR RELIEF).
    Mr. D. GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the total number of sane poor receiving relief in the county of Lanark at 15th October, 1932, 15th September, 1932, and at 15th October, 1931; the number receiving indoor relief; and the total number of able-bodied unemployed on the same dates;
    (2) the total number of sane poor receiving relief in the burghs of Airdrie, Coatbridge, Hamilton, Motherwell and Wishaw, and Rutherglen; and the parishes in the upper, middle and lower wards of Lanarkshire, separately, at 15th October, 1932, 15th September, 1932, and the numbers at 15th October, 1931, with the total number of able-bodied unemployed at each of those dates?
    Mr. SKELTON: In answer to these two questions I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate a tabular statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    PARTICULARS regarding the number of Sane Poor Persons and their Dependants receiving relief at certain dates in 1931 and 1932 in the County of Lanark and the large burghs therein, excluding Glasgow.

    Total Sane Poor.

    Indoor Poor.

    Destitute Able-bodied Unemployed.

    Local Authority.

    Date.

    Poor.

    Dependants.

    Total.

    Poor.

    Dependants

    Total.

    Poor.

    Dependants

    Total.

    Lanark County

    15th October, 1932

    …

    8,591

    10,396

    18,987

    398

    30

    428

    2,063

    2,415

    4,478

    15th September, 1932

    …

    8,379

    10,039

    18,418

    373

    31

    404

    1,915

    2,206

    4,121

    15th October, 1931

    …

    6,296

    7,496

    13,792

    334

    34

    368

    652

    944

    1,596

    Airdrie

    15th October, 1932

    …

    677

    596

    1,273

    63

    3

    66

    212

    215

    427

    15th September, 1932

    …

    649

    562

    1,211

    67

    5

    72

    188

    195

    383

    15th October, 1931

    …

    515

    403

    918

    70

    4

    74

    97

    72

    169

    Coatbridge

    15th October, 1932

    …

    1,320

    1,207

    2,527

    185

    12

    197

    169

    284

    453

    15th September, 1932

    …

    1,251

    1,080

    2,331

    174

    5

    179

    135

    184

    319

    15th October, 1931

    …

    1,108

    980

    2,088

    193

    15

    208

    68

    162

    230

    Hamilton

    15th October, 1932

    …

    1,485

    2,027

    3,512

    106

    4

    110

    526

    797

    1,323

    15th September, 1932

    …

    1,491

    2,011

    3,502

    100

    10

    110

    564

    866

    1,430

    15th October, 1931

    …

    1,216

    1,566

    2,782

    102

    1

    103

    327

    474

    801

    Motherwell and Wishaw.

    15th October, 1932

    …

    1,123

    1,295

    2,418

    105

    13

    118

    166

    298

    464

    15th September, 1932

    …

    1,133

    1,233

    2,366

    112

    9

    121

    141

    244

    385

    15th October, 1931

    …

    965

    1,022

    1,987

    114

    5

    119

    61

    112

    173

    Rutherglen

    15th October, 1932

    …

    535

    495

    1,030

    23

    —

    23

    203

    230

    433

    15th September, 1932

    …

    516

    443

    959

    24

    —

    24

    188

    181

    369

    15tn October, 1931

    …

    423

    381

    804

    25

    —

    25

    120

    140

    260

    Note.—Separate figures for parishes in the Middle, Upper and Lower Wards of Lanarkshire are not available; the County is the administrative area.

    ARMAMENTS (ADVERTISEMENT, GERMAN PAPERS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the full-page advertisements of various land armaments appearing in German technical and military papers on behalf of an English armament firm; and what steps are taken to prevent firms in this country engaging in activities that are contrary to the provisions of Article 170 of the Treaty of Versailles, which prohibits the importation into Germany of arms, munitions, and war material of every kind?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have seen in a newspaper a reproduction of this advertisement, but I do not know to what market or country it is addressed. All exports of war material from this country are subject to licence, and no such licence has been or would be given in respect of any consignment contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the advertisements referred to are in German technical and military papers, and does he not think, in view of Article 170, that this is. a flagrant violation of the intention and spirit of the Treaty of Versailles?
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, have in mind that papers printed in German circulate through a very considerable part of the world. I can only repeat, without any qualification at all, that no licence has been and no licence would be given for any export which would be contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these two are German papers, printed, published, and circulated in Germany, and that while we are supposed to be talking about disarmament, an English firm is advertising, in German newspapers, all sorts of war materials? Does he not think that the Government have some responsibility for their nationals?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. The Government have no responsibility whatever. The hon. Gentleman had his attention called to this, and thought it was a point. I have explained to him that, in point of fact, there has not been and could not be
    510
    any export of prohibited materials to Germany at all. On the other hand, I am sure my hon. Friend is well aware that German is one of the great languages of the world, and as a matter of fact in South America, for example, there is a very considerable circulation of German technical papers. I have given him the whole of the information which in fact I have in my possession.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: While regretting the right hon. Gentleman's observation about making a point, may I ask if he is not aware that there are millions of peace-loving people in this country and in Germany who regard this thing as having been condoned by the Government? Is it the case that this firm sell armaments similar to those advertised in these two German papers at a smaller price here than they do on the Continent, and is that the reason the Government condone this offence?
    Sir J. SIMON: By no stretch of imagination can that arise out of the question or the answer, but I will reply, if I may be allowed, by saying that I certainly do not know that millions of people are interested in this, which is printed in a particular newspaper this morning—I do not know at whose request or for what purpose—but which, as I have pointed out, has nothing in the world to do with the British Government.

    CRIME STATISTICS.
    Mr. STOURTON (for Captain DOWER)asked the Home Secretary how many cases of hold-up by motor bandits have been reported in this country during the last six months; how many prosecutions have taken place with regard to this; and how many convictions have resulted?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am afraid that it would require a special search of police records to ascertain the number of crimes known to the police which might fall within my hon. and gallant Friend's description. They might include cases which will ultimately be classified under several different heads, but for statistical purposes those in which a motor vehicle was used would not be shown separately from others of the same class.
    Mr. STOURTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the law might well be amended so as to impose sentences of flogging in these cases, and is he aware that if this course were adopted bandits would become as practically extinct as the dodo?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The law already provides for dealing with specific cases.

    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL HERBALISTS.
    Mr TINKER (for Mr. GORDON MACDONALD)asked the Minister of Health for what purpose he sent the letter he received from the National Association of Medical Herbalists of Great Britain, Limited, on the 26th April, 1932, to the General Medical Council?
    Sir H. YOUNG: A copy of the letter was sent to the Registrar of the General Medical Council by my direction for the information of the council, because the letter put forward a claim by the Committee of the National Association for registration as a teaching and practising body. No request was made or indication given that it was desired that the letter should be regarded as confidential.

    INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
    Mr. HICKS (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Prime Minister the approximate date when the Report of the Preparatory Committee now sitting at Geneva will be presented; and whether it will be possible to convene the World Economic Conference not later than the first week of January next?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The Preparatory Commission of Experts have presented an interim report in the form of a letter of yesterday's date from the President of the Preparatory Commission to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his capacity as chairman of the organising committee for the World Conference which was appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. I am not at present able to make any statement as to the date on which the World Monetary and Economic Conference will
    512
    meet, but, as the House is aware, it is our desire that it should meet as soon as possible.
    Mr. ATTLEE: May I take it that the Prime Minister is not modifying the statement which he made in the Debate the other day, that he hoped that it would be at a very early date, and that anyone who says that it will be at a later date is guilty of a. grave mistake.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say that exactly. I said the first part of the question, but not to the second. I repeated in the answer to the question what I said the other day in the House.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: The Prime Minister implies that the rumour which is prevalent in Geneva, that the British delegates were authorised to hold out for a later meeting, were, in fact, acting in a way contrary to the views of the Prime Minister himself.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Everything that the British Government can do and its representatives will do in connection with this meeting will be directed to securing an earlier meeting of the World Conference.

    POST OFFICE (UNITED STATES MAIL).
    Mr. HICKS (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Postmaster-General the reasons why so many mail-bags are held up at the port of Southampton; if he is aware that no mail-carrying ship will leave that port until 16th November; and whether, as mail-carrying ships receive subsidies from the Government, he will take steps to prevent such delays in future?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The sailing of the "Mauretania" from Southampton on the 10th instant was cancelled by the Cunard Company. No other suitable ship being available, arrangements have been made for the mails for the United States to be forwarded by the "Europa" sailing on the 12th instant, not on the 16th as suggested by the hon. Member in his question. My right hon. Friend is fully alive to the necessity for providing as good a mail service to the United States as existing shipping conditions will permit.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is there any period in the contracts entered into between shipping companies and the Government with regard to the sailing of ships carrying mails?
    Sir E. BENNETT: There are contracts and the companies keep as close as possible to the sailing times of the ships, but in this case there was an arrangement for repairs which made it necessary for the "Mauretania" to he delayed. I think that the impression in the mind of the hon. Member who put this question down is that, even when mail ships fail to carry the mails, they are subsidised. That is not the case. If a mail ship fails to carry the mails on any one day, the company suffers a forfeit of 1-52nd of the contract payment.
    Mr. MAXTON: Can the Assistant Postmaster-General say which of the British companies owns the steamship which he mentions?
    Sir E. BENNETT: The "Europa" is not owned by a British company.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday, until 7.30, the Second Reading of the Transitional Payments (Determination of Need) Bill. The remaining stages of this Bill will be taken after 7.30 on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, after Government business has been disposed of, an opportunity will be available for discussion on an Opposition Motion relating to secondary school fees.
The Government hope to pass before the end of the Session the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill, and the Administration of Justice Bill, both of which have come from another place and, as I am informed, are not likely to raise any controversy.
If the necessary business is disposed of, there would appear to be no reason why Prorogation should not take place on Thursday, the 17th November.
Mr. LANSBURY: Is the date for the reassembly that which has appeared in the Press, namely, the 22nd November?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask another question? I am sorry that I did not give notice of it, but I think that the Prime Minister will be able to answer it. The time for concluding the remaining stages of the Transitional Payments Bill is 11 o'clock on Tuesday night. If, after seeing the Bill to-morrow, we care to arrange through the usual channels to divide the time up a little differently, I take it that there will be no objection?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is a proposal to which I offer no objection, and I do not think that it will be necessary on this occasion.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to International Affairs have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Resolved,
"That this House do meet To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS SPEECHES).
Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask you a question, Mr. Speaker, seeing that Questions are over before the expiration of the Question hour?
Mr. SPEAKER: The rule is that if Question Time is not fully occupied with the questions on the Paper, questions can be asked of which notice has been given, but not questions of which no notice has been given, unless it is a point of Order.
Mr. SMITHERS: In a way it is a point of Order. I only ask for your guidance. The Debate on Unemployment on Friday and Monday and until 7.30 on Tuesday occupies 2,224 inches of space in the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and 18 Ministers and ex-Ministers spoke 1,430 inches, which is well over half the total. May I say at once that I am not in any way casting any reflection on the decision of the Chair, but it was agreed by all parties that that was to be a Debate in which suggestions should be invited from all Members of this great Parliament, and

515
may I ask, accordingly, if you will be so good, when the next Session begins, as to repeat your request to Members, and especially to Ministers and ex-Ministers, to restrict their remarks to a limited number of inches in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I will not go into details, and I will not mention any names, because comparisons are odious, but with great respect I would like to give you this list of the inches occupied by the speeches in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and would ask you to look at it, and you will then see, from the statistics I have taken out, that certain Ministers and ex-Ministers have had quite long talkie films and prevented some of us who wish to make contributions from getting a few inches in the OFFICIAL REPORT at all.
Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Further to that point of Order. Would it not be the case that the speeches in question would be very much shorter if the rule with regard to reading speeches were more rigidly enforced?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know about that. I have before expressed my views as to the length of the speeches made in this House—if not in inches, at any rate in minutes—and I cannot have another opportunity of making that remark, which I addressed to the House at the beginning of this Parliament, unless I take this opportunity of reminding the House that I still hold the same views. Beyond that hon. Members will know that I have no powers in this matter.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I venture to submit to you that the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), deals with a matter which does fall within the powers of the Chair, and I would ask whether you would consider making some announcement to the House of your intention to enforce the rule, which has been allowed to fall too much into abeyance, against the reading of speeches, whether by Ministers, ex-Ministers, or other hon. Members.
Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, if my attention is called to the fact that hon. Members are reading the whole of their speech, I should remind them of the rule.

PROCEDURE.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.
Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move,
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is an essential preliminary to the success of the forthcoming World Economic Conference that the British Government should give clear and unequivocal support to an immediate, universal, and substantial reduction of armaments on the basis of equality of status for all nations, and should maintain the principles of the covenant of the League of Nations by supporting the findings of the Lytton Commission on the Sino-Japanese dispute."
I think the House will agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Do not read it"]—that I have very fresh in my memory the wishes of the House both as regards the length and time of speeches and the Rule against the reading of speeches. I believe I am not generally very long—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—and I never read a speech. To-day I will endeavour to be as short as is compatible with the importance of the subject. I think hon. Members will agree that before this Session comes to an end it is desirable that the House should express its opinion on the conduct of foreign affairs, more particularly in view of the Disarmament Conference, and the Motion on the Paper is one which we think the Government may well support. Everybody in the Houses in agreement that we desire disarmament, desire peace and want no more war, and I believe everybody would wish that our Government should give a clear and decided lead at the Disarmament Conference; but I think, also, that everybody must be conscious that there has been a grave feeling of disappointment throughout the country at the lack of progress made at the Disarmament Conference. There have been numerous letters in the Press and deputations to Ministers from distinguished people of all political opinions and of various occupations and standing. I will refer to one only, the deputation of the Archbishops and the heads of 10 other Churches to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, when they expressed their very grave disappointment with the slow progress made at the Disarmament Conference.
In the Motion we have put on the Paper we have stated that we believe progress at the Disarmament Conference is an essential preliminary to success at the World Economic Conference. We put that down for a very definite reason. In what I may describe as the rather
526
thick and depressing fog of the Prime Minister's speech on unemployment there was one small star of hope, his reference to the World Economic Conference. It was really the only sign of hope throughout the speech. It is perfectly clear that the World Economic Conference cannot succeed without a great measure of success at the Disarmament Conference. Anybody who has any knowledge of public opinion across the Atlantic knows that the United States of America are most unlikely to co-operate in the economic reconstruction of Europe unless they are convinced that the European States are in earnest about disarmament. I am aware that without a settlement of the big disarmament question you cannot get a satisfactory settlement. That is a condition precedent to anything like economic recovery.
In the second place, we link disarmament and the Manchurian question together, for the reason that security and disarmament must go together. I hold that the Manchurian question is the acid test of the League of Nations as a guarantee against attack. Everybody who has followed the discussions of the last 10 years on disarmament and on every international question knows that the problem of security is always uppermost. Those who support the League of Nations claim that it is only through the League that security can be attained. Therefore, when a question arises in which two Member-States of the League are engaged, the question as to whether the League has afforded that security is a vital one. You cannot expect States to rest on the security of the League if, in a leading case, they find that a Member-State has been denied security. I believe that the Manchurian question is a vital one, and that unless it is settled satisfactorily through the League of Nations we shall find that the League will lose its moral authority and that the world will slip back to the old system of individual armaments and sectional alliances. Widespread throughout this country, among lovers of peace, there has been great disappointment. An political parties interested in peace have felt that during the last year we had, to a very large extent, abandoned the moral leadership of the world on this question. I think that we have been weak and timid over the Manchurian question, and in

527
regard to the proposals that have been made by country after country to the League of Nations relating to disarmament, we have been unhelpful, obstructive, evasive and pettifogging, and we have failed to offer constructive proposals ourselves.
I want to say a word, first of all, in regard to Manchuria, because I understand that the Lytton Report is to be discussed very shortly at Geneva. I think that we are all agreed as to the very great service which has been performed to the world by Lord Lytton and his cosignatories. The Foreign Secretary knows something about the difficulties of getting a unanimous report. He knows—although he may be too modest to say so—how much depends upon the chairman of such a commission. I am sure that he will realise the debt we owe to Lord Lytton. We may congratulate ourselves that the chairman who guided the deliberations of that great body was a member of our own country. What are the facts about Manchuria? In 1915 there were the Japanese 21 demands on China, our ally. Perhaps that was not noticed so much at the time, because we were then immersed in the War, but it was a very significant fact. The next fact came in 1922, when the Washington Nine-Power Treaty, of which Japan formed a part, was concluded. Let us remember what was done there. The Powers agreed to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of China. I confess that if such a declaration had been made before the War I should have regarded those words as extremely ominous. In pre-war days, a declaration by certain Powers that they intended to respect the integrity of another Power was always a prelude to partition. We remember the case of Persia. According to the wording of Article 2 of the Kellogg Pact:
"The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes of whatever nature or of whatever origin should never be sought except by pacific means."
In September, 1931, the Japanese occupied Mukden and proceeded to overrun Manchuria. I do not think that that was more than a militarist try-on. We have to remember what the conditions are in other countries. In Japan, the soldiers have considerable influence over policy. As a word of caution I would like
528
to say that, in discussing international affairs, we are apt to think of every country as personified, such as England, France or Japan, and to forget that there are masses of people who do not agree with their rulers. In every country there are different lines of thought, some pacific and some militarist, and we should never try to make an indictment against a whole nation because of the acts of some of their rulers. We showed great weakness at that time. I believe, if our Government had given a bold lead to the League of Nations, that that militarist try-on would have failed, and that the masses of Japan would not have supported it.
4.0 p.m.
I confess that I was puzzled by the attitude of the Foreign Secretary. I am not suggesting that the question was an easy one, but I was rather glad that the Foreign Secretary had chosen the branch of the law that he did. If he had been in the police force, and I blew a whistle for him because someone had suddenly overrun my house, I am afraid he would have stopped first of all to ask for the title deeds of the house, in order to send them round to a friend in Lincoln's Inn for investigation as to whether I had any title and whether there were any rights of way for other people. While my house was being overrun and my family were being ill-treated, an inquiry about title deeds would have been rather cold comfort to me. The Foreign Secretary said that he would not take sides, and I think that that was a definite encouragement to the Japanese militarists—again I do not say to the whole of the people of Japan. There followed the Government of Manchukuo, a Government finally recognised in September of this year by Japan prior to the issue of the report of the Lytton Commission. Well, you have the Lytton Commission's Report, a very detailed, very careful, very balanced report, and we want to know this afternoon what the Government are going to do on that report. They say it is a League of Nations matter, but we want to know what our representative on the League of Nations is going to do on the Lytton Report. I believe that that report gives a great opportunity to vindicate the authority of the League of Nations, perhaps the last chance of the League of Nations.

529
I suggest that there are very vital issues involved. First of all, the question of China itself and Manchuria itself. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the last man to underestimate the question of whether equal justice is going to be dealt out to a weak oriental country. Secondly, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman perfectly well knows the effect which the action of the Western powers might have on the nations of the East. Thirdly, and most important of all, I say that the handling of this question is vital to disarmament. I do not believe that if we fail over Manchuria we shall get France to go in whole-heartedly for disarmament. I do not believe that you will get Germany to reject all idea of rearmament. I do not believe that you will get Japan to give up what her Imperialists desire. We ask the Government whether they will take the Lytton Report as the basis of their policy on this matter?
Next I want to turn to disarmament. I believe that we have reached a very critical stage in the post-War period. I think I may say that there are three stages in that period. There is, first, the time when everybody is sick of war, but the world is still full of hatred and unrest. There is the second stage when war horror is still strong, but when nationalist illusions and hatreds are weakened. There is a third period when war is beginning to be forgotten, and when militarism, bred too often by despair, is raising its head. I believe that we are, perhaps, at the very end of the second period, and are approaching the danger of entering the third. It seems to me that the Governments with a real desire for peace in the leading countries never seem to synchronise. As soon as you get a Left Government in one country, you get a Right Government in the other. Just at the time when you find one country standing on its feet for its rights, another comes along, perhaps suddenly and unexpectedly, in favour of peace. To-day we have to take advantage of these strong peace tendencies, which, I believe, still exist in this country, and I believe are stronger in France than at any time since the War. But it seems to me that just when France is most ready, our Government—not our country—has become tepid.
530
Let us look at the records of the Government at Geneva. Whenever proposals for disarmament come up, whether from Italy, Russia, the United States or elsewhere, there is always the tendency to say that they are not bona fide, that there is something -behind them. I think we have treated them, as I say, tepidly. We are proud to think that we have done a great deal for disarmament, but I think that our attitude has sometimes been, or at any rate appears to the outside world to be like the Pharisee who said
"Lord, I thank thee, that I am not as other men"—
French, German or even Russians. I have reduced my armaments more than anyone else. I am ready to give tip submarines, which I do not want, and tanks over 20 tons which I have not got. But when it comes to action, when we pass from general declarations and come down to business, we are like the other Powers, we always
"Compound for sins we are inclined to By damning those we have no mind to."
That is the attitude of every Power. See what has happened. You had the Italian proposal of Signor Grandi for the abolition of ships over 10,000 tons, aircraft carriers, submarines, tanks, heavy guns and fighting aircraft. There was not much response, but we put forward a counter-proposal. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward his famous qualitative disarmament resolution. We were to scrap or internationalise all those "aggressive" weapons which were prohibited to Germany under the Treaty of Versailles, but surely this was made farcical by Admiral Pound's declaration that a battleship was not a weapon of aggression. What can you do on that? We then had the Hoover plan agreed to in principle—another of those diplomatic phrases—but the whole plan was whittled away. All tanks under that plan were to be abolished. We said "Oh, no—all tanks over 20 tons;" that is to say, we keep the greater number. All bombing planes—" Oh, no, we have a limitation." Ships—there have been discussions about tonnage. Yet surely the vital thing in disarmament is that the United States and Great Britain should act together. The third point was the abolition of private armament manufacture. The whole thing was rather pooh-poohed—the idea that countries were at all influenced by

531
armament manufacturers. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred to a document at Question Time, and we have heard of Mr. Shearer and the Comité des Forges. We know the influence of armament firms in this country as well. Now we have a French plan. What will be our response to that? How far are we able to go ahead on that? I hope that it will not break down in the discussions of experts.
I will now say a word with regard to Germany's claim to equality of status. I think that the Foreign Secretary was most unhappy in the response he made to Germany's claim. It was suggested that that claim had been made at the last moment. That claim has been put forward month after month. The Foreign Secretary took a strictly legal line. I think it is generally admitted by everybody that on the broad principle we cannot deny equality of status to Germany, but the vital question comes in: Is that going to be done by disarmament or rearmament? Now we say that if we have equality, it would be absolutely fatal if you coupled that with rearmament. We must voluntarily accept the same limitations as those which we put on Germany. In passing, I would say that these are not easy questions, but I do think that efforts to answer them have been damped by the action of our representatives. What is the cause of the right hon. Gentleman's failure? The right hon. Gentleman has very great qualities. He is a great advocate, but it seems to me that when he gets to a Disarmament Conference he sometimes forgets for whom he is briefed. He seems to think that he is briefed on behalf of the Army, Navy and Air Force, and not the common people of this country.
It is a grave mistake, I think, to go into a Disarmament Conference surrounded by a retinue of military and naval experts. Suppose any of us were to go into a conference the main object of which was to reduce the over-consumption of intoxicating liquor, and we had with us a licensed victualler, a brewer and a distiller, and that after a few moral speeches we committed the practical details to these gentlemen. I do not think that the brewers and distillers want people to drink too much. I know that the Navy, Army and Air Force men do not want
532
war, but the fact is that if you put people whose mind is all the time working on war, you are not going to get good results. I will tell the House what I would do if I were a delegate to a Disarmament Conference. I would take with me as experts, first, a man who had wintered in the Salient., or been through the Somme or Paschendaele. He could give a very good idea as to whether a tank was an aggressive weapon or not.
Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Have not the Army experts been through the Somme?
Mr. ATTLEE: I am not denying that. I am saying I believe that in these things the truth is often hidden from the wise, and revealed to humble men, and that the ordinary, simple soldier who has been through it would give a better view than the man whose ideas are necessarily taken up with higher strategy. Then I would take for Naval Disarmament a man before the mast, an ordinary rating who had been torpedoed; and on the question of gas I would take a man who had actually been gassed. Then, if I wanted to discuss the question of the bombing of civilians by aircraft., perhaps I would take the mother of some child who had been killed by bombing. If other countries were furnished with similar advisers, I think we could speedily reach a very large measure of agreement on disarmament. It is a grave mistake that at these conferences we do not get representatives of all points of view in the country. If the League of Nations had originally been formed by delegations from assemblies such as this House, and people of like views in foreign delegations, we should have avoided this vitiation of so much of our foreign affairs by always lumping people together, and personifying the ordinary common people of this world with entities called nations, and therefore right away from realities.
The policy we ask the Government to carry out is, first of all, full support of the League of Nations. I say that the answer to this question is a vital one. We hope that they are going to support the Lytton Report. Secondly, acceptance of the principle of equality of status, provided there is no rearmament. I believe that there is a very great danger, even with the best intentions in the world, of permitting rearmament, in however small

533
a degree it may be. On the other hand, we must get rid, after all these years, of this division of the nations into the sheep and the goats. That can be done by a qualitative disarmament on the basis of the limitations placed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles—limitations which were laid down and prepared by the greatest military and naval authorities of that time, and were based on the principle that, if you cannot get complete disarmament, you should, as far as possible, restrict aggression and make the defence stronger than the attack; and, further, by acting on the principle of accepting, at least, the measure of disarmament quantitatively proposed in the Hoover Plan. Also, we should stand, I believe, for the abolition of the private manufacture of armaments, and for a rigid inspection by an international body of the armament factories of all nations.
I am not a great believer in mere negations in this matter of war. I believe that what we have to do is to try to build up a constructive internationalism, and I believe that the most fruitful suggestion which has been made in this regard is that relating to the internationalising of civil aviation. If we can begin to build up these economic ties between nations on an international basis, if we can get an international civil aviation force—and I believe that an international civil aviation force would be a very fine force, with all the high traditions of all the air forces—we shall have taken a very great step forward.
I should wish that to be only a prelude to a far greater degree of internationalisation, particularly of transport, for, after all, modern warfare on this huge scale depends on transport, I would like to see an international mercantile marine, and the doing away with all navies save such naval forces as might be necessary to restrain piracy. I would like to see an internationalisation of all the great Continental railway groups, and I believe that the suggestion in this direction which has been made by France should be welcomed and supported by our Government. I know that there are objections to such a course, and I can sympathise with them, on the part of people who have been running these matters from the national point of view and thinking in terms of nationalities, but I have listened to a great many discussions on
534
air warfare, and I do not believe that you have a defence against air warfare at the present time. I do not believe that you can restrain air forces as long as you have nationalised civil aviation, and I believe that, unless air warfare is restrained, civilisation will be wiped out.
The lesson of the difficulties of disarmament; the lesson of the Manchurian trouble, seems to be that the very thing which was maintained in the treaty with regard to China, that is to say, the absolute sovereignty of the individual State, will have to go into the past, and all the States will have to submit to a lessening of their sovereignty in favour of a greater sovereignty. I hope that we are going to have from the Foreign Secretary something that will bring hope to all lovers of peace in this country and in the world. We are discussing this question on the eve of Armistice Day, a day of peculiar solemnity, on which we necessarily recall more fully than at any other time the sacrifices that were made in those four years, and on which we re-dedicate ourselves to the cause of peace. While we are thinking of those friends of ours overseas in those wonderful cemeteries scattered up and down the war area, the Foreign Secretary can give a message that will cheer the hearts of those of us who are left by the feeling that we have been trying to carry out the wishes of those who have gone beyond.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): A day was secured for this Debate by the Opposition on the ground that they wished to move a Vote of Censure, and, as they declared that to be their objective, good Parliamentary custom establishes that they are entitled to the day. I think that in any case it is well that we should have a discussion on these gravely important matters, but I confess to a, little surprise on learning from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that that which was got for the purpose of moving a Vote of Censure on the Government is to be regarded as nothing more than an opportunity for everybody to accept the Resolution which has been moved. In fact, the Resolution, subject to certain observations which I wish to make, is couched in terms that will appeal to all, and the Vote of Censure has completely disappeared. I will deal

535
first with the Manchurian matter, and here I have a short statement to make as to the present position of the Manchurian question which I think has been overlooked by my hon. Friend in the speech that he has made. The Lytton Report is available to Members in the Library. I think that half a dozen copies have been there provided, and I very much hope that most Members of the House have found time to study it. I regret that it was not possible to make it a Parliamentary Paper, but it has never been the custom, even in extravagant days, to distribute gratis to all Members of Parliament documents which are not produced by the Government or under its authority. There are, however, as I have said, some copies in the Library.
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it would be difficult to praise the Lytton Report too highly. It is one of the most readable documents; its moderation is very striking; it is written with a real sense of sympathy and of true statesmanship, and with what is very necessary in this connection, namely, a real sense of perspective. I remember very well an earlier Debate in the House in the course of which I urged that it was necessary to listen to the case for both sides, and I received extremely short shrift from some hon. Gentlemen opposite. No one, however, can read Lord Lytton's Report without seeing that he at least has been anxious to study this question and to present it fairly from both points of view. The Report is remarkable from the fact that, besides being a unanimous report, it is a report to which the chosen representatives of five different nations have lent their signatures. I was very much pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman as my colleague on the Indian Statutory Commission point out that that report also was unanimous. The Lytton Report is specially to be regarded because it was unanimous. I thought then, and I think now, that that is a most excellent maxim, and I hope he will extend it in reference to the Indian report to all his friends on that bench. This Lytton Report represents the view of five nationals, including, as the House will observe, a United States member, Major-General McCoy, and therefore, unquestionably, it is a document of very great importance indeed.
536
I wish to associate myself with what has been well said by the hon. Gentleman about Lord Lytton himself. The hand of Lord Lytton runs throughout the document, and we ought to remember that the greater part of the report was drafted by him from a hospital bed in Peking in the month of August, that is to say, a time of year when the ordinary resident of Peking, if he can afford to do so, flies off to the hills or the sea. I feel that the whole House would wish to let Lord Lytton realise how gratefully we regard, not only his tact and his leadership, but his courage and his persistence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
I come now to the point where I part company from the hon. Gentleman in his speech. He has spoken very slightingly of the action that has been taken in the Manchurian matter, and particularly of the part which the British representative is supposed to have played, but, in fact, the appointments to the Lytton Commission, the methods of the Commission, and the inquiry conducted by the Commission, from first to last represent the policy which was adopted as the outcome of discussions at the League with complete unanimity, and to no small extent at the instigation of the British representatives. The appointment of the Commission was resolved upon in December, 1931. It was important to choose the best possible representatives, and that took, I think, a month. They arrived in the Far East in February of this year. They worked very hard, and visited very widespread areas. Their report was agreed and was signed as an agreed report in September, and it was released to the Japanese and Chinese Governments on the 1st October. Without in the least detracting from the personal work of these devoted men, I am entitled to say that the report is the out-come of League policy about Manchuria.
4.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman asks us by this Resolution here and now to declare what action we will take on the findings of the Lytton Commission. If it were not for one circumstance, which I will mention, I should have no hesitation in giving him a very straight answer on that point, but I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the following facts. At the end of September, just before the Lytton report was about to be released to the Japanese and Chinese Governments, at a

537
meeting of the Council of the League at Geneva a request was made by Japan for a short interval, to enable the Japanese Government to study the report when they received it, to prepare their own observations, and to deliver them to Geneva before the Council undertook the examination of the report. If there had been a rejection of that request, if indeed there had been any member of the Council who voted against it, I could quite understand the suggestion that to-day, on 10th November, before the Japanese observations have been received, this Government should pronounce judgment. The hon. Gentleman is very fond of twitting me with being a lawyer, though I am not conscious of the fact that it is necessarily a disadvantage when you are trying to keep a straight head in difficult affairs. But I have to lay down this legal proposition—and anyone may challenge it who likes—that it is not fair and it is not right, after you have promised to listen to and to read the observations of one of the parties, to pronounce judgment before you have ever seen them. I will leave that entirely to others. As a matter of fact, at the meeting of the Council of the League the Chinese representative was present. He took up a position which I sympathise with entirely and tried to support. He said, "If there is to be any postponement, let us have a definite period fixed; otherwise, we may have unlimited delay."
The President of the League on that occasion was Mr. de Valera. He was not particularly anxious to assist the British Government in the matter, he was acting with complete impartiality to all concerned, and he made a most admirable Chairman. He took the matter in hand and discussed what would be reasonable, and a compromise was reached which was not opposed by anyone and, as a result, it was decided that down to 14th November should be allowed for the Japanese to prepare and to present their document, that it was to be circulated and received on the 18th, and Mr. de Valera himself acting, as he did throughout, with the most admirable impartiality to everyone, has decided that there is to be a meeting of the Council on 21st November after we have studied the Japanese document.
538
I think I carry the whole House with me when I say it is not reasonable and it is not right to ask the British Government, when that is what we have all pledged ourselves to do, to come here on 10th November and satisfy a demand, however reasonable in itself, when we have never seen the document which the Japanese are now sending to Geneva and when we promised, as every other member of the Council has equally promised, to give no decision until we have seen it. Therefore, I content myself with saying that I associate myself entirely with what has been said as to the striking character of the Lytton Report. No one can fail to be impressed with the fact that such a document should have been reached unanimously, but I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that we are bound in this matter to play fair, having promised to do it. What there may be in the Japanese observations I do not know, but I am perfectly determined for my part not to commit my country to any judgment on the subject until I have heard what they have to say. We shall continue to act, as we have acted throughout, in loyal co-operation with the League of Nations on the whole matter. It is the greatest possible mistake to suppose that good is done by individual preliminary declarations. We shall hope to act, we mean to act, with the League of Nations as a whole, and we have a further ground for satisfaction in knowing that, anxious as this situation is, unsatisfactory as it is in many respects, we have in this matter been able to act not only side by side with other members of the League of Nations but in the closest co-operation and good faith with the United States of America. So much for the part of the Motion which deals with the Lytton Report.
I come to the other and tremendous question of disarmament. The hon. Gentleman has repeated his credo. I think almost every second sentence that he pronounced declared his belief in this, that and the other and, while he speaks always with the greatest courtesy and politeness, his disbelief in me. I must put up with that and endeavour to deal with the matter on broader lines. Let us come straight to the heart of the question. There is a great question raised which is often expressed in the phrase "equality of status." It assumed very great im-

539
portance when Germany withdrew from the Disarmament Conference at Geneva in July. It is formulated very carefully in the German Note which was addressed to the French Government at the end of August, and it occupied, and rightly occupied, a great place in the very forefront of the attention of all of us who really care for promoting by practical means the cause of reconciliation and peace in Europe. I cannot help thinking that in our intense desire to solve this problem we sometimes simplify a little too much.
Equality of status, as the present German Government understands it and expounds it, involves not one thing but two things, and we must have a clear view about both. It involves, first of all, that to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, the question of the list of permitted weapons, the question of whether the world shall go on on the basis that there are instruments of war forbidden to the defeated Powers and permitted to the rest of the world. That is only one of the two applications of this principle which must he steadily examined. The other claim put forward in the German Note is a claim to reorganise German man-power by, for example, reducing the period of service of their long-service army from 12 to six years, or perhaps less, the establishment of a militia for the training of 40,000 men for three months in each year, together with a number of other things. I am not pronouncing either for or against these things at the moment. What I am saying is that anyone who really wants to inform himself or who is going to take part in meetings and discussions, as many of us will be doing in the next few days, about disarmament, ought to have clearly in mind that those two things are involved and not only one; first, the question of the permitted weapons, and, secondly, the question of the reorganisation of German man-power.
Both those questions were raised in the German Note which was addressed to the French Government. It was, so we understood, the original intention of the German Government to enter into confidential relations with France and to initiate discussions with France alone before opening the question with others. Now that we see how things have been working out, I take the liberty to say I
540
think that method was unfortunate. This is a matter which affects others besides Germany and France. It lies at the root of reconciliation in Europe, and I believe that there are other countries, our own included, which could contribute an influence and a help about this which makes it a very undesirable thing to keep it as a simple Franco-German discussion. Disclosure of the fact that there was to be this special discussion led to what I would call long-range firing, some of it misdirected or misunderstood, whereas what was wanted, and what is wanted now, is a meeting face to face to find a basis on which Germany can return to the Conference with honour to herself and advantage to us all in order that we may between us cleave out a way to peace.
Whatever may be wrong in the conduct of this difficult matter—none of us is always right—there is one thing I am perfectly clear about, and I hope the House will support me in it. I claim that the British Government did perfectly right in making strenuous efforts to bring these parties together. We took some risk. It is not a very pleasant thing for a Foreign Minister or a Prime Minister to make a proposal for a meeting that does not come off. We knew the risk about it, but what we felt was that this thing will go from bad to worse unless we can get Germany to enter into friendly and personal discussions not only with her neighbours in France, but with Italy and ourselves and, we hope, with the United States, and we took the risk of saying that we were ready at any time, as soon as possible, to facilitate that meeting. We did it, not for the purpose of supplanting the Disarmament Conference, not with any desire to put. Geneva in the shade, but because, believe me, if you are going to restore the situation which has been so seriously dislocated, it has to be done by communications between those Powers and those statesmen who are themselves intimately interested in the immediate adjustment of the difficulty. We had the hope, and I am within the letter of the truth when I say we had reason to hope, that Geneva would have been found to be a place where this meeting might have taken place, and it would have had this great advantage, that, obviously, it is much easier for the United States to be avail-

541
able and to take part in such discussions in Geneva than anywhere else, because the United States are already there and are deeply interested in the Disarmament Conference. I can only say we still hope that that may happen.
In the meantime, there are one or two most important events which have occurred on which I should like to say a word. First of all, I should like to present to the House one or two reflections upon what is called the French plan. It has not, in fact, as yet been produced as a plan, but it has been the subject of a speech made by M. Herriot in the French Chamber, where he secured a great majority in its support. It has been the topic of a more detailed explanation given the other day at Geneva by M. Paul-Boncour, the head of the French delegation. Whatever may be said about the details—I will go further and say whatever may be said about some of the structural features of that plan, the first thing I think we all ought to recognise is that it is inspired by a spirit to reach agreement with Germany which we cannot but commend. There are three points about it that I will mention. First of all, it represents a definite effort to meet the German claim for equality of treatment. That is the reason, no doubt, why, as far as one can learn, in some quarters in Germany it has been received with a good deal of approval. The proposal which it contains, drastic as it is, that the home armies of the different nations of the Continent shall all be based upon the same principle of short-term enlistment is, at any rate, an effort at equality. I have noted that one of the observations made about the plan in Germany is this: whether it is a good scheme or a bad scheme, at any rate, it is an admission that the clauses of the Treaty of Versailles are not sacrosanct. That is a feature which is of very great interest in connection with the French plan.
There is a second feature of it which must mention—and which I am certain the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) with his record of service and his great contribution to the cause of peace by the method of developing peaceful pacts, will have closely noted—the proposal of the French plan for pacts of non-aggres-
542
sion to include European Continental nations, which, owing to their proximity to one another, are more particularly exposed to certain common risks. That is a proposal which it seems to me ought to have the heartiest sympathy of Britain. In particular, we note that the French proposals do not, as we understand them, ask from this island anything further than the engagements we have already entered into on the basis of the Covenant and the Locarno Treaty.
Let me take the opportunity of saying—and I think that I speak for all here when I declare this—that we take those engagements—the engagements in the Covenant and the Locarno Treaty—seriously. It is an essential part of British policy, however the Government may be composed, that every such engagement given by us must be entered into, not lightly or inadvisedly, but discreetly and carefully. It is for that very reason that we note with much satisfaction that the French plan is not calling upon us to enter into further engagements of that sort. I think that I am entitled in this connection to remind the House of the declaration made the ether day at Toulouse by M. Herriot. It was quoted with great effect by the Lord President of the Council at the Guildhall last night, because it is a testimony of which any Briton may be proud. M. Herriot said that it had never occurred to him to doubt the signature of Great Britain. Then let us be very sure that we never give our signature unless we really mean it.
In the third place, the French plan contained a reference to the doctrine initiated by Mr. Stimson in the phrase, that the signature of the Briand-Kellogg Pact involves a change in the whole conception of neutrality. That is to say, if war, as an instrument of notional policy, has been outlawed by the signatories, then, in that case, it can no longer he a matter of pure indifference to the nations not involved in a future conflict that an aggressor nation has resort to war. I only wish to make this observation upon that very important declaration of Mr. Stimson. The full implications of that doctrine need most careful thinking out, for what is involved is nothing less than an important branch of international law which deals with the rights and the obligations of neutrals. Things of that im-

543
portance cannot possibly be disposed of in a phrase or in a speech, but in the view of His Majesty's Government this requires to be analysed in all its bearings and consequences, and, important as the conception would be in any case, the House, I am sure, will agree with me that it is more than ever Important because a thoughtful American statesman coming from the United States, which is not a member of the League of Nations, has thrown this idea into the common pool and invited us to reflect upon it.
The comments which I have just made on the French plan lead me to deal directly with the attitude which, as it seems to us, the British Government ought to take up in reference to the German claim for equality. Let me in this connection first say that, in dealing with the German claim to equality of rights in the matter of armaments, as it is presented in the German Note of 29th August, it is very necessary, as it seems to the Government, to insist that the main purpose of disarmament is to ensure a lasting peace. Disarmament has other advantages; it saves money. But, after all, that is the first and primary object which everybody desires. The limitations which were imposed by Part V of the Treaty of Versailles upon Germany, and the corresponding limitations imposed by other treaties on other defeated Powers, were imposed, wisely or unwisely, as a means of securing in the circumstances then existing the peace of Europe.
I have never at any stage hesitated to proclaim that undoubtedly these limitations imposed upon Germany were intended to be and were expressed to be the precursor of the general limitation of armaments. The hon. Gentleman opposite really did me an injustice when he thought that the British Note was full of legal propositions. I aimed at getting rid of a series of merely legal propositions in order to insist that the principal issue is a moral and not a legal issue. I must be allowed at this point to say that our own Government—I mean by that the Government of this country however it may be composed—should not be under any special reproach in this regard, for our country has, in fact, made immense reductions and sacrifices. I cannot put the point better than it was put by my
544
right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) who was with me at Geneva. He made a speech on the very day I think that the Resolution of July was being passed. This is what my right hon. Friend, then my colleague, but alas my colleague no longer, said on behalf of the National Government:
"On the basis of the figures published in the League Armaments Year Book it will be found that the expenditure of the United Kingdom on armaments has been reduced between the year 1925 and the year 1930 by 15 per cent. Since that date further reductions have been made which give a total reduction of 20 per cent. in seven years. If a simple cut were made in armaments expenditure on the basis of the present year, that would not represent an equal reduction as between countries which in recent years have largely reduced their budgets and countries which have not done so. The former would be required to make their cuts twice over, whereas the latter would only be required to make them once."
My right hon. Friend went on:
"That has a most important bearing upon the whole system of international conferences, the success of which is so momentous to the organisation of mankind. After an interval of years, there will probably be a second Disarmament Conference, and if, at the present time, no account is taken of reductions already effected, when the second conference comes nearer various States which might be in a position to reduce their expenditure would wait until the year of the conference for fear credit should not be given to them for such reductions. From the point of view of precedent, therefore, and taking a wide view of the future, it is essential that the Conference should not ignore the reductions already made."
I am the very last to use that quotation or to make this observation with any idea of getting out of the duty of further reduction. But we have come, as the Lord President of the Council said last night, to the end of unilateral reduction. If allowance is made for what has been done by every successive Government during recent years in this country, we are ready along with others, in an international conference, to promote drastic and effective reductions yet further. I do not want to quote figures from other countries, but if those figures were examined it would be found that there are some prominent countries where the claim which we are entitled to make for successive reductions over the last half-a-dozen years certainly could not be made. I say, therefore, that we recognise that the limitations which were imposed upon Germany were intended to

545
be and expressed to be the precursor of the general limitations of armaments.
How are we to deal with the situation presented by the German claim? Here is the position. Now, when an agreement between the nations of the world for the reduction and limitation of armaments is being initiated, Germany claims—I think she very naturally claims—that the methods of limitation which have been applied to her, or which are to be applied to her in the future, should no longer be different in nature from the limitations applied to the other nations. I speak with the authority of the Government when I say that the United Kingdom Government have throughout been ready and anxious to join the other Governments represented at Geneva, including Germany, in framing a Disarmament Convention which would fairly meet that claim. There has been hesitation. But why has there been hesitation? Any hesitation which might arise in any quarter does not proceed from the desire to inflict upon Germany permanent inferiority of status. It is said by ex- tremists here and there, but it is not the general intention. The hesitation has proceeded from anxiety as to the use which might be made of the new situation and from fear of the resulting dangers which might threaten the tranquillity of Europe. That anxiety may be unfounded, but our Governments would most strongly urge that it is, nevertheless, the highest wisdom to endeavour to remove that anxiety.
5.0 p.m.
We would suggest that side by side with the fair meeting of Germany's claim to the principle of equality the European States should join in a solemn affirmation that they will not in any circumstances attempt to resolve any present or future differences between themselves by resorting to force. The world is entitled to this specific assurance. The acknowledgment by others of the moral right of Germany to parity of treatment with other nations, entails upon Germany, along with others, the acceptance of this corresponding obligation. If the hopes which we have and the belief which is so widely held as to the honest and friendly purposes of the great German people are justified, we feel that there is no reason why that assurance should not be given, and I do not associate myself with those who may be tempted to say that
546
an assurance of that sort is not worth having. It is worth having, for the disregard of such an assurance on the part of anybody would mobilise world opinion and domestic opinion to a large extent against the disregard of that assurance.
On the assumption that some such assurance is given, I wish to state, quite definitely, the view which our Government take as to the way in which the German claim for equality of right should be met. I am not describing a programme or giving details, but there are three large heads to be considered. First, there is the question whether the limitation of Germany's armament in the future is to be contained in some special document which is binding upon her, like a peace treaty, or whether the limitation of Germany's armament is to be expressed in the same document and by the same sort of process as the armaments of others. Our view is that the limitation, of Germany's armaments should be contained in the same Disarmament Convention as that which will define the limitations of the armaments of others. That is to say, that the Articles of Part 5 of the Treaty of Versailles, which at present limits Germany's arms and armed forces, would be superseded, and Germany's limitations would be arrived at by the same process and expressed in the same document as those of other countries. That is equality of treatment as regards documents and methods.
Secondly, comes this point, and it is a very grave one. It has to do, not with documents, but with the duration of the Convention. We take the view that the newly expressed limitations in the case of Germany should last for the same period and should be subject to the same methods of revision as those of other countries. It would not appear to be practical politics, and indeed I believe it would produce an exactly opposite result from what some people imagine, if anyone at this time of day tried to prescribe a perpetual proscription for one great people while for themselves and their neighbours they claimed merely a limited period. We come, thirdly, to the most complicated and difficult subject of equality of status from the point of view of the instruments of war that are permitted to the nations of the world. I will do my best, Mr. Speaker, to obey your injunction, but here I would read a

547
passage and would say: Germany has declared that she has no intention of rearming, but that she merely desires that the principle should be acknowledged that the kind of arms permitted to other countries ought not to be prohibited to herself. If equality of status is to be conceded, this principle must be acknowledged, and the United Kingdom Government are prepared to declare their willingness, in co-operation with the other members of the Disarmament Conference, to see that principle embodied in a new Convention. By what means and by what stages this principle can be applied must be a subject of detailed discussion at Geneva.
In that discussion it is absolutely essential that Germany should join. In the meantime may I, on behalf of the Government, make two points? First, what is the object of the Disarmament Conference. Its object is to bring about the maximum of positive disarmament that can be generally agreed upon, and not to authorise, in the name of equality, increases of armed strength. The second observation I would make is this, that the full realisation in practice of the principle of equality cannot as a practical matter be achieved all at once. Nothing but disagreement would arise if that was attempted. Confidence is what it depends upon. Confidence in the further application of the principle will grow as it is seen that the peace of the world has been made more secure by taking the first step. Therefore, the Government conceive that what is needed is a practical programme of stages, each subsequent step being justified and prepared for by the proved consequences of what has gone before. Of course, a similar principle would be applied in the case of Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria.
I have endeavoured, I hope at not too great length, to make clear to the House what is the view which the Government take of the principle involved in this all-important matter. I cannot attempt, and I do not think the House would ask me, to declare in a cut and. dried plan, in this detail and that, how this should be worked out. In the first place, the German Note recognises that the method of application is a matter for discussion and negotiation, and our object is to get Germany back to the Conference to
548
discuss it. In the second place, I am following exactly the method that was followed in France; that is to say, a statement was made in the French Chamber, which I am glad to think received overwhelming support, as I hope our statement will receive to-day. Thereafter a declaration in more detail was made at Geneva, but the full French plan is not yet available. We shall and we must take the same course. I am hoping to go back to Geneva at the end of the week. It is only right that the Disarmament Conference itself should have as early an opportunity as anybody to learn what are the methods and processes by which we suggest this plan might be worked out, but the House of Commons is entitled to have, and the Prime Minister authorises me to say it that it shall have, at the same time and no later, information in exactly the same detail.
Allow me to say, lastly, that what we have attempted to do is in no sort of way to set up a rival to anybody else's plan. I know very well that you can earn an immense amount of popularity at Geneva and elsewhere by announcing that you have a plan. The thing that is really important is to bring the best possible friendly suggestion to a common discussion for the purpose of bringing Germany, France, Italy, America, ourselves and the smaller States round the Table again to apply the principles of disarmament which I have announced. I am very willing to incur the reproach, if reproach it be, that there is nothing spectacular in this mode of procedure. What we are endeavouring to do on behalf of the country, and we ask for the confidence of the House in our efforts to do it, is not to achieve some spectacular success but to transmute into practical and effective form the overwhelming desire and the passionate hope of the British people to see disarmament an accomplished fact.
Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I think all hon. Members will have derived a great deal of comfort from at least that portion of the speech of the Foreign Secretary to which we have just listened. We must all recognise that the right hon. Gentleman's statement has shown a genuine and constructive effort to achieve what has hitherto defeated the combined brains and the combined attempts of

549
various Powers to achieve, some constructive form of disarmament which would really make for peace. As the right hon. Gentleman has said the object of disarmament that he proposes, is peace. Disarmament in itself and by itself is of singularly little avail if the spirit behind it is not the spirit and the will of peace. You can make and enforce agreements but; unless people want to keep them, and unless they are prepared to do so willingly, any country can drive a coach and four through them, while adhering strictly to the letter of them. Anyone who has been in Germany recently knows perfectly well that, although the disarmament clause of the Treaty of Versailles has reduced Germany's armaments enormously, it is possible to keep up a body of trained and disciplined men, not trained actually in the use of arms but ready at any moment to be so trained and to become an effective military force, and to do that within the limitation and within the letter of the disarmament clauses of the Treaty.
Bearing that in mind, it is useless to imagine that the mere signing of disarmament documents is going in itself to bring peace. Therefore, I welcome the statement by the Foreign Secretary that he realises that it is only by the peace spirit, by stimulating a genuine desire for the settlement of grievances, that this disarmament is going to be of service. That brings me to another point. He said that if the German claim for equal status was to be recognised it must mean that all the Powers in the new Disarmament Pact must guarantee that they would not in their relations with each other in any circumstances resort to force. We shall have to put something effective in the place of force to which they can resort for the settlement of differences. I should like the House to consider what is the trouble that is preventing us at the present time from getting the disarmament that we all say we want and that f think we all genuinely do want. It really amounts to the grievances which arise from the status quo, from the Treaties, on the one hand, and on the other hand from the fear of certain people that what they gain by the Treaties may be lost if they are not considered inviolate. The trouble during the last 14 years has arisen because no proposal for
550
altering the status quo has ever received proper consideration Those who are discontented with the status quo, whenever they have put forward a desire to alter the conditions under which they live, have always had the feeling that the dice were loaded against them.
I spent a good deal of the summed holidays in Germany, and among all classes of the community there the feeling is that life under the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles is perfectly intolerable and that an ultimate revision of that Treaty must be conceded if they are to go on. I am not commenting as to whether they are right or wrong, but that is the feeling of the whole German people as expressed to me by Communists and Social Democrats, by the highest and the lowest. I well remember a discussion with a Communist deputy of the Reichstag who talked of internationalism, but made it perfectly plain that he only meant internationalism after the Treaty has been revised. I do not blame him. Like every other country Germany is in an appalling economic situation, and there is no question that there are many provisions of the Treaty which are perfectly indefensible. No one who knows anything about Central Europe would suggest that the Treaties are perfect and cannot bear alteration. The point I want to emphasise is this, that the great block to peaceful settlement and genuine disarmament is the feeling which is steadily increasing, that the League of Nations has not formed an effective safety valve for the ventilation of grievances. Wrapped up in that feeling is 90 per cent. of the trouble with regard to disarmament.
Let me say a word about the Manchurian question, because it is germane to this discussion. A League of Nations in which you can trust and to which you can sacrifice some portion of your national sovereignty must be a League of Nations which is going to face difficulties and not decline to act until someone has taken an illegal action. Without reviewing the Manchurian question, roughly the situation was this; that Japan felt that she was suffering intolerable grievances, that the League of Nations would do nothing to put them right and she took the law into her own hands. That may be wrong, but, nevertheles, it is a spirit which will come up more and

551
more unless we get into the League a determination to face difficulties and see them through, however unpleasant.
There are burning questions all over Europe to-day which have to be settled. If they are going to be shelved and put on one side, or an award given in favour of the stronger Power, then all the disarmament in the world is perfectly useless because you will have a feeling of indignation and intolerable discontent which may sweep away all the effects of your peaceful agreements, your pacts, your legislation and disarmament. I feel sure that the Foreign Secretary will do everything in his power in this respect. I do not often agree with Mr. de Valera but there was a great deal in what he said in his Presidential Address at the League of Nations, and I hope that side by side with the disarmament proposals of the Government, and the actions of the Government, they are going to get the conciliation machinery working properly. If we can get the peoples of the world to substitute some other form than armed forces for settling their differences then they will be only too pleased to disarm quicker than treaties and machinery can be devised. It is the feeling, a growing feeling, that there is no alternative way for getting a difference settled except by taking over that action, and if we can once get rid of that feeling we need have no fear that the cause of disarmament will suffer.
Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, in his opening sentences, commented on the terms of the Motion upon which the discussion is taking place and said that he thought it was desirable that a discussion should take place on these important matters. During the last two or three days we have been discussing unemployment on non-party lines, and I think it is equally desirable that this discussion should proceed on the same lines. Whatever the Motion may be I hope there will be complete agreement that the discussion to-day is well worth while, because we have had a statement from the Foreign Secretary which, I think, is an important addition to the alleviation of the European situation which has taken place during the last few weeks. If I had been asked a few weeks ago what I thought of the European situation I should have had
552
to say that I felt it was more anxious and more alarming than it had been at any time since the War, but I fell to-day that we are entitled to take a more hopeful view of the situation, and the statement of the Foreign Secretary will contribute to that end. I was pleased to hear his observations with regard to the new French plan. It is difficult to discuss or pronounce a final judgment upon it, but the proposal for the reduction of the long service armies a reduction in the period of service for conscript armies; if it is a step to organise them on a militia basis is one which will be heartily welcomed. I do not wish to be critical, we have not yet seen the agreement, but a mere change in the character of the personnel of these armies without any reduction in weapons would not be an acceptable proposition. I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary say that these proposals in his opinion were helpful and that they would receive the careful and sympathetic examination of His Majesty's Government.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was pressed to give certain information with regard to the policy which has been pursued in Manchuria. I think it is clear that it is impossible for the Government to say anything more than they have said to-day. We are fully conscious of the gravity of the situation there, and I should like to associate myself with every word he said as to the statesmanship and personal contribution of Lord Lytton to that very important State document which the Commission has produced. In Manchuria a very vital decision has to be taken in the not very distant future, and in Europe, in relation to the German claim for equality of status, an equally grave decision has to be taken. What is involved in these decisions is really the survival or disappearance of the whole fabric for the maintenance of peace in the world which we have been seeking to build up since the War. In that connecnection may I recall with satisfaction the statement made by the Lord President of the Council last night at the Guildhall, when he said:
"We are as desirous as any other country in the world to proceed and proceed rapidly, with that substantial disarmament throughout the world which we believe is essential to the cause of peace."

553
If those words have any meaning they mean that the Government policy is based on the maintenance of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and in my judgment that is essential in regard to the decision which has to be taken on the Far Eastern question and on the German claim for equality of status. The Foreign Secretary quoted from a speech made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).
Sir J. SIMON: It was a quotation from a speech made by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel).
Mr. WHITE: That was just a slip of mine. I only mention the matter in order to explain that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) is absent to-day at an engagement which he made when it was supposed the House would not be sitting to-day. I do not regret that the German claim for equality of status has been made at this time. Nobdy can say that the world has been over-hasty in the matter of disarmament or in carrying out the pledges involved in the Treaty of Versailles. It may be argued that the time taken is a measure of the difficulties of the situation. I do do not regret that the German claim has been made now because it will put an end to the constant delays and bring the matter more quickly to a satisfactory conclusion. I am in complete agreement with what the Foreign Secretary said as to the spirit and method in which the German claim should be met, and in particular that in any Treaty or Covenant which may be arrived at to deal with the German claim there should be no separate document for Germany, but that every nation included in the Treaty of Versailles should be included and its position defined in the new Treaty. That will go a long way, I hope, towards bringing about an amelioration of the tension, so essential if our civilisation is to be saved. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the statement of M. Herriot at Toulouse. An equally important factor in the situation is the overture for a new treaty of co-operation between France and Italy; the holding out of the hand of good will between France and Italy is an event which will have a sensible effect on the general European situation.
5.30 p.m.
Let me pass from that to a somewhat different and wider consideration. There
554
is an immense potential capacity for recuperation in the world to day, and we will make a great mistake, I think, if we conclude that most of the causes of our present depression are due to reasons which can be defined as purely economic. A great measure of the depression of today is psychological in its character. One of the reasons why it has been so hard to make any impression upon that atmosphere in the world has been the absence of hope and the prolonged nature of the negotiations which have been dragging on from year to year. In the early part of this summer there was indeed a period when this hope appeared to come to the world, when the undoubted success of the Lausanne Conference brought a new hope to the peoples of the world. The whole of this generation is seeking for a sign, and the sign it is seeking is clear and definite evidence that the countries of the world are not only capable of working together for constructive purposes, but that they intend to pursue that course. As soon as that evidence is clear—we hope that events are making in that direction—there will be immense natural forces released for recovery, and they will do far more than any proposal made in the House during the three days Debate on the relief of unemployment.
That short period in the summer time, when we seemed to have that hope arising from Lausanne, was indeed dissipated by the negative results of the Peace Conference, but the Government may be quite sure that if they are pursuing the policy which they have laid down to-day they will have behind them the steady support of that great body of informed opinion which exists throughout this country. I think that the nature of public opinion in this country on the subject of peace and disarmament has undergone a profound change in the last 10 years as a result of the immense educational efforts that have been made. The science of peace has become a serious study for the first time in the history of the world. As a result of the efforts made it is probable that public opinion on the subject is to-day better informed on that subject than on almost any other aspect of our public affairs, People are following these matters with the greatest possible interest and anxiety. If policy is pursued on the lines which the Govern-

555
ment have indicated to-day the Government may count upon the support of this informed public opinion.
I would mention one other matter on the general subject of the alleviation which is likely to ensue if these matters develop satisfactorily. They will immediately give an impetus to the solution of a very large number of problems which at present are difficult, if not insoluble. In particular they will have a very beneficial influence on the whole question of international indebtedness. I do not intend to say one word of my own on the subject of the European-American debt, because I hold very strongly indeed that the less said on that subject in public the better. But I venture to relate to the House the experience of a friend of mine who was delivering a lecture recently in America. At the end of his lecture, in which he had approached the subject of European indebtedness, there uprose in the body of the hall a questioner who put three questions to my friend. The questioner asked: "How much, Sir, is the European bill for armaments in the current year?" The answer was: "A sum of £500,000,000." The second question was: "Of that sum how much is the British share?" The answer was "£114,000,000 or thereabouts." Thirdly, the questioner asked: "How much is the payment which you have to make annually to the United States in respect of the debt?" The answer was: "About £35,000,000." The questioner then said, "Thank you, Sir" and sat down.
I merely mention that incident as illustrating effectively an attitude of mind which may be very materially altered if it is seen that we in Europe generally are pursuing a policy which will lead to disarmament. I repeat, that if the Government are pursuing their policy on those lines, they may count upon the support of a great body of informed opinion. It would not he ungracious to add that if their policy is not pursued on those lines they will have a body of critical opinion against them, and they will not be supported.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The House showed at Question Time some little jealousy regarding the amount of time occupied by Ministers and ex-Ministers in the course of Debates. I hope it will
556
not be thought impertinent of me to take a part in the discussion now proceeding. I can plead at any rate that I have not occupied much time in the present Parliament, and I shall not now occupy more time than is necessary to develop certain ideas which I think it my duty to submit to the House. In the first place, I must say a word or two on the subject of the Sino-Japanese difficulty. It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate said, that it is impossible to dissociate the consideration and prospects of disarmament at Geneva from the ultimate issue of what has been passing before our eyes in China and Japan. I do not share the criticism which the hon. Gentleman directed against the Secretary of State for not having declared himself more definitely in that conflict at an earlier stage. The power of the League of Nations lies in its capacity to treat the parties to a dispute with perfect impartiality, with great patience, with a sympathy which can understand their hopes and fears and difficulties, which will endeavour to ascertain and place before the world the facts of the dispute, and then to mobilise on behalf of the settlement which it recommends the moral opinion of the world.
All of us are prone to think at different times, and above all when we are discussing disarmament, of the physical risks to which a nation may expose itself if its armaments are insufficient in comparison with those of other nations in the world. But there is a risk which no nation, however strongly armed, can afford to ignore in these days, and it is the risk of entering on a quarrel in which the opinion of the world will declare her in the wrong, with consequent reactions which will inevitably come among her own people as they are called upon to make the sacrifices of blood and treasure which the struggle entails, and which will determine the attitude of every neutral Power—if neutral Powers there still can be—to the combatants engaged. That we should arrive at a peaceful issue of the Sino-Japanese dispute, through the deliberations of the League, is of great consequence because of the effect which it must have upon the mood in which every nation approaches the question of its own disarmament.
I will refrain, as my right hon. Friend rightly refrained at this stage, from com-

557
menting in any detail upon the Lytton Report. I would like to associate myself with all that he said about it, and about Lord Lytton's personal contribution, and, as one who has nothing but friendly feelings for Japan, who treasures the memory of our old alliance, and is indeed one of that dwindling band who at a critical moment in Japan's history, just before the battle of Tsushima, approved in Cabinet our Anglo-Japanese Treaty—as one who was part author of the Alliance and valued it, and who cherishes to-day, when the Alliance has passed away, the same friendly feelings to that country, I would appeal to the statesmen of Japan to give a fair and candid consideration to the facts set forth by the representatives of five nations commissioned by the League, and to the inferences which are to be drawn from their conclusions, and to make it easy, shall I say to make it possible, for their old friends to maintain their old admiration for that island Empire. I will say no more upon that subject.
I turn now to the broader question, not of a particular dispute, but of disarmament. I regret that the Motion which we are discussing was presented to the House in the form of a Vote of Censure. I dissociate myself from what, I think, was the unreasonable and unfounded criticism by the Mover of the Resolution of the past actions of the Government. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues have not sought for themselves praise and I do not attribute to them blame. They have not sought to produce a plan, regardless of its acceptability, regardless of the conditions in which it would be put forward and regardless of the feelings of those with whom they are dealing and whose assent must be obtained. They have not sought to gain credit and kudos for themselves by propounding a scheme and taking the applause which would follow. They have played what I think is the true role of the representatives of a nation so close to the Continent that every shock which passes through the Continental nations reaches it, so near to the points of anxiety and trouble that no disturbance of European peace can be indifferent to it, and yet, sufficiently removed, partly geographically and still more by association and membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations, from the immediate quarrels, rivalries and jealousies of the
558
Continental nations. They have sought, not so much to produce a scheme for themselves as to bring all nations into some scheme—whether our own scheme or the scheme of others is a matter of indifference—which shall give us a wide measure of disarmament and fortify the sense of peace and strengthen the confidence which are needed for the solution, and even for the fruitful approach to any of our political, economic, military or other problems.
Is it too late to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues? They, of course, put this Motion down without any knowledge of the kind of statement which the Foreign Secretary was going to make. I venture to say of that state-merit that it is not merely a speech; it is a new factor in the situation, with immense possibilities for good and that all of us, wherever we sit, weighing our own responsibilities and thinking of the great issues involved, ought, on this occasion, to set aside the quarrels and criticisms of the past and take our departure from this new statement and send our Foreign Secretary to Geneva with the widest national backing, the most universal national mandate that we can give him to strengthen his hands in the policy which he has declared. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to reconsider their Motion, and I should like to move, but I will not move unless it has the right hon. Gentleman's assent, a simple statement in which, without criticism and without preamble, we would record that this House unanimously approves of the statement of policy made by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary.
I am not one who has ever allowed himself to despair of the success of the Disarmament Conference. That is not because I underrated, or even now underrate the difficulties, but because I think the results of failure would be so grave for everybody that no nation can take the responsibility for failure upon itself in the face of the world. In the last few weeks we have had two or three very encouraging signs. We have had the renewed assurance from the head of the Italian Government of the resolution of that Government to pursue a peaceful policy and to co-operate with the League of Nations, and I am glad to think that,

559
throughout these difficulties, as far as one without official information like myself can judge, there has been for the solution of the difficulties a close and cordial co-operation and I think a most satisfactory measure of agreement between the Italian Government and our own.
In the second place, there have been M. Herriot's speeches to which allusion has already been made. No one who knows M. Herriot can doubt his sincerity or his earnest desire to promote friendly relations between France and her neighbours and peace throughout the world. I like to recall that M. Herriot, then, as now, President of the Council and Foreign Minister, was the first Foreign Minister with whom I verbally discussed the proposals which ultimately became the Treaties of Locarno. When I went to him at that time I think—indeed I know—that the message which I carried was in some ways a disappointment to him. Like our present Prime Minister and still more like the late Foreign Secretary, M. Herriot had been one of the prime architects of the Protocol of Geneva, and I had to tell him that the British Government were unable to ratify it. I had to tell him that the time for a Franco-British or Anglo-Belgian alliance with a point against Germany, in substitution for the Anglo-American guarantee, had gone by and that the only basis on which we could act was the basis of the proposals put before us shortly before by the late Dr. Stresemann. He accepted. It is true that he remained only a short time in office and that it fell to M. Briand and myself to work out the ideas which I had adumbrated to M. Herriot, but Locarno was M. Herriot's policy as much as M. Briand's or Dr. Stresemann's or mine, and that man has come back to office today with the same earnest desire for peace that I saw when I first met him in those older days.
In those two speeches, not for the first time, he has held out the hand of friendship and made advances towards reconciliation between the French people and their neighbours across the Rhine and between the French people and the Italian people. These things are hopeful. These things have within the last few weeks greatly improved the prospect, and
560
now comes the statement of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. He called our attention to the fact that he propounded no new plan; that, above all, he propounded no plan in rivalry with the suggestions that came from elsewhere. But he laid down in clear, simple explicit terms the principles upon which, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, any settlement ought to be founded. Broadly speaking, excluding all that is immaterial to the point which I am now discussing, what he said was that we were prepared to accept the German claim for equality of treatment, but we attached to it a condition. These two things go together and have rightly been put together by His Majesty's Government because without the condition which he attaches the realisation of our hopes for disarmament is impossible.
6.0 p.m.
The Mover of the Motion I thought permitted himself some rather cheap sneers at my right hon. Friend as a lawyer and he also talked in a way which is common cant of the military, naval and air experts blocking the way to disarmament. If you consult military, naval and air experts as to what conditions are required for your safety, you place upon them a great responsibility. They will answer you according to their knowledge and will, if I know anything about them, not understate the insurance which you ought to make, because if there is any understatement and anything afterwards goes wrong the responsibility will be theirs. But the ultimate decision does not rest with the military, naval and air experts; it rests with the politicians. They have to take their risks also, and they have to take a wider, broader view than it is proper that the experts should take when advising upon their particular problems. We need not trouble too much about committees of experts which seem to raise more difficulties than they solve. It comes back at the end to this one question: Are the political conditions in which we live such as make it possible to contemplate further disarmament? That is the question which has to be answered by the politicians. The answer does not affect and cannot be given by military, naval or air experts. It depends upon political considerations and must be answered by politicians and statesmen. It is because the answer to that question is so doubtful and not because the ex-

561
perts could not agree that disarmament has made so little progress. It is on the answer to that question that the ultimate success or failure of the Conference will depend. I hail, therefore, with great satisfaction, the coupling with that declaration of their readiness to satisfy the German demand, broadly and subject to examination, by stages, and to afford the same treatment to the other countries which are subject to similar treaty provisions in regard to disarmament—I hail with great satisfaction the coupling with that statement of the invitation, and indeed of the condition, that all the nations of Europe shall, at the moment of this disarmament, unite in a solemn affirmation that they will not in any circumstances attempt to resolve any present or future difficulties between them by resort to force. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the world is entitled to that specific assurance, and the known readiness of the Governments to make that assurance as part and parcel of, or at the same time as, the Disarmament Convention which they sign will greatly facilitate agreement upon the terms of the Convention.
It may be said that there is no need, that all the nations with which we are concerned have signed the Briand-Kellogg Pact renouncing war. Germany, has signed the Locarno Treaties, not alone the one which concerns the Western countries, but those Treaties which bind Germany and her Eastern neighbours to settle all future disputes arising between them by peaceful means; and yet do we find that those obligations, voluntarily undertaken—I am not now talking of the Peace Treaties, though I do not wish to make too great a distinction between Treaty obligations of one character or another—inform the policies of the German parties and the speeches of German statesmen? If my voice carries to Germany, I would beg the German Government, the German parties, and, above all, the German people to help those who are trying to help them.
My right hon. Friend's declaration vis à vis them is a generous one. We are taking risks when, so shortly after the War, and with no great assurance that ally large change has taken place in public opinion, we make that declaration. Have they no contribution which
562
they can make? I find that many of those who have worked hardest for disarmament here and in other countries have been surprised, disturbed, and rendered anxious by utterances and actions of people whose position in Germany makes it impossible not to take notice of them. We want to see in their speeches, in their policies, the loyal acceptance of their Treaty obligations. We do not ask that they should abandon hopes which we would not abandon ourselves, which, in reverse circumstances, France would never have abandoned. We do ask of them that they should recognise that the law of Europe must be based upon its treaties, and that treaties must only, can only, be changed by agreement. It is not asking anything much.
When the Locarno proposals were under discussion I made an endeavour to explain them to this House, and perhaps the House will permit me to read a few words. I said, in reference to the German proposals:
"If I understand them rightly, they amount to this: that Germany is prepared to guarantee voluntarily What hitherto she has accepted under the compulsion of the Treaty, that is, the status quo in the West; that she is prepared to eliminate, not merely from the West but from the East, war as an engine by which any alteration is the Treaty position is to be obtained. Thus not only in the West, but in the East, she is prepared absolutely to abandon any idea of recourse to war for the purpose of changing the Treaty boundaries of Europe. She may be unwilling, or she may be unable, to make the same renunciation of the hopes and aspirations that some day, by friendly arrangement or mutual agreement, a modification may he introduced into the East, which she is prepared to make in regard to any modification in the West."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1925; col. 318, Vol. 182.]
I had only a short time resumed my seat on that bench when I received a message from the German Ambassador urgently desiring to see me. I had to listen to two speeches before I could leave the Debate, but I then went to my room and invited the Ambassador to come and see me. He told me that in what I had said I had gone beyond what was authorized by the German Government. I naturally said that that was a most serious matter, and I tried to ascertain exactly what he meant and in what point he thought I had overstepped what their communications to the British Government had authorised me to say. I put to him

563
specifically this question: "Do you mean that the German Government reserve to themselves the right to use war as a, means of changing the Eastern frontier?" I said, "If that be so, I have indeed misunderstood you, and there is but one thing for me to do. I must go back into the House." I did not disguise from him that it would be a very disagreeable and a humiliating thing to have to do, but I said, "It will be my duty to go back at once into the House and say that I have misunderstood your proposals and that the whole situation must be reconsidered."
I could not get any precise statement from him as to what the claim was. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, then Prime Minister, repeated, in other words, the substance of this statement at the conclusion of the Debate, and we telegraphed the passage from my speech and the passage from his to Lord D'Abernon, asking him to explain the circumstances in which we put these passages, and asking that we might be informed whether, in what I had said, and in what the Lord President of the Council, then Prime Minister, had said, we had gone beyond the intentions of the German Government. We got back a confirmation from the German Government of the view which we took of their position. That was, that they voluntarily abandoned any idea of revising the frontiers of Western Europe, and that, while they could not abandon hope of securing revision of the Eastern frontier, they excluded war as an instrument for securing it. May I trouble the House with the words, not of the main Treaty of Locarno, but words which occur in the Preamble of the Treaty between the German Reich and the Polish Republic and the similar Treaty between the German Reich and the Czechoslovakian Republic? They are as follow:
"The President of the German Empire and the President of the Polish (or Czechoslovak) Republic,
Equally resolved to maintain peace between Germany and Poland (or Czechoslovakia) by assuring the peaceful settlement of differences which might arise between the two countries;
Declaring that respect for the rights established by treaty or resulting from the law of nations is obligatory for international tribunals;
564
Agreeing to recognise that the rights of a State cannot be modified save with its consent;
And considering that sincere observance of the methods of peaceful settlement of international disputes permits of resolving, without recourse to force, questions which may become the cause of division between States;
Have decided to embody in a Treaty.…"
and so on.
All that the friends of Germany ask of Germany is that she will, in daily life and in her daily relations with the neighbouring nations, observe, in spirit as well as in letter, the obligation that she has undertaken to respect the Treaty basis of Europe until that Treaty basis is changed by common consent. It is not asking them to abandon all hope. The Treaty basis has changed by common consent, and is changing. The Treaty right to keep foreign troops in occupation of the Rhineland till 1935 has been given up, the Treaty right to reparations has been given up, the Reparations Clauses are gone, and we have come to the Disarmament Clauses.
My right hon. Friend has declared, on behalf of this Government and with, I believe, the assent of all parties in this House, that we are again prepared to revise the Treaties by common consent in Germany's favour. A time may come come when some other and further revisions may be made, but it will not come, and disarmament may become impossible, unless those in whose favour we waived the past Treaty stipulations, in whose favour we now put ourselves on a new equality with them, make clear to us all that in their mind as in ours the purpose for which they seek equality is not that they may make war, but that they may feel as secure as the rest of us. If they preserve peace no one wilt make war. I think that my right hon. Friend's speech and the declarations of M. Herriot are an invitation to the German people and the German Government to respond in the spirit which has been shown, to allay the doubts caused by speeches of people in high places as to whether any treaty, however sound, however voluntary, however recent, is anything more than a scrap of paper.
If they will give us that assurance, no one will more profoundly welcome it, and if they will conform to it their common daily relations with other nations, no one

565
will more heartily rejoice than I, whose pride it will he to my death that I have, at any rate, made two great efforts for peace between antagonistic nations. The fate of those agreements, whether they be with the Free State of Ireland or with Germany, lies in other hands than mine, but I know that if Gustave Stresemann were here to-day, he would hold out his hands to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, he would welcome the declaration that he has made, and he would not hesitate to repeat the declaration which he solemnly signed at Locarno and for which, after a great struggle, he secured the ratification of the German people that henceforth Germany looked for the redress of her grievances to peaceful negotiations with other parties, and not to the sword by which she perished.
Mr. COCKS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has addressed to the House a very impressive argument, and I will respond to his appeal to the extent that I will not couch any criticisms or observations I may make to-night in a tone of extreme partisanship. It is a little too much, however, to expect us to say here and now that we fully accept the statement made by the Foreign Secretary for as far as we can understand it without having seen it in print, it does not fully satisfy the rightful aspirations of the people of this country. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham said that he felt uneasy at certain utterances of people in high places in Germany. I am certain that that uneasiness has been shared by a good many other people, but when we consider the attitude of mind of the present rulers in Germany, must we not consider also why the present Government in Germany is there and why that particular school of thought is so prevalent? Are we ourselves altogether free from blame in the matter? Is not the present attitude of German statesmen the reflection of the despair and almost the hopelessness with which Germany has seen her rightful hopes thwarted through many long years? I have an extract from a leader which appeared in the "Times" last September, which appears to me to bear on that point. The "Times" states:
566
"The flamboyant missionaries of ultra-nationalism would never have obtained anything like their present hold in Germany if, during the 11 years that have elapsed since the Peace Treaty was signed, the signatory Powers had shown any real determination to carry out the obligations of Article VIII, and to reduce their national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations.'"
The best way to develop a new spirit in Germany and to encourage those elements in Germany which will work, as the late Herr Stresemann did, for peace, would be to fulfil our pledges as given in the Covenant of the League of Nations, and to do our best to secure that the coming Disarmament Conference is a real success.
The Foreign Minister, in the opening of his speech to-night, said that he did not intend to deal with the merits of the Manchurian dispute because he had not yet had the opportunity of seeing the Japanese reply. I do not intend for the same reason to go into the merits of that problem, but I want to say a word or two on the principles upon which those merits should be examined and judged. I appeal to the Foreign Secretary, when he is examining this question and considering the Lytton Report and the Japanese reply, to use his influence in the discussions that preceed judgment to support in every way the principles of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Kellogg Pact and the Nine-Power Treaty of Washington. I hope also that he will interpret those principles in the plain sense of the words as they are understood by ordinary people. I do not think that I shall be accused of indulging in cheap sneers if I suggest to him that the highest ornaments of his own profession known in history are not those who have merely gained a position by forensic ingenuity and the interpretation of phrases and clauses in certain dialectical ways, but those great judges in whose judgments are enshrined the great principles of English justice which have been handed down as lamps to guide the feet of subsequent generations. I say this because I believe that it is of the highest importance in the Manchurian question that the principles of the Covenant of the League of Nations, as most people understand them, shall be absolutely justified and vindicated.

567
It can be said of the Foreign Minister that in the whole of this controversy he has not shown any anti-Japanese prejudice. The British Government cannot be accused of being prejudiced against what the right hon. Member for West Birmingham called our ancient ally. For that reason, they will be in a strong position if, when a decision has to be made, they find that they support, generally speaking, the proposals of the Lytton Commission rather than any counter-proposals made by Japan. Without trying to suggest what the judgment will be, I am entitled to say—and it is right that it should he said—that it would be a disaster if that controversy ended in the Covenant of the League of Nations being flouted, and if it were shown that members of the League of Nations could not rely upon the principles of the Covenant and of the Kellogg Pact to protect them against aggression. If it ended like that, the consequence would be disastrous not merely in the Pacific, but throughout the world. In the Pacific it would mean that great navies would have to be built to defend the possessions of those who have interests on that ocean. Australia, New Zealand and British Columbia would have to be defended by a new navy. And as far as the world is concerned, it would mean the end of the League of Nations and the failure of all our hopes of disarmament.
6.30 p.m.
There is a school of thought which looks upon the League of Nations as a small child which suffers from infantile diseases which it can outgrow and which holds that we must not expect too much from the League at this early stage. It may not be able to prevent war—so runs the argument—but we must have patience and, as the years advance, the League will grow stronger and will, in the end, become a shield for peace, which it is not at the present time. That attitude was expressed very well by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in a statement which he made a few years ago. Speaking at a public dinner, he compared the League of Nations with the growth and slow development of the power of the House of Commons since the days of Henry VII. He said:
"I want the progress of the League to be as gradual, as ordered, as imperceptible as our own constitutional progress."
568
I venture to suggest that that is a false analogy and a dangerous comparison. The existence of the institution of Parliament or some similar organ of government is inevitable. It does not depend upon its conduct. Any country must have a Parliament or some corresponding organisation through which the voice of the people may be expressed and by which taxes are raised. You may have a, weak or a corrupt Parliament, but the institution of Parliament will go on and will gradually develop. There is, however, no essential necessity in the same way for the League of Nations. It is important that it should exist, but it is not the organ of a world state. Its existence is not inevitable. It has been set up by two forces—the force of hope and the force of fear. It was set up by people who hoped to build up gradually a finer system of organisation through which to remove the causes of war. It was set up also by those who feared the consequences of another war and hoped to erect a shield and a defence against that danger; but if the League of Nations fails when a crisis arises, then hope will fade also, and those who feared a further war will say to themselves, "The League of Nations is not defending us against war, is not defending us against attack; therefore we must go back to the old method of the strong man armed and trust for our defence to our own right arm." The danger is that if the principles of the League of Nations are not carried out, the League itself will vanish. A comparison of the growth of the League of Nations with the growth of Parliament during 400 years might be considered if one could guarantee that peace would be maintained for 400 years, during which the League of Nations could develop, but we cannot guarantee peace for six years, or even six months, and if the League of Nations cannot maintain peace then, if war comes, the League will be swept away with many other institutions.
Having studied this question of disarmament for 14 years, having read piles of documents and miles of speeches delivered at Geneva and elsewhere, I find that one of my chief impressions is that the French policy of saying that security must precede disarmament is the right one. I have always held that to get disarmament we must first have security

569
rather than try to get security by disarming. That is why I always supported very strongly the Protocol of Geneva which I believe the right hon. Gentleman rejected through the influence of the late Lord Balfour. I have always thought its rejection was an international disaster. I believe it marked the greatest advance towards world peace that has ever been attained, and I believe it is absolutely essential and fundamental to get back either to that Protocol or to some organisation based on similar principles before we can get complete and final disarmament—to some system, that is, which defines the aggressor, which sets up a tribunal by which all disputes can be settled definitely, and which guards the attacked State against the aggressor.
Although we have not got that complete and perfect organisation, have we not got certain guarantees which will enable a good deal of disarmament to be brought about? I think we have. First of all, we have the Covenant of the League of Nations, especially if those principles of the Covenant are always supported to the full. Secondly, we have the Kellogg Pact. Regarding the Kellogg Pact, I wish to know why the Foreign Secretary wants a new affirmation to be made by Germany—and by other European States—not to resort to war to settle any dispute, because that has already been agreed to by those who have signed the Kellogg Pact. I do not object to a promise being made over and over again, but I sec no particular benefit in asking them to say again what they have already said by signing the Keilogg-Briand Pact, except that the second promise would be limited to Europe, whereas the Kellogg Pact is worldwide in its application. Thirdly, we have the interpretation of the Eellogg Pact by Mr. Stimson. The Foreign Secretary said something which I thought was rather over-cautious. He said the implications of the Stimson speech required careful thinking out. Why? Mr. Stimson said that consultation between the signatories of the Kellogg Pact when faced with a threat of its violation became inevitable, and went on to imply that if a war took place through a nation violating the Kellogg Pact there would be no neutrals at all, because no nation could take up an attitude of indifference and neutrality in
570
a case of that kind. I should like whoever is to reply for the Government to say whether he does not accept that particular implication. If war takes place through a nation violating the Kellogg Pact, is it possible for any other signatory of the Pact to take an attitude of neutrality; is it not certain that every nation will be dragged in on one side or the other?
Those are some of the securities we have. Then we have the new French principles enunciated by M. Herriot in which he suggests that there should be a sort of chain of pacts, regional pacts, among the various countries in Europe, which would give additional security—a large number of smaller Locarnos. Taken together all these if they have not the completeness and the perfection of the Geneva Protocol have, in my view, certainly given us guarantees sufficient to produce a certain amount pf disarmament. How far can we go in disarmament? The subject is far too serious a one for us to try to impart any humour into this discussion, but I think a great mistake was made in sending the question of what weapons are offensive and what defensive to expert committees. Such meticulous examination of the question is very harmful. I suppose all weapons are both offensive and defensive. Take the case of an ancient warrior armed with a sword and a shield. One might say that the sword was offensive and the shield defensive, but the shield, especially if there were a pointed boss in the middle of it, could also be used as a very offensive weapon, and I have no doubt that in the hand-to-hand combats in the old days such a shield caused many deaths. When you extend that shield and develop it till it covers several people, and then fit it with wheels, it may become a tank: the defensive weapon has become offensive. The spectacle of naval experts arguing that a 35,000 ton battleship was a defensive weapon, whereas the submarine, which smaller nations use to keep the battleship as far away in the offing as they possibly can, was offensive, was really one to make angels weep and gods blaspheme.
Instead of going into that precise and meticulous examination between one weapon and another, why cannot we adopt the broad standard laid down at Versailles, which was decided in a few

571
hours? Why cannot one take as a standard the weapons forbidden to Germany? Why cannot all the nations at the Disarmament Conference agree to abandon every weapon which was forbidden to Germany? That is the first suggestion I would make. Secondly, there is the point which the Foreign Secretary raised about the German army. That is met, it seems to me, by the French proposal to substitute a militia. There are two parts to the French proposals, as far as we know them, because, as has been said, they have only been explained in two speehces, and we have not got the plan worked out in print. First of all, every nation is to have a militia, lightly armed and without the heavier weapons. If for the present German ten-year army there could be substituted a militia of that sort it would place Germany upon an equality of status, especially if we all agreed to abandon the weapons forbidden to her.
As to the second part of the proposal, which was for special national armies, highly professionalised and highly mechanised, to be used only in the service of the League of Nations, and whose weapons would be locked away in a cupboard in some neutral country, I think that is rather a fantastic idea and not one to be recommended. But I think we ought to support the militia proposal because it would help to meet German views on equality of status. If, on top of all this, we could have a Hoover cut of one-third of our armies and our navies, we should have got a long way towards disarmament. The claim of the Foreign Secretary that we cannot start by cutting all round, because we have already disarmed to some extent, is a very dangerous one. Other countries make the same claim. The French say that by abandoning the three years' system for the one-year system they have made a tremendous cut in their military power. But, after all, why should the nations regard 1918 as a sort of basic line, and say they have disarmed from that standard? Because, after all, 1918 was a year in which all countries had heavily swollen armaments though to a different degree in different countries.
I would like to ask whether we are satisfied with our present naval and military position relative to other
572
countries. Do we think we are in a weak position as compared with other nations? If we do, it is the duty of those responsible for our defences to increase our forces at a greater rate than our opponents. If, however, they are satisfied with our present position vis-à-vis other nations, surely there can be no objection to having a still further all-round cut on the present existing lines. I believe it would be possible for us to go to Geneva and ask for disarmament on the lines I have mentioned. The House will agree that it would he absolutely disastrous if the Disarmament Conference failed. If it fails now, the only alternative will be to arm. The nations will arm, and will embark upon another armed race, by land, by sea, and by air. Following upon that, as closely as a man is pursued by his own shadow, will come war, under the waters, in the air and on the land, until civilisation cracks beneath the strain and the Vesuvius of revolution opens out beneath our feet.
Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
"this House, having heard the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, approves it and assures His Majesty's Government of its support in the vigorous promotion of a policy of limiting and reducing armaments by international agreement through the Disarmament Conference at Geneva; expresses its appreciation of the efforts already made by the Government in that direction; and also its approval of the determination of His Majesty's Government to continue their loyal co-operation with the League of Nations in dealing with the Sino-Japanese dispute."
By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I have inserted in the Amendment as it appears upon the Order Paper certain additional words. May I make quite clear why I move this Amendment? When I look at the Motion which was moved by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), I find these words:
"the British Government should give clear and unequivocal support to an immediate, universal and substantial reduction of armaments."
I have no objection whatsoever to those words. I take the further words:
"on the basis of equality of status for all nations."
Again I have no objection, provided that in each case we make precisely clear

573
what we mean. As is known to the House, this Motion was asked for as a Vote of Censure upon the Government, and the terms in which it was moved by the hon. Member for Limehouse were those appropriate to a Vote of Censure. That is the reason why I move this Amendment, which I saw described in one of this morning's journals as tantamount to a Vote of Confidence in the Government. I am content to let it be so regarded. After the statement of policy that we have heard from the Foreign Secretary, both in regard to disarmament generally and equality of status, every hon. Member will recognise that that statement may be the starting point of a new development in the disarmament movement. I move this Amendment in order to make it clear that the Government and the Foreign Secretary have the overwhelming support of the House for the statement and the policy that has been put forward. I would refer for a few moments to the words which I have already quoted,
"an immediate, universal and substantial reduction of armaments."
I do not wish to raise minor matters of controversy on an occasion of this kind, but there is one statement of the hon. Member for Limehouse to which I should like to register my dissent at once. It was his characterisation of the advice and of the usefulness of the military and naval advisers of the Government in matters of this kind. I echo all that has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I have never held a commission as one of His Majesty's officers in the regular Army, but I am the only man in my family who has not held such a commission. So far as I have known serving officers in the regular Army, I am sure that they recognise their obligations when they are tendering advice. The hon. Member for Limehouse would find, among such officers, men who realised to the full the horrors of war and desired as much as any member of the civilian population to prevent them.
I always have regarded competition in armaments as a menace to peace and as likely to lead to war. I have always regarded the amount of money and effort that is spent on armaments as a monstrous waste, viewed from the point of view of society in general. I
574
will do anything possible to forward the cause of disarmament, but it is mere childishness to let sentiment run away with reason and ordinary judgment in a matter of this kind. We are living in a world in which old hostilities and suspicions, generated years before the War, still exist, and are dying hard. It is a matter of common agreement by those who have had any responsibility in the matter, including former members of the party on the Opposition benches who have held high office and have been responsible for the Service Departments, that advance in disarmament must be by common agreement and cannot be otherwise. It is perfectly impossible for any one nation to go on alone. Only when there is common progress does the apprehension of attack by each nation become less. That facilitates further progress, and so the movement continues. It is obvious that one has to proceed by stages, and by stages alone, slow and disheartening as they may be, if any disarmament worth the name is to be reached upon a permanent and lasting basis.
This is a matter of common feeling on all sides of the House. I would ask every hon. Member to realise, as I am sure most of them do, what an example the British Government have set in the matter. The hon. Member for Limehouse used the expression "Pharisee." I hardly think that that is the proper phrase to use. Any unbiased observer would come to the same conclusion, that while the nations must advance together, yet one must take the first step in advance of the others. The nation that has been willing to take the first step has nearly always been Great Britain. We have almost gone to the limit—some people think we have gone in advance of the point—of the steps that we can take in advance of the others. That is one of my reasons for moving this Amendment. The other is that, while the proposals of the Government that were previously made constitute the ground for a great advance, the proposals that have been adumbrated this afternoon in general outline by the Foreign Secretary, may be a starting point for a new development.
Let me give my reasons for saying that. When I think of the question of equality of status I always feel that we are under

575
a moral obligation to accord that equality to Germany. I do not think that it is a legal obligation, but that it is a moral obligation is quite clear to my mind. It dates from the early days, when the terms of peace were being negotiated, and from what was known as the Clemenceau letter. May I read that letter, which was written in June, 1919:
"The Allied and Associated Powers wish to make it clear that their requirements in regard to German armaments were not made solely with the object of rendering it impossible for Germany to resume her policy of military aggression. They are also the first steps towards that general reduction and limitation of armaments which they seek to bring about as one of the most fruitful preventives of war, and which it will be one of the first duties of the League of Nations to promote."
Clearly that constitutes a quite definite moral obligation to bring about that equality. It is in pursuance of that that I and many others have given support from the beginning to the Locarno Pact, although we realise what hat great responsibilities are imposed upon those countries that gave their signatures to such a Pact. I welcomed the policy of Herr Stresemann in Germany. I always had a very high regard for the work that he did. He made it possible for us to have confidence in the objects and aims of Germany, so that we could try to promote further agreement, and to make the advance, which must be by stages, towards that equality of status which is desirable.
7.0 p.m.
Anxious as those of us are who have sincere feelings of friendliness towards Germany to proceed with this, it is impossible not to be somewhat perturbed by statements made in Germany of the nature of those that I have read not long since. If they were taken literally, they would tend to make us pause and wonder whether German policy was taking a different orientation from that which Stresemann gave to it. One realises what difficulties there are in a country like Germany, which is subject to extraordinarily acute distress. All through the world one has to recognise that internal economic troubles often create troubles in domestic politics. Those of us who have been rather anxious would be glad indeed to get a reassurance that there is no intention of
576
rearmament on the part of Germany. I do most sincerely trust, that when this forward step is taken by His Majesty's Government it will be met on the other side by signs that they appreciate the spirit of what is intended, and that they will give their whole-hearted co-operation.
I look upon what we have heard to-day as a great advance. I only feel genuinely sorry that the whole of this House may not be ready to give its unanimous support to that policy of which mention has been made to us this afternoon. I am quite clear as to what is the duty of all of us here who are substantially in accord with that policy. It is the same duty which I have always felt. Even in the first year of this time of stress, when the difficulties with which the Government had to deal were domestic issues, I felt that this crisis was the greatest since the War. Now the Government have to face even more difficult tasks than during the first year. In dealing with international relations with foreign countries, they have no longer got control of the materials. They have got to use the influence they have in order to promote a policy which is likely to add to general peace, general contentment and happiness. The Government have an immense prestige and power in the world, and the opportunity of using them, that they may promote disarmament and the solution of the material, industrial and economic questions, all of which are inter-connected and bound up into one whole. The Government can only use their influence to the full if they know, when they are doing so, that they have this House, as representing the nation, overwhelmingly supporting them. For that reason I feel that those who agree with the Government should put behind the Government every atom of support and every atom of prestige it is possible for us in this House to give.
Captain GUEST: I find myself called upon this evening as the first of those Members who put their names on the Order Paper last Monday, without making a request for any particular day, to the following Motion:
"That this House is entitled, on a matter of such vital importance as disarmament, to be consulted before His Majesty's delegates at Geneva enter into any commitments

577
which may permanently prejudice the security and peace of the British Empire."
It is difficult to intervene in a Debate which, up to the present, has followed such very broad lines of national policy. But no other opportunity may occur to those who, like myself, put our names to this Motion, to ask a few questions of a more direct nature of the Government before our representatives go to Geneva. I do not think any of us intend, or desire, that the Motion on the Paper to which I am referring should torpedo the general subject of the Disarmament Conference. We all consider that disarmament, if it can be effected, is vital. If it is not accomplished, that will shortly be followed by re-armament Debates. Obviously that would be terrible to consider. But surely a statement connected with rumours we have heard, and regarding which I tried to elicit information from the head of the Government, should be made. I must say for myself that I have been left in terrible anxiety, and almost alarm, as to how far our representatives intend to go when they find themselves at Geneva. I am anxious the House should not think that I am introducing too much detail into a Debate which has proceeded so far on such wide lines of policy. I submit that it is of grave importance.
As I have said, I tried a week ago to obtain from the head of the Government some indication as to how far our representatives at Geneva might go, particularly in connection with disarmament in the Air Force. The answer I received was that our representatives would obviously have powers of
"abolition or the extension of anything."
The sentence ended with the words:
"final consent remains with this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1932; col. 1782, Vol. 269.]
I submit that that is really a little misleading, more particularly to some hon. Members of this House who have come here for the first time. Supposing our representatives come back having signed away our air arm, which is, perhaps, of greater importance to us than any other arm. What is the procedure of ratification? It is simply a Vote of Confidence in the Government. Those who disapprove of what has been done have to vote against a Vote of Confidence if they desire to express their contrary opinion.
578
The National Government, however, mean many things to us. It would be impossible for us then, if we did disagree, to record effectively a vote in that way. I submit that the so-called ratification by Parliament really means nothing at all.
The rumours to which I refer must come from somewhere. They are of a very definite character, and, if there is any truth in them, then they are a matter with which Parliament should be acquainted before it has gone too far. On the 4th of this month a. very definite forecast of what is to happen to our Air Force appeared in the "Daily Mail." Some of the sentences are:
"Total abolition or severe curtailment of bombing.
Grouping of all commercial air lines under an international body, and
Limitation of the number of privately owned aeroplanes."
That may be purely a kite flown in the* dark, or it may not. I have other indications which caused anxiety to me. I saw a question by a Noble Lord to the Prime Minister on Tuesday last week asking whether before any decision was reached with regard to the extent to which the British Government could agree with the French disarmament proposals, and particularly those with regard to the international control of civil aviation he would secure that the agreement would in no way prevent the future development of civil aviation. The Prime Minister replied that he had not yet received the new French disarmament proposals but he would bear in mind the significance of the question. It may be that the Prime Minister had not had at that time an opportunity of studying the French disarmament proposals, but only a few days later they seem to be thoroughly digested, and they formed the backbone of the Foreign Secretary's speech this afternoon. Perhaps what is most alarming appeared in the "Times" of the 9th inst. It gives me the impression—having been at this game a long time myself—of being inspired. If it is not inspired, a good deal of my case will fail, but inspiration appears very evident on the face of it. It deals with the two subjects which have obviously been causing a good deal of concern in Parliamentary circles and the Press. It begins:

579
"In schemes of disarmament which have been examined the possibility of effecting considerable reductions in the naval and military air services of the world has always been under consideration.… But there is no ground whatever for the suggestion that there is any intention to restrict civil aviation in this country or to permit any foreign or international body to say over which routes British civil machines should fly."
That must mean something, and must come from somewhere. Are these the lines on which our representatives at Geneva will fight this case of disarmament for us? I say "fight this case for us," for if somebody does not, the existing utter disproportion between ourselves and several other countries will remain the same, or possibly even go from bad to worse. I say that very seriously because I am in a position to prove it. We have heard from the Prime Minister a statement to the effect that he does not consider disarmament is disarmament if it is unilateral. Here is a case which shows that disarmament, so far, has been entirely unilateral in our Air Force. After the War we had reached the position of being the second strongest Power in the air. From that time onward we started steadily to decrease, and by the time we had reached the spring of this year we had dropped to the fifth Power. Surely that is unilateral disarmament.
Why should our next neighbour reduce her strength by only one-half while we have reduced our strength by three-quarters? If we translate that into figures they will surprise many hon. Members. The total Air Force of the French is just under 3,000 machines. The total which Great Britain possesses is 1,430 machines. I submit that that is a big step in unilateral disarmament. I reinforce this argument by reminding the House that in 192293 a minimum programme of safety was decided upon. A speech to which I listened a few minutes age from the other side indicated that safety must come into consideration. Safety first and disarmament afterwards. This programme proceeded very slowly indeed, and in 1998 came to a standstill. At the present moment we are 10 units short of what was considered in 192223. to be the minimum programme adequate for the safety of this island and our homes. We are a. long way below the margin, at least 20 per cent. below what was described as necessary for safety
580
then. This is an indication of the way in which we have played the game. I urge the Government not to let our representatives go one step further in this direction unless the lead is given to us from another source.
Another indication of our good will which perhaps has passed unnoticed is the way in which we have reduced our Air Estimates annually. Since 1925, our Estimates have gone down steadily, while I am sorry to see that those of France, since 1929, have gone up by £4,000,000 a year. These figures cannot be ignored. The responsibilities of the Empire must be taken also into consideration when comparisons are made between our Air Force and those of other countries. It may be true that the French have Colonial dependencies which need policing, but I do not think they are any bigger than ours, and certainly they are not so far away from the home headquarters; and they cannot be so great as to make it reasonably equitable that France should need 3,000 aeroplanes when we have to do with 1,400. I do not think our representatives at Geneva should be allowed to go below what I have described as the minimum programme which was decided upon in 1922 and 1923 as being absolutely necessary for the safety of our shores.
I cannot help thinking that the taxpayer has been rather ignored. Apart from the probable saving of many lives, the use of the Air Force in police work has saved this country in the last 10 years well over £50,000,000, and I think it will be admitted on all hands that the work has been done efficiently and humanely. There appeared yesterday in the "Times" a statement that there is no ground whatever for the suggestion that there is any intention to restrict civil aviation.
I would point out that, if you reduce or abolish the machine which the world seems to think the most dangerous, that is to say, the bomber, something else will immediately take its place. If you abolish the bomber, the fighter will do the work, and, if you abolish both, the Moth becomes supreme. If you abolish your Air Force, you will be under the control of those who have the largest number of commercial machines, and, as regards the number of commercial machines, we are, again, left in a position

581
of practically hopeless inferiority. Therefore, I do not think it is too much to ask that, even if we cannot tie the hands of our delegates before they go to Geneva—and it must be admitted that it would be impossible to do so—the Government should bear in mind the fact that there are many Members of the House of Commons who feel that the question of security is being neglected, and that it is important that our delegates should not only do what is right when they get to Geneva, but should not forget the country to which we all belong.
Miss PICKFORD: I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). Tomorrow we commemorate the fourteenth anniversary of the day on which the last shot was fired in the War which many hoped might end war. It is more than 12 years since the Treaty of Versailles was signed, incorporating the Covenant of the League of Nations, which was to provide the machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes without recourse to war, and so to lay the foundation for disarmament by mutual consent. In those 12 years there have been preparatory commissions on disarmament, and the Disarmament Conference has met and adjourned after passing pious resolutions which, unfortunately, so far, taking the world as a whole, have left armaments very little reduced as compared with what they were when the War ended; and it is hardly surprising that there is among many people to-day, when they see hope so often deferred, heart-sickness and disappointment. I think it is as well to remember that there is that feeling, not only, perhaps, in this House, but outside.
I, in common, probably, with most other Members, have received a Letter from Oxford. That, perhaps, is not a matter of any great importance; Members receive a great many letters and documents which are circulated to them; but I, and perhaps other Members, have received that Letter privately as well, from two sources—in one case from an undergraduate at Oxford, and in the other case from a very much older lady, herself a grandmother. It is, perhaps, hard for us who remember so vividly the years of the War to bear in mind that the oldest man or woman at the University
582
who has entered at the normal age was, when the War ceased, little more than eight years old. To them it is a memory of childhood, and it is natural and right that they should look forward, and not look back; and, with the impetuousness of youth, possibly they think that the fears and hesitancies of the older generation are holding up the cause of peace. The older ones, who look back, hope that what they went through will be spared to the generation that is growing up.
I think that those who were responsible for the circulation of that Letter, and other people who make similar statements, would have been well advised to have given more clearly the facts of the case. From many platforms we hear the statement, to which reference was made by the Foreign Secretary, that in the years 1925 to 1930 the cost of armaments throughout the world has increased. That statement is repeated from many a platform, but from how few is it stated that, in spite of the fact that expenditure on armaments throughout the world as a whole has increased in those five years, we ourselves, as the Foreign Secretary stated, have reduced ours by 15 and even 20 per cent. I think that those who have the cause of peace at heart should help people to understand what the situation is, and should not try in any way to ignore or evade the difficulties which this Government, and every other Government, have experienced since the War.
Not only have we in this country reduced the amount of our expenditure on armaments, but we have also reduced in men-power, in quantity of ships, and in every other respect. For over four years I had the advantage of helping the late Sir Julian Corbett in the preparation of the Official Naval History of the War, and, in the course of those studies, I saw all the operations telegrams that came into and went out of the Admiralty. It was not capital ships that we lacked; it was cruisers to defend our trade routes; and yet to-day we have 52 cruisers instead of the 108 which we had before. We also lacked destroyers for submarine hunting, and for convoy and escort work. The convoy system could not be brought into operation until America entered the War, because we had net sufficient of these and similar defensive craft. Today we have 147 destroyers, whereas before we had 285.

583
That Letter from Oxford referred to the discouraging attitude of the Government towards what were described as the bold and simple Hoover proposals. Although those proposals corresponded with the proposals put forward by the British Government for qualitative disarmament, the principal one of them was in the nature of a percentage cut—a cut of 33¼ per cent. all round—which would have left the armed forces relatively very much as they are to-day, and would have stabilised the position to the disadvantage of those who had done the most, and to the advantage of those who had done the least, in the cause of disarmament. We have already made a 50 per cent, cut in numbers. That proposal was not unlike the rough-and-ready rationing in the War, when those who had taken advantage of plenty when it was there were left the best off, and those who, in the interests of all, had voluntarily rationed themselves, as we have voluntarily disarmed, were left in a relatively worse position.
7.30 p.m.
It must be admitted that, although we have set an example, and rightly so, to the world in disarming, that example has not been followed to the extent that we should have liked to see, and I think that this country must now turn its attention to the causes which have prevented other countries from following our example. On the one side there is the cry for security from France; on the other the demand for equality from Germany; and I think it is the duty of this country to see what is reasonable in those two demands and to reconcile them. Any student of history will realise that the years between 1871 and 1914, after the cessation of the Franoo-Prussian War, were years when in France there was inevitably cultivated the spirit of révanche. One cannot blame France for that. Is there not the danger that the same spirit may be cultivated in Germany to-day In Germany, on the western and eastern frontiers, there is being cultivated a spirit of nationality which is good in itself, but which looks towards its neighbour as an enemy. The children are educated to remember first of all that they are Germans; in the schools you see, round the walls in the school hall, mottoes exhorting them to remember first that they are Germans. This country, in the Treaty of Locarno, has guaranteed
584
the western frontier of Germany. I rejoice that the French plan recognises that this country cannot be asked to enter into further obligations with regard to the eastern frontiers of Germany. I hope no Government will ever give an undertaking to guarantee those eastern frontiers exactly as they now stand, because I believe they cannot endure and are a constant cause of dissension, and just for that reason it is all the more right that the Disarmament Conference shall have a fruitful issue. Germany's demand for equality is one which I believe cannot be refused either in theory or in practice. In theory, I think it has been generally accepted. In practice, I do not believe it is possible, as the Foreign Secretary said, permanently to keep a great nation of 60,000,000 inhabitants in a state of inferiority. Any attempt so to keep them will produce inevitable results. Germany is allowed an army of 100,000 soldiers, no mean force when it is considered that Great Britain has voluntarily restricted her armies to less than 150,000. But the attempt to restrict Germany has led inevitably to reactions in other directions. In the outskirts of every German town the barracks which were previously occupied by the soldiers are now occupied by police, who are in very much larger numbers than they were before the War and are subject to a discipline which is military in everything but name. The Stahlhelm, the pocket battleship, and the dummy tank are all expressions of revolt.
The decision that the Disarmament Conference will have to take is whether Europe is to disarm or rearm, and the Foreign Secretary's statement reassures us that he and the Government are determined that the course that will be taken is the course of disarmament rather than rearmament. We used to hear a great deal under the last Government of world causes, as though they were things over which this country had no control. Time was when this country, instead of drifting down the international stream, assumed direction. I rejoice that that time has returned. I rejoice that it is a National Government, broad based upon the national will, which will go to Geneva to work out these problems of disarmament. The French Note leaves us full of hope. It recognizes

585
the validity of the German claim for equality, and it recognises the impossibility of this country taking on further European obligations. I am convinced that this Government has the unanimous support of the country and, I hope, of the House. I hope the Opposition will show that they, too, are united behind the Government in desiring that there shall be a prosecution of the policy of reducing armaments by international agreement through the Disarmament Conference. I am certain that the supporters of the National Government are every bit as sincere as any Member of the Opposition in desiring that there shall be peace and security for peace, through the Disarmament Conference, and it is with confidence, after the statement that we have heard from the Foreign Secretary, that we stand behind the Government in promoting that policy.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Although this is by no means a maiden speech, it is perhaps the first speech that I have attempted to make in 10 years in a Debate on foreign affairs; consequently, I feel more or less like a tremulous person about to make a maiden speech—an experience which most of us have had. I think I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government can always feel that the Opposition will be behind them if they are really taking steps which will ultimately lead to real disarmament. If the hon. Lady's statement is true, that this is the only country which can initiate a movement which will ultimately bring about such disarmament as will give a sense of security and peace to the world, I should like to ask her why it has been left until 10th November, 1932, before the National Government has made the announcement that we have heard from the Foreign Secretary. After all, the Disarmament Conference has been in session for a considerable time, and if, as the hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) said, the Foreign Secretary's statement constitutes a real forward step, I think the best part of that speech might have been made at Geneva several months ago. I am not at all sure, and I shall not be sure until I have read the speech, whether it is a real step forward or not. With regard to the reference to the Sino-Japanese dispute, I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brox-
586
towe (Mr. Cocks). In the circumstances, I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman could have enlarged upon his statement. With regard to the German demand for equality of status, I was not at all sure whether his suggestion involved rearmament on the part of Germany and some disarmament on the part of other countries or whether it really was intended to involve nothing more nor less than disarmament all round. That is one of the things that one will have to look at very carefully before one admits that the statement is a real step forward.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) regarded competition in armaments as a monstrosity, but he proceeded, as usual, to say that in all the circumstances it would be ridiculous for this country to disarm beyond the point we have already reached. If one looked over the Parliamentary Debates for the past 100 years, one would see that statement expressed tens of thousands of times. Disarmament is a very wise and discreet thing, but there are always 20 reasons why we ought not to indulge in it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division was very frank and open in the suggestion that he made. He would like to mandate the Foreign Secretary and to give him definite instructions that no real tangible steps be taken until the House has been consulted. We on these benches are believers in open diplomacy, and, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman at long last has become a disciple of open diplomacy and will always insist on the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues being mandated from this Chamber, he will perhaps find support on the Opposition Benches. He talked about our having been the second Power at a certain stage, and said that we had now fallen to the fifth place. I am not sure whether we have disarmed at all in that particular or whether it is not the case that we have not built quite so fast. I do not know, for instance, the number of aeroplanes that we had at the conclusion of the War. I am not sure whether at one time we had only about 1,200. We have 1,430 to-day. We have not been disarming, so far as the Air Force is concerned, year by year; rather have we been arming, but at not quite so speedy a rate as the French Government have been arming. The hon.

587
and gallant Gentleman is preserving the old defence idea that we must have the maximum power either to produce or to control an Army, Navy and Air Force as large as or larger than that of any other Power.
On the general question of principle, the terms of the Motion are as mild as might have been expected by any Government that is really anxious to promote the cause of disarmament. I think it expresses what is felt by everyone in the House, but some Members want too many conditions attached before they can support even this Motion. There are millions of people in this country who would readily support it as the minimum of what they would desire of any Government, be that Government Labour, Liberal, Conservative or National. However, that was not the point with which I rose to deal this evening.
I want to deal exclusively with the question of the production of armaments and the profit made therefrom. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday and secured an answer which scarcely seemed to be consistent with the situation as it was a short time ago, although the situation may have changed between then and now. The right hon. Gentleman will correct me later on if I am wrong when I make this submission. We have had disarmament conferences, world economic conferences, and all sorts of international efforts to promote peace and so forth, but I am concerned at the moment about a secret international which I commend to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps if he feels any bitterness over anything that I may say during my observations he will be good enough to spend a few moments reading this document, and then, perhaps, he will feel as I feel at this moment, that unless something is done to suppress the private manufacture of armaments there can be no real and tangible disarmament. It is an appalling document, and I am not at all sure whether the question has not reached the stage when it is a test of strength to see whether the Government delegates or the armament delegates are the stronger. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will be the last person on earth to be intimidated by any personal attack, and I make no personal reflections whatever,
588
but, having read and studied this little document, the secret and powerful influence of those whose business it is to secure the maximum profit leaves one aghast, and one wonders where their power commences and where it actually ends.
The question which I submitted to the right hon. Gentleman was upon the attitude of the representative of the Government upon a committee which was set up by the Disarmament Conference on 23rd July. The Disarmament Conference set up a special committee for this purpose. The Bureau shall set up a special committee to submit proposals to the Conference in regard to regulations to be applied to the trade in, and private and State manufacture of, armaments. Representatives were appointed from Great Britain, United States, France, Italy, Japan, and in fact all countries with a large armament industry. The representatives of those countries, so one is informed by one who was a member of that committee from the commencement, have passed no proposal either for the control or abolition of the private manufacture of arms. I quote from a document written by Mrs. Laura Morgan and despatched to the National Peace Council of America. Referring to this committee, she states:
"France has come out strongly for the suppression of private manufacture, or, at least strict control of manufacture, both private and State, but England is frankly cynical."
She proceeds—and I commend this to the right hon. Gentleman since it affects the reply which he gave to my question yesterday—
"The British representative of this committee is Mr. Carr of the Foreign Office. He evidently has no sympathy for the proposal for the suppression of private manufacture of arms.…He has criticised the committee for reviving a discussion which he apparently believes was closed 10 years ago with the report of the Temporary Mixed Commission, quite ignoring the development both in international law and in public opinion that has taken place since that time."
Wing-Commander JAMES: Is it in order for an hon. Member to attack a civil servant by name?
Mr. WILLIAMS: There is no attack upon the individual. The name is only used as being that of the representative of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, accept full re-

589
sponsibility for the actions of his representative at Geneva.
Sir J. SIMON: Certainly.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I certainly have no desire or intention to attack any civil servant either present in or absent from this Chamber.
Sir J. SIMON: The responsibility, of course, for any official of the Foreign Office rests with me, and I shall take care of that responsibility and see that it is not shifted on to any other shoulders but mine.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I can assure the House that that is my opinion of the right hon. Gentleman regarding this representative or any other. The document definitely states that the British representative, a Mr. Carr from the Foreign Office, who, apparently, was appointed by the British Government to sit on this special committee to deal with the private manufacture or control of armaments, has opposed all the time either the suppression or control of private armaments. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my question yesterday, said:
"The Committee has drawn up a preliminary report which will come before the bureau of the conference in the near future."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 9th November, 1932; col. 328, Vol. 270.]
In point of fact, this committee has met several times and has adjourned sine die with no decision having been taken at all, very largely due to the fact that the British representative from the commencement to the end has opposed every submission made by France and in fact by any other country. I wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman yesterday who gave the Foreign Office representative his instructions to oppose the proposal of France for the suppression of the private manufacture of armaments or the control of armaments produced by private firms. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now tell us, because yesterday he told me that the representative of this committee was the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If that is the case the statement of this observer, who, I understand, is a, reputable person, is entirely wrong, but unless information is given to the contrary, I shall conclude that the statement is accurate, and that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was not our representa-
590
tive on this committee, and that our representative actually opposed on every occasion any steps being taken in the direction of the motion made by France, Denmark, and others.
Sir J. SIMON: I cannot deal with the matter from my own knowledge at the moment, and I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is reasonable. I do not wish to say anything in criticism of the authority he is quoting, because I do not know anything about the lady. But the records of what goes on at Geneva are easily to be examined and are available to the hon. Gentleman, and, I think, to many well-known organisations in this country. I am confident that the answer which I gave yesterday was, in fact, right. At the same time, I will very gladly look into the matter, and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for telling me that there is something in it.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am satisfied that now that the question has been brought to his notice, he will be the first to appreciate, if such a report as the one quoted is sent to America, is seen, read and understood by every peace organisation in the United States, the tremendous adverse effect it will have upon that great, country when considering the question of our attitude towards either the private production of armaments or anything calculated to promote real disarmament throughout the world.
Sir J. SIMON: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is able to tell me from his researches whether the American Government has expressed itself as willing to abolish the prime manufacture of all arms in the United States of America.
Mr. WILLIAMS: In the same document, to justify the impartiality of the lady who wrote it, she explains, for instance, the position taken up by the Government of the United States, which was hostile.
"The official position of the United States is that we believe we can accomplish through complete publicity and strict control of trade the same results that other countries propose to reach by control or suppression of manufacture."
Therefore, she does not spare her own country, and she actually opposes both

591
of them. Clearly, there is a fundamental difference between the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave yesterday and the situation as here described. The point I want to submit, therefore, is whether on a special committee or a general committee attached to the Disarmament Conference this country ought to give its representatives instructions consistent with the desires of the Government? I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, when the representative from the Foreign Office was opposing either the suppression or control of the output of armaments, he was expressing the feelings of the British Government? Were those the instructions which the right hon. Gentleman gave to him? If that was the case, we are entitled to say to the right hon. Gentleman and to his Government, that, instead of Britain leading the way in disarmament, she intends to maintain her position as the world's greatest armament exporter. In 1930, for instance, this country exported 30.8 per cent. of the total armaments which were exported in the world, and we had the grotesque situation of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues sitting at Geneva discussing the Sino-Japanese dispute and every week that went by munitions and armaments were poured out of this country, supplied not only to China but to Japan; to both countries equally without any sort of discrimination. It was both ludicrous and criminal that we should have Government representatives sitting at Geneva discussing the rights or wrongs of the Sino-Japanese dispute while armament manufacturers in this country were sending machine guns, bullets, bombs, airships and all kinds of things to both combatants, making it well-nigh impossible for any sort of decision to be reached.
The right hon. Gentleman certainly has some responsibility for this situation. We want to know exactly where the Government stand in regard to the private manufacture of armaments. Do they still stand where they always stood, namely, that whatever can be produced and sold at a profit, whether it be fireworks for 5th November, or explosives for every day in the year, is to continue without any sort of limitation, restriction or control, as has been the case in the past? I am pretty certain that if Mr. Carr at the Foreign Office was carry-
592
ing out his instructions on the Disarmament Special Committee there is little or no reason why we should expect, despite the wonderful speech of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, any real step being taken towards final and lasting disarmament. With regard to the question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman to-day about advertisements in German papers, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is going to make further investigations concerning them, for Article 170 of the Versailles Treaty reads:
"The importation into Germany of arms, munitions, and war material of every kind shall be strictly prohibited."
8.0 p.m.
We do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would licence the importation of any arms from this country to Germany, but the very fact that Vickers-Armstrong at this moment are advertising their armaments in German newspapers seems to indicate that Vickers-Armstrong are intelligently anticipating the possible outcome of the Disarmament Conference. What is the possible outcome that would justify these advertisements in German newspapers? Are they anticipating that the conclusion of the Disarmament Conference will be re-arming, and, if so, that they are going to dispose of vast quantities of armaments of all kinds to Germany? That seems the only conclusion that one can reach.
I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman, as respectfully as I can, and I want to tell him quite definitely, that not the slightest reflection is made upon any Minister of State, or upon any right hon. or hon. Member who sits in any part of this House, in my reference to the advertisements of the armament firms in German newspapers, but there are so many right hon. and hon. Members of this House who are financially interested in these firms that quite a false impression may be created in all parts of the world. Hon. and right hon. Members may seldom give a thought to their investments in this company or that company, but it is true to say that what they may be thinking may be very different from what is thought by other people in all parts of the world, who have their own investigators and who know all about it. We suggest, therefore, that the very fact of advertising munitions in Germany, while we are seeking to establish disarmament and peace, is a contradiction

593
which almost cancels out all the hopes that the right hon. Gentleman engendered in all parts of the House to-day. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to go deep down in his investigations in regard to these advertisements. I do not think that any firm ought to be permitted either to undermine the work of the Foreign Secretary or to create a false impression in any part of the world, which is calculated to increase our difficulties during the months that lie ahead. The suggestion that armaments can be sold to Germany is enough to turn the person who is really anxious for peace into a citizen who is no longer law-abiding.
The right hon. Gentleman in his speech to-day said that every treaty or engagement must be entered into not lightly but very seriously, and he referred to the statement of M. Herriot, that he never doubted our signature. We must give that impression to every government in every part of the world. We ought to let them understand definitely and clearly that our signature to the Versailles Treaty, so long as it remains intact, shall be honoured and that nothing that the Government does or any of its nationals attempts to do shall undermine the signature that we attached to that very vital document. There are millions of people praying for peace. A large number of people have read this "Secret International." I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman by any act to-day or tomorrow can remove the doubts and anxieties that have been growing up. There can be no international economic co-operation until the atmosphere is created for peace. There can be no real peace atmosphere until a definite decision is taken by the Disarmament Conference that will reduce very materially the output of these weapons of destruction that are being produced day by day. Until that is done there can be no industrial prosperity and no true economy, certainly no lasting security.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that this is a chance given to few men. I believe with many others who have spoken to-day that we are the one country that can give a lead to the world. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to do anything spectacular, which has no bottom and no basis in it. There is no need for anything spectacular. We want something reliable, tangible. If
594
other countries make suggestions that scarcely meet the desires and aspirations of the right hon. Gentleman, I see no reason why we should wait for France, Italy, Germany or any other country to make the initial move. We are big enough and we ought to rise to the occasion. We ought to make proposals of our own if the proposals of other nations scarcely meet the need. We ought to make up our minds once and for all that real progress shall be made. If mankind fails to destroy war, war sooner or later will inevitably destroy mankind.
Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: I did not share the alarms and apprehensions of the hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) when he said that he had seen a report in the "Daily Mail" which declared that there was to be abolition of bombing aeroplanes. If that were only true, what a magnificent thing it would be for the civil population of all the capitals of Europe. It may be too good to be true. I am particularly glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, because I do not like the Labour party who distinguish the Benches below me to arrogate to themselves a monopoly of interest, in the question of disarmament. Some of us in the Conservative party are not quite so foolish as they would like us to be. They may be sometimes perplexed when they hear observations from certain of our benches. I recall that earlier in the Debate to-day the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). I listened with a certain measure of perplexity to some of the observations of my hon. Friend. It reminded me of the dilemma of the walrus in "Alice in Wonderland":
"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year
Do you suppose,' the Walrus said,
'That they could get it clear?'
I doubt it,' said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear."
My hon. Friend worked himself into a position where he absolutely despaired of any measure of progress in the limitation of armaments and the movement towards permanent peace. I am a little sceptical and apprehensive about the possibility of performance even of the Labour party. Let the House listen to some brave words uttered by a member of the party. During the two periods of office of the

595
Labour Government they made their contribution towards the £550,000,000 that the taxpayer has had to find over the last 10 years for naval expenditure. Here is a quotation from a speech by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) on the 8th March, 1932:
"We have been told that we are opposed to unilateral disarmament, but we have never stood for unilateral disarmament. We know that Great Britain has made a tremendous contribution to the cause of disarmament; in fact, no country in the world has made a bigger contribution in that direction, and it should not be suggested that because we are supporting an Amendment of this kind, we lack a patriotic spirit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1932; col. 1734, Vol. 252.]
I would have suggested to my hon. Friend had he been here that before he expresses this fear of the word "unilateral" he should go into the question of big super battleships exceeding 10,000 tons and examine the very serious objections advanced by some of our best naval experts in regard to their retention, replacement and upkeep. But I am not going to be side-tracked into a digression which is more appropriate to a discussion on the Naval Estimates.
The hon. Member for Ince in the speech from which I have quoted used the words "patriotic spirit." Here again there is a very obvious and frequent fallacy. I would remind him with the greatest possible respect, and I would remind the members of the Labour party, that patriotism may vary from the self-sacrificing devotion of the unprofessional volunteers who gave their lives in the last War to the moral lunacy of the Navy League. The words "patriotic spirit" by themselves mean absolutely nothing. I am glad for another reason that I caught your eye, Mr. Speaker. There is a fallacy current in this country, which has been often used in debate, that much harm is done to the cause of peace by those who are most vocal in the championship of it. That is to say, in other words, that "speech is silver and silence is golden." But I would suggest to this honourable House that it is a novel principle on which to conduct our Parliamentary proceedings to say that a cause is best advanced by the silence of its advocates.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Miss Pickford) and also the hon. Mem-
596
ber for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) referred to the deliverance that was wrought 14 years ago to-morrow. I hope that I shall not be arraigned for cant if I say that I remember that deliverance for myself and my contemporaries, and that it is a subject on which I cannot possibly keep silent. There are some highly rhetorical lines by the poet Byron delivered in an entirely different association but which directly represent the necessity for expressing the need for peace and disarmament. It is a vital need to-day because it is now or never. This is civilisation's last chance. The lines run thus:
"What, silent still, and silent all?
No, for the voices of the dead
Sound like a distant torrent's fall,
And answer, 'Let one living head
But one arise, we come, we come!
'Tis but the living who are dumb.'"
It is on those grounds that on all possible occasions I would seek to promote the cause of peace.
It must be clear to hon. Members, if they would remove from their minds a sense of partisanship, that there is an anxiety in the country about the conduct of our foreign affairs. That anxiety is apparent not only in this House but in the Metropolis and in those localities which we frequent when this House is up. I am going very respectfully to venture to criticise the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary towards Germany in the course of September last. I shall, first of all, deal with the right hon. Gentleman's explanations and excuses in the course of a speech which he made to his constituents at Cleckheaton. With him, I have a certain intimate interest in the West Riding. He said this:
"Again, I read comments about the British Note as though it was a sort of legal exercise which never attempted to deal with the heart of Germany's claim. Nothing could be further from the truth. That Note set aside legal propositions as not going to the root of the matter."
Again to-day he echoed that sentiment:
"It insisted that the strength of Germany's claim lay in the fact that the limitation of Germany's armaments contained in the Treaty of Versailles was intended to be, and announced to be the precursor of general limitation by others."
Again the right hon. Gentleman in the course of a reply to a deputation from the churches said:
"On the contrary, the Note was written for the purpose of saying that Germany's

597
claim and our duty could not be discussed in terms of technical law, and that that was not the proper way in which to regard the question. It was a Note which was designed to put aside technical and legal arguments as not being the ground which we should explore in order to insist that the real claim that was made upon the consideration of all the rest of us was a claim in the moral and not in the legal sphere. He admitted that its phraseology here and there might not always have made that plain, but he was very happy to take the opportunity of stating that the Note, which was not his individual production but the production of the Government, was designed for the purpose of removing to one side arguments which would themselves not be sound, and in any ease were technical, in order to make the real field for action and for debate clear and unmistakable."
I proceed to the Note itself. In paragraph 3 the right hon. Gentleman says:
"To state what the object or aim of a stipulation is, is a very different thing from making the successful fulfilment of that object the condition of the stipulation. Still loss is it possible to deduce as a matter of legal interpretation of the Treaty that the manner in which the object—the general limitation of armaments—was to be fulfilled was to be precisely the same as the manner in which Germany's armaments had been limited by Part V, for the only indication in the Treaty of the manner in which general disarmament is to be brought about is to be found in the very general words of Article 8 of the Covenant. The correct position under the Treaty of Versailles is that Part V is still binding, and can only cease to be binding by agreement."
I wonder how often in the course of his brilliant career at our common profession of which he is still the most illustrious ornament the right hon. Gentleman in a case of defamation in which he has been appearing for the plaintiff, has addressed the jury in these words: "Members of the Jury. You must remember that you have not to determine what the defendant intended to be understood but what a, reasonable person would take his meaning to be." Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman on constant occasions said that a reasonable man must be intended to assume the natural consequences of his own action? The natural consequences and reasonable inference from this Note in my humble submission is that it is a lawyer's—a distinguished lawyer's—opinion, nothing more nor less, as regards Paragraph 3. When we consider the highly sensitive and self-conscious condition of German mentality at the present time I can only say that it
598
was not perhaps so discreet a communication as should have been sent to that great people. Not only did may right hon. and learned Friend allow himself to adopt a legal manner in this communication but also in the course of his reply to the deputation from the Churches he said that it was not his own precise phraseology. There, again, I submit that that sort of argument will not do. I wonder what kind of comment he would make if a company promoter in the course of cross-examination—
Sir J. SIMON: I have the Note here now. I do not know in what way these things are dealt with in a court of law, but I know that it is quite certain that if my hon, Friend started to quote from a document and stopped at the point where he did he would receive extremely short shrift from judge and jury. The hon. Member has read an extract from Paragraph 3 and stopped, but the next sentence is this:
"So much has been stated for the purpose of clearing the ground. But His Majesty's Government do not understand that the case put forward by Germany is a legalistic deduction from the language of the Treaty of Versailles. It is rather an appeal for adjustment based on the fact that the limitation of Germany's armaments contained in the Treaty was intended to be, and announced to be, the precursor of general limitation by others."
I want the hon. Member to observe that he has quoted the last words which I used to-day with commendation. It would have been candid if he had pointed out that the very words occur in the very centre of the very document which he presumes to criticise by stopping at that point.
Mr. ADAMS: I am well aware of what is contained in the Note towards the end, but I submit that there is no reason for this elaborate legalistic clearing of the ground. I am not trying in the least to be impertinent or to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. Earlier in this Parliament the Board of Trade was perhaps the key ministry, later on it was the Treasury, but now it is the Foreign Office; and if I say things which may be considered to be hypercritical I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not resent them.
Sir J. SIMON: I certainly shall not.
Mr. ADAMS: I have often heard the right hon. Gentleman's intellect likened to a sword. I wish he would draw that sword and keep it drawn. I do not think that the Government in general and the right hon. Gentleman in particular are sufficiently in touch with that immense army of public opinion which wants the largest possible measures proposed by our Government at Geneva. The point surely is this, that the larger and more generous the proposals for disarmament which we can make the wider the area of general acceptance by other nations of the world; and when I see plans suggested by His Majesty's Government falling short of the Hoover plan I can only say that the ideal object is being damnified. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the next occasion to make the widest possible suggestions he can. I ask him very seriously indeed not to listen to the apprehensions which have been uttered to-day about the possibility of civil aviation being internationalised. In my judgment that would be one of the most magnificent things that could ever happen in the cause of humanity. After all, we are living in an entirely changed world. Before the War a measure of security was conferred upon us by our Navy, but with the development of aircraft there is now no such thing as security, and less than ever is it possible to say that we can by increasing or maintaining armaments get security.
Let me refer to a point made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) when he said that German behaviour was rather questionable so shortly after the War. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a young German of 18 years of age now reaching the prime and full vigour of life was, when the war broke out, only four years of age and could have had no conceivable responsibility whatever for it. The right hon. Member I know was suggesting that Germany should morally disarm. I suggest that moral and physical armaments cannot possibly be separated. It is the physical armaments of Europe which have prevented the moral disarmament of Germany. There is a Motion on the Order Paper in the name of hon. and gallant Members which I suggest is somewhat self-complacent and provocative to other nations. They suggest that to the Motion which I and 70 other of my hon. Friends have put on
600
the Order Paper should he added the words.
"To an extent equal to that already carried out by this country."
I know that there is an academic case for that kind of argument, but I suggest that their Amendment can be restated in this way—"The world is very mad, Great Britain is only moderately mad. Let the Government hasten, lest we are worsted in this honourable competition. Hurry brothers: we may miss the bus." We hear much of prestige and security; and on that point I go back to the argument that never again in the history of the world will there be any security by armaments. There is no longer any protection whatsoever against a sufficiently large body of foreign aircraft. Such sacrifice as is now being made in England is not in our prestige because we are not so strongly armed, but by the taxpayers of this country, for 25s. out of every £10 of Income Tax goes towards the provision of instruments of destruction. It really is a fantastic sum, and even that amount entirely excludes the provision for debt, which I know may be said to be money which passes from the right pocket of the nation to the left pocket of the nation. In conclusion, I suggest to the House that any prestige that now remains to Great Britain in an utterly changed world depends not so much upon the calibre of her cannon as upon the character of her citizens.
Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: In rising to address the House for the first time for three years I would like to reiterate the warning so often made in this Chamber by my very distinguished predecessor in the representation of St. Marylebone, Sir Rennell Rodd. It was briefly this: That all considerations of international disarmament, of land forces, are ludicrous unless one is prepared at the same time to take into account the abolition or anyhow the drastic reduction in future army reserves. All Continental armies, except, of course, that of Germany for the time being, are based upon a system of universal military service. On the other hand, Great Britain relies nearly entirely for its protection upon a small standing army. When, therefore, at successive disarmament conferences our army, already disproportionate to the very elementary need of

601
the policing of our Empire, is recommended for a reduction, pari passu, with Continental armies, I maintain that like is not being compared with like. If you reduce our effectives by, say, 25 per cent., you immediately reduce our security by that amount. On the other hand, if you reduce the effectives of Continental armies no possible comparison can be made, for the simple reason that the conscripts, the reserves, are still there. Up to now France has led the Continental Powers in refusing to allow the question of reserves to enter into disarmament discussions, and so Great Britain has entered into these discussions at a grave initial disadvantage, and a disadvantage 'which, to my mind, has not been sufficiently understood in the country as a whole.
8.30 p.m.
We have not had too much information concerning the new French proposals, but there bas been a certain amount, and I consider that these new proposals in no way change the situation as I have just outlined it. In fact they only go to intensify it. It only shows how right was Sir Rennell Rodd in his original premise. The last thing that France intends to do, if she can possibly prevent it, is to relinquish her reserves. What we have so far heard of the new French proposals is all to the advantage of France. As I understand them these are two of the new French proposals: First, that regular armies should be proportionate to the needs of Colonies. If that is the case it means that when an allocation is being made France would have an Army of anything over a quarter of a million men, whilst Germany to all intents and purposes would have no Army at all. A further suggestion that reserves should be disproportionate to population again is in France's favour, because, as we know, France at the moment is considerably perturbed by her falling birth rate.
If I may he presumptuous enough to say so, I would suggest that the whole problem should be approached from a better direction. Small armies for defensive purposes can be watched, and to some extent internationally controlled, possibly by a League of Nations; but on the other hand reserves can be hidden. It is very difficult indeed to define what is a reserve. There are so many private armies, Steel Helmets, and such like.
602
Some may say that Boy Scouts are a form of reserve. In fact reserves can be juggled with and their extent merely depends upon the fructification of a nation, and I have yet to learn that fructification can be internationally controlled.
It cannot be suggested that this country is lacking in the desire to "seek peace and ensue it," and therefore I trust that the very earnestness of this desire will fortify us against any further international confidence trick. I have read the proceedings of innumerable disarmament conferences. I have heard the possibility of future wars canvassed both inside and outside this House—Germany versus France, Germany versus Poland, Italy versus Yugoslavia, Russia versus Rumania—the choice is a wide one. As a bulwark against these impending catastrophies we are recommended to the League of Nations. The League during a fairly long existence has certainly stopped one small war in the Balkans and I think another one in South America. It should also have all praise for its efforts as regards the white slave and the drug traffic. But it has also turned a blind eye on one or two notable pieces of land grabbing by Powers that, to my mind, are too powerful to be coerced.
The League has enjoyed something more than its due meed of world praise. But what has been lacking is a general appreciation of the British Empire as the most powerful factor making for peace in the world to-day. We alone are in the unique position of having nothing to gain by war, and at the same time fearing no one. But by various pacts and treaties that well-meaning idealists have manoeuvred us into in the past, our hands have been somewhat tied. The ordinary man and woman in the country are deeply concerned about this and like matters which in calmer times they would have cheerfully left to the decision of the Foreign Office and to the Diplomatic Corps. In my own constituency I have been asked during the last month at least 12 times whether it is a fact that the Treaty of Locarno in certain circumstances would mean that this country would be compelled to fight with Poland against Germany. Does not the dangerously explosive condition in which Europe finds herself to-day, depend to a very large extent upon the hegemony that France has established? Surrounded by

603
her satellite States, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, she is able to go far towards imposing her will upon the entire Continent. For hundreds of years it has been the lesson of the world that for France to be predominant—and I do not want to confuse the word "predominant" with the word "prosperous," for we all want her to be prosperous—has been a sure sign that Europe is poor and confused.
I doubt if even the Foreign Secretary knows his way through the maze of treaties and agreements and various forms of ententes and pacts by which a peace-loving nation has become surrounded ever since the Peace Treaties, most of them committing us to armed intervention in certain circumstances. I agree that the French were our very gallant allies during the War, but I somehow feel during Debates such as this that we should not be carried away too much by sentiment and that for les yeux, however beaux, we ought not to allow ourselves to become further entangled.
A glance round the peoples of this world will show seething desires for which wars may be waged. Germany demands equality and also the possibility of renewed colonial expansion. Italy demands the opportunity of controlling the vital mineral supplies that lie just beyond her border. Japan demands an outlet for her surplus population. It is only Britain that makes no demands at all and, amid this welter of self-interest, it is only Britain that has the will to peace and at the same time the balance to keep it.
France demands a degree of security that no nation has ever yet possessed. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are, of necessity, in close touch with public opinion, will, I trust, bear me out when I say that during the last few years, and intensified during the last few months, public opinion has definitely changed in its attitude towards France and Germany. If this is the case I feel very strongly that France ought to be made aware of this change of attitude. Surely we have not yet reached the stage as a nation when we are no longer worth listening to by other Powers. If that is not the case, then I suggest that we should assert our national views at this forthcoming Conference in no uncertain manner. Let
604
us approach future proposals with a realisation, both of the extent to which we can be misled on the question of future armed reserves, and at the same time of the force for peace that an unbound and unfettered Britain might represent. I have reason to believe that, if this were done, a greater step forward would be made towards world peace and world prosperity than all the problematical decisions of a League of Nations where Guatemala and Nicaragua might very well have the casting vote upon some vital subject.
Mr. RICHARD LAW: I listened this afternoon to the statement of the Foreign Secretary with a great deal of relief. I must confess that I did, to some extent, share the misgivings which have been expressed by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams). There have been times in the last few months when my faith in the Foreign Secretary has not burned as brightly as probably it ought to have done. I am glad to feel that his statement to-day has restored to me a great deal of my faith. I am very sorry if it is the case that the Opposition will not be able to respond to the appeal so eloquently made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). If there is one thing certain in connection with the problem of disarmament and peace it is that this country at the moment is bound to be the leader at Geneva. As more than one speaker has pointed out, we enjoy at the moment tremendous prestige as a nation. Everyone knows that we are free from the political antagonisms and suspicions which distract so many of the nations of the world to-day and for that reason we must have a tremendous moral force at the Disarmament Conference. But anything which the Opposition does to-day to try to discredit the Government is bound to have the effect of weakening our influence at Geneva and weakening the cause in which the Opposition profess so lofty an interest.
In the course of this Debate the hon. Lady the Member for North Hammersmith (Miss Pickford) referred to the Hoover proposals. She pointed out, what is perfectly true, that the Hoover proposals, in so far as they imply a cut all round of 33⅓ per cent., would put us in this country at a disadvantage on account

605
of the disarmament which we have already voluntarily undergone. I think it is worth the consideration of this House and the Government whether it might not in the long run pay us to suffer even that disadvantage. This problem of peace and disarmament is not altogether a technical problem. It is technical in a large measure, but it is also a political problem, involving all sorts of political and economic considerations, and there is no doubt, as more than one hon. Member has said, that the influence of the United States of America is going to be tremendous, not only in the Disarmament Conference, but in the World Economic Conference which is to follow it. That influence is bound to be tremendous in the whole problem of the economic recovery of the world. In fact, I think most of us would agree that we cannot possibly achieve any real economic recovery without the close co-operation of the United States of America, and anyone who has lived there for any length of time would, I think, recognise that the desire for peace on the part of the people of that great country, although sometimes it may seem to us to express itself in rather curious ways, is almost their ruling political passion. Unless we try genuinely to meet that desire to some extent, we cannot hope for any real co-operation from the United States of America in solving our difficulties to-day.
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary expressed the view, with which think the great majority of people in this country will agree—it is a view which has been expressed by various Governments of this country—that we have proceeded far enough in the way of unilateral disarmament. Although I am extremely keen on disarmament, I must say that I agree with that view entirely. At the same time, I think we might very easily make a mistake if we were to stress too much what we have done in that direction, because if we do that, there is a. great danger that we may antagonise those interests which we must conciliate if we are to make the advance in disarmament which I believe everyone in this House, whatever his party, wishes to see.
The Foreign Secretary quoted from a speech by the right hon. Member for
606
Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who is not able to be with us to-day, as I understand he is engaged on business which is to him of more importance, in which he said that this country could not be expected just to fall into line with other countries in the way of international disarmament unless some allowance was made for the fact that we had already undergone a substantial measure of unilateral disarmament. That, again is a perfectly logical and, I think, correct attitude. But it can be pushed too far, and if we insist on that attitude to the letter, I think we shall find that nothing will be done at Geneva at all. If we are to make real progress at the Disarmament Conference, we must be prepared to sacrifice some of the unilateral disarmament already made, and to regard it, in a sense, as a bad debt. If we do not do that, I do not see how we can lead the Conference in any way; and if we do not lead the Conference, I do not see how it can be expected to succeed.
I am well aware that there are very grave risks attached to a policy of disarmament and that if we were, for example, to accede to the Hoover proposals just as they stand, we should be exposing ourselves to certain risks in regard to our trade routes. That is something which no one can deny. At the same time, we must realise that we shall be exposing ourselves perhaps to even greater risks if we adopt a policy of absolute passivity. And I believe the risks to this country from a failure of the Disarmament Conference are very much greater than any reasonable risks which we should run in a genuine effort to lead the world in the direction of disarmament.
I would like, before sitting down, to repeat something which was said to the Government by the hon. Member for West Leeds. There is, at any rate in the North of England, where my constituency is, a tremendous popular feeling for disarmament and for peace, and I believe that the people of the country are building the greatest hopes on the Disarmament Conference, in spite of its comparative failure up to date. If the statement to-day of the Foreign Secretary is any indication, I believe that we have very good grounds for supposing that those hopes will be fulfilled.
Miss GRAVES: I listened with very great interest to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, and I believe that this House will judge that statement as one of the great State documents. It has required all the skill of His Majesty's Opposition to search the newspapers for evidence to the contrary to get away from the implication, in their opposition to the Foreign Secretary's statement, that they are against disarmament. They have instead searched the German newspapers and found some sort of proof of the private exportation of arms. I leave it at that, because that is not the object with which I rose. I want to comment on the high level of the speeches in this Debate. Many Debates start on a high level, but this Debate has been maintained at a high level, and I think the reason for it is that the Debate has come about through public opinion. A hundred years ago—I may say that history does not repeat herself; I have to think this, because she was a feminine muse—the franchise became so much a part of public opinion that it forced its way through the House of Commons and, what was more difficult, through the House of Lords of those days; and to-day again there is an example of the weight and force and majesty of public opinion. It is that which has made itself felt to-day and which has maintained this Debate at its high level.
I would like to go back a little and trace the growth of that public opinion. My memory just serves me to recall the first Hague Peace Conference of 1898 when 26 States were summoned to bring about disarmament and compulsory arbitration. I would like, in passing, to note that Dibelius' book on England duly records thanks for the efforts of the British Government on that occasion in the cause of voluntary arbitration, which ultimately resulted in the establishment of the Hague Tribunal. That tribute was published some four years after the war was finished. In 1899, 44 States assembled at the Hague. They did little more than register the growth of public opinion. The other day, the Note from the British Government which recorded the determination of the British people to bring about disarmament and through disarmament the peace of the world as far as they could, mentioned
608
that 64 States would be represented at Geneva. I venture to think that this record of the growth of public opinion in one generation means more in the future than any hope that we may have, because it is not from Governments, it is not even from the ablest State document—one of the ablest of which we have heard this afternoon—that disarmament will come. It will come from public opinion. We can see for the first time some foundation on which can be built the security of the future. We remember the Kellogg Pact as a gesture. It was more than a gesture in the hearts of many people, and more than a gesture in the hearts of the nations that signed it. It will be remembered that, 20 other nations adhered to that Pact, but it remains a gesture, a pious wish; it remains possibly a source of mockery.
9.0 p.m.
Now we come to the beginning of the implementation of the Kellogg Pact. We have had this afternoon a first step towards its implementation. There can be no doubt in the minds of His Majesty's Opposition as to the sincerity with which the Foreign Secretary's statement was uttered, and as to the sincerity of the words it contained and of their meaning. The hon. Members on the Opposition Benches were appealed to earlier in the Debate by no uncertain voice, a very experienced voice, to join in this effort in the cause of peace. I should not presume to hope to succeed where another had failed, but I would remind the House that the Opposition stand now at the point where they can by a gesture unite with His Majesty's Government on this subject, which should be non-party. We have tried on this side to keep it nonparty, and I appeal to hon. Members opposite to come in and to make a gesture before the whole world that Great Britain stands united, that it is no question of party or of a National Government, but that Great Britain stands united in the cause of peace. The implementation of the Kellogg Pact can only be brought about by the faith—I do not say the opinion—but by the faith of the whole House. And let it be remembered that the implementation of the Kellogg Pact cannot be brought about until the feeling for world peace has got right away from a sense of party politics.
Mr. MANDER: An hon. Member from the other side of the House ventured to make an attack on the imperfections of the League of Nations. There is very little wrong with the League of Nations, but there is a good deal wrong with some of the members. It is purely an organisation, a piece of machinery, and it only functions as the delegates who go to Geneva make it function. I feel that in the last 12 months a good deal has been wanting in the way that some of the delegates have used that machinery with regard both to disarmament and to the policy in the Far East. I would not exclude from that criticism the representatives of our own Government. I hope that the important pronouncement we have had to-night means that there will be from now henceforth a vigorous and progressive policy pursued at the League of Nations on behalf of this country in all matters that are before it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made some reference to the Lytton Report, and I agree that he could not be expected to say here and now what he is going to do about it. I think, however, that lie went a little far in suggesting that the matter might be still in some way sub judice.
The Lytton Commission has been out in the Far East, the Japanese and Chinese have had a chance of putting their points of view, and every aspect of the problem has been investigated. While it may be only fair and courteous that the Japanese should be heard in any final submissions they want to make, the judgment has really been delivered in the Lytton Commission's report. I hope that the. Government will go to Geneva to base their actions on the recommendations of that most remarkable report, one of the finest documents ever put out in the history of the world. It is an example of the kind of work that the League is so well able to do. When they have a problem to solve, they hand it over to an expert committee of investigation, which brings them an agreed report. Such reports in every case so far have been put into operation to the satisfaction of all parties concerned in the long run. There are the cases of the Aland Islands, the dispute in Upper Silesia, and the Mosul dispute. The same procedure as in the case of Manchuria was adopted in those cases, and most successful solutions arrived at. The Lytton report
610
appeals to one, because it is not penal or punitive. Nobody ought to want to go into the past and lay blame and ask that judgment should be delivered on what has been done in Manchuria.
We want to make certain that a peaceful solution is arrived at. We do not want to look back on the past; we want to look into the future. The solution of the problem suggested by the Lytton Commission, if backed whole-heartedly and enthusiastically by the public opinion of the world, will, I believe, settle the problem, giving the Japanese all that they can reasonably ask, and giving the Chinese, of whom great concessions will be rightly asked, that claim to sovereignty for which they have the right to ask in Manchuria. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary goes to the League, he will allow the matter to be discussed by the Assembly of the League, which is seized of it, and not allow it to be dealt with solely by the Council. For many years past, and certainly during the present year, the Assembly has shown itself far more capable of taking a wide view, without any sectional prejudices, looking solely to the interests of the League and the world as a whole, and I hope that is the arena where the matter will be discussed and debated.
I have one other word to say to the Government with reference to what we might do for China. Our present Minister in China, Sir Miles Lampson, has served that country with great ability and distinction during the last two years. I understand he is about to retire, and the question of the appointment of a successor arises. I hope the Government will give most serious consideration to the possibility of appointing some Englishman of outstanding ability. If I might mention the sort of personality I have in mind, it would be someone like Lord Irwin. I do not want to deprive the Government of one of their brightest ornaments, but that is the type of personality who could render immense service to that country. In the next few years the Chinese will want someone to act as their guide, philosopher and friend, to be in constant contact with them and to tell them, out of the richness of our experience, the way in which it is wise to conduct their affairs. I have in mind the kind of service that was rendered by Lord D'Abernon to Germany after

611
the Was, or by Mr. Dwight Morrow to Mexico. There are many other and outstanding examples of similar service; in the work of Lord Durham, Lord Milner and Lord Cromer.
I hope the Government will consider also, whether it would not be right and advisable to move the Legation to Nanking. No doubt there was wisdom in waiting until things seemed to have settled down for certain in that place, but at present the Legation is 800 miles from the seat of the Chinese Government, and there is a good deal to be said, surely, for the British Minister being on the spot and in constant daily contact from every point of view with the Chinese Government. If the Foreign Office does not feel able to go quite as far as that, I hope they will consider going as far as the Japanese and Italian Governments have gone, and establishing the Legation at Shanghai. At any rate it is only a night's journey from Nanking and would put us in a far better position to give friendly advice to the Chinese Government than is possible from the remote place in which we are at the present time.
On the question of disarmament, one may have very strong feelings about what has happened in the past, about a certain lack of vigour and leadership, but I do not think that on an occasion like this one ought to harp on that, one must look to the future and the development we all believe may come out of the new pronouncement made to-night. I think that in the statement made we have wise, cautious and excellent advice, far better than anything this Government have put forward in the cause of disarmament before. I am afraid it means we are not going to take up that position of bold world leadership at Geneva such as one would like to see this great country occupy. America has put forward definite proposals as a lead to the world, Italy has put forward definite proposals and France is doing the same thing, but I still do not see, according to what the Foreign Secretary says, that there is any suggestion that we are going to put forward proposals of our own, rather, that we are going to act as conciliators, and in that capacity no doubt we may render very great services to the world. I should have liked to see this country
612
taking its proper place from the very beginning as the leader of the world in disarmament, as in so many other matters.
While one wants to welcome with gratitude the pronouncement which was made, it is impossible to assess its real value until we see how it works, how it develops, see the stand the Foreign Minister takes up at Geneva and the vigour and the enthusiasm with which he forces it forward on every possible occasion. If that policy is really going to be carried out on the lines of the pronouncement made, surely it involves inherently certain very important consequences. If we are going to get an agreement acceptable to Germany, to which she will voluntarily set her hand, we have to consider reducing or abandoning our claim to those weapons of offence or defence which were forbidden to her by the Treaty of Versailles, the use of monster battleships, bombing aircraft, tanks and submarines. We have to be open to surrendering the use of those weapons ourselves. As I understand it, that is inherent in the declaration made to-night. If it is not, then that declaration has no real meaning at all, because we can never satisfy Germany unless there is an approximation to her position along those lines. The Foreign Secretary said that Germany would have to be placed in the same position, to use the same arms, as we are. That may mean, as has been suggested, that she may have a token tank or a token bombing aeroplane, just to show that she is as a matter of fact nominally in the same position, but it cannot mean much snore than that, because otherwise there would be rearmament, and rearmament has been definitely ruled out.
The thing that has changed the whole position and that may make the Disarmament Conference a great success after all, is the attitude taken up by Germany. In the last few months Germany has made it clear that she is going to rearm if success is not obtained. That is nothing new. It has been said year after year for the last 10 years, and nobody should have been surprised when she said it and acted with such vigour as she did during the last few months. That action of Germany in holding us to the promise we solemnly made to her after the War

613
has brought the world up against a clear and definite choice, if ever there was one, between a real, drastic, disarmament convention, such as I hope may arise out of the Government's declaration to-day, or, on the other hand, inevitably the immediate preparation by all nations for a further and a bloodier war than we had a short time ago. I do not think that anybody can doubt that that is the issue that lies before us today, and I feel sure the Government will have behind them the wholehearted and enthusiastic opinion of this House and of the country in warding off such a terrible prospect.
There has been one real incident arising out of this Debate which I think is not without significance and which ought to be mentioned. I think we have all realised that there was among the new Conservative Members, who up to the present have, in their modesty, not been very vocal, an intense and sincere desire for disarmament. They have come out into the open on this occasion. There was an attempt by, if I may so call them, the Diehards, the more extreme and older Conservative Members, to tie the hands of the Government to some extent to the type of disarmament which they might support. The reaction to that was a movement among the younger Conservatives, expressing the real opinion of the National supporters of the Government on all sides of the House, showing that they were prepared to give the Government a free hand and not limit them in any action they may take to ensure the success of the Disarmament Conference. I am quite sure the Government will have behind them public opinion outside and support in this House if they stand up fearlessly to any sectional or vested interests who may try to tie their hands. I hope they will rise to the height of the great opportunity that lies before them to build in a real disarmament convention a barrier against the horrors and injustices of another war.
Mr. NUNN: I should not rise at this hour and after so much eloquence has been poured forth if it were not that I want to talk upon a particular aspect of the question. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has just referred to the Lytton Report. It is to that I wish to refer, and particularly to the last words of the Motion
614
on the Paper. Those words would seem to imply the Mover's desire that the Government should be controlled rather too strictly by the terms of the Lytton Commission Report. I think that I am not misrepresenting him by saying that he has some idea that the Government should confine their operations rather strictly to the terms of the report.
It will be observed that the Amendment gives rather more freedom to the Government. That is desirable. We all recognise that the Lytton Report is a very wonderful document, probably more wonderful in its tactfulness than in any other quality. There are incidents recorded in which a certain amount of blunt language might have been used. The incident of 18th September would have given an opportunity to a vitriolic pen, but the authors of the report have kept themselves within very diplomatic and tactful bounds. They have enlightened the public upon a great deal of the history, the recent history, particularly, of China. This House is not so much concerned to-night with what has passed, but with the situation that exists. The League of Nations, when it comes to discuss the matter, will be vitally concerned with what has passed, and it must to a certain extent base its action upon the history of what has taken place. We are concerned with the one plain fact that Japan is in Manchuria. Her presence there has been somewhat thinly veiled since the new State was formed, but Japan is controlling Manchuria. I make no comment upon how that came about.
In addition to the fact that Japan is controlling Manchuria and that there is the new State of Manchukuo, we have to remember the condition of China. Manchuria is cut off, for the time being at any rate, from China, and China is in a state of disorganisation. Large areas of China are under Communist control. In those areas where the word of the Government of Nanking passes to some extent, the control is weak. There is distress all over the country, amounting in very many cases to absolute starvation. Law and order are but weakly maintained anywhere in the country, and are not maintained at all in some areas. The people are in a very bad condition, and development is crippled. One would say that China is suffering in the birth pangs

615
of democracy, and that she is suffering very badly indeed. If ever She attains to full democratic institutions, she will have earned them.
I refer to the general Chinese situation because it does not seem possible that there can be a satisfactory settlement of the Manchurian question unless the whole question of good government in China can be taken into consideration also. We may assume that Manchuria can be given some form of autonomy under Nanking. That has been suggested. If that is so, for the control of Nanking to be made effective it is necessary for China to put its house in order. There can be no effective control of the subsidiary state by Nanking, unless there is some definite system of ordered Government in China itself. It has been suggested that the situation in Manchuria might be such as existed during the time when Marshal Chang Tso-Lin was the dictator of Manchuria. It seems to be forgotten that, when Marshal Chang Tso-Lin was the dictator of Manchuria, not only did he control Manchuria but, in his off moments, so to speak, he had the pleasant habit of descending upon Peking and of disturbing the good order in that area of China. This idea of setting up an autonomous Government in Manchuria with some sort of control from Nanking, exercised through a Governor of the Marshal Chang Tso-Lin type, would, and could, only result in another war-lord being set up in China. We should be very likely to have exactly the same condition of affairs as we had before. When that great war-lord was in Manchuria, he certainly did not deign to receive orders from Peking.
There must be military force in Manchuria for many years, owing to banditry and disorder, and it is necessary to have someone of a military character in charge of affairs there. That someone ought to be controlled from Peking. The only way in which that can be done is by restoring good government in China itself. The two processes are closely connected. If you are to restore good government in China, it is necessary to settle the Shanghai question. It is necessary for the Government to decide what is going to be done about the Feetham Report. It is much more important
616
for our Government to decide what they are going to do about a definite settlement in regard to the Chinese district court of Shanghai. The agreement and the conditions under which that court exists expire in March, 1933, a very few months ahead. So far as one is aware, nothing has been done towards setting up conditions under which that court shall continue its work, shall be reformed, or shall pass out of existence. The uncertain condition of that court was very largely responsible for the trouble which arose before the outbreak occurred in Shanghai. Had the court been able to deal with boycotters in Shanghai, it is extremely unlikely that there would have been any desire on the part of the Japanese to intervene, and none of that dreadful carnage would have occurred during the recent trouble in Shanghai. The question of the court lies at the bottom of most of Shanghai's troubles, and Shanghai lies at the bottom of most of the troubles in China.
Our Government have to consider very seriously not only the question of Manchuria, but the whole question of China, and to consider it before many days are past. It is necessary to establish in China a proper judicial system which shall be free from interference by politicians and by military persons. These are the conditions which exist at the present time, and they must be changed. I would ask that our Government should take this matter into consideration and, through the League of Nations, should, with other foreign nations, offer assistance to China in getting affairs put straight, and should give a guarantee that the best advice shall be given but not from a British Minister, whose position is a little difficult—I know that it was strongly advocated in a book which had a very large circulation that a great man should go there, and that the legation should be moved from Peking to Nanking. That found great favour in that book—not, I think by advice from a British Minister, but through ordinary channels by appointing experts for each of the Departments. Those experts could not possibly work, unless by arrangement with the League of Nations the Chinese Government has decided that their advice is to be accepted. I have had some little experience as adviser, and I am able to say from that that there is

617
nothing more uncomfortable for a man when he knows that his advice is reasonably good, at any rate, than to discover that his advice is simply put on one side. There is not much satisfaction in finding that nothing results from it, and I should be the last to suggest that advisers should be appointed to help China if we did not have some definite guarantee, at the same time, that the Chinese would, at least, pay attention to the advice given.
9.30 p.m.
I do not think that we need discuss to any great extent the position of Japan in Manchuria. I think that Japan knows very well that her position there cannot be permanent, and that the people of Manchuria are predominantly Chinese and do not want a Japanese regime. I do not believe Japan has any desire to do more in Manchuria than to maintain her very proper interests, adopt a proper attitude and see that she does not suffer there. Without in any way attempting to justify the attitude of the Japanese either in Manchuria or Shanghai, I think that, despite the trouble in both those places, the action of Japan will prove to have been good, on the whole, for China. At any rate, the action of Japan—a country which knows its own mind and has the courage to do something—has given an opportunity to the League of Nations to take this matter in hand and out of that evil—as you may describe it if you like—some good will come. The work we and the League can do on behalf of China is not merely work of pure humanitarianism; it has a very definite economic value. One likes to think of the humanitarian side, but there is the side which will appeal to our traders and commercial people. Until these countries are put right, there is no hope of that development taking place in Manchuria and China which should have been going on steadily ever since 1911. It has been a good market lost and remaining lost, and while we think of the humanitarian side of it, we have also to think of the practical, economic side. I hope our Government will take a strong line when this matter comes before the League of Nations. I hope the task they will take in hand will be a task which will have a successful culmination in a China restored to something like itself. It will be a great and very valuable achievement if some 400,000,000 patient, industrious and ex-
618
tremely hard-living people, the Chinese, can see as the result of what takes place at the next meeting of the League of Nations Council, some hope that in the future their lives will be well-ordered, well-governed and reasonably prosperous.
Brigadier-General SPEARS: I wish for a moment to go back to the Motion before the House. I, for one, welcome it because it puts a question which must be answered, and which to some extent has been answered by the Foreign Secretary. The question is: Are we or are we not going to maintain the principles of the Covenant of the League of Nations? It may seem late in the day to put this question, but it is fundamental. The reason why it is necessary to put this question is that this nation has never understood, has never been told and has never faced its obligations under the Covenant. This Government—every Government—has to bear a great responsibility. This nation, which longs for peace, has been taught to believe that merely to aspire to peace and to pass resolutions in favour of peace is an end in itself. No effort has been made to explain to our people what were the liabilities which they had contracted. We have undertaken very heavy obligations indeed under Article XVI of the Covenant and under the Pact of Locarno. We have undertaken obligations which may entail naval or military intervention. Our people have never understood these obligations, and, on the other hand, the people of Europe have had no idea up to date whether if it came to the point the people of this country would honour their obligations or would not.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to a speech made by M. Herriot at Toulouse, a speech which did honour to him who made it and did honour to the people to whom he referred. M. Herriot said it had never entered his head for a moment that the British people would not honour their signature, but the point is whether M. Herriot's conception of our obligations and our own conception of them coincide? The other day I read an article in the French newspaper "Le Temps" by one of the most reputable writers, a man well known for his moderation and for his desire for a better understanding with Germany, M. Vladimir d'Ormesson. He said that in case there was a conflict on the Polish frontier between Germany and Poland, under the Locarno Conven-

619
tion, or rather under the Acts which were signed as complementary to the Locarno Pact, England was bound to intervene should there be an armed conflict on that frontier. I was thoroughly startled when I saw that article. It is an example of the different interpretation of one pact as between ourselves and Continental nations. I have often been asked by statesmen of different countries whether I was sure that our people would do this, that or the other, and I felt that I could never be so bold as even to surmise what our action would actually be. This uncertainty as to what would be our action in given circumstances has been one of the most fruitful causes of the instability of Europe to-day.
I was very glad to see from the papers to-day that the Lord President of the Council said yesterday that the Government will stand by its obligations. That was a very welcome statement, and it was repeated with considerable emphasis by the Foreign Secretary; but may I respectfully say that, until the nation as a whole thoroughly understands what its obligations are, neither the Lord President of the Council nor the Foreign Secretary can assert with confidence that it will subscribe to its obligations. This nation has certainly no wish to repudiate its obligations, but, on the other hand, it may well he that those obligations are too vague and too extensive. We have now a unique opportunity of narrowing and defining them.
Two new factors make this possible. In the first place, there are the declarations which have been made by Mr. Stimson, the American Secretary of State. I was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman mention them, and draw attention to the importance of those statements, which, so far, seem to have escaped the attention of people in this country. What those statements amount to is that the United States renounces the right of neutrality in case of a breach of international peace, and it is, perhaps, of equal importance to note that, the French proposals, which have been so deservedly commended during this Debate, are based upon Mr. Stimson's statements.
His declarations have eliminated one of our greatest difficulties under the Covenant of the League. Before this, we
620
might have found ourselves in conflict with the United States if we had blockaded a breaker of the peace, but, with the ratification of the Briand-Kellogg Pact and Mr. Stimson's interpretation of it, that danger no longer exists. The United States have realised the validity of the old principle of our common law that there can be no neutrality in the face of crime. A London magistrate the other day reminded the public that individuals who had come to watch the hunger-marchers were guilty of an indictable offence if they did not come to the assistance of the police if called upon to do so. Under the interpretation which as been placed by Mr. Stimson on the Briand-Kellogg Pact, just as a private citizen now is guilty of an indictable offence if he does not come to the help of the police in case of a breach of the peace, so a nation has not the right to abstain and stand aside in case of a breach of international peace. This fact also removes once and for all another of our great difficulties, the difficulty implicit in the theory of the freedom of the seas.
As regards the French proposals, which we must all recognise as a very great effort in the cause of peace, it is obvious that they cannot be accepted as a whole, but they form an admirable basis for discussion. There is, however, one of the proposals which is startling. It advocates the creation of a kind of small expeditionary force, heavily armed, to be held at the disposal of the League of Nations. I do not see how there can very well be, in the same nation, a militia on the one hand and a kind of Pretorian Guard on the other. I think that this Pretorian Guard or expeditionary force will cause alarm and suspicion abroad, and that, furthermore, it will be a danger to democracy in the country where it exists. In countries where Parliamentary institutions are not as firmly established as they are in this country, there is real danger in having a small mercenary army at the disposal of a Government, because that force may well fall into wrong hands.
As I read the French proposals, my mind went back to a Debate in this House on the Adjournment during the summer, on the subject of the Disarmament Conference, and I could not help contrasting the very constructive effort

621
of the French plan with the lamentable impression that many of us received as a result of that Debate. The hearts of many of us sank as we listened to the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion. I am glad to say that impression has been very largely corrected by what we have heard from him to-day. I feel that I must go back to what has happened within the last month or two, because it is important. Last summer we had seen the Foreign Secretary start off for Geneva with all the good will of this nation. We hoped he was going to assist at the birth of peace. Never were greater hopes centred on the skill of a midwife. When he returned from his attendance on the labours of the mountain at Geneva., and he came to this House to announce the happy event, we found that he held in his arms a very, very small mouse, and a very sick mouse at that. We had hoped for so much that it was humiliating to think that this great country, so full of good will, so admirably placed outside the turmoil of European politics, had contributed so little.
The British proposals at Geneva showed that we had tackled the problem at the wrong end. We had lost sight of the fact that what the world wants is the abolition of war. The efforts of the British delegation had been confined to niggling attempts at regulating war. The Hague Convention was also an attempt to regulate war, and that attempt failed. The British proposals at Geneva were merely another attempt to regulate war. What else but an attempt to regulate war can you call qualitative disarmament? As for the attempt to lay down rules for the humane conduct of war, the Hague Convention also attempted to do that and failed. We all know that regulations may he made to do away with poison gas and to forbid the bombing of civil populations, but they will be violated by any nation that is fighting for its life. I must say that, in the face of the desire of the whole world for permanent peace the proposals we made this summer seemed paltry. It is sad to think that we were confining our efforts to regulating the size of battleships, limiting the size of guns on cruisers to 6.1 inches, and seeing whether tanks were offensive weapons or not. We really wanted something more. The truth is that the British proposals lost sight of
622
the fact that, although disarmament in itself is a very important question, disarmament in itself is not sufficient to ensure peace, and history proves that to be true. One of the bloodiest wars that have ever taken place was that between the Northern and Southern States of America and, when that war started, those States were certainly not armed according to European standards.
What is wanted is to implement the will to peace, and this can only be done if, in the first place, the nations feel safe, and if, in the second, they feel that they can obtain justice. As the British proposals did nothing whatever to meet those two necessary conditions, they did little more than tinker with the problem of disarmament. It is sad to say it, but we failed in leadership. A month or two ago, when the most important developments were taking place at Geneva, the whole of Europe looked to us to give them a lead, and that lead was not forthcoming. The best we can now do is to follow the lead given us by the United States and France, and I was very glad to see that that is apparently the intention of the Government.
Our vacillations have bewildered most nations and they have misled Germany. Germany thought we were encouraging her to repudiate her Treaty obligations, and that is why Germany received such a shock when it received the right hon. Gentleman's Note of 18th September. I hope Germany now understands that this country will not stand unilateral repudiation on her part or on anyone else's part, but, on the other hand, our people will, I feel certain, support any just claim that Germany may put forward. I was delighted with the right hon. Gentleman's statement in that respect. The greatest proof of sincerity and courage and of determination to stand by its obligations under the Covenant that the Government can give is to support the League of Nations whatever decision it may take in regard to Manchuria. I beg the Government, as other speakers have begged them, to be firm and to outline a clear policy in regard to the Disarmament Conference. Otherwise, if we fail to do this, may I say what other speakers have said with all the conviction of which I am capable, that we shall have war, and, if there is war, we cannot escape being

623
involved in it. There are in this country a lot of small boys growing up, little chaps whom we tend and look after, who mean everything to us because they are our sons. Let us do everything that within us lies so that at least they shall be spared from going through what we ourselves went through.
Mr. LANSBURY: I think everyone will agree that this discussion has been well worth while, and, although we were gently chided by the right hon. Gentleman for having put down a rather too nebulous Motion instead of a red hot Motion of censure, I think that the fact that we put down such a Motion is evidence that we wanted, if possible, to have a discussion without the inconvenience that a pure and simple party Resolution would involve. Most Members who have spoken have agreed very considerably with the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman gave as a reason for not accepting it the fact that we had talked about a Motion of censure. I think we had better be judged by what is on the Paper than by what people are talking about. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) are important ones, and we consider that this question of the private manufacture of armaments, and the tremendous vested interest that there is in that industry, both in this country and everywhere else, make it imperative that the Government should take the matter in hand. It will be a great scandal if it comes about that firms in this country are supplying arms in places where arms are prohibited.
I am rather sorry—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is going to do it—that no one has said anything about the World Economic Conference. We on this side feel that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) has just said lies at the root of this question, namely, the will to peace; not merely the will to disarm, but the will to peace. Peace in our view depends very largely upon the economic conditions in the world. Nations do not go to war merely for the sake of going to war. There are reasons, and usually they are economic reasons. A nation like Japan desires to expand
624
out of her own country. She invades Manchuria and defends her invasion on the plea that the economic and social development of her country makes it necessary that she should have room to expand.
10.0 p.m.
I believe that the late War very largely arose from the same kind of conditions in regard to Germany. I have listened in this House to pre-War speeches. I remember how the present Lord Grey of Fallodon, then Sir Edward Grey, defended the policy of the Liberal Government on the question of disarmament, and the discussion to-day has followed very much upon those lines. No one wants war. Everybody wants peace. Everybody wants disarmament leading to peace, but no one up to the present has come down accepting what is really the root problem between the nations, namely, the economic conditions of the world. Unless this Government and the Governments of the world tackle that problem and tackle it speedily, we on this side of the House do not think that there is much prospect of international peace or of disarmament. It is very easy to brush these things aside, but the whole of the differences between the French and the Germans in regard to Alsace and Lorraine, the fight between those nations for those provinces, has very largely been economic. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the history and the condition of the country to-day proves that quite conclusively. People do not want anywhere in the world to annexe or to hold provinces which are of no economic use to them. We wish to impress that point upon the Government. We hope that they will not allow, as far as in them lies, any postponement of the World Economic Conference, and that they will do, as they say they want to do, everything possible to bring about a meeting at the very earliest possible date. With regard to Manchuria and to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that European Powers should sign another sort of peace pact in a way outlawing any nation that breaks the peace, I ask the House of Commons seriously to consider what the proposition means. The right hon. Gentleman also said that Great Britain always honoured her signature. I will put a point to the House and the House can decide in its own mind. Nine Powers

625
signed the Washington Pact guaranteeing the integrity of the Chinese Republic. That Pact was broken and so far nothing has been done. The Japanese invaded Shanghai and bombarded defenceless villages, and nothing but wordy protests were made. [Interruption.] Yet Japan, Great Britain and America had signed the treaty. I ask—and I hope die right hon. Gentleman will answer the question—of what earthly use is it to sign treaties if they are of no value What are the Chinese to think of the Nine-Power Pact?
When the right hon. Gentleman says, "Let us have another one for Europe," I would ask him what about the Kellogg Pact and the Covenant of the League? What is the use of saying to the world, "Let us have another treaty of non-aggression, let us have another treaty, saying that under certain conditions we will do this and do the other," when we know perfectly well that we have already signed treaties to the same effect. It is rather nonsensical to ask the British public to believe that it will be a step towards peace. I wish I had the chance of seeing the statesmen of the world face to face, for I would say to them," In heaven's name or in the name of the honour of your own countries do not sign another document which you do not intend to honour." If you mean peace, you do not need to sign documents about it. There is no reason to sign documents between honourable people. If they really want peace, they can easily obtain it without making false promises to one another and attaching their signature to them. Therefore, we take no stock whatever of the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman that there should be another Pact between the European nations. If the nations will not honour the Kellogg Pact and the Covenant of the League of Nations, it is no use saying, "Let us have a third one." The whole of the nations ought to honour the agreements they have already made. Will the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what they mean in reference to these propositions in regard to Germany. I have read the document, and it reads like all documents the right hon. Gentleman would prepare. It reads fair and good, and, to a very large extent, is worthy of approval, but what does it really mean? Where do you start with the Germans? I understand that we as a nation admit the right of
626
the Germans to ask us to carry out our pledged word in the Treaty of Versailles. There, again, is a question for the nations of the world. They pledged themselves when they signed that Peace Treaty by saying to the German people: "We have imposed upon you disarmament of the most crushing character." Rather, I should say, disarmament of a most beneficent character. [Interruption.] Yes, beneficent. Not from the point of view of penalising the German people but from the point of view of setting an example to the world to live without armaments.
The nations of Europe have performed a great disservice to the German nation by not following their pledged word and disarming themselves when they had disarmed Germany. They have given Germany every right to come forward now and say: "You have imposed this upon us. You gave us an honourable pledge, or what we thought was an honourable pledge, that you would disarm in the same manner as you disarmed us." We have done nothing. When I say, "We," I mean the Great Powers. The Great Powers, ourselves included, have not honoured the letter or the spirit of our pledge. Is anyone going to say that Great Britain has disarmed in relation to Germany? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] The thing is too nonsensical to think of. We talk about scraps of paper, but this supposed Peace Treaty, signed between the Great Powers and Germany, has never been honoured, and the result is that Germany has got sick with hope deferred. They believed that we were going to take the lead in bringing about disarmament. We have not done so, and the German people have been forced to come right out into the open and say: "You are not carrying out your word. Your Disarmament Conference goes on month after month and nothing is done. Now we are going to take the matter into our own hands, and re-arm"
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: Is the British Government in favour of Germany re-arming? Does anyone on the benches opposite think that it will be a good thing for the peace of Europe if Germany should re-arm? Does anyone think so? We on these benches think it will be the most terrible thing for Europe if there is another race in

627
armaments between France and Germany. That brings me to another point. What is the datum line from which the right hon. Gentleman proposes that Germany and France should start in the matter of disarmament? France has a whole ring of fortresses dividing her from Germany; the Germans have none. France has something like 10,000 big gums; the Germans have 17. What is the point of reduction at which the French are going to say to the Germans: "This is where we start. After two years it will be lower, and so on, until we have equality." If there is any reality in the document that the right hon. Gentleman has put before us, it is very essential that we should know what the British Government is going to say to the German people on this very vital question.
Can the Government give us a statement showing the position of armaments in Europe to-day and how each nation stands, how Czecho-Slovakia stands, how Poland stands, how Yugo-Slavia and the new nations stand in regard to armaments? Somebody has found them the money. What we would like to know, when you are offering to put Germany on an equal status with the rest in considering the question of a convention regarding armaments is, what does that mean in the terms of reduction of armaments with regard to France and the rest of her neighbours. That is a very vital question and one which ought to be answered. The Foreign Secretary in his speech to-day said, quite truly, that we recognise the position of the German nation and the justice of her claim. I should like to tell him why we cannot accede to the request that has been made to us that we should withdraw our Motion. It is because we look back during the months that the present Government have been in office and during the period of the Disarmament Conference, and we have failed to discover what real contribution the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have made to the discussion of this problem.
It is no use our blinking the feet that most of the other Governments, of the big Powers, with the exception of Japan, have tabled propositions a one sort or another. The Russians tabled a proposition for universal disarmament. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh
628
and jeer. I heard those laughs and jeers in this House during the two years 1910–12. The same sort of jeering went on about all other nations except ourselves. I should have thought that those nations that really believe in disarmament might, as the Dominions Secretary does when he plays, have called a bluff. If it was bluff you might have said to the rest of the Powers: "Here are these wicked Bolsheviks. They put forward a proposition which we know they do not mean. Let us take them at their word and test them on the matter." It is not a question of whether they mean it or not. It is a question of what you mean. It is very easy to sit in judgment on somebody else. Hon. Members have made speeches tonight about peace and disarmament. Do they mean disarmament some day, some time? Do they mean total (disarmament? If they do, why not to-day? [Interruption.] Why not? The attitude of mind of the hon. Member opposite who is in fits of laughter is the attitude of most people who talk about peace and disarmament; it is to-morrow not to-day.
This question of disarmament and peace has got to be brought right down to bed rock. Do we really want total disarmament or not? I want total disarmament, and if there is any nation which proposes total disarmament it is the duty of the British Government to support it and get it carried by the other nations. You do not like the Russian proposition, you do not like the Italian proposition. Nobody can please you. And then Mr. Hoover comes along with proposals and they are discussed and talked about, but nothing happens. The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes speeches here and at Geneva but nothing comes of them; and after weeks we have another set of proposals, the French proposals. All I have to say is that if these proposals mean an increase of military forces in Europe, no matter whether they are conscript or voluntary, or militia, if they mean an increase, it is good-bye to disarmament and to peace. There is not a single hon. Member who will not admit that this is absolutely true. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied with what the Foreign Secretary has told us to-day. He has not told us how he proposes to accomplish the first stage or how he proposes to proceed afterwards, and he has mot bold us what steps he proposes to take for security amongst nations.

629
An hon. Member has spoken of the obligations we are under to guarantee the peace of Europe. I do not believe that the people of this country know the nature of these obligations, and I should very much like the Government to publish a memorandum telling us exactly what it is we are obliged to do. I do not want to see us going into war again in the defence of small nationalities as we went last time. Nobody believes that that was the cause of the War at all, and, therefore, I join with the hon. Member in asking that we shall be told very soon, not years after the catastrophe has happened, as we were told about the engagements entered into previous to the last War, but told now and told in plain English of our obligations so that the common person can understand them. Mr. Stimson has told us that under the Kellogg Pact nobody can be neutral in future. I should have thought that that was a reason for saying that if there are to be armaments we are going to see that all the armaments in the world are under one international authority, not leaving nations to arm themselves to the teeth and then set about trying to prevent them fighting one another.
I do not believe that the question has been thought out thoroughly or intelligently. The issues involved to the British people are tremendous, that is if it is true that a war on the Polish frontier between Germany and Poland means that we shall have to send British troops across the water again in defence of one side or other. The people of this country should know and understand the position quite clearly. Further, more consideration ought to have been given to the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on the nationalisation of civil aviation. There has been a great deal of debate and discussion on that subject. In the midst of the last War, I think in the last year of the War, the late Lord Brassey wrote to the "Times" and pleaded that the narrow waterways of the world should be internationalised. I think it would have been a very good thing if in the Peace Treaty that had been done. Now one of the best means of securing peace in the world would be to internationalise civil aviation. We would then have no quarrelling about air routes or air stations, but we would have them open and free for the use of ail the nations of the world. I believe
630
that that would be one of the greatest preservatives of peace.
I am always rather shocked during and at the end of these discussions because we seem to have got so far away from war conditions. I shall to-morrow represent my friends here at the Cenotaph, where we shall see tremendous crowds of people, who will process in order to do honour to the multitudes who died in the last War. Everybody said, "This is a war to end war," yet here we are, 13 years after the Armistice, discussing the beginning of disarmament in the world; here we are denying to each other the possibility of peace in the world; talking about signing new agreements; talking about making new arrangements. I heard the eloquent appeal of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) to us not to press this Motion. I say again that we are pressing this Motion because in our judgment the Government—not this Government only, but the Government of which I was a member and all Governments since the Armistice—have not done their duty in this matter. We have not done all that we ought to have done to bring this issue to trial, not any of us; none of us is free. I do not want the House to think that I am standing here in a self-righteous way. None of us is free of responsibility in the matter. We have not done our duty in regard to peace and disarmament.
I ask the House not to reject our Motion, which is a perfectly simple one, asking that the fullest measure of disarmament shall be demanded by the Government, asking that they shall turn over a new leaf, and go to the Disarmament Conference to do everything in their power to honour those whom every one at 11 o'clock to-morrow will be honouring by standing still. We have not been able to do justice to the disabled men, to the men who served in the War. Many of them are starving or semi-starving in our streets. We have not been able to do justice to them. Then, I say, in God's name do justice to their children and save them from the infamy of another war.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I find myself, at the close of a most interesting Debate which has been well worth while—I should not have regretted a second day of it, because there have been a number of most interesting individual contributions

631
—in profound agreement with one or two of the opening observations of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Disarmament in my view will not stop war. That is a matter of the will to peace. That is absolutely right. As I have often said, there are two natural instincts that make for the preservation of the race—the reproduction of the species and the preservation of the species by fighting for its safety—and the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right that the fighting instinct is the oldest that we have in our nature. That is what we are up against, and I agree with him in that, although he did not actually say it in that way. The highest duty of statesmanship is to work to remove the causes of war. We shall all be in agreement with that. That is the difficult and constant duty of statesmen and that is where true statesmanship is shown. But what you can do by disarming and what we all hope to do is this—to make war more difficult, to make it more difficult to start, to make it pay less to continue, and to that end I think, we ought to direct our minds.
I have studied these matters for many years. My duty has made me chairman for five years of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and I sat continuously for 10 years on that committee, except during the period when the present Opposition were in power. There is no subject which interests me more deeply, nor is there one which is more fraught with the well-being or ill-being of the human race. What the world suffers from—and I have said this before—is a sense of fear, a want of confidence, and it is a fear held instinctively and without knowledge very often. But in my view, and I have slowly and deliberately come to this conclusion, there is no one thing more responsible for that fear—I am speaking now of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) called the common people of whom I am chief—there is no greater cause of that fear than the fear of the air. Up to the time of the last War, civilians were exempt from the worst perils of war. They suffered sometimes from hunger, sometimes from the loss of sons and relatives serving in the Army, but now, in addition, they suffer from the fear, not only of being killed themselves, but, what is
632
perhaps worse for a man, the fear of seeing his wife and children killed from the air.
10.30 p.m.
These feelings exist among the ordinary people throughout the whole civilised world, and I doubt if many of those who have that fear realise one or two things with reference to its cause. One is the appalling speed which the air has brought into modern warfare. The speed of air attack, compared with the attack of an army, is as the speed of a motor car to that of a four-in-hand and in the next war you will find that any town which is within reach of an aerodrome can be bombed within the first five minutes of war from the air, to an extent which was inconceivable in the last war, and the question will be whose moral will be shattered quickest by that preliminary bombing? I think it is well also for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through, and it is very easy to understand that, if you realise the area of space. I said that any town within reach of an aerodrome could be bombed. Take any large town you like in this island or on the Continent within such reach. For the defence of that town and its suburbs, you have to split up the air into sectors for defence. Calculate that the bombing aeroplanes will be at least 20,000 feet high in the air, and perhaps higher, and it is a matter of simple mathematical calculation—or I will omit the word "simple"—that you will have sectors of from 10 to hundreds of millions of cubic miles to defend. I beg pardon. I am not a mathematician, as the House will see. I mean tens or hundreds of cubic miles. Now imagine 100 cubic miles covered with cloud and fog, and you can calculate how many aeroplanes you would have to throw into that to have much chance of catching odd aeroplanes as they fly through it. It cannot be done, and there is no expert in Europe who will say that it can. The only defence is in offence, which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves.
I just mention that at the beginning of what I have to say that people may realise what is waiting for them when the next war comes. The result of all

633
this is, and the knowledge of it, which is probably more widespread on the Continent than in these islands is, that in many parts of the Continent, I am told, open preparations are being made to educate the population how best to seek protection. They are being told by lectures; they have considered, I understand, the evacuation of whole populated areas which may find themselves in the zone of fire; and I think I remember to have seen in some of our English illustrated papers pictures of various experiments in protection that are being made on the Continent. There is one very interesting feature of that. There was the Geneva Gas Protocol, signed by 28 countries in June, 1925, and yet I find that in these experiments on the Continent people are being taught the necessary precautions to take against the use of gas dropped from the air. I may have something to say on that later on.
I will not pretend that we are not taking our precautions in this country. We have done it. We have made our investigations, much more quietly and hitherto without any publicity, but, considering the years that are required to make your preparations, any Government of this country in the present circumstances of the world would have been guilty of criminal negligence had they neglected to make their preparations. The same is true of other nations. What more potent cause of fear can there be than this kind of thing that is going on on the Continent? And fear is a very dangerous thing. It is quite true that it may act as a deterrent in people's minds against war, but it is much more likely to act to make them want to increase armaments to protect them against the terrors that they know may be launched against them. We have to remember that aerial warfare is still in its infancy, and its potentialities are incalculable and inconceivable.
How have nations tried to deal with this terror of the air? I confess that the more I have studied this question the more depressed I have been at the perfectly futile attempts that have been made to deal with this problem. The amount of time that has been wasted at Geneva in discussing questions such as the reduction of the size of aeroplanes, the prohibition of the bombardment of the civil population, the prohibition of
634
bombing, have really reduced me to despair. What would be the only result of reducing the size of aeroplanes? As soon as we work at this form of warfare, immediately every scientific man in the country will turn to making a high explosive bomb about the size of a walnut and as powerful as a bomb of big dimensions, and our last state may be just as bad as the first.
The prohibition of the bombardment of the civil population, the next thing talked about, is impracticable so long as any bombing exists at all. We remember in the last war areas where munitions were made. They now play a part in war that they never played in previous wars, and it is essential to an enemy to knock those areas out. So long as they can be knocked out by bombing and no other way, you will never in the practice of war stop that form of bombing. The prohibition of bombing aeroplanes or of bombing leads you to two very obvious considerations when you examine the question. The first difficulty. about that is this—will any form of prohibition of bombing, whether by convention, treaty, agreement or anything you like, be effective in war? Frankly, I doubt it, and in doubting it, I make no reflection on the good faith of either ourselves or any other country. If a man has a potential weapon and has his back to the wall and is going to be killed, he will use that weapon whatever it is and whatever undertaking he has given about it. Experience has shown us that the stern test of war will break down all conventions.
I will remind the House of the instance which I gave a few weeks ago of the preparations that are being made in the case of bombing with gas, a material forbidden by the Geneva Protocol of 1925. To come a little more closely home, let me remind the House of the Declaration of London, which was in existence in 1914, and which was whittled away bit by bit until the last fragment dropped into the sea in the early spring of 1916.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It was never ratified.
Mr. BALDWIN: No, but we regarded it as binding. Let me also remind the House as I have reminded them before, of two things in the last war. We all

635
remember the cry that was raised when gas was first used, and it was not long before we used it. We remember also the cry that was raised when civilian towns were first bombed. It was not long before we replied, and naturally. No one regretted seeing it done more than I did. It was an extraordinary instance of the psychological change that comes over all of us in times of war. So I rule out any prospect of relief from these horrors by any agreement of what I may call local restraint of that kind. As far as the air is concerned, there is, as has been most truly said, no way of complete disarmament except the abolition of flying. Now that, again, is impossible. We have never known mankind go back on a new invention. It might be a good thing for this world, as I have heard some of the most distinguished men in the Air Service say, if man had never learned to fly. But he has learned to fly, and there is no more important question, not only before this House, but before every man, woman and child in Europe, than: "What are we going to do with this power now we have got it?" I make no excuse for bringing this subject forward to-night to ventilate it in this first Assembly in the world, in the hope that perhaps what is said here may be read in other countries and may be considered and pondered, because on the solution of this question hangs not only, in my view, our civilisation, but before that terrible day comes there hangs the lesser question, but a difficult one, of the possible re-armament of Germany with an air force. The two things are inextricably wrapped up together.
That brings me to the next point. There have been some paragraphs the Press which look as though they were half inspired—by which I mean it looks as if somebody had been talking about something he had no right to talk about to someone who did not quite comprehend him—in which a suggestion was put forward for the abolition of the air forces of the world and the international control of civil aviation. Let me put that in a slightly different way. I am firmly convinced myself, and have been for some time, that if it were possible the air forces ought all to be abolished, but if they were there would still be civil
636
aviation, and in civil aviation there are the potential bombers. It is all very well using the phrase "international control," but nobody knows quite what it means, and the subject has never been investigated.
That is my answer to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) to whose speech I listened with very much interest. In my view it is necessary for the nations of the world concerned—and I will make a remark about that in a moment—to devote the whole of their minds to this question of civil aviation, to see if it is possible so to control civil aviation that such disarmament will be feasible. I said the nations whom it concerns, because this is not a subject on which a nation that has no air force or no air sense has any qualification to express a view. I think that such investigation should only be made by the nations who have air forces and who possess an air sense, and undoubtedly, although she has not an air force, Germany should be a participant in any such discussions as might take place. Such an investigation would be, under the most favourable circumstances, bound to last a long time, for there is no more difficult or more intricate subject even assuming that all the participants were desirous of coming to a conclusion.
So, in the meantime, there will arise the question of disarmament only, and on that I will say but a word. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division raised a point there. He pointed out quite truly that this country had never even carried out the very modest programme which was adopted by Mr. Bonar Law's Government in 1922 or 1923 as the then minimum requisite, in the opinion of the Government, for the safety of this country. He expressed the fear, the very natural and proper fear, lest we, with a comparatively small Air Force among the large air forces of the world, should disarm from that point and that the vast difference between our strength and the strength of some other nations would remain relatively as great as it is to-day. That kind of disarmament does not recommend itself to the Government. I may assure him that the point which he made has been

637
very present to our minds and that in my view the position is amply safeguarded.
I would make only one or two other observations on this subject, my desire having been to attract the minds of people to this subject. It has never really been much discussed or thought out, and yet, to my mind, it is far the most important of all the questions of disarmament, bemuse all disarmament hangs on the air. As long as the air exists, you cannot get rid of the fear of which I spoke, and which I believe to be the parent of many troubles. One cannot help reflecting that, after the hundreds of millions of years during which the human race has been on this earth, it is only within our generation that we have secured the mastery of the air. I certainly do not know how the youth of the world may feel, but it is not a cheerful thought to the older men that, having got that mastery of the air, we are going to defile the earth from the air as we have defiled the soil during all the years that mankind has been on it. This is a question for the younger men far more than it is for us. They are the men who fly in the air. Future generations will fly in the air more and more.
Few of my colleagues around me here, probably, will see another great war. I do not think that we have seen the last great war, but I do not think there will be one just yet; at any rate, if it does
come, we shall be too old to be of use to anyone. What about the younger men? How will they investigate this matter? It is they who will have to fight, and it is they who will have to fight out this bloody issue of war. It is realty for them to decide. They are the majority upon the earth, and the matter touches them fax more closely. The instrument is in their bands. There are some instruments so terrible that mankind has resolved not to use them. I myself happen to know of at least three inventions, deliberately proposed for use in the last War, that were never used—potent to a degree and inhuman.
If the conscience of the young, men should ever come to feel with regard to this one instrument that it is evil and should go, the thing will be done; but if they do not feel like that—well, as I say, the future is in their hands. But when the next war comes, and European civilisation is wiped out, as it will he and by no force more than by that force, then do not let them lay the blame upon the old men. Let them remember that they, they principally or they alone, are responsible for the terrors that have fallen upon the earth.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 402.

Division No. 359.]

AYES

[10.51 p.m.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Batey, Joseph

Groves, Thomas E.

Maxton, James

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Milner, Major James

Buchanan, George

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

Nathan, Major H. L.

Cape, Thomas

Hicks, Ernest George

Parkinson, John Allen

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jenkins, Sir William

Price, Gabriel

Cove, William G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Tinker, John Joseph

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Dagger, George

Lawson, John James

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Leonard, William

Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Edwards, Charles

Logan, David Gilbert

Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

Lunn, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

McEntee, Valentine L.

NOES

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

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

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

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

Aske, Sir Robert William

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Astbury, Lieut.-Com Frederick Wolfe

Bateman, A. L.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Atholl, Duchess of

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Albery, Irving James

Atkinson, Cyril

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

Alexander, Sir William

Belillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

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

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

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

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Balniel, Lord

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Bernays, Robert

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Eillston, Captain George Sampson

Kimball, Lawrence

Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

Eimley, Viscount

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Knebworth, Viscount

Borodale, Viscount

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Bossom, A. C.

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Boulton, W. W.

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Everard, W. Lindsay

Law, Sir Alfred

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

Boyce, H. Leslie

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Lees-Jones, John

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Leigh, Sir John

Bracken, Brendan

Fraser, Captain Ian

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Levy, Thomas

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Lewis, Oswald

Broadbent, Colonel John

Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

Liddell, Walter S.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Gibson, Charles Granville

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

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

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

Browne, Captain A. C.

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

Llewellin, Major John J.

Buchan, John

Gledhill, Gilbert

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

Glossop, C. W. H.

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

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

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

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Goff, Sir Park

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Burnett, John George

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Butler, Richard Austen

Gower, Sir Robert

Mabane, William

Butt, Sir Alfred

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

MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Granville, Edgar

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

McCorquodale, M. S.

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Graves, Marjorie

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

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Carver, Major William H.

Greene, William P. C.

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

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

Castle Stewart, Earl

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

McKie, John Hamilton

Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)

Grimston, R. V.

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

McLean, Major Alan

Caralet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Guy, J. C. Morrison

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Chalmers, John Rutherford

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

Magnay, Thomas

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

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

Maitland, Adam

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Hanbury, Cecil

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Christie, James Archibald

Hanley, Dennis A.

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

Clarry, Reginald George

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Martin, Thomas B.

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Harbord, Arthur

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hartington, Marquess of

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hartland, George A.

Meller, Richard James

Colfox, Major William Philip

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Colman, N. C. D.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Milne, Charles

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

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

Conant, R. J. E.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Cook, Thomas A.

Hepworth, Joseph

Mitcheson, G. G.

Cooke, Douglas

Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

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

Monsell, At. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

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

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

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

Cranborne, Viscount

Hopkinson, Austin

Moreing, Adrian C.

Craven-Ellis, William

Hornby, Frank

Morgan, Robert H.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Horobin, Ian M.

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

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Howard, Tom Forrest

Nall, Sir Joseph

Crossley, A. C.

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Nall-Coin, Arthur Ronald N.

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

Curry, A. C.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

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

Hurd, Sir Percy

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Davison, Sir William Henry

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

North, Captain Edward T.

Dawson, Sir Philip

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

Nunn, William

Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

O'Connor, Terence James

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Iveagh, Countess of

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Dickie, John P.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Donner, P. W.

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

Ormiston, Thomas

Drewe, Cedric

Jamieson, Douglas

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

Duckworth, George A. V.

Janner, Barnett

Palmer, Francis Noel

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Jennings, Roland

Patrick, Colin M.

Duggan, Hubert John

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Peake, Captain Osbert

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

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Pearson, William G.

Dunglass, Lord

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Penny, Sir George

Eastwood, John Francis

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

Percy, Lord Eustace

Edge, Sir William

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Ker, J. Campbell

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Petherick, M.

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Kerr, Hamilton W.

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

640

641

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

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Templeton, William P.

Pickering, Ernest H.

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

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

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Savory, Samuel Servington

Thompson, Luke

Potter, John

Scone, Lord

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

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

Selley, Harry R.

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Power, Sir John Cecil

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

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

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Pybus, Percy John

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Train, John

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

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Turton, Robert Hugh

Ramsden, E.

Slater, John

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Rankin, Robert

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Ratcliffe, Arthur

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

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

Ray, Sir William

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

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Rea, Walter Russell

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Ward, Sarah Adelalde (Cannock)

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Smithers, Waldron

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Wayland, Sir William A.

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Soper, Richard

Wells, Sydney Richard

Remer, John R.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Weymouth, Viscount

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Robinson, John Roland

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Ropner, Colonel L.

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

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Rosbotham, S. T.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Ross, Ronald D.

Stevenson, James

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Stewart, William J.

Wise, Alfred R.

Rothschild, James A. de

Stones, James

Withers, Sir John James

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Storey, Samuel

Womersley, Walter James

Runge, Norah Cecil

Strauss, Edward A.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Sudden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

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

Salmon. Major Isidore

Summersby, Charles H.

Salt, Edward W.

Sutcliffe, Harold

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Tate, Mavis Constance

Captain Margesson and Mr. Blindell.

Resolution agreed to.

Proposed words there added.
Resolved,
"That this House, having heard the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, approves it and assures His Majesty's Government of its support in the vigorous promotion of a policy of limiting and reducing armaments by international agreement through the Disarmament Conference at Geneva; expresses its appreciation of the efforts already made by the Government in that direction; and also its approval of the determination of His Majesty's Government to continue their loyal cooperation with the League of Nations in dealing with the Sino-Japanese dispute,"

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS (DETERMINATION OF NEED) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient—

  (a) to make provision that, in determining under the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, questions as to whether the circum-
  642
  stances of applicants for transitional payments are such that, whilst unemployed, they are in need of such payments, the following rules shall be complied with—

  (i) wounds or disability pensions (as enumerated in Section sixteen of the Finance Act, 1919) which are taken into account, shall be treated as if they were reduced by one-half;

  (ii) weekly payments by way of compensation under the enactments relating to workmen's compensation in force in the United Kingdom which are taken into account, shall be treated as if they were reduced by one-half;

  (iii) money and investments treated as capital assets and taken into account shall, in so far as the value of all such money and investments considered in the aggregate does not exceed twenty-five pounds, be disregarded, and, in so far as that value exceeds that amount -but does not exceed three hundred pounds, be treated as equivalent to a weekly income of one shilling for every complete twenty-five pounds;

  (iv) in taking into account the value to any person of any interest in the dwelling-house in which he resides, any sum which might he obtained by him by selling or by borrowing money upon the security of that interest shall be disregarded;
  and to authorise the expenditure, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of such expenses as may he incurred by reason of the provisions aforesaid; and

  643

  (b) to permit the application of the same rules in the granting of outdoor relief under the enactments relating to the Poor Law."

  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Sir Henry Betterton, Sir Hilton Young, Sir Godfrey Collins, Mr. Hore-Belisha and Mr. R. S. Hudson.

  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS (DETERMINATION OF NEED) BILL,
  "to provide that certain rules shall be complied with in determining the need of applicants for transitional payments under the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) (No. 2) Order, 1931, and to enable the same rules to be observed in granting out-door relief under the enactments relating to the Poor Law;"
  Presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Bideford Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 18th day of October and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Spalding Urban District Council, which was presented on the 18th day of October and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Rotherham Corporation, which was presented on the 31st day of October and published, be approved, subject to the following modification:—
  Third Schedule, Part I, line 24, after 'Ball Inn,' insert thence due north for a distance of twenty yards.'"
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Wisbech Lighting Company, which was presented on the 25th day of October and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, for the amendment of the Blandford Forum Electricity Orders, 1911 and 1924, which was presented on the 18th day of October, 1932, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, for the amendment of the Newastle-upon-Tyne Electric Lighting Order, 1891, which was presented on the 18th day of October, 1932, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Electricity Commissioners and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under Section 7 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending the London and Home Counties Electricity District Order, 1925, which was presented on the 18th day of October, 1932, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the rural district of Saint Thomas, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 18th day of October, 1932, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, for the transfer of the undertaking authorised by the Invergordon and District Electricity Special Order, 1923, which was presented on the 7th day of July, 1932, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 192S, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the burgh of Stornoway and part of the parish of Stornoway, in the county of Ross and Cromarty, which was presented on the 18th day of October, 1932, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the county of Nairn and parts of the counties of Aberdeen, Banff, Kincardine, Moray, Inverness, and Ross and Cromarty, which was presented on the 18th day of October, 1932, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

EDUCATION.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (CHILDREN UNDER FIVE).
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (CHILDREN UNDER FIVE).
  REORGANISATION SCHEMES.
  REORGANISATION SCHEMES.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
  AIR MAIL SERVICES.
  AIR MAIL SERVICES.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  WAR LOAN AND SAVINGS CERTIFICATES (CONVERSION, COST).
  WAR LOAN AND SAVINGS CERTIFICATES (CONVERSION, COST).
  LOCAL EXPENDITURE.
  LOCAL EXPENDITURE.
  CIVIL SERVICE (TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP).
  CIVIL SERVICE (TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP).
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACTS (ADVANCES).
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACTS (ADVANCES).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (LOAD LINE).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (LOAD LINE).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  EXCHANGES (VACANCIES).
  EXCHANGES (VACANCIES).
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS (WEST HAM).
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS (WEST HAM).
  BOARDED-OUT CHILDREN, DURHAM.
  BOARDED-OUT CHILDREN, DURHAM.
AGRICULTURE.
  FRUIT (PRICES).
  FRUIT (PRICES).
  LABOURERS (WAGES, WINTER MONTHS).
  LABOURERS (WAGES, WINTER MONTHS).
  HORSE-BREEDING.
  HORSE-BREEDING.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PORTSOY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
RENFREW BURGH ORDER CON- FIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.

BIDEFORD GAS ORDER, 1932.
SPALDING GAS ORDER, 1932.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS ELEC- TRICITY ORDER, 1932.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS BILL.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment, moved yesterday by
1192
Lord Strachie, to the Motion for Second Reading—namely, That the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I hope not to take an undue amount of your time in the discussion of this Bill, because I understand that several noble Lords wish to address the House on the subject. However, there are one or two points which I feel I should like to put before your Lordships for your most earnest consideration. We have heard a great deal from noble Lords opposite about this Bill. It is said to be a bargain, an agreement. I would like to pause for a moment just to investigate what this bargain consists of and what are the advantages which this country may expect to reap from it. In effect certain Ministers went to Ottawa, as your Lordships are well aware, prepared to make certain concessions to our Dominions, and hoping to get certain concessions in the way of trade preferences from the Dominions. I have looked at the various benefits which the Government claim to have secured for this country. I do not want to weary your Lordships by going through the list item by item, nor do I wish noble Lords opposite, and especially my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, to think that I make criticisms in any carping spirit, in any desire to discomfit the Government; on the contrary I am only too anxious to see that the trade of this country should be improved—not necessarily trade with foreigners but also trade with the Dominions.
The most important concession that we have made to the Dominions is an agreement to put a tax on food-stuffs that come into this country. I observe that there is a guarantee suggested by the Government to tax dairy produce, wheat, butter, cheese, apples and, shortly, the whole range of the most necessary food-stuffs for the poorer people of this country. Your Lordships will agree with me that that is a large and a serious concession to have to make, and I think we should be in a position to demand large concessions in return. I am not going to indulge in cheap gibes such as were made in another place about bagpipes and comic papers. There are a certain number of serious concessions made. Let us take the Canadian Agreement Schedule E of which we have

1193
heard so much. There is one item, aniline dyes, which is qualified by saying that they shall be soluble in water. I challenge any noble Lord opposite—and I should like a reply from the noble and learned Viscount who can speak on behalf of His Majesty's Government upon this—to mention the name of one soluble dye which is soluble in water. It is a farce. They do not exist. Let us go on still dealing with matters concerning the chemical industry in this country. We find perfumery which is not soluble in alcohol. There is no perfumery which is insoluble in alcohol. These are empty bubbles full of air, meaning nothing. We go on finding nickel in the list of preferences which we are to be given in importing stuff to the Dominions. Are your Lordships aware, and are His Majesty's Government aware, that 98 per cent. of the world's output of nickel is manufactured in Canada. What good is it to us to be enabled to send nickel to Canada when we have none?
I do not want to go through the list. I could multiply these instances a hundred times. Let us pass to something different. I will not call this an oversight because I think it can be nothing less than deception of His Majesty's Government. There is the question of gloves. This is a case where, if ever there was a case to be made out, the Protectionists have it here. I find that the import of gloves into Canada has been going up during the last two years. I do not want to bore your Lordships with a great many figures but three or four will perhaps suffice to show my point. The chief exporters of gloves into Canada have been France, Belgium and Italy as well as this country. Between March, 1926, and 1930 the imports of gloves by Canada from these countries are as follows: France's importation into Canada of gloves has increased by 166 per cent.; Belgium's has increased by no less than 1,355 per cent.; and Italy's by 133 per cent. When we come to look at the British imports of gloves into Canada we find that Canada has imported not more gloves but less by 23 per cent. Here is an industry employing a great number of men whose claims surely might have been kept in the forefront by our Delegates at Ottawa.
There we see exactly the case that the so-called Empire Free Traders have been
1194
putting to us. We heard a statement from the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, yesterday in the debate. He interrupted my noble friend Lord Snowden to say that if Lord Snowden would go to Canada he would find any number of Canadians who would sacrifice foreign trade for Dominion trade. What do we find in this case, where Canada has been increasing its imports from foreign countries and decreasing them from this country? We find a duty of 30 per cent. on foreign gloves, and a duty of 22½ per cent. on English gloves. I submit that that is a bargain which can mean nothing whatever. Admittedly, in the Schedule to the Agreement there is one item of gloves mentioned—women's dress gloves of kid, elbow length. I have taken the opinion of one of the largest glove manufacturers in this country, and he says that no pair of women's dress gloves of this kind has ever been made in England or ever will be. It is the most farcical pretence to put things like that into a serious document for the serious consideration of Parliament. I can only describe these as impudent insertions in the list of preferences that Canada has agreed to give us.
I have one other point to which I wish most earnestly to draw the noble and learned Viscount's attention. In his opening speech yesterday he hoped piously—I do not like to admit that it was because he was frightened—no one in your Lordships' House would have the temerity to raise the constitutional point. I have the temerity to raise it. The noble and learned Viscount laughs. I am unwilling to cross swords with him unnecessarily, because I recognise his great forensic power and his skill in argument, but still I have the temerity to raise this point. It is not quite the same point as was raised in another place. I have here a copy of a Standing Order of your Lordships' House, with which you are no doubt a great deal more familiar than I am. Standing Order No. 104 reads:
"Any agreement intended to be scheduled to any Bill shall contain a clause declaring the same to be made subject to such alterations as Parliament may think fit to make therein; but if the Committee on the Bill make any material alteration in any such agreement it shall be competent to any party thereto to withdraw the same."
I will admit freely, in order to stymie the noble Viscount opposite from point-

1195
ing out where I am wrong, that that Order applies to Private Bills. How much more important is this matter than any Private Bill? How much more necessary is it that Parliament should preserve this rule in a measure of this importance?
While I am on the question of procedure or constitutional legality or whatever you like to call it, I wish to refer the noble and learned Viscount to a Resolution passed in the House of Commons in 1860. A great deal was heard about 1860 in another place, but this is a different point to which I would call attention. This Resolution was adopted unanimously by the House of Commons. Your Lordships will agree that it is a rare occurrence that the House of Commons should be unanimous about anything. It was a Resolution passed in consequence of the refusal of this Chamber to acquiesce in the repeal of the Paper Duties. The Resolution was:
"That to guard for the future against an undue exercise of that power"—
that is, the power of rejecting Bills of taxation—
"by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons their rightful control over taxation and supply; that the right of the Commons as to the matter, manner, measure and time may be maintained inviolate…"
You may say that that would preclude this House from arguing about this Bill. That may be so. But that was a privilege which was taken away from your Lordships' House in 1860, and one that is now without a murmur handed over to a completely and absolutely extraneous body, a Dominion Parliament.
Let me for a moment call your attention to the Articles in the Canadian Agreement. There are two Articles there which may be considered together, Article 3 and Article 9. Article 3 sets forth the undertakings of His Majesty's Government, or the undertakings which they propose to put before Parliament, and Article 9 contains the corresponding undertakings by the Canadian Government. Article 3 finishes by saying that these duties "shall not be reduced except with the consent of His Majesty's Government in Canada." In Article 9 there is no such similar proviso. There is no statement that the Canadians are without the power to reduce their tariffs without the consent of the United Kingdom Government. That seems to me a very
1196
inequitable state of affairs. In spite of what the noble and learned Viscount says, we have definitely laid down in this Bill that the House of Commons in Canada must have a say in alterations of preference in this country, but we have no say whatever in what Canada shall do. It is right that we should have no say in the matter, but to take away the inviolable right of the House of Commons to determine the taxation of the people of this country when it has been withdrawn from your Lordships' House, the members of which are at least citizens of the United Kingdom, and to give it to a Dominion Parliament, more than astonishes me. I am horrified by such unconstitutional behaviour on the part of His Majesty's Government.
Another point to which I should like to refer is the question of unemployment. A great part of the debate in the House of Commons on the subject of unemployment was devoted to pious hopes on the part of His Majesty's Government that a considerable reduction of unemployment would result from the passage of this Bill. We can test that fairly easily. I have the figures of unemployment in some of the biggest trades in this country. The four trades which are most cruelly hit by this evil of unemployment are coal-mining, shipbuilding, cotton and the woollen industry. In the coal-mining industry there are close on half a million men unemployed. I would ask for some authoritative statement from the Government as to what Ottawa has done for the coal industry. I think I am safe in saying that it has done virtually nothing. It is true that there is a preference on British anthracite going into Canada, but that is all that is done for the trade which contains something like 30 per cent. of the unemployed in this country.
In the woollen trade there are no fewer than 60,000 men out of work. What do we find is done for that trade? Nothing is done in the case of Australia. In the case of Canada we find over the whole range of woollen cloths there is a reduction on the average of tariffs from 64 per cent. to 54 per cent. It is farcical to suppose that we can send woollen goods into Canada with a tariff of 54 per cent. against us. I submit to noble Lords opposite that the members of His Majesty's Government who went to Ottawa were either duped and fooled by

1197
the Canadians or they behaved with the most impudent dishonesty. Noble Lords opposite may laugh, but they cannot contradict these figures. In the shipping industry there are over 100,000 men unemployed, and we were reminded yesterday by one speaker that one-third of our population lives in the ports of this country. Shall we encourage the great shipping industry for which this country has been so long renowned, by putting obstacles in the way of trade which must naturally and certainly decrease the total tonnage of shipping carrying goods to and from our shores?
There is one further point on which I would ask for a specific reply from the noble and learned Viscount opposite. A Tariff Board was set up in this country and a solemn pledge was given unequivocally that no tariff legislation would be imposed in this country without the advice of that Tariff Board. Not a single word of advice has been received from that Tariff Board and not a single word of advice has been asked. I submit that that is a very grave dereliction of duty and an outrageous breaking of a pledge. I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that the provisions contained in the Ottawa Agreements are empty. They are like a soap bubble, iridescent with every beautiful colour, beautiful to look upon from the outside, but filled with a tenuous vapour, wind, of no account. The benefits we receive will be of no more use than the ineffectual breezes of the doldrums, whereas the handicaps to which we have exposed ourselves in the way of taxes on the poor man's food-stuffs will bring with them a train of disaster compared with which the hurricanes are as nothing. I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer. If the noble and learned Viscount opposite can give me answers on any of the points I have raised, if he can say with truth that any of the items I have mentioned are of any value to the trade of this country, I shall not only regard him with increased respect but I shall feel inclined to vote with him in the Lobby. I am certain he can give no explanation. All we are given is a tale

"Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not propose to reiterate the very powerful criticisms made by the last speaker. I
1198
do not think it would increase the value of this debate to say that I agree entirely with what he said on the subject of unemployment. There is, however, one point I shall have to emphasise, and that is the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount in his speech yesterday on what has been called the constitutional difficulty. As I read his speech he said that the Bill had disposed of that difficulty. In fact, I think he almost said the case which caused the constitutional difficulty had been disposed of already in the House of Commons. I read the debate in the House of Commons as carrying a different meaning from that altogether. I read the debate as admitting the constitutional difficulty, although it was said that it might not be raised or might not become important on some subsequent occasion. I recollect, if I may give an illustration, that when I was at Geneva in 1924, a large number of the countries represented there desired that this country should give a guarantee as regards pre-arranged military or civil assistance in the case of the Council of the League wanting assistance to sustain or promote their authority. I said at once that it was quite impossible, that no English statesman could possibly do that because, so far as our Parliament was concerned, the authority that could or would decide when the time arose would be Parliament itself; and after considerable discussion the matter was dropped. I was asked more than once whether I did not feel I could change my opinion and I said: "Certainly I cannot." And I would not say a word which would imply that a guarantee could be given on a matter of that sort which, as an English student of constitutional questions, I know to be quite impossible.
I want to say a further word. In the first place I assume that the noble and learned Viscount admits that in this country the sovereignty of Parliament is unquestionable and absolute. If he thinks I am putting any principle too far perhaps he will indicate it. I think myself that he would go a little further and, if I use the language of a lawyer on International Law, agree that in International Law the sovereignty of our Parliament is called a legal fact—that is, a fact which no Court and no authority can ever question. Not only is that the

1199
very essence of our Constitution; it is, in my opinion, the great factor which has enabled us to carry a Parliamentary system further and with better results than any other country. In almost all Parliamentary systems there is some authority outside Parliament itself. The result has been to discredit Parliamentary government.
There is another fact in relation to this same point. It is that in matters of taxation in this country the supremacy of the House of Commons is unquestionable and unfettered. I will not go back into history, but no one will doubt that. Yet we find, as has been pointed out, in these Ottawa Agreements an authority directly introduced which, if it had any value at all, would undoubtedly interfere with the unfettered supremacy of taxation which the House of Commons now possesses. I am assuming for this purpose that neither the noble and learned Viscount nor anyone who represented our country at Ottawa would give a sham security which they knew could not in fact be maintained. If you were to admit that, you may do anything in any Act of Parliament or any Agreement, but surely in all agreements requiring statutory authority the one principle that ought to be maintained is that the maximum assurance that can be given is only up to the time when Parliament in its supremacy may otherwise determine.
If I am right in that I would ask the noble Viscount to look on Page 55 of the Bill at Article 3 in the Agreement between the United Kingdom and New Zealand. It says:
"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom undertake that the general ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. imposed by Section 1 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, on the foreign goods specified in Schedule C shall not be reduced except with the consent of His Majesty's Government in New Zealand."
Now there is an undertaking, and a solemn undertaking, which disentitles the House of Commons to exercise its undoubted and admitted privilege as regards a reduction of taxation without the assent of His Majesty's Government in New Zealand. I do not wish to press this matter unduly, but it does seem to me to be of extraordinary importance. The same provision applies to all the various countries embraced by these Agreements.
1200
Does the noble and learned Viscount think that that fetters the discretion of a subsequent Parliament? If he does not, did he or the representatives of Great Britain make it clear that they were giving an undertaking which it was beyond their power to stick to? I have noticed that the noble and learned Viscount, or some one, has referred to treaties, but treaties stand on a distinct basis. Under our constitutional system treaties do not require the assent of Parliament at all, and the matter is only brought before Parliament when certain clauses are required to alter the law as it exists in our own country. There is no analogy between the case of treaties and what is proposed to be done in this Bill, and it seems to me that it really is holding out a security which we cannot hold out, which our representatives cannot hold out, and that it is only just and fair to make that point perfectly clear to the other parties to these various Agreements.
In regard to another place, may I remind the noble and learned Viscount that the Chairman of Committees ruled perfectly frankly, freely and unquestionably that you could not do the very thing which is purported to be done in each of these Agreements with our Dominions? And, of course, it is wholly out of accord with constitutional practice and, still more, with a constitutional principle which is one of the essential bases of our Parliamentary success in this country and which I hope will never be diminished or disregarded. Parliament has succeeded in this country more than elsewhere because of this very principle. It has been the great fighting point in the past, and now, when it seemed to have been finally established, more than a doubt is thrown upon it by this incorporation of a provision which is wholly inconsistent with it.
I do not wish to discuss to-day the general question of tariffs particularly because there are larger outstanding points which I think require most careful consideration. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, in the House and, whatever may have been our differences on other matters, I think he and I always agreed on this question between tariffs and Free Trade.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD PARMOOR: What is the matter? I am not in the least afraid. Let me put this consideration. I think that the history of tariffs has been disastrous, and I think experience of tariffs where they have been imposed tells a story stronger and more complete than any theoretical arguments. There is one point; to which I do not think reference has been made up to the present time, but it is extremely important in my view. I am not one of those who believe in a succession of conferences and committees—one's whole mind is lost in a whirlwind of detail—but a very important Report was issued from the Conference of 1927 which was appointed at Geneva under the Chairmanship of M. Theunis. I have the benefit of knowing M. Theunis, and I have no doubt many in this House share that advantage, and of all men he was the right person to choose as Chairman of a Committee of that kind. He had great industrial experience, particularly in banking. He had been Prime Minister of Belgium during the most critical period of the War, and no man, in general experience, had a greater knowledge of the conditions of world trade at the time when this Report was issued. M. Theunis issued a summary of his Report, and I will quote his actual words, because they seem to me to be of extreme importance. This is his opinion, as stated in the summary:
"The main obstacles to economic revival have been the hindrances opposed to the free flow of labour, capital and goods."
I do not think that any statement could summarise more clearly the objections to what is proposed in the present Bill.
Of course, no one doubts that new conditions and new difficulties did arise at the end of the War. We are not discussing what I may call a self-evident, proposition of that kind. What we have always been concerned with, both as between ourselves and foreign countries, and between ourselves and our Dominions, and in our own internal policy, is how, in spite of the evils which War-time produced, we can bring about in our own time, or within a reasonable time, economic revival. There is no other way in which we can deal with the terrible evil of unemployment. It is a terrible thing in the present day to go through districts or villages which are suffering from the evil of unemploy-
1202
ment. Demoralisation, degradation, in the sense of having no hope and no expectation, and a general feeling of pessimism prevail, and pessimism is one of the worst influences which can affect human energy and human enterprise.
The next matter to which I would like to refer—I see he is not present, to-day, but he will not; mind my referring to him, because I entirely agree with him—is what Lord Astor said when speaking on this Bill in this House yesterday. He said that the evil influence of tariffs cannot be disguised under the name of quotas or like expedients. Of course, all these obstacles have the effect to which M. Theunis pointed. All of them prevent the free flow of labour, capital, and goods. All of them are inconsistent with the utilisation of our commercial resources to the utmost extent. All of them are inconsistent with the unity of the world, to which we must look if we are ultimately to bring the terrible conditions after the War under our control.
Then the noble Viscount gave an illustration to which I want to refer shortly—the case of farming. I think it will strike your Lordships—I know it strikes me—that after all this period since the War, and although nostrums have been introduced which we were told were going to assist the industry of agriculture to regain its prosperity, yet—I speak as a farmer of fifty years' experience—the farming industry never stood at a lower level than it stands to-day. I sympathise entirely with those affected by the position, and I want to say a word in a moment about the way of dealing with it. My income is derived, small as it is nowadays, from farming, and for fifty years I have been a farmer. I sympathise wholly and entirely both with the owning interest in this country and also with the condition of the farmers, which is really extremely bad in many cases at the present moment. But the remedies which have been suggested have, never been really in the interests of the industry itself. They have been in other interests, sometimes, no doubt, in the owning interest, but never, in my view (and I have often criticised the fact in this House) have they really been based on what is required for the resuscitation and revival of the farming interest itself.
I say that for this reason. No one who knows the conditions in Lincolnshire and

1203
East Anglia can suppose that the trumpery tariff on Canadian imports will have any appreciable influence. The evil is far more deeply rooted than that. As regards Lancashire and Yorkshire, I am glad to say that I know many farmers there who are not dependent upon the value or the price of corn, but they regard these tariffs with great distrust. I met a leading farmer in Yorkshire only a short time ago—an old friend of mine—and I asked him what were the conditions as regards the farming industry in his district. What did he answer? "Not so bad in our case. The home-grown corn goes for poultry and stock, and I and a number of fellow farmers in recent years have been able to purchase imported wheat at such a price that we have made a good profit out of fattening stock and cattle." I asked him what was the price, and he said: "I can get it at 16s. per quarter delivered at my farm." I said that I could understand what he said because I had farmed in recent years for cattle, stock and sheep, rather than for corn, and to get feeding stuff at that price would be of inestimable benefit to many farmers in this country. They did not talk about dumping Soviet corn or questions of that kind. They said: "It is an admirable hard corn which we can import on these easy terms, and it is that fact which has made us fairly prosperous even in these bad times."
Now one word upon another matter, the proposed benefits to farmers. I must say that in my own case—and I think one is entitled to quote one's own case in these matters—where of recent years small farms and family farms have been substituted for larger farms, at a very great expense to the owner—I wish I could have done more, but no individual could possibly afford it—there has been in cases of that kind little or no hardship up to the present moment. A few months ago—I have quoted this once before—when by chance I had one of these small family farms in the market, I had more than sixty applicants for the tenancy; and that is where we come to the real pinch as regards farming. I agree largely in this case, although I have not always been in agreement with him, with what was said by Mr. Lloyd George: I believe that if you had a really extensive system of allotments,
1204
which ought to be open to everybody who desires them, and if you had a sufficiently large number of small farms cultivated by families, a great advance would be made not only in the prosperity of our farming industry but also in decreasing the terrible number of unemployed in the country at the present time.
Of course no one remedy is sufficient; no one suggests that for a moment, but that is one of the remedies which, according to my experience, ought to be applied, and which, if applied, would solve to a great extent the problems of the agricultural industry on the one hand and agricultural unemployment upon the other. It is true that in these small family farms the work is done by the family, but I can quote only illustrations which I know of, and I will vouch for this, that the small farms which I know produce a larger output than any of the larger farms in my district, and that the number of people employed is considerably greater, although, of course, they are not ordinary labourers, but are generally the sons or relations of the farmer himself.
I must not detain your Lordships too long, but I want to say one more word as regards the pretext of assisting the farming industry whereas, in fact, nothing is done. I will take the case of the Derating Act. It happened that some thirty years ago now I served for over five years on a Royal Commission which dealt with rates and taxes. That Royal Commission laid down, and it has never been questioned since, that rates are charges on property, whereas taxes may be, and often are, charges on industry, and that the owner should pay because he has received the benefit, whereas of course in the case of taxes you distribute the burden in proportion to the ability to pay. Why is it that the Derating Act, which has thrown a sum of more or less £30,000,000 upon the taxpayers of this country instead of on the local rates, has done no good to the farming industry? Why are the complaints quite as alive now as they were before? The reason is that in truth rates never affected the industry, they affected only the property, and it was the property owner who got the benefit, and the industrialist received none at all. When I say "None at all," I do not want to exaggerate. Until an ultimate adjustment has been made that would not be absolutely true, but as re-

1205
gards ultimate conditions, no one can gainsay the truth of what I have said.
I would say only one more word on this subject. I wonder sometimes whether we understand what we are doing when we put a tax, however small it may appear, on the food of this country. How can you say that you ought to make concessions to people in our Dominions who, as a rule, are much better off, when the concessions have really got to be paid for by the working and poorer classes of this country? That is what we have to consider and what we have to face; and it will have to be faced not only as regards corn, but as regards the proposal to place somewhat high taxes on meat products. Some time ago, at a time of agricultural depression, I made a close inquiry in my own district, and I found that the quantity of bread eaten was larger, because the people were too poor to have any other form of food. I found, further, that even a very small addition in price—and if you once start this there is no stopping it—created terrible troubles and terrible evils, loss of health and loss of vigour, to the poorer agricultural classes who were living where I was living at that time. This is really, to my mind, the true criticism of any taxation on food products. It is all very well to tax a luxury, which, as is sometimes said, a man at his option may purchase or not, but the poor man must live; the poor man must purchase food products. It is a sad matter for him, when he is already living in a cottage where starvation is almost entering the door, that any charge whatever should be placed on him in favour of people who may or may not be of our own kin, but who do not live in, and have not to deal with the difficulties of, this country.
Just look at one other illustration. I was asking the other day what was the value of Baltic timber in the construction of cottages. I suppose most people in the country have given a great deal of attention to the houses of the working people. I was told—I do not mean to say that it is always the same—that at the present time, by getting our Baltic timber from Russia, each house that we are building for the labouring people costs £17 less. I have no quarrel with the lumbermen of Canada; I wish them every prosperity; I have been amongst them a good deal, and very fine fellows they are; but what do your Lordships say to
1206
giving them a special tariff and a special preference, putting money into their pockets at the expense of higher rentals for the poor people of this country because the houses built for them cannot be built at such a cheap price? It is really a terrible question; I do not care where you turn or where you look at it. We hope to God that a revival may come soon, but at the present time the condition of the poorer classes in this country is terrible. They live in enforced idleness; I would rather be a slave than have to live under conditions of enforced idleness. No individual working man has the slightest control over the possibility of getting work for himself. I have no doubt that this Bill will pass. I do not think that I have been too Cassandra-like, too much a prophet of evil, in the views I have put before your Lordships; but, whatever happens, I for one, and I believe all patriotic people in this country, will strive to make the best of a bad bargain, however bad we may think at will be, and strain every nerve to do our part, however small, in diminishing the terrible evil of unemployment.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, we have listened to two very interesting and varied speeches from noble Lords opposite. I do not think I need say very much about the first speech, because the noble Lord who spoke seems to have a most deplorably low opinion of the ability of those Ministers who went out to Ottawa, and, as they were drawn from all Parties, it seems to be a reflection on this House and the other House that we can only produce men far below the average ability to represent all the Parties in this country. There is one observation, too, that I would like to make about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor. I was as much interested in his auto-biographical observations as by almost anything in his speech. He told us that he had always agreed with Lord Snowden. It is unfortunate that my memory is rather long, and I wonder whether Lord Snowden has always agreed with Lord Parmoor. I rather doubt it. But it is not for me to express an opinion about Lord Snowden's view, because no doubt he will deal very faithfully with Lord Parmoor at a later stage.
I approach this great problem from the general attitude that I would rather treat my friends with greater intimacy

1207
than I would the great hosts of the indifferent world; and if this feeling, this strong sentiment, can be translated into the economic sphere I should rejoice exceedingly. I had some small responsibility for the Imperial Conference of 1926, when so great a change was made in the constitutional ties between ourselves and the Dominions; they were described as "dead wood," and possibly they were a survival from a more ancient time. But one felt, when putting an end to those relations, that one could not help asking what were to be the relations that were going to take their place. I am not one of those who depreciate—indeed, I attach great importance to—the ties that depend on language, on relationship, on common history, and on common blood. But when one looks round the great range of the British Empire one realises that many of those ties do not apply to some of the great constituent elements of that Empire.
May I refer to a conversation I had a little while ago with a very eminent Brahmin at Benares? We were discussing the relations of this country and India, and on some observation that I made he said: "That was a very British sentiment which you have just expressed"; and I felt in a flash, as it were, the enormous gulf that divided my feelings, as an Englishman brought up with British traditions, from this eminent man with a different history, tradition, religion and philosophy behind him. I felt then that if we are going to make the Empire a real thing, and if India is really to become, as I hope it will, one great part of the British Empire (or, if you prefer the term, the British Commonwealth of Nations)—I felt that, with those great differences, it was essential that at least some other ties should be forged, in addition, if you like, to the more spiritual ties, which would have the strong uniting effect of material interest, which, after all, plays so great a part in our life and in civilisation. I hope nobody in this debate will ever again speak about "sordid ties." The "sordid ties of trade"—that is an old phrase which descends, I think, from those aristocratic Whigs, with large landed properties, who thought it beneath their dignity to stain their hands in trade.
After all, there is nothing like trade to bring people together, to make them
1208
understand each other, to establish those thousand-and-one contacts which are so essential if we are to have a united Empire. I put those contacts even higher than the actual material benefit that comes from the exchange of goods, but I do think that this opportunity came at a most significant moment, and I think it would have been very dangerous if there had been any delay because, after all, not only the Dominions but ourselves have to be looking about for fresh outlets for our trade. The noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, in his very frank speech, if I may call it so, said: "Oh, but these people threatened that if you were not going to enter into trade agreements with them, they would go and enter into trade agreements with the rest of the world." Why use the word "threaten"? Were not they making a simple, commonplace statement that it was necessary for them to expand their trade, and that, while they would much rather enter into these trade relations with ourselves and with the other Dominions, yet the terrible compelling force of circumstance and necessity, the needs of their own people, would force them to go to the outer world and see what they could gain in the markets of the foreigner? I am therefore very much inclined to an arrangement of the kind, both on principle and because of the larger question of Imperial unity.
But before I say a word on some of the aspects of these Agreements, I want to make at the outset one criticism on the Agreements themselves. We are asked to approve of the Agreements as a whole; we cannot alter them and, of course, they are made for a certain period. The noble and learned Viscount has told us that the work at Ottawa only represented a part of the work that was done; there was a mass of preparation for it. I do not doubt it, but, nevertheless, at the same time a lot of new points must necessarily be brought up, and I do not suppose we knew the case of the other side until they were assembled at Ottawa. And, while I recognise the enormous value of the work that has been done, yet, as the noble and learned Viscount frankly admitted, it is not a flawless scheme. May I say very respectfully to those who negotiated it that there are undoubtedly some points—small, if you like, in comparison with the great realm that was dealt with—which

1209
I think might not have been entered into if those persons had been fully conversant with all the minor details of some of the business? Therefore we must take the Agreement as a whole, and I am ready to accept it as a whole.
I was going, if I may, to make this suggestion to the Government. It is very important, I think, that any of the frayed ends which there must be in Agreements ranging so wide, should be taken up at once as soon as these Agreements are settled, and by mutual arrangement. I am sure it is by mutual arrangement that these comparatively small matters can be settled. We have been told, I think rather vigorously in certain quarters, that these Agreements have been made for five years. That rather reinforces my argument. I entirely accept the position that if you are to make any trade agreements of this kind they must last for a certain time. That is, I think, generally admitted, and that really is the weak point of Mr. Mackenzie King's statement made yesterday that if he was in office he would give a 50 per cent. preference without any reciprocal bargain. I am sure that was a perfectly sincere statement. We most of us recall cases in this country where Leaders of Oppositions have made promises which they found themselves from various circumstances unable to carry out quite fully when they became Leaders of Governments. But the point about that is, that these arrangements are a matter of reciprocal agreement, and that is their advantage. They cannot be broken for five years, whereas an arrangement which is not reciprocal can be withdrawn. There is no consideration, as it were, for it, and in that case you do not get the same permanent security over a certain time for the business men who want to take advantage of it.
I do not want for more than a moment to allude to what has been called the constitutional argument. On that I would merely point out the various ways in which that argument has been treated by different speakers. I heard the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, allude to it yesterday. He alluded to it with great skill. He rather disclaimed any constitutional authority; he handed that over to the noble and learned Viscount on this Bench, but I do not think it was modesty so much as caution that prevented him
1210
from dealing with it. He felt that the constitutional argument was an extremely fragile and delicate post on which he was going to lean the whole of his case. I congratulate him on his caution. The noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, did allude to it. I suppose there is a constitutional incapacity in myself to understand certain things. We all have our blind spots. I find it extremely difficult even to understand the argument itself. And the first thing before you reply to an argument is to understand it. I feel myself in some difficulty in doing so.
I happen to have before me at the moment—a friend has presented me with it—the Treaty of 1860, the famous Cobden Treaty. I am not going to dwell upon it because I have other things to say. I know it is an unpleasant bomb, and I only say that I have it here in case anybody challenges it. I am talking, I hope, constitutional common sense when I ask why one country or Parliament cannot make an agreement with another that lasts, two, three, four, or five years. I am entirely incapable of understanding why not. I thought Parliament was omnipotent. I have been brought up by the best constitutional authorities who regarded Parliament as omnipotent, but if you say that it cannot make an agreement for five years, then Parliament is impotent and not omnipotent. That, I think, is a sufficient answer to so absurd a contention. As for the suggestion that we are in the hands of another Parliament and cannot alter a duty until a Government in New Zealand or Canada agrees, why, of course, if you make a bargain with somebody you keep it. That is not only common sense but also, if I may say so, common honesty.
I want to examine for a moment the very important point that was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, and others, which I confess interested me a good deal, as to how far our freedom of making agreements with other countries is affected or diminished by these Agreements at Ottawa. I certainly agree with the position that we still do a large amount of trade with other countries, and I do not want to sacrifice that trade. I want to have the best of both worlds. May I then examine that position for a moment? We are bound, to some extent, because we have given a preference to the Dominions, and, obviously, we are

1211
not going to make an agreement with somebody else which takes away the value of that preference. That again is common honesty.
But what on earth do we lose, not theoretically but practically, by such an arrangement? We have been told that a good many of these foreign countries are now coming to us and saying: "We will enter into a bargain with you; let us into your market; give us an advantage." The noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, in his speech said: "Why, they were doing that before, and we," he added, "were going to them." Well, we were going to them very frequently. I have followed these things very closely, and I would like some subsequent speaker on the other side to tell us what great advantages did we get from going to these people? As for their coming to us, did they come to us? Was there a queue of Foreign Ministers at Downing Street coming to interview the Prime Minister? Did one Ambassador after another come to the Foreign Office and say: "Let us make a trade bargain with you"? Of course they did not, because they had everything else beforehand, and why should they have come here? I have the greatest respect for Lord Snowden's accuracy, but I should be very glad if at some time he would supply the names of all these gentlemen who were seeking these bargains so keenly from us (shall we say?) during the last five years.
I think it is no paradox to say that the more we enter into agreements of this kind with the Empire the keener are foreign nations to enter into them with us, and if we sacrifice some part of our liberty in order to make these Agreements with the Dominions and India, curiously enough it makes these other countries far keener to push their foot inside the door before it is closed in order that they may get some advantage for themselves. I believe that those who think that the door is closed on foreign agreements have really not properly envisaged, though they may know the figures and numbers, the vast variety and intricacy of British trade, the vast number of matters and subjects upon which we can deal, if we choose, with foreign countries quite outside any arrangements that we have made with the Dominions.
Then the noble Viscount, I think, went on to say—and this is a point which
1212
others have dealt with also—"what is the advantage of it? It is only a transference of trade and not an increase of trade." Well if it is not a decrease of trade that is something as an admission, because some speakers have told us that this arrangement is simply making our trade shrink; but even if it were so I should support it, because after all, when exchanges are made between parts of the Empire—and trade of course is useful to both sides—then surely we in the Empire get the advantage from both sides of the exchange. Not only that, but it is, I believe, literally true to say, and some on the other side will admit it, that trade breeds trade, and that if trade breeds trade and if purchasing power breeds purchasing power, our power in this country and the Dominions will be vastly enhanced by the extra purchasing powers they will obtain by trade agreements which help trade in both countries.
I should like to make one observation before I go further, by way of criticism of the statement on financial questions at Ottawa. Frankly I was a little disappointed with this statement. I thought we should have had perhaps a little more guidance as to what we should do. It is full of the most admirable financial maxims. It is an absolutely Baconian compendium of all that should be said and done in matters of finance, but I should have preferred that it left the general and dealt a little more with the particular. For instance it says that you must have
".… an adjustment of the factors political, economic, financial and monetary, which have caused the breakdown of the gold standard in many countries.…"
I think that would be an extremely admirable thing to have, but I should like to have a little more forcible direction. Then there is another statement:
"The evil of falling prices must be attacked by Government and individual action in all its causes, whether political, economic, financial, or monetary."
That is a very large order indeed, and I rather regret that the conclusion seems to be that all these questions, vast and intricate as they are, should be postponed and referred to the World Conference on the subject. I wish I had more confidence in World Conferences than I have. I am rather afraid that these subjects may cause resolutions to be passed

1213
at the World Conference, but that nothing very definite will be done.
I think it is a pity, that we could not have given all the countries of the Empire some guidance in regard to fixing our exchanges or establishing some definite parity between them, so that we could have given a lead to the rest of the world in the Economic Conference, showing in that matter the solidarity of the British Empire. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will be good enough when he replies to tell us what is being done in this matter. I need hardly labour the importance of it. It is quite obvious that these preferences may be greatly affected by any shifting in the relative value of the exchanges of the different countries.
Now may I be allowed to pass to another matter—your Lordships will see the sequence of my observations—and deal with the Agreement with India and the Indian Report? I want to call special attention to the Report made by the Indian Delegation to the Indian Government. It is a very remarkable document. It is one of the most business-like and careful documents I have ever read. To those who are interested in the political development of India it is one of the best auguries I have seen of the capacity of Indians for managing their affairs. It has not a touch of sentiment about it. It does not refer to Cobden or other irrelevant personages of that kind. It is argued on purely business lines, and if you suggest that Indians are too much occupied in reflection or in philosophic studies, I can assure your Lordships that there is not one touch of mysticism throughout the whole of the document. It is very remarkable as showing how India was led up to its attitude at the Conference. It says first of all: "In previous Conferences we were not interested in this question of preference. We got a free market in England for ourselves. We did, it is true, give certain preferences to British trade. We gave preferences on cotton piece goods and on steel. But," they go on to say, "these preferences reduced the Customs Duties, but reduced them solely in the interests of India, because they were quite enough to deal with the Indian industries." Then they say: "But when the National Government came into existence the situation was wholly
1214
changed. It was not then a question of what we might gain, but it was a question of what we might lose."
Then they refer to the history of the Import Duties and to the fact that it was extremely important for India to have free entry and not to come under the ban (shall I say?) of these Import Duties. They make two very important observations. They say: "We should be very much injured in competition with the Colonies of the Empire who produce very much the same class of materials if they got a preference in the British market and we did not." They say further, with admirable common sense: "We cannot expect Great Britain to give us preferences for nothing when she is entering on a system of reciprocal preferences with all the other countries of the Empire. We cannot claim from her that special treatment." I think that is one of the most important and significant documents I have read for a long time. It really does show something which has been denied so often—that a certain amount of preference does lead to freer trade.
Now I should like to make one or two references to speches made yesterday. I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. I do not think he has been many years in practical politics, and so he has not yet attained the art of being ambiguous in the statements that he makes. He was frank even to bluntness, because he told us—and I was very much struck by the observation—that these Free Trade doctrines had the solidity (that is not the word he used) of mathematical laws. It was a very interesting observation, because we all know that there is nothing more abstract than mathematical laws and nothing more difficult to apply to the ordinary affairs of life. If you are going to base your economic policy on abstractions you will get into great difficulties when you come to deal with practical matters. Any system of that kind applied to anything so fluid or to anything so rapidly changing and swiftly altering as trade is liable, I think, to land you in very serious difficulties indeed. But I entirely agree with one observation, and that is that there are too many tariffs in the world and that some of these tariffs are extremely badly arranged.

1215
I agree that there are a good many other things outside the Ottawa Agreements with which the Government will have to deal—Debts, monetary arrangements and so on—but I am dealing here with the Ottawa Agreements and with the Ottawa Agreements alone. We have to look not only to present facts but to the tendencies of the future; not only to things as they are, but to the way in which things are moving. There is no doubt at all that many countries—foreign countries and the Dominions themselves—have moved very far in the direction of economic nationalism. The noble Marquess told us—it seemed to me rather begging the question; I think he relied on the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, for it—that the recent Conference failed because there was too much economic nationalism; that, in fact, they were all Protectionists sitting round the table and therefore naturally did not make much progress towards lowering tariffs. If that were true, and if these countries were as nationalist as the noble Marquess makes out, then I think the Conference was a most amazing success for our representatives, and I begin to think that they were far too modest in their claims of success. I am ready to cut the finest laurels to crown them if I am told that they got all these results and yet had to meet a solid body of economic nationalists determined to make no concession whatever. You may object, if you like, to some portion or other of the Agreements, but there is no doubt, if that was the tendency of their policy, that it has been altered at Ottawa and that they moved from this so-called rigid economic nationalism to something more nearly approaching a system of complementary trade—a movement, in fact, from national to Commonwealth economics, the importance of which I think it is hardly possible to exaggerate.
I pass over many of those points already made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, about permitting fair competition, efficiency, reservations if you like concerning industries not properly established, and matters of that sort. Of course people will be inclined to ask: Are these things going to work out as you think? But the most vigorous, uncompromising and hostile observations have undoubtedly come from the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden. I am rather sorry that some of those observa-
1216
tions were made, especially about distinguished persons in the Dominions, because, first, I think that they were quite unnecessary for his argument and, secondly, because I see little use in questioning people's motives when you do not even know the motives of those who are close to you on the same Bench. I think the noble Viscount said that out of 1,500 items there were only 217 on which we got a preference, and, of course, he condemned the whole business root and branch. Being a student of figures I am curious to know how many of these items we should have had to have a preference on in order to obtain the agreement of Lord Snowden. The figure of 217 does not seem to me a very contemptible one, especially when you find that in regard to many they are matters of the greatest importance dealing with great trades in this country. This particular figure, however, seems to have struck the noble Viscount with horror.
In regard to the dumping business I think the noble Viscount was guilty, I will not say of inaccuracy, but of omission. I am very sorry that that dumping duty could not have been done away with altogether, but I see that in Article 17 of the Agreement with Caanda they say they undertake to give sympathetic consideration to the reduction and ultimate abolition of the duty. I accept that statement at face value and I say that if they undertake to give sympathetic consideration I believe they will do so, and we may look for the most fruitful results. But the noble Viscount was speaking of this duty as being imposed on our goods and not upon American goods. He did not say so, but I think the suggestion was that it was specially imposed upon us and not upon America. Of course the reason, right or wrong, was that our currency was depreciated in terms of Canadian dollars whereas American dollars were not. It was the natural business arrangement.
Then he told us, I think, that one provision was directed solely against Russia, and that after all any country might by its greater efficiency dump goods into this country and we should have the opportunity of stopping those goods if we wanted to. I think that the noble Viscount, though an experienced debater, made the mistake of assuming that a provision was to be administered

1217
in the most foolish way possible. We are always entitled to say that reasonable administration must be presumed. But that kind of dumping is not really dumping. It is not the efficiency that produces goods at a lower price, but the selling of those goods often at a much lower price in the country to which you export than the price in the country in which they are made. In those points I think the noble Viscount did not do full justice to the Agreement.
But what I do complain of is this. Why are you going to apply systems of criticism so meticulous and so hostile to Agreements which you make with the Dominions or the Colonies? If any noble Lord on the Government side of the House were to stand up and apply the same criticism in the case of a foreign agreement and make the same observations about any foreigner, the noble Viscount would be the first to get up and, in a magnificent wave of righteous indignation, rebuke us for trying to make ill blood between ourselves and foreign countries. If anybody on these Benches were to dare to get up and cast the faintest reflection on the unsullied integrity of Russia the whole of those on the Labour Benches, those crowded Benches, would fly up to the ceiling in a fury. What is the inference to be drawn from all this? Well, if these people are so dishonest and are not going to carry out their pledges there is only one thing to be done, and that is to announce to the world that we shall enter into no more arrangements with our Dominions; that we are not going to go through the farce of having more Conferences at Ottawa or elsewhere; that the reason is that our fellow-countrymen translated across the seas into New Zealand or Australia or Canada have lost the old characteristics they had in this country, and have left out those virtues of honesty, fair dealing and common sense which we still arrogate to ourselves; and that we shall not sit any more at the Council table with them because in the whole Empire the only honest men are to be found in this country!
One word more. I do not think, as has been suggested, that our only business is to try to make full Free Trade arrangements with the Dominions. I do not think that is possible at this stage. What I believe our Delegation aimed at, and
1218
it is a reasonable aim, is a system of complementary trade—that is to say, that while these different countries do manufacture things they consider suitable, it will be found in the working of the Agreements that there are many things which this or another country can manufacture and supply to the Dominions far better than they can do it themselves. This sems to me a new application of the old Free Trade doctrine, only that, instead of what each country manufactures being left to the hazard of chance, it would be the result of careful arrangement, or bargaining if you like. It would be a conscious effort instead of an admission of the blind forces driving economics where you will. It is because I believe that that is the aim, and because I believe that that aim has been at any rate partially fulfilled, and because I believe we have given that impetus to a great system leading to far greater successes than at Ottawa, that I am confident your Lordships will not only endorse but will welcome this measure.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, if brevity, as a very great English man of letters has said, is the soul of wit, it should also be the soul of a speech made at this very late hour of the discussion on our Motion. I shall therefore not detain you long. I am only encouraged to intervene because I believe that there are certain things that have not yet been mentioned by any of the speakers during the last two days, and because I think, also, that there are some things which have been mentioned but yet are so vital and so important as to be able to bear repetition. I cannot reciprocate the sentiment of the noble Earl who has just spoken, that we should treat our enemies, or those to whom we are indifferent, less well than we treat our friends. It is far from my desire, or the desire of any unprejudiced person, to depreciate or belittle the admirable character of the bonds of language, race, and historical tradition, which draw together the English-speaking peoples in the different parts of the globe, but this should not lead us to neglect the equal rights of other peoples, of other nations, and of other races. If Imperialism is the neglect of the equal rights of all foreign peoples and of all foreign races, then the natural and unprejudiced outlook is one that does justice to the merits and virtues of

1219
different races and of different peoples, and that acknowledges those merits and those virtues, as it does homage to the merits and virtues possessed by those who are akin to the individual in nationality and in speech.
There is one very striking and I think very significant feature of the Bill that you have been discussing for the last two days—namely, that it is essentially an economic document, that it deals with economic issues and not with any question of domestic policy or of relations between ourselves and foreign Governments; and it is because it is such a purely economic document that it should be discussed and treated from the point of view of political economy. It is obvious enough that only those who have studied the economic structure of society can tell what the effects of trade agreements, of Government interferences in industry or commerce will be, so that we should apply, and I think I may say that on the whole we have applied, an economic criterion and standard in weighing up and balancing the merits or defects of the Agreements that have come before us for our consideration. Yet, my Lords, I think that you will all have detected at one time or another a certain tendency to grind the Party axe, a certain tendency to introduce considerations of politics and Party politics, and to depart from that impartial and scientific attitude which, on the whole, your Lordships' House has so nobly upheld during the whole course of the discussion.
Another matter of comment to any impartial critic would, I think, be that there has been a tendency to over-rate and over-estimate the importance of the Ottawa Agreements in themselves. It would be unreasonable, I think, to maintain that these Agreements represent an important event in our national history, that they foretell a period of prosperity, or, equally, a time of social decay, to expect that they will ever feature prominently in the history books of future generations, or even linger long in the memory of our descendants. The real importance and significance of this measure lies rather in the political policy of which it is the direct and logical expression, and in the various consequences that it is likely to have for this country and for foreign nations in the immediate and remote future. It has often been
1220
said, and I think it should be said again, that these Agreements are essentially an endorsement of that revolution in our fiscal policy which was inaugurated a year ago in the change from Free Trade to Protection, and that it rivets still more firmly the fetters of Protection, of tariffs, quotas and so forth, on the people of this country.
A great deal has been made of the fact that in specific instances, in certain cases, duties are actually to be lowered, but what we on this side of the House maintain, and what I think no unprejudiced person will deny, is that, on the whole, if those cases in which duties have been lowered are taken into consideration at the same time as those instances in which duties have been imposed or raised in order to allow our Dominions a legitimate margin of preference, on the balance the general level of tariffs in this country will be raised after the Ottawa Agreements have become operative. The supreme importance of this fact lies in the unanimous opinion held by all instructed persons that barriers to trade, owing to the enormous wastage of capital, labour, and consumer's goods which they create in the different countries of the world, are one of the principal causes—I do not say the only cause, as some noble Lords will maintain, but one of the principal causes—of the present economic depression, and besides, one of the most serious obstacles that lie between us and ultimate recovery.
I should like to endorse an opinion expressed last night by the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden. He said that these Agreements will tie our hands when we take part in the World Economic Conference which will probably be held at Geneva next spring. If these new duties are to be maintained for a period of at least five years, it is obvious enough and clear enough that we shall not be free to reduce our tariffs by mutual agreement with other countries, that the movement for reduction of tariff barriers which has already been begun by Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg in an agreement which represents one of the most hopeful features of the present moment, will be retarded, and that such agreements will be impossible, or at least extremely restricted, for the delegates whom we send to the World Economic

1221
Conference. It is quite true that, the primary function of this Conference being to design a concerted monetary policy, its significance is not altogether destroyed by the policy which our Government have pursued in recent months, but the function which it is intended to serve and which is at least second in importance to a concerted monetary policy, is to obtain gradually and by mutual agreement between certain groups of countries a reduction and a lowering of the walls which have sprung up in such huge dimensions ever since the end of the War. It was for this reason that such distinguished economists as Sir Walter Layton and Sir Arthur Salter resigned their posts as delegates to the Preparatory Commission for the World Economic Conference which is now meeting and deliberating at Geneva.
There are, in conclusion, three matters which deeply concern those who are interested in the economic mechanism and economic structure of society. The Schedules which embody the Agreements reached between our Government and the individual Dominion Governments will show your Lordships that the principle of what are known as "compensatory tariffs" has been adopted by our own Government. It stands to reason that the consumer only buys certain goods in preference to others because they are offered him at a lower price, and they are offered him at a lower price because the cost of production in one instance is lower than the cost of production in the other; that is to say, the manufacturer can afford to sell his goods at a lower price. If the differences in the cost, of production arc exactly equalised by tariffs, world trade is not only diminished but ceases completely. Of course I am not supposing that this situation will actually occur, because the world would not be so foolish as to commit suicide; but the tendency is there, and one may, I think, legitimately expect a gradual extension of the vicious principle of compensatory tariffs. In this matter I should like strongly to endorse the opinion expressed last night by the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader.
I will not detain your Lordships any longer, although there are several other matters which I should have liked to mention. I would only summarise my main contention, if I may, by saying that this
1222
measure appears, from the economic point of view, to be dangerous, harmful, and useless: dangerous because it increases the level of tariff walls in this country; harmful because it makes our task in reducing these tariff barriers even harder than it was before; and useless because it does nothing actively to help us to recover from the depths of economic depression, because it cannot assist in reducing the numbers of the unemployed, and because it gives no indication that we are to expect from our Government whatever assistance it may be in a position to give towards the alleviation of the suffering, the squalor, the misery and enforced idleness which are the real and human features of the trough of a great trade depression.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I feel that we must immediately dissent from a large number of the things which the noble Earl who has just sat down stated. He gave us to understand—and a legitimate theory it is—that all countries and all peoples should be treated equally. I take exception immediately to that statement. When we were a Free Trade country did they turn round and treat us equally? Did they give us any preference when they were raising tariff barriers against everybody? Did they give us specific advantages? It is a most untenable theory. And if, as may be pointed out, the Dominions raise tariff barriers also against us, they did give us preference; and since we have abandoned our policy of Free Trade I fail to see why we should not start with our own kith and kin, as we have done in these Agreements. The noble Earl went on to say that these Agreements could not be a basis on which to build future prosperity. I think that is a most extraordinary statement to make. These Agreements are the very basis upon which we in this country and throughout the Empire intend to try and build up the future prosperity of the world; and to say that it cannot be done is to enunciate another of those hopeless theories to which noble Lords opposite are so fond of giving currency. He went on to welcome the tariff arrangement made between Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg. He welcomes a tariff arrangement made between three foreign countries, but what about this tariff arrangement?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I did not maintain that there was an exact resemblance, as I think the noble Lord assumes, between the tariff arrangement that has recently been made between us and the Dominions and that which has been made between these three European States. My whole point was that they were utterly different, because in the one case the level of tariff barriers has been raised, and in the other case the level has been lowered.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: A most remarkable statement. Noble Lords on the other side can say what they like, but tariff barriers and restrictions of trade are undoubtedly being removed by these Agreements; and to say that one set of countries can lower tariffs and open up freer trade, and that they are doing right, and that when we are doing the same thing over a far greater area we are doing wrong, is one of the most remarkable statements I have heard for many a long day.
I think the Government have accomplished a great triumph, and the nature of the criticisms that have been hurled against them here and in another place is one of the things which make me think the triumph is extremely great. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, denounced the Government this afternoon because they have not bargained hard enough. It has been dinned into our ears that they bargained far too hard. I wish that noble Lords opposite would make up their mind which way they are going to attack the Government, and attack them solidly and consistently. I think that we must definitely state here and now that these Agreements which have been made at Ottawa are only just a beginning of what we intend to do. What noble Lords opposite and what Free Traders have not yet realised is that times have changed and times are changing very rapidly every day. My conception of a fiscal policy is not that of an iron-bound, absolutely unchangeable thing; my conception of tariffs and Protection is that which was expressed by Mr. Baldwin at Blackpool on October 7, when he said:
"We are not doctrinaires. We admitted Protection, not as a principle but as an expedient. We knew the dangers, as we knew the dangers of Free Trade. We have never worshipped it. We know what can be done in the way of log rolling, in the way of
1224
excessive Protection; we know what can be done in the way of corruption. With our eyes open we took every step to safeguard that policy from what we know to be the dangers associated with it. If it fails I do not see our Party sticking to the carcase of dead policies."
Free Trade throughout the world has been strangled, and yet noble Lords continue to stick to the dead carcase which is rotting away.
It was obvious that to preserve our own people we had to make a change, and that change we made a year ago. I think that it is a matter of rejoicing that the Government embarked upon the policy of Imperial Protection and benefit rather than some niggardly national plan, such as would have been adopted if any other Government had been in power. I myself have always been amazed at noble Lords who sit in Opposition. They work, I know, and they work quite rightly, to keep up and maintain and protect the standard of life and the wages of working people. I have no quarrel with them for that; I think it is a very just aim. And yet when they come to these Agreements, which in certain clauses definitely protect our people's work from unfair competition, which undoubtedly are freeing trade throughout the world, they attack and denounce them with the utmost virulence. It shows an agility of mind which would be most commendable in an Æsop, but not in noble Lords and those associated with them who conceive it to be their destiny to lead this country.
It is obviously impossible for me to go into details at this late hour. All the points of the Bill have been covered, both here and in another place, but one of the most striking facts which have emerged from this debate is the utter lack of any suggestion in the speeches of the critics of the Bill to replace these Agreements. Only the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, yesterday made one or two suggestions as to what would have happened if the Labour Government had been in power. He said:
"The United Kingdom Government suggested for examination certain methods of increasing Imperial trade—namely, quotas, import boards, direct exchange of commodities, promotion of agreements between industries, important machinery for Commonwealth consultation on economic matters. That was the reference which, had the Labour Government remained in office, they would have sent forward to the Conference at Ottawa."

1225
They have got most of those things in these very Agreements. Those are only just minute crumbs of a far bigger Agreement, which the Government have negotiated, and which the Labour Party, had they been in power, would never have been able to obtain for us.
I will conclude by saying that it is my privilege to go up and down the country and come into contact with many people of all shades of opinion and all classes of life, and I can tell your Lordships that, certainly among the young people who are growing up to-day, the utmost impatience is being expressed with all these moanings and lamentations over a policy which has long been dead. I think that when the noble Viscount who leads the House has the satisfaction of seeing this Bill passed into law it will constitute a work which will be of the utmost and most vital moment for this country and for the Empire. I can assure him that he has behind him a growing body of opinion among those who are determined that every opportunity for the successful carrying out of these Agreements shall be assured to the Government for many years to come.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down abbreviated his spirited speech for the reason that practically all the ground had already been covered in the course of this debate. I agree with him. I think it has, and therefore I shall confine my observations to a very small compass indeed. The previous speakers have attacked this measure from several different points of view. My noble friend Lord Strachie, who has moved its rejection, does so on the ground that in practice it does nothing to help agriculture. The same objection was taken in part of his speech by the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench, Lord Parmoor, and from the Cross Benches yesterday the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, made a very determined attack on the quota which is to be applied to our meat supply. Other noble Lords on these Benches, Lord Lothian and Lord Stanley, have assailed this measure from the point of view of Free Traders, and the noble Lords who have spoken from the Labour Bench have, as a rule, taken very much the same line. Then the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, whose thoughtful intervention in debate I am sure we all appreciated,
1226
announced that in his opinion the importance of the whole business was greatly overrated.
I should not have taken part in this debate at all except for the fact that two other of my noble friends—I mean Lord Grey of Fallodon and Lord Reading, both Liberal Ministers of old standing, and two of His Majesty's Ministers in the first National Government—and myself, thought it our duty, when a number of Liberal Ministers resigned from the Government the other day, to express our agreement with their action. I am not sorry also to feel obliged to intervene because the attitude which some of us older members of the Liberal Party take has been, I think, somewhat unfairly misrepresented. We are supposed to be perpetually burning incense before the rather battered shrines of Adam Smith and Sir Robert Peel (at whose shrine, I am afraid, the noble Earl opposite (Earl Peel), his grandson, does not worship, although I was very glad in the course of his most eloquent speech that he expressed the opinion that on the whole there are too many tariffs in the world). I think those of us who share my views look at this business in a spirit of the purest pragmatism and not on a priori grounds, and we have to consider whether this measure and the general movement towards a definite policy of Protection in this country can really work out to the benefit of the country and of the Empire.
If noble Lords opposite or anybody else can show that it does, no preconceived ideas will, I am certain, prevent us from applauding their action. Personally I am prepared to go further. I shall always be prepared to say that if it can be definitely proved that, for purposes unconnected with fiscal policy, it is necessary to maintain in any country some special industry which could not be maintained without special support, either by tariffs or by some other method, such action ought to receive the most careful consideration. But take a purely hypothetical example. If in some foreign country it were to be said that the mercantile marine might just as well be scrapped because all the necessary vessels could be bought at a, reasonable price, and of the best quality, built at Glasgow or at Barrow, and that in that country

1227
it was quite unnecessary to man those ships because excellent sailors could be got from neighbouring countries or from Russia, I should expect a citizen of that country to point out that life does not consist entirely of buying and selling, that a number of other considerations may arise, and that by some means or other that particular industry had to be preserved for that country. That being so, I hope that my friends and I will not continue to be accused of being mere theorists and utterers of ancient shibboleths.
But I think it is fair to point out that a number of those belonging to our Party who voted for the National Government at the last Election have felt, and do feel, sentiments of profound disappointment at the action which has been taken. They accepted the introduction of tariffs to meet an emergency, and they were not specially particular in enquiring into the precise methods by which those tariffs might be applied, but they did not foresee, and they were not told at the time, that the acceptance of that principle involved a complete volte face in the fiscal policy of the country; and they feel the same kind of resentment which would have been felt if, after compulsory service was introduced, as it had to be introduced during the War, the Government which came into power at the end of 1918 had, without saying a word about it, imposed a system of universal service on the country. There is nothing wrong in universal service. Some countries, as we know, prefer it, but it has been considered contrary to our British tradition and practice, just as in the same way for practically the last seventy or eighty years the reversal to a complete system of protective duties and prohibition or hampering of imports has been considered to be no part of our policy.
The subject of this Bill, the Conference at Ottawa, has been discussed through and through in the course of this debate. Fortunately, the whole question of the monetary system of the world did not come within the purview of the Ottawa Conference. It was obviously impossible to discuss an Imperial monetary system. The Conference therefore concentrated on the question of Imperial trade and Imperial Preference. There is nothing new in the conception of Imperial Preference. Some people talk as if it
1228
had been invented by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, but of course that is not so. In the middle of the last century before the Free Trade policy was adopted this country gave preferences to Canadian timber, to the wines of the Cape of Good Hope and to the sugar of the West Indies. It was only when the protective duties were gradually cast away that those preferences ceased. Then came the reciprocal preferences which were given in our favour—handsomely and generously given—by the great Dominions, as we now call them, which had definitely adopted a policy of High Protection.
I think it is reasonable to consider what was the genesis of those preferences. At that time this country was entirely responsible for the whole defence of the Empire, for the costs of all the diplomatic service and the consular work of the Empire, and it was regarded, in fact, as the Mother Country to which a quid pro quo could very fairly be given in the form of preferences on certain articles of our trade, always provided that those preferences did not interfere too greatly with the slow growth of Colonial manufactures. I use the word "Colonial" because that was the word in use at the time. Then came Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's movement in 1903 and his failure and the failure of those who agreed with him to enforce their views. But of course the impulse had been given. I well remember being in the Government which was formed in 1905, and in the succeeding two or three years, when various Colonial Conferences took place, some of us had many conversations on this subject with the overseas Ministers. I remember one prominent Minister from overseas expressing wonder why we set aside the notion of Colonial Preference and saying: "If I had a boy who was starting in business I should do anything I could to help him. I would even make some sacrifice in his favour." But, my Lords, that was 25 years ago, and a change has taken place since then.
It is no question now of a parent assisting a boy in business. It has become a question whether the parent can continue to carry on business himself. Perhaps it would be putting it more accurately if I said that the whole idea of the parental relation has disappeared altogether, and that therefore no claim can properly be made upon us on those lines.

1229
But I cannot help wondering whether that idea has not remained in a degree latent in the various discussions that have taken place between the Government representatives and the representatives of the Dominions—whether there has not been at the back of such discussions as have taken place the idea that if sacrifices have to be made this country should be the more ready to make them, because, presumably (although I think the fact is open to dispute) she is the more able to make them. Examining the Schedules attached to this Bill and looking at the general tone of the whole measure, I cannot help wondering whether that belated idea has not somehow remained at the back of the discussions which have taken place.
The only other point on which I wish to say a word is that of the coming International Conference. It is a point that has been mentioned in a good many speeches, and I take it that the Government argument is that the fact that a group of countries composing the British Empire has come together and has been able to proceed with a system of preferences, even at the cost in some cases of raising duties against other countries, of itself will be found to be an encouragement to other countries to proceed on a lower-tariff basis rather than on a high-tariff basis. I hope I have stated correctly what I take to be the argument of His Majesty's Government. I am altogether unable to follow that argument.
I will take an imaginary case—that of France and the wine growers there. Wine, as your Lordships know, cheap wine is the main drink of the poorer people in France—very sensible people, I venture to think, although I am afraid one or two of my noble friends behind me will not take the same view. Although France is a great wine-producing country yet a great deal of wine is imported into France for mixing with the cheapest varieties. A great deal comes from Algeria, a good deal from Spain and some from Portugal, although I think that is of rather a higher quality. Suppose the French Government received representations from Algeria that greater facilities should be accorded to them for importing their wine into France, and that those facilities are given. The French wine grower does not care the
1230
value of a centime whether the wine that competes comes from Algeria or the Iberian Peninsula, and therefore, in order to satisfy him, the duty on the wines of Spain and Portugal is considerably raised.
Then you have to imagine, to complete my story, the French representative at an international conference coming and saying: "See how admirably we are operating in the direction of lowering duties; we have admitted the wine of Algeria into France on infinitely easier terms; it is true we have had to put up duties against Spanish and Portuguese wine, but surely we are lowering the wine duty in a way which will encourage you all over the world to lower your duties against our goods." I venture to think that those present at such an international conference would be tempted to laugh at such a contention, and I am very much afraid that when our representatives at the International Conference come forward with the Ottawa Agreements as representing any shadow of an argument in favour of a general reduction of tariffs, they will utterly fail to convince those with whom they are conversing.
If the contention that His Majesty's Government advances is justified, that the general effect of these Agreements would be a lowering of tariffs, nobody would rejoice more than I, and I should certainly in that case consider very carefully whether it would not be our duty on the Liberal Benches to vote for this Bill. But to my mind the conclusion is exactly the opposite. What you are doing, it seems to me, is to encourage the formation all over the world of high-tariff groups and low-tariff groups and that you are enlisting in the high-tariff groups. That being so I feel I have no choice whatever but to give this measure all the opposition I can. What the noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench propose to do have not the faintest idea, but the speeches they have made have shown such ingrained hostility to many of the main features of the Bill that I trust when the time comes they also will follow my noble friend Lord Strachie into the Lobby.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, I did not come down to your Lordships' House with any prepared speech and I therefore hope that I shall not

1231
delay the debate very long, but I should like to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Crewe in all he has said, and as I intend to vote for the Amendment I should like to give a few words of explanation. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, spoke about the proper way in which to speak of foreign countries. The suggestion he conveyed to my mind had nothing to do with his argument, but when he was speaking I could not help asking myself what we should say if these Agreements were made with foreign countries and not with the Dominions. Let me apply the analogy to a foreign country which made an agreement under which we were to admit everything from that country free and promised the foreign country to impose duties ourselves, not in our own interest but in the interest of the foreign country, and at the same time, though we were to receive a preference in that foreign country, we left it free to impose duties on the goods we sent. If any such agreement had been made with a foreign country no Government would have dared to propose it. Judged from the economic point of view alone such an agreement would have seemed absolutely one-sided.
Of course the Government will naturally say that in dealing with the Dominions you must take into consideration other than purely economic things. That would have had great force if this had been an agreement for free trade in the Empire. I should not have thought then of applying a purely economic test. It would have brought advantages of bonds between the Empire making for union and free development inside the Empire, and it would have had political considerations outweighing purely economic ones. But these are not agreements for free trade within the Empire, but one-sided free trade. We are to give all the Dominions free trade, but they are to retain the right to impose duties on our goods.
I am told that we have gained the great advantage that British manufactures will be able to compete with Canadians in the Canadian market and that a Tariff Board has been established for that purpose. I am not at all confident as to how this Tariff Board will work. Everything depends on the point of view. The Government regard this Tariff Board as one set up to ensure that British manufactured goods shall compete on fair
1232
terms with Canadian manufactures in the Canadian market. I wish the Dominions laid as much stress on that point of view. My fear is that in the Dominions—in Canada, for instance—the primary duty of the Tariff Board will be regarded as not to enable British goods to enter, but to impose duties which will countervail and neutralise the natural advantages which British goods would have if no duties were imposed, and that the Tariff Board will work very differently according to the point of view from which you regard it. I wish I could think that the British and Canadian Governments had really had the same purpose in mind when they agreed to this proposal for a Tariff Board to settle the duties on British imported goods.
I come to another point which is of immense importance to my mind, and that is the question of how these Agreements are likely to affect our trade with the rest of the world. Our trade with foreign countries is vastly more important, from the point of view of the prosperity of this country and the numbers of the unemployed in this country, than our trade with the Dominions can ever be. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, laid stress on this—that foreign countries are now more ready to negotiate than before. Well, I have always felt that while we were a Free Trade country we had a strong lever with foreign countries. It was always open for us to say: "If you will impose duties on our goods you cannot expect to go on having a free British market." Then we should have kept our hands perfectly free to negotiate—perfectly free to offer free trade. That has now gone, and I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount opposite what power of bargaining remains.
If we negotiate with foreign countries we cannot bargain with those goods on which we have promised the Dominions to impose tariffs. We are pledged to the Dominions. What duties have we that can be used for bargaining purposes? There are two other reasons why the Government have imposed duties. One is to obtain revenue. We cannot use those duties without sacrificing the purpose for which they were imposed, and sacrificing revenue. The other is for protective purposes. Take. for instance, the proposed, or actual, protective duty on iron and steel. It was to be, or is, imposed for

1233
a certain time to give the iron and steel trade time and opportunity to reorganise itself. If it does not do that, I understand, the duty is not to remain. That was the proposal, at any rate, when last I heard of it. Obviously we cannot use that duty for bargaining purposes, because we are pledged to the iron and steel industry, and if we go and lower the duty that industry will say that it cannot re-organise.
So with other protective duties. Those duties have been imposed to protect industries, and are pledged to those industries. Therefore we cannot use them for bargaining purposes. That is why I think it has always been proved, hitherto, that tariffs have led to tariffs—other tariffs have been the outcome of tariffs. I should like the noble and learned Viscount to name, if he can, any duty which the present Government have imposed which has not been imposed for any purpose other than bargaining, and which is therefore available for bargaining purposes. It seems to me that everything we have done has weakened our power of bargaining with foreign countries, and I should like the noble and learned Viscount to tell us, if he can, what power is left to us of bargaining. We are told that foreign countries are now coming to us in a way that they have never done before to negotiate trade agreements with us. It is very satisfactory that they are coming, but I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether any progress has been made, and whether those negotiations, so far as they have gone, especially with the Argentine, which is most important to British trade, disclose any prospect that as a result of those negotiations our trade will have the advantage of lower tariffs in those countries which have come to negotiate than it has had before? It is of no use telling us that foreign countries are coming to negotiate unless it can be proved that those negotiations do have some effect in lowering foreign tariffs.
It was stated at the opening of the Ottawa Conference, I believe by the British Delegation, that it was hoped that the negotiations with the Dominions would be the precursor of a reduction of duties all over the world. I agree with what Lord Crewe has said, that if that does turn out to be the result I should
1234
revise my opinion about these particular Agreements, but it is because I fear that that cannot be the result, and that they must result in weakening our power of lowering tariffs in other countries, that I have so much apprehension about the Agreements at Ottawa.
Then I should like to ask one question. Belgium and Holland, we are told, have entered into a low-tariff agreement between themselves, and possibly other countries. That is precisely the direction in which we want to go—reducing the obstacles to trade in the world; and I would like to ask the noble and learned Viscount if we have made any proposals to join in that low-tariff agreement. I understand that Belgium and Holland invited other countries to join, no doubt their object being to spread the area of low tariffs as far as possible. Have we made any proposal to join in that agreement? If we have not yet done so are we going to do it, and have we taken any line about low-tariff agreements at all? It seems to me that if we are really to help to reduce the obstacles to trade in the world, here is our chance to encourage and help and to join, if we are free to do so. What I am afraid is that we have so tied ourselves up already that we are not free to join in a low-tariff agreement. If the noble and learned Viscount can tell me that we are proposing to join in a low-tariff agreement I shall be delighted, because one of my great apprehensions about these Ottawa Agreements will have been removed.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I only venture to intervene for a moment, not to reply to what has been said by the noble Viscount who has just spoken, to whom we always listen with great respect, but because I wish to raise one point before this debate closes, and it is only possible to do it at this moment. It is with regard to our Crown Colonies and Dependencies. During the whole of this debate we have heard very little reference to the Crown Colonies and Dependencies. I think Lord Snowden made one reference to it, in which he admitted that there were vast possibilities of an increase of trade among the hundreds of millions of the coloured population of the Empire. A great deal was done at Ottawa with regard to this question. The Crown Colonies and Dependencies were

1235
represented by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, and for the first time in the history of our Crown Colonies and Dependencies they were represented by a single individual. The result was that there were obtained not only reciprocal agreements between the United Kingdom and all these Colonies, but also very valuable reciprocal agreements between these Colonies and the various Dominions. A very large number of products came under review—practically every product which is grown in those Crown Colonies and Dependencies—and in practically every case very useful preferences were granted upon these products, which will be of very great value to these Colonies and Dependencies, and of very great value to Great Britain and to the Dominions themselves.
Yesterday in the course of the debate the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, referred to a letter which was written by Sir Graham Bower some twenty-four years ago, in which he contrasted the conditions in the French island of Réunion and the British island of Mauritius, and to the advantage of Mauritius, attributable, in the opinion of Sir Graham Bower and I assume in the opinion of the noble Marquess himself, to the fact that there was Free Trade as between this country and Mauritius and Protection between France and Réunion. I do not think that that statement ought to go unchallenged, because it is not an accurate statement of the conditions which exist to-day, even if it were accurate of the conditions which existed in 1907.
I should like first of all to turn to Mauritius. The extracts quoted by the noble Marquess were from a report on Mauritius for 1908 by Sir Graham Bower when the latter was Acting Governor. Sir Graham Bower is a well-known Free Trader—I wish to emphasise that—as may be judged from many letters of his which have appeared in the Press since his retirement in 1910. In the 1908 report Sir Graham Bower established a comparison between the condition of Mauritius under Free Trade and that of Réunion under Protection. It is somewhat unfortunate for Sir Graham's contention that in the very next year, 1909, whilst he was still the officer administering the Government, there was a deficit of 800,000 rupees in the Mauritius Budget, and the Colony
1236
was in such a parlous state that the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who is here to-day, with the concurrence of Sir Graham Bower, had to send from England a Royal Commission presided over by Sir Frank Swettenham, to report on measures for improving the finances and economic conditions of the Colony. Shortly after, owing to a bumper sugar crop, the island was enabled to regain stability, but only for a very short period indeed. Had it not been for the good prices obtained during the War years and for two years afterwards, Mauritius would have been unable to pay her way during the past decade. As it is at present, during the past six years the Mauritius Government's Budget has been in deficit every year, and the island has only been kept going by means of loans to the sugar-cane planters. Government reserves accumulated during the years from 1915 to 1922, when sugar was selling at a good profit, are absolutely exhausted, and a deputation is in London at the present moment asking our Government what we are going to do about it.
What is the position in Réunion? It is perfectly true that Réunion has a larger area than Mauritius, but it has not such a large area of cultivable land, owing to its mountainous nature. There is no doubt that the production and trade of Mauritius are much larger than those of Réunion, for besides a larger cultivable acreage it has a large population and a plentiful supply of labour, while in Réunion their output has decreased of late owing to lack of labour. What is the actual state to-day? Réunion is able to produce rum and sell it, with these advantages, to France, on a quota system. This has very largely contributed to the prosperity of the Colony, and at the present moment I am told on very good authority the planters of Réunion have millions of francs in the local banks to their credit, besides large investments in French Government securities. What is the position in Mauritius? Last year thousands of boxes of cigarettes, cases of whisky, gin, and other goods had to be destroyed by the Mauritius Customs owing to the inability of merchants to take delivery and no purchasers for them coming forward. That is the reply, and the accurate reply, to the statements made by the noble Marquess, Lord

1237
Lothian, yesterday; and that is so much for the so-called prosperity of Mauritius under Free Trade.
I am extremely sorry to have detained your Lordships at such length on this subject at this moment, but that point had to be replied to owing to the effect which it would have had, if it had been left unchallenged, on the whole system of Preference throughout the Colonies, and the whole system of Preference as it has been applied by the Ottawa Agreements. I think your Lordships will find in every Colony and in every Dependency very great gratitude for the Ottawa Agreement. They are passing it through their Legislative Councils in every instance with large majorities and without any demur: and I believe that the Ottawa Agreements are not only the commencement of a new era in our Dominions, but the commencement of a new era in our Colonies and our Dependencies as well.
Before I sit down I should like to make just this concluding reference. We have with us here to-day my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook, to whom I believe that the country owes a very great debt of gratitude. I can remember that in November, 1929, he stood up in this House and made a speech in favour of what he called Empire Free Trade. I ventured on that occasion to rise and support him. That was only three years ago, and yet to-night we find, after that short period has elapsed, that we, have Agreements, not based entirely upon what the noble Lord would have desired but going a very long way in the direction in which he sought to base his plans: and we have those Agreements before us in the shape of legislation which I venture to hope will be passed by a very large majority to-night.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to these two days of debate: I think I have missed only one speech and half a speech. The impression which I have got from it is one that makes me feel that we are going backwards. I feel the echo of the old controversies of nearly thirty years ago, with the same arguments brought forward on either side, the only difference being that in the early days of this century the Free Traders were in the ascendant, and now we find the Protectionists in the ascendant. It is rather depressing, because it makes
1238
one feel that political affairs, instead of going forward and progressing, seem to obey some sort of Einstein law which involves the futurity of yesterday.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, in his speech—and we have had many speeches from the Liberal Benches—said that the Liberals were driven out of the Government by these proposals. I wish to say just one word about that, because I think that that is an inaccurate statement. The Liberals entered the National Government with their eyes open. The Liberals entered the National Government, which had a backing in the House of Commons of nearly 550 members, and amongst those members I do not believe that there were more than a score who could have been counted as Free Traders. Surely those who joined that Government must have known that the law of the majority, the law of the big battalions, must prevail, and that the Conservative Party, which had never disguised its intention of bringing in Protection, would avail itself of the first possible opportunity and would not neglect an opportunity of this sort. I think the Liberals, by joining the National Government have betrayed the cause of Free Trade, although the Conservatives may have attacked and defeated it.
A two days' debate in your Lordships' House always covers a very large ground. This particular debate, which is far from being an exception, seems to have extended to an enormous field, because in addition to tariffs, quotas, taxation, unemployment and housing, and the glut, the noble and learned Viscount who is going to reply will have also to deal with the ticklish question of the atmosphere at Ottawa, the Pig Commission, the Colonial Conference of 1887, dyes, timber, perfumery, women's kid gloves elbow-length, and the Micky Mouse game; and last night we had a disquisition, which I am afraid a good many of your Lordships missed, on Noah's Ark, not to mention Réunion and Mauritius. I seem to remember them in those old controversies of many years ago. I myself cannot believe in the establishment of a system which involves locks and dams in the channel of trade, I cannot believe in a system which is going to place bones of contention constantly between the Governments of the Empire, is going to encourage disputes and friction between

1239
ourselves and foreign Governments, and is going to raise the price of the people's food. Moreover, I think it will lead to corruption and pressure of an insidious kind which will be brought to bear on politicians and public life. One consolation I have is that I believe the best way to kill Protection is to try it. But, of course, it is a heavy price because, in the demonstration of what I believe will be its dangerous consequences, certain vested interests will grow up which will be very difficult to remove.
I only want, in conclusion, to say a word about the attitude of my friends on these Benches and myself with regard to the Motion for the rejection of the Bill that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie. We in the Opposition on these Benches do not consider that your Lordships' House, with its indefensible constitution, should be in a position to reject the measures introduced by a Government which has the support of a majority in the House of Commons of elected representatives of the people. We as a Party have declared that doctrine, and I think the Liberal Party in days past have also been emphatic on the subject. When the Labour Government were in office we expressed very strongly this view, because the unrepresentative majority in your Lordships' House could, and indeed did, reject measures passed by a representative majority in another place.
Although by an adverse vote on our part to-day there can be no chance whatever of rejecting this Bill, the principle is the same, and we desire therefore to be consistent. A vote given to-day against the Second Reading of this measure is at the same time a vote in favour of the principle that your Lordships' House have the right and are justified in rejecting a Bill passed by a majority of the House of Commons. Whatever we may think of the methods by which that majority was obtained we do not regard it as the function of this House to contest the considered decision of the House of Commons. While, therefore, reserving to ourselves the right to vote on Amendments to Bills or on Motions which may be brought forward in this House, we shall abstain from voting as a Party against the Second Reading of Government measures which are sent up to us from another place,
1240
and, although we object to this measure which is now before the House, we shall abstain from voting on the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, has proposed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, after a debate lasting for eight hours and ranging over the wide variety of topics to which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has just called attention, your Lordships, I am sure, will forgive me if I do not attempt to answer all the questions which have been raised. For instance, my noble friend Lord Peel, in a speech which struck me as a devastating reply to some of the criticisms of the Bill, asked me a question as to the Financial Resolutions which had been reached at Ottawa, and what were to be our future actions with regard to them. They do not occur in the Bill, and I hope he will forgive me if I say that I must get further instructions before I am able intelligently to answer that question.
I desire only to deal with a few of the principal points which have been raised, and first just a word about the constitutional point, if it is still worthy of that title, which the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, reiterated this afternoon. Let me state it. Parliament, said he, is supreme. Agreed. The House of Commons is the ultimate authority in matters of taxation. Agreed. Therefore, said he, any Bill passed by Parliament for a term of years limiting taxation is unconstitutional. An absolute non sequitur, as any lawyer can see at once. It is perfectly true—indeed it does not require a lawyer, any man of common sense can see at once that if Parliament passes an Act pledging the country to do something for a number of years, Parliament can pass another Act inconsistent with that pledge next day, if it likes. Just as, if one of your Lordships makes a bargain, you can break it next day if you like; but honourable men and honourable countries do not break their bargain. And all that has happened in this so-called constitutional innovation is that, in accordance with the invariable practice of this country throughout the centuries, we have made Agreements which we believe are beneficial to this country and which bind us not to do certain things for a certain time. When we promise not to do them

1241
we can still do them if we like to disregard our word; but fortunately our word is something more than a "scrap of paper."
As to the suggestion that there is no analogy to a treaty because a treaty does not need to be submitted to Parliament, I would first of all remind the noble Lord who made that observation that Sir Herbert Samuel, who invented the constitutional point, said there was an exact analogy to treaties, and only changed his mind when he found that the result was to blow him out of court. And, in fact, the difference which the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, detected between a treaty and these Agreements was this, that the Executive could make a treaty without reference to Parliament, and these Agreements had to be submitted to Parliament for ratification. In other words, it is constitutional for the Executive without the consent of Parliament to make an Agreement binding this country for a term of years, but if, with the consent of Parliament, they do it, then that is a wholly unconstitutional doctrine. My Lords, I do not think we need waste time on the constitutional point.
Then I want to say a word as to the attitude of the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and those for whom he speaks. The noble Marquess defined the attitude of the Liberal Party, and explained how unfair it was to suggest that they were guilty of any bigoted adherence to old-fashioned doctrines. He said that they were actually willing to go so far as this: that if, for reasons apart from fiscal policy, it is proved necessary to maintain an industry by means of a tariff, such a measure should receive his consideration. A wonderful concession of liberality, because see what it involves. It involves that if, for reasons which include fiscal policy, it be necessary to maintain an industry in the interests of the country, such a matter would not even receive the noble Lord's consideration or the consideration of those for whom he speaks. If, in fact, so broadminded, so experienced a statesman as the noble Marquess regards this as the limit of reasonable concession, how bigoted must be the attitude of the Party to which he belongs!
The noble Marquess went on to complain, very courteously but still to com-
1242
plain, that the Liberal Party had not been quite fairly treated because this Parliament and this Government had not been returned pledged to Protection, and we ought not therefore to introduce a Protectionist measure. See what that involves. The Government were returned a year ago with a free hand to deal with a national crisis, and to take whatever steps after consideration they thought necessary. Nobody can deny that the matters were investigated, and that the steps which the majority of the Government thought were necessary have been taken. But it is said it is unfair. Why? Because it is not a Liberal policy. And really the contention involves this, that a National Government is only national so long as it enacts exclusively Liberal measures. I am not going on with that Free Trade controversy, because I am glad to believe that controversy is dead.
The noble Marquess said that he and his friends were going to vote for the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Strachie. It is remarkable to notice that the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, in moving his Amendment, complained, speaking as a Free Trader, that there were not enough duties put on. His complaint was: "You have let the Dominions in free, you ought to tax them, too; it is very hard on the farmer that he should have to meet the competition of the Dominions on level terms instead of having protection against them as well as against the foreigner." I wonder if that really represents the Free Trade attitude of the Liberal Party and the noble Marquess who leads it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Grey, who never comes to make a speech in this House without raising the level of debate and illuminating the subject which we are discussing, said that he was going to vote for the Amendment because, while he would have supported Imperial Free Trade, he was not prepared to support one-sided Free Trade. What else has the Liberal Party done ever since Free Trade was introduced into this country? One-sided Free Trade is the very thing we tariff reformers have complained of. One-sided Free Trade is the very thing they have stood for for eighty years. When the noble Viscount says: "This limits your bargaining powers, because otherwise we could have gone and threatened the foreigner with tariffs if he did not let

1243
our goods in," I wonder whether, during all these years when the noble Viscount held the office of Foreign Secretary with such distinction, his Liberal colleagues ever allowed him to state that it was part of the policy of His Majesty's Government to impose tariffs on foreign goods unless they gave satisfactory concessions for ours. It is no good your objecting to one-sided Free Trade when the whole policy of the Party to which you belong has stood for nothing else ever since it has been a Party.
Then the noble Viscount asks whether we were proposing to enter into some combination such as that of Belgium and Holland, which was arranging for low tariffs. The noble Viscount can hardly have studied this Agreement or he would have seen that, instead of asking to be allowed to enter into some other low-tariff combination, we, the British Empire, are setting up a low-tariff combination, and so far from clamouring to be allowed to enter into some foreign country's arrangements, we say that our Empire, large as it is and comprising a great portion of the globe, is in itself an entity large enough to form an economic unit. Although it is quite true that the steps we have taken do not lead to Imperial Free Trade—I think it may be that the diverse competition between the different free Commonwealths may prevent complete Free Trade—yet it does establish an economic system in which each member enjoys an advantage against the rest of the world, in which a great number of the articles that are exported from one part of the Empire to the other are admitted free of duty, and in which, therefore, we have a chance of developing our economic prosperity and developing our inter-Imperial trade to an extent which would be impossible by any arrangement with any Zollverein in any other part of Europe.
I turn to deal quite shortly with the speech made yesterday by my noble friend Lord Snowden. Lord Snowden began by complaining that my opening speech had not been sufficiently provocative to raise his temperature. I am very glad that he was not warmed up, because, after that very promising prelude, he proceeded to tell us that we, the British Delegates, deserved to be hung. I suppose we should have been drawn and quartered if I had been a little more provocative. He went on to
1244
make an attack upon Mr. Bennett and Mr. Bruce, two of the Prime Ministers of our sister Commonwealths, who were regarded as the twin demons of the Conference, treacherously plotting the destruction of the Empire, whose offers to us were a mockery, whose appeals were a fraud, whose methods were bluster and bullying. He asked us whether or not Agreements of this kind tended to join the Empire close together. I can at least be sure of this, that many speeches like that of the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, are not calculated to make relations more friendly.
I think enough has been said of these alleged disunions at Ottawa. They are started by the same people who were anxiously spreading abroad rumours of dissensions in our own Delegation and of differences among the Canadian representatives. I know those allegations were untrue, because I was on the spot. I know those allegations of disunion, quarrels and differences are a travesty of what really happened. It is no doubt true—I have never disguised it—that each Delegation thought it its duty to do the best it could for the country it represented. The Dominion representatives did it each for their own country. We, the United Kingdom Delegation, did the same, and we should have been ashamed of ourselves if we had not done the same. But while we were there to represent the views of our different countries, while we were there to make known the wants and desires of each part of the Empire which we represented, none of us ever lost sight of the fact that the paramount and overriding interest of each part of the Empire was the prosperity of the Empire as a whole. When I am told that we have quarrelled and had such differences, I remember that it was my privilege to be on terms of friendship with more than one of the Dominion Delegates before I went to Ottawa, and I can say honestly that I have come back from Ottawa with my circle of friends enlarged, with the closeness of my friendships enhanced, and, I believe, with the respect in which we hold each other undiminished.
It is said that these Agreements do not tend to lower tariffs. Lord Snowden said that 217 items only were affected, and that there were 1,300 items in the Canadian tariffs. You cannot judge this matter by the number of items; the question is what the items are. If your

1245
Lordships take the trouble to ascertain the facts, if Lord Snowden had ascertained the facts, he would know that the 217 items comprised 40 per cent. of the total imports from this country into Canada. What is the good, then, of saying that there is no lowering of tariffs?
Another noble Lord, Lord Stanley, whom we were glad to welcome to the debates but who will perhaps permit me to say that wider experience may lessen the violence of his language—Lord Stanley was good enough to express his friendly feeling for His Majesty's Government, and he went on to accuse us and me personally of impudent dishonesty and of outrageous and monstrous conduct. Lord Stanley said that these items were a fraud, and he cited two or three, and was good enough to ask me to meet his challenge with regard to any one of them and to say that if I could do so he would come into the Lobby with us this evening. I am much obliged for that promise. The first one was whether there were any aniline and coal dyes not soluble in water.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Of any commercial importance is what said.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Aniline and coal tar dyes cover a very wide range of subject. The noble Lord's question was, are any of them soluble in water, because these are the ones that get in free. I am told there are a large number of them which are soluble in water. I cannot tell the noble Lord the exact importance of the different kinds of aniline dyes, because it is not a subject with which I am familiar, but I have a list of five or six—and I am told it can be multiplied almost to any length—which begins with Bismarck brown and goes on to include other colours. I could go on through the whole rainbow. The noble Lord also wanted to know about perfumery insoluble in alcohol. If he looks at the Canadian Agreement he will see that there are two classes of perfumery—the first alcoholic and the second non-alcoholic.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The noble and learned Viscount misrepresents me. The item he refers to deals with non-alcoholic perfumes individually. I was referring to perfumes in general.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Certainly, but there is alcoholic perfume (that is item 160) and non-alcoholic perfume (which is item 234). If there is perfume which is neither alcoholic nor non-alcoholic I really do not know what it can be. It must be the sort they import into the United States. The noble Lord said we did nothing for coal. If he looks at item 586 he will find that anthracite coal gets into Canada free and that there is a duty of no less than 50 cents, more than 2s. a ton, on coal from any other part of the world. I hope the noble Lord is coming presently into the Lobby with me. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said any independent person must realise that tariffs were raised and not lowered. He ignored, first of all, the Import Duties Act which on November 15 would commence to apply to the whole of the Dominions unless these arrangements were made. By virtue of these arrangements the whole of the products covered by that Act will come in free. He ignored also the whole range of preferences at present given to British products and seemed to suggest that we should follow the essentially foolish and short-sighted policy of sitting smugly back and saying we have got all these preferences from the Dominions for nothing, why should we give them anything? They will not take them back. "There is no sentiment in it," says the noble Marquess, "that is an exploded and worn-out myth." What is left, then, to induce them to give us these preferences over hundreds of items unless it is the fact that at last we have begun to realise, just as they have realised, that by tariff preferences you can build up trade within the Empire?
I am afraid I have not as much time as I should wish to deal fully with all the points that have been raised, but one or two words more I must say. The noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, asked what would be the effect on Great Britain of these Agreements, and the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, in his very sincere speech last night, quoted some figures to show that the import and export trade of this country, converted into gold prices, had dropped in one case by 56 per cent. and in the other case by 60 per cent. The noble Lord will forgive me if I say that that is an entirely misplaced way of calculating percentages. It is just as

1247
true to say that you must alter the price of commodities into gold as to say that you must alter the price of gold into commodities.
If you want to compare one item with another and make allowances for differences in prices, the only true way is to turn from prices to volume and see how much of each commodity was imported or exported in the period you choose. I have had the figures prepared for me, and it is very remarkable to see that during the years 1929 to 1931—the time when the Free Trade Iron Chancellor ruled our destinies—there was a fall in our domestic exports from 122 per cent. to 76 per cent., a drop of nearly 50 per cent. Between October, 1931, and September, 1932, during the first year of the National Government, when protective duties were in force, so far from domestic exports continuing their dismal fall, they were actually a fraction higher than for 1931. You find further that, whereas retained imports remained practically stationary during those first two years, they dropped by over 6 per cent. in the last twelve months. That drop was almost entirely in manufactured articles, because raw materials and food both went up, showing that the Import Duties Act had done exactly what we claimed it would do, and showing what a complete fallacy it is to suppose—as Free Traders imagine—that imports and exports always balance and that if one goes down the other must go down as well. When you remember that the figures I have given relate to a period when all the rest of the world found its trade rapidly and steadily declining, there can be no doubt at all that this country to-day enjoys a much larger share of the world's export trade than it did last year and probably than it did in 1929 or 1930. That is what Protection has already done for Britain. Why should we not try to extend its benefits by extending the scope of Imperial Preference and Imperial trade?
What, finally, is the effect on the world at large? It is said that this will stop us from bargaining with foreign countries. The noble Viscount, Lord Grey, said we could always hitherto make a good bargain because we could threaten that we were going to put on a tariff. I wonder if the noble Viscount thinks that foreign countries would have been very much alarmed by that threat. Now that we
1248
have put on a tariff we have something to bargain with. It is true that we cannot offer them something which we have given already to the Dominions. It is true that we cannot take back from the Dominions the margin of preference we have covenanted that they shall enjoy, but there is a large range of articles with regard to which there is no such covenant with the Dominions and with regard to which if a proper case be shown we can hope to do a very satisfactory deal.
The noble Viscount asked whether we had made any bargains as yet. The answer is "No." We deliberately said that we were not prepared to enter into negotiations until the results of the Ottawa Conference were known. The moment the results of the Ottawa Conference were known one country after another began to enquire whether we were prepared to do a deal. One country after another is sending a Mission to enter into negotiations. We heard only yesterday, I think it was, that an important Mission was coming from Argentina, headed, I believe, by the Vice-President of the Argentine Republic—I am speaking from memory—charged with the duty of trying to negotiate a satisfactory bargain with this country. It is not true to say that if we take less produce from foreign countries they will necessarily take less of our goods. The truth is that hitherto foreign countries have known that they could dump as much as they liked of their produce into this country and that we should take no steps to stop them, and that they were not bound to take any of our goods in return. Now they know that they are expected to take something in return, and that we shall show favour to those most willing to show favour to us. The result of that will be, not to reduce exports but to increase exports.
I am afraid I have detained your Lordships too long, but I have tried to cover the ground as quickly as I could. I only desire to say in conclusion that the Government do not suppose—certainly the members of the Delegation do not suppose—that the arrangements they made at Ottawa were a perfect achievement incapable of alteration, incapable of development, incapable of amendment. We do believe that they are arrangements which will do more than anything which

1249
has happened since the National Government came into power to foster Imperial trade, lead to closer relations between this country and the Dominions, and lay the foundation upon which greater prosperity may result for the trade of
England and the greater prosperity of the world.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 139; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Hampden, V.

Hothfield, L.

Hereford, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somerset, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Howard of Penrith, L.

Wellington, D.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Knutsford, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Camden, M.

Wimborne, V.

Irwin, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Jessel, L.

Exeter, M.

Aberdare, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Salisbury, M.

Abinger, L.

Lawrence, L.

Addington, L.

Leconfield, L.

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Lloyd, L.

Airlie, E.

Alvingham, L.

Luke, L.

Balfour, E.

Ampthill, L.

Marks, L.

Bradford, E.

Annaly, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Cavan, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Middleton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Armstrong, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Denbigh, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Monkswell, L.

Grey, E.

Bayford, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Halsbury, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Morris, L.

Iveagh, E.

Belper, L.

Newton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Berwick, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Charnwood, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Midleton, E.

Chesham, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Polwarth, L.

Onslow, E.

Queenborough, L.

Peel, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Rankeillour, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Redesdale, L.

Roden, E.

Congleton, L.

Remnant, L.

Rothes, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Sandwich, E.

Cottesloe, L.

St. Levan, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Cusheudun, L.

Selsdon, L.

Selborne, E.

Danesfort, L.

Sinclair, L.

Spencer, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Somerleyton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Darling, L.

Southampton, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

de Clifford, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Wicklow, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ypres, E.

Ernle, L.

Erskine, L.

Stratheden, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strickland, L.

Brentford, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Swinfen, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Faringdon, L.

Templemore, L.

Chaplin, V.

Forteviot, L.

Teynham, L.

Churchill, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Wargrave, L.

Elibank, V.

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

Waring, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hampton, L.

Warrington of Clyffe, L.

Goschen, V.

Hanworth, L.

Wharton, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Woodbridge, L.

Hambleden, V.

Hindlip, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Cawley, L.

Pentland, L.

Chalmers, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Buxton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Denman, L.

Rhayader, L.

Doverdale, L.

Rochester, L.

Allendale, V.

Forres, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Cowdray, V.

Gladstone of Hawarden, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Esher, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Leverhulme, V.

Meston, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Snowden, V.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Swaythling, L.

Tenterden, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee or the Whole House.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before we adjourn I would like to say what I did intimate earlier, that the Committee stage will have to be taken on Monday next so as to enable us to get the Third
1252
Reading on Tuesday next, which is the last day before the Import Duties Act comes to an end. There are two or three Amendments down already, but I hope it will be convenient to conclude the Committee stage on Monday evening. I have given notice to Lord Halsbury that I am putting down a Motion that this Bill shall take precedence on Monday.
House adjourned at eight minutes before eight o'clock.