Sitting of 6 April 1933

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
MEMORIAL TO THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH.
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir Victor Warrender)reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
MEMORIAL TO THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH.

  MEMORIAL TO THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH.
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that a Memorial Tablet be erected in the Collegiate Church of Saint Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the late Right Honourable the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.
  I will gladly give directions for carrying into effect your proposal to do honour to the memory of that eminent statesman and devoted servant of his Country.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).
Mr. BATEY: I desire briefly to present a petition on behalf of 6,350 residents in the Spennymoor Division, County Durham, against the suggested co-operative tax. I will not take up the time of the House by reading the prayer, as it was read yesterday.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that expert inquiries recently held have shown that the bare minimum cost of maintenance of children is between 5s. and 6s. per head per week; and whether he will take steps
    1894
    to see that allowances on this scale are available under unemployment insurance and transitional benefit?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I can add nothing to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a similar question put by the hon. Member on 16th March.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Member aware that the minimum sum required is set out in the Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1931, and does he think therefore that 2s. is adequate for the purpose?

    COURTS OF REFEREES (PROCEDURE).
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the practice of certain chairmen of courts of referees who ask applicants appearing before them before their case is heard if, in the event of the decision being against them, they intend to appeal to the umpire; and whether, seeing that the question put in such circumstances savours of intimidation, he will instruct chairmen to ask the question, if necessary, after a decision has been given and not before?
    Mr. HUDSON: The procedure in this matter has not been prescribed, but if my hon. Friend has any cases in mind perhaps he would be good enough to let me have particulars.

    JUVENILES (LIVERPOOL).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that youths who have undergone a six months' course of instruction in woodworking at the Belmont Street Training Centre, Liverpool, are being directed to employment in a firm producing kitchen cabinets, with the promise of a standard wage rate of 20s., and that, after purchasing tools from his insurance benefit, a youth trained at this training centre was put to work on piecework conditions, which only permitted him to earn 9d. per day; and what action he proposes to take to safeguard youths from such conditions?
    Mr. HUDSON: I presume the hon. Member refers to one of the junior instruction centres conducted by the Liverpool Education Authority for unemployed boys under the age of 18. Training for specific trades is not provided at

    1895
    such centres. I have ascertained that some of the boys have taken employment with a firm which appears to be that referred to in the question, but I can find no evidence either that a rate of 20s. was promised or that the conditions permitted a boy to earn only 9d. a day.
    Mr. LEONARD: If I give details to the officials of the Employment Exchange, will the hon. Member take the matter up?
    Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir. I shall be very glad indeed to do so.

    SEASONAL WORKERS.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the present ignorance on the subject, he will instruct all Employment Exchanges in appropriate districts to warn seasonal workers that they can secure certificates of exemption from contributing to the unemployment insurance scheme?
    Mr. HUDSON: It is not the case that all seasonal workers are entitled to exemption. The conditions for exemption are set out in a leaflet which is available generally, and a copy of which is given to each person whose claim to benefit is disallowed under the seasonal workers' regulation.

    COTTON OPERATIVES (REINSTATEMENT).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that certain employers in Lancashire have not carried out the clause in the cotton trade agreement of last year relating to the reinstatement of employés involved in the stoppage; and whether he will take steps to bring this breach of the agreement to the notice of the employers' association?
    Mr. HUDSON: I understand that the employers' and workers' organisations have had under discussion the progress made in the re-employment of displaced operatives, and my right hon. Friend does not consider that there is any necessity to take action of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that this problem has gone beyond that stage and that the allegation is definitely made by the workpeople that reinstatement is not provided by the employers where there
    1896
    are vacancies; and will his Department in those circumstances see whether anything can be done?
    Mr. HUDSON: The situation is that there was no clause in the Cotton Trade Agreement, such as is suggested by the hon. Member in his question. The matter was merely included in the memorandum. The whole question is being discussed between the two sides, and my right hon. Friend thinks that no useful purpose could be served at the present moment by intervening.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that this provision was in the memorandum and not in the Agreement, and will he institute inquiries into the complaints made by the workers' organisations, in order to see whether they are well-founded?
    Mr. HUDSON: Officials of my Department are in touch with both parties, but, in view of the information which we have, my right hon. Friend thinks that at the present moment no useful purpose will be served by adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.

    PUBLIC WORK SCHEMES.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Minister of Health whether he will issue a list of public works involving an individual expenditure of more than £25,000, excluding slum clearance, the building of dwelling houses, schools and labour exchanges, upon which public authorities, at this date, desire to embark by means of a loan-expansion policy, with or without Government aid; and will he also state the total estimated expenditure and the number of persons likely to be employed upon feasible schemes?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): This information could be obtained only by means of a return from the local authorities: and the return and deductions based on it would be subject to so many qualifications, as to its inclusive character, practicability of schemes, probable cost and extent of employment, and the dates by which employment would be available, as to have no practical value. Local schemes at any given moment are at all stages of preparation, and, before actual loan sanction, require careful examination. The statements already made have re-

    1897
    moved any doubt as to the ready sanction which awaits proposals for public works of a remunerative or useful character.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Has not my right hon. Friend already in his Department a list of the type of public works which I have described in my Question; and could he not issue to us such a list, so that we might see whether there is any foundation for the statement that a system of loan expansion would help employment?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir; there is, in fact, no such list in existence.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he is now in a position to make a statement in respect of colliery owners and the insurance of their workmen for fatal and non-fatal accidents in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act;
  (2) if he is now in a position to state what amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act he proposes to make in regard to compulsory insurance for injured workmen?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): My right hon. Friend does not at present contemplate any amendment of the Act in the direction suggested. As regards the mining industry, the information supplied by the Mining Association shows that in almost every area the mutual indemnity associations have now made arrangements to insure the owners against all their liabilities under the Act, excepting only payments due in disablement cases in respect of the first six months; good progress is being made in getting the firms to take advantage of such insurance. The chief exception is Lancashire, but I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend is informed that a scheme has now been drawn up by a committee representing the two Lancashire indemnity associations, and is being submitted to all the Lancashire collieries for acceptance. As regards those undertakings which prefer to do their own insurance, a model form of trust deed is
  1898
  being prepared which will provide for the maintenance of reserves adequate to meet all outstanding liabilities. Much, no doubt, remains to be done, but there seems to be good ground for hoping that the co-operation of the industry will enable matters to be placed on a satisfactory basis.
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that in these policies there is abundant guarantee for the men who are employed in the pits which are to be covered, and that the men are adequately provided for?
  Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir. In the mutual indemnity associations I think there is no doubt about that.
  Mr. GRENFELL: Is the right hon. Member aware that there are cases where men who were supposed to be insured under a mutual indemnity scheme were not safeguarded?
  Mr. HACKING: I shall be pleased if the hon. Member will let me have particulars of that.

  LOTTERIES AND BETTING (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether in view of the urgency of passing legislation during this Session, he will state whether the final Report of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting may be expected before Whitsuntide?
  Mr. HACKING: I am unable to add anything to the answer given on the 27th March, in reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).
  Captain MACDONALD: Has the right hon. Member any idea when this commission will report, in view of the fact that it is some time since it ceased taking evidence.
  Mr. HACKING: The answer is given in the reply to the question to which I have referred on the 27th March, when my right hon. Friend said that the final recommendations might be expected in two or three months' time.

  ALIENS (RUSSIANS).
  Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Home Secretary if he will state how many Russian subjects are now in this country?
  Mr. HACKING: According to the latest information, the number of persons registered as Russians is:

  Males

  …

  31,496

  Females

  …

  36,429

  Total

  …

  67,925

  Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Is it possible for the Minister to consider a restriction on these people coming into the country?
  Mr. HACKING: There are restrictions under the Aliens Act.
  Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of these are White Russians?
  Mr. HACKING: I do not think I could give that information, even if I had notice, but I should say that the great majority of Russians in this country are people who have been here for very many years, and I do not think there is any reason to suppose that every Russian is of necessity an undesirable alien.

  MAINTENANCE ORDERS.
  Mr. RANKINasked the Home Secretary whether he will circularise benches of magistrates recommending them to have recourse to the Vagrancy Act in connection with persistent refusals to maintain wives and families; and whether he is aware that this procedure is being followed in Liverpool?
  Mr. HACKING: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that magistrates are unaware of the relevant provisions in the Vagrancy Act, and, so far as he is aware, there is no occasion for his calling attention to them in the way suggested.

  POACHING (CONVICTION, WORKSOP).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inuiries into the case of the man named
  1900
  Marples who was convicted at Worksop for poaching?
  Mr. HACKING: After full consideration, my right hon. Friend has decided to recommend the remission of the remainder of this man's sentence, and instructions have been given for his release forthwith.

  TRANSPORT.

    TAXIMETER CABS (RENEWAL LICENCES).
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Home Secretary whether he will direct the metropolitan cab-licensing authorities to revise the conditions of fitness laid down for granting renewal licences of taximeter-cabs so that taximeter cabs may not ply for hire which are below the safety point in steering efficiency, engine power, and control; and is he aware that the reconditioning requirements are now such as to retain on the streets taximeter-cabs which are uncomfortable and out of accord with the need of the public?
    Mr. HACKING: Taximeter-cabs are not licensed if they are below the safety point, and my right hon. Friend is assured that no revision of the conditions of fitness of such cabs in that respect is required. As regards the second part of the question, it would be unfair to the owners to reject the older cabs merely because they may not attain the degree of comfort to be found in new models. It should be remembered that a cab is often the sole means of livelihood of an owner-driver.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this state of affairs is often due to hard economic conditions?
    Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir, but the conditions as to fitness must be complied with.

    ROAD WORKS (KERBSTONE).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Transport whether the committee appointed to promote the wider use of British kerbstone in Greater London has been successful in diminishing the sale of foreign materials in that area; and whether any arrangements have been made or considered to extend this scheme to other parts of the country and to include other types of road materials?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The committee has received encouraging replies from the highway authorities in Greater London, but there has not yet been time for definite results to be ascertained. I doubt the advisability of attempting to extend the scheme at present in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend, whose aim is largely met, I think, by a condition, of which I am sending him a copy, attached to all grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of works.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the imports of foreign sets are still continuing at a very high level, and is the Department doing anything more to prevent it?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If my hon. Friend would like to have a copy of our instructions, I will send it to him.

    RAIL AND ROAD CONFERENCE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to introduce legislation in connection with the recommendations of the Salter report; and, if so, at what date?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Government have already announced their intention of introducing a Bill before Easter, and it will be available to hon. Members in the course of the next few days.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In view of the growing feeling that the recommendations are open to very serious question, cannot my hon. and gallant Friend arrange for a day's discussion on the subject before legislation is introduced?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, I think there will be plenty of opportunity of discussion when legislation is introduced.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, STAINFORTH.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (1) how many children in the Stainforth area, near Doncaster, are being taught in temporary schools; how
  1902
  many such buildings are being used; and when permanent accommodation is likely to be provided;
  (2) how many children of school age in the Stainforth area are not attending school owing to lack of accommodation?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): There is considerable pressure on the school accommodation in the area referred to. My Noble Friend has no doubt that the local education authority is watching the situation closely, but he is asking them for more precise information, and will communicate with the hon. Member. Five temporary school buildings, providing accommodation for 1,020 children, are in use, and my Noble Friend understands that proposals for a new permanent school are now under consideration by the local education authority.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these temporary schools have been in existence for at least 20 years and that they are wholly unfit for the use of the children? Further, is he aware that there are 1,221 children with a playground of less than three-quarters of an acre, and does he not think that the time has arrived when a new school should be provided as soon as possible?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Those considerations will be relevant in considering the local authority's proposal for a new school.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: As the proposal for a new school has been held up since the Government came into office, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time has arrived when economy ought not to deprive this district of a school when one is so urgently required?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I would point out to the hon. Member that the proposal for this new school has not yet been received by the Board?

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.
    Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the Minister of Health if he has any information as to the number of villages in Great

    1903
    Britain which have no proper water supply; and, if not, whether he will make arrangements to obtain such information?
    Sir H. YOUNG: This information is gradually being accumulated by my officers in the course of their work. A special investigation, comprehensive enough to be of value, would cost an amount of public money not to be justified by any advantage in comparison with the regular work now in progress. I propose issuing a circular shortly on rural water supplies.

    MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (INMATES' DISCHARGE).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Minister of Health whether, as a measure to improve the accommodation in asylums, he will take steps to have notices put up acquainting friends of inmates, as provided under Section 79 of the Lunacy Act, how to facilitate the discharge of inmates to the care of their friends; if he is aware that in one case, where this provision was carried out and notices temporarily posted up, many applications were received and discharges effected; and whether he will advise that the Section referred to shall be utilised in the interest both of the inmates and of the institutions?
    Sir H. YOUNG: If the hon. Member will send me details of the particular case to which he refers, I shall be very glad to consider what inferences can properly be drawn from it. In the meantime, I would refer him to the reply which I gave to his question on this subject on the 23rd February.

  DEPRESSED AREAS (RATE BURDEN).
  Mr. STOURTONasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the urgent need for action, he will be in a position before the House adjourns for the Easter Recess to make a statement as to the Government's intentions to relieve the depressed areas of the increasing burden of Poor Law relief?
  Mr. LAWasked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the anxiety which is felt in many parts of the country as to the Government's policy, he is yet able to make a state-
  1904
  ment on the position of the depressed areas in relation to the burden of the Poor Law rate?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The matter is occupying the immediate attention of the Government. I am unable to say to-day when such a statement as that referred to will be made.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that some depressed areas are depressed because of past profligacy on the part of the local authorities—
  HON. MEMBERS: No.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Will my right hon. Friend bear that consideration in mind in any decision that is come to?
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount expended by local authorities in Scotland on able-bodied relief for unemployed and their dependants since 1921; the amount expended by Glasgow, Clydebank, Dumbarton, Greenock, Paisley, and other industrial centres; and, in view of the representations made to him by local authorities that the State should undertake to pay the cost of able-bodied relief, what action is to be taken by the Government to relieve local authorities and ratepayers of this burden?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am sending the hon. Member a tabular statement containing the information asked for in the first two parts of the question. As regards the last part, as was stated on the 30th March in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) the whole matter is under the consideration of the Government.

  BREWING CONCERNS (PROFITS).
  Mr. HOLDSWORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the profits of brewing concerns for accounting years ending in the Income Tax year 1913–14, and in the latest year for which particulars are available, representing the profits as computed for Income Tax purposes less the amounts allowed for wear and tear of machinery and plant, and including profits arising from the carrying on of any trade ancillary to the main business?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The profits of brewing concerns for accounting years ended in the year 1931–32 which were the basis of the Income Tax Assessment for the year 1932–33 are estimated at £23,000,000. The profits for the year 1932–33 which will be the basis of assessment for the current year will not come under assessment to Income Tax until next autumn, but I anticipate that they will show a considerable decline. The profits for the year 1913–14 were just under £10,000,000. These estimates, include in addition to the profit arising from brewing, any ancillary profits of the business.
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Would it be possible to give some relief to the consumers of beer out of some of the profits of the liquor trade?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind the fact that the brewery trade gets a higher profit than any other trade in the country, and more advertisement and more Press?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CANADIAN WHEAT (AMERICAN SHIPMENT).
    Mr. RANKINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the difficulty in carrying out the regulations now required by the customs to obtain preference for Canadian wheat shipped through American ports, he will consider the desirability of altering these regulations so as to enable all wheat of proved Empire growth consigned by any route to the United Kingdom to be admitted free of all customs duty?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, Canadian wheat is admitted free of duty, provided that it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs to have been consigned to the United Kingdom from a part of the British Empire. The mere transit of such wheat through United States ports enroute to the United Kingdom does not debar the wheat from preference, provided that it is shown to have been definitely consigned from Canada to this country. I would remind my hon. Friend that consignment from a part of the Empire has been a general
    1906
    condition of the grant of preference ever since the Imperial Preference system was introduced in 1919, and I am afraid that I cannot accept his suggestion that this condition should now be waived in the case of particular goods.

    TRADE NEGOTIATIONS (BRITISH COAL).
    Mr. D. GRENFELL (for Mr. LAWSON)asked the President of the Board of Trade the countries with which he is now negotiating trade agreements in which British coal is involved; and if he can state the tonnage of the export coal involved in these negotiations?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. E. Brown): Coal is prominent among the articles which are under discussion in the case of all the countries with which negotiations are now proceeding. It is clearly impossible to indicate the extent of the concessions which may be secured until the agreements have been concluded.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House of the countries with which trade agreements are being negotiated?
    Mr. BROWN: The countries with which we are negotiating trade agreements are Argentina, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. In addition, we are in communication with the German Government in regard to their restrictions on the importations of United Kingdom coal.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman be able soon to inform the House of the progress in these matters?
    Mr. BROWN: I hope at not too distant a date.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Are any discussions proceeding with France?
    Mr. BROWN: Not at the moment.
    Mr. BEVAN: Will he inform the House why?

  SCOTLAND.

    PIG MARKETING SCHEME.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOTasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange for a sitting or sittings of the public inquiry into the pig marketing scheme to take place in Scotland for the purpose of taking the evidence of Scottish objectors?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I have been asked to reply. I understand that the evidence of Scottish objectors to the Pig Marketing Scheme has already been taken.

    AGRICULTURAL WAGES.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the farmers in Easter Ross and other parts of Scotland propose to reduce wages by per annum, and have declined to meet the representatives of the trade union to negotiate an agreement; that the farm workers have decided to strike unless the threat to reduce wages is withdrawn: and will the Department of Agriculture take immediate action to prevent a reduction in wages and to see that the union is recognised?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that farmers in Easter Ross propose to reduce wages by £10 per annum, but I am not aware that so large a reduction has been proposed in other districts. I further understand that no negotiations have taken place in Easter Ross between the farmers and the farm workers, and that the latter are not prepared to accept situations as from Whitsunday at the rates offered them. The Department of Agriculture for Scotland have no power to take action in the direction suggested by the hon. Member, but if opportunity arose for exercising their good offices they would be glad to do anything possible.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: May we take it that the Secretary of State will use the whole power of his office to defend these poor men, who have no organisation to defend them, in the wilds of the Highlands?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As I mentioned to the hon. Member, my good offices are at the disposal of the different parties in the matter.

    GLASGOW CORPORATION (INQUIRY).
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now state the number and nams of persons who are to form the judicial committee of inquiry into the allegations of graft by members and officials of the Glasgow corporation; the terms of reference; when they will take up their duties; and where the sittings will be held?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The proposed terms of reference to the Tribunal are set out
    1908
    in the Notice of Motion which appears in to-day's Order Paper. On the other points mentioned in the hon. Member's question, I think it would be appropriate that I should defer a statement until the Motion is taken. I hope that it will be possible to take the Motion next week.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the proposed judicial inquiry to be held in Glasgow will have powers wide enough to receive complaints of trafficking between police officers and certain bookmakers and afford protection to those submitting evidence?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The terms of reference contained in the Notice of Motion which I have put down relate to the administration of the Corporation of Glasgow and of the Licensing Court and the Licensing Court of Appeal for the city and it is not proposed that the tribunal's inquiry should be extended so as to include an inquiry into the conduct of police officers. These officers, in addition to being subject to the ordinary criminal law, are subject to a police discipline code, breaches of which involve various measures of punishment. Cases of known or suspected misconduct, or offences by police officers should be reported either to the Chief Constable or to the Procurator Fiscal.

    RIVER LEVEN (POLLUTION).
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Prevention of Pollution of the River Leven, Fife, will be published?
    Mr. SKELTON: I understand that the committee hope to submit their report to the Department of Health for Scotland on 11th April. The report will be published as soon as possible thereafter.

  DESTRUCTIVE IMPORTED ANIMALS ACT (NUTRIA).
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to take any action under the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, with a view to regulating the importation and keeping of nutria in this country?
  The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): As the result of inquiries I have caused to be made as to the

  1909
  practice in other European countries as regards the keeping of nutria, and of information obtained from other sources, I have come to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence at present to justify action as regards nutria under the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932. The Ministry has arranged, however, for the representative associations of fur breeders to keep and supply the Ministry with a record of all persons keeping nutria, and facilities are to be afforded for officers of the Department to visit their premises in order to see the conditions under which the animals are being kept.
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the amount allocated for this purpose is w holly inadequate to deal with the possibilities of destruction by these pests?

  AVIATION.

    PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN (AERODROMES).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps are being taken for the provision of civil aerodromes in Palestine and Transjordan?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): There is already a civil aerodrome at Gaza in Palestine. Consideration has been given to the question of providing further civil aerodromes in Palestine and Transjordan, but owing to financial considerations it has not been possible to do so. Meanwhile, however, arrangements are, on request, occasionally made for civil aircraft to use, subject to the exigencies of the service, certain of the Royal Air Force aerodromes and landing grounds in Palestine and Transjordan.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, though Palestine is said to be one of the most prosperous parts of the British Empire, there is now no aerodrome nearer than 35 miles from Jerusalem?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are some physical considerations in Palestine which affect the position.

    FOREIGN COUNTRIES (SUBSIDIES).
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what was the value of the direct subsidies given to civil aviation in France and Germany and of the indirect subsidies given to civil aviation by the United States of America during 1932?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Information regarding the actual payments by way of subsidies to civil aviation in France and Germany is not available, but the amounts provided in French Estimates for the nine months ended 31st December last totalled 162,500,000 francs, and those in German Estimates for, the year ended 31st March last 20,732,000 Reichsmarks. As regards the United States of America, the indirect subsidy to civil aviation for the year ended 30th June last by way of loss on air mail contracts was approximately 23,850,000 dollars.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: Could not the Government emulate the example of the United States in treating higher aviation as they did?

  GAMBIA (NATIVE AUTHORITY ORDINANCE).
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what measures are taken to prevent abuse of the powers to exact forced labour in cases of real or threatened famine which are conferred on native authorities in Gambia under Clause 1C of the Native Authority Ordinance, 1983; and whether he is satisfied that the Clause conforms with the Geneva Forced Labour Convention?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Government of the Gambia will exercise a close supervision over the working of the Ordinance through the Commissioners in charge of the provinces. I am advised that the Clause in question does not conflict with any provision of the Convention to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his consent was given to the enactment of forced labour in Gambia Protectorate; and whether, in view of

  1911
  the frequency of famine, any steps are being taken, by irrigation or otherwise, to increase the amount of land available for cultivation and thus increase the supply of food?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I presume the hon. Member refers to the Native Authority Ordinance of 1933, which, as I have just stated, is in conformity with the International Labour Convention. I approved the provisions of this Ordinance in draft. Famine is not at all frequent in the Gambia, but steps are being taken to increase the production of food locally.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    IRAQ.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what instructions have been given to the air officer commanding in Iraq with regard to bombing internally to assist the Iraq Government under any circumstances?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As stated in the reply given on 16th November, His Majesty's Government have undertaken no obligations in regard to assisting the Iraq Government in the maintenance of internal security. If a critical situation arose and a request for such assistance was rceived, His Majesty's Government would consider the situation as a whole, including such matters as the protection of British and other foreign subjects and their property, before coming to a decision as to the assistance to be given, if any, and as to its nature.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Are we to understand that the Air Force in Iraq cannot be used for the protection of British nationals without previous arrangement with the Iraq Government?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I think my hon. and gallant Friend understands from my answer what the situation is.

    KURDISTAN (LANDING GROUNDS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what expenditure is being incurred on the building of aerodromes in mountainous country in Kurdistan, both by way of renovation and repair; and what are the reasons for this?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The only expenditure that is being incurred is the almost negligible cost of maintaining some existing landing grounds which are required for training purposes.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (MATERIALS).
  Mr. MITCHESONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what preference, if any, is given by the Air Ministry in the placing of their contracts to goods manufactured by purely British firms over those goods manufactured in the United Kingdom by firms whose capital is owned entirely or substantially by foreign persons or organisations outside the United Kingdom?
  Sir P. SASSOON: There is no preference on a basis of ownership of capital, provided it is clear that British labour will be employed, that the materials to be used are mainly British, and that accordingly the contracts will give employment in this country?
  Mr. MITCHESON: Will the right hon. Gentleman follow the practice of other countries in future and give this preference?
  Sir P. SASSOON: The activities of companies with foreign capital help to relieve unemployment in this country. Therefore, it is not considered desirable to discriminate against them in this manner.
  Mr. MITCHESONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what preference, if any, is given by the Admiralty in the placing of their contracts to goods manufactured by purely British firms over those goods manufactured in the United Kingdom by firms whose capital is owned entirely or substantially by foreign persons or organisations outside the United Kingdom?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): No such preference is given as it is not considered to be practicable.
  Mr. MITCHESONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what preference, if any, is given by the War Office in the placing of their contracts to goods manufactured by purely British firms over those goods manufactured in

  1913
  the United Kingdom by firms whose capital is owned entirely or substantially by foreign persons or organisations outside the United Kingdom?
  Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. In placing contracts with firms whose works are in this country, it is not considered to be either practicable or desirable to discriminate between those whose capital is British owned and those whose capital is wholly or substantially held by foreign persons.

  WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister if he can now state the date on which the proposed World Economic Conference will be held?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) on Monday last, to which I have at present nothing to add.
  Captain MACDONALD: Is there any truth in the statement that the Prime Minister is proceeding to America, and what is the object of his visit?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Easter holiday is coming on, and I hope the Prime Minister can use the opportunity of doing as he thinks fit.
  Mr. MAXTON: I hope no one in the House would dream of interfering with that. Might I ask if the Prime Minister's visit to America is going to take place, and if it will have any effect in postponing the date of the World Economic Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Quite the opposite. I hope it will hurry it up.

  GERMANY.
  Mr. JOHN MORRISasked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salford, North:
  "That this House, whilst not desirous of interfering with the domestic government of any country, observes with regret the continued persecution of Jews in Germany, recognising that the Jewish race cannot be identified with any particular nation,
  1914
  extends to British Jews its sympathy in the hour of their trial caused by the persecution of their co-religionists and requests His Majesty's Government, in the interests of world peace and the advancement of international trade, to make friendly representations to the German Government, in accordance with our ancient tradition, to respect the numerical weakness and defenceless position of Jews in Germany."
  The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that the press of Parliamentary business makes it impossible to allot time for the discussion of this Motion. The views widely held in this country have, however, recently found very full expression.
  Mr. MORRIS: While thanking the Prime Minister for his reply, might I ask if the House is to have no opportunity of registering the strong feeling that obviously exists upon all sides against the persecution of Jews in Germany?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is a matter of discretion. We are quite willing to leave it at the moment where it is.
  Major NATHANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now able to make a statement as to the general situation in Germany and, in particular, as to the situation of the Jews in that country, and as to the measures of discrimination directed against them?
  Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a report from the British Ambassador in Berlin in respect of the treatment of Jews in Germany?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to the Leader of the Opposition on the 30th March, His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin has been asked to furnish a report, and he prefers to await this before making any general statement regarding the situation in Germany.
  Major NATHAN: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to indicate any date by which a report from His Majesty's. Ambassador may be expected?
  Mr. EDEN: We expect it very shortly; I hope during the course of the week-end.
  Mr. JANNER: Will the hon. Member press for a reply by the end of the week in view of the great anxiety which is being felt on all sides, and, in connection with that reply, will he endeavour

  1915
  to obtain particulars concerning the Jews in German Upper Silesia who are being displaced from their vocations and treated with violence, particularly in view of the German Polish Convention which was entered into on 15th May, 1922?
  Mr. EDEN: There will be no avoidable delay. Obviously, the preparation of a report of this kind takes time. The more details for which we ask, the longer it will take to obtain them.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that this question may become urgent, and that it is nearing the time for Parliament to adjourn, will not the hon. Gentleman at least see that a statement is issued before the Adjournment in case we may wish to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment?
  Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member may be sure that the House will be given information as soon as we are in a position to do so, and if we are able to do so after we have examined the report of His Majesty's Ambassador.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Do not these events show that the mentality which caused the Belgian atrocities in 1914 still exists in Germany?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend whether it is possible for the League of Nations to be asked to take steps to deal with the very large number of refugees who have been driven out of Germany just now?
  HON. MEMBERS: Russia—
  Mr. LANSBURY: Exactly; I am willing to do the same for our people in Russia too. But one question at a time is enough.
  Mr. EDEN: Of course, I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he has given me no notice of this question.
  Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does not the League of Nations exist to help persecuted minorities?

  EMPIRE MIGRATION.
  Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary of State for
  1916
  Dominion Affairs if he can give any information regarding any action taken as a result of the resolution passed by the House on the 7th December, 1932, urging His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to secure the co-operation of the Dominions in comprehensive schemes for migration within the Empire?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of the types of scheme which should be recommended for adoption when economic circumstances permit of the resumption of migration is receiving the most careful consideration. He will, however, realise that new schemes of migration cannot be started until conditions are more favourable.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Can we take it from reports that the right hon. Gentleman is about to proceed to Australia, and can he do anything to hasten his departure?
  Mr. THOMAS: I should be delighted to do anything which would enable my hon. Friend to feel happy.
  Mr. MAXTON: Can we have the assurance of the Dominions Secretary that he and the Prime Minister will not both be out of the country at the same time?

  WATERLOO BATTLEFIELD (PRESERVATION).
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the Belgian Government for the continued preservation of the battlefield of Waterloo and the historical buildings thereon, such as the farm of Mont Saint Jean, the farm of La Belle Alliance, Hougoumont, etc., for which a contribution was made by this country in 1914 towards compensation of the owners of the land?
  Mr. EDEN: No contribution has been made out of public funds from this country towards compensation of the owners of land on the battlefield of Waterloo, and no representations have been made to the Belgian Government.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is my bon. Friend aware that contributions were made from this country, even if not from public funds, and as this is a matter in which

  1917
  this country is very much interested, does he not think it desirable, at any rate, to communicate with our Ambassador regarding the proposals which have been mooted in Belgium for building on the field of Waterloo?
  Mr. EDEN: If my hon. Friend has any information on this question, I will certainly consider it.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Thank you.

  AUSTRIA AND GERMANY.
  Mr. RAIKESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent proposals for the revision of treaties, he will state the attitude of His Majesty's Government relative to the proposed political and inter-Customs agreement between Germany and Austria; and whether His Majesty's Government is still prepared to stand by the decision of The Hague Court that such a rapprochement would be contrary to the Treaty of St. Germain?
  Mr. EDEN: I am not aware of the existence at the present time of any proposal for the conclusion either of a political or a Customs agreement between Germany and Austria. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (EXPENDITURE).
  Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the small reduction in the estimate for the subscription of Great Britain to the League of Nations for 1933, any further action is to be taken in the near future to press for further reductions in the administrative costs of that body?
  Mr. EDEN: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on the 26th October last in reply to a similar question in the name of my hon. Friend.

  RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.
  Sir BASIL PETO (for Mr. CLARRY)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a Treasury representative as successor to Lord D'Abernon has yet been appointed on the Racecourse Betting Control Board?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Yes, Sir. General Sir John Du Cane, G.C.B., has consented to join the Racecourse Betting Control Board to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Lord D'Abernon.
  Sir B. PETO: Will my hon. Friend repeat the name?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Sir John Du Cane.

  BRITISH HONDURAS (CURRENCY).
  Mr. JOELasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make it a condition of assistance to be granted to the Government of British Honduras for assistance in meeting their budgetary deficit, that British Honduras should base its currency on sterling instead of upon gold?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This question of the British Honduras currency is under consideration. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

  URUGUAY (ABSENTEE LANDLORD TAX).
  Mr. TEMPLE MORRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if progress has been made in the representations made by His Majesty's Government before the Government of Uruguay for the modification of the absentee landlord tax as applied to public utility companies radicated in Uruguay?
  Mr. EDEN: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the representations made by His Majesty's Government in support of the Montevideo Gas and Dry Dock Company's claim for exemption from payment of this tax. His Majesty's Representative at Montevideo is being instructed to continue to press upon the Uruguayan Government the desirability of reaching a satisfactory settlement of this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: If the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister is carried, will the right hon. Gentleman say how far he intends to go to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended as a precautionary measure. As announced yesterday, we hope to conclude the remaining stages of the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Bill by 9 or 10 o'clock to-night, and to devote an hour or two to the Committee stage of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Bill.
Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he made that statement some controversy, which may lead to a good deal of discussion, as to the scope of the Bill and the length of time it will be in operation has arisen, and that therefore it may be impossible to conclude as early as was expected, and does he really want to sit as late as we did the other evening, which was a very inconvenient hour?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not wish to ask the House to sit to an inconvenient hour, but as the situation of business stands we must use all the available time. We hope to conclude the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Bill by 9 o'clock to-night, and then to proceed with the Rent Restrictions Bill. We can arrange matters as the time goes on.
Mr. BUCHANAN: In regard to the Rent Restrictions Bill, is the Prime Minister aware that it is not receiving the consideration which it ought to receive, considering that it is of terrible importance to vast numbers of people? To consider the Bill in an hour or two at the end of the day's sitting, as if it were a scrap Measure, is not fair to the
House. Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider that as the Bill is of such great importance he should start it de novo on another day?
The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that an agreement has been come to that the Rent Restrictions Bill shall be got through by the sitting on Tuesday. I want to facilitate its progress by using every available hour, so that the arrangement can be kept, and I hope that its progress will be facilitated.
Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not practically the same Bill that was considered by the late Government, and are not its provisions well known to all hon. Members?
Mr. LANSBURY: It is true that originally it was agreed that three days, should be given to the Committee stage of the Bill. If we have Tuesday of next week, that is giving us the three days which were asked for, owing to the fact that many hon. Members wished to discuss Amendments. We hope to get some extra time to-night, but, as I have pointed out, other questions have arisen in regard to the Embargo Bill, which may vitiate the previous arrangement. That is all that I wanted to say.
Motion made, and Question put.
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 44.

Division No. 122.]

AYES.

[3.33 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bossom, A. C.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Boulton, W. W.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

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

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

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

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

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Apsley, Lord

Briant, Frank

Christie, James Archibald

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Bailey, Eric Alfred George

Broadbent, Colonel John

Clarke, Frank

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Clarry, Reginald George

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

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

Conant, R. J. E.

Balniel, Lord

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Cooke, Douglas

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Burnett, John George

Cranborne, Viscount

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Crooke, J. Smedley

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

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Cross, R. H.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Castle Stewart, Earl

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Bernays, Robert

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Davison, Sir William Henry

Blindell, James

Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Denville, Alfred,

Law, Sir Alfred

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F

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

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Donner, P. W,

Leckie, J. A.,

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Drewe, Cedric

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Levy, Thomas

Ropner, Colonel L.

Dunglass, Lord

Liddall, Walter S.

Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

Eden, Robert Anthony

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Ross, Ronald D.

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Rothschild, James A. de

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Elmley, Viscount

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

Runge, Norah Cecil

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

Mabane, William

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Fermoy, Lord

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

Salt, Edward W.

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

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

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

McKie, John Hamilton

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

Fox, Sir Gifford

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Fuller, Captain A. G.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

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

Ganzoni, Sir John

Magnay, Thomas

Savery, Samuel Servington

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Maitland, Adam

Scone, Lord

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

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Selley, Harry R.

Glossop, C. W. H.

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

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Goff, Sir Park

Martin, Thomas B.

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

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Gower, Sir Robert

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Meller, Richard James

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

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Grimston, R. V.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Smithers, Waldron

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Milne, Charles

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Mitcheson, G. G.

Soper, Richard

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.,

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

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

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

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

Hanbury, Cecil

Moreing, Adrian C.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Stevenson, James

Harbord, Arthur

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Stones, James

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Storey, Samuel

Hartland, George A.

Moss, Captain H. J.

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Strauss, Edward A.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Munro, Patrick

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Nall, Sir Joseph

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Hepworth, Joseph

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

Sutcliffe, Harold

Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

Nunn, William

Templeton, William P.

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

Ormiston, Thomas

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

Holdsworth, Herbert

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

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Palmer, Francis Noel

Thompson, Luke

Hornby, Frank

Patrick, Colin M.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Horobin, Ian M.

Peake, Captain Osbert

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Horsbrugh, Florence

Pearson, William G.

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

Howard, Tom Forrest

Peat, Charles U.

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

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

Petherick, M

Wayland, Sir William A.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Wells, Sydney Richard

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

Weymouth, Viscount

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

White, Henry Graham

Hurd, Sir Percy

Potter, John

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

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

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Purbrick, R.

Wise, Alfred R.

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

Pybus, Percy John

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Janner, Barnett

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

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

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

Kerr, Hamilton W.

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

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Kimball, Lawrence

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Knight, Holford

Rankin, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Ray, Sir William

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Rea, Walter Russell

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

Daggar, George

Attlee, Clement Richard

Buchanan, George

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Banfield, John William

Cape, Thomas

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Batey, Joseph

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Edwards, Charles

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Cove, William G.

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

1922

1923

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Leonard, William

Thorne, William James

Groves, Thomas E.

Logan, David Gilbert

Tinker, John Joseph

Grundy, Thomas W.

Lunn, William

Waffhead, Richard C.

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

McEntee, Valentine L.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Hall, George H. (Me thyr Tydvil)

McGovern, John

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Healy, Cahir

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Hirst, George Henry

Maxton, James

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Jenkins, Sir William

Nathan, Major H. L.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Parkinson, John Allen

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Kirkwood, David

Price, Gabriel

Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Salter, Dr. Alfred

BILLS REPORTED.

  COTTON INDUSTRY BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 19th May.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AUDIT BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 19th May, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
    DEWSBURY AND OSSETT PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
      BRIDLINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
      Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL,
"to enable courts to disqualify for keeping dogs persons convicted of cruelty to them," presented by Sir Robert Gower; supported by Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Mr. Hutchison, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Sir Cooper Rawson, Mr. Herbert Williams, Mr. Cocks, Mr. Turton, Mr. Richard Evans, Miss Horsbrugh, and Sir Wilfrid Sugden; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
Sir John Ganzoni reported from the Select Committee on the Kitchen and
Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons), That they had agreed to a Special Report which they had directed him to make to the House.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Indian Constitutional Re Form,—That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution communicated to them on Thursday last: "That, before Parliament is asked to take a decision upon the proposals contained in Command Paper 4268, it is expedient that a Joint Select Committee of Lords and Commons, with power to call into consultation representatives of the Indian States and of British India, be appointed to consider the future government of India and, in particular, to examine and report upon the proposals in the said Command Paper."
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to prohibit the importation of Russian goods.)
    3.53 p.m.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert the words:
    "During the period of one month from the commencement of this Act."
    The discussion yesterday on this Bill left the House in doubt upon two matters of outstanding importance: First, the nature of the demands which we propose to make upon the Russian Government, that is to say, the nature of the treatment we expect the Government of Russia to deal out to the men who are now on trial; and, second, the objects for which the Bill is designed. At the conclusion of the Debate last night the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) addressed a question to the President of the Board of Trade which has a direct bearing on the Amendment. He asked whether the purpose of the Bill was to deal with trade relations generally with Russia or whether its use was to be confined to dealing with the men in prison. The President of the Board of Trade found it impossible to give a direct reply and said:
    "No one can say what is the sole object. We are bound to take powers in the widest form, and they will be mainly dealing with our fellow countrymen who are at present under arrest in Russia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1933, col. 1886, Vol. 276.]
    If the last part of the answer is to be taken for what it is worth, and if we are to ignore the first part, we have to assume that the sole purpose of these powers is to try and secure the treatment for these men in Russia which the Government require, and, therefore, there is no need why the powers should remain in the hands of the Government for an indefinite period. Yesterday the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade spoke of no other purpose, used no other argument, but that these powers were necessary in order to secure what is considered to be fair treat-
    1934
    ment for British subjects in Russia and, consequently, if they are going to be used for a wider purpose, then the House has had no opportunity of discussing that aspect of the matter. Everyone will agree that the discussion yesterday did not turn upon the economic consequences of the use of these powers. Hon. Members were prepared to face the economic consequences involved in order to secure what they considered to be fair treatment for our people there. Therefore, it would be a gross violation of the practices of this House if these powers were used for purposes which never emerged in the discussion, and it would be dishonourable on the part of the Government if they put forward the alleged bad treatment of our people in Russia as a cloak under which to obtain powers for other purposes which were not disclosed.
    We desire to limit these powers to one month. If the Government do not exercise them within one month, they should lapse. It would not be proper to argue against the use of the embargo; the Second Reading decided that point. It would not be proper to argue against the effects of the embargo. This Amendment is not directed against that, but it is put forward in order to minimise the great uncertainty which will otherwise exist if these powers are kept in reserve and may be used at any moment by the Government to stop our trade with Russia. In such circumstances great uncertainty would be introduced, and uncertainty is only next in gravity to the exercise of the embargo itself.
    Russia is carrying on a trade with this-country of something like £32,000,000, and we export something in the nature-of £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 worth of goods. With other exports included there is a total trade of something between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000. The timber importing industry feels very deeply the uncertainty which exists as a consequence of the reservation of these powers. Indeed, unless the powers terminate at an early date it will he quite impossible to place any forward contracts with Russia; it will be impossible in view of the possibility of these powers being used for purposes entirely unrelated to trade. It would he disastrous in the extreme to industries if these powers were reserved all the time. The "Financial News" the other day had a leading

    1935
    article on this matter, in which it was Pointed out that the trade with this country is of great importance, that the Government had underwritten something like £10,000,000 of credit for the Russian trade, of which £7,000,000 would fall upon the Treasury if the Russian Government failed to meet its commitments, and that any fall in Russian trade to this country must have financial repercussions.
    I have been told that a great deal of the £50,000,000 which is frozen in Germany was lent by this country at something like 8 per cent., and was re-lent to the Russians at 15 per cent., and that any collapse of the Russian export trade would affect the chance of getting that money repaid. Russia owes Germany something like £250,000,000. She owes America a great deal of money also. She was making use of the unfavourableness of the balance of trade between Russia and Britain in order to make her payments to Germany and America. [Laughter.] I expected that hon. Members would laugh at that remark. But that state of affairs existed before the War, and there is nothing new about it. We have an unfavourable balance of trade with Russia merely because we needed the goods that Russia was able to sell, and she did not need in the same quantities the goods that we made.
    It is absurd for hon. Members to argue that there is any injustice in an unfavourable balance of trade as between one country and another. Indeed, if we are to maintain our position as a creditor nation we must have, in terms of goods, an unfavourable balance of trade with most of the nations of the world. I wish, therefore, that lion. Members opposite would drop their jeers, which are an indication of juvenile intelligence. The point has been dealt with so often that it is difficult to express oneself with the ordinary courtesies of Parliamentary language. Some hon. Members say that there is something terrible in Russia selling more 'to us than we sell to Russia. The President of the Board of Trade informed us yesterday that there was every hope that that gap would be filled up. It is very necessary that such gaps should be filled up. But at the moment the point at issue is that, as long as these powers are
    1936
    possessed by the Government and are not used, they introduce an atmosphere of uncertainty into Russian trade relations; they make it difficult for contracts to be placed with firms in this country; they imperil the contracts which already exist; and they render possible a complete collapse of Russian foreign credit, to the ultimate disadvantage of this country in its financial and industrial aspects.
    Therefore I submit that the powers which are being asked for in the Bill should have as limited a period as possible, and should be ended as soon as the immediate purpose for which they are being sought has been accomplished. There is no need to widen the argument at all. The issue is perfectly simple. It has a purely economic consequence. If the Government do not intend to use these powers in order to coerce Russia into giving a more favourable trade agreement, if the purposes of the Bill are merely to secure justice for our people in Russia, one month's powers are adequate for the purpose. If Russia fails to give satisfaction to the Government within one month there will be no difficulty, with such an overwhelming and docile majority, in securing a continuation of the powers. But it surely would be in the best interest of British trade that financiers, bankers and industrialists and workmen up and down the country should know that these powers are to come to an end within one month, and that they have no relation at all to the permanent trade relations between this country and Russia.
    There are Members of the Conservative party who look upon these powers not merely as a means of obtaining justice for our people in Russia, but as a means of carrying to a successful conclusion an anti-Russian vendetta that has been running in this House and the country for many years. I do not believe that the vast majority of citizens in this country are anxious to engage in a vendetta against the Russians. Decent people in this country would be outraged by the idea that the difficulties, the necessities, the misfortunes and the perils of our people in Russia are being exploited for subversive reasons. It may be said that that is not so. Then those who say it is not so do not need these powers for any longer period than is necessary to secure the desired end.

    1937
    We submit that a month is enough. If it proves to be inadequate the Government can get the powers renewed. But we do say that in the interests of British workpeople who are at work on Russian contracts, in the interests of international commerce which is suffering so grievously from uncertainties of this character, in the interests of the trade stability of the world, and in the interests of the honour of Great Britain, we should limit the powers as much as possible. If an extension of the powers is required later the President of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Secretary have only to stand at the Treasury Box, to beat the big drum and wave the Union Jack, and the powers will be given by the docile majority behind them. We, therefore, submit that if the commerce of Great Britain is not to be sacrificed to the jingoism of the Conservative party, the House of Commons should limit the powers for which the Government now ask.
    4.1 p.m.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I think it will be for the convenience of the House, Captain Bourne, if we may ascertain at this stage what is your view with regard to the course of the discussion. The Amendments which are on the Order Paper cover mainly two or three points, hut the first two are closely woven together—that of the period during which the Proclamation shall remain in force, and the subject of Parliamentary control. I do not know how far it would come within the Ruling which you might care to give, but I would submit that it might be for the convenience of the House that we should know whether we might discuss these two subjects at the same time. If we might do so on this Amendment, it might facilitate our proceedings. I would ask, therefore, if we might have your view on the subject.
    4.2 p.m.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee. The Amendments to Clause 1 cover three points: First, the continuance of the Act itself; secondly, the length of time the Proclamation conferring these powers might remain in force; and, thirdly, what opportunities this House or Parliament would have of discussing or dealing with any proclama-
    1938
    tion that might be issued. If it is the will of the Committee, I do not see why we should not have a general discussion on those three points upon this Amendment, on the strict understanding that the discussion is not repeated when I put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and that any subsequent Amendment it is desired to move may be moved briefly, and a Division taken, if desired. If that is the feeling of the House, I do not see why we should not take a general discussion on this Amendment.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: Would it not have been much more proper if the point had been put by the President of the Board of Trade before the discussion started, rather than that the Amendment should have been moved in certain restricted terms, and then be extended to cover other Amendments?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that, according to the Rules of Order, it is quite open to me to address the Committee a second time, if necessary. I have the assistance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General at my side, and he, no doubt, will be able to deal with the intricate arguments put by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). But, on the general subject, I think we might very usefully take advantage of the latitude which you, Captain Bourne, suggest and deal with the Amendments which are foreshadowed.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: On the point of Order. You, Captain Bourne, will see that my name is attached to one of the Amendments to which you referred. You made the suggestion that we might take a discussion on all three points. So far as I am personally concerned, I have no objection to that, but I would ask whether I was correct in assuming from your remarks, that although we might have a discussion on all those three points and separate Divisions if we liked, that in itself debars us from having any discussion on the question: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? It is the practice, I suggest respectfully, that in such circumstances we are not precluded from having a word to say on that Question of the Clause standing part.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: That was the point to which I was also desirous of directing your attention, Captain Bourne,

    1939
    when you said that you hoped the discussion would not be repeated on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I would respectfully concur, but it may be that on that Motion there would be other and minor points raised which could not be dealt with conveniently, or, indeed, according to the Rules of Order on any of these specific Amendments, and it would not be assumed from what you said, that the discussion on the Clause standing part should necessarily be very brief, that it should not cover the wider ground if the course you suggest is adopted.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Obviously, it is impossible for me to foretell what will be covered if we have a general discussion now. My only point was that if we have a general discussion covering the three points suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the discussion raised on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" should not cover ground which has been already covered. Other points will possibly arise, and it would be, of course, quite unreasonable to suggest that they should not be dealt with, but arguments already addressed to the Committee should not be repeated.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry I was not in at the beginning, but there is a manuscript Amendment to be moved, I understand, which contains propositions dealing with Parliamentary control, and so on. Can that come into the discussion now? If it does, I think that in all probability, in the discussion on the Clause standing part, points would be raised, but we would not want to go over ground that had been already fully covered.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If I may say so, I think that that is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. We have been dealing with the subject, and in order that the Committee might have before it the exact terms of the Amendment which the Government themselves will propose, we have had 200 or 300 copies struck off, and these can be obtained in the Vote Office now. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General hag supplied them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, they can be obtained in the Vote Office where I,
    1940
    myself, have obtained them. I know that they are available.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: If we had known beforehand that the Amendments now on the Paper were to be covered by the Government's manuscript Amendment, the whole discussion from the beginning would have been changed. That is why a protest is made. But I entirely concur with the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government are going to cover these points, it is desirable for the discussion that we should know the Government's intentions as early as possible.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have taken the earliest opportunity of replying, and I think I can tell the hon. Member now exactly what we propose.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it is as well to be quite clear about this point. I have before me a copy of the Government's Amendment, which covers the three points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and, obviously, this reason might be put forward by the Government for resisting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. That being the case, I think the Committee will agree that it will be to the general convenience if we take a discussion on all three points on the Amendment, but I can only agree to that if the Committee will not repeat the discussion on subsequent Amendments.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I understand that we take a discussion now on the three points you have mentioned and which will be met by the Amendment. On the other hand, on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," there is the general operative effect of the Clause which can be discussed?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly I do not wish in any way to limit the discussion on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but only as to repetition.
    4.9 p.m.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the course of the discussion yesterday I was asked whether the Government would agree to a time limit for the proposals in this Bill, and I promised the House that before reaching the Committee stage we would look into that point in its various aspects, and,

    1941
    if necessary, make proposals. We have fulfilled that pledge. We have gone into the matter with great care. We have remembered the views which were expressed in various parts of the House and other considerations which are germane, and we have come to the conclusion that it is right and proper that the Bill should be amended in the terms of the manuscript Amendment with which, I hope, Members are now supplied. But if I may, I will read it through in order that it may be clear that it covers the points of the discussion yesterday and is on the lines raised to-day. In lieu of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and others on the same subject, we would prefer to insert, in page 2, line 27, at the end, the words:
    "(7) A proclamation under this Act, other than a proclamation revoking a previous proclamation, shall cease to have effect at the expiration of three months from the making thereof; but, if before the expiration of the said period of three months a resolution is passed by each House of Parliament praying that the proclamation be continued in force, either for such period as may be specified in the resolution or until a further resolution praying that it be revoked is passed by each House, it shall he lawful for His Majesty by further proclamation to continue it in force in accordance with the terms of the resolution, but without prejudice to his power to revoke it at any time:
    Provided that in reckoning any such period of three months as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
    The last paragraph which I have read out may be regarded as common form. The substantial parts of the Amendment are to be found in the first three-quarters of it. We cannot accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale of one month. Obviously, in the circumstances of the day, it would be quite inadequate; but we do provide for a time limit for, if I may say so, the more reasonable period of three months.
    Mr. LUNN: Is there any provision in the Bill for the Proclamation being communicated to Parliament, or is it covered by the Amendment which is now being proposed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, it is inherent in the Amendment which I have read.
    Mr. LUNN: It does not say so.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It does not necessarily say so, but I can assure the hon. Member that it is inherent in the Amendment. It does give control over the extension of the Proclamation after three months or before the expiration of three months. It is also provided—
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry to intervene, but we have not the advantage just now of any legal advice on this matter, and some of my hon. Friends and a friend outside the House are of opinion that the power of Parliament, as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, is not here. I would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General if he would give us his opinion?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech, and then I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be only too glad to give him the full advantage of his advice. If we are in agreement, as I hope we are, that, first of all, there should be a limitation of time, and, secondly, that a reasonable period is three months, we have made some progress towards unity of feeling. The next provision that appears here is:
    "if before the expiration of the said period of three months a resolution is passed by each House of Parliament praying that the proclamation be continued in forcex2026; it shall be lawful"
    and so on. That brings under the control of both House of Parliament the extension of the period of prohibition, and that, I know, is the view which has been advocated not only in various quarters of the House but in other quarters as well. We have endeavoured to meet that view, and I hope that this will take out of the way any controversies as to detail, leaving the larger points of principle to be dealt with at the appropriate time. I only make these introductory remarks in order to make it clear that we are anxious to conform to the general view of the Committee. We have taken into consideration the points raised yesterday, and have done our best under legal advice to put into our Amendment all that is requisite to carry out the intention of the Committee. If there are any points of legal interpretation or drafting or points such as that raised by the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon.

    1943
    and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be only too delighted to deal with them.
    4.16 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: May I put one question before the right hon. Gentleman concludes? These powers are now to be limited to three months, under this proposal, but, if the Proclamation were issued at the end of three months, would it be allowed to run for a further three months? I think that the three months period dates from the issue of the Proclamation and not from the date of the obtaining of the powers. My Amendment limits the power to issue the Proclamation to one month from 18th April, but the Amendment indicated by the right hon. Gentleman would give power to issue a Proclamation at any time within three months, which means that a Proclamation might be in force six months after the passage of the Bill.
    4.17 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has not quite appreciated the scope of the Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member was to limit the operation of the Act to a period of one month. That is to say, at the end of one month there would be no power to make any new Proclamation and the validity of the then existing Proclamation would die with the Act, which had brought it into being. That is an Amendment which my right hon. Friend has said the Government are not in the circumstances prepared to accept. It would obviously rob the Measure of that very validity and efficacy which the Committee, I think, intend that it should have, in the circumstances for which it is designed. Then the question arises as to whether Parliament should not have some control as to the length of time for which a Proclamation once made under this Measure shall operate. The Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is designed to provide that such Proclamation shall be effectual for three months. If Parliament does not then make some further provision, the Proclamation shall cease to have effect, but the Amendment provides
    1944
    machinery by which Parliament shall, if it thinks fit, authorise or allow a Proclamation to be made extending the existing Proclamation for such further period as may be prescribed. That, of course, is a different method from that suggested by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale who desires the Act only to be in existence for one month. Assuming that the Act will continue in existence, our proposal is that the power of making a Proclamation under the Act shall only be the power to make a Proclamation for three months, in the first instance, unless, in the meantime, Parliament gives fresh power to make an extension of that same Proclamation.
    4.19 p.m.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As far as I am concerned, I think the Attorney-General has made the position under the suggested Amendment perfectly clear and, in regard to the point immediately raised by the question of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), the answer given on behalf of the Government entirely satisfies me. But another question was raised by the hon. Gentleman which was, indeed, asked yesterday, and to which I do not yet know the answer of the Government, and I venture to ask for a little more enlightenment from them before we proceed to vote on this Question. For what purpose is this Bill introduced? I understand that the occasion of the Bill is the treatment of certain British subjects in Russia. I do not say that the methods employed in connection with that question, for which power is taken in this Bill, might not possibly be required in a different connection and to deal with a different subject. I do not, like some hon. Members, exclude the prohibition of imports except under licence as a means of negotiation, or even an arm of negotiation for a trade agreement. But I think it very important that, in the particular circumstances in Which this Bill is introduced, there should be no such complication.
    There is no doubt about it in our minds that this Bill is being introduced because, as we think—as we fear—the lives of certain British subjects are in peril. If their lives are not in peril, at any rate we are profoundly anxious as to whether they will receive justice. I do

    1945
    not think that any other issue should be allowed to complicate that clear and simple issue. I therefore beg the President of the Board of Trade, or whoever will speak again for the Government, to assure us that, as far as the Measure which we are passing to-day is concerned, it shall be used only for the purpose for which it has been introduced, and that, if they need similar powers for any other purpose, they will come to the House for them and treat them as an entirely independent issue. I make this appeal, because I think a favourable response from the Government would have a great effect upon the unanimity of the Committee and, therefore, would be a great reinforcement of the representations which the Government are making. If you allow it to be said that under cover of your anxiety for these British citizens, now in peril, you are pursuing any other aim, you weaken your case, damage your influence, and lay yourself open to grave misconstruction. I assure my right hon. Friends that this appeal comes from a friend. I beg them to consider it in the friendly spirit in which it is offered.
    4.23 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Everyone will realise the cogency of the appeal which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, not only because of his long service in the House of Commons but because of the position which he occupied for many years with great distinction representing this country. His speech exactly points the reason for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). What we are offered in the Amendment suggested by the Government is a method whereby the House of Commons will keep control over the operation of Proclamations under this Measure, by which, from time to time, imports will be stopped or lessened or restrained or allowed to come in as the case may be. That does not meet the essential point. Whether one thinks that the period should be one, two or three months, the essential point of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is the limitation in time of this Measure for a specific purpose. It may be said that one month is not enough and that the period ought to be two or three months, but there is in this Amendment the essential principle
    1946
    that a protest on a matter, involving the rights of British subjects, must be kept distinct from any question of trade negotiations.
    I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) was speaking the mind of the whole Committee in saying that, while we may be absolutely certain in our own minds, no person in any other country should have cause for even the suspicion that we were using the danger of our fellow-subjects as a pawn in the game of trade negotiations. We know that the Government with the majority which they have in the House of Commons can act quickly in an emergency in passing legislation, and there seems to be no reason why the Government should not accept the principle of my hon. Friend's Amendment. The detail of time is a matter for adjustment, but the effective principle is that the actual operation of this Measure and the powers which it confers on the Government, shall be strictly limited in time and shall not be powers which can be held in terrorem for an indefinite period and for a purpose, not related to the question of the rights of these particular British subjects, but related to trade negotiations.
    4.26 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The Committee ought to be deeply grateful for the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). He has expressed in a most cogent and forcible manner what is in the minds of many of us. This Bill was commended to the House by the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, solely on the ground that the Government needed powers which would enable them to intervene effectively on behalf of British subjects now in peril in Russia, and the House of Commons yesterday was prepared to give those powers for that purpose. If it had been intended to use those powers for purposes of trade negotiations, I submit that it was the clear duty of those two right hon. Gentlemen to have said so definitely, in order that we should know that, and not, having secured the acceptance by the House of Commons of this Bill for one purpose, afterwards to say: "It was not limited in terms to that purpose, and

    1947
    we are free to continue this Measure for entirely different purposes," even though the question of the trial of these men had been satisfactorily settled.
    That was the point which I made specifically in my speech yesterday. I put it to the Government and asked for a reply to it—that point and no other. My hon. Friends and myself were placed in a most invidious position last night by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, first ignored my question entirely, and, afterwards, when I pressed it, gave a reply which, if I may respectfully say so, was an evasion. We were prepared to vote for the Bill. We had intended to vote for the Bill; we had distinctly declared that we were willing to give these powers in order to help to secure the safety of these British subjects in Russia. We came to the House expecting to find ourselves in the Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. We never for a moment anticipated that there could be any doubt that the Government would say that the Bill was for this one purpose. We were amazed when the right hon. Gentleman, first, did not deal with the question at all in his speech, and afterwards, when pressed, gave an answer which, in effect, was that the Bill might well be used for other purposes than that for which it was being commended to the House. For that reason, I am most grateful for the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The point which he has made is precisely that which we made yesterday, and, if it had received yesterday the response which I hope and feel confident it will receive to-day, we without hesitation, would have voted for the Second Reading of the Bill.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. BATEY: It is rather good to see the Government now prepared to admit that a time limit is needed in connection with this Proclamation, but why three months? We are told that the trial in Moscow is going to begin on the 10th April, but this Bill will not come into force until the 18th April, so that if the Government accepted the Amendment of my colleague, limiting it to one month, that would mean five weeks in effect. I submit that five weeks would be sufficiently long for a Proclamation prevent-
    1948
    ing trade between this country and Russia to remain in force. Such a Proclamation ought to be in force for as short a time as possible. But why treat Britishers in Moscow differently from Britishers in this country? If there was a danger to Britishers in this country, a Proclamation under the Emergency Powers Act could only be in force for one month, and then the Government would have to come back to this House every month to have the Proclamation renewed. If there was a danger in this country of our people not being able to get their food supply or their water, or if there was danger to their life, the Government would not have power under the Emergency Powers Act to issue a Proclamation for more than one month, and if such a Proclamation is good enough for Britishers in this country, surely it is good enough for Britishers in Moscow. I wish the Government had not put in the three months, because one wants this dislocation of trade limited as much as possible. If necessary, at the end of one month, they could come back to this House for emergency powers as they did during 1926, when we had the General Strike and the coal lock-out.
    4.33 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I very much hope that the Government will adhere to their Amendment, and I am quite unable to understand the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), and others. Why should we confine this Bill to the particular six or seven men who are now under arrest? They are not the only British citizens in Russia, and what is to prevent a similar thing happening in a week, 10 days, or a month's time. Why should we not have this power, which can be brought into operation if any similar thing should occur? For the life of me, I cannot understand it, quite apart from anything to do with trade, but even on the trade side it can only place this country in exactly the same position as Russia occupies at the moment. I base the argument, however, on the protection of our own citizens. It is most desirable that we should have this power in reserve, which can be called up by a Proclamation at any time in the event of a similar thing occurring in the

    1949
    future, and why this House should strip itself of this power and limit the power to a month, six weeks, two months, or three months I am at a loss to understand. I hope the Government will adhere to their Amendment, which would give this Parliament the power to protect our citizens in a similar way if anything of the same kind were to occur again.
    4.35 p.m.
    Mr. LUNN: I know the bitter feeling which the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) generally shows, and I thought I saw almost the same in the Foreign Secretary's speech yesterday, but the point about which I am most concerned is the control of this House over legislation. My name is attached, with other names, to an Amendment at the bottom of the first page of the Order Paper, providing that Parliamentary control shall be retained. The Amendment submitted by the Government contains no provision that the Proclamation shall be brought to this House, and no powers whatever within Parliament to deal with this matter until the end of three months. I want to ask the learned Attorney-General to make it quite clear whether the meaning of the first words of my Amendment, which say:
    "Where a proclamation has been made, the occasion thereof shall forthwith be communicated to Parliament,"
    is or is not included in the Government's Amendment. If he looks at the Emergency Powers Act of 1920, Section 1, Sub-section (2), he will see that provision is made in that Act, which was no more important than this, that Parliamentary control should be retained in the matter. Fearing as I do, as I see the Government removing the powers of Parliament and giving them outside the House to other bodies in nearly everything they do, and doing it glaringly in the Bill as it stood yesterday, I fear that this House is not being allowed to consider what will be the effect of its legislation. I put this question in order to have it made clear whether or not we shall have Parliamentary control or have it taken away absolutely by the Government's Amendment.
    4.38 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: Our Amendment limits the lifetime of the powers them-
    1950
    selves to one month after they are given, but the Amendment of the Government now before the House simply limits the lifetime of the Proclamation, and the powers remain in existence indefinitely. All that the Government's Amendment does is to limit the extent of the Proclamation, and there is nothing to prevent the Government making a Proclamation, without consulting the House of Commons, which lives for three months. If, in the course of the three months, the House of Commons does not authorise its continuation, it dies, but there is nothing to prevent the Government a week later or the next day issuing another Proclamation for a further three months. I submit, therefore, that to say that this Amendment meets our case almost amounts to Parliamentary sharp practice. The impression has been given that the Amendments on the Paper are being met by the Government's manuscript Amendment, but the powers for which the Government are now asking will still exist indefinitely if the Amendment is accepted, and the point of view of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) is met. The Government will always have the power, and the only limitation upon it will be that imports can only be stopped for three months at a time. I submit that that is an accurate interpretation of the Amendment.
    4.40 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member stated in the earlier part of his observations, what I tried to say, and hoped I said, clearly enough earlier in the afternoon, that the Amendment which my right hon. Friend suggested was addressed to the duration of a Proclamation. Now the hon. Gentleman has suggested that, notwithstanding the terms of the Amendment, which quite clearly suppose that a first Proclamation shall die a natural death unless both Houses of Parliament have authorised its extension, this House and the other House would tolerate what I cannot help thinking would be a gross piece of cunning and deception; that is to say, they would seek to use the powers to make a fresh Proclamation and pretend that it was a first Proclamation, instead of using the powers which the Section confers upon the Houses of Parliament to extend the first Proclamation if the Houses of Parliament think fit. All that I can say is that

    1951
    the hon. Gentleman is a little too astute. I cannot believe that any House would tolerate such cunning and deception as to abuse this provision in the way which he has suggested. The obvious intention of it is that once a Proclamation is made, it shall not be continued unless both Houses of Parliament have approved its continuation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that explicit assurance, and I cannot imagine any withdrawal from it on the part of this Government now that I have stated the position.
    4.42 p.m.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) introduced rather a new consideration into the Debate when he spoke of the prospect of further incidents of this kind occurring in Russia after a period of a month or two or three months, but if we could have an assurance that the Bill or the Act was to be used for the purpose, and for the purpose only, of protecting British citizens in Russia, I do not think that we on these benches would want to insist upon a time limit. The first three Amendments on the Paper, one of which stands in my name and in the names of some of my hon. Friends, are designed, however, not so much to effect a time limit for its own sake as to bring before the Committee the point that was raised a few minutes ago by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain); and the main object of all those Amendments is to secure, by means of a time limit, that the powers under this Bill shall be used for one purpose alone. We venture to ask for a rather more definite assurance from the Government than has yet been given, and I think the necessity for some assurance of that kind is shown in a passage which appears in the "Times" newspaper this morning, at the end of the first leading article, which reads:
    "By passing the Bill now before the House of Commons Parliament will enable the Government after April 17th to negotiate with the Soviet on an equal footing so far as trade relations are concerned."
    It goes on to say:
    "It will also give the Government a means of applying pressure on behalf of the British victims of the Ogpu—a means which everyone hopes may not need to be used, but of which the energetic use in case of need will be supported by the whole force of public opinion."
    1952
    I submit that anyone reading that passage in the "Times," who had not heard or read the Debate in this House yesterday, would be given the impression that the first object of this Bill was to regulate our commercial relations with Russia, and that the protection of the victims of the Ogpu was simply a secondary object of the Bill. We on these benches feel very strongly that this Bill should be used for one purpose, and for one purpose alone, and we are not alone in that feeling. There were two very important speeches delivered in the Debate yesterday, one by the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) and the other by the hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank), both of whom stressed this very point from the Conservative benches. It is quite clear that there is a good deal of anxiety on this point in all quarters of the House. Speaking as I do from these benches, there is one thing which I should like to say in reference to the reply given at the end of the Debate last night by the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be no attempt to use this Bill in any infringement of Free Trade principles. On a question like this, I am not in the least concerned with Free Trade principles. I do not think that either Free Trade principles or, for that matter, Protectionist principles ought to enter in any way into our consideration of this matter. I suggest that our fiscal views, whatever they may be, ought to weigh merely as dust in the balance beside the paramount consideration of securing a measure of substantial justice for our fellow citizens in Moscow.
    I want to suggest in all seriousness that we may actually prejudice the interests of these men in Moscow if we permit any ambiguity about the purpose of this Bill to remain. The object of the Bill, as it was explained yesterday by Government speakers, and as we all understood it, is to be able to say to the Russian Government in the event of any denial to these men of substantial justice, that we will cut off trade relations. It is obvious that that is a very strong position. In the present economic state of Russia it must offer a strong inducement to the Soviet Government to see that substantial justice is done. If, however, the

    1953
    Soviet Government have any reason to suspect, through any answer that is given or any speech that is made in the House, that even if these men are released, or after the trial are acquitted, the powers under this Bill may still be used for an entirely different purpose, surely we have destroyed a very large part of the inducement that we are holding out to the Soviet Government.
    How much stronger would be the position of His Majesty's Government if they said clearly: "Refuse substantial justice to these men, and we shall use the powers given to us under this Bill; deal fairly with them, and these powers will be withdrawn or will lapse automatically." I submit to the Committee that we shall blunt this weapon if there is any doubt about the purpose for which it is to be used. If the Government want powers in order to regulate our trade relations with Russia, the proper course is to come to the House and ask for them. We on these benches are just as much concerned about this matter as hon. Members in any other part of the Committee, and I appeal to the Government and to the Committee to make it clear that the Bill is not being passed with any arrière pensée, with any kind of mixed motive, but for the one purpose alone of securing substantial justice to our fellow countrymen who are in such grave peril in Russia.
    4.49 p.m.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The appeal that has been made to the Government carries weight with us. It is in connection with the primary consideration which weighed with the Government, and, I believe, with the House yesterday and to-day; that is, the fate of our fellow countrymen in Russia. It is from that point of view alone that I am prepared to say anything this afternoon. I am not going to enter into fiscal controversy with my friends below the Gangway; that can wait. This is a far graver matter, and, if there is any suggestion that the powers for which we are asking under this Bill with the object of aiding those who are in peril are to be whittled down or diluted by the suspicion that they are to be mixed with our fiscal controversy. I say at once that, so far as I am concerned, the prime consideration with me is the life and liberty of these men. I will at once, therefore, give an under-
    1954
    taking on behalf of the Government that we shall not use these powers for any other purpose.
    4.51 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to clear up a point that troubles us on this side? Am I right in putting the position in connection with the Amendment in this way? Although the period covered by the Proclamation will come to an end, this Bill will still remain in force, and can remain in force for many years or for ever, and Proclamations can still be issued under it at any time. May I put my question in another form? Am I right in assuming that this Bill will continue for many years to come until it is repealed, but that a Proclamation can be issued under it for any period of time and for any purpose whatever?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Bill when it becomes an Act will remain in force until it is repealed. The undertaking which was given by my right hon. Friend in unequivocal terms, was an undertaking that it would be used solely for the purpose which he stated.
    4.52 p.m.
    Sir BASIL PETO: In view of what the President of the Board of Trade has said, there is now evidently complete agreement between the Government and those who have put these Amendments on the Paper with a view to the limitation of the operation of these Orders to periods of three months and the like. There is also complete agreement that this Bill will be used for one purpose only, that is, as far as possible, to ensure the safety of our fellow citizens in Russia. It is important, however, that we should not limit the Bill to such an extent that it will not be an effective weapon. I think that we may probably run the risk of getting a little mixed up at this point, because the limitations that have been put down are with a view to maintaining Parliamentary control at frequent intervals for any Orders that are issued are put down on the assumption that the Bill was to be used with a view to taking fiscal action generally with regard to trade with Russia. As we do not desire that it is important that we shall have something that will have an effective influence on the Soviet Government.

    1955
    I ask the Committee to consider whether the restriction of any imports from Russia for so short a period as three months—although I admit that by a further Proclamation it can be extended—is likely to be effective or as effective as we can make it. What is the reason now, in view of the unanimity in the Committee as to the purpose for which the Bill is to be used, in having such an absurdly short limitation of the restriction of imports? The effect on the main imports from Russia of an embargo for only three months would be nothing whatever. They could be held back, even in the case of perishable goods such as eggs and the like. They do not come over here at such frequent intervals and so wonderfully fresh that a large part of them cannot be held back until the end of the three months and then shipped forward. With regard to timber, oil and things of that kind, a restriction of imports lasting only three months would be no penalty whatever. Therefore, I suggest that in view of the use to which this Bill is to be put, we should bear in mind what the President of the Board of Trade told us towards the end of his speech last night. He was speaking about the suggestion that was made to withdraw the Ambassador from Moscow, and said:
    "At all events, the withdrawal of the British Ambassador to Moscow would not have touched the Russian Government on any sensitive spot. If you ask me whether this touches them on a sensitive spot I say that it does; and, what is more, it is the only spot we can reach."
    He said further:
    "What we are entitled to do, and what we are now attempting to do, is to take action, and take action that is understood." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1933; cols. 1887–8, Vol. 276.]
    I venture to suggest that the limitation of the embargo on Russian goods to three months will certainly not arm the Government with any weapon, to use the term of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), with whom I do not agree on fiscal matters. He spoke of this as a weapon, and said that he and his friends would like to see it used for the purpose for which they were agreed that it should be used, namely, for the protection of our fellow citizens. Therefore, I think there will be agreement on all side of the Committee that
    1956
    we should make this weapon reasonably effective. I do not think that three months limitation is sufficient.
    4.56 p.m.
    Mr. PRICE: The Committee will be grateful for the climb down of the Government from the position that was taken up yesterday. We are discussing this Amendment in quite a different atmosphere. I am afraid that the atmosphere yesterday was such as to stampede the House and the country. We are not prepared to accept the statement of the Attorney-General with regard to the powers and the length of time that the Government will operate this Bill. It is strange that when this Bill was introduced we were told definitely that it was for no other purpose than the protection of British lives in Russia. There is no opposition from any part of the House to giving reasonable protection to British subjects, either in Russia or anywhere else, but the speech of the President of the Board of Trade last night made it perfectly clear that behind his mind and the minds of the Government was the idea that this Bill will be used not only for the protection of British subjects, but for other purposes. Many of us have that doubt even now. Russia is not the first country to which protest has had to be made about the treatment of British subjects. There is a country now which is under a dictatorship—not the same as Russia, I agree—where there is any amount of room for protests from the House of Commons with regard to British and other subjects, but nothing is done.
    It is rather strange that the Government should want this Bill placed permanently in their hands. If we find at the end of the trial of these men that justice has been done, as we hope we shall, why should this Bill be hung up and held in readiness? Why are we preparing for Russia alone? It will be fair to assume, and I think that we shall see at the end of the trial, that these men will be justly dealt with. Therefore, we are afraid that the President of the Board of Trade, who at one time was the prophet of Free Trade, is endeavouring to use this position in order to support the Government's general policy of Protection and tariffs. If not, why should we give to the Government the power to use this weapon for three months at a time on Proclamation, and also leave in

    1957
    their hands for as long as they like, the power to use it on future occasions? A Proclamation could be issued against Russia without the Government coming to this House, and we might have British trade permanently interfered with. If, however, that is not the Government's intention, why should they not make it clear in the Bill, and use the Bill only for the purpose for which it has been introduced?
    Yesterday there was a lot of cheering over the statements made by the introducer of the Bill, but to-day, when questions have been put not only from this side of the House but from supporters of the Government who have been looking upon the Bill with a suspicious eye, and giving good reasons for their views, we find a different tone prevailing in the House. I want to add my plea to others which have been advanced that if the Government intend what they say they should word the Amendment to mean that this Proclamation will be enforced only so far as the lives of these men are in peril, and that when this affair is terminated they will abandon this power, so that trade negotiations can proceed with Russia undisturbed by bias and prejudice, of which there is a lot behind this Bill. There are people in this House who would vote for any kind of legislation which interfered with the general development of Russia, simply because they are against the Constitution of Russia—I do not say that I am in favour of it. I object to any Member of the Cabinet bringing before this House a Bill which purports to be for a special purpose when the Government have at the back of their minds a restriction of trade such as would affect thousands, aye millions, of working men and women in this country and in Russia.
    Therefore, we appeal to the Government to specify very clearly what they mean, and we ask for the powers to be limited as proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), because then they will be sufficient to do all the Government say they want to do. I trust that before the Debate is ended the Treasury Bench will change their mind once again, that is, for the third time, and make a good job of it. They should let the country see that the only power they want is a power to defend the lives of British subjects in Russia, and that when that diffi-
    1958
    culty is out of the way ordinary trade relationships can proceed.
    5.3 p.m.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: In intervening for a moment I would say, incidentally, that I think the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) is a little unreasonable in not accepting the formal undertaking which the President of the Board of Trade has just given us. He gave it in response to a very firm appeal by a most important Member of this House, and he gave it in terms which were quite unequivocal, and if that is not good enough for hon. Members opposite I do not know what is. The only reason why I rose was to express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has met any criticisms which I may have made. By his clear undertaking as to the limited scope of this Measure and his promise of the Amendment to be moved later, he has met the point that the control of Parliament must be borne in mind by those who draft Measures which are to receive general support in this House. He has done that very handsomely, and in the circumstances I shall not, of course, move any of the Amendments which stand in my name. Because he has granted that measure of Parliamentary control and because of the undertaking he has given, I should like again to make an appeal to the Opposition to bear in mind that we are dealing with a situation of very grave anxiety to certain British subjects in Russia, and ask them whether it would not be as well to curtail the Debate as much as possible and to let the Third Reading of the Bill be passed with unanimity.
    5.5 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman just now was certainly a, very full and adequate one as affecting the points raised by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and the hon. and gallant Member behind, but I do not yet understand quite clearly what is the nature of the promise the Minister was making. As I understand it, he promised in very definite terms that this power shall not be used for general fiscal purposes, but, there is the point that, the powers obtained by the Government now to deal with the case of these arrested

    1959
    engineers may be brought into active life again subsequently should a British subject be arrested in Russia for any crime. That makes trade between this country and Russia quite impossible. I do not need to remind the right bon. Gentleman that trade is always a two-sided business, that there is always the buyer and the seller, and I ask him, as a much more experienced business man than I am, whether he would enter into any long-term bargain with anyone under conditions which would allow that bargain to be interrupted at any moment by a Proclamation from this House? It may be, as is reiterated again and again—on what grounds I do not know—that these men are absolutely innocent of any crime. I hope that is true, but it has still to be demonstrated.
    What guarantee have we that in the course of another month or two some British subject in Russia may not be arrested by the Russian Government with a really genuine case against him? In the interval some perfectly legitimate bargain may have been entered into, not between the British Government and the Russian Government but between some trader in Britain and the Russian Government. The British trader has expended money, he has taken commitments upon himself on the assumption that the contract is going to be fulfilled, and then finds, not because of any trading act in Russia, nor any default on his part, but by reason of a state of public excitement in this country and in this House, that his contract is liable to be cut short by Proclamation. No intelligent business man is going to attempt to carry on business under such conditions. Before I withdraw my support from the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me just exactly why, if this Bill is not wanted in the future for the regulation of business relations between the two countries, he is retaining it. I do not know whether this is going to work as a diplomatic instrument on this occasion, I do not know whether the Government have any information as to whether this kind of pressure on the Russian Government will compel the Russians to declare all these men innocent in advance of the trial; but of this I am sure, that though an instrument of this description may be used
    1960
    once for this purpose that once will be the only time when it could be effective.
    Because of the impossibility of trading under conditions such as these, and because I do not believe a continuance of these powers can have any effect on the immediate case before us, and must have a diminishing influence on any future case, I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee why, since he has stated very categorically that he does not want these powers for general fiscal purposes, does not want them for general trade purposes and does not want them even as an instrument for bargaining for a new trade agreement, he wishes to retain them in the future. Is this Bill to be retained as a new diplomatic instrument; and if it is retained as a new diplomatic instrument against Russia, are we to look forward to its speedy extension as a diplomatic instrument in our relations with other countries where difficulties of a similar sort may arise? I should be very glad to have answers to these questions.
    5.11 p.m.
    Mr. LYONS: Instead of the attempted confusions which we have just heard, I think it would have been better if some alternative scheme to the prososal put forward by the Government had been indicated, if any exists. I hope hon. Members will not forget that it was said yesterday, with all the authority which a statement from the Foreign Secretary carries, that the position was a grave one. It is not the case, as was suggested just now by an hon. Member opposite, that we want every British subject declared to be innocent of any crime, but if he has to be tried we want him to have a system of trial which is somewhat in accord with decent notions of justice. We are satisfied, and there can be no question about it, that every attempt has been made to deny decent justice to a number of our own citizens in Russia. Those men have been treated in a manner which can only be described as being offensive to any ideas of justice we may have, and it is necessary, as was conceded from all sides yesterday, to take some action to try to help them in the position of very grave danger in which they find themselves. The Foreign Secretary asked yesterday if there was anything else that we could do except give the Government this power which they are seeking.

    1961
    "I ask the House if there is nothing else that we can do to help British subjects who are in peril, to at least do this—to give the Government and the country to which they belong, and to which they look, this authority, and to trust us to use it in their interests and in the interests of the State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1933; col. 1784, Vol. 276.]
    I think it is absolutely essential that in this moment of gravity and peril such action should be taken as will show the Russian Government that this country is not only behind these particular individuals in the denial to them of substantial justice, but is behind any of our citizens who may be treated in a manner which completely offends against all ideas of substantial justice. This is not a question of fiscal adjustment. We are dealing with a position of acute emergency. How it can be said that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has given general support to the principle of tariffs in face of the express undertaking he was good enough to give I cannot think, and I am sure that I am voicing the feelings of almost every Member in this House when I say that we accept the statement he made without any reservation whatsoever. To say that this Bill should be made as effective as possible is to put the position quite mildly, and I associate myself with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) when he said that these men, placed as they are in a position of extreme delicacy, through no fault of their own, were entitled to demand that the whole weight of this House should be behind them. I hope the Government will see that the action taken through the medium of this Bill provides them with a weapon which is going to be effective and which has the authority of Britain. To say, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), that it will be unfortunate if, as soon as a British subject is arrested on any future occasion, a Proclamation under this Bill will put the machinery into force, is in my humble submission incomprehensible. When we are trying to prevent a country, which hon. Members of the Opposition like to claim as all-high, from offending against every notion of justice, we must have a Measure which is effective and quick. We appreciate the circumstances of gravity in which the Bill was intro-
    1962
    duced. I hope that the action which is taken by the Government will be taken quickly, and in such a manner as to show the accused men that the House of Commons is behind them in their endeavour to assert their right to justice.
    5.16 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I would not have intervened at this stage had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons), and on account especially of the speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank). The burden of both speeches was, I think, that we should accept as made in good faith the promise of the Government that they will not use the powers of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament except for this particular trial in Moscow. We are told that we are not fair in not accepting that very definite promise made by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. I would not charge the right hon. Gentleman and the Government with insincerity. I think that the Government will adhere to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman; but I ask the Committee to remember that events are stronger than Governments, and that occasions may arise in our relations with Russia that will literally blow a promise of that kind to the winds.
    Suppose there was a case in Russia in six months time of a British subject being murdered. The Government with the support of hon. Members would be bound to take some action. They would let loose the forces of reaction at once. If hon. Members of the Liberal party below the Gangway will pardon my saying so, it is quite as reactionary not to vote at all as it is to vote for the Government. A man ought to have a mind either one way or the other on this issue. It would be a very low charge indeed to challenge the honesty of the right hon. Gentleman in the statement that has been made, but while we do not challenge that statement, I repeat that events in international affairs are so very terrible on occasions that the Government would be acquitted by 80 per cent. of the present Parliament if they broke the promise that has been made this afternoon. We have to bear that in mind.

    1963
    May I say, without being offensive, that many pledges have already been broken by this Government.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely the hon. Member does not suggest that the Prime Minister has broken pledges?
    Mr. DAVIES: I do not select individual Members of the Government.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: That is all right.
    Mr. DAVIES: I am dealing with the Government as a whole. I am very distressed to see what is happening in connection with this Bill. If the Committee will bear with me, I would like to make one or two observations on Clause 1 and the Amendments to it, with which we are dealing. I have no hesitation in saying what I have always said about dictatorships of all kinds. Whether they are of the Left or of the Right they are reversions to barbarism. Dictatorships of the Centre fall into the same category. Wherever there is a dictatorship of the Centre, the Right or the Left, these things are bound to happen. A dictatorship is all right provided that you are the dictator, but if anyone challenges him he must take the consequences.
    This is probably the first time in the history of this country where the fiscal weapon has been used for a purpose of this kind. I am not sufficiently learned in the history of our land to be sure of that, but I do not recollect reading anywhere that a British Government has used the fiscal weapon for purposes of intervention in this type of case. I am, therefore, distressed that we have reached a stage which, up to 18 months ago, would have been absolutely unthinkable. We are faced with an entirely new proposal, and if this kind of thing is to happen between nations I see no use for the League of Nations. If nations, as soon as one of their nationals gets into trouble abroad, use this sort of weapon in order to support those nationals, we might as well scrap the League of Nations and all our international relationships. This is part and parcel of a new diplomacy which cuts across all our previous arrangements in diplomatic affairs.
    The President of the Board of Trade was very anxious to assure the Committee that this Bill is a temporary Measure, but I would impress upon the
    1964
    Committee two or three points. It will be remembered that it was understood that this Bill first of all had nothing to do with the trial in Moscow. Later on we were told that the Bill was necessary because of that trial. Later on still we were told that the Bill only dealt with the specific purpose of the Moscow trial. Now it has been suggested that Proclamations will only be issued to deal with cases relating to justice to our nationals in Russia. One thing troubles me in connection with this Clause. Although Proclamations will come to an end after they have been issued, the Bill will remain an Act of Parliament, and Proclamations may continue to be issued under it so long as it remains upon the Statute Book. So far as I understand the temper of this Parliament, I am as positive as I stand here that if anything untoward happens between ourselves and Russia later, either in regard to trading or to safeguarding our nationals, the pressure that can be brought to bear from the extreme Tory wing of the National Government is such that Proclamations under this Bill will be issued, in spite of the promises that have been made from the Government Front Bench to-day. For that reason, and without imputing any dishonesty to the right hon. Gentlemen, who have made that promise, I say very definitely, from my experience of political life in this country, that events compel Governments sometimes to break their promises. It will be easier for them to break their promises in this respect than in almost any other connection.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. Gentleman was Under-Secretary for Home Affairs in the late Labour Administration.
    Mr. DAVIES: No, I was not. It was in the first Labour Government.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I withdraw. The hon. Gentleman was very lucky to have missed that. I do not wish to strike a discordant note, or to detain the Committee for more than a minute, but I cannot allow this Clause to go without saying that I listened to the President of the Board of Trade with a good deal of dismay when he practically pledged the Government to use this Measure solely for the purpose of obtaining decent treatment for those poor prisoners—or primarily for that purpose. I am one of the few people who

    1965
    have never been entirely happy about the methods that have been used, no doubt with the best intentions, by the Government, in dealing with this matter from the start. I am very doubtful, with some hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition, of the use of an economic weapon to remedy what is admittedly a political grievance. I do not think that it is the right way of tackling the sort of difficulty which confronted us, and I wish that I could feel as sure as some of my hon. Friends that this Bill will secure what we should regard as fair judicial treatment for the four British prisoners in Moscow. I do not feel at all certain that it will; in fact, I think that it is highly improbable. I do not think that anybody is likely to secure what we should regard as fair judicial treatment in Soviet Russia, because they do not go in for fair judicial treatment there. It is not the sort of thing that they believe in, and they openly say so. I doubt whether this Bill will achieve the objective that we have in view.
    I think that it is wanted, and urgently, and that it has been wanted for some months past as a matter of general principle. I do not see how we are ever to negotiate a satisfactory trade agreement with the Soviet Government until we possess the very necessary powers, which they themselves possess, of prohibiting the entry of subsidised goods into the country. That is a view that many hon. Members on the Conservative benches have long taken, and it is a view which some hon. Members, who in the past have advocated import control boards as a matter of principle, would be prepared to accept.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: But we always associated with it the principle of State trading.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I am not arguing about that particular aspect of the question. I am merely saying that in accepting the principle of import control boards hon. Members have also accepted the principle that the State ought to possess the power of regulating the entry of subsidised goods into the country, particularly since I have often heard hon. Members say that certain goods were produced under conditions of sweated labour abroad. I doubt the efficacy of this Bill for this purpose, and I doubt if it will help those poor prisoners, but
    1966
    I hoped, and still hope, that it might help some of the farmers and fishermen whom I represent in the North of Scotland. I was aghast to hear the President of the Board of Trade announce to the Committee, in response, it appears, to an irrelevant request on behalf of the very diminutive Liberal party, that the Government only propose to use these powers for the specific purpose. It is not a proper weapon to use. I very much doubt the use of an economic weapon to achieve a political end; I always have doubted. You can only hope that it will be effective from that point of view, and any hon. Member is entitled to express his anxieties on that point. The Government themselves are not sure that it is going to be successful.
    I hope that the events to which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) referred, which would make this Bill continue in operation for months to come, will occur, but I hope that the conditions will not be similar to those of recent events and will not involve the imprisonment of British citizens. I think, however, that economic events may well take place which will induce the Government to realise the advisability of retaining the power for which they are asking at the present time, in the interests of our own people and of negotiating a good trade agreement, and that they may find it desirable —indeed I think they will be compelled —to exercise these powers, not only in respect of Russia, but in respect of other countries in Europe.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Government would break the pledge which they have given this afternoon?
    Mr. BOOTHBY: No, I am only hoping so.
    5.31 p.m.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: One is compelled to conclude, from the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), that his interpretation of the statements made by the President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney-General is that, so long as injustice of any kind to any person obtains in Russia, this economic weapon must continue to be applied. I intended to put the very pertinent question which has just been addressed to the hon. Member as to

    1967
    whether he desires that injustices should continue to be perpetrated in Russia in order that the fishermen in his constituency may be helped. Apparently he thinks that this economic weapon is desirable, not so much for the purpose of helping the engineers who are directly affected in Russia, but because of the effect that Russian trade has on his constituents. I do not desire to do him an injustice, but there is a grave contradiction between his remarks and the speeches which have been made on behalf of the Government.
    It is very difficult to understand the reason for the appeal which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). Yesterday he delivered a speech which delighted me, as did that of the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor). Those speeches certainly indicated that, although the hon. Members were supporters of the Government, they were not prepared to get into the state of frenzy that we saw here yesterday afternoon after the Foreign Secretary had delivered his speech. That speech was of the kind that one often hears from solicitors in police courts, and certainly it was not substantially higher than some of those speeches. There could be no case for many of the remarks that he made about the Russian Government. The weight of evidence contained in his speech was based upon material obtained from one side only, namely, from the British Ambassador. After all, an eminent legal authority like the Foreign Secretary ought to have had the evidence from both sides.
    Mr. BERNAYS: On a point of Order. Is it in order for a right hon. Gentleman to read a great national newspaper on the Treasury Bench?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I believe that there is a Rule against the reading of newspapers in the House, and I am sure it will be respected.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I did not know that the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway was interposing on my account. I had a piece of duty to discharge with reference to this particular newspaper, and, out of courtesy to the hon. Member opposite, I remained in the
    1968
    House rather than withdraw; but I will gladly withdraw in order to comply with the views of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. MAXTON: With the Rules of the House.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is it not a question of the Rules of the House, and not of the views of an hon. Member?
    Mr. McGOVERN: He can do no wrong.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I am interested to hear these friendly references as between Liberal Members. It would seem that they are more concerned about points of Order than about the real, vital issues that are being discussed. I was about to say that, if the Foreign Secretary, who is an eminent lawyer, had obtained evidence of the Russian view of the situation, he would not have made that one-sided speech yesterday. All that has been said about Russia and its method of either justice or injustice can be said against the right hon. Gentleman for his speech yesterday. It was entirely based upon one-sided evidence obtained from our own Ambassador, who should have been impartial, but whose honour certainly could be questioned when he made such remarks as are contained in telegram No. 27.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have been looking again at the Government Amendment, and I see that it goes further than I originally thought, but I do not think we can discuss the White Paper on this Amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I accept your Ruling. Our interpretation of this Amendment is that for three months it will be possible for the Government to continue to issue a Proclamation. Under the Bill they obtain power to issue a Proclamation every three months if they so desire, and so long as injustice, as conceived by the Government, is meted out to any British national—not merely the persons now involved, but any British national for any length of time—the Government, according to our interpretation of the Amendment, will have the power to issue a Proclamation.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I must intervene to correct the hon. Member's impression, if I understood his remarks aright. The Government, to use his expression, will have the power, or rather,

    1969
    there will be the power, to issue a Proclamation without the intervention or control of Parliament in the first instance but the Government will not have the power to extend that Proclamation without the approval of Parliament. Therefore, it is not accurate to say, as the hon. Member said in unqualified terms, that the Government can make a Proclamation for three months as often as they like. Parliament can, but the Government cannot without Parliament.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I accept the literal rendering of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is a positive fact that the Government can come back to the House at the end of three months and seek powers to issue a Proclamation for another three months, or for any time. I accept his statement that they have to come to Parliament before they can issue a new Proclamation, and that Parliament must decide.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That certainly is the case, and it is precisely what would be provided by some of the Amendments which stand on the Paper in the names of hon. Members who are not supporters of the Government.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: There has been no statement from the other side of the House, or from persons who disagree with our view, which would indicate any justification for the continuance of these powers for longer than one month. We are informed that the trial of the engineers in Russia is to commence on 10th of this month. The powers sought in the Bill will not commence to apply until the 18th. If one month were allowed to elapse after the commencement of the powers sought in the Bill, practically six weeks would elapse altogether, and then, if the trial were not over, and if, as conceived by the Government or by Parliament, a semblance of injustice prevailed, it would be possible to seek powers for another month, or for any period that Parliament might desire. Nothing has been said, so far as I have been able to gather, by any of the spokesmen in opposition to our Amendment which would indicate that one month is not ample in the circumstances, and certainly it would impair our trade substantially less than the three months proposed in the Government Amendment.
    1970
    We know what this would mean to the mining industry in particular. Any cessation a trade with Russia would tend to increase that industry's costs fairly substantially, owing to the fact that Denmark and Sweden would obtain almost a complete monopoly of the import of timber into this country. In South Wales a substantial quantity of timber from Russia is being consumed in our collieries, and anything which would tend to continue these powers for longer than we consider to be absolutely necessary, namely, one month, would tend, if anything, to create unemployment, would materially affect forward contracts that have to be fixed, and would prejudice anything like the slight revival that may now be taking place in some of the small collieries in the South Wales area. We have to presume that this would apply, not only to South Wales, but to other parts of the country as well, and the number of men that would be affected would be substantially greater than the number of fishermen who would be affected in the constituency of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. Our proposal, therefore, ought to be supported by him and others if they are considering the question of trade and the people who may be affected in this country.
    We would like the President of the Board of Trade to face up to the Amendment that we have put on the Paper. As far as we can see, a period of three months would be absolutely unnecessary. It must substantially affect our trade, and it cannot possibly help the persons who are in peril in Russia. Everyone in the House to whom I have spoken since last night has admitted that, since the Second Reading of this Measure, they would not, whatever the circumstances might have been before, now be in the shoes of the engineers in Russia, that their case will be considered less dispassionately than it was before, and that the use of an economic weapon of this kind must of itself create, not dispassionate-mindedness, but irritation, and, instead of helping the persons in Russia, which apparently is the concern of all Members of the House, would imperil their position substantially. We hope, therefore, that the Government will not imperil trade, and will realise that practically £40,000,000 of trade as between Russia and ourselves is involved,

    1971
    and all that that means to the country. Further, Members should not allow themselves to be influenced by political prejudice against a system in which they do not believe. We can never expect any system of jurisprudence in Russia, America or Germany to conform precisely to our own. I could refer to Tammany Hall. There was Thomas Moody in prison for 15 years.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now making a Second Reading speech.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Recent speeches have dealt with the question of justice. The purpose of the Bill, we understand, is to give the Government power to institute, as far as possible, the semblance of British justice in Russia. British justice is not instituted in any other country. Protestations have been made in the House against the treatment meted out to persons in Germany, and no action here has been taken about it. Reference has been made to British subjects in India, in America, and all over the world, who are suffering injustice and have been subject to something that we would not think akin to British jurisprudence, but not a single protest has been made. We cannot establish our conception of British justice in Russia by methods of this kind. We think that British justice is founded on private property, and the moment private property was removed a new type of justice would have to be established. The Russian people have abolished private property. Am I to presume that, if someone in this country tried to blow up a gasometer, he would not be treated as a criminal?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself more closely to the Amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not desire to continue. Apparently the reason for my getting out of order is that most of what I 'have had to say has been following other speeches that have been made. I trust that the Government will realise how they are imperilling the coal trade and other trades, and are imperilling the lives of the people whom, apparently, they think to safeguard, and that, upon reflection, they will accept the Amendment.
    5.50 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: The statement of the President of the Board of Trade has made the Measure a very much better one. At the same time, I feel very doubtful whether we are really going to serve the interests of these unfortunate men whom we are all so anxious to assist. I trust that it may be so, but one cannot help having doubts about it. I think it would still be very desirable that there should be some time-limit to the operation of the Bill, and that it should cease to have effect altogether at the end of three or six months, or something of that kind. Although the Government have given a very specific pledge—and I am sure they mean to keep it—it may well be that pressure will be put upon them. We have seen the fierce indignation at the promise that has been made to the hon. Member opposite not to use it, in the interest of his constituents, and they may well find themselves in a difficult position later on.
    There is another reason for limiting the operation of the Bill. I think there is very definitely a case for using the economic weapon in political affairs, but it ought to be dealt with on an international basis. Instead of having a Measure brought forward in a tremendous hurry, the Government ought to have an opportunity of bringing forward a Measure on a much wider scale applicable, when they think fit, to all nations by general agreement among nations. Recently they were considering internationally dealing with an emabrgo in the Far East. One can draw this satisfaction out of this Debate, that it is coming to be realised that the economic weapon can be effectively used in political affairs. I only wish the Government had acted with similar enthusiasm when 80,000 Chinese were slaughtered by Japan.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting right away from the Bill.
    Mr. MANDER: I appreciated that you might say that, Captain Bourne, but I was giving a reason why there should be a time limit to the operation of the Bill in order that the Government might have an opportunity to study the question internationally and bring forward a Measure, say, in a year's time, applicable to all countries in the world. If they

    1973
    were to consider it from that point of view and accept an Amendment on these lines, it would enable them to propose a, Measure next year which would deal with Japan, Germany and, possibly, other countries that require attention on the same lines.
    6.53 p.m.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I cannot see the reason for the Government resisting an Amendment limiting the Bill to a very specific purpose and to a given time. Probably they have in view that they might be compelled to use it again at some future date, or it may be that they believe it will be essential to use it periodically. I do not know whether these men in Russia will be given a fair or an unfair trial. I know nothing at all about the system in Russia. But, if I could be assured that the Government only intend to see that the men have a fair opportunity to present their defence, I should be inclined to support the Bill, because I think subjects of this country are entitled to claim the protection of the Government. I have no fault to find with that at all and, if men are arrested in another country and the Government come to their aid and say, "We are going to see that you have a fair trial and a fair opportunity of defence and of presenting your case in a proper atmosphere," that is a very laudable object and one which no reasonable person would condemn. If the Government are convinced that there is no chance of these men getting a fair trial, they are entitled to pursue the matter as strongly as they desire. On the other hand, if they are satisfied that there is no opportunity of a fair trial for any British subject in Russia, the better thing to do is to withdraw completely and sever all communication with the country if they have no faith at all in their system or their actions.
    There is another point here that appeals to me. No Government should succumb to the demonstrations of antagonism which are continually created in the House and in the country even in connection with this case. We are entitled to say that justice should be done, but it is another matter, in my estimation, to say, as has been said in the House, that these men are perfectly innocent and could not be guilty of any crime at all. I think the limita-
    1974
    tion of time proposed would serve a very useful purpose by seeing that they were given a proper opportunity of defence. It would mean that, if the Government of Russia succumbed to influences of that character, a big stick would be placed in the hands of almost any country to dictate terms to Russia and to dictate whether people should be tried for an offence or liberated. That is not a proper attitude for any Government which is hoping itself to treat persons of criminal intent, who may be foreigners, in a proper manner. Every minority is entitled to a proper opportunity to defend itself.
    The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), in reply to an interjection by me last night, said that I was pro-Russian. I deny that I am pro-Russian in the sense that I am prepared to back Russia in carrying out any form of injustice on British or any other subjects. I resent any suggestion of that kind. I have stood continually against the domination of people who have taken their orders from Russia and have always stood, in the House and in the country, for the free expression of opinion and for the creation in this country of a movement which would not be dominated by outside forces. I object to dictation from Russia or any other country in a political sense, but I am also bound to object to complete dictation by this House and by the country as to the way they shall conduct their own affairs. It may be true that a period of national emergency such as Russia has undergone may produce a change of mind, and that they may see in every action a desire to overthrow the ruling force or to create a counter-revolutionary movement. It may be true that men get into a state of prejudice and passion—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member, like several others, is now getting very far away from the Amendment.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I only wish to add, if I may, that in that state of mind men may be driven to various things which are not reasonable. I am not going to suggest that reason only applies to Russia, or that it only applies to this country. If the Government were intending to use the Bill for the purpose for which, I believe, they are entitled to use it, to

    1975
    safeguard the rights and liberties of their fellow-subjects in Russia who have been arrested and to see that they have a fair trial and a proper defence, I would support the Bill in every shape and form. But if the Bill is to be used to carry out a continual method of pin-pricks against Russia, as has been pointed out by some hon. Members to-night, I shall be bound to oppose the Measure in every shape and form. There are sections in the Committee who are regarding the Bill altogether from the point of view of a dire hatred of Russia and its political system, and we have to be careful that those points are not exercised. The Government are entitled to take proper measures for the defence of their subjects and to secure a fair trial. But if those subjects are, after a fair trial, found guilty, they should bear the consequences as aliens would have to bear them in this country.
    6.2 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: I suppose that the Committee will wonder why an Irishman should intervene on this occasion. When I crossed over from my own country this morning and opened the newspapers, at first blush I was astounded at the action of the Liberal party. I did not understand the situation, as I had not been present at the Debate. A great deal of explanation, which was evidently required not only by my folk at home but, I believe, by the people of England and Scotland, has been given this afternoon as to why the Liberals abstained from voting last night. It may be through inability or lack of faculties on our part, but we in Northern Ireland never could understand the Liberal mind. When I saw what had occurred this morning all that I could say was, "Those Liberals again!" I really think there has been a great deal too much ado about nothing this afternoon. What the President of the Board of Trade said at the close of the Debate last night would have satisfied me, but it certainly did not satisfy the Liberal mind. I can assure my right hon. Friend that there will be no attempt to use this as any infringement of Free Trade principles or anything of that kind. That fact does not enter into our calculations at all. The main object is connected with the way in which our fellow countrymen have been treated in Russia.
    1976
    If I had been the Leader of the Liberal party I would have got up in my place and said, "On the distinct understanding that that is the limitation of this Bill, we will vote for it."
    Sir H. SAMUEL: That is what we did say in the afternoon.
    Sir W. ALLEN: But you did not carry it out.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Will my hon. and gallant Friend kindly read on to the next words?
    Sir W. ALLEN: The right hon. Gentleman said:
    "Is that the sole object?"
    The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade replied:
    "No one can say what is the sole object. We are bound to take powers in the widest form, and they will be mainly dealing with our fellow-countrymen who are at present under arrest in Russia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1933; cols. 1187–8, Vol. 276.]
    It was up to the right hon. Gentleman to get up in his place and to say definitely that they would support the Bill, if they were given such an assurance, while the Bill was going through Committee. It would be an English gentleman's way of doing it. I rise to explain to the Committee that there is a real point at issue for Ulstermen in this connection, and that is the production of Russian flax.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There can be no doubt that the subject does not arise on the Amendment.
    Sir W. ALLEN: I was under the impression that a great deal of argument had been used this afternoon as to why the Bill could only apply to the individuals who had been in prison, and should not apply to the question of Free Trade or Protection. That was my understanding, and a great deal was said about the possibility of using the Bill for the purposes of Free Trade. I wanted to put my point of view briefly.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question as to whether there should be any limitation does arise on the Amendment.
    Sir W. ALLEN: That is exactly the point to which I was coming. My point is that the position should be definite

    1977
    and distinct, because it is of importance to us that we should have the use of Russian flax, otherwise our trade will suffer. I wish to put our standpoint, but, no matter what it may cost, the Ulster people are prepared to stand by the Government to see that justice is done.
    HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!
    6.8 p.m.
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: I had not intended to take part in this Debate, and in spite of the interjections of some of my hon. Friends I have no doubt I can make as useful a contribution to it as most of them. I want to detain the Committee very briefly indeed, because the discussion has taken a turn in regard to which I think that I shall make a small contribution. First of all, I do not approach this question with any animus towards Russia or Russian trade. I have during the past few years attended innumerable meetings of manufacturers in this country, and I have constantly directed them, when the occasion seemed good, to try to extend their trade in Russia, and' to get some of the work which is going into other countries. I have badgered the Department of the right hon. Gentleman, not once, but many times, feeling, as I did now and again, that our Government were not taking quite so liberal and broad a view of their chances of extending business with Russia as they might have done.
    Having, I hope, made my general position on the question clear, where does one find oneself now? I have personally great sympathy with those men now in prison, for although I do not know them, I know their business associates personally. It may interest the Committee to know what the feeling is in regard to those Englishmen who are in prison. Some of them have been in Russia for a long time. They are all regarded by the men who know them best in this country, not only as not being enemies of Russia, but, through their association with the Russian people, as having a definite Russian complex. They are working for the Russian Government. They are doing the best of work in pursuance of their normal occupation. They want to do their job well, and all that they desired
    1978
    was to make good M. that country. Therefore it has come with special amazement to all men who know them in this country that a situation of this kind should have arisen. The indignation which is being felt, not only in the trade of engineering, but, in my experience, among the rank and file up and down the country, is not so much due to the fact that these men have been arrested and put upon trial. One gets the impression listening to speeches here that that is the grievance which we have on the Government side. It is not. If in Russia there were a judicial system, tried and proved, which had the respect of the world as has our judicial system, the Government would never have thought for a moment of intervention. They would have believed that that system of jurisprudence would have applied to those men, and that if not found guilty they would have actually been discharged.
    The fear, based on the history and practice of the Russian system, is that the men will not get a fair trial, and that our fellow-citizens indirectly will suffer hardship because we here had not the courage to intervene on their behalf. That is the issue. The Committee this afternoon have been discussing at considerable length, not so much as to whether the economic weapon should be used in the political support of our countrymen, but the length of time during which that weapon should be used. I want to put a point to the Committee, and it was really my reason for getting up, because it is a new point. If you consider the history of our trade relations with Russia for the past 10 years, you find that consistently we have been buying from them a great deal more than they have been buying from us, in some years creating a credit cash balance of not less than £23,000,000 a year which they have been spending elsewhere. [An HON. MEMBER: "And so have other countries."] For 10 years the trade between Russia and America has created a credit balance for America of £100,000,000.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir John Ganzoni): I am afraid that the hon. Member is getting rather far away from the Amendment.
    Mr. RAMSAY: I was going to make my submission, and I think that when

    1979
    I have been allowed to make it, you will probably find that I am not getting away from the Amendment at all. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] If I have said anything which I should not have said, I sincerely apologise, but I am just coming to my point. I have heard a Russian Ambassador in this country address manufacturers not once but several times in tones of patronage, telling them what they must do to extend their trade with Russia. My point is, that the peril in which our fellow-citizens find themselves to-day is the result of our economic complaisance in our relations with the Russian people. If we had stood out for a measure of economic justice much more strongly and forcibly than we have done, they would have respected us more, and,
    in my judgment, this position would never have arisen. Therefore, in my view, the Government in assuming this weapon, should not cripple their future action too much. The Russian people will respect them far more when they know that the people of Britain are able to hit back, and having assumed this weapon I take it that we shall not be too willing to hand it away, believing that if we can assert our dignity, intelligence and strength in relation to the Russian people that, indeed, will be the surest safeguard of peace and harmony in the future.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 306.

    Division No. 123.]

    AYES.

    [6.15 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McGovern, John

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Banfield, John William

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Milner, Major James

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, Gabriel

    Buchanan, George

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Thorne, William James

    Cape, Thomas

    Hirst, George Henry

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cooke, Frederick Seymour

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Groves and Mr. John.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Davison, Sir William Henry

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

    Burnett, John George

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Denville, Alfred

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Dickie, John P.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Donner, P. W.

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Doran, Edward

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cazatet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W)

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Chanman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

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

    Clarke, Frank

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Bernays, Robert

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Copeland, Ida

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Blindell, James

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Boothby, Robert John Graham

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Fuller, Captain A. Q.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Cowan, D. M.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

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

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Goff, Sir Park

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Briant, Frank

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cross, R. H.

    Grstton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    McLean, Dr. w. H. (Tradesten)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Maitland, Adam

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Hales, Harold K.

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

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

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

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Scone, Lard

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Harbord, Arthur

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Meller, Richard James

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Hartland, George A.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Milne, Charles

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Soper, Richard

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

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

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

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

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Stevenson, James

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Storey, Samuel

    Hornby, Frank

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Munro, Patrick

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Stuart, Lord C Crichton-

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

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

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Nunn, William

    Templeton, William P.

    Hunt, Sir Gerald B.

    O'Connor, Terence James

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

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

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

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

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

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Thompson. Luke

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

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

    Peaks, Captain Osbert

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Jennings, Roland

    Pearson, William G.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Peat, Charles U.

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

    Ker, J. Campbell

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

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Knight, Holford

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Potter, John

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

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

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

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

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

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

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rankin, Robert

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Levy, Thomas

    Ray, Sir William

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    White, Henry Graham

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Whiteside. Borras Noel H.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Eeclesall)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

    Wiss, Wilfrid D.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Mabane, William

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

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

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Sir George Penny and Lord Erskine.

    Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out the words "His Majesty by Proclamation," and to insert instead thereof the words "the Board of Trade by order."
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to support the Amendment, which stands in my name and in the names of two of my comrades. We move this Amendment because as Socialists we view with alarm
    1982
    the part that is being played so far as this portion of the Bill is concerned. We think that the proposal which we wish to amend is a new departure. While it may be right to issue a Proclamation, we wish to register an emphatic protest against the way in which it is proposed to be done. We do not, however, wish to delay the Committee, because we have other serious Amendments to discuss.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 310; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 124.]

    AYES.

    [6.29 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Denville, Alfred

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Dickie, John P.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Donner, P. W.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Alexander, Sir William

    Drewe, Cedric

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

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

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Leckie, J. A.

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

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    Levy, Thomas

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

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

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Mabane, William

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kalsey

    Fox, Sir Glfford

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

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

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

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

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

    Magnay, Thomas

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Maitland, Adam

    Bernays, Robert

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Blindell, James

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Boothby, Robert John Graham

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

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

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

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Bracken, Brendan

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

    Meller, Richard James

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Briant, Frank

    Guinness, Thomas L. E, B.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Milne, Charles

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

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

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

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.

    Hanbury, Cecil

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

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Burnett, John George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Harbord, Arthur

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

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Hartland, George A.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Munro, Patrick

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hellgers, Captain F F. A.

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

    Hepworth, Joseph

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Nunn, William

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh,S.)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

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

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Clarke, Frank

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

    Patrick, Colin M,

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hornby, Frank

    Pearson, William G.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Peto, Geoffrey K (Wverh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Copeland, Ida

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

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

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Potter, John

    Cowan, D. M.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

    Pybus, Percy John

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

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

    Jennings, Roland

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

    Cross, R. H,

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Ker, J, Campbell

    Rankin, Robert

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

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ray, Sir William

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Knight, Holford

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Danman, Hon. R. D.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Remer, John R.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Soper, Richard

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

    Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

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

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Stevenson, James

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stones, James

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Storey, Samuel

    White, Henry Graham

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Salmon, Sir Isidore,

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

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

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wise, Alfred R.

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

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Templeton, William P.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Scone, Lord

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Thompson, Luke

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

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

    Sir George Penny and Lord

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

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Erskine.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Maxton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major James

    Banfield, John William

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

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, Gabriel

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Buchanan, George

    Hirst, George Henry

    Thorne, William James

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cove, William G.

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McGovern, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

    Mr. LUNN: I beg to move, in page 1. line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(2) Where a proclamation has been made the occasion thereof shall forthwith be communicated to Parliament and, if Parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within five days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within five days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by that proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day."
    In my opinion the proposals in this Bill abrogate the powers of Parliament in this matter, and I feel that the Amendment which is to be submitted by the Government does not meet the situation in anything like the same way as this Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 284.

    Division No. 125.]

    AYES.

    [6.41 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

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

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, Gabriel

    Batey, Joseph

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Thorne, William James

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams. David (Swansea, East)

    Cove, William G.

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

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

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Alexander, Sir William

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Martin, Thomas B.

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

    Fremantle, Sir Franc s

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

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

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

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

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

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Aske, Sir Robert William

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

    Meller, Richard James

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Goff, Sir Park

    Milne, Charles

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

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

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Grimston, R. V.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

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

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Munro, Patrick

    Bernays, Robert

    Hales, Harold K.

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

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

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Blindell, James

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Boothby, Robert John Graham

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Nunn, William

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Briant, Frank

    Hartland, George A.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hastam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Pearson, William G.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

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

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Potter, John

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Hepworth, Joseph

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

    Burnett, John George

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Pybus, Percy John

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

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

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hopkinson, Austin

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

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hornby, Frank

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

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ray, Sir William

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

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

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

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Clarke, Frank

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Remer, John R.

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

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

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cooke, Douglas

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Copeland, Ida

    Jennings, Roland

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Cowan, D. M.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Knight, Holford

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

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

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Cross, R. H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Liddall, Walter S.

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

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

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Denville, Alfred

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Scone, Lord

    Dickie, John P.

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

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Donner, P. W.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Drewe, Cedric

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

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

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Mabane, William

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

    Eastwood, John Francis

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

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

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Soper, Richard

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

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

    Magnay, Thomas

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Maitland, Adam

    Spens, William Patrick

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    1988

    1989

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

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Stevenson, James

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Stones, James

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

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

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

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Templeton, William p.

    White, Henry Graham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Sir George Penny and Lieut-

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    6.52 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at the end, to add the words:
    "(7) A proclamation under this Act, other than a proclamation revoking a previous proclamation, shall cease to have effect at the expiration of three months from the making thereof; hut, if before the expiration of the said period of three months a Resolution is passed by each House of Parliament praying that the proclamation be continued in force, either for such period as may be specified in the Resolution or until a further Resolution praying that it be revoked is passed by each House, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by further proclamation to continue it in force in accordance with the terms of the Resolution, but without prejudice to his power to revoke it at any time:
    "Provided that in reckoning any such period of three months as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
    This is an Amendment which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade indicated was one which the Government would propose. I do not think I need add to any observations that have already been made in order to commend the Amendment to the Committee.
    6.54 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 6, to leave out the word "either."
    This Amendment is the first of three which we propose to move. I am grateful to the Government for moving their Amendment. It is agreed that there shall be a period of three months, after which this House must again be seized of the matter. It seems logical that the further period be three months; otherwise the Government might get an extension which is quite unlimited. Drastic legislation such as this should be kept under the control of the House. I do not think it would cause any serious difficulty to the Government to accept our
    1990
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It provides that an extension of the Order can last for only three months, with provision made with regard to the House being dissolved or prorogued. I do not want to elaborate the point.
    6.55 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The effect of this Amendment to the Government Amendment, coupled with two later Amendments which would be consequential to it, would be to authorise the making of a Proclamation for a period which in all could not possibly exceed six months; that is to say the Proclamation originally made under the Bill would be, for a period of three months, and then, if the Amendment to the proposed Amendment were accepted, it could be extended as the result of votes of both Houses of Parliament for a further period of three months. That is the object of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It is obvious that if the Bill is required for the purposes for which it is designed and for which it is now solely intended to be used, there must be no doubt about the efficacy of the weapon, no doubt about the efficacy of the Act for the purpose for which it is designed; and if it were known that no Resolution, no Proclamation could be efficacious for more than a period of six months in all, it is quite easy to see that the weapon would be less potent than if the Houses of Parliament were in a position to extend the length of time by Proclamation to any extent necessary to effect the purpose in view. One can see quite easily that prisoners might be kept in custody and proceedings might be prolonged so as to tide a trial over a, period of six months, and then the powers under this Bill would be exhausted. That would baulk the intention of Parliament in bringing forward the Bill. For these reasons, the Government are unable to accept the Amendment to the Amendment.
    6.57 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: In the first place I would express my thanks to the Government for proposing this Amendment, which we very cordially welcome. I think that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to the proposed Amendment has a sound point, but he has not expressed it in the right way, and he has laid himself open to the complete reply from the Attorney-General which we have just received. The Amendment of the Government will have the effect that a Proclamation can be made by His Majesty on the advice of his Ministers and it will be valid for three months and no longer, but before the expiration of the three months the Government can come to Parliament and get Resolutions from both Houses, and those Resolutions may be for an indefinite term. The hon. Member for Limehouse says: "That is wrong; limit it to three months." The Attorney-General replies that the effect would be that the whole procedure would terminate at the end of six months, and then another Act would be needed.
    Assuming for the purposes of this discussion that this Bill is necessary, assuming that a Proclamation has to be made, it is not desirable in the circumstances which we envisage to cut the whole procedure off at the end of six months. A proposal that I was going to make was that Parliament should retain power to review the matter at intervals of three months. The powers that have been conferred by this Bill are tremendous—an absolute embargo—and I can see the Government coming forward and saying, not in respect of the whole of Russian trade but of one particular part of it, perhaps timber, that the Proclamation is to terminate at the end of three months and they must get a Resolution from the House of Commons. That Resolution might have no term in it at all; it would not come up automatically for review. It might go on year after year, possibly until some Government with a different point of view came forward and moved to revoke it, or a Proclamation was issued revoking it.
    I would suggest that the two points of view should be combined. The Proclamation should run for three months and no longer, but, if the Government agree that it is desirable, it should come up for review. If Parliament passes a Resolution, let that Resolution be for three
    1992
    months, with power of renewal for subsequent periods of three months, if it is found by the House of Commons and House of Lords that it is desirable to do so. I have suggested a form of words and handed them to the Attorney-General. I do not know whether he will be able to accept them straight away, but if he would give an undertaking that this matter would be considered on the Report stage, which is to be taken quite soon, or that in another place the right form of words would be found to achieve the purpose, I, for one, would be well content.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman correct in saying that if my Amendment were accepted the whole Act would come to an end? Would it not be possible for the Government to have a new Proclamation?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Strictly speaking I have no doubt there could be a new Proclamation under the Act after the original Proclamation had come to an end, but it would not be quite right to start off at the end of six months with a new Proclamation, and in that way avoid the intention of Parliament.
    7.3 p.m.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) will not press his Amendment. I intervened at an earlier point to secure from the Government an assurance that this Bill, introduced in special circumstances, and for a special purpose, should be used only for that purpose. The Committee received from the President of the Board of Trade a most explicit engagement to that effect. That satisfied me that the Bill will only be used for that purpose. Let us make the Bill as effective for that purpose as possible. Just let us consider the case. We have not got satisfaction; therefore the first Proclamation is issued. We hope that the passage of this Bill will bring home to the Soviet Government how strong is the feeling in this country. We hope it may not be necessary to take action under the Bill; that the right thing will be done, and all cause of complaints removed. But if that does not take place, the first Proclamation is made. That Proclamation endures for three months. If in that time we have not brought home to the Soviet Government the strength of our feeling, and have not got satisfaction from them, then

    1993
    I am in favour of prolonging the Act indefinitely—as indefinitely as the action is prolonged against which we protest. I think that after three months' experience, if we have then to issue a new Proclamation, it ought not to be limited in time. In the instance we are considering—the Proclamation having been made, and we not having got the satisfaction we desire during the period of three months—it is Lot merely a new Proclamation which is required, but other steps as well.
    7.5 p.m.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if, during the extended period after three months had expired, the conditions were met the Proclamation would lapse immediately, or would the Proclamation continue after the conditions had been met?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Bill is for the particular purpose of securing justice for certain British people. There is power taken by the Government to revoke a Proclamation when made, if they have got that which is the whole purpose of the Bill. Assume it to be in three months, or one month, or four months, they will revoke the Proclamation. You use the argument of force to meet conduct of force. The whole purpose of reprisal is to cause certain action to cease. I assume that a Proclamation to revoke a previous Proclamation would be issued at the end of four months, six months, or one month, as soon as satisfaction is obtained.
    7.7 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) will not press his Amendment. It does not commend itself to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is anxious that the Houses of Parliament should retain complete control. Before the original three months can be extended, Parliament will have to decide upon the question. Parliament may extend the period for two or three months or, as the right hon. Gentleman says, indefinitely. Parliament may pass such a Resolution, but it does not thereby set going a machine which it has no power to stop. Parliament will always retain power to revoke a Proclamation, even although made for an indefinite period. That is explicity provided for in the Government's Amendment. It is not accurate to suggest that,
    1994
    if a Proclamation is made for an indefinite period, the House of Commons and the House of Lords are deprived of effective control over the position. The right hon. Gentleman is anxious to have every three months a fresh decision by the Houses of Parliament on this question. I am bound to say that might leave the Government in a less powerful position vis à vis the Soviet administration. It seems to me very like the game of cat-and-mouse. The Soviet Government, if the prolongation of a Proclamation for three months was obtained, might hope for some change in the House of Commons, but if they knew that the Parliament in session at that time had power to make an indefinite extension of a Proclamation, they would be likely to pay more attention when they knew it would remain in force until Parliament saw fit to revoke it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that we have gone far enough.
    7.9 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not concur in all the arguments of the Attorney-General. I think it would be useful if Parliament had to review the matter from time to time. In view, however, of what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), who has rendered such excellent service to the main object we have in view, and having regard also to what has been said by the Attorney-General when first moving the Amendment, bearing out another point to which we attach great importance, I will not, in deference to the views expressed by them, move the Amendment.
    7.10 p.m.
    Mr. THORNE: In the event of there being a long Recess, could the Executive revoke a Proclamation in the meantime?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Executive would not have the power to revoke a Proclamation that had been made by Parliament for an indefinite period. Parliament alone could revoke it.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Clauses 2 (Provisions as to licences) and 3 (Relief in case of non-fulfilment of contract due to existence of Proclamation vender Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Short title, commencement and interpretation.)
    7.13 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end to insert the words:
    "and this Act shall cease to have effect on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three."
    We move this Amendment for very obvious reasons. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said that the Bill has been introduced for a very specific purpose. Our contention is that, unless the Government can achieve their object in nine months, no Proclamation should be renewed at the end of that time. Fears have been expressed by the Attorney-General with regard to a limiting of time, when it was proposed that at the end of three months there should be power to extend a Proclamation for a further three months. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that to limit the operation of the Bill to six months might engender certain action in the country responsible for this Bill, and might cause procrastination. That may be the case, but I do not think the argument could be extended to nine months. I think all parties in the House will be agreed that there is no necessity for an extension beyond nine months. We are satisfied that long before the expiration of nine months, either the Government will have succeeded in their object, or it will be plain that they are not likely to succeed by the methods which they are adopting in this Bill.
    It is our desire that cur relations with Russia should be improved as quickly as possible, and we think that if the Government accept this Amendment, which gives them power for a period of nine months, that ought to be ample for dealing with the problem with which they are concerned at the moment. I am sure that the Attorney-General and the President of the Board of Trade, as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham are anxious that the present problem should
    1996
    be resolved as quickly as possible. If we could indicate not only to the Soviet Government, but to residents in this country and to those who have been carrying on a good deal of trade with Russia, that the Government's intention is to deal exclusively with the present humanitarian problem, I think general satisfaction would be given throughout the country. I do not think the Attorney-General can use the same arguments against the nine months period as he did against the six months period, and I repeat that, if, at the end of nine months, it is found that these men have not been fairly and squarely dealt with, and if any further action in the matter is considered to be necessary, I do not think there will be opposition from any quarter. I hope the Government will indicate to the world that they have confidence that fair play and sportsmanship will, be brought to bear at an early stage, and that the whole problem will be resolved before the end of nine months.
    The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: It is necessary to put this Amendment in a slightly different form from that in which it appears on the Paper. The Question is, "That the words:
    'and this Act shall cease to have effect on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three.'
    be there inserted."
    7.20 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Amendment put in the way in which you, Sir John, have put it to the Committee, will lead hon. Members to appreciate that if it were accepted it would of necessity mean that no Proclamation could be effective after 31st December, 1933, the reason being, as I have already pointed out, that if the Act dies, everything done on the authority of the Act also dies. That would be likely to deprive the Government of a weapon which it should have and which should be as potent as we can make it. If it were known that the most His Majesty could do, on the advice of his Ministers, was to issue a Proclamation that covered only a period of nine months that would be less effective than if there was power to issue a Proclamation which might be effective for 12 months or even longer. If we are going to do this thing at all let us do it in the most effective fashion. May I take this opportunity of

    1997
    correcting an answer which I gave just now to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne). I had overlooked the words at the end of the Government Amendment, "without prejudice to his power to revoke it at any time." Therefore, the Proclamation can be revoked without the intervention of Parliament.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Assume that the Amendment is rejected and this Measure remains on the Statute Book, is it the intention of the Government to preserve it as an Act for all time, although, once the present problem is resolved, it will not be used?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend has given a very explicit undertaking as to the purposes for which this Measure shall be used. If the Measure remains on the Statute Book it is obvious that it could not be used for any other purposes, if that undertaking is to be honoured. I imagine that in due course it would be removed from the Statute Book, but there would not be any possibility of its being used for other purposes, consistent with Parliamentary honour.
    7.22 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The Attorney-General and the Committee ought to consider this point. This Bill concerns us and one other nation. We could not apply these powers to any other nation—at least so I understand it. This action is taken because of certain incidents in Russia. The Bill is for the purpose of dealing with that emergency. If we take the Attorney-General's view that it should remain in force without any date, the assumption is that, in regard to Russia at any rate, you must have this special kind of legislation for an undefined period. We think that if these incidents are closed, that position would not be conducive to those friendly relations which, I understand, the Government and the House of Commons desire. I think it disastrous that the Bill has been brought in at all. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh!"] I will put it another way. I think it disastrous that anything should happen to compel the Government to think and the House of Commons to assent that such legislation is necessary. I think it a bad thing to continue that legislation a moment longer than is necessary to accomplish the aim which you
    1998
    have in view, and it is for those reasons which the Attorney-General has not met that we press the Amendment. The period of nine months is a good long time, and I hope, and I am sure everybody hopes, that nine days will see the whole business finished.
    7.24 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: There is nothing operative under the Bill unless you have a Proclamation and the Government can bring the Proclamation to an end at any time. Then there will simply be an Act on the Statute Book which is dormant, which is doing nothing, and the House of Commons can repeal that Act when it wants to do so. But that is no reason for putting in a nine months' limit. If it were proposed that, directly the Government considered the Measure to be no longer necessary for this purpose, it should come to an end, I could understand it. But I do not see why hon. Members should use this very small point to try to put a further limitation on the powers given under the Bill and I ask them whether they think it necessary to press their Amendment. I was delighted to hear that the Government are not going to accept the nine months' limitation though I hope that none of these powers will have to be used, as I am sure everyone else does.
    7.26 p.m.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it to be understood as the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has said that this Measure lies on the Statute Book doing nothing? I think the position would be quite different. If the Measure is continued, is it to be understood that, in no circumstances, it is open to the Russian Government to arrest British subjects on their territory, even though they have occasion for doing so as they might have for all we would really know? Is it to be understood that immediately an arrest is made in Russia under a Russian law a Proclamation is to be issued and this. Measure is to be held over their beads. So far from doing nothing, it would be a very vicious and threatening weapon. it would constitute a constant threat aimed at the Soviet Government. To pick out one Government in all the world against which this is to be directed is an anomaly to which the House of Commons ought not

    1999
    to consent, and, in any case, we ought to seek to bring it to an end at the earliest possible moment.
    7.28 p.m.
    Mr. DENMAN: I am sure that the Committee as a, whole will agree with the Government that it is undesirable to insert a precise time-limit where the prospects are so uncertain. On the other hand, there is, I am sure, a general feeling that if the Government, by means of this Measure, are as successful as we all hope and the slate is wiped clean in regard to this matter, then, unless there is something to terminate this Measure it will remain on the Statute Book and it will be open to people to point to it as something which might be enforced if any Government in this country wished to do so. The way to secure complete control and at the same time produce an automatic ending of the Measure at any time the Government wish to bring it to an end, would be to accept the Amendment but to add the words "unless renewed in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act." It could then be continued from year to year unless and until it bad achieved its purpose, when the Government could get rid of it by not including it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
    7.29 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: As the Attorney-General knows, any Act of Parliament that is for a certain period can be carried on further, without any words to that effect being in the original Act, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, if the Government of the day consider it necessary. Our objection to the absence of any date is that this is a sort of stigma against the jurisprudence operative in Soviet Russia. Some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may want that stigma to remain, but I think it is a terrible thing for the British House of Commons to continue it indefinitely. Against my own
    judgment I am conceding that you have cause for it. I am conceding your whole case, but if your case is right and if you are taking action to deal with that case, you ought to put a limit on the time that you are to keep a big stick of this sort in your hand. You ought to consider that there may come a time—speedily we hope—when this can be dispensed with and if that hope should be disappointed you have always got the means of including the Measure in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I am very sorry indeed that the Attorney-General cannot see his way to meet us on this point.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: If we get over the difficulty now obtaining in Russia, and if we get full satisfaction, we on these benches think that we ought to put Russia on the same footing as other nations, and if the Government have not something else in mind, we would like to know how long this Measure is to remain on the Statute Book. Will it remain year after year, or will there be same time-limit? We have put down this Amendment in order to find out what the Government's intentions are in that connection. If they could say, "Well, in 12 months or 15 months we intend to remove it if all goes well," I do not think we should press the case much further, but we feel that we are entitled to some explanation. If things go better and our relationships with Russia become normal again, as they must do some time or other—we cannot keep out a big nation like Russia for all time—this Measure should be removed from the Statute Book, and we desire to know when that will be.
    Question put, "That the words:
    and this Act shall cease to have effect on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three,'
    be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 279.

    Division No. 126.]

    AYES.

    [7.32 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Banfield, John William

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Batey, Joseph

    Edwards, Charles

    Kirkwood, David

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Buchanan, George

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Leonard, William

    Cape, Thomas

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

    Lunn, William

    Cove, William S.

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Daggar, George

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Maxton, James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Milner, Major James

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Price, Gabriel

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Thorne, William James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. John and Mr. D Graham.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Elmley, Viscount

    Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Emrys-Evane, P. V.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Alexander, Sir William

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

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

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

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

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

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

    McKie, John Hamilton

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

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

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Maitland, Adam

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

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

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

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

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Meller, Richard James

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Beauchamp. Sir Brograve Campbell

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Milne, Charles

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter

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

    Bernays, Robert

    Greene, William P. C.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

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

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

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

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Grimston, R. V.

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Borodale, Viscount

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Munro, Patrick

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Harbord, Arthur

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hartigton, Marquess of

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

    Hartland, George A.

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. C. T.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Nunn, William

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Burnett, John George

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Pearson, William G.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

    Peat, Charles U.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Penny, Sir George

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Hornby, Frank

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Horobin, Ian M.

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

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

    Horsbrugh, Florence

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

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Potter, John

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

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

    Clarke, Frank

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,

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

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

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

    Conant, R. J. E.

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

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

    Cooke, Douglas

    Janner, Barnett

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jennings, Roland

    Rankin, Robert

    Copeland, Ida

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Reed. Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

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

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Cowan, D. M.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Remer, John R.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Ropner, Colonel L.

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

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cross, R. H.

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lees-Jones, John

    Runge, Norah Cecil

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

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Levy, Thomas

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Denville, Alfred

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Dickie, John P.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Donner, P. W.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Drewe, Cedric

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Salt, Edward W.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Dunglass, Lord

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

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    2002

    2003

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

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

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Smithers, Waldron

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Templeton, William P.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Soper, Richard

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L,

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Spans, William Patrick

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

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

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

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Stevenson, James

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.

    Stones, James

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Blindell.

    Stourton, Hon. John J

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

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

    Bill reported; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    7.44 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: We are now coming to the close of two days' Debate on this Bill, and the House will probably agree that the Government were wise, on second thoughts, to devote two days to the Bill, because certainly we have been able to discuss it to-day in a calmer atmosphere than yesterday. We have to remember that this Bill is not a matter of domestic legislation. It is an act of the Government directed towards a situation in the world outside. When the Government are taking action on behalf of this country in relation to other countries, it is important to put our case in such a way as will be understood and appreciated by all the world. The forum to which we address ourselves is the whole world and not this House. Therefore, I am sorry that in the speech of the Foreign Secretary yesterday in introducing this Bill he seemed to be addressing himself to Members of the House as if they were a jury. He won his jury, but a case put before the jury is not necessarily put in such a way as to appeal to the world at large. I thought that the President of the Board of Trade in winding up was a little flippant. The one Minister was forensic and the other flippant, but both of them were appealing to the House.
    It is necessary that Ministers should appeal to the House and convince the House, but in our Debates to-day we have had speeches made by Conserva-
    2004
    tives such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and the Attorney-General which were a good deal more in accord with the importance of the subject, with the delicacy of foreign affairs, and with the dignity of this country. It is a pity that our external affairs are so entirely in the hands of Members of the National Government who are not, as far as I know, yet members of the Conservative party. It seems to me that the dealing of Ministers with Russia is rather a continuation of the methods of the Dominions Secretary in dealing with Ireland. In both cases we have Ministers who were not yet sufficiently well established with the bulk of their supporters as to abstain from playing to the gallery. I am sure that both these difficult matters of external policy would have been handled better by members who had been long years in the Conservative party. To-day, however, we have had—and I should like to welcome it—a recognition from the Government that there was point in the criticisms of their action. Yesterday there was an unfortunate mingling in the speeches and in the applause of two separate interests. One was the perfectly legitimate indignation of Members at the suggestion that their fellow subjects were in danger and were being maltreated in a foreign country. Mixed with that there seemed to be other, motives—a motive of hatred of another country and a motive at times of trade interests.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did a service to the House in bringing it back to a realisation that in foreign affairs we want to have unmixed motives. He rendered a service to the House and to

    2005
    the country in getting that declaration from the Government which we did not get last night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) tried to extract it from the Government, but he did not get it. He got an ambiguous answer that this Bill was mainly but not entirely for this purpose. We have been told to-day that it is to be used for one purpose and one purpose only. It is to put a weapon in the hands of the Government for one purpose, and I understand that the purpose is to obtain justice on behalf of our nationals. The purpose is not to exacerbate feeling between this country and Russia, and I understand that the Government do not intend if they can possibly avoid it to have a break with Russia. Therefore, it behoves all of us who speak in this Debate to try and avoid anything that will cause ill-feeling between the two countries. I wish that that had been borne in mind more in the course of the Debates which we have had up to now.
    It is most important that where we have a case to put before the world we should put it absolutely clearly and should not try to stand in a false position. Particularly is that the case where a matter of law is involved. In the case of Ireland our position was weakened where we had a strong case by being based on false premises in regard to the rights of the two countries. In the present case a position was taken up which cannot really be defended and which probably the Government on reflection will not attempt to defend. They asserted that it is unthinkable that any of our nationals could be guilty of certain offences. You may say if you like that the laws of Russia are absurd and that the offences with which these people are charged are absurd, but you cannot say that someone with whom you are not in personal contact cannot possibly have committed a breach of the law of another country. That, I consider, was an indefensible position to take up.
    I am not going to argue the legal position, for it has already been argued fully by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). We on this side have taken the line that the Government are not only right in taking, but are bound to take, all proper steps to see that our nationals are properly protected. If anybody had brought for-
    2006
    ward the suggestion that our nationals were in danger of injury to life or limb without this action being taken, we should have been the first to say that the Government must act and take every action in their power. As a matter of fact, there was a delay, but it was not quite so long as it was feared to be judging from the speech of the Foreign Secretary. It was a comparatively short time. We have elicited now that these men are to be brought to trial, and that that trial is to be an open trial. The question arises whether it is right that we should pass this Bill under those circumstances. I do not think that anyone supposes that the Government want to put the Bill into force. They want to use it as a weapon for argument, but what is their argument to be? Their argument is that they have a right to insist that there shall be a trial and a fair trial, but they cannot insist that these men shall be tried in exactly the same way as they would be in this country. If they were tried and condemned after a trial wrongly conducted, and if the punishment were excessive, the question would arise whether it was perfectly right and proper for the Government to interfere. But you cannot ask any nation to stand up in a white sheet, and say, "Your nationals are guiltless and our courts of justice are such that these people must even have the form of being acquitted before they have been brought up in the courts." That is why we oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.
    We agree that there are circumstances where action must be taken. We agree that the Government must protect their own nationals, but the point is that you must be right in time; you must be right in cause and reason, and not merely convince this House but convince the whole world. I hope that as soon as possible we shall get a full accession of reason to the governors of Russia. I hope that that will be met in a spirit of reasonableness by the representative of this country. I do not say in the slightest that there is not cause for grave anxiety or for action to be taken by our Government. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Government of the Soviet is an entirely wise and sensible Government. The point that should be made is that in dealing with other Governments you should never try to bring yourself to take the kind of line of the

    2007
    people with whom you have to deal. The more excited they are, the more restrained should be the attitude we should adopt.
    Yesterday we had a speech delivered by the Foreign Secretary such as I have never heard or read of from any Foreign Secretary. The job of a Foreign Secretary is not to stimulate indignation, righteous or otherwise. Foreign Secretaries have quite enough to do in dealing with national feelings on both sides without adding to them. If the Government get their Bill to-night, as they will, I hope that it will be strictly kept, as we are told it will be, for the purpose for which it is intended. I hope and believe that the whole matter may be adjusted very speedily between the Government of this country and the Government of Russia, and that we in this House, remembering the critical state of affairs all over the world, will be very careful not to put fire to any of the powder which is lying about the world at the present time.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) almost overwhelmed me with the unusual compliments he paid to me on my intervention earlier in to-day's proceedings, but I was a little embarrassed, because he seemed to distribute those compliments to me only for the purpose of emphasising his criticism of the speeches of my right hon. Friends. He thought the speech of the President of the Board of Trade flippant. I did not notice any flippancy. He thought the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs forensic. I should have called it a very lucid exposition of the case and a most cogent argument in favour of the Bill. But it is the business of an Opposition to oppose, and I make no objection if the hon. Gentleman takes the opportunity of the Third Reading to show that it is not "roses, roses all the way" for the Government, and to indicate that he thinks other people could do their work better than they are doing it.
    I agree with him that the case for the Government as it is before the House now is an even stronger and a much clearer and cleaner case than it was as it was left by the Debate yesterday. But may I add, also, that I think the position
    2008
    of the Opposition is far more reasonable to-day than it was as disclosed in the opening speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I infinitely prefer the statement made by the hon. Member for Limehouse of the rights and duties of a British Government in such cases to the special pleading of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol when he opened the discussion yesterday, or to his conclusions, which he varied every time he rose, but in none of which did he recognise as clearly as the hon. Gentleman has done the duty of the Government to protect British subjects abroad against injustice.
    But I do not want to be contentious; I wish to make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman and his friends. I cannot relate the speech which he made to the action which he announced the Opposition are going to take. Yesterday there was a point, which had been left obscure, which did cause grave concern to many hon. Members sitting on both sides of the House. It was a fear lest under cover of a Bill to deal with a particular emergency, to deal with the case of British subjects in danger of their lives or of suffering injustice, the Government should be securing from the House powers which they would use for some other purpose. I have said already that I am not averse to giving the Government those powers in relation to any country if they be necessary for the purposes of successful negotiations in other matters, but that is a question to be considered on its merits and quite apart from the action which we are now taking, and thanks to the representations from different parts of the House, we have had from the Government, by the mouth of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the most explicit undertaking that the powers sought in this Bill shall not be used for any other purpose than the purpose of securing justice for British citizens, and that if similar powers are at any time required for other purposes the House will begin the matter again de novo. That has been made perfectly clear; if you like to say so, that concession has been given. At any rate, the position is now clear and definite that this Bill exists only for a specific purpose.
    I, too, hope, like the hon. Gentleman, that it may not be necessary to enforce the Bill. I hope that justice may be done

    2009
    without this Measure being invoked, but when we have confined it to the one purpose of securing due process of law, due administration of justice to British subjects, cannot we be unanimous in our object? The hon. Gentleman has admitted the duty of the Government to protect. I do not ask him to say, what the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has already told us that he could not say, that he thinks this is the best method. We are all equally anxious that it should not be necessary to use it; we are all equally anxious to secure justice and protection for our fellow subjects. How can we best attain that end? By making the vote unanimous. The best protection for these men is to give to the Government the strongest assurance of national support. In that way we show to the Soviet Government how universal is the feeling of anxiety here about the treatment of these men. By bringing home the universality and the unanimity of the feeling, we shall take the best step in our power to make it unnecessary for our Government actually to put these powers into force.
    Without reopening any of our differences, and making allowance for the fact that my standpoint is one and the standpoint of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Limehouse is a different one, I do appeal to them, in the interests of the efficacy of the passing of the Measure, and in order that it may not be necessary to put it into force, in the interests of the effect which is to be produced upon the Soviet Government, and in the interests of national unity, to reconsider their decision to oppose the Bill, a course which will not only be misunderstood but is not unlikely to require the Bill to be put into force when, without that division of opinion, it might be that the mere passage of the Bill would be sufficient.
    8.8 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: To the appeal which has been made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) we on these benches give an immediate response. It is our intention to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill, and we would have voted for the Second Reading yesterday if the statement made by the Government this afternoon had been made by them last night.
    2010
    I am well aware of the fact that our abstention yesterday evening aroused considerable resentment among a large number of Members who had not heard the statement which had been made on behalf of the Liberal party earlier in the day, and who formed the opinion that we abstained because we were unwilling to arm the Government with powers which were considered necessary in the interests of British subjects in grave danger in Russia on account of some doctrinaire fiscal views of our own. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) had some genial words to say on that subject this afternoon, and I have little doubt that there were a considerable number of Members last night who, when we sat still on these benches during the Division, would gladly have employed Ogpu methods against us and have summarily executed us without trial.
    To-day the situation is entirely different, for the appeal which I made yesterday has been endorsed with great force and authority by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, and has been fully met by the Government. It has been specifically declared that this is a Bill for dealing only with the emergency that has arisen through the arrest of British subjects in Russia, and is not to be regarded as part of the machinery of this country for dealing with trade negotiations. The powers which are being granted to the Government are tremendous powers; they are, and must be regarded as, absolutely abnormal. I am not convinced, and my hon. Friends who sit on these benches are not convinced, that this is necessarily the right way of handling the situation. Indeed, we have grave doubts whether it might not have been better handled in other ways without any such Bill and without such speeches as we have heard from the Foreign Secretary and from the President of the Board of Trade, but, as I said yesterday, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom being of opinion that this particular weapon is essential to them if they are to carry out with success the duty which devolves upon them of protecting British subjects in Russia, I do not think that any of us in the House of Commons should take the responsibility of denying them the powers which they desire and which they claim.
    For that reason, and in spite of these views, we shall vote for the Third Read-

    2011
    ing, and I hope that possibly even at this late hour our hon. Friends on the benches opposite may not press the matter to a Division. Even if they do so, the speech made on their behalf by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) indicates that they realise that it is the duty of this Government to intervene, and that they earnestly desires that the representations which have been made, even though they may have been made in a tone and in a manner of which they do not approve, will have successful resets. I hope there will be unanimous vote of the House, but, if there is not, at all events these Debates have shown that fundamentally there is a great consensus of opinion in this Parliament, which reflects the universal opinion of the nation outside, that we are most deeply concerned for the fate of our fellow subjects in Russia, and believe from the bottom of our hearts that the just treatment by the Russian Government of those men who are now in danger will conduce to good and friendly relations between Russia and Great Britain, while the reverse must imperil that feeling of good will between the two countries which we, at all events, most earnestly desire to maintain.
    8.13 p.m.
    Major MILNER: I wish to refer for a few moments to what has been said by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). Neither of them did justice to the views of this party, and more particularly to the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I would like to quote what my hon. and learned Friend said yesterday. In almost the first words of his speech he used expressions which were repeated almost word for word by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) this evening. He said:
    "I want to examine the position shortly, and I hope calmly, in order to see whether it is really in the best interests not only of this country but of the accused persons themselves, that we should take the action now proposed. I am sure there is one proposition of international law upon which everybody in this House will be absolutely at one, and that is that this country has an absolute right to afford protection to its subjects, wherever they may be abroad, in any foreign country. That right, of
    2012
    course, carries with it the duty to see that that protection is given and also the duty, in any particular case where it may appear that its subjects are in jeopardy, to make the fullest possible inquiry in order to ascertain the whole of the facts with regard to those subjects."
    In almost his closing passage my hon. and learned Friend made an appeal on similar lines to the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse. He said:
    "I venture to ask the Foreign Secretary whether, in view of the danger to the men and the possibility of this matter being dealt with on a friendly basis with the British Government, he does not consider that even yet it might be possible to avoid the passage of this Bill, anyway to avoid any possibility of anything happening under it? If only the longer and more sensible view can be taken, perhaps by both parties, who at the moment have got both nations into a state of excitement and hysteria which is just the sort of state which so often has led to war in the past, surely we as a House of Commons can treat this matter not as a lot of people who are excited but as a matter for calm deliberation. We ought to try to do what is, in the circumstances, the best thing to be done from the point of view of our relationships with Russia and the protection of these men, because I feel convinced that if we continue to pile up ill-feeling in Russia by the sort of statements that there are in the White Paper and by this sort of emergency action which is being taken to treat Russia in a way in which no country has ever been treated before, and by this House of Commons, we are seriously jeopardising not only all future relations with Russia but we are seriously jeopardising the fate of men who are still in their hands, and who it is for them to deal with and not for us. If by being more reasonable, and even by making a gesture at the last moment, anything can be done in that direction I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1933; cols. 1785 and 1800, Vol. 276.]
    What more could the hon. and learned Gentleman have said yesterday than in fact he said? It is very remarkable to note the change of atmosphere since the Foreign Secretary's speech yesterday, due to a number of reasons. It was not perhaps the matter but the manner of the Foreign Secretary's speech which excited so much feeling in the House. One or two matters have been made clear since he spoke. I do not think that he did justice to himself in not bringing to the knowledge of the House certain facts which were extracted from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his closing speech last night. Those facts ought to have been

    2013
    brought to the notice of the House by the Foreign Secretary. It is now understood—and the Foreign Secretary understood the whole time—that there is to be an open trial, that British legal advice is to be available for our fellow-citizens in Russia, that charges have been made and have been received by the Foreign Office, although particulars have not been given in this House, and that the appropriate indictment, or the documents or whatever they are in Russia, have been served upon the accused persons, or upon some of them. Those are the facts which ought to have been brought to the notice of the House when the Foreign Secretary made his opening speech, and they should not have been left in the undecided state to say the least of it, in which the Foreign Secretary left them.
    I had intended to say a word or two on some more or less minor matters, but I think, in view of the temper of the House, that that is neither necessary nor desirable. I feel that we are apt, all of us no doubt, including myself and my hon. Friends, to see the mote in our brother's eye and not the beam in our own eye, but the very distinct impression was left upon the House yesterday that nothing approaching what was done in the way of legal procedure in Russia is ever contemplated in this country. I hold no brief—far from it—for the Russian legal system. I do not profess to know a very great deal about it, but I know something about our own system which, without question, is in every way the beat in the world; yet even in this country and in countries in which we control the government, to have arrests made without Charge is not unknown. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Healy) told me last night that so recently as 1922 he was incarcerated for two years without any charge being made against him. It is common knowledge that we have asked questions in this House within the last month as to what the charges were against Lieut. Baillie-Stewart, and that no details were given, but only such general observations and directions as were given by the Russian Government in this case.
    Sir J. SIMON: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not suggest that the officer to whom he has referred did not know the charges?
    Major MILNER: I am not in a position to say, although I put a question with a view to eliciting the information, on what date the officer was informed of the precise charges against him. I can only say that yesterday the Foreign Secretary made a great point of the fact that during the period in which the correspondence included in the White Paper was carried on, five days I think in all, no particulars of the charges were delivered. In fact, there were general particulars of the kind of charge, and of the way in which the wind was blowing, and also in that correspondence the particular article of the criminal code under which the charges would be brought was mentioned.
    The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must point out that we are now on the Third Reading, and that the. Debate is strictly limited to what is in the Bill. I think the hon. Member will agree that it is desirable that we should not proceed with these questions of detail.
    Major MILNER: I accept your Ruling at once. The only other observation I shall offer to the House is this: An appeal has been made to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, but I am afraid that they have not appreciated the position that we take up. The policy of the Government, which is apparently to be supported by the Liberal party, is the policy of the big stick. We do not believe in the policy of the big stick, and we do not believe in making that stick bigger by adding our votes to those of the National Government in this matter. That policy is becoming almost a habit on the part of the National Government. It was used, for instance, or attempted, to be used, in the Anglo-Persian dispute;., where I think gun-boats were sent to the Persian Gulf.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden):No gun-boats were sent to the Persian. Gulf.
    Major MILNER: I accept that statement. It may be that there was a suggestion that they should be sent. There was certainly something in the papers about it, but I accept the Under-Secretary's statement that no action of that sort was taken; but there, in my view and in the view, I think, of my hon.

    2015
    Friends on these benches, the big stick was to be used. The matter was to be referred to the Hague—
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean to say that to refer a question either to the League of Nations or to the International Court of Justice is an improper act comparable to the use of the big stick?
    Major MILNER: No.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If he does not mean that, what is the meaning of what he is now saying?
    Major MILNER: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Debates on that subject, he will find precisely what we felt about it, and what we expressed on that occasion. We may be right or wrong, but we think that that was an attempt on the part of this country to use the big stick. By the timely intervention of a representative of the League of Nations, a friendly arrangement was eventually arrived at. Certainly there was a protest by the Persian Government. They felt, as the Russian Government have felt, that we were attempting to dictate to them, or to impose upon them. I am reminded that on the Irish question we took certain action, which has not proved to be in the least satisfactory from the point of view either of Ireland or of this country, and here is a third attempt on somewhat similar lines at economic reprisals. In my view, if there is no change in the attitude of the Government, though I hope there may be, a similarly unsatisfactory result may ensue.
    I 'ask myself: Is the course upon which the Government have embarked the most likely to result in advantage to our fellow citizens who are accused in Russia? I happen to have been a prisoner myself for a period of months, both in a foreign gaol and in a foreign fortress, and I think I might also say, on one occasion during that period, a foreign dungeon, or something approaching it; and, therefore, I have the very greatest sympathy both with those who are still in prison in Russia and those who have, we hope permanently, been released. I have the greatest sympathy with their relatives. I know the anxiety which my own absence, perhaps in rather different circumstances, caused to my relatives, and, therefore, I
    2016
    think I can claim to be a reasonably unprejudiced person in looking at the matter from the point of view of the accused persons.
    We now know the charges, we know that there is to be an open trial, we know that some British legal advice is to be available, and, no doubt, Russian counsel will be available to defend the accused persons, just as in this country an accused Russian could have the advantage of British counsel. The further one goes, the more do the respective Governments become involved, and the more the prestige of the Governments and feelings of patriotism and so on become involved. It seems to me that, the further the Government carry this action, the more likely is it to make the Russian Government endeavour to justify their action in arresting these British citizens. Therefore, I cannot agree that it is an advantage to pass the Third Reading of this Bill, and certainly it will not be an advantage to proceed to carry it into effect, as I am sure we all hope will not be done. Human nature, whether Russian or British, naturally and properly resents reprisals, or threats of reprisals, and we ourselves should be the first to resent that sort of action on the part of any other country.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house made an appeal, and I should like also to make an appeal. The world from end to end is in chaos to-day. Almost every country is involved in conflict of one sort or another. We profess, and the National Government profess, that this country—as may, indeed, be true—is happier and better off in many respects than almost any other country on the globe. Is it not our duty, in a matter of this sort, to set an example to the rest of the world? Surely, that example was not set by the Foreign Secretary in his speech yesterday. I suggest that our only proper course is to look at this matter as coolly as we can, and to take no action which could possibly make matters worse in any way. I would appeal to the Government not to put this Bill into operation, but to do as our fathers did with some of us in our young days, that is to say, put us on our honour, so to speak, to play the game. I suggest that that is the action that should be taken with the Russian Government, and one hopes that they would respond. If we do not adopt that attitude, we exacerbate feel-

    2017
    ing, we bring nationalist feelings into the question, and almost force upon those Russians, whoever they may be, who try our fellow-citizens, the obligation or the duty to justify what their Government has done.
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that the Russian Government, in order to save its face, will manufacture evidence against our fellow-subjects?
    Major MILNER: I never said one word about manufacturing evidence. I said that, human nature being what it is, in circumstances like these, if threats are made and actions are taken, they will, in the nature of things, almost feel obliged to take a prejudiced or biased view. They would be far more likely to do so than if they were put on their honour, as some of us were as young men and children, to do the right thing. I think that, on consideration, the hon. Member and others will agree that that is possibly the case. In these circumstances, I, for one, shall oppose the Third Reading, and, if the Bill is passed, I sincerely hope the Government will find no reason to bring it into effect, but that, in view of the atmosphere in this Rouse, it may be possible to bring about a happy issue to this unfortunate question.
    8.32 p.m.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I was a little afraid, at one time during the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), that the Debate was going to be taken away from that broad and, I may say, generous atmosphere in which it was launched by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), and the extraordinarily moving appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I have spent practically all my working life in assisting to the best of my ability in the administration of justice. Justice should not be a matter of administration in one country to the exclusion of other countries. Those of us who really believe in justice believe that it should be a principle which should be widespread in its application; and my friends who, with me, believe that this Bill ought to be supported, support it because we think that it gives to the Government a power to try and see that those principles which we hold dear are
    2018
    brought into the fullest play. Nothing is further from the thoughts of any of us than the desire that international relations should be affected in the very least degree by mere threats, or by anything more than notice to the world that we choose to arm ourselves, in case of necessity, and only when driven to it, with the necessary powers to protect the lives, the reputations, and the characters of the people of our own country and our own race. We support the Bill for that and for no other reason, because we believe it is necessary to see not only that justice is done but that it should be manifestly clear that justice is being done.
    There is one other aspect which appeals to me and which I should have thought would appeal to many of my friends in the Labour party. We are choosing here for the purpose of defending some of our own people an economic weapon. It is an opportunity that has been given to us to see whether by economic means we can, if necessary, persuade those with whom we disagree to come to some measure of agreement, or at least to see that we feel very deeply indeed on what is being done to these unfortunate people in Russia. I cannot help feeling that it is very much better that it should be done by economic weapons than by those real weapons of which so many of us of middle age have had such bitter experience in the past, and in respect of which there is so much general agreement nowadays that we should use every possible attempt to see that we never have recourse to arms again.
    It gives me, I will not say satisfaction, because no one with any sense of responsibility can derive any satisfaction from the present circumstances in which we find ourselves, or even in the fact that it is necessary to provide the Government of the day with another weapon, but it gives me, shall I say, some sort of relief at the measures that we are compelled to pass into law for the preservation of our own people that at least they are measures which will not endanger human life on the other side or the lives of our own people here, and, if we can do that, I should have thought, if I may make an appeal to hon. Members of the Opposition, that they would see some good in the Bill from that point of view as indicating the

    2019
    possibility that at last we are finding some other weapons instead of having to assert our rights by recourse to arms. I hope again, if I may add my small voice to that of those who have made an appeal to the Leader of the Opposition, that we should let it be known that only if we are forced will we make use of the weapon that is provided by the Bill. I should have thought it was most eminently desirable that we should let people on the other side understand, not only the men who are undergoing trial but those who are going to try them, that the feeling of this country is strongly and determinedly united behind the action which the Government are taking.
    8.39 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The purpose of the Bill is to set up a prohibition of imports from Russia into this country because certain men have been arrested and are awaiting trial. No one denies the right not merely of a country but of an individual to make representations about a person who is arrested. Even if these men were criminals, I could not help feeling sympathy for them. The whole of my life is taken up with the defence of the criminal population. I spend nearly all my time when I am not in the House of Commons in and out of the law courts. The consequence is that, even if we admitted that they were wrong, I should still feel, whether it was Russia, Germany or Australia, a sympathy with the person who is unfortunate enough to be on the criminal side of any quarrel abroad. I have so many times committed wrong myself that I have often felt that I should have been there and the other men ought not to be there at all. Consequently, one occasionally has a fellow feeling for them. It is not wrong that a nation, or indeed an individual, should make representations for a person awaiting trial. Every responsible Member of Parliament has done it at one time or another. If that is good for an individual to do, it is certainly not wrong for a country to make representations to another country. On that there is common ground. That is all that anyone has said so far. Indeed, some of us are asking that representations should be made in the case of Germany. If we believe that is not wrong, surely we cannot say it is wrong in the case of Russia.
    2020
    What is the position that we are faced with? We are not against nations or individuals making representations, but nations have the right of arrest. No one will say that Russia alone of all the countries in the world is not to have a right of arrest. Consequently, we are in common agreement on two points: First of all, we have a right to make representations and Russia has a right to make arrests. Secondly, I think Russia has a right to make its own laws for its citizens, and no other country has a right to make laws for Russia. So long as Russia is a sovereign State she is entitled to make here own criminal courts and her own conduct of trials and, if foreigners go to Russia, as foreigners come here, they must be subject not to British law in Russia but to Russian law. I represent a fairly large foreign population in my division, everyone of whom is subject to British law and punishable by British law. I frequently have complaints that their trial is not right or just, but it is British trial and they are domiciled here. If that is the case, what is the position? The protagonists of this Measure argue: "Yes, that is all right. We believe each country has the right of arrest, and we believe each country has the right to make its laws, but in Russia it is different. They do something from some other place."
    I have a regard for the legal profession. I am not one of those who say they are dishonourable men. But what are the facts that you are basing your case on? Let me sweep sentiment aside. I only heard two speeches yesterday, that of the Foreign Secretary and that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps). I have seldom heard a speech in this House which made a greater plea for passion, and I have seldom heard a speech made by a lawyer which divorced itself from fact and dealt so much with both prejudice and human sentiment. Let us take the facts. What evidence have we got? Take the White Paper. The evidence there is that of an eminent Ambassador. There is no other evidence at all, and his evidence is merely evidence of interviews. There is no evidence to show that the men are either guilty or not guilty. I know that it is said that they are innocent. The Foreign Secretary said so, but what they have to do in the courts is to prove it.
    Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the English courts, but I should be very shocked if under the English system you had to prove your innocence.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: If there is a doubt about his innocence, a man must go for trial. All we have had so far is a statement by this eminent Ambassador. We have no other evidence.
    The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that the hon. Member is now forgetting the caution he expressed at the beginning of his own speech.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I had a feeling yesterday that nobody examined the legal issue. The legal consequences should have been examined. The hon. Member who was sitting beside me a moment or two ago when the hon. and learned Member was speaking showed to what lengths what was called fair play for Russia could go. He said that he wished that we had the Russian powers. When we said that judges often treated men, in cases of passion being aroused, severely, he said: "Yes, and they had a right to do it." If the men had been arrested in France—and do not think that Britishers have not been wrongfully arrested in France and tried—or if they bad been arrested in any other country in the world, in America, this Bill would not have been introduced. The Measure is introduced not so much to secure justice for the men, because if there was a speech —and I say it in his presence—calculated to create passion and not to secure a fair trial, it was the speech of the Foreign Secretary yesterday. A speech was delivered a short time ago by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) with which I did not agree, but I could not avoid admiring its tone. You cannot divorce a Bill of this kind from the speech of the Foreign Secretary. In Russia the speech of the Foreign Secretary will be regarded as part of the Act.
    Yesterday there was a constant sneer at the country in which the men were to face their trial. There was a constant stream of offensive remarks. There was nothing more calculated to interfere with those men getting a fair trial than the proceedings here yesterday. My chief objection to the Measure is that it
    2022
    is not calculated to operate in favour of the men but against the country in which they are to be tried. The reason behind the Measure is not to secure justice for the men, but to attack the system which is running in Russia. I do not mind people criticising the Russian system and opposing it, but I object to those men being made the innocent victims of an attack upon another system. Whatever the rights and wrongs, we have no alternative but to vote against this Measure, which in my view is a dishonest Measure. It is dishonest for the reason that you can only do this sort of thing effectually against Russia. If this sort of thing had been done against France, it would have been a declaration of war, and would have been meant as such, and if it had been done against America it would have been a declaration of war. But Russia is weak. Let us be frank about it. I admired the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. He was not doing a popular thing last night, but something which might cost him votes at the moment. Russia is not too popular. Arrest in a foreign country is not popular. None of those things is popular. It is the easiest thing in Britain to awaken feeling against the foreigner at any time. One can see it with regard to Ireland, and in regard to religion.
    This Measure is popular, but it may not be right because of its popularity. In this House there are men who at the Law Courts could gain popularity by deserting their profession and appealing to prejudice, but again and again they have not done that, although it is often tempting to do it. This Measure is an appeal to prejudice and not to reason. It is an appeal against a country which is not very popular; a country which is not equipped as other countries are equipped. The Government will win to-night. There is no use in appealing to them, as they are appealing to us, and there is no use in threatening, because threats would be useless and silly. I neither threaten nor appeal. It is not the place to-night to express a proper judgment, but a few years hence, when one can look calmly back on what is being done, I am certain that those who live the longest will not be proud of the action that the Government have taken.
    8.57 p.m.
    Mr. HANNON: I rise to make an appeal to the Leader of the Opposition. We had a moving appeal from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), supplemented in equally touching terms by the appeal of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) conveyed to the House the idea that there was some motive behind the Bill other than the safety and security of our fellow countrymen in Russia. Will hon. Members reflect on the attitude of this country towards Russia in our trading relations during the last 10 or 12 years? The Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade has continuously for years past devoted himself day in and day out to the development of British trade with Russia. I am talking facts in relation to a group of companies who have given very large credits to Russia. We gave those credits under circumstances that have not been granted to any other country under the sun. It is true that our trade with Russia for the last 10 or 12 years has enabled us to keep large numbers of people in employment in this country. Does any hon. Member suggest for a moment that British firms anxious to employ their people and to carry on trade with Russia are anxious to have a quarrel with that country and to break off relations?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In this House there is a large body of opinion, particularly since the Election, anxious to break off all trade with Russia.
    Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member has misinterpreted a large body of feeling in this House. I have never heard any expression of feeling in this House against Russia, except where it was felt that Russia was departing from the ordinary moral obligations of Government as we understand them. There have been moments in this House and throughout the country when acts on the part of Russia have stirred profoundly the people. Throughout the whole course of this Debate—and one was grateful for the sobriety which came over the House this afternoon—there has not been one single suggestion that could be honestly interpreted as other than anxiety for the safety of our fellow countrymen in Russia. These men who have been taken into custody by the Soviet administration, some of
    2024
    whom have been released on bail, are men of outstanding quality in their profession and craft in this country. I should like to say in relation to the great firm affected by the arrests, the Metropolitan-Vickers Company, that no single individual in Great Britain has more zealously and continuously worked for the promotion of trade with Russia than Sir Felix Pole, the administrative head of that great firm. It is monstrous to suggest that men sent out in important capacities to maintain the reputation of that great firm in Rusia, and who have carried out series after series of contracts there without reproach for 10 or 12 years, would lend themselves in any circumstances to a conspiracy of the quality which has been charged against them.
    My appeal to the Leader of the Opposition is this. We have had a, clear definition this afternoon of the precise purpose of the Bill. Its limitation has been laid down with exactitude by the President of the Board of Trade. Everyone in this House and outside will wish that the occasion will not arise when the purpose and objective of the Bill will be given effect to; but is it not far better in the interests of these men in Russia that we should have a unanimous vote of the House on the Bill? I have heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition make speech after speech in this House in favour of great causes. During his whole life he has been identified with benevolent purposes in a great variety of activities. Would it not be a most benevolent act on his part to-night to allow this Measure, a Measure designed for the purpose of safeguarding the life and liberty of our fellow citizens, and securing for them a full measure of justice in a foreign country, to go through unanimously. Will he not join with the rest of the House in signifying the unanimous feeling of this great Assembly that attacks upon the liberties of British subjects must always be defended under our great Constitution. The Debate is of great interest not merely to those in this Assembly but to people all over the world.
    The hon. Member for Gorbals asked whether we would take this kind of action in relation to any other foreign country. He quoted the United States of America and France. It is inconceivable that anyone would be charged in either of those countries without the charge

    2025
    being made fully known immediately following upon the arrest of an individual.
    Mr. COCKS: What about Germany?
    Mr. HANNON: The real feeling and anxiety in this country has been that British subjects have been arrested and charged without the substance of the charge being made known.
    Mr. COCKS: What is happening in Berlin at this moment?
    Mr. HANNON: Deep-seated sentiments have been aroused and we were bound to take action of the kind contemplated in this Measure. I hope that the party opposite will on this occasion associate themselves with the full volume of public sentiment that goes out to these men in Russia, and join with us in giving this Bill a unanimous passage through the House.
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: The Debate so far has been in accordance with the highest traditions of the House of Commons and the gravity and tolerance of the speeches shows that hon. Members on all sides of the House realise the importance of the issue. Yesterday I think, we started on a wrong basis. The Foreign Secretary dealt with the White Paper yesterday as though it did not require very much explanation. He took up the position of an advocate addressing a jury who had never heard anything of the case before, and emphasised certain points. He used his great skill to take advantage of certain facts, with the result that a rather stronger line in opposition was developed. Englishmen do not like to see anyone put upon unduly and he aroused a certain amount of antagonism by the line he took. After reading the White Paper I felt that the position in regard to the men in Russia was one of serious gravity and that this country ought to do something. But what; that is the difficulty. I do not think that this Bill is the right way of approach. We propose to prohibit the importation of Russian goods, that is, we are going to cut off our trade with 170,000,000 people. That is a serious matter for this country, and especially to us on the Labour benches.
    When we were in office we brought about trade relations with Russia, although we met with stern opposition from most other people. But we secured
    2026
    it; and we cannot lightly allow that position to go. We think that the Government are not proceeding on the right lines. It can be taken for granted that something must be done; that we must look after our nationals. It is the proud boast of an Englishman when he goes abroad to think that in extremities he can look to the mother country for help. There is not a single Member on these benches but who feels as keenly in regard to these men in Russia as anybody else.
    Mr. HOWARD: What would you do?
    Mr. TINKER: I will tell the hon. Member what I would do; I may be wrong. If I had been in the position of Ambassador to Moscow I should have used more judgment and common sense. If he was dictated to by the Foreign Office here they will, of course, take the responsibility. Anyone reading the White Paper will agree that it is not the kind of language to use to another Government; and if it had been used in the case of America or France, or to Mussolini, I can imagine that there would have been some trouble. I should have used a little more tolerance towards Russia. I should have tried other means. Let us put ourselves in their position. If we had arrested some of their men and their Ambassador came to us and told us that we must adopt different methods we should no doubt think that our methods were right, and would not tolerate for a moment another country telling us what we should do. That is our psychology. I will give the President of the Board of Trade the credit for understanding the Russians. He has said that a long intercourse with Russians has taught him that the only way to deal with them is by telling them quite definitely what we intend to do.
    It may be that I do not understand the Russian psychology in the same way as the President of the Board of Trade, but I would treat a Russian exactly as I should treat myself, and, therefore, I find that the methods we have adopted in dealing with Russia would at once raise my ire and make me more determined than ever. We believe, in the interests of these accused men, that the right position has not been taken. If, after all, they were shot and I felt that they had not had a fair trial, I would go to any length to get justice for them.
    Mr. HOWARD: It would be too late.
    Mr. TINKER: I agree that there is that point of view. If something did happen to these men, and 35 Russians have been shot, well, I should stand condemned for not having taken action before. I certainly agree that that is a strong point in favour of the Government. When I read that paragraph I was shocked to think that in any country in the world such kind of things could take place. But I am afraid that our attitude may act on the Russians in such a way as to rouse them to take that action, and that it may place these men in more jeopardy than they are now. If that happens who will stand condemned? These are the reasons why we feel bound to oppose the Bill. Hon. Members opposite will at least give us credit that we are just as anxious for the safety of our nationals in other parts of the world as any hon. Member, and whatever may be the result we hope that these men will soon be released and returned to this country.
    9.13 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I do not intend to prolong the Debate because I said what I had to say on the matter last night, and hon. Members want to go on to the next Order on the Paper. I should not have risen but for the appeal that has been made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and other hon. Members. Our case has been put quite clearly by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). We think that this business has been mismanaged, mishandled, from the beginning. The Bill is founded on the White Paper and supported by the speech of the Foreign Secretary. It is impossible to detach one from the other. If we gave a vote to-night, even if we thought it was necessary to have these powers, or abstained from voting, such acquiescence or that action would be going back upon what we said yesterday, and either indirectly or directly supporting the speech of the Foreign Secretary and the White Paper. That is an impossibility; it is out of the question.
    The Bill, of course, will go through and the Government will be armed with these powers. My own attitude on every charge that is made against anybody, I
    2028
    have held this view ever since I could think, is that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty. That is the law in this country. But we must remember that in many countries beside Russia, the contrary procedure is adopted. The person charged has to prove his innocence. In this case no one in authority has questioned the right of any sovereign Power to put an alien on trial. We are now all hoping that the trial will take place and that it will be a fair trial. We are hoping to have a verbatim report of it, so that everyone will be able to judge, and I am hoping devoutly that the powers under this Bill will not have to be put into operation. We cannot help feeling that economic war is as bad as any other kind of war, because it must lead on to it ultimately. We think that the condition of the world, and especially the condition of Europe today, is such that any antagonism such as this, between ourselves and a great people like the Russians, can make only for evil. Therefore, very regretfully I say that I and my friends cannot vote for the Third Reading of the Bill. We are only a few but we do act together.
    We regret very much indeed that we cannot respond to the appeals of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), but I would beg them to believe that we are extremely interested in the well-being of our friends across the sea, and equally concerned in maintaining the best kind of relations with all the other nations of the world. We believe that our friends in Russia will be safer without this kind of legislation, and safer if those who have to negotiate with the Russians will negotiate with them as equals, without any regard to the fact that their manner of life and their system of living are entirely different from ours.
    If any people in this House think that this sort of judgment that is passed on Russia and Russians generally is something new, I beg them to read the Debates that took place in this House between 1876 and 1880, when this country was in very strong controversy on foreign affairs with Russia. As a boy I sat up in the Gallery and listened to Mr. Gladstone on the one side, and Mr. Gathorne-Hardy and others on the other side, and the same sort of charges of bad faith

    2029
    were thrown across the Table. In the end the great nations of Europe had to live together, had to settle their differences, and had to trust one another. There is a new Government in Russia to-day. It is striving to create a new and altogether different sort of life. I would like the Foreign Secretary to forget the sort of thoughts that were in his mind yesterday, the thoughts that compelled him to make the speech that he did make. I would like to see him meet the Russian Ambassador in this country and hear both of them say: "Let us find a way by which we can live together under better conditions and on better terms than have existed till now."
    9.20 p.m.
    Sir J. SIMON: I have no intention of claiming the attention of the House for more than a few minutes. There is other business which we hope to be able to take up to-night. I was glad to infer from what was said by the Leader of the Opposition that in his view no further speeches from the Opposition would be needed. The right hon. Gentleman added very appositely that be was leading a consolidated and united party.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: After consultation.
    Sir J. SIMON: Let me express a very sincere desire that we bring this discussion to a conclusion and pass the Bill through this House in the spirit and atmosphere which is best calculated to help our fellow subjects who are in a condition of great anxiety. I accept entirely, without the slightest demur, the assurance that has been given by more than one hon. Gentleman who has criticised the Bill but thinks it his duty to vote against it, that he entertains the same sincere desire as any of us to give his help to- our fellow subjects. I am sure that that is quite true. Notwithstanding what I think have been very unreasonable comments and criticisms and imputations of motive, some of them seriously intended and of a most distressing character, I know very well that every one in the House hopes that this Bill will truly help these men. The Leader of the Opposition and his party are not able to respond to the appeal which was made to them in such moving terms by my predecessor at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I do
    2030
    not want to draw any distinction between them, but I do say that when the Leader of the Opposition said just now that he was equally concerned with preserving good relations with Russia as with assisting these men, I doubted whether we could put things in the scale in that way. At least I cannot. If indeed, as may be the case, any word of mine deserves the reproaches of my critics, I think some of my fellow countrymen will perhaps be disposed to excuse a man who spoke because he felt deeply and felt the terrible responsibility upon his shoulders.
    The first main criticism which was suggested was that I had in some way misrepresented the contents of the White Paper. I am in the recollection of the House when I say that I did nothing of the kind. No one can point to a single sentence in the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday which distorts or exaggerates a single phrase in that White Paper. The next criticism was that, after all, the White Paper was one-sided. It is not one-sided. It consists very largely of facts, of communiques issued by the Soviet authorities themselves and of reports of conversations which could be attacked or challenged, if they were not accurate. Then came a suggestion, for which there is not the slightest shadow of foundation, that the Government had some indirect motive—I think, in the circumstances, it would have been a very contemptible and mean motive—and that they were exploiting the anxieties of these men in order to get powers to be used for some other purpose. I leave hon. Members who entertain that view to the luxury of their own imaginations. There was not a single word in my speech which left any doubt on the matter. There was a suggestion that there was something ambiguous in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. That suggestion I thought unjustified, but, be that as it may, on behalf of the Government he has made the matter entirely clear in the course of the Debate to-day.
    This is a proposal put forward by the Government, on the advice of authorities whom it is my duty to defend and whom, I think, the House as a whole will wish to thank for their devotion, as to what may be the best way to deal with a very difficult situation. I have not heard—not even in the frank and very fair speech of the hon. Member for the Leigh

    2031
    Division (Mr. Tinker) or from any other quarter of the House—any practical suggestion as to what should be done as an alternative. I make one exception. Somebody suggested that we should have withdrawn our Ambassador. That is one of those phrases which easily cross the lips, but I should like to hear from any hon. Gentleman opposite how he thinks the Ambassador would get back again and whether he thinks those good relations with Russia would be really maintained 'if we were to accept his advice and create that breach, if we can find some other way? The great difficulty about withdrawing an Ambassador is that if you really wish to promote, as the Government do wish to promote, good relations with a foreign country, you must find some means and occasion on which you can restore your diplomatic representative.
    This Bill gives us the powers for which we ask, and, on behalf of the Government, I thank the House. I hope with all my heart that these are powers which will not have to be used, but that matter does not lie in our hands, but in the hands of the Russian authorities. I do trust that
    this public act of the British House of Commons, conducted in the light of day and with the knowledge of all the world, may bring home to the authorities of this great sovereign State the gravity with which we regard this situation, and our conviction, which the whole House shares, that it is our duty to do our utmost to remedy it. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished that we may, indeed, find these efforts which we are making produce the result which I am sure we all desire. An hon. Gentleman opposite said just now, very truly, that Englishmen did not like to see other people put upon. He was then referring to the position of Soviet Russia. Englishmen like still less to see other Englishmen put upon. I trust now that we may have so overwhelming a vote as will show to the Russian State and to the whole world that in this matter we are not pursuing any selfish or vindictive or incorrect course, but trying, like honest beings, to help Englishmen who are in peril.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 41.

    Division No. 127.]

    AYES

    [9.30 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Elmley, Viscount

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Cassels, James Dale

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Alexander, Sir William

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

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

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

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

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

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Apsley, Lord

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Clarke, Frank

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gillett, Sir George Master man

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Conant, R. J. E.

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

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

    Cooke, Douglas

    Glossop, C. W. H.

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

    Copeland, Ida

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Bernays, Robert

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Goff, Sir Park

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Granville, Edgar

    Blindell, James

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Boulton, W. W.

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

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cross, R. H.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Grimston, R. V.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Briant, Frank

    Denville, Alfred

    Gunston, Captain D. w.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Dickie, John P.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Donner, P. W.

    Hales, Harold K.

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

    Drewe, Cedric

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Burghley, Lord

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Burnett, John George

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Harbord, Arthur

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Hartland, George A.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Meller, Richard James

    Salt, Edward W.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Milne, Charles

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Selley, Harry R.

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

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Hornby, Frank

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Moreing, Adrian C.

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

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

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

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

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

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

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

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Smithers, Waldron

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

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Janner, Barnett

    Munro, Patrick

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Soper, Richard

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Nunn, William

    Spens, William Patrick

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

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

    Kimball, Lawrence

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

    Stevenson, James

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Stones, James

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Pearson, William G.

    Storey, Samuel

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Peat, Charles U.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Penny, Sir George

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Leckie, J. A.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Lees-Jones, John

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

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Levy, Thomas

    Potter, John

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Liddall, Walter S.

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

    Templeton, William P.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Pybus, Percy John

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

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

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess Of

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

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

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

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

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

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Rankin, Robert

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

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Weymouth, Viscount

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

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    White, Henry Graham

    McKeag, William

    Remer, John R.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. sir Ian

    Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Maitland, Adam

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Wood, sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Runge, Norah Cecil

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

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

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Captain Austin Hudson and Major

    George Davies.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

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

    Milner, Major James

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Price, Gabriel

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Thorne, William James

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Wellhead, Richard C.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Cove, William G.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McGovern, John

    Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 4th April].
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Amendments as to restriction on right to possession.)
    Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, to leave out from the word "unless" to the end of line 20.
    In order to explain the reason for my Amendment, may I read to the Committee the operative part of Sub-section (1) of this Clause. It provides:
    "No order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply … shall be made or given unless"—
    and two conditions (a) and (b) follow. Immediately after the word "unless" and before these two conditions are the words:
    "the court considers it reasonable to make such an Order or give such a judgment and either,"
    which I propose to omit. Those words are quite correct in respect of condition (b) but are not correct in respect of condition (a). The condition in paragraph (a) is that the court has power so to do under the provisions in the First Schedule and if hon. Members refer to the First Schedule they will find set out there a number of conditions (a) to (h) inclusive. These are all substantive facts. The First Schedule commences with the words:
    "A court shall, for the purposes of Section three of this Act, have power to make or give an Order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply … without proof of suitable alternative accommodation where"—
    Again the words occur which I am moving to omit from Clause 3 of the Bill:
    "the court considers it reasonable so to do."
    As I say, all these conditions (a) to (h) are questions of fact and I hold that it is not reasonable to put in these words giving this latitude, or rather duty, to the court to consider whether it is reasonable to make an order or give a judgment if they are referred to the First Schedule. One of these paragraphs of the First Schedule, namely para-
    2036
    graph (h) covers the case of the owner of a single house which he requires for his own occupation. It is especially in respect of paragraph (h) that I consider these words unnecessary. They are liable to prevent such an owner having the right to possession of his own house. The court can decide if any of these conditions set out in the First Schedule are or are not present in the case under consideration. The governing consideration, that "the court considers it reasonable to make such an order," does not appear to me to be either applicable or relevant in that case. If my Amendment is accepted, the one following is consequential, to insert the words:
    "consider it reasonable to make such an Order or give such a judgment, and"
    in the place where I think they ought to occur, namely, before paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1). The question of suitable alternative accommodation obviously leaves open the question as to whether or not it is reasonable to make an order. The conditions laid down in the First Schedule are so definite and such easily ascertainable facts that I do not think this discretion should be conferred on the court.
    9.47 p.m.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The Committee will apprehend that the effect of the Amendment would be, as my hon. Friend so clearly explained, to exclude the equitable jurisdiction of the court in a certain number of cases in which possession can be obtained by the landlord. I regret that I do not feel able to accept the Amendment, and I trust that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press it. I listened with the very greatest care to what I would again call his very clear explanation of the Amendment, to see whether any real distinction could be made between the class of cases in which he proposes to exclude the equitable jurisdiction of the court and the class of cases in which he does not propose to exclude it, and I must say that I do not think any such distinction can be found. The distinction was based upon there being a question of fact in the one case but no question of fact in the other, but if the Committee will look at some of the cases in which it is proposed to exclude the equitable jurisdiction of the court, some of the acts of the

    2037
    tenant which entitle the landlord to possession, such as, for instance, whether he has not paid his rent or has committed a nuisance, they will see that quite clearly those are questions of fact.
    Sir B. PETO: My contention was that these were questions of fact.
    Sir H. YOUNG: They are all on the same basis. It is, as a matter of fact, I think, part of the essential scheme of the adjustment of rights between landlord and tenant under the Rent Restriction Acts that we should preserve this jurisdiction of the court, and I do not think there is any sound case for excluding it in the one case more than in the other.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman go to the trouble of setting out all these details in the First Schedule if they are all to be overridden by what is reasonable? Why does he not leave it simply to equitable jurisdiction, to the absolute discretion of the county court judge? For the life of me, I cannot understand why he hampers his Bill by putting in a lot of facts.
    Sir H. YOUNG: The first and sufficient answer to my hon. and learned Friend is that we are merely re-enacting what has always been the law of control and decontrol throughout the period of control, but another answer would be that the equitable jurisdiction of the court is not one which is absolutely at large but one which is guided and controlled by the description of the specific cases in which re-possession can be taken by the landlord. That is a guide to the court as to the manner in which it should exercise its jurisdiction.
    9.52 p.m.
    Sir B. PETO: I must point out to the Minister that if he leaves the Clause as it is, there is no owner of a house who wants it for his own possession who will be able with any certainty to say that there are any conditions laid down in the Bill under which he can get that possession. Therefore, I cannot regard the decision of the Minister as satisfactory. At the same time, I recognise that we are only on the Committee stage, and I shall take the opportunity of consulting my friends as to whether we shall
    2038
    deal with the question further on Report. At the moment I am willing to withdraw my Amendment, in view of what the Minister has said, although I cannot say that he has completely satisfied me.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.53 p.m.
    Sir ROBERT ASKE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, after the word "tenant," to insert the words:
    "at a rent similar to that being paid by the tenant."
    This Amendment is regarded as of great practical importance in those areas where there are a great many poor people, particularly unemployed people, and where there is a shortage of houses. This Clause, for the first time in legislation of this character, makes the existence of alternative accommodation alone a ground upon which the court can dispossess the sitting tenant. Up to this time the question of alternative accommodation has only been material in two cases as an adjunct to other grounds upon which the court could so act, and even in those cases the question of alternative accommodation has always been linked with the question of the means of the tenant. Under this Clause alternative accommodation is in itself a sufficient ground, provided that the alternative accommodation is a council house. Provided that a local authority will give a certificate that there is a suitable council house available for the tenant, that is a ground upon which the landlord can go to the court and ask that the tenant shall be dispossessed.
    In the ordinary case that might be a proper provision, but in the areas where there is great poverty the question of rent which the tenant would have to pay for the council house which is regarded as the alternative accommodation becomes of the greatest importance. Assume a tenant with a wife and five children and a rent in his present house of 7s. 6d. A council house in the district suitable for families of that kind might be as much as 14s. Under this Clause as it stands the fact that there was a council house vacant at a rent of 14s. would entitle the landlord to go to the court and ask for an order dispossessing the tenant. If that tenant is unemployed, he will have only 33s. 3d. out of which he will have to pay his

    2039
    rent and maintain and clothe his family. If he has to pay an additional 5s. or 6s. for rent than he is paying at the time, it is obvious that the additional money can only be paid at the cost of some of the necessaries of life fox himself and his family.
    I ask for the sympathetic consideration of the Minister for these cases. The Amendment provides that there shall be inserted in the Clause a limitation that the alternative accommodation should be available at a rent similar to that now being paid by the tenant. It would mean that the court would have a discretion in all cases where the rent of the alternative accommodation was similar, which means reasonably similar, to that actually being paid at the present time. I have indicated that up to the present wherever alternative accommodation has been in question in this kind of legislation it has always been a part of the definition that alternative accommodation should be reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant. That has been a great protection to tenants. The only argument of great force which I can see against the proposition contained in the Amendment is that there is the overriding control of the court in all these cases and that the court will exercise its discretion in each case. There are no rules laid down as to what questions the court should be bound to take into account, for the court is entitled to take into account all the circumstances of the case, but what the court would unquestionably take into account also would be the fact that in all definitions up to the present there has been a reference to the means of the tenant as part of the definition of alternative accommodation and that there are no such words inserted here. Another matter which the court will take into consideration no doubt is that in this Bill, in the last part of the First Schedule, express power is given that the court shall not make an order unless in cases where the court is satisfied that greater hardship would be imposed by making an order for possession than would be the case if the court did not do so. No limitation of that kind is contained in this part of the Bill.
    The second point is that there are some judges who take a strict view of these Acts in favour of the landlord. There
    2040
    are other judges who take a liberal view in favour of the tenant. It is not right in the case of these poor people that they should have the risk of being deprived of what is now security of tenure and be placed at the discretion of the court according to the particular view which a particular judge happens to take of their case. The third ground that I want to mention is that poor people of this kind hate the idea of going to the court. A long experience of practical connection with poor people in the matter of their dealings with their landlords convinces me that the greatest injustices are being suffered by hundreds of these people because they do not know what to do or how to do it. To tell any of these people that they have a right to go to the court is really to tell them some matter of abstruse law which they cannot possibly understand and with regard to which it is quite useless to expect them to endeavour to enforce such legal rights as they have. In practice, it simply means that the landlord will go to the court and the tenant will be unable to put his case or to pay a lawyer to go to the court and appear for him. This is no real protection to the tenant in cases such as that.
    I submit further to the Minister that there is no need for a provision of this kind, because one finds in all our districts where there is great overcrowding that wherever people can afford to pay for a council house they are only too glad to take it. At Newcastle Town Hall thousands of names are down of people who cannot be satisfied, because there is an insufficient number of council houses for them. It is only the people who are too poor to take the council houses who do not apply for them. I appeal to the Minister to exercise a sympathetic view on this matter. It is one which has caused the northern Members great anxiety. They have considered it most carefully, and the Amendment is the unanimous Resolution of those Members. I therefore appeal to the Minister to accept it if possible.
    10.5 p.m.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: I would like the Minister to tell the Committee under what circumstances these provisions are intended to operate. Why should the housing authority have to give such h certificate and how can it give such a certificate? How can it know the con-

    2041
    ditions of the house to which the certificate is to apply? This provision is only to apply, as I understand it, in the case of an application by a private owner for an ejectment order. Why should the housing authority give such a certificate in the terms of this Sub-section, and how can they do it if they have no knowledge of the facts of the case?
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: I am afraid I cannot act on the assumption that this particular Clause cannot apply, and I rise to support the Amendment. I think the position can he put briefly by explaining the position of a litigant in these matters. The more we can do to save people from going to the courts, particularly in questions of this kind, the better, and if it were made clear that the owner had to show there was accommodation available at a similar rental it would result in the tenant and the landlord knowing at least one thing, and that is that that particular proviso had to be complied with. It must be within the knowledge of anyone who has attended the courts and heard these cases that judges do differ on what is suitable accommodation, and if judge; differ it is obvious that local authorities can also differ. A local authority may be of opinion that the house which they are offering is a suitable house, even though the rent may be quite outside the means of the person who has to take it as alternative accommodation. I do think the position is sufficiently important to justify the right hon. Gentleman in accepting the Amendment, because although on the surface this may appear to be a trivial point it may be the means of saving an enormous expenditure on costs by litigants or prospective litigants. For that reason, if for no other, and even if the right hon. Gentleman thinks this point would be in the minds of the local authority, I feel that these words should be inserted, so that there may be a clear decision when the matter of suitable alternative accommodation is at issue.
    10.9 p.m.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: On behalf of my colleagues I would like to say that we heartily support this Amendment. The other night, when talking on this Bill, I referred to a letter which I had received this week giving particulars of a case in which notice had been given to a tenant
    2042
    to vacate a house within 14 days. That tenant was not aware, even though living in a controlled house, that he had a right of appeal to the county court. That indicates the ignorance of a large number of tenants about these matters, and the only reason why I received the letter was because the tenant was in such a state of anxiety that he did not know what to do for the best. There had been no offer of alternative accommodation, and he is in a district—I am speaking of the Pontypridd area—where there is an enormous shortage of houses. Although a large number of colliery companies have gone into liquidation there are no vacant houses, no houses have been built on any extensive scale for a large number of years, and people will be in a very difficult position if they are expected to vacate a house, even if alternative accommodation is provided for them, if that alternative accommodation is at an excessive rent. In these days, when depression is causing grave hardship among the poorer class, nothing should be done to impair the future prospects of these people. We appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment.
    10.11 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the question of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) as to the giving of a certificate stating whether or not a council house will be provided by the local authority is that of course the local authority is the only authority that can give such a certificate, and since it is the housing authority it is the duty of the local authority to give such a certificate. That is as regards Sub-section (2) of Clause 3. As regards the certificate as to similarity in the matter of rental and extent, the hon. and learned Gentleman will observe that under Sub-section (4) all that the local authority have to do is to give a certificate as to the extent of the accommodation afforded by dwelling houses provided by them and the amount of the rent charged by them. That is a certificate of the housing facts as regards their own council houses in their own area. That is a matter within their direct knowledge and control and they are the proper authority to give such a certificate. On the general issue raised by the Amendment, this Amendment does, as a matter of fact, run counter to some of the basic principles of the law of control and de-

    2043
    control. In the first place, let me point out to the supporters of the Amendment that there is nothing unknown to the law of control in the circumstances to which they refer, because under the existing law possession can be obtained by the owner of a house under a large number of conditions relating to the acts of the tenants and the actual needs of the landlord without the offer of any alternative accommodation at all. It goes much further than the circumstances to which they refer and to which they object.
    As regards the actual case dealt with in the Amendment, I think I can best satisfy the Committee that the Amendment is not necessary by pointing out the extremely full and careful provisions of the law, as it will be left by this Bill, for the protection of the rights of the tenant when he is called upon to give up possession under the provisions of the Bill. As to the requirements of the alternative accommodation which is offered, the general principle is that, first of all, it must be appropriate to the needs of the tenant who is called upon to go out, appropriate to his needs in respect of the extent and the character of the alternative accommodation offered, and as regards the proximity of the house offered to his old dwelling house and to his work; secondly, it must give him equal terms in respect of security of tenure; and, thirdly, in the general case it must be suited to his means.
    Those are the basic principles and those principles are carried out in other Clauses defining the character of the accommodation which fulfils those needs. In the first place, it will be fulfilled by a controlled house. A controlled house is, of course, practically equivalent to the house which he is called upon to vacate, and there can be no question about that. In the second place, the requirements as regards alternative accommodation may be fulfilled by an uncontrolled house, as long as it satisfies all those requirements to which I have referred, including suitability to the means of the tenant, and therefore it satisfies the requirements which have been dwelt upon by the Amendment. Lastly, the Bill lays it down that those requirements in respect of alternative accommodation can be fulfilled either by a council house, under the certificate of the authority, or, if not by a
    2044
    council house, by an uncontrolled house which is not a council house but is a new house, certified under the certificate of the local authority to be equivalent to a local authority house as regards type, rent and security of tenure, and also as regards proximity to work.
    The only case in which any comment can be passed by the movers of the Amendment is the case of the council house. I believe it will commend itself to the common sense of the Committee that every possible obligation to the tenant is fulfilled when he is offered, in exchange for his existing tenancy, a house of the same sort that is being provided by the local authority of the area to members of the working class. To impose any other obligation is to impose an impossibility, and practically to negative the provisions of the Bill. As regards repossession by the landlord, it is not possible, in present conditions, or in conditions which will ever exist in the future, to obtain a free supply of new houses for alternative accommodation which you could certify could be let at the same rents as the old and inferior pre-War house. You would really be demanding a perpetuation of control in this respect unless bad houses were provided having as small a rent as the pre-War house, and that is what we do not desire to do. There can be no possible hardship in providing, for alternative accommodation, a council house or its equivalent, of a type recognised to be suitable to the means and the needs of members of the working class.
    Finally, what was very fairly pointed out by the Mover of the Amendment is true, that we have here a case of the desirability of the protection of the equitable jurisdiction of the court, to which I referred in connection with the last Amendment. It is not only useful but it is necessary for such a class of case as this, that we shall ensure, owing to the impossibility of suiting a general law to meet every individual case, the equitable jurisdiction of the court, so that no intolerable hardship is inflicted upon any tenant. In those circumstances, I believe that the Committee will be satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are not only just, but most carefully just, in protecting the rights of the tenant in this regard.
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: In spite of the explanation which has been given by the Minister, I still hope that the words will be inserted in the Bill. The speech of the Minister, while comprehensible, to us in the Committee, shows the necessity of the Bill containing words which can be readily understood by our constituents in the industrial areas. We are now dealing with one of those examples of legislation by reference which are the delight of the legal profession and the despair of the man in the street. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to the plea which has been put forward by many of us who have been returned to the House of Commons from industrial constituencies. This Amendment, which has been moved by the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Sir R. Aske), and supported by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) and by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams), shows that, not for the first time during the Committee stage of the Bill, we are involved in one of those miniature battles, if I may so put it with great respect, between the depressed area and the departmental dogmatist.
    We shall be pleased to see this legislation made as simple as possible to our constituents, who cannot always afford the luxury of consultation with the lights of the legal profession. I believe that the principle of the Amendment is sound, and I hope that the Minister, between now and Report, will give a little further consideration to the views which have been put forward again and again, with very little encouragement, by Members in all quarters of the Committee who desire to see the law clarified for the benefit of their constituents in the industrial areas. Whether the hon. Member for East Newcastle presses his Amendment or not, I assure the Government that, in their own interest, they will be well advised to reconsider this matter between flow and Report.
    10.23 p.m.
    Mr. CAPE: I was in considerable doubt as to whether this Amendment was worth considering until I heard the Minister explain it. After his explanation, I am satisfied that the Amendment is absolutely necessary. On the question of alternative accommodation, and the means of finding such accommodation for a tenant who has
    2046
    to change from one house to another, I think there is general agreement with what the Minister said, in, if I may say so, a very masterly manner; but he told us about everything except the Amendment. He never mentioned the rent at all. What is the good of alternative accommodation as regards rooms, proximity to work, and so on, if the man's rent is put up to the extent of 50, 75 or 100 per cent.? He cannot indulge in a luxury like that, and, consequently, the essential question for the man in this class of house is what rent he will have to pay. Every man likes a good house if he can afford it. When I was an ordinary working man, I liked to get as good a house as I possibly could, but I also considered what amount of rent I was charged, and, generally speaking, I had to be guided, as regards the house I chose, by my power to pay the rent. It is true that we did not have the difficulty in getting houses that we have to-day.
    I want to put to the Minister a case that may happen. It may be that, while a man is living in a house, the medical officer of health or the local authority may condemn the house for sanitary reasons. They may be able to find him a house with slightly better accommodation than the one from which they are asking him to remove, but it will not be a controlled house. It is true that, if it is a house built by the local authority, he will have a certain amount of protection, but it is no good telling the outgoing tenant "We will find you a house with four rooms, back yard, scullery and all the amenities of the neighbourhood will be better than the house you are in," unless you can tell him at the same time the rent that he is expected to pay. That is the whole thing. I do not think this will affect a great number of houses, but that makes it all the more important to have it in the Bill so that you can protect the tenants who will not be able to protect themselves. If all the landlords in the country were of the same mind as the Minister, or if the Minister could be there every time a house was to be let, we need have no fear, but he will not. The landlords may forget that the right hon. Gentleman is Minister of Health. They will only think of what rent they can extort. I beg the Minister, along with Members in all parts of the House, to accept the Amendment and give the class of person who will have to remove

    2047
    security with regard to the alternative accommodation and the rent that he will have to pay.
    10.27 p.
    Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension and I should like to remove it in order to set at ease any fears that may arise. The hon. Member is afraid that the alternative accommodation, consisting of an uncontrolled house which is not a council house, may be offered at a rent having no reference to the kind of rental that the tenant was paying before. That is not so. It is expressly secured that, if the alternative accommodation is an uncontrolled house, it must be one of two things, either suited to the means of the tenant, that is the same kind of rent that he was paying before, or it must be absolutely certified to be equal as regards rental to a council house. The danger that the hon. Member has in mind cannot, therefore, arise.
    Mr. CAPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me where that is in the Bill?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I will give the hon. Member the reference.
    10.28 p.m.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: The Minister did not answer the objections that I made. Sub-section (2) refers to a certificate of a house to be built, and, therefore, it is almost impossible to say whether it can be regarded as equivalent alternative accommodation. Sub-section (4), to which the Minister referred, only applies to the previous Sub-section, which only comes into operation where a certificate under Sub-section (2) is not applicable. I entirely agree as to the value of Subsection (4) because it states what the accommodation actually is. It is conclusive evidence of the fact and the County Court is to decide whether it is equivalent accommodation or not. But that has nothing to do with Sub-section (2). I suggest that it would be advisable to consider before Report whether Subsection (2) is of any advantage at all or could be put into operation and whether it had not better be taken out of the Bill.
    10.30 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have not any doubt myself that the wording of Sub-section (2) will be adequate for its purpose, to make
    2048
    sure that it shall be the duty of the local authority to give a certificate if it will provide a council house. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will be kind enough to consider whether this meets his case, and discuss it with me on another occasion if he is in doubt about the matter, when I will gladly give it consideration.
    10.31 p.m.
    Mr. CAPORN: As we are discussing the question of certificates, I believe that they will be of considerable value in saving expense. I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there is power in a local authority to incur the expense out of local funds of giving those certificates. As far as I can discover, there is nothing in the Bill which provides that a local authority may, or shall, issue a certificate to anybody who applies. The Clause provides that when the certificate has been issued it shall have certain effects, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider before the Report stage whether the local authority would have power to incur the expense. If there is any doubt upon the matter, local authorities will be extremely shy of utilising the powers.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I would remind my hon. Friend that I am assured that there is no doubt that there is such a power on the part of the local authority to incur expense in regard to any duty placed upon them by Act of Parliament. I will certainly give the matter consideration, seeing that a doubt has been raised.
    Mr. CAPORN: I doubt whether there is a duty placed upon the local authority. The Clause seems to hale certain effects. I appreciate the answer of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Miss RATHBONE: There is one point in the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman which is not quite clear. He said that it will be sufficient if the landlord is able to offer accommodation equivalent to that of a council house in the neighbourhood. Does he mean to say that the rent will be suitable? Suppose the rent of a house occupied by a tenant is 8s., and there is a council house rented at 25s. in the neighburhood, will it be sufficient if the house is offered at a rental of 25s. because the rent of a council house in the neighbourhood is 25s.?
    Sir H. YOUNG: In reply to the hon. Lady, the Clause as it is drafted in the Bill is capable of no such extravagant interpretation. Accommodation must be,
    "in the opinion of the court, reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family…and either—similar as regards rental and extent to the accommodation afforded by dwelling-houses provided in the neighbourhood by any housing authority…or otherwise reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant."
    I hesitate to attempt to interpret an Act of Parliament, but I know how a person with common sense will interpret it. It is the accommodation of the normal type of dwellings in the neighbourhood.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 58; Noes, 230.

    Division No. 128.]

    AYES.

    [10.35 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McKeag, William

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Ashe, Sir Robert William

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maxton, James

    Banfield, John William

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

    Milner, Major James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

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

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Price, Gabriel

    Briant, Frank

    Hirst, George Henry

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Buchanan, George

    Janner, Barnett

    Thorne, William James

    Caps, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    White, Henry Graham

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McGovern, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Apsley, Lord

    Copeland, Ida

    Hartland, George A.

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

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

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hornby, Frank

    Bateman, A. L

    Cross, R. H.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

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

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

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

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

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

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

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Dunglass, Lord

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

    Blindell, James

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Bossom, A. C.

    Eden, Robert Anthony

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

    Boulton, W. W.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

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

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Law, Sir Alfred

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

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

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

    Burghley, Lord

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Burnett, John George

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Liddall, Walter s.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

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

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Greene, William P. C.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Maitland, Adam

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Hanbury, Cecil

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Stones, James

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Rankin, Robert

    Storey, Samuel

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Ray, Sir William

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Meller, Richard James

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Milne, Charles

    Remer, John R.

    Summersby, Charles H,

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Rhys, Hon, Charles Arthur U.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Monsell, Ht. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Templeton, William P.

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

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess, of

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Munro, Patrick

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Salt, Edward W.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

    Nunn, William

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Selley, Harry R.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Penny, Sir George

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

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

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Soper, Richard

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

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Spens, William Patrick

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

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

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

    Lord Erskine and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Stevenson, James

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I do so in order to get from the right hon. Gentleman a statement as to how far he proposes to go to-night.
    Sir H. YOUNG: It is within the memory of the Committee that, as a result of conversations which have taken place through the usual channels, it is proposed to complete the Committee stage next Tuesday. It is entirely a matter for the convenience of the Committee as to how it will distribute the time. I think it is clear that it will be for the general convenience of the whole Committee to make as good progress as possible to-night within reasonable time, in order that we may not be overburdened on Tuesday and have to sit later than is convenient on that occasion. There is a lot of matter in the new Clauses, and in Clause 9. On the other hand Clauses 4, 5 and 6 have not very much matter in them. Therefore I propose that we should get to the end of Clause 6 to-night. On Clause 7 I understand there are points which particularly interest the Opposition and that Clause may be reserved to our next occasion.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: With the good will which has now been shown in the
    2052
    Committee I think that by midnight at the latest we might get to the end of Clause 6. The undertaking which was given the other night, about finishing the Committee stage on Tuesday, of course stands. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we get to the end of Clause 6 to-night, because there are not many matters of consequence to be discussed there. If hon. Members opposite would curb their oratory I should be very glad to respond on behalf of my hon. Friends here and get to the end of Clause 6, on the assumption that we get through in the next hour or so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    10.48 p.m.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to move in page 5, line 9, to leave out the word "provided," and to insert instead thereof the word "available."
    The Sub-section of the Clause refers to an application for possession of a house, and the provision of alternative accommodation "reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant as regards proximity to place of work" and so forth. Paragraph (i) states:
    "similar as regards rental and extent to the accommodation afforded by dwelling-houses provided in the neighbourhood by any housing authority for persons whose

    2053
    needs as regards extent are, in the opinion of the court, similar to those of the tenant and his family;"
    My Amendment is to leave out the word "provided" and to insert the word "available," and has to be taken in conjunction with the next Amendment, which would leave out the words "by any housing authority." The Bill provides that the alternative accommodation shall be calculated on the standard of dwelling-houses provided in the neighbourhood by any housing authority. My Amendment would read, "provided by houses available in the district," either a house provided by a local authority or some other similar house. In the first place there may be no local authority house at all, and the Clause would therefore be inapplicable, but the Amendment provides that the alternative accommodation ought to be as nearly similar as possible to that of the house which an individual is giving up. The test ought to be the test of a similar house as to rental and accommodation in that particular area, whether provided by a housing authority or anybody else. If there are no council houses in the district then the Clause is unworkable. If there are, why should not they, along with other houses in the district, be taken into account? If there are no council houses, why should we not take the houses available in the district? To my mind, that is common sense.
    10.51 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I think the purpose of the Amendment is quite clear from the hon. Gentleman's lucid explanation. It will also be clear, I think, that this Amendment goes as much too far in the one direction as the last Amendment went in the other. The test of what is reasonable, alternative accommodation is the council house, or the equivalent of a council house in rent and extent. The last Amendment proposed to reduce it, and the present Amendment would increase it. It is clear that the alternative accommodation under the Amendment might be a house whose rent was very much bigger than a council house, and had no relation to the rent of a council house at all. That might impose an intolerable hardship on the tenant of the house, and would deny him receiving alternative accommodation. I think the Committee would be following the path of wisdom in sticking to the middle course
    2054
    defined by the Bill, and taking the council house or the equivalent of a council house in regard to rent and extent.
    Amendment negatived.
    10.53 p.m.
    Mr. PEARSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, after the first word "the," to insert the word "lowest."
    The object of this Amendment is to remove an ambiguity. The Clause places on the local authority the obligation of informing the tenant of the lowest rent charged by them. Hon. Members are aware that there are council houses of the same dimensions let at different rents. For example, under the Addison Acts when prices were high houses were built and naturally commanded higher rents. Houses were also built under subsequent Acts, and as the Clause stands a local authority may offer a high-rented house to a tenant which is beyond his capacity to pay whereas similar accommodation might be offered where rents were lower which the tenant could afford. I think this Amendment is very desirable. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment so that the position may be clarified.
    10.54 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I think I can satisfy the hon. Member that the Clause as it now stands achieves much of what he desires. We cannot accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper. Under Sub-section (3) alternative accommodation is considered suitable if it is similar in regard to rental and extent to a council house. The hon. Member wants to make it similar as regards rental and extent to the lowest rented house. It happens in many cases that this may be a pre-War house and in such cases this Amendment would prescribe that, to be considered suitable accommodation, a house which was up to post-War standards of working class housing would have to be offered at a pre-War rent. I can satisfy the hon. Member that in so far as the rents of various types of council houses vary—I refer to the Addison houses and the Wheatley houses —the certificate mentioned in the Subsection would presumably show the rents of the several types of post-War houses in order that the court in considering

    2055
    whether a particular house was suitable alternative accommodation could decide whether it was similar in rental and extent within the meaning of Clause 3.
    Amendment negatived.
    10.56 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, at the end, to add the words:
    "(6) If any person, with intent to deceive, knowingly makes any false statement calculated to lead to the belief that suitable alternative accommodation within the meaning of this section is available for a tenant or will be available for him when any order or judgment takes effect, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and imprisonment."
    If I take but little time in moving this Amendment, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not think that we do not attach the greatest importance to it. It provides a new Sub-section which might be regarded as a penalty Clause. The Bill in the main deals with Class "C" houses, the small houses of the wage-earners, of which it is estimated some 4,000,000 will continue in control for another five years. During that time applications will be made by house owners for possession of the houses. Applicants for possession must satisfy the courts on the several points set out in Clause 3 and in the First Schedule. It is imperative that the information given to the court should be accurate because the question of possession is vital to the tenants. The wage-earners who occupy Class "C" houses will be considerably inconvenienced and owing to the low wages paid to this section of the community it will be impossible for them to employ solicitors to present their cases to the courts. They have to rely largely on their own efforts.
    There is no penalty Clause at present in the Bill, and we deem it necessary that no tenant should be dispossessed of his house by what may be regarded as jobbery on the part of the owner of the house. The Amendment provides a penalty which would act as a safeguard and help to ensure that only strictly accurate information will be submitted to the courts in applications for possession by owners. In our opinion, the time has come when some punishment should be
    2056
    provided for the house-owner who makes a false statement in order to get rid of his tenant. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee could recite numerous cases which have arisen since 1923 in which owners have secured possession upon information which was not strictly accurate. A provision like this would make it easier for the tenant, and give him a better opportunity of having his case presented to the courts with the necessary accuracy.
    11.0 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I would assure the hon. Member that we are entirely at one with him as to the desirability of having some penalty for false statements, but I think the Amendment is unnecessary. The issue will arise before a court, and one of two things will happen. Either the landlord himself will come and give false evidence, in which case there is no difficulty in dealing with him under the ordinary law, or the local authority or its officer gives one or other of the certificates described in the Clause. In either case I think the law as it exists is adequate to deal with the point, because let me remind the hon. Member that, under the Perjury Act, not merely false evidence on oath is dealt with, but there is a Section of that Act which says:
    "If any person knowingly and wilfully makes otherwise than on oath a statement false in a material particular and the statement is made in a certificate or other document which he is authorised or required to make by an Act of Parliament."
    he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and certain penalties will follow. So that, one way or the other, I think that in every case in which a false statement about alternative accommodation came before a court there would be a means of dealing with it under the existing law.
    11.2 p.m.
    Major MILNER: Take the case of a landlord who goes into the box and says that in two months' time one of his houses will be available. An order is made on that basis, but on the appropriate date the house is not available. Would not some provision, not quite in these terms, I agree, because it is in the nature rather of a false representation or promise, be necessary to meet that ease?
    11.3 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: He either made a statement which he believed to be true or a statement which he knew to be false or a statement which he did not believe to be true. If he believed it to be true when he made it, I am sure the hon. and gallant Member would not wish that he should be penalised, but if he either knew it to be false or did not believe it to be true, if, in other words, he tried to mislead the court, I am quoting the words of the Perjury Act which would enable him to be dealt with.
    Major MILNER: Are those verbal representations?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: On oath.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Who would prosecute in the event of an owner going into the witness box and making a statement that is untrue, or putting it in a document? Would it be the tenant who had been deprived of his house, or who would it be?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: On appropriate information, any police officer could prosecute.
    Mr. G. HALL: In view of the statement of the learned Solicitor-General, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Prevention of excessive charges for sublet parts of dwelling-houses.)
    11.4 p.m.
    Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    This Clause deals with one specific question alone, and that is the question of excessive charges for sub-letting a part of a dwelling-house, and it appears to be here if anywhere in the Bill that you are dealing with something which is a question of fact. Therefore, I cannot see why the Clause should be worded so that an order for ejectment of a tenant may be made in those circumstances rather than that the order shall be made
    2058
    if the tenant is found to be sub-letting part of the dwelling at a rent which is in excess of the recoverable rent for that part.
    11.6 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that it is impossible to accept this Amendment. It is another instance of abolishing the discretion of the Court. Let me point out to the hon. Baronet that we are here giving an additional ground on which a landlord can obtain possession. If a tenant is profiteering in sub-letting that is to be a ground for the landlord obtaining possession, but it is conceivable that this profiteering may not be culpable. It is conceivable that more than the recoverable rent may be charged in a case when it is only found out for the first time in the proceedings. It seems to me impossible to deprive the Court of their overriding discretion to give possession to the landlord. If we accept the Amendment, it would be imperative on the court, once it is shown that a fraction more than the recoverable rent has been charged on a, subletting, though it is only discovered for the first time in those proceedings, to order possession. That would be flying in the face of the policy which has run through the Rent Acts of giving the court all the time an overriding discretion to enforce a particular provision.
    Sir B. PETO: On the learned Solicitor-General's argument it is therefore clear that the owner of property, where he proves that the tenant is sub-letting at profiteering rents, has not the absolute right for the recovery of possession. I am under the impression that that was the object of Clause 4, that is, to do something certain and to prevent what is one of the scandals of the Rent Restrictions Acts, which is that there are sitting tenants all over the country profiteering by sub-letting and keeping the owners of the property from getting possession of their houses for their own occupation. In view of what the Solicitor-General said, however, it would be idle for me to press the matter and I must ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    11.8 p.m.
    Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:

    2059
    "or that the total rent of the portions sublet exceeds the controlled rent paid by the tenant to the landlord."
    The Minister will see that this Amendment has substance, and I hope sufficient to enable him to accept it. The principle of the Clause is that if a tenant sub-lets any portion, at an excessive rent, it may be a ground on which the landlord can recover possession. The case has been brought to my notice where a tenant has got possession of a controlled house and is sub-letting various parts of it at rents which in the aggregate mean that the tenant is sitting there and paying nothing to the owner of the house in rent at all, because he is collecting more from the sub-tenants than he is paying in rent. A much more pertinent reason for giving the landlord possession of the house is found in the case which I envisage in the Amendment, where the total rent of the portions sub-let exceeds the controlled rent paid by the tenant to the landlord. I do not think the Minister wishes to protect and to keep in a controlled house a tenant who is not living there because he cannot find anything cheaper but because he is drawing more in rents from his sub-tenants than he is paying to the owner of the house.
    I can give an example from my own constituency of a man who bought a house for £400, his life savings, but is unable to get possession of it, and finds his tenant taking in so many lodgers that he is able to live there rent free while he, the owner, has to work very hard to find the money necessary to keep the house in proper repair. I have also been given particulars of another case in which the aggregate rents from all the sub-lettings amount to nearly double the controlled rent. Therefore, if it is reasonable to put in this Clause to deal with sub-letting at an extortionate rent, it is even more reasonable to say that the landlord shall be able to get possession of the house where the tenant is really using the house in order to gain a means of livelihood by sub-letting at rents which in the aggregate exceed the rent he is himself paying.
    11.12 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, attractive as it sounds when proposed by the hon. Baronet. I cannot help thinking that the case which he is putting is rather a rare
    2060
    one. The object of the Clause is to prevent a tenant from profiteering by charging excessive rents when sub-letting, and the hon. Baronet wants to allow the landlord to regain possession not only if the tenant is profiteering, that is, charging an excess rent for rooms, but if the aggregate of the rents he is charging exceeds the chief rent. It may happen that a tenant who before the War rented a bigger house than he required may be sub-letting parts of it to-day at rents which in the aggregate may exceed the chief rent. He sub-let in days when the market price had risen and in such circumstances he can hardly be said to be doing anything illegal. We cannot accept the Amendment.
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. CAPORN: It seems to me that the policy of the Rent Acts is to give statutory protection to a man in possession of something, that is, a house, which he requires for his own use and is unable to obtain similar accommodation at a reasonable rent. The true policy should be that all sub-letting should cease and that all sub-tenants should automatically become the tenants of the head landlords. If that was provided, you would get rid of the whole difficulty as regards profiteering, and you would relieve the head landlords of great injustice. I hope that the Minister of Health will consider at some time whether that would not be a better policy.
    11.16 p.m.
    Sir B. PETO: I appeal to the Minister to give this matter further consideration. The whole purpose of rent restriction legislation and particularly of this amending Bill is to give a tenant protection at the place where he wants it, the dwelling-house of his own occupation. Surely the Minister does not want to give a tenant the right of making a living out of a house which belongs to somebody else who wants the house for occupation of self and family. To say that the man who owns a house has no right to occupy it and to let off a part that he does not want, and that the tenant who happens to be the sitting tenant has the right to remain there and to use this profitable piece of property which does not belong to him, is an unjust business and one which, I know, is causing very grave injustice in many cases. I must ask the Minister, if he cannot accept my Amend-

    2061
    ment in this form, which would protect all landlords, whether they own many houses or not, at least to give the right to the man who owns only one house, and to say that, if there is to be any profit out of letting any rooms in it, it is the man who owns the house who should make the profit, and not the tenant. That is the principle I want to see embodied, and I would ask the Minister to give that point consideration before the Report stage.
    11.18 p.m.
    Sir H. YOUNG: My own view is that the matter is exactly as it was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary and that the cases referred to by the hon. Baronet are in fact covered by the provisions of the Act to give the landlord protection. At the same time, I should be happy to give consideration to the cases which have been quoted to the Committee, between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: These cases are not uncommon cases; they are very common indeed and I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary when he made the statement was quite correct. It is likely to apply to a vast number of cases of people who buy a house before they retire in order to let it when they have retired. I believe you can cover a large number of cases of that sort, and I ask the Minister to consider this point in all its aspects.
    11.19 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I am the last person to wish to prevent profiteering in sub-letting, but I think the suggestion which has been made goes a little too far. There is a considerable number of cases where a tenant takes a large house, occupies a portion of it and lets the remainder in a perfectly legitimate way, and performs a public service by enabling a house which is too large for present needs to be split up among a number of tenants. The resident tenant in that case performs a certain service, and incurs a certain amount of trouble and risk. We want, of course, to stop profiteering, but anything that would stamp out the taking of houses by tenants for the purpose of making an honest living by subletting would work very unfairly against many people who have done this for a long time and have behaved quite fairly.
    11.21 p.m.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: Apparently the hon. Baronet is only opposed to profiteering when it is done by the tenant. He is thinking of the interest of the landlord. The cure for this difficulty is to provide sufficient houses. If that were done there would be no need for subletting, and we should get rid of the question of profiteering, whether on the part of the tenant or of the landlord. That there has been profiteering we agree, but the tenant is not always to blame; there is something to be said on both sides. The remedy for the evil is a sufficient supply of houses.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 5 (Amendment as to ascertainment of standard rent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Temporary continuance of provisions as to mortgages where property decontrolled by this Act.)
    Amendment made: In page 7, line 26, leave out from the word "the," to the first word "the," in line 28, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "twenty-ninth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, by virtue of the provisions of section one of this Act, the principal Acts shall, until the expiration of."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. JAMIESON:
    In page 7, line 36, at the end, to add the words:
    "In the application of this section to Scotland it is hereby enacted as follows, that is to say:—
    (1)The principal Acts shall have effect in relation to a mortgage secured over property comprising one or snore dwelling-houses to which the principal Acts shall have ceased to apply by virtue of the provisions of this Act till the arrival of the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas succeeding the said period of six months next after the passing of this Act;
    (2) During the period of five years succeeding the above-mentioned term, the sheriff court may, on the application of the landlord, make an order restraining the mortgagee from calling in his mortgage or taking steps for enforcing his security or for recovering the principal money thereby secured, if it is satisfied

    2063
    that such calling in, enforcement, or recovery would cause greater hardship to the landlord than to the mortgagee. The sheriff court may, on the application of the mortgagee or landlord, rescind or vary any order so made if satisfied that by reason of any material change in circumstances the rescission or variation is necessary or proper;
    (3) The restrictions imposed on a mortgagee by an order under this section may be imposed subject to such conditions as regards instalments of principal, increase of interest, or otherwise and for such time as appears to the court to be proper, but so nevertheless that the restrictions shall cease to be operative if at any time after the making of the order—

    (a) interest is more than twenty-one days in arrear; or

    (b) any covenant by the mortgagor (other than the covenant for the repayment of the principal money secured) is broken or not performed; or

    (c) the mortgagor fails to keep the property in a proper state of repair or to pay the interest and instalments of principal recoverable under any prior encumbrance; or

    (d) any conditions imposed by the court upon the mortgagor are not carried out.

    (4) This section shall not apply to a mortgage where the principal money secured thereby is repayable by means of periodical instalments extending over a term of not less than ten years from the creation of the mortgage."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Amendment should be moved as an Amendment to Clause 9.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    11.25 p.m.
    Mr. STUART BEVAN: There is a very strong feeling among those who see professionally the working of mortgages, and, in particular, the effect of control with regard to mortgages, that the time has now come when, in the interest of mortgagor and mortgagee alike, mortgages should become decontrolled. If ever there was a case in which the views and opinions of lawyers are of value, it is this one, because lawyers, by their situation and activities, are of all people the best qualified to see how the control of mortgages works from the point of view of the interest of both parties. For some 17 years mortgagees have been unable to call in their mortgage money, and, while that mortgage money carries with it the obligation on the mortgagee to pay the
    2064
    interest, the money, as capital, is sterile, and the mortgagee is prevented from making such use of it as in ordinary circumstances he would desire to do. The position becomes even more oppressive in cases where the mortgagees are trustees. The tenant for life dies, and, instead of the mortgage being called in and the capital distributed among the remaindermen or beneficiaries, who would apply it to various uses—starting in business, and so forth—the capital remains tied up, and has remained tied up for all these years. Other disadvantages that flow from this are that in course of time trustees die and new trustees have to be appointed and the estates cannot be wound up, and in the case of small estates the cost of appointing new trustees is a considerable burden upon the estate.
    I have presented it so far from the point of view of the mortgagees and particularly of the cases where the mortgagees are trustees of an estate. Now we have to consider the position of the mortgagor. For all these years he has been protected from the obligation which he would otherwise have been under of repaying his loan upon statutory notice being given. In that respect he has been in a position far superior to that of the borrower who, instead of borrowing on the security of land, has borrowed on a note of hand or has raised money by a bill of sale or by other means, in which case the law has given him no protection at all. It will be said that it would create a very great hardship if mortgagors were suddenly exposed to the obligation, after all these years, of repaying the capital sum advanced. The answer that is made to that is that money is much cheaper to-day than it was and the rate of mortgage interest is lower, and, if only mortgagors were so advised and got out of the lethargy in which they find themselves through this protection having been extended to them for so many years, they could pay off their mortgages and create new ones at a lower rate of interest than they have been paying all these years. These are the proposals that are put forward by the Incorporated Law Society and most of the provincial law societies in the country. They come with very great

    2065
    weight when they are put forward and supported by these influential and experienced bodies of men who in the course of their daily practice are brought face to face with the position of mortgagors and mortgagees alike.
    11.29 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that there is no lack of sympathy on the part of the Government with the hard cases to which the has referred, but the Marley Committee dealt with this matter after they had heard representations from the Law Society and other bodies on the subject and pointed out that it was essential to stick to the cardinal principle that a man who had borrowed on a free security should not be compelled to re-borrow on a controlled security for the purpose of repaying a loan and that, as long as control of houses remained, so long must control of mortgages remain. But, of course, in this Bill we are sweeping away control over the whole range of houses from £45 to £105 in the Metropolitan area, and corresponding figures elsewhere, and by that very fact the control over mortgages in that range will disappear at the same time.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out the difference in the financial position now. The Marley Committee reported at a time when these changes had not taken place. The report was issued in July, 1931. If it is true that it would be so easy for mortgagors to go into the market and re-borrow at a lower rate of interest, that in itself affords the answer to the suggestion that mortgages should automatically be decontrolled. There is nothing in the world, at any moment, to prevent a mortgagee from transferring his mortgage. He has a perfect right to do so. He has a pre-War mortgage at, shall we say, 6 per cent. If people are tumbling over each other for mortgages at that rate when at present they can only get, shall we say, 4 per cent. or whatever the prevailing rate is, the only issue involved in this Clause is as to bearing the cost of the transfer. That is all it comes to, because any mortgagee can transfer, and it is simply a question of whether he is to bear the whole cost of the transfer, or whether the transferee, with the object of getting 6 per cent. instead of 4½ per cent., is willing to pay the whole or some part of the cost. That
    2066
    is really the end of the story and all that there is in it.
    Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Committee reported Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  WYTHENSHAWE PARISHES (TRANSFER) MEASURE, 1933.
  11.34 p.m.
  Sir JOHN HASLAM: I beg to move,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Wythenshawe Parishes(Transfer) Measure, 1933, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent,"
  As the Measure is entirely non-controversial in character and is only brought forward in the interests of administrative efficiency, I do not think I need go into the details. It was introduced in the Church Assembly by and with the entire approval of the two dioceses concerned and was passed both by the Church Assembly and the Ecclesiastical Committee, in my presence, with absolute unanimity. I think I am in duty bound briefly to explain what the Measure does. It transfers certain parishes from the Diocese of Chester to the Diocese of Manchester. Manchester has enlarged its borders and the area proposed to be transferred is now part of the city of Manchester. It is for the administrative efficiency of the parishes concerned that the Measure is brought forward.
  Sir JOHN BIRCHALL: I beg to second the Motion.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday eveving, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes before Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION.
  NEW COUNCIL SCHOOL, BOLTON-ON-DEARNE.
  NEW COUNCIL SCHOOL, BOLTON-ON-DEARNE.
  ROYAL COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS' SCHOOLS.
  ROYAL COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS' SCHOOLS.
AGRICULTURE.
  MILK PRODUCTS (DOMINIONS).
  MILK PRODUCTS (DOMINIONS).
  MILK REORGANISATION SCHEME.
  MILK REORGANISATION SCHEME.
  NECESSITOUS CHILDREN (MEALS).
  NECESSITOUS CHILDREN (MEALS).
  PIG MARKETING, SCOTLAND.
  PIG MARKETING, SCOTLAND.
  RIVER POLLUTION.
  RIVER POLLUTION.
POST OFFICE.
  SCALE PAYMENT SUB-OFFICES.
  SCALE PAYMENT SUB-OFFICES.
  CITY TELEPHONE EXCHANGE (AUTOMATIC SYSTEM).
  CITY TELEPHONE EXCHANGE (AUTOMATIC SYSTEM).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  HOUSING (AGED PERSONS).
  HOUSING (AGED PERSONS).
  PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, SOUTH MIMMS (LOAN).
  PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, SOUTH MIMMS (LOAN).
  EXCHEQUER GRANTS, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.
  EXCHEQUER GRANTS, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.
  AIR MINISTRY (CONTRACTS, WAGES).
  AIR MINISTRY (CONTRACTS, WAGES).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
  TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
  WOLVERHAMPTON AND WILLENHALL.
  WOLVERHAMPTON AND WILLENHALL.
  PIRACY, CHINA (BRITISH SUBJECTS CAPTURE).
  PIRACY, CHINA (BRITISH SUBJECTS CAPTURE).
  BRITISH SHIPPING (STATISTICS).
  BRITISH SHIPPING (STATISTICS).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MERSEY TUNNEL BILL.
Read 2ª.

INDIA.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion made by the Lord Chancellor on Tuesday, That this House do concur in the Resolution communicated by the Commons, namely: "That, before Parliament is asked to take a decision upon the proposals contained in Command Paper 4268, it is expedient that a Joint Select Committee of Lords and Commons, with power to call into consultation representatives of the Indian States and of British India, be appointed to consider the future government of India and, in particular, to examine and report upon the proposals in the said Command Paper."
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, there are a great number of very highly qualified speakers to follow me and I do not propose to detain your Lordships longer than I need. I trust it will not be considered impertinent if, at this stage of the debate, I remark that its length has only been justified by the very high standard at which it has been maintained; for it is difficult to conceive of anyone in his senses opposing the Motion to which this debate is ostensibly directed—namely, that the outcome of more than four years of continuous deliberation is worthy of consideration by a Joint Select Committee. We are all agreed on that issue, and I think it may be worth while saying, although hardly necessary, that we are all agreed on another issue, and that is that we intend to retain the British connection with India. I actually noticed the other day that a Committee had been set up which proposed to oppose any abdication of British rule in India. I can only say that on those terms of reference every member of the House was fully entitled to be a member of the Committee and to endorse its recommendations.

381
But although we are all agreed on those issues and although there is no doubt as to the outcome of this debate, it is only natural that this White Paper should have been criticised very severely both as to its principles and as to its details. I propose very shortly to deal with some of those criticisms of principle, and I apply this test. I feel that the only relevant criticisms of principle of this White Paper are those which are backed up by constructive proposals. We all know that we have got to do something in the fairly near future. We all know that dyarchy has not been altogether successful in the past, and is likely to be less successful in the future. Therefore, a lot of general arguments fail when this test is applied: Do they lead us to any conclusion as to what we are going to do now?
The two cardinal points of principle on which there are definite alternative proposals seem to me to be these. In the first place, that we are going to transfer law and order in the Provinces to a responsible Minister; and secondly, that we are going to give some measure of responsibility, with safeguards, at the Centre at the same time as we are conferring provincial autonomy. I will deal with those two points of principle if I may. Let me deal with the Police first, because I feel very strongly that this is the weakest link in the chain of the White Paper, and it is the one to which we should devote our most earnest attention. It is in every sense the crux of the whole matter. We all know that there are great risks involved in handing over the Police to Indian control. I am not going into them here. They are known to all of your Lordships. We are always being asked to face up to the facts of the Indian situation. I suggest that there are other facts involved, and one of those which we have got to face, however unpalatable it may be, is that Indian opinion is going to fix on two key subjects which are going to determine its acceptance of these reforms. At the Centre it is going to fix on responsibility for finance, and in the Provinces on the handing over of law and order. It is of no use blinking at that fact, because it seems to me so vital and true that I earnestly believe that it will be far better, if we do not intend to transfer law and order in the Provinces, to abandon the whole scheme and see if we cannot find some alternative proposal.
382
I think it was Whyte Melville who said that it was pluck which got you into difficulties and nerve which got you out. It is pluck and past pledges which have got us into these difficulties, but one certain way in which we can transform those difficulties into disaster is by losing our nerve at the last moment, and trying to hedge ourselves round with unacceptable safeguards. If we are going to do this thing at all we have got to do it in the grand manner, and I feel very strongly that it is no use trying to back out now. If you do so I feel that you will isolate the Police and, so to speak, put them in the stocks. All the odium and will be concentrated upon them and you will impose an intolerable strain upon their loyalty. That is why feel that we have got in this matter to accept the finding of the Simon Commission. I believe that in the handing over of the Police in this matter the wiser course is also the holder course and, in my opinion, the safer course for us to pursue So much for the Provinces.
Now there comes the other great question of principle, as to whether we are going to give responsibility at the Centre at the same time as in the Provinces. At first sight it seems to me that the arguments of those who would set up eleven Provincial Governments and retain control at the Centre are paradoxical, because it seems to me that arguments which will apply against granting responsibility to a Legislature composed largely of Princes and Moslems, with a strong Second Chamber of equal powers to the Lower House, elected on a property franchise consisting of only 3 per cent. of the population—arguments which would apply to such a Legislature must apply a fortiori to a Provincial Legislature where few of these internal safeguards exists. The paradoxical is only saved by a misconception, it seems to me, because the answer of those who put forward this proposal is that at any rate you will have a strong Centre, uncontaminated, as it is put in another place, by Indian influence, which is able to exercise direction and control over the Provinces and rescue them from mistakes.
I think that that is based upon a misconception of what provincial autonomy means. It does not mean merely that Indian Ministers are going to be respon-

383
sible to the Indian Legislature, but it means that the Provinces are going to be really autonomous, and that over their sphere the Centre will not be able to exercise any control. If one thinks about it at all I think one has got to make up one's mind that with provincial autonomy, even if the Police are withheld, the whole of Central direction and control is gone for ever. If we pin our faith to that we are pinning our faith to something which will betray us, and I think we shall be betraying our trust to the millions of Indians who depend upon the Provincial Legislatures. I think that if we believe we can control these Legislatures by a strong English Centre, we shall be betraying our trust to those millions of Indians, and the Government has faced that fact very fairly. It has not relied upon a strong Centre. It has relied instead upon the Governor and through the Governor directly upon Parliament. It is this House and another place upon which the White Paper relies to rescue the Provinces from their mistakes, and it seems to me a far more certain method of doing it, and one which gives us far more control over the destinies of those millions, responsibility for whom we can never forget. Those are two points of principle, as it strikes me, on which there are alternative proposals.
There are, of course, also details which are criticised. We have been told that the franchise is too large. I have little to add to what the noble Marquess said about that, but I would like to remind your Lordships of the strong exhortation addressed to us by Lord Lloyd a little before we went to India. He said:
"May I suggest that you pause awhile in your present programme, and change the direction of your present march; that you stop building from the top, and begin building from the bottom like all good builders do. Extend your franchise, widen your basis, deepen your foundation. Then you will begin to find out what the great masses of the people in India really think. Then you will find out, by interpreting their needs, what the real masses of the people, not the minute and urban fraction, need."
The noble Lord went on in the same strain but I will not detain your Lordships longer with that. It was a great consolation to us when sometimes we thought that our proposals might be criticised on the ground of liberality to know that Lord Lloyd would always be ready to
384
leap to our defence in the face of any such attack.
I do not think that it is my duty at this stage to offer any constructive suggestions for consideration by the Joint Select Committee. There are a number of points on which I think the White Paper naturally might be improved. I will mention just one, because it leads on to what I intend to say. I think it would be better if the seats of those Princes who have not joined the Federation through their own will or because the State is ruled by a Regent, were filled during the transition period by nomination. Of course, I am fully aware of the theoretical incompatibility between nomination and responsible government. But I think we delude ourselves if we think that responsible government, as we know it in England, is going to spring up in India in a night as the result of this White Paper. I think that for a long time you are going to have a very fluid sort of Constitution indeed. There is going to be a great deal of inexperience floating about, and I think that inexperience will be only too glad to take the advice of Viceroys and Governors, if they are good Viceroys and Governors, even though those Viceroys and Governors are not really responsible for the subjects on which the Minister takes advice.
I feel that it is a very good omen for the future that the other day in the Federal Assembly in Delhi members of every Party, members who for years have been shouting irresponsible criticisms at the Finance Member were unanimous in asking that his term of office should be extended in order to help them over the very difficult period of transition. I feel that that is a good omen of the sort of way that this Constitution is going to work in the future. But because the Constitution will not give immediate self-government or responsible government I am very glad that in it there are all the seeds of that responsible government. The noble Lord opposite referred to the safeguards as a cage. I think that is a fundamentally wrong way of looking at it. It is another way of putting the old dilemma that you cannot have both responsible government and safeguards. It seems to me that the whole virtue of this White Paper is that it answers that dilemma. In a sentence, what we have done is that we have made responsible

385
government a certainty and we have made the safeguards a contingency.
If your Lordships will excuse me I will put it in the form of a simile which seems to me far more apt than that of the noble Lord opposite. It seems to me that for years we have been promising that when India grew up we would teach her to fly, and for years now she has been sitting in the cockpit behind us screaming wild denunciations about our conduct of the machine. Now we are going to hand over the controls to her; but, because we have a great respect for our own life and for hers, we are going to put her into a dual-control machine. As long as she obeys the necessary laws of aviation so long will she be able to a very large extent to control both the pace and direction of her flight. But the moment she forgets or ignores those laws and danger looms ahead, our hands can grasp the controls once more and restore her to safety. I feel that that is how we ought to look at this Constitution and that if we look at it in that way we shall destroy the raison d'ôtre of the agitator and the extremist. His salvation will be in his own hands. The onus of proof is for the first time put upon the Indian. If he governs well there is no limit to what he can do. If he governs badly we are there to rescue him from chaos.
We lose all that, of course, if we take the alternative proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I feel also that fortune has very greatly favoured us at this vital juncture in Indian history at which we by some strange chance have to play so large a part. We have got a Parliament peculiarly well fitted, both by its talents and by its character, to deal with the situation. We have a Secretary of State and a Viceroy worthy of the high traditions of their offices. We have British India weary of struggle, longing only for peace, her politicians only anxious to get on with those great schemes of social reform which they feel, and I think rightly, that they alone are competent to perform. And we have the Indian Princes ready to take their part in what we are all agreed is to be the ultimate solution of the Indian problem—namely, Federation. That argument is not conclusive, but I feel very strongly that that fortunate conjuncture of circumstances may never come again, and we have to think twice before we deprive
386
Parliament of its opportunity, before we rebuff the Princes, and before we bitterly disappoint British India
This is a very grave matter, and it not only transcends the bounds of Party politics but it also goes far beyond the bounds of a generation. Others in time will succeed to these vast duties and responsibilities in this matter which your Lordships now possess. We are not only building for our own time. I would entreat your Lordships to consider very carefully which of the two sets of proposals before you—the proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, or the proposals incorporated in the White Paper—are not merely going to enable you to patch up a settlement which may serve your immediate purpose but will enable you to bequeath a heritage of which you will be able to be proud to those who will come after you. Another generation left the burden on your Lordships which even the talents that won the War were not able to withstand; and it is because I see in the alternative proposals before you the seeds of that same dissension and that same decay which blossomed so fruitfully in Ireland, and because I see in them something which is going to lay an intolerable burden on another generation that I accept the proposals of the White Paper, believing as I do that they rise above the exigencies of the moment, and offer a good chance of a lasting settlement between India and England.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I find myself very largely in agreement with the noble Marquess who has just sat down, and whom we are all so pleased to find taking what may be described as an hereditary interest in the problems of Indian government; that is to say, I find myself in agreement with the main principles upon which the scheme set forth in the White Paper is based. But let me also say that there are certain features of the scheme which appear to me to be objectionable; and, that being so, it necessarily follows that I applaud the procedure which is proposed—namely, the submission of this scheme to a Joint Select Committee, since it is obvious that a Committee of the kind contemplated will be the most convenient body to take into consideration and, if it is thought desirable, to suggest alternatives to, those aspects of the scheme which may be thought to be susceptible of improvement. I shall

387
hope to mention some features of the scheme which I dislike and to give my reasons for so disliking them. But before I do so, may I state briefly why it is that I support the scheme as a whole? In doing so, I do not propose to argue the case on this occasion on any moral grounds, though I think the moral grounds are very strong. I propose to argue the case on strictly practical grounds.
To begin with, then, I am satisfied that a Federation of the Provinces of British India and of the Native States is the only sound basis on which a self-governing Constitution for India can be built up, and, since the Princes have made it clear that they will not agree to federate unless some measure of responsibility is granted at the Centre, I naturally accept the proposal in the White Paper that the Federal Executive, with certain important reservations, should be responsible to the Federal Legislature. But that is by no means the only reason why I support this particular part of the scheme. I do so because I am convinced that by granting a measure of responsibility you will be far more likely to secure a reasonably strong and stable Government than you will be if you merely perpetuate the existing system. There seems to be an idea in some quarters, and, unless I have misunderstood noble Lords, it is an idea which is shared by the noble Marquess. Lord Salisbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, that the Government of India as at present constituted possesses the elements of strength and stability. That is not my opinion, and it is not the opinion of the Provincial Governments in India. After all, the Provincial Governments in India are in the best possible position to form a sound opinion upon that point, because the strength or weakness of the Central Government reacts directly upon them.
Let me then remind your Lordships of the views which are held by the Provincial Governments in India on that point at the present time. In their Despatch of August 13, 1930, the Government of Bombay wrote as follows:
"The last ten years have witnessed the anomaly of an irresponsible Executive faced by an elected Legislature armed with extensive powers, with the result that, though in theory the irresponsible Executive should have been strong in actual practice its
388
position has been very considerably weakened."
And in the opinion of the Government of Bengal:
"Good administration has been hampered in recent years by weakness in the Central Executive vis-à-vis the Central Legislature."
And then again, the official members of the Government of the United Provinces, Sir Malcolm Hailey and his colleagues, when commenting on the proposal of the Simon Commission to increase the size of the Central Legislature without conferring upon it any degree of responsibility, wrote:
"The picture which we see is that of an Executive which must inevitably be in a position of pathetic impotence within the Legislature, which is bound to be in perpetual quest of means to reduce and, if possible, nullify the authority of the Executive. So far from gaining in strength or stability by the change proposed"—
that is to say, the change proposed by the Simon Commission—
"the Central Administration will occupy a position inferior to the markedly unfavourable position in which it stands at present."
And finally the Government of the Central Provinces wrote:
"Unless it is recognised that responsibility to the Central Legislature in some form must be conceded, it seems idle to proceed with the Conference in London at all. Time demand for responsibility in some shape is so widespread among Indians of all classes that it will be hazardous in the extreme to hold a Conference at which it would be rejected."
My Lords, these are weighty opinions, but if anyone doubts, or wishes to challenge, the correctness of the view expressed in them, may I invite him to study the proceedings in the Indian Legislative Assembly in connection with any important measure or controversy in recent years. If he rises from his study impressed either by the strength or the stability of the Central Government, I shall be very much surprised. Take, for example, the proceedings in connection with the Rupee Ratio Bill in 1927, or, still more significant, perhaps, the proceedings in connection with the Cotton Textiles Industries Protection Bill in the spring of 1930, a Bill devised to increase the Customs Duties on cotton goods imported into India, while at the same time giving a small preference to goods of British origin. Let me remind your Lordships of the circumstances in connection

389
with that Bill. A number of Indian members of the Legislative Assembly had withdrawn earlier in the Session, with the result that the Government, with the aid of their official members, were able to pass the Bill by a small majority. Now observe what followed. A further number of Indian members of the Assembly, with the Pundit Malaviya, at that time the Leader of the Nationalist Party in the Assembly, at their head, withdrew and at once threw themselves into the civil disobedience movement, an outstanding feature of which was a boycott of British trade.
And, if noble Lords will further study the statistics of British-Indian trade during the year 1930, they can only come to this conclusion, that the damage done to British trade by the boycott far outweighed any possible benefit which might have been expected to accrue to it as a result of the preference granted by the Cotton Textiles Industries Protection Act. Let me give your Lordships only one figure to illustrate that. The annual value of the imports of British goods into India during each of the five years preceding 1930 was £83,000,000 sterling. In 1930 that figure dropped to £53,000,000 sterling. I do not say for a moment that the whole of that calamitous fall in British trade was due to political causes; it was not There were economic causes at work as well, hut if you take all the relative factors into account you can come to no other conclusion than that the boycott of British trade was a substantial factor in that very disastrous fall.
It seems then that the Government of India as at present constituted is not capable of safeguarding the interests of British trade. What is the best safeguard for British trade? Surely, a contented India I can assure your Lordships that you will have anything but a contented India upon your hands if anything far short of the advance which is now proposed in the White Paper is all that you are prepared to concede to the people of that country. Does it not follow, does it not stand to reason that in India, as in other countries, public men are far more likely to show a sense of responsibility in their actions if you make it possible for them to accept responsibility than if you withhold that possibility from them? I could give your Lordships examples from my own per-
390
sonal experience illustrating that well known truth. I could give you, for example, the case of an outstanding Nationalist of Bengal, the late Surendra Nath Bannerjee, a man who throughout the greater part of his life was a vehement critic of British rule, a man who, because of his fiery leadership in the Indian Nationalist cause, was for long known as the uncrowned king of Bengal. With the responsibility for an important Department of Government which I was able to offer him, his whole political outlook underwent a remarkable change, and in the interests of good government he undertook, at the very outset of his career as a Minister, as disagreeable and unpopular a task as could well have fallen to his lot.
The revenues of Bengal were at the time unequal to the expenditure of the Province, and I was obliged to tell Surendra Nath Bannerjee that by far the greater part of the money which was available was required in the interests of good government for reserves—that is to say, the irresponsible part of the Government, the maintenance of the Police and so on. Now that man could easily, had he desired to do so, have courted and. acquired immense popularity by attacking the reserved half of the Government on the ground that they were starving the Transferred Departments. He did nothing of the sort. He went to the Legislature and, with great courage, boldly supported a proposal for increased taxation, and, more remarkable still, with the aid of his powerful advocacy the proposal was carried by the Legislature. That is a very good example of the great change which is brought about in the outlook of a man when once you put him in a position of real responsibility, and it is for that reason largely that I have gradually, not easily but gradually, and none the less with conviction, come to the conclusion that by far your safest course is to grant a measure of responsibility not only in the Provinces but at the Centre.
I must pass on, for I wish to say something upon those features of the scheme in the White Paper which, as at present drafted, seem to me to be open to objection. I dislike intensely the position in which it is proposed to place the Viceroy and Governor-General. My complaint against the authors of the

391
White Paper in this connection is the complaint which is often made against the Greek tragedian Euripides—namely, that he made an intemperate use of the Deus ex machine device by which a god was abruptly brought in at the end of a play to set right a confusion which was beyond human powers to control. That is precisely the part which the authors of the White Paper have designed for the unfortunate Governor-General and also for the Governors in the Provinces. Whenever anything goes wrong the Governor-General will be expected to step in and set it right. I think you are placing far too great a burden upon the shoulders of one man.
Let us take as an example what are described in the White Paper as the "special responsibilities" of the Governor-General and the Governors for safeguarding the interests of the minorities. The Prime Minister, in his final statement at the conclusion of the second session of the Round-Table Conference, laid great stress upon the necessity of including in the Constitution Act provisions for safeguarding minorities. Perhaps I had better read his own words. On December 1, 1931, the present Prime Minister said:
"A decision of the communal problem which provides only for representation of the communities in the Legislatures is not enough to secure what I may call natural right'."
He went on to say:
"…the Constitution must therefore contain provisions which will give all creeds and classes a due sense of security that the principle of majority government is not to be employed to their moral or material disadvantage in the body politic."
I have searched the White Paper for these provisions and I have found only one—namely, proposal No. 101 on page 64 of the White Paper, which lays it down that a three-quarters vote will be required in any Provincial Legislative Council before an existing grant-in-aid on account of the education of the Anglo-Indian or domiciled European community can be reduced. I do not under-estimate the value of that provision. I heartily applaud it, but I observe that the only other provision for safeguarding the interests of the minorities is the declaration that they constitute a "special responsibility" of the Governor-General at the Centre and the Governors in the Provinces.
392
I confess that I am a little curious to know why, if this is regarded as an adequate safeguard in every other conceivable case which may arise, it has been thought necessary to introduce this one very special provision in the case of the education of the Anglo-Indian and domiciled European community. But I would ask this question: Will the Governor-General and will the Governors be in a position to discharge their special responsibilities under the provisions of the White Paper as they at present stand? I confess that I have the gravest doubts. Let us put this matter to the test of a concrete ease. I will state a case which my past experience in Bengal leads me to suppose is almost certain to arise sooner or later under the proposals set forth in the White Paper. The Inspector-General of Police sends up through the Secretary in the Department to the Minister in control of it a request for an increase of pay for certain branches of the Police force. The Minister in charge turns down the request on the ground that funds are not available for such a purpose. What is the Secretary in the Department to do? Has he access to the Governor? To begin with, would that touch upon the special responsibility of the Governor to prevent a grave menace to the peace and tranquillity of his province? I do not know whether it would or not, but let us suppose that-the Secretary in the Department is of opinion that it would. As I have asked, what is he to do? Has he access to the Governor or has he not? I do not know, and unless it is specifically laid down in the Act he will not know.
I know quite well what will be the answer to this question. The noble Lord, Lord Irwin, if he touches upon this question in winding up the debate, will refer me most courteously to the proposal which says that the Governor shall have the right of drawing up rules and procedure for the conduct of business. Yes, my Lords, but he will draw up his rules only after consultation with the Minister, and the Minister will be vehemently opposed to any proposal which gives the permanent officials in the Department an independent status. I know that because I raised this very point in the Provincial Sub-Committee of the Round-Table Conference. I pointed out that if the Gov-

393
ernor was to be able to discharge his special responsibilities the Secretaries in the Departments under the Ministers mast have free access to him. That proposal was vehemently opposed by every Indian member of that Sub-Committee on the ground that it was a grave encroachment upon their responsibility and calculated to undermine their authority. So it seems to me that you must lay down in your Constitution Act, not only that every Secretary in every Department of Government has the right of access to the Governor-General or to the Governor as the case may be, but you must do more than that you must lay down in the Act that, in any case which in the opinion of the Secretary touches upon any of the special responsibilities of the Governor-General or the Governor, it shall be his bounden duty to submit the matter to him. I am satisfied that unless sonic provision of that kind is made these safeguards under the head of the special responsibilities of the Governor-General and the Governors will prove wholly illusory. Surely it would be better to have no safeguards at all than to have paper safeguards which will prove entirely illusory in practice.
I come for a moment to my other criticism of the position which is to be occupied by the Viceroy and by the Governors, my criticism as to the manner in which they are expected to discharge their special responsibilities and to exercise their special powers in the face of a disagreement with the Legislature. If noble Lords will read Paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 of the introductory part of the White Paper they will see that what the authors of the White Paper apparently contemplate with complete equanimity, if not with actual satisfaction, is a sort of gladiatorial combat between the Viceroy and the Legislature, heralded by a blast of trumpets to attract public notice to the entertainment, and staged in the full glare of the limelight. I think it is more than undesirable that in India the representative of His Majesty should be thrust ostentatiously into the arena of controversy, and that when he is there he should be expected to proclaim from the house tops that he is the man—he, and no other—who is riding rough-shod over the will of the duly elected representatives of the people. It seems to me that that is a most undesirable position in which to put the representative of His
394
Majesty the King, and I hope the Joint Select Committee will consider very carefully whether there may not be some less objectionable means by which the purpose in view may be attained.
There is only one other feature of the scheme which I think will be objectionable and to which I should like to refer—objectionable, because I believe it to be altogether impracticable. That is the proposal that the representatives of British India in the Federal Legislature should be chosen by a system of direct election. I cannot understand how the Committee under the Chairmanship of icy noble friend the Marquess of Lothian, ever succeeded in persuading themselves that it was a practicable proposition to lay down that in a country of the size of India the members of a small central body should be chosen by a system of direct popular vote. They admitted that considerations of practical wisdom and practical statesmanship required that they should limit severely the numbers of electors, but they seem to have overlooked the fact that while it is possible to limit the number of electors it is not possible to reduce the size of the country. Let us see where the considerations of practical wisdom and practical statesmanship to which they appeal have carried them. This is their own description of the effect of their proposals:
"The constituencies under our proposals, while varying greatly in size, will, in the country districts, average between 5,000 and 10,000 square miles in area and will contain between 25,000 and 35,000 electors."
They go on—I was almost going to say a little superfluously:
"This will impose a heavy task upon the candidate and the Party organisation and we are satisfied that it is the course of practical wisdom and practical statesmanship to go no further at present."
I would ask your Lordships particularly to notice the words "at present." We all know there are persons in India who believe that adult suffrage is a practical proposal and that the "at present" will not stay where it is.
But even the picture which the Committee itself paints and the result of its recommendations do not give the full facts as they actually will be. A large number of the constituencies will be very much larger than the average. Take the case of the Punjab. In the Punjab there are to be six general constituencies send-

395
ing representatives to the Federal Legislature. What will be the average size of the six constituencies in the Punjab? They will be on an average, and some may be larger, no less than 16,200 square miles. In other words, each constituency will be rather more than twice as large as the whole of Wales and Monmouthshire, which are represented in the House of Commons by thirty-five members. Unfortunate candidates who have to seek the suffrages of the general elector in the Punjab will have to canvass the electors who live in an area as large as that which would be represented in the House of Commons not by one, but by seventy members. Comment is almost superfluous, yet I feel constrained to add this—that whereas in Great Britain communications are highly developed, in India, Where the vast majority of the people live in small villages scattered over the incredibly large countryside, very few of the villages are served even by a metalled road, fewer still by a railway; and since the vast majority of those living in the villages are illiterate the unfortunate candidate will have to rely on the spoken rather than the written word when he sets out to woo them. It seems to me that if you wish to reduce the representative system to a farce it is almost the best way to create constituencies of a size impossible to work in practice.
There are alternative methods, but this is not the time to develop them. There is a system of indirect election which, in my view, would be far more suitable to the conditions of India. I will not elaborate that point, but there are other comments which I would like to have made on the scheme as a whole. I would like to have asked what is going to be the cost, the estimated cost, of the scheme. New Provinces are going to be created and new Legislatures are going to be established, and, of course, the cost is going to be very great. I have been quite unable to find from one end of the White Paper to the other the smallest indication of what the cost is likely to be, but I cannot but suppose that some sort of estimate must have been made by those responsible before they sat down to draft proposals. I have already detained your Lordships too long: let me in conclusion express to your Lordships my appreciation of the great courtesy with which you have been good enough to listen to the observations I have ventured to make.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I am sure from the rapt attention with which you have listened to the noble Marquess that what he has said has not greatly advanced the probable success of the White Paper in the tribunal to which it is now to be referred. Even if the ship is still afloat it has encountered very heavy weather in your Lordships' House. I should not venture to trouble your Lordships by attempting to follow the noble Marquess upon details regarding which he has such great knowledge, except that there are one or two points on which I would urgently ask for some reply from the Government before the debate ends. The noble Marquess made it quite clear that he regards a system of government of India by a succession of checks which must either be paper safeguards, or what he termed gladiatorial combats between the Viceroy and the Legislature, as exceedingly difficult; indeed I do not think he will contradict me if I say he regards it as unworkable. There are one or two points on which I think it may be unworkable and on which it would be well, before we send the proposal to a Committee, that we should hear from the Government that their minds are still open.
My noble friend, although speaking with such force on points which had come under his particular jurisdiction, said nothing or very little on the question of law and order. The problem of law and order under democratic Governments has led in the last few years to very considerable reactions. If you look East you see difficulties in two great democracies; if you look West to the United States of America you see, even in that highly-organised community, difficulty with regard to law and order in the cities which is certainly phenomenal and, to us, astonishing. What I ask His Majesty's Government to consider is this: You may put the check of the Viceroy on the Legislative Assembly or the Administrative Government in matters which are recoverable. The noble Lord, the Marquess of Zetland, spoke of trade. You may lose £40,000,000 of trade owing to bad government or bad administration, but if the matter is ultimately taken out of the hands or put beyond the discrimination of those which have brought it about that loss may be recovered. The point I ask your Lordships, and the Government especially, to consider is that

397
there are some losses which you can never recover. If you allow law and order or the Police to be thrown over—if you allow in any Province disorder to arise owing to lack of judgment or courage in administration, you may take that matter into your hands, but you will never restore the confidence you have lost. I do not see here any of the leading soldiers who have seats in your Lordships' House, but I would say that I do not believe there is a single man who has served His Majesty for long in the Army who would believe that you can carry out discipline by spasmodic efforts, and I put it to your Lordship's that it is quite impossible to carry out the policing of India by spasmodic effort—to take it out of the hands of the Assembly one day and to set it up afresh, when every Police officer knows that when he goes back to the Assembly, or to the Minister, his number will be up.
I promised not to engage your Lordships' attention for long or to stand between you and those who know more than I do, but I wish to ask the Government to give us an assurance that this particular question will be considered without prejudice. At this moment there is in existence a Federal Criminal Investigation Department. I ask the Government to assure us that the continuance of that Department will be considered. It is not vouched for in the White Paper. There is at this moment no headship to the Police to which the Provincial Police will be able to appeal. In the Army you have the Governor-General. This is not my opinion alone but it is put forward by those with far more experience—I venture to think that in every Province the Governor of the Province should also be head of the Police, and that he should have in close touch with him some official, included in the Ministry, to represent the interests of the Police. Unless some step of this kind is taken the growing fear that the White Paper may lead to a continual battle—to a gladiatorial exhibition—between the Governor and the Legislature will, I think, be increased.
There is one other. The Lord Chancellor, in a very careful and considered speech, in which he introduced this Motion, asked that your Lordships' opinions should be carefully given, and he gave us to believe that they would be carefully weighed. What I ask is this: that this Committee, if it is set up, will follow the precedent of the Committee
398
that sat under the Chairmanship of Lord Selborne on the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. If you care to look back you will find that that measure, which no doubt it may be argued had not been the subject of so many months and years of care and thought as the White Paper has had, went before the Joint Committee a very different measure from the measure which emerged from it. We ask that the Government, who will no doubt have a majority for the White Paper on the Committee, will go into that Committee with an open mind. I do not think that Lord Selborne, even in the services which he rendered to South Africa, did a greater service to the country than when he succeeded in carrying that measure through the Joint Committee and bringing it out with a practically unanimous verdict.
I only hope that the present Government may be as fortunate in respect of these proposals. But, my Lords, most undoubtedly if the whole of these grave questions are to be put in the same correlation as between the Assembly and the Governor, then I believe that those of us who most doubtingly have had to take a step forward at a moment when, as Lord Lothian—perhaps the most vehement of all those who have supported the White Paper—said, you have had 30,000 persons in prison under the present Government and 50,000 during the period of office of my noble friend below me—at a moment also when not one single member of this House is willing to get up and say that the White Paper, even if it went through this moment in the words in which it is presented to us, will give satisfaction to the people of India, will feel that you should not make sacrifices which you cannot go back upon. Law and order is one of them, and I hope that the Government will go into this Committee with an open mind.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I am at a disadvantage through having been unable, owing to indisposition, to listen to any of the speeches during the last two days, but I am already very much compensated for this loss by having been able to listen to the eloquent and instructive address which the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, has just made in this House. He has already sketched skilfully to you a few of the administrative dangers and difficulties of the

399
White Paper, and I make no doubt that as that highly complicated and amazing document is further studied this House and the House of Commons will realise that a policy founded on that White Paper is not likely to bring order or content to the people of India. I had the advantage, however, of hearing a very important though very despondent speech made by the Secretary of State for India in another place, and I should like to refer, if I may, to one important remark which he made in the course of that speech.
Many noble Lords and others, who have felt grave doubts about the policy pursued by the Government, have yet felt that they were hemmed in in all honour by a long series of inescapable pledges. My noble friend Lord Irwin, whom I am glad to see here to-day and to welcome after his bad accident, has himself in his speeches, I think, referred to the difficulty with which we are confronted by reason of past pledges. I, on the other hand, whilst not losing sight of the statements made by eminent people, have always contended that the only thing by which we were bound either in practice or honour was the Government of India Act of 1919; that that was the pledge to which we were fully committed, and only that. I was therefore glad to hear the Secretary of State for India, speaking with the full authority of his office, quite clearly telling us that mine was the correct view. It is quite true that while Sir Samuel Hoare counselled us to take into consideration the long continuous history and undeviating teaching of the last hundred years of British rule in India, yet he declared clearly that "the pledges of the past leave full liberty to Parliament in the choice of the time and manner of constitutional advance." This formal and considered declaration of the Secretary of State for India comes exactly at the right moment, when the Joint Select Committee is going to embark upon the consideration of these proposals. We are then, let us make no doubt about it, absolutely free in the light of the last ten years' experience to extend or restrict the Constitution's liberties, and, indeed, we are bound under the Preamble of the Act of 1919 to act in the light of our own knowledge of the co-operation given by Indians during the last ten years and of their
400
proven capacity or otherwise to have self-government.
The Secretary of State then, very rightly, if I may say so, invited us to look round and to put this picture of Indian constitutional reform into a world setting, to get our perspective right. He asked us to look on and see what was happening in other parts of Asia, but, wisely I think, he did not pursue that theme very much further! If he had lived in the Near East, as I have in the last few years, he would have seen the chaos and turmoil caused by the immature systems of Parliamentary government and the wreckage and ruin they have left to the unfortunate peoples. Take the case of Syria. The Constitution of Syria under the firm and able guidance of the French had not been going for many months—I will not pledge myself to the extent of time, but for a very brief time—when there was a collision between the elected representatives and the Governor-General, and the Parliament was disrupted and has never again, so far as I know, been able to function. In Palestine, where we are utterly pledged to give a system of representative government, we have never been able even to produce it because of the communal difficulties that confront us there.
Talk about pledges! There is an unredeemed pledge in Palestine, where we are confronted by the very same difficulties as we are in India. Who would think that we were told a little time ago by our leaders that nothing could happen till the communal question was settled in India? We seem to have heard nothing about that lately. It has not been settled, it is more acute than ever before, but we are gaily marching ahead. Take Turkey, Persia or Iraq. In each one of those countries, as in Egypt, there exists nothing but a travesty of Parliamentary government. Such Parliamentary institutions as exist are mere cloaks for autocracy. That is not what we want in India. Nothing could be worse than a sham democracy or a sham Parliamentary government in India. I was glad to hear the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, say that, because to me there is no greater crime than misleading the people of the East into thinking we are giving something which, in fact, we are not.
And may we not, if I may follow the Secretary of State's own thought, still

401
further consider the European picture, whether it be in Germany, Italy, Russia or elsewhere? In facing the great economic and political difficulties that confront them all, what has been their tendency? Not the diffusion of power, but the concentration and centralisation of power into fewer hands, the drawing closer together of Provinces and States under the cloak of a common authority. That has been the tendency in those countries. And yet the Secretary of State advised us to do nothing to weaken the Central Executive. What is he doing? Does he think for a moment, does anybody in either House or any member of the public think, that what we are contemplating doing can possibly strengthen the Central Executive? What is true of Parliaments or authorities within a country is surely equally true of units in a great commonwealth of peoples. Should we not, in face of our common difficulties, be drawing closer and closer together, especially to India, with its vast and overwhelming strategic importance to the whole Empire? My main criticism of the White Paper is that it does not strengthen but definitely weakens the connection between the Mother Country and India.
We are told that this scheme is a scheme of self-government with safeguards. I am afraid I am one of those who feel that there is no reality in democracy unless that democracy has in its hands the powers of law and order. It is dishonest to tell people they have got self-government if they have not got the Police or the Army under their control. The fact is there is no reality in self-government without the transference of law and order, and no security for anybody if you make it. There is the dilemma before you. If I may venture to refer to myself, I think I may say I have had perhaps almost more experience than any other member of your Lordships' House in dealing with the policy of "independence with safe-guards." Quite apart from the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms in India, in whose inauguration I assisted, for the last four years I have been wrestling with the policy of independence with safeguards in Egypt, and if any noble Lord in this House thinks that system is going to bring peace to troubled India I can tell him he will be gravely disillusioned. Nor does Sir Samuel Hoare's assurance that his scheme "is the most complicated
402
scheme that has ever been proposed in any country of the world" alter my view. On the contrary it confirms my fears. The Secretary of State tells us that "safeguards are necessary if stable government is to continue." Put conversely, it means—it can mean nothing else than—that if Indians at this stage are left to govern themselves government will become unstable.
Yet in the same paragraph the Secretary of State boasts that he is going to hand over without safeguards to an Indian Minister—and here I quote him—
"practically every single matter which affects the 230 millions of Indian villagers."
Does it not matter that the Indian ryot should have no stable government? Safeguards for Imperial interests, safeguards here and safeguards there, but no safeguards for all that appertains to stable government for 230 millions of Indian villagers! What is to happen to the whole complex and well worked out famine organisation in India, which, I verily believe, will fall to bits without the assistance of highly expert and loyal officers? What is to become of our vital network of irrigation, of well and tank, catchment and reservoir and all the vital arts of the distribution of water to the people? There are to be no safeguards for these life-giving things; they are to be handed over without a single safeguard. And yet without safeguards, says the Secretary of State, there can be no stable government. I think that is a terrible indictment of our sense of responsibility for the 300 million ryots and helpless people up and down India.
What about the Princes? I feel gravely concerned at what is being done in regard to the Indian States. The Princes' treaties, as I read the White Paper, remain absolute in only two respects, firstly, in regard to the non-transferred powers—and we do not know what those are going to be, they apparently will differ in every State—and secondly, in respect of residuary powers, that is to say, new powers; but all transferred powers are to be subject to the Federal Courts. What does that mean? It means that the solemn treaties and sanads, under which the Princes have enjoyed complete security in their relations with the Crown and under which their treaties and rights have been safeguarded, are all to be given up for a lesser and a much more shadowy

403
security. We must suppose, of course, that their Highnesses are free to accede to Federation or not as they choose, and I earnestly trust that the Government are putting no pressure of any kind upon the Princes to join the Federation. That would indeed be disastrous. I say that, because I think we were all made a little anxious the other day when we saw that free speech even in their Highnesses' own Chamber through the mouth of their own Chancellor was not encouraged, but met with a stern rebuke from the Viceroy. His late Highness the Maharajah of Nawanagar was a Prince with whom I had direct official relations for several years, and I think there is no one in this House who remembers him who will not feel deep sorrow at the story of his last visit to, and departure from, the Imperial capital of Delhi.
Well, it is true, of course, that their Highnesses will have just the amount of security that the seats they occupy in the Upper House in the Federal Legislature will afford them, but I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Irwin, when he comes to reply later on, if he can assure us that this Constitution, if and when it passes, is going to be a Constitution of an absolutely permament character. I do not suppose he can. Professor Keith tells us that Parliament can even alter the Constitution of Ireland in spite of the Statute of Westminster. I do not see what is to prevent noble Lords opposite, if and when they enjoy power again, modifying the Federal Court. I do not see what is to prevent them from giving more seats to Hindu members or from taking some away from the Princes, altering thereby the complete balance of power possibly, and weakening the Princes' position. After all, this is a Socialist measure in origin. The Socialist Party certainly look upon it as only a step. I suppose the noble Lord who sits opposite will scarcely deny that. He would like to develop and expand it. What guarantee is there, therefore, for the Princes in entering this Chamber that they are going to exchange their treaties for any equivalent security? Absolutely none at all.
What is certain is that their subjects who have owed allegiance only to the Princes in the past are now going to have a divided allegiance. I do not know if you have read the Oath of Allegiance which is to be taken in the
404
White Paper by representatives of a State The representative of a State takes this Oath:
"I, A.B., having been appointed a member of this Council [or Assembly] do solemnly swear [or affirm] that, saving the faith and allegiance I owe to [my Prince] I will be faithful and bear true allegiance in my capacity as member of this Council [or Assembly] to His Majesty the King-Emperor of India.…"
I never heard of a more fantastic dualised Oath of Allegiance put before arty Assembly in the history of the world. In my view, State subjects and their Princes will have their positions gravely modified and their security definitely lessened, and, for that reason, I do entreat the Government that they will be careful of inviting the Princes to come into a Federation at this juncture before the autonomous units of the future British Indian States are settled and determined.
I do not want to delay your Lordships by going into all the questions of safeguards, but I think any one who reads Paragraphs 122 to 124 will consider that the commercial safeguards provide a most ineffective security for British trade. In Paragraph 124 you will notice it is actually provided that bounties may be given to Indian trade as against British; and Paragraphs 122 and 123, which discuss the question of discrimination, are highly complex, but give me and the lawyer I consulted no satisfaction at all. We are finally told that we are to rely upon the Army as a safeguard. Well, in Egypt, we had a large occupying Army, and we learned there what the value of the Army was as a safeguard in dealing with day-to-day erosion of a particular position. It is of course of very little value. You cannot march an Army up and down the streets every time some of your safeguards are attacked, for it is by erosion, by a series of minor attacks, no one of them in itself of sufficient importance to warrant the use of armed force, that your safeguards will be undermined.
All through the whole period of Egyptian reform we never found one Egyptian Minister who accepted a single safeguard which we offered when we gave them the policy of 1922. They took the independence, they refused the safeguards. I make a prophecy to-day that you will find in India exactly the same course pursued by the Nationalists

405
there. They will accept whatever they must accept, if they can get, no more, of independence. They will refuse, and always refuse, to accept any safeguard you provide. I do not want to a weary you with the long history from 1922 to 1927 of the way in which Lord Allenby and others as well as myself tried to operate the safeguards and the bitterness which was engendered in the minds of the Nationalists, and the hopeless impossibility of our task. Each time you engender vexation and humiliation, and you get practically nothing of your way. Your position is eroded. It is an impossible policy. "Independence with safeguards" has never operated successfully in any country of the world, and indeed all that happened in Egypt was a long and tragic history of murders and troubles.
May I read what is the reception today of your "independence-with-safeguards" policy by the Nationalists themselves in India? Here is one. Mr. Patel, the late Speaker—the noble Lord, Lord Irwin had intimate official relations with him—obviously a very extreme Nationalist, one of the most extreme, but still likely to be a leader again——
LORD IRWIN: No.
LORD LLOYD: Possibly. The noble Lord cannot prophesy with certainty any more than I can. We have both prophesied wrongly in our time. Mr. Patel is reported as saying:
"As soon as India got anything in the nature of the freedom that Ireland had got, the cards that de Valera had played there to-day would be played in India to-morrow."
You say that is an extremist, but listen to your moderates. One of your most brilliant moderates in India is Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, and this is what he said in a speech at Allahabad on January 18:
"There may be men who may say that the Constitution is not worthy of our acceptance because it falls short of our expectations. To them I will hold up the example of men like de Valera in Ireland and Hitler in Germany. De Valera was not half the nuisance that he is to-day before he entered the Government. Hitler is dying to capture office. It is not only good law but ordinary common sense, I say with all respect, that possession is nine points of the law.?
That is one of the leaders of the Moderate Party on whom you pin your faith. That is the reception which he gives to your policy of independence
406
with safeguards. I venture to prophesy with the certainty of conviction that you will never get that policy accepted by the political leaders in India.
May I ask, in conclusion, how it is we find ourselves where we are to-day? If it is really true that this system of Parliamentary government has brought misery and chaos to every country, if it is really equally true, as the Secretary of State has told us, that we are perfectly free to do what we think best at the present time, how is it at this critical juncture when almost every Treasury in India is depleted and the communal question is grave, that we are proceeding at this pace with so advanced a policy? We are told by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, and Mr. Baldwin made it the main burden of his speech in the House of Commons, that the reason for pursuing this policy is that India has changed. It is a new India, they said, with which we have to deal. That was the only justification I could see put forward in Mr. Baldwin's speech. That is, of course, a matter of opinion. As a matter of fact, I believe that India has changed less in fundamentals than any other country in the East in the last ten years, but I may be wrong. But let us assume that Mr. Baldwin is right and I am wrong and that India has undergone very great change. Surely, it is not going to be said that this enormous and sudden change has taken place since the Simon Commission reported? No one contends that for a single moment. Here is the Report of the Simon Commission which was acclaimed on all sides as a document of unparalleled importance. Its findings on the facts were admitted by everybody to be absolutely impeccable. The recommendations which were based upon it commanded universal respect and a large measure of agreement.
Surely here was the path for a genuine Conservative leader to tread—the path of constitutional progress, carefully plotted and worked out by a Royal Commission representative of all Parties in the State. Yet this masterly and universally acclaimed Report was suddenly flung out without discussion or argument. Why? In deference to Indian political opinion. Moderate opinion in India refused absolutely to accept as a basis for discussion even, a Report which recommended an immense step forward and which based that recommendation upon

407
facts which were never disputed. One hoped that people would come back to the Simon Report, but now even the distinguished author of that Report has decided to discard some of his recommendations. Our leaders went on praising the Report however. We were told it was a mine of accurate and careful information. Its lucidity was such, it was said, that they could not think what they would have done without it. And they put it straight back into the waste-paper basket and asked us to consider proposals which run counter to every premiss the Report contains. I justify that statement by saying this, in case the noble Lord wishes to take that point up. I say it runs counter to every premiss of the Simon Commission Report because if the facts as stated in the Simon Commission Report as to the situation in India were true, then India is certainly not fit for self-government in the measure you are going to give it to-day.
So curious is this phenomenon that it is worth while to examine for a moment why the Government behaved in this extraordinary way. I believe we are going to hear the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, immediately I sit down. I remember that the noble Marquess himself based his change of attitude upon the same reason. Everything changed, he said, when the Princes suddenly decided to come into the Federation. I am not quoting his words but that is about what he said. Let us look at that for a moment, if I am not detaining your Lordships too long. Let us recall for a moment what has happened, and see what validity there is in this contention. The contention, of course, was that the situation was fundamentally altered by the decision of the Princes to enter the Federation. Let us recall what the Commission recommended. The Commission recommended a Federation of All-India as an ultimate goal and autonomous Provinces as the first step towards that goal. As to Federation, the Commission said it was outside their terms of reference, and they could not pronounce upon its possibilities but recommended that it should be investigated. When therefore the Princes accepted the principle of Federation, the logical and the practical conclusion that should have emerged was not to throw
408
over the Simon Commission's Report but to accept it more confidently than ever.
Surely, the one thing upon which the Commission could not pronounce with certainty was the ultimate goal of Indian development, but now that goal was made clear the distant horizon was obvious to everybody. The goal could be clearly envisaged. Autonomous units were to be created which could then agree among themselves and with the autonomous units of Indian States as to the degree of self-government which each. would surrender in order to achieve the strength and unity of Federation. Here was a policy in consonance with the best traditions of Conservatism: a policy of steady and ordered progress to a visible and practicable goal firmly based upon Parliamentary and authorised procedure. You would have thought that this was the ideal moment for a non-Fascist, non-Junker Conservative leader to come in and make everybody happy. But, unfortunately, that did not occur. The slogan of "Safety first" was taken down from the hoardings, and "Don't miss the 'bus" put up in its place. What was the reason for this strange behaviour? We were merely told that the Princes would not enter any Federation or any Government which was wholly in the hands of Whitehall, and this was advanced as an imperative reason for abdicating at once from the Central Government and setting up another Government in its place. Whoever thought for one single moment that the Princes were ever going to abandon their position in favour of a Government in Whitehall? Anybody who knew anything about it knew that it was an entirely irrelevant consideration.
What force could possibly be found in such a reason? Are we to understand that the Princes held a pistol at the heads of the British Government and said: "Federate now or we will never come in at all"? Of course, they never said anything of the kind. If they had the British Government would have had the right answer to it. But, of course, they never made it. When the Princes said "We will enter into Federation," it was implicit enough from the statement that federation would not be controlled entirely by Whitehall. There was no con-

409
ceivable reason, as far as I can see, why that statement should have had any bearing at all upon the existing situation. The whole case for the proposals in the White Paper is, in fact, built upon the foundation of such flimsy and indefensible statements. What we naturally should have suggested to the Princes was "That is splendid, you will now come in and join Federation. Let us now start and give autonomy to the Provinces. You will have the advantage then of coming it a little later when the autonomy in the Provinces is complete. You will see how it is working and then you will put on the splendid coping stone of your allegiance and adherence to the great venture." That is what we normally should have said to the Princes, and they would gladly have waited until the initial steps were taken.
We are now told that everybody is in favour of this new and strange alternative. We are told by the Secretary of State that the European commercial community are enthusiastically in favour of it, that all the Governors are in favour of it, that the Princes endorse it, and the Indian politicians as well. I might say a good deal about the Indian Civil Service view, but I do not want to discuss that As far as I can make out n a one, except quite possibily, some of the European business people, is in favour of it. I do not believe the Indian Princes in any large numbers are in favour, or are anxious for it. They are naturally frightened and they do not know whether to come in or stay out. But if the Government really have all this enormous support behind them why is the Secretary of State despondent? Why did he the other day say he often felt almost hopeless I Why does Mr. Baldwin consider the risks very great? The real explanation is that the Simon Commission Report is still the true Report and still holds the field, and the Government know they only jettisoned it in order to buy Indian political opinion. Indian political opinion wanted more and the Report must be thrown over in order that they might get it.
Those are the real facts, as we all know. Indeed, the Secretary of State said as much. He said there was no chance of political autonomy starting in a reasonable atmosphere of good will if we did not at the same time make proposals to
410
cover the Centre. Now you have made this huge concession what good will have you got? You have anxiety in regard to the Princes, you have definite hostility on the part of Congress. Not one of them will touch the scheme. The, whole Assembly turned it down. Your prestige is less and you are no further advanced on the path than you were before. Quite the contrary There is nothing in recent history or present evidence to warrant the hope that these White Paper proposals will secure that good will which they are designed to secure.
We remember that the sponsors of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms told us that if we passed those reforms we should secure the good will of the politically-minded people of India. We know now that in that respect they failed utterly. We were told the same story about Ireland by the same people. The Milner Mission in Egypt gave us exactly the same assurance with regard to their proposals. "Grave is the sacrifice," they said, "but make that sacrifice. Without good will nothing is worth anything. With good will any machinery will work. Give away your position and you will have the swelling gratitude of all the people that now oppose you. Make the sacrifice, and all will be well." Was all well in Egypt? What happened after the Milner Mission's Report? Never in any country have there been such outbursts of ill will, bitterness, murders, assassination, general decline of government, corruption and the like. Must we not take history into consideration when dealing with so vast a unit as India? Think of the collapse that there will be there. Think of a collapse on the scale of Egypt reproduced in India. Think not only of the effect on the peoples of India but think what would happen to the factories and the workpeople in this country, because the whole standard of civilisation in this country has been founded for 150 years on East-Indian trade. Take away that and where are you? Read your history books about the fall of the Venetian Republics and drop your tear—too late!
The real fact is that by the policy inaugurated by the last Socialist Government we have been lured into desperate straits. I do not say that on any Party considerations. I will say "the last Governments" if you like. It is too big for

411
Party considerations. We have been forced into a position when we must choose between two highly repugnant courses. On the one side there are these proposals for advance which many of us believe—sincerely and deeply believe—are fraught with the very gravest danger alike to the peoples of India and the people of this country. On the other side there is the alternative, equally repugnant, of a sudden change of course which will lay us open to the charge of bad faith and of disappointing the hopes that for four years have been raised in the minds of political India.
We are often told that we are only critics, that we have nothing constructive to offer. May I venture in a few words to try to meet that criticism? I think there is something to be done if only Government will have the courage to do it. There is no doubt in my mind whatever that the right course is to go back to the Simon Commission Report now, to examine it and base our policy on it. That is the constitutional course, that is the honest course, that is the only course likely to give us results. If we adopt that course we shall be doing what is proved right by the facts and by the test of common sense. Some will say that it is impossible. The Government will tell us it is impossible. I do not believe that if we do the right thing with a clear conscience and firm purpose we shall meet with any hostility that need cause us to hesitate or be afraid. But if we fear to face opposition then in heaven's name let us be honest with ourselves and admit the fact. Do not let us pretend any more that the facts are different from what they are, or that real responsibility does not always conflict with real safeguards. It always did, it always will, it always must. You cannot have real responsibility and effective safeguards. It would be better in my judgment to write finis now on the page of our history than to embark on a course which, as our recent history clearly shows, can only end in a series—an ignominious series—of rearguard actions ending in our ultimate surrender. I do believe that this is the honest course and that it is the course which, if followed, would approve itself to the vast majority of your Lordships' House. I believe it may be open to the Joint Select Committee—that it is open to the Committee
412
—to consider any course for the better government of India If I may venture to make a suggestion to those who may be privileged to serve on that Committee it is that the Simon Commission Report, prudently conceived, carefully worked out, and honestly put before the people of the country, is more likely to give us lasting results and the respect of the peoples whom we shall still have to govern and protect.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be of opinion that we have had a most interesting and informative debate during these three days. One of the most interesting reflections upon reading the Report of the debate, especially when one knows the speakers who are to follow, is to realise the wealth of administrative experience and knowledge contained in your Lordships' House. It is particularly interesting to note the part taken in the debate by those who have devoted time and study to Indian affairs. I do not know whether it has struck any of your Lordships that allowing for the two speakers who are to follow me, including the noble Lord, Lord Irwin, who I am very glad to see back in his place, we shall have had twenty-four speakers in the debate. I know that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Ponsonby, will follow me and in what I am about to say I am allowing for that.
Amongst those twenty-four speakers, so far as I am aware, there are only three who have not taken an active part in Indian affairs. All the others are either past Governors or Viceroys—Lord Hardinge, Lord Irwin and myself—or those who have been members of Commissions and Committees. One of the three to whom I refer is my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury I think that he, with Viscount Elibank and Lord Ponsonby, are those who have had no part in Indian administration and have taken no part in Commissions and Committees. I am not for a moment suggesting—I am sure your Lordships would never think that I would suggest—that for that reason we should not listen and weigh carefully what they say. What I do desire to impress upon your Lordships is that we have had during this debate a wealth of experience brought before us

413
and detailed to us by those who have taken part, which is of immense value and which, I would venture to say, shows the strength and capacity of this House for the purpose of debating questions of this character. What I desire to impress upon your Lordships is that that is of very great importance as an outstanding and noteworthy feature of this debate.
We are discussing now the most important problem of the future Constitution of India, and I agree with every word that fell from the noble Marquess in impressing upon us all the responsibility which is upon us, and perhaps not least upon some of us who have taken part in administration and also in the Round-Table Conference; but as I make that observation I would like to say that I thought the noble Marquess was not quite as fair as usual in his references to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. He seemed to infer that the Lord Chancellor had made light of the responsibility and had tried to make the House believe that it was dealing with a perfectly simple matter. If I remember rightly his comment was upon the "facile optimism" of my noble and learned friend. Curiously enough, having made that observation, he went on to point out that the Lord Chancellor wound up by telling us what a risk we were running and that we ought to be most careful because, he said, as the noble Marquess put it, "nothing venture, nothing have."
I cannot think that was quite doing justice to the speech of the Lord Chancellor. I thought that what the noble and learned Viscount had done was, in a very concise manner, to give to your Lordships the picture of the Constitution as it was to be set up by the White Paper within the limits of the period properly allowed for debate in this matter, and that he had not, as far as I could understand, glossed over anything; but I do know this—it is only for this reason that I have ventured to refer to this—that no one can exaggerate the amount of work, thought and devotion that the Lord Chancellor has given to this subject ever since it came up for discussion at the Round Table Conference. All who have been present at the Round-Table Conference have admired him. When the Lord Chancellor began he, like all of us probably at some stage, knew little about India, but he studied the subject and then he took
414
his place as a member of the Government and presided at most of our sittings. I venture to say to the noble Marquess—and I make the observation as one who was present with a number of others, including members of his own Party, throughout something like 150 sittings of the three Conferences—the Lord Chancellor's patience, courtesy and understanding from the beginning to the end contributed almost more than anything, except the agreement which we were able to reach on many points, to the better feeling and to the more cordial regard that Indians had for us and took away from this country to India.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only rise to say that nothing I said, nothing I thought of saying, was an attack upon either the courtesy or the patience of the Lord Chancellor. Of course not Everybody knows that his courtesy is unmatched, and I am quite certain that his courtesy and patience were equally displayed in the Round-Table Conference; but that does not interfere with the burden of the criticism which I offered that he made much too light, as I thought, of the risks we ran and much too much of what I thought to be a grotesque parallel between what happened in the Constitution of England and what is going to happen in the Constitution of India.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am obliged. I never meant to suggest that the noble Marquess had attacked the courtesy and patience of the Lord Chancellor, but I thought something was due to him after the observations that had been made and I thought also that some of your Lordships who had not been present at the Conferences ought to be made aware of the very great services the Lord Chancellor rendered.
May I come back to the problem we are discussing? I want, if your Lordships will permit me, to impress the fact upon you that throughout the whole of this debate from nobody who has spoken—from critics, from opponents, of course I leave out supporters for this purpose, or even from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd has there come the suggestion for one moment that there should be any retrograde movement in regard to India. No one has suggested that there should be merely a policy of stand-still. I do ask your Lordships to bear that in mind.

415
It means that all of us in this House, all the members of this great Assembly, giving all their thought and attention to this question, are agreed that there must be a measure of advance in the government of India. I make that observation not so much because I desire to impress it upon your Lordships or upon the people of this country, but because I am most anxious that India should realise that that is the attitude of this House, which has been depicted as merely the seat of all retrograde movement.
I have shown your Lordships what we are agreed upon to start with—the agreement as to an advance. May I go a step further? We are all agreed—even the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd—that there should be provincial autonomy. Undoubtedly there is a difference of opinion as to whether or not provincial autonomy should include the control and maintenance of the Police, commonly discussed under the term law and order, and I will come back to that; but let me point out another matter of extreme importance on which there is complete agreement, not only in your Lordships' House, but everywhere outside and in India—that what we are anxious above all to bring about is the Federation of All-India; that you should get the whole of India in this one Parliament and bring about what many of us have discussed again and again and thought was merely a dream, making it effective in a practical proposal. Therefore I come to this—that the only questions at issue at this moment are questions of pace and degree; nothing else is involved in the matter we are now discussing.
I agree those questions are very important. I am not belittling them. I am not anxious to make light of them. Those who have had to bear the responsibility of administration in India will never make light of the difficulties. I do not make light of them. I know them well. I know how baffling and perplexing they sometimes are, and I know equally that with patience and determination on our part in the right policy—conciliation, as far as you can, but with firmness in regard to everything you think essential—we shall come through and shall succeed in India in the future as we have in the past.
Let me call attention, to this one fact, and I do not wish to delay your Lord-
416
ships in discussing historical matters. Why is it that we have arrived at this stage? How is it that at this moment, in spite of everything, we are all agreed in this House that there must be advance? It is idle for the noble Lord who last spoke to speak as if everything was in the melting pot, as if we must go back, as if all measures of reform which we are discussing, and particularly those which involve any responsibility of government, should be discarded. It is idle to discuss that. We have already a system of government in force in India under the 1919 Act which gives certain rights. The reason why we are now agreed that advance has to be made is partly the condition of India and all that we know has happened. I will not go back to history, but there are the contributions of India to the War, India sitting in the War Cabinet, India signing the Treaty of Peace and the Covenant of the League of Nations, India attending the Imperial Conferences, signing the Ottawa Treaty, taking her part and coming to arrangements like the rest of the Dominions; and then eventually we have to take into account that great work of the Simon Commission and the three Round-Table Conferences, and the Committees, the Commissions and inquiries that have been instituted. The result of all this is to bring us to this point, that we are all agreed there must be an advance.
Now I will proceed to discuss the two questions which are really the vital questions in, this matter. One is whether law and order, that is, the Police, should be transferred to the Provinces, and the other is whether there should be responsibility at the Centre. May I just draw attention to one fact which sometimes is forgotten in the discussion? The Simon Commission has reported upon the transfers, and has recommended that law and order should be transferred. As I understand it, with some few exceptions, there is general agreement on that subject. Almost the last words uttered by the last speaker was a recommendation to the Government that they should stand by the Simon Commission. I understand that to mean that we should adopt the Simon Commission's Report, especially in relation to provincial autonomy. Is that right?
LORD LLOYD: It is not quite right. What I intended to convey was that I should like to make the Simon Commission the main basis of the whole of our examination. I do not say that I accept every detail of the Simon Commission Report.
TEE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not think the noble Lord quite followed what I was saying, or perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. I am not suggesting for one moment that he said the whole of the Report should be accepted. What I was dealing with was provincial autonomy, and what I understood from the statement he made was that we should accept the Simon Report in regard to provincial autonomy. That means the transfer of all that is remaining of provincial subjects to the Provincial Governments. Your Lordships are aware that a great many of these subjects have already been transferred. The only really important one that remains to be transferred, to complete provincial autonomy, is what is usually termed law and order. Everything else, except land revenue, as to which no difficulty arises—everybody agrees it should be transferred—has been transferred, and the sole matter which remains open is law and order.
Lord Lloyd was Governor of one Province and Lord Lytton and Lord Zetland of others during my time. They were well aware of what was happening, and were well aware that there were these Transferred Subjects. All that will happen when you make over the rest of your subjects, assuming you make them all over to the Provinces and give them provincial autonomy, is in truth that you will be giving them law and order and land revenue. I understand that Lord Lloyd does not take the view of those with whom one generally associates him, in the matter of law and order, and I am glad of it—thought from his experience that he would not, and that is why I asked a question as to his ultimate view, and I understand from him quite clearly that he accepts the recommendations of the Simon Report with regard to provincial autonomy, which means the transfer of law and order. Lord Lloyd differs, as I have said, from others with whom one generally associates him in this matter, because they have objected altogether to the transfer of law and order.
418
I can quite understand that one who has had experience of administration will realise what it means if you have complete transfer to the Provincial Government and yet leave the Police segregated in a special corner of their own. They will be subject to bitterness and every reproach, and placed in an impossible position.
LORD LLOYD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but it is an important point, and I would like to make my position clear. He has stated my view perfectly correctly, provided that he will not forget the dilemma which I sketched to the House—namely, that I believed there was no reality unless you transferred, but I feared there would be no security if you did; and therefore, while I believe in the main that you have got to hand over law and order in the Provinces, it makes me doubly sure that the policy of devolution at the Centre at the same time is very dangerous.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I quite realise that the noble Lord meant to make exceptions to the Simon Report, but assuming you make your transfer under the Simon Commission's Report there were two conditions imposed. One was that there should be a European Minister appointed for the purpose. I do not believe a single supporter could be found for that proposition at the present moment. In saying that I was thinking of the opinion of the Indian Governors who have been requisitioned on the matter, and I understand that all have been against it. I am quite convinced that that would be an impossible situation, and that you could not speak of provincial autonomy and at the same time say that there was a European Minister appointed by the Government, in a responsible Legislature, who was to have the control of the Police and all that is involved in that matter. I pass from that. I think it was the noble Marquess who said that there was not so much importance to be attached to that proposition.
The other, which no doubt is more important, is this. The Simon Commission stated that whatever was done when this transfer was made it was subject to there being no substantial change in the responsibility at the Centre. The whole

419
question turns upon that. That was the position when the Simon Commission reported. Up to that moment everybody who had studied Indian government questions had been hoping that one day there would be an Indian Federal Legislature and a Federal Government. We had all played with the idea. None could give effect to it because none of us could, of course, force the Princes' hands. None of us could even raise it; it was entirely a matter for them. I will explain in a moment why. That was the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Irwin, in a Despatch of the Government of India, or some other document, carefully said, in discarding this as a matter for practical discussion, that it was a dream, it was not practical at that moment. Nobody thought that it was coming. Certainly I did not. The Simon Commission, however, composed of members of all Parties, were evidently very much impressed with the great importance of securing the Federation of All-India, and they devoted a certain amount of time to discussing the subject. It does not emerge so much in the Report because it was not included in the matters upon which they were asked to report. But they came to the conclusion that it was necessary to ask the Princes to attend the Round-Table Conference which was about to take place, in order that the Princes should have the opportunity of expressing their views on the various subjects that would come up for discussion. Then they wound up the Report by pointing out that in all that they were recommending they had their minds upon Federation, and that no steps that were taken to carry out their Report should interfere in any way with Federation, but that they should all be conditioned by Federation when it happened.
Then came the Round-Table Conference, and there were some hundreds of us, the majority Indians. The Indian Princes for the first time made the dramatic announcement that they were willing to enter into Federation—not binding themselves of course, because they did not know the conditions, but definitely proposing that there should be a Federal Government for All-India, in which they were ready to take their part. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, seemed to think that we must have been perfectly crazy to be impressed with that. I bow to him. He may be a very much better
420
judge of what is being said by the Princes and what it all means. But those of us who were sitting in this room, some hundreds of us, and including the most distinguished politicians of India, who have very subtle brains—even, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, perhaps as subtle as his own—were deeply impressed by it. I confess that my natural caution—perhaps my training as a lawyer, or it may be my experience as a Judge, or perhaps because I feared the gifts that the Greeks were bearing—made me refrain from observation at the moment, but it did not prevent a glow in my heart when I heard it. The Princes went on to say very quickly, having made that announcement, that they wished us definitely to understand—this was first said by the Maharajah of Bikaner and repeated within a day or two by the Maharajah of Patiala, who happened to be Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes and spoke officially at that moment, and repeated again by numbers of others throughout our Conference—that the one condition that they made and insisted upon was that there should be a change in the system of Government at the Centre, and that they would only consent to Federation if responsibility were granted at the Centre.
I admit that to me that was a very great surprise. I did not expect that the Princes would take that view. I was sitting near to the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, and I think we exchanged our expressions of astonishment at the time. It was a surprise to me that the Indian Princes, who were so determined to retain their allegiance to the Crown and to make it, if possible, more intimate than it had been, and were demanding that they should be put under the aegis of the Viceroy and not of the Governor-General in Council, should take up that attitude. I pondered it, and the conclusion I came to, which I believe was the true conclusion, was first that they were dissatisfied with the government of India as it was then being administered, that they thought there ought to be a change, but, above all, that they remembered that they were Indians and were asking that this responsibility should be transferred to Indians instead of its being entirely in the hands of the British, who were controlling it from some thousands of miles away.

421
I happened to be at that time the leader of the. Liberal Parliamentary delegation, and it took some time for us to think about it and discuss it, but eventually we came to a definite conclusion. It was discussed with all the leaders of our Party who were not members of the delegation to the Round-Table Conference, and as a consequence I announced a policy which we were ready to adopt, which was substantially that we were prepared, provided that there was Federation, to grant responsibility at the Centre, subject to safeguards, provided again that the safeguards were effective. Bearing in mind, as I do, that this matter has to go before a Joint Select Committee, anybody who is a member of that Committee must keep an open mind and hoar all arguments that may be adduced, either for or against, remembering also that the Bill when it is fashioned must come up before this House but having said that, nothing that has happened from beginning to end since that announcement was made has caused me to depart one hair's-breadth from what I said then. I thought then that it was right, and still cannot help saying that there is a policy—of course I am not suggesting a. policy explained by me, but a policy which is now in the White Paper, after much discussion and formulation by Governments, many inquiries, and most anxious consideration—there is a policy in the White Paper which is the basis of a new Constitution, and which in substance I am prepared to adopt.
Reserving any consideration or elaboration that may be necessary—details are net completely filled in; all sorts of questions will come up for discussion no doubt when the Bill comes before us—I do not propose to discuss to-day at any length the details of the various proposals which are made. All I desire is to ask your attention to one or two of the very important points that have been raised. It is said, and particularly by the noble Lord who last spoke, how ridiculous it is to have a Constitution with responsibility and safeguards included. Well, is it? I should really like to ask any constitutional lawyer or any student of constitutional history, or any one who has taken the trouble really to examine the development of Constitutions, whether he can point to a single Constitution which has been put, into a Statute which has not some safeguards. I do not know
422
of any. I have always understood they were necessary, that they were essential. It is not so much because you are distrusting those to whom you are granting responsibility that you include the safeguards. It is very often because you want to keep the confidence of the people who were parties with you in making over the responsibility.
Let me illustrate what I mean. Take, for example, the important question of sterling loans, made on the invitation of the Secretary of State, legally, of course, upon the responsibility of the finances of India. They are a trustee security, subscribed and taken up by all those who are investors in gilt-edged securities. These people have lent their money. Supposing you transfer finance to the new Government, the question would immediately arise in these people's minds, that is, the minds of the lenders: "Where do we stand"? I pass over the question of whether or not the Secretary of State could be made responsible. That has often been discussed, though I should have thought legally he is not responsible. The real point is that the lender who has parted with his money does not want finance transferred to India, because he thinks that his security is lessened inasmuch as those who are going to administer the finances of India will be able to deal with the revenues, dispose of them as they please, and the lenders may think perhaps some revolutionary Party will come into power which might even refuse to pay the interest. It is not remarkable they should think so in view of some wild observations which were made at one of the meetings of Congress. Is it not apparent that you must have a safeguard for that, and you must introduce some system by which it becomes clear that the service of the loans, that is the interest on the debt, the Sinking Fund payments and redemption at maturity, the taking up of a short-term debt, and the finding of all the sterling that may be required will be met and without difficulty, so that the obligation is upon the Government to draw this money and to pay it out? It has not to be voted. So you have this safeguard that it is entirely outside the control of the Indian Parliament, and if they choose to say: "We are not going to pay," they could not withhold payment. That of course is an essential safeguard, and I should have thought

423
it did not require discussion. I only quote that as an example of a safeguard, and I shall not refer to the others.
I want just to deal with the divisions there are in the powers. It is true the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, wrote a very important letter to The Times dealing with the powers of the Viceroy. The great point he made was that it was not possible for anyone to discharge all the functions which would fall upon the Viceroy under the conditions of this White Paper. I know the noble Marquess has had important duties to perform, but I can assure him that if he had had to perform the duties of Viceroy he certainly would not think that the duties would be any greater under the new system than they are under the present system. There are three ex-Viceroys in this Chamber, and I do not suppose any one of them will accept the view that the responsibilities now to be conferred on the Viceroy will be so great that he will not be able to undertake them. I read the letter of the noble Marquess with some surprise for that reason. He referred, among other things, to "gladiatorial combats"—a picturesque phrase which we are accustomed to get from one of his literary capacity; but "gladiatorial combats" was rather a strange expression to use with regard to what is to happen in the future. I could not help thinking it had never occurred to my noble friend that just these events which he describes in this picturesque phrase are events which have been occurring constantly during the last twelve years.
After all, I have been away from India now for seven years, and I am almost an old-stager, but even so I was the inaugurator of the new Constitution as introduced in 1921. My noble friend will remember we often had to discuss points that arose upon it, and these very difficulties did arise. I have had actually to "certify," as it was called, a Budget—indeed two out of the five that were passed in my time—these Budgets being the Finance Bills which were introduced into and thrown out by the Legislative Assembly, which refused to pass them. It is true the Council of State passed the Budget but the consequence was I was put into this position as Viceroy. I want to make it clear, because of a passage in the letter of the noble Marquess, that it is in no sense the
424
responsibility of the Viceroy's Council; it is the responsibility of the Viceroy, the Governor-General. He then recommends the Bills to be passed, and if a Bill is not passed, as it was not in two instances at any rate with me, the Governor-General certifies it, and from that moment it becomes the law of the land, the taxes are collected—and they were collected—just in the same way as if the Bill had been passed in the ordinary course by the two Chambers without any difficulty. Those are events which are taking place. I was not conscious in India at that time that I was taking part in a gladiatorial combat.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: If the noble Marquess will forgive my interrupting him, the Viceroy will not have the Executive Council behind him as he has at present. If the noble Marquess will study Paragraphs 35, 36, and 37 carefully he will see that the Viceroy will be very much more in the limelight in the future than in the past.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I point out in regard to the observation just made that the Viceroy will not have the Executive Council behind him, that he has not now, under the present system, the Executive Council behind him. It is quite a mistake to think that is so. I remember several occasions when I had to make use of the powers which are entrusted to the Viceroy. Whenever I had to consult my Council, and I agree I did at times, I told them definitely in terms: "You can give your advice or not as you please. Whatever you say will never be conveyed to anybody, but the responsibility is mine, and I shall act as I think right, whatever you may say, because the duty is imposed upon me, and not upon me as Governor-General in Council, which means that it is the personal responsibility of the Viceroy." My noble friend Lord Irwin has had to deal with matters in the same way and he will agree that that is his experience.
May I take another instance in passing, that of the Ordinance? An Ordinance issued by a Viceroy, may I say, almost staggered me when I first discovered I had the power to do it. I do not think I knew it when I went there, and when an occasion arose and I had to look for the Statute, with my bringing up as a Liberal it was a little startling to find that I had the power to issue an

425
edict, an Ordinance as it is called, under the Statute, which could override the law of the land and every Statute passed in the land, which had the force of a Statute and could not be discussed in the Assembly or in the Legislature unless I chose to allow it. It remained the law for six months. We know from what has happened during isle time since I left—but it never happened in my time—that after that six months had expired another Ordinance had to be issued. Of course, these are very exceptional powers, and they are only necessary in cases of great emergency. I remember the first time it happened to me to resort to them was on the occasion of the rebellion in Malabar. I had to declare Martial Law. But there have been other instances, in fact there have been a great many since. All I desire to point cut in dealing with the Ordinance is that that again is the responsibility of the Viceroy and Governor-General, or the Governor-General to use strict legal phraseology, but of course it is the same person.
One final instance I will give to point out what the duties are and what they have been, certainly ever since this Act of 1919 has been in force. Even though the majority of the Executive Council—the equivalent of the Cabinet of the Viceroy—is against him, if the Governor-General thinks it is essential either for the peace or tranquillity of India or in the interests of India, that he should override them all, not only is he entitled to do it, but, under the law, he is bound to do it, because the obligation is placed upon him of determining and doing what he thinks right in the circumstances. There again not only has he not the Executive Council behind hint, but he has a majority against him. I bring this to your Lordships' notice because I do want to stress this point. In the position which you are creating for the Governor-General under the new system there is no real difficulty. I agree that there is a tremendous responsibility, but as one who has held the office, may I say that its greatest attraction is that very burden of responsibility which is placed upon the Governor-General, and the power which is given to him to implement the decisions he chooses to take. It means nothing more than this, that when emergencies arise, when conditions exist in which it becomes necessary for him to take action, he has the power
426
to take it, and he ought to do so; indeed, he is bound to do so.
These proposals place no greater burden upon him than he has now. The only relief that I concede to him is that he will be relieved of a great many of the matters which are now brought to him in his daily ordinary occupation—matters brought to him for the purpose of getting his orders, as must happen in India before anything of importance takes place. He has to deal with all the affairs of Departments. Ministers and secretaries of Ministers are coming to him constantly for orders. He will be relieved of a very great deal of that. He will not have that to do as his daily work, because there will be a Cabinet there. I cannot myself see that he will be in a worse position than now, especially when you bear in mind that he is to have three counsellors, who are to be his counsellors responsible to him, unfettered in their responsibility to him. They will be there to advise him in the different Departments in which he has to take decisions, so that he is not left without counsel. He has special advisers of his own. He has also the assistance of a financial adviser. May I point out that he is not bound to take part in a Cabinet if he does not so choose? Certainly, as I understand the position, it would be the consequence of this White Paper becoming law that the Viceroy and Govornor-General will remain the head of the Executive in India. There can be no question that, as the head of the Executive, he is entitled to have the right, whenever he deems it possible, to preside at Cabinets, notwithstanding that the Cabinet is responsible to the Legislature and is no longer in the position of being merely responsible to him and to Parliament here.
That is the position. But in addition he has these various duties. It was asked among other things: How can he attend to the affairs of the Political Department or of the Foreign Department'? I would point out, to show how little is being added in this respect, that at present the Viceroy is the Minister of the Foreign Political Department. There is no Foreign Minister who sits in the Viceroy's Cabinet, commonly called the Executive Council. There is no Political Minister sitting in the Political Department. That is the Department which deals with the Police and the Princes and the affairs of

427
the ruling States, a very important Department. There is no Minister there, because the Viceroy himself acts as his own Minister for both foreign and political matters. It is right I should say, for the purposes of accuracy, that up to the present moment, although the Viceroy is Minister for the Political Department, the matters constitutionally are decided by the Governor-General in Council, that is by the Viceroy That is how it works in practice. I am sure I am not giving away any secrets, for I have said it over and over again in India, when I say that nearly all these matters are decided by the Viceroy himself and only upon any question that he thinks of great importance does he consult the Council. What is now desired by the Princes—and it will be done if the proposals in the White Paper take effect—is that that should be simplified. All these questions will be dealt with by the Viceroy. The Cabinet—that is, the Ministers responsible to the Legislature—will have nothing to do with the question. That is what the Princes have asked and what is conceded. It really adds nothing to the work of the Viceroy because he has been doing it for a number of years and is doing it at the present moment.
That being so, may I ask your Lordships to consider another point? It. has been said on various occasions—the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said it to-day—that the communal trouble is worse now than ever. I wondered what the authority was for that statement. I do not mean for a moment to say that the communal trouble has disappeared—nobody has suggested that—but the Communal Award has been made by the Government and we know that that Award has been accepted. I will not say it has been accepted with pleasure, but it has been accepted and is being worked as far as I can gather. It is meant to be only a temporary Award. It was given by the Government with great reluctance, leaving it open to the parties whenever they choose to come to an agreement which would take the place of the temporary Award. I really do not understand what is the foundation for the statement made to your Lordships that the communal trouble never was worse or greater than it is at the present moment.
May I conclude on this part of the matter by asking you to remember that
428
Federation is essential to the whole matter we are discussing? I have myself always made it a condition of granting responsibility to the Centre that there should be Federation. Federation depends in the main, of course, upon the Princes. If the Princes do not choose to enter into this new scheme, of course we cannot force them. Your Lordships will appreciate the reason for that. The Princes are independent ruling sovereigns. That is their legal status. It is true there are limitations upon the sovereignty, but that nevertheless is their political position. They have treaties with the Crown and the result is that we cannot force them. In their position of Rulers they would have to be agreeable to any proposal and consequently would have to enter into Instruments of Accession. It is no use speculating upon what would be the result. All I will say is that it would be extremely regrettable if the Princes, after the pronouncements they have made and the work they have entailed upon this country and upon India, nevertheless do not agree to enter into Federation in sufficient numbers to enable us to start this scheme. No one will suggest that pressure should be brought to hear upon them. It is a matter for themselves. But it is not we, it is not the Government or the British people who initiated this idea. It is the Princes' who did it and the Princes who are responsible, and they will have to understand in consequence if Federation fails that failure is caused by them.
Now may I say in conclusion that throughout the whole of this discussion what has struck me very much is that it has been assumed that always in the future we are to have exactly the same kind of difficulties as have happened in the past If I understood the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, they assumed that we are going to have a constant conflict between the authorities who administer the safeguards and those who are entrusted with responsible government. I venture to say that that is really quite a wrong picture to present. If it happens, then I agree the whole thing is a failure. What I have assumed, and I think what the Indians who will have to world this scheme have realised, is that they cannot go on as things have been

429
going on. They feel now that something must be done and of course they want both responsibility in the Provinces and responsibility with safeguards at the Centre. If they once get that they know well that their attention will have to be concentrated upon carrying on their own domestic affairs.
At the end of my time in India, when I had leisure for a short while to reflect upon all that had taken place there during that very active And sometimes very acutely troublesome period full of anxieties, I remember well saying to myself again and again that if only we had not been so hampered by this constitutional question and agitations throughout the whole of the period we might have been able to do something to improve the conditions of the ryot, something to improve the social welfare of the poorer people in India, something to make these unfortunate poorer people more contented and happy. I confess that I have always regretted that it did not fall to my lot to have the opportunity of devoting time and attention to that subject. I am perfectly certain from what I know of my noble friend Lord Irwin, that he must have had exactly the same feeling at the end as I had. Now, if we succeed, if we carry through a measure of this kind, I do believe that we shall have an opportunity of directing attention more to the condition of the people of the country during a period in which the Indian population will cease to be agitating all the time for constitutional reform.
The picture as I see it is quite different from that depicted to you. I see this Cabinet getting to work, a Cabinet headed by someone from the Party which has the largest number of votes, entrusted with the formation of a Ministry. I see him getting his Ministry together and going to the Legislature to deal with the various questions which arise. During the greater part of the time there will be no question of safeguards. The question of safeguards will only arise if an attempt is made to break away from the constitutional position. Take, if you please, the question of the Army of which so much has been said. I cannot go into a detailed discussion of it now because there is not time. The money required for the Army does not have to be voted at all under the present
430
system. The Viceroy has the power to draw it. He has his Commander-in-Chief and his own Council with regard to it. What is contemplated, and what I hope will happen, is that there will be discussion with the Cabinet. That is to say, that the Viceroy's advisers, his Council, will not keep within a water-tight compartment and have nothing to do with the Cabinet that is appointed. They have different responsibilities, it is true, but they will try to get together to work together in the interest of India—those counsellors responsible to the Viceroy and those counsellors responsible to the Legislature—and if they do that these difficulties will, in the main, not emerge at all. Most of the safeguards put in are for the purpose of meeting emergencies in case they should arise. In most Constitutions where you have safeguards you hear little of them afterwards because, once there, they limit the powers of Parliament and consequently delimit the constitutional powers entrusted to Ministers.
I believe the system will work. I look forward to a much happier time than some who have addressed your Lordships. I believe that if we can carry out this Federation and get this new system of government adopted—I do not mean exactly as is suggested in the White Paper, but subject to the wisdom of Parliament when Parliament has had time and opportunity to examine the Report from the Joint Select Committee—we shall have taken a tremendous step in advance. I do not hesitate to call it that—a tremendous step which will give Indians the hope that they may be able to manage their domestic affairs, nevertheless remaining in partnership with the British Empire, and I believe they will come to take as much pride in that as we take in recalling, as I never fail to do during times of great anxiety, what we have achieved in India. I believe this vast Continent with its population of 353,000,000, which has been governed, administered, guided, into the paths of rectitude and incorruptibility, with justice administered according to British ideals, will take pride in the association just as we take pride in what we have done. I recall that in those 353,000,000 people there are less than 200,000 British, counting all officers, soldiers, civil servants, men, women and children, and that with these small

431
numbers we have managed through 170 years to govern India and to bring it to its present condition. I do venture to say to your Lordships that if you remember all that that means, the truth will be impressed upon you, as it always has been upon me, that it is not the armed force, which is and must always be the ultimate recourse in case of trouble, that really has given you your power in India, but the character of the British people who have been there—their reputation for honesty, for fair dealing, for justice properly administered, and for carrying out any promises which they may have given.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should certainly not have ventured to intervene in this debate if I had been left to my own inclinations and had it not been for the official position which I have the honour to hold in your Lordships' House. The noble Marquess who has just sat down, analysing the speakers in this very important debate, was able to discover only three who were not closely associated with Indian affairs. He labelled me as one of the three. Now I find myself sandwiched between two ex-Viceroys. It is a difficult position, but there is this to be said—that an ordinary member of your Lordships' House without special acquaintance of an intimate or expert nature with this problem has at the same time a great responsibility. So has the ordinary member of the House of Commons, and those of your Lordships who have served in another place, and there are many, know that that responsibility was difficult to discharge owing to the lack of interest which was so conspicuously shown in Indian affairs.
Members of the House of Commons know quite well that the debate on India, which only takes place once annually, is not a debate which is attended by any large number of members. Yet all the time we have had this great responsibility and in these days, of course, a very much larger number of members of our two Legislative Assemblies have been forced to take a very close interest in the problem as it now presents itself. I have sat through this debate and, while the noble Marquess has classified those who have spoken as those who have knowledge and experience of Indian affairs and those who have not, may I in passing make
432
another classification which is a comment upon the speeches of the three younger members of your Lordships' House—one on the Front Bench opposite and two on the Back Benches—because I think those speeches were as good contributions to the debate as any that were delivered?
As we look back upon the past we are able to see the mistakes that have been made. As far back as 1865 John Stuart Mill said:
"A free country which attempts to govern a distant Dependency inhabited by a dissimilar people by means of a branch of its own Executive will almost inevitably fail."
Our consciousness of the possibility of failure has been shown by our attempts in the last fifty years to adjust matters in such a way as to give India a greater share in her own government.
The Party which I have the honour to represent in your Lordships' House has decided to serve on the Joint Select Committee mainly for three reasons. In the first place, it is obviously the duty of the Parliamentary Opposition to take its share in a Parliamentary stage, which this is, of the gradual evolution of a Bill brought before Parliament. Secondly, we feel that the presence of our members on the Joint Select Committee may be of assistance to the Government when they are being pulled very much towards the Right direction—I mean Right as distinguished from Left, not as distinguished from wrong, and that is important, because I notice that the Government are in far greater fear of the pull from the Right than they are of the pull from the Left.
That brings me to the third reason why we have determined to join in the Committee. Our presence there is of importance. It is of exactly equal importance to the presence of the Government itself, and it is of far greater importance than the presence of any group, either of the Right or the Left, and for this reason, that we represent, although it may seem strange to your Lordships for the moment, the future Government of this country. Nobody would laugh at that, because we know that a perpetual or eternal Government is something which has never happened. That being the case, we shall find ourselves confronted with this problem, because it is not going to be settled at the termination of the sittings of this Joint Select Committee. There is a long road to

433
travel yet. In the course of time a Labour Government will find itself with the burden of this great responsibility upon it, and it is only right that it should take its share in the deliberations which are taking place now. May I say in passing that I hope the Government will bear in mind that, considering what the responsibility of the Opposition is, they must have full and adequate representation on that Committee?
Of the speeches, to which I have listened with the greatest attention and the greatest care, and which have been of intense interest, even the most critical have not produced an alternative. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, did say he was going to tell us his alternative at the end of his most effective speech, but really when it came to the alternative it amounted to nothing more than going bank to the Simon Commission Report I really cannot believe that that can he seriously put forward as an alternative to-day. There have been criticisms, and some damaging criticisms, but no one has pretended that he has a solution of this very crucial problem up his sleeve. It is baffling. We have had to write down a Constitution on paper. I should like to say a word with regard to Lord Salisbury's speech but he has just left the House. He made some remarks in his speech with regard to the folly of comparing this Constitution that we are discussing with the British Constitution, and with regard to the British Constitution he said: "It moves," that is to say Works. We all admit that, but put the British Constitution into a White Paper: it would not get a Second Beading in this House or the House of Commons
Constitution making is a very difficult business. You have got to construct a frame, a skeleton, you have then to clothe it with flesh and blood, and even then you have not done your task, because the best of all schemes, the most watertight of all Constitutions, the most carefully drafted in all its details of schemes, will not operate unless there is 1 spirit in it which gives the people to whom it is accorded a desire that it, should work. Our Constitution works because we desire that it should work, not because it is a good one. Take, for instance, the rules of procedure in this House, which I venture to think are extremely good and businesslike. I do not
434
think they are written down anywhere. They are accepted by consent, and we get through our business in that way, but attempt to write them down and you will find your difficulties and criticisms impossible. That is why I do not think it is entirely fair to think that you come to the end of your business when you write down your Constitution, and I do not think it is entirely fair to take out this or that clause and to say this or that will not work, and therefore this Constitution is of no use at all. You have got to look beyond that.
Some people have referred to the move as a leap in the dark. It may be the dark, but it certainly is not a leap. We never leap. That is one of the great characteristics of the British race. We do not leap. We go very quietly forward, step by step, and what we have to take care of in this connection is to see that the steps we do take are in the right direction. I really think that the criticism that we are going too fast, the criticism that our steps are too rapid, is really unfounded, when one thinks of the stages that have already been gone through and the stages which are in front of us, which must operate for at least two or three years.
Much has been said of our contacts with the Indians. The contacts of our administrators and of our soldiers are obvious enough; the contacts of finance, of commerce, economical contacts, are also often referred to; but what are not sufficiently often referred to are the intellectual contacts. We are talking as if the people in India, of their own initiative, were making certain demands. We have been teaching them to make those demands for a number of years. My old college at Oxford, Balliol, is responsible for turning out scores of Indians who are saturated with the idea of Western institutions. Are we going to turn to them now and say: "Oh, you must not have that, it is only for us," when they have been studying our text books and our constitutional histories, and pouring the knowledge of the West into themselves, and, with their cager intelligence, assimilating it, and have gone home to spread the news that Parliamentary and constitutional institutions are a good method of government for a country? Are we going to say to them: "Your time is

435
not yet; you are not up to it; it is only for us"? We must remember that we have taught them to make this demand, and now we cannot in all justice refuse them.
Then it is said that this is the wrong moment, when representative Parliamentary institutions are falling and dictatorships being set up. I have drawn attention to that fact more than once, but I really would also emphasise this fact, that these dictatorships that we see in the world to-day, whatever country we look upon—there are a good many of them—are in their very nature only episodes. However much we may look with anxiety at the operation of a dictatorship in one country or another, there is something which we regard with very much more anxiety, and that is the inevitable termination of that dictatorship, because it must end with the life of the dictator. Then comes the chaos, then comes the confusion, then comes the revolution and the strife. A dictatorship is not a form of government that can ever be durable. We may look with regret on what is going on in so many countries of Europe to-day, but we know in our own minds that it is only a matter of years when they will fall back once again on what seems now to be going through a severe trial—the representative institutions which will allow an intelligent people to bear its share in the government of its country.
A good deal has been said with regard to whether this scheme will work. Expectations, it is said, may be raised too high; will this very complicated machine work smoothly? We cannot tell. But the smooth working is not really the point. I think it was Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman who once said that "good government is no substitute for self-government," and I believe that is perfectly true. There is no doubt about it that Indians will have to work out their salvation for themselves, with ups and downs, and we cannot have people wringing their hands directly there is trouble and saying "We told you so," as I think the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said with regard to Ireland. Ireland is going through an episode. Ireland has to work out its salvation for itself. In our brief little span of life here when we see things going wrong in a country, surely we must keep our
436
sense of proportion and remember that the life of a country extends far into the future and that there is great hope of revival when we are in a depression.
No, do not let us say that smooth working or immediate success of this machine is to be expected, or very much to be desired. What we want is to see that the foundations are truly laid, and that not too much account is taken of the facade of the structure. We want to see the foundations well laid. And that is where I want to make one or two criticisms. I read this White Paper through directly it came out with the greatest possible attention. It is a very difficult document to absorb, because constitution making in itself requires a draftsman's knowledge, a constitutional lawyer's knowledge, and in this case a knowledge of India and its problems. But what occurred to me as I read it through was that the emphasis was wrong. The emphasis seemed to be all on the safeguards, and not sufficiently on the grant of self-government. We seem to be taking away with one hand whatever we give with the other, and I think that that has been noticed very much by Indian opinion. The noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, said in his interesting speech that bold advance was better than over-caution, and the noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin, in the admirable speech he made to-day, went so far as to say that if you are going to do it at all do it in the grand manner. I feel certain that he is right. This stiffening up of the Constitution in so many directions is due, I think, to fear of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and those who follow them. I think the Government are genuinely frightened of them and want to placate them, and that note is noticeable in the proposals of the White Paper.
I want very quickly to go through and emphasise once more our attitude towards these proposals. The most important point is that we want to see the promise of Dominion status implemented. We want to see a culmination and a hope given that at a certain date and in certain contingencies Dominion status will be accorded to India. At present that is not mentioned. The date for the establishment of a Federal Government seems to be indefinitely postponed. I would draw your Lordships' attention to a phrase used by the Secre-

437
tary of State for India in the Conference on December 24 last when he was answering Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru:
"Let me also say to you [said Sir Samuel Hoare] we do not intend to inaugurate any kind of provincial autonomy under conditions which might leave Federation to follow on as a mere contingency in the future. We shall, as I say, between now and the passage of the Bill do everything in our power—here I am speaking, I think, not only for the British Government but for the British delegation as a whole—to remove any obstacle that may at present stand in the way of the Federation coming into being at as early a date as possible."
That is not reflected actually in the White Paper, but that assurance of the Secretary of State is important. We consider that there is too much limitation of the powers of the Legislature, and the fact that a Bill can be stopped in its initiation seems to be going too far. But if that power is given it ought to be given for a limited period only. We believe that the safeguards are liable to nullify the responsibility. The whole of the machinery of safeguards ought to be used for adjusting differences, and not thwarting any progressive move.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, made a reference to the Government of Egypt, should not like to have made the remark I was going to make unless he had been here. He emphasised a good deal in his speech the analogy between What had taken place in Egypt and what might take place in India, hut may I very respectfully say to him that the unfortunate years through which Egypt passed have not been a proof of the failure of representative Parliamentary institutions, but they have been an instance of the wrong and maladroit operation of the safeguards? Therefore I think it is not in the institution that we shall find that there is very much to alter, but that in the safeguards we may find ourselves tripped, and we may find a. conflict which will produce friction between the Governor-General and the Legislatures of the Provinces.
Filially, I should like among those points I am emphasising to say how much I desire to support the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, in his plea that the woman's franchise question should be reconsidered. No words of mine can add to the force of his remarks. We know that the desire of the educated women in India to see their sex freed from the often disastrous bends of degradation to
438
which they are now subjected is one that should be listened to, and the recommendations which the noble Marquess made when he was on that Committee should, I think, be listened to. I think that above all this we desire to launch this policy with the best possible feeling. I would plead with the Government that they should consider once more in the course of these coming months, while this is being discussed, the question of the release of the political prisoners. I think that that is a very important point. You want to get the right atmosphere, and so long as we have men in prison, and especially young men, who are going to remember these years in future, you do not create the soil that is proper for the seed which you desire to sow.
I am going to be followed in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Irwin, who is going to sum up for the Government. He has had a share in the development of this idea of Indian self-government unequalled, I think, by any of your Lordships, even those who have held such prominent positions in Indian administration. He played a very memorable part, and, if he will allow me to say so, a very noble part in the time that he acted as Viceroy. He had the great courage and wisdom to pursue the path of conciliation. It required very great courage, and I think that when he gave up his office at the end of his term there were many who very greatly regretted that he was not able to continue there in order to see the accomplishment of his ideals. When he left, and when the Labour Government fell, the policy of the "strong hand" was recommended and commended. My Lords, the "strong hand" is an absurd expression for the action of people who are frightened. It is merely an admission that you are possessed by fear. I am certain that the path of conciliation is the only one which is likely to offer happy results, and is the only one that can produce the spirit of co-operation without which no scheme in the world can work.
During these three last days we have had the most important debate in your Lordships' House for many a long day. I have attended the debate, and read the speeches that I have not been able to listen to, and I have read also every one of the speeches delivered in another place during the three days debate there. Having done that, as I have no doubt

439
many of your Lordships have done, one is enormously struck by the sense of responsibility that has been shown in every one of the speeches, and by the keen desire displayed in varying degrees that a form of government should be given to India which would allow the great Oriental peoples in that Continent to express themselves, to express their desires and their needs so that they may become willing and sympathetic partners in the great brotherhood which has been called the British Commonwealth of Nations. We shall make mistakes. In the nature of things we must make mistakes; but do not let us allow fear, suspicion, overcaution, and timidity to deter us from according the fundamental right of self-government to the expectant millions whose destiny is our most sacred charge.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (LORD IRWIN): My Lords, I owe a word of apology, I think, to your Lordships' House for venturing to intervene in a debate of which I have only been able to hear one day, but your Lordships know my absence was due to circumstances over which I had no, or only very partial, control, and I have sought to redeem my deficiencies in that respect by reading all your Lordships' debate, and by endeavouring to inform myself as accurately as I might on what has passed. I have been fortunate indeed to-day to hear a succession of speeches like, I imagine, those which preceded them on the two earlier days, in all of which, as the noble Lord who spoke last reminded us, there has been evident a great spirit of restraint and of recognition of how important was the subject with which the debate dealt, and how widely the speeches made in this place echoed outside of it.
There has, of course, been no difference of opinion, or so I gather, with regard to the actual Motion on the Paper. It was not to be expected that there would be, inasmuch as the procedure there outlined has been generally accepted, I think, among all those who reflected on what the most appropriate procedure should be for some years past, and has on the whole commanded general approbation. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, made a special appeal to me to develop, if I could, somewhat further on behalf of the Government what would be the precise position
440
of the Indian representatives and what I thought would be the facilities enjoyed by British representatives who might sit on that Committee. I am afraid with regard to neither point am I able to carry this information further than I hoped I had carried it on an earlier occasion. He will remember that on that occasion it fell, to me, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to say that the question of the procedure of the Select Committee both in regard to the collaboration of Indians and in regard to the other point which lie put, which I think was a new one, with regard to the admission of advisers and assistants to the British representatives, was and must be a matter for the discretion of the Committee. It was quite evident that it would not be possible for Indian representatives over here to vote on the Committee, or sign the Committee's Report, but subject to these limitations it was the hope of the Government that the Committee would be prepared to avail itself to the utmost of the freest possible consultation with Indian representatives, and to allow them, in what I think was the sense originally proclaimed by Lord Birkenhead, to voice their objections and give free expression to their criticisms in the Committee room.
So far as I have been able to judge I think that the opinions expressed in this debate have tended to fall into two main groups. Perhaps it would be more fair to say three main groups, because I must not overlook that body of opinion for which the noble Lord who spoke last speaks, which feels generally that the White Paper proposals do not go nearly far enough, and are unduly marked throughout by hesitancy and caution. But leaving that aside, I think I would say that the rest of the opinion, to put it perhaps not unfairly, is divided into two groups. I would put first of all those who, perhaps, like my noble friend the Marquess of Zetland, are prepared to accept in general the White Paper proposals, or, at least, are not disposed at this stage to differ from them in principle, but are yet apprehensive about this or that particular aspect of them, and who wish to have this or that aspect of them more particularly explored in the Committee. That is one view. The other, I think, might he not perhaps incorrectly represented by either my noble

441
friend Lord Salisbury or my noble friend Lord Lloyd. They, I think I do them no injustice when I say, are quite frankly disposed to range themselves on principle against the whole suggestion of making any advance at present in the direction of Central responsibility, and they also, in their turn, support that attitude by reference, with great force and great conviction, to their particular distrust of particular provisions. If I may I would deal for a moment or two with each of those broad positions.
May I deal with the second first, that which rejects on principle, or is disposed to reject on principle, any conception of moving towards responsibility at the Centre at the present time? I do not think that it is untrue to say that those who attack that view are really disposed to deny the reality of the problem of the settlement, and they are disposed to regard others like myself, or like the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Reading, who spoke to-day, or the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who spoke a day or two ago—indeed, I think Lord Litton would not disagree with me here—they are, think, somewhat disposed to regard those of us who feel that there is a problem at the Centre, very much like children who are afraid of the dark and victims of a quite unreal and quite unsubstantial fear. I want, if I may, in a few sentences to tell your Lordships why I, for my part, am unable to take that view, and, if I may, I will tell it, I hope briefly, against a background of personal experience, following the example here of my noble friend Lord Linlithgow a day or two ago.
Before I went to India, and when, indeed, I first had the pleasure of sitting in the House of Commons, I sat there, I think I way claim, as an impeccable Conservative, a member of the Conservative Opposition. My principal concern in life was to employ my energies in resisting the movement for the granting of Home Rule to Ireland. I spent weary days and nights in resisting those claims to self-government. Moreover, when it fell to me to join the ranks of a Government at a later date, had the great advantage and the great privilege of serving my novitiate in Government under Mr. Churchill, and the value of that apprenticeship, I have no doubt, was in no way impaired by the
442
fact that it happened to overlap the period during which he was taking so prominent a part in the Irish Treaty, which seemed to me in those days a direct contradiction of everything I had at first been elected to oppose.
At all events I only tell your Lordships those few sentences of biography to show went to India at least with no predisposition in favour of either accepting or opposing Indian claims, but I found, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who spoke earlier, said, conditions in India that compelled me to reconsider in a new light the constitutional arrangements that I found in operation at the Centre of Government. What did one find there? A political intelligentsia, acute, subtle, highly-trained in political method, trained, as has been said over and over again in this debate, and said with profound truth just now—trained by ourselves in all the opinions that we pride ourselves on having given to the world. The story is familiar enough to your Lordships and do not repeat it. But all that is reinforced by the fact that in India, as I think—and I think noble Lords who have served in India will agree—education has vastly out-stripped the technical and industrial development of the country, with the consequence that everybody who conies out of the Universities and out of the educational process and cannot get a technical or a professional job, to-day drifts into politics and is a great reinforcement of the political class, supported as that class is by the often very unscrupulous and always very active and almost ubiquitous vernacular Press.
That is part of the problem. It is quite true that that political intelligentsia is a fractional minority of the whole, but it is not a minority in the sense that we often use the term—namely, a minority in contra-distinction to a majority, which is ex hypothesi opposed to it. That great majority in, I think, the judgment of many whose opinions would carry weight is far more capable of potential support if the right appeal ran be made to prejudices, race sympathies and the like. If I may I would like to quote some sentences on that matter from the Report of the Statutory Commission. Sir John Simon's Commission said, and I think it is worth remembering:

443
"The politically-minded in India are only a tiny minority, but they may be able to sway masses of men in the countryside."
Then the Commission go on to say:
"While the experienced Indian member of the Services will admit the benefits of the British Raj and realise the difficulties in the way of complete self-government; while the member of a minority community, putting the safety of his community first, will stipulate for safeguards; and while the moderate may look askance at extremist methods which he will not openly denounce; all alike are in sympathy with the demand for equal status with the European and proclaim their belief in self-determination for India."
I believe that to be true. It is true not merely of Congress, which I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, is rather of an umbrella title. It is not merely Congress who are concerned with this idea, but a great many who are most loyal and firm-hearted friends and who are anxious to see India moving towards management of her own affairs.
Whilst of course it is true, as the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, said yesterday, that there are analogous movements across Asia, what I have always thought about India is that this movement is going on in a country which, for good reasons or bad, you have chosen to equip with a regular Parliamentary outfit, by which they can focus the whole thing and bring the whole thing into practical politics—a Council, a Legislature, members and constituents and all the rest of it. It is very different from anything that is happening in other parts of Asia that may occur to our minds. At the Centre, of course, is the Legislature predominantly elected, with a Government divorced from it and in no way responsible to it, with the result—as I am sure the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, would agree—that although the Legislature in India, has often behaved with great restraint (it has just passed, for instance, the Ottawa Agreement and passed Bills to supplement the civil power and so on) yet always there is recurring friction and frequent exhibitions of regrettable irresponsibility.
It is not because they have a dose of original sin greater than yours or mine, but because of the system—exactly the same system which impelled Lord Durham to write those words which many of us have so often read in relation to Canada. I confess that when I had been in India a short time I formed a definite view,
444
a view supported by all my reading of Imperial constitutional history, that when you have conditions such as I have described, once political consciousness is aroused, any structure based on this foundation is bound to lack political stability and could not for long be expected to rest upon a basis of consent. If India had not reached the stage where such a Constitution was unworkable we were within sight of it. That is why I was so pleased to hear the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, say what he did with regard to strong government. I am not going to repeat what he said, but with every word that he said on that point I profoundly agree.
When the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, says we should go right back and stand pretty well all square on the Simon Commission's Report, I feel bound to ask whether he is satisfied that the Centre proposed by the Simon Commission would be a strong Centre. I do not think so, and I will tell him why. What is the position to-day? You have 145 members at the present time in the Assembly of the Central Legislature. Of those 145 some 105, if I remember rightly, are elected. The other forty are partly officials and are partly nominated by the Governor-General. The Simon Commission recommended, if I recollect rightly, that the Assembly should consist of something like 250 members in which there should be six members of the Viceroy's Council and another twelve nominated members. That is eighteen out of 250. As against that the Governor-General has to-day some forty of what I may call reasonably probable Governor-General votes Noble Lords will observe at once that the position of difficulty in which, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, rightly said, the Governor-General may frequently find himself today, would be indefinitely aggravated if he were asked to work a system of that sort with the sure support of only eighteen out of 250 members. Therefore do not let us have any illusion of a strong Centre being secured by the Report of the Statutory Commission. The Report has great merits, and reading and rereading it I am struck with admiration of it, but it has not the merit of providing a strong Centre.
It, is not on account of pledges—and I do not suppose that I should interpret pledges differently from the noble Lord,

445
Lord Lloyd—but it is because of hard facts that I think that going back is not going to get you on. It is because of hard facts that I am driven to the conclusion that going on is the only safe way of meeting the situation. I say going back, because when you look into the question there are two alternatives and two only. One is to go back and create a subservient creature by way of Legislature or abolish it altogether. The other is to go forward towards a measure of responsibility. I think that logic and facts drive you forward towards responsibility, and that not only on account—as was said, I think, earlier in the debate—of the attitude of the Princes, which they took, as has been said, greatly to everybody's astonishment at the First Round Table Conference, but because going forward to responsibility
the only way by which you can fit the facts and meet the situation that has developed. It is no answer to all this to say that the reforms associated with the names of Mr. Montagu and Viscount Chelmsford—whose loss we so greatly deplore—have worked unutterably badly and have failed. In the first place what is meant by failure? It is quite true, I think, that the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms have led to increased communal difficulties. It was quite natural that when people saw power passing from one set of hands to another they began to ask into whose hands it was going to pass. It is quite true, I think, that in seine places and in some directions there has been a certain loss of efficiency, but that might happen wherever there is transfer to popular management of any efficiently run bureaucratic institution in any part of the world. It is also true that it was more expensive. But the point is that the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms were always recognised to be transitional. I think that on the whole, as I believe the Commission found—Viscount Burnham will correct me if I am wrong—it is surprising that they worked as well as they did.
I venture to think when discussing their pros and cons, and whether they have done well or ill, there is a great deal to be put on the other side. They have brought new classes into politics, developed the civic sense, trained people in public spirit and so on, and in the Provinces of Madras and the Punjab they
446
have definitely brought new Parties into existence which have been able to challenge Congress on their own ground and defeat them. That, I think, is a very definite contribution that the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms have made. Therefore the broad conclusion I draw from all this, and I apologise for inflicting it upon your Lordships, is that although I am sure any one who has had the honour of serving the Crown in India would be always willing to admit mistakes in their conduct of affairs, although not always perhaps the mistakes with which they are most commonly reproached, it is really quite unhistorical to attribute present difficulties in India to the fault of this, that or the other man, instead of seeing in those difficulties the broad result of what has followed from bringing India within the constitutional governing ambit of British India.
If I may tell a personal anecdote, I remember meeting, at the Gersoppa Falls, the most lovely falls in India, a collector of twenty-five years' standing. It was in 1929 when great attention was being paid to Indian affairs in England. I asked him, after luncheon, when we were smoking a cigar, whether in his judgment we had all made a great mistake in regard to what had been happening recently, and he said: "If there has been a mistake it was made long ago." I said: "You mean Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford?" He said: "No, further back than that." I said: "You mean Mr. Morley and Lord Minto?" "No," he said, "if we had had prescience, we should have seen that to tie up India with a developing democratic country over the whole field, as was done when we took over from the Company, would have the inevitable result of forcing democracy upon India that was unsuitable to India; we should, after the Mutiny, have recreated and extended the Indian States, preserved standards of administration by our Residents, and ourselves run things like railways, harbours and so on—if we had done that it would have been a possible policy and would have avoided probably the extreme difficulties into which we have fallen later." But you cannot do that now and therefore it is, I suppose, that you have drifted, not through the fault of individuals particularly, but through the pressure of events, into the situation where you now find yourselves.

447
The recent history of the stages by which the matter has been treated are sufficiently familiar and I will not repeat them—the action of the Princes, the Round-Table Conferences, the conviction implicit throughout the Simon Report that the only real way of dealing with the thing is by Federation, and the bringing of the question of Federation more prominently forward during the last two years. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, made a complaint, as I read it, that the Joint Select Committee would be invited to approach the matter blindfold.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is with respect to the Princes.
LORD IRWIN: They would not know, he said, how many Princes would come in, or upon what terms they would come in. The noble Marquess may think it right or wrong, but surely he cannot say that the Government have not given him a perfectly clear answer on the first point because, in the White Paper, it is proposed that a minimum of 50 per cent., I think, of the greater Princes enjoying seats in the Princes' Chamber should be a minimum for bringing Federation into existence; and with regard to the terms on which the Princes should accede he will remember that in the White Paper—I believe it to be in the introduction—it is stated that, of course, His Majesty's Government or the Viceroy would exercise their own discretion as to whether any State sought to impose conditions that were destructive of the conception of Federation and, therefore, it will be, I should suppose, one of the most natural subjects that the Joint Select Committee will explore—namely, what should be the conditions of acceptance and should they be varied from those of the Government proposal.
A point in that connection was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that seemed to me astonishing. He found great fault with the form of Oath, which he described as the most fantastic Oath that he, with his knowledge of Oaths, had ever come across. Surely it will not have escaped his memory that the subjects of the Indian States are not British subjects and, therefore, if they are for certain purposes to take an allegiance to the King-Emperor as the head of the constitutional machinery, it is not un-
448
reasonable that they should be permitted to save the allegiance they owe to their territorial ruler.
LORD LLOYD: It was precisely my point that there was always a danger in a divided allegiance. Previously the subjects of Native States had only one allegiance.
LORD IRWIN: I do not want to enter into an argument. Any constitutional lawyer would be able to resolve our difference in a moment. But the fact does remain that to-day no subject of an Indian State is technically a British subject. He owes allegiance, or whatever is the right phrase, to his own Maharajah and, through the Maharajah, is in relations with the Crown and the King-Emperor That I believe to be the correct Statement. I would therefore claim on the whole that the policy of Federation, on the basis of defined responsibility, and supported and buttressed by provisions through which Great Britain may still continue to lend her assistance to India in those matters where India needs it, fits the facts better than anything else and is complementary to rather than alien from the Simon Commission. Indeed I think it is very hard to say, if that sort of scheme were discarded, what other scheme you could find to fit the facts more satisfactorily. As has been repeatedly said, it will be the duty of the Joint Select Committee to examine every one of these proposals with the utmost liberty and full discretion, and if they can improve on them no one will be more glad of it, no doubt, than the authors of the proposals themselves.
But I would not have you think that the fact that the Government have reached these conclusions embodied in the White Paper means that they are bland to the difficulties involved in the execution of the policy outlined. It does not mean, for example, that they have overlooked what the noble Marquess directed attention to last night—that India still has communal difficulties and is unable wholly to defend herself. All those matters are in mind But the conclusion we 'would draw from them would differ from that drawn by the noble Marquess. He would find in these things an argument for doing nothing or being ultra-cautious. I would draw the conclusion that I was the more bound to try to assist

449
India to overcome these difficulties and, by overcoming them by joint effort to assist her to realise her aspirations for a greater measure of self-government. If the noble Marquess were to pursue the logic of his argument he would be driven to say that until India had ceased to be communal or until the whole Army had been Indianised, he could not regard India as fit for any Central responsibility, I think he would be reluctant to commit himself so far as that.
I do not wish to fill up your time unduly, and I want to go on to one or two points that have been more particularly taken in debate. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made a speech which must have impressed, I think, very strongly all who heard it. He made the point that it was an unprecedented approach to a peat federal problem to try and start your Federal Centre simultaneously with the establishment of the federating units. We have often been told from the other side what an incongruous business it is to try to create a federation of on the one side autocratic States, and on the other side self-governing autonomous Provinces; but not many people seem to have observed what a greater incongruity it would be to attempt to have a. bureaucratic Federal Centre as the apex of self-governing Provinces, and as an apex not detached and removed from the Provinces, but bound to use provincial machinery for all its federal purposes. I cannot believe that that would work for a day.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not suggest the establishment of a bureaucratic Federal Government at the Centre. I suggested the creation in the first instance of autonomous Governments in the Provinces of British India and a subsequent agreement between such Governments and the autonomous Governments of the Indian States as to the conditions for the establishment of democratic Federal Government for the whole of India.
LORD IRWIN: The noble Earl is talking of what he has ultimately in view, but I am speaking of what would be the Position during the transitional state, until they have come together. It would be a Central Government for All-India purposes and having to rely for those purposes on machinery in the autonomous Provinces. The Central Government
450
would continue to send orders to the autonomous Provinces and the bureaucratic Centre would be likely for the transitional time to have real difficulties. That is one of the difficulties in the whole matter which I have always felt.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: It will continue as it is during the interval.
LORD IRWIN: With great respect may I he allowed to say this I cannot help thinking that a good many people who distrust the federal proposal see the creation of the Indian. Federation rather in the terms in which in history we read of the creation of the American Federation by Alexander Hamilton, who was creating something out of nothing. Here in India there is a Centre, and our problem is to make arrangements for distributing power from this Centre into the Provinces. I think it is an entirely different problem, and it makes the argument from the other side a little unreal.
It is entirely true that the history of India and the British connection has had the result of creating something which is perfectly unique, and for which no sealed pattern treatment is possible, and it is of course on the special features of this Constitution, and the much discussed safeguards, that discussion tends to concentrate. The British criticism is that the safeguards are worthless, that they will not work, and that all power will drift into the hands of the Indian Ministers. The Indian criticism is that the safeguards are destructive of self-government and that the power will drift into the hands of the Governor-General and Governors. They cannot both be right, and as usual I imagine that the truth will lie between them. Incidentally, Lord Lloyd, I think, did an injustice to the proposals of the Government when he said that there were no safeguards whatever proposed to secure stable government for the 300,000,000 humble dwellers in India. I think if he had read the White Paper he must have known that he was falling into error. The truth, as I have said, lies between the British and Indian criticisms, and I agree with Lord Reading. I do not believe that the Governor-General will often find himself compelled to exercise his powers. A Constitution is not only an instrument of government but it is a document which shapes human

451
relationships between individuals, and I cannot imagine that the Governor-General, who will be entrusted with these powers, will often find himself compelled to use them. He will be working with his Ministers, and they will be anxious to work with him. He will be guiding them, and they will not want to go out of their way to lose their jobs and to pick quarrels with one who I hope will he their best adviser and friend.
I do not for one moment believe that the Indians will desire to invade any of the special purposes for which the Governor-General is given special responsibility. I do not believe that Indians at the Centre will want to see Indian credit damaged, or India inadequately defended, or minorities disturbed, and the like. If any noble Lord differs from me in that estimate of probability, let him remember, as the Secretary of State reminded us in another place that the composition of the Central Legislature is such as to ensure that all these stable elements in India can make their voices very effectively heard. The safeguards will be there, and the knowledge that they are there will, I am prepared to believe, be a powerful factor against their being used, and even if the Ministers resign, in the case put by the noble Marquess yesterday, and the Governor-General cannot get another Ministry and the minority cannot carry on, it is then in the power of the Governor-General to take over the Government and appoint irresponsible Ministers, as he has power to do to-day. Unless we are going to contemplate a general strike of the Civil Service, which is as unlikely in India as it is in this country, I have not the smallest fear of these safeguards being found inoperative or unable to be worked.
I have, I am bound to say, given much more anxious thought to the point developed by Lord Zetland, with regard to whether you are putting too great a. burden on to the Governor-General in all these matters. As Lord Reading said, of course it is true, admittedly, that he has a very heavy burden to-day, and therefore the point is whether it is going to be heavier or lighter than it is to-day. I do not want to travel over the ground that Lord Reading travelled over I agree with everything he said. In addition to what are constitutionally
452
his personal powers I think the Governor-General gets the credit, or blame, for whatever happens in any part of India. If anybody drops a brick anywhere in India it is on the Governor-General's toes that it falls. And therefore his personal responsibilities are not in the least measured only by what appears in the Statute as being his personal powers, and I think it is no exaggeration to say that there is no part of Indian administration from which the Governor-General can disinterest himself to-day.
My noble friend said that the Viceroy now has a Council and in future he will be a lonely figure. But the trouble, as my noble friend knows, is that the Council does not always give the Viceroy unanimous advice. I think most of us know cases in which there have been acute difficulties between the Commander in-Chief and the Finance Member, and the Governor-General has ultimately to make up his mind and decide it. And it will happen in the future, as to-day, with only this difference, I think, that when the Governor-General does decide and has to act against his responsible Ministers, he will at least be acting with the knowledge of the responsible Ministers, and not solely in the face of a totally irresponsible Legislature, as he is to-day. And therefore I do not think that he will find it unduly arduous as compared with the present day.
I want to say a word or two to Indian critics of the general proposals, if my words may be so fortunate as to reach them. It has been said that the assertion of the principle of responsible Government in this White Paper occupies only a clause or two whereas the assertion of the safeguards occupies pages. The noble Lord opposite, I think, complained that these were unduly prominent. Well, it is legitimate to remind our Indian critics that the one plea that they have been putting forward, as far as I know, for the last twelve months is: "Let us see exactly these safeguards on paper, let us see exactly what you want." As far as I know, there is nothing now in the safeguards which has not been discussed, if not accepted, but they have been reduced to something like drafting form. I do not think that I ever expected an enthusiastic reception fur the White Paper. That is not, I think, the way in

453
which things generally happen in India, but the criticism to which it has been subjected in no way shakes my conviction that, if and when a scheme on these lines were passed, plenty of responsible Indians would come forward to work that scheme.
I say that for these reasons. First of all, every one of these safeguards in the White Paper is demonstrably in the interests of India. I say that without any hesitation at all. Minorities, law and order, Indian credit, during the transition period, whatever that be, the help of British Services—all these are demonstrably in India's interest; and, as I remember saying quite plainly to Mr. Gandhi when in India, it is equally demonstrably in India's interest that there should be no commercial discrimination. There you have a country crying out for capital to develop it, and what worse advertisement could there he to attract foreign capital than commercial discrimination Therefore, every one of these things flows from what we are trying to do—namely, to construct a practical and balanced partnership between the two countries. And I am not the least impressed by the statement that the fact that the Governor-General has these special powers need in any way impair the real responsibility of Indian Ministers any more than it did in any British Dominion which has progressed through limited to complete responsibility.
Either the safeguards will not be required, in which ease responsibility is not limited, or they will be required, in which case all reasonable opinion, both here and in India, will think it was right to have them, and that they should be exercised. Do let us get away from the conception of safeguards as a kind of bunker, round which or over which careful and skilful players have to make their way. That is not the idea of safeguards. Still less, if the noble Lord, Lord Snell, had been here, would I have commended his simile of the safeguard as a birdcage. That really is not the idea of what a safeguard is. It may be compared to the fence on the side of a dangerous roadway, by which fie unwary or inexperienced traveller may be protected from what may possibly he a false and fatal step, but, as long as he goes straight on, there is no restriction of his liberty, and he can go at whatever pace and as far as he likes.
454
India criticises the financial safeguards. She would, in my judgment, be profoundly ill-advised to criticise the presence of a financial adviser who is likely to be of the greatest possible assistance to the Government of India when they take over these responsibilities. She would also, in my judgment, be ill-informed to criticise the financial arrangements on the ground, as I have seen it stated, that so large a percentage, up to 80 per cent. of Indian revenues are mortgaged to fixed charges, debts, and so on. The answer that I would suggest would be that they should analyse the Budget of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer as I have done, and see how much of his money is really free for him to do what he likes with without prior and compulsory obligations to meet.
The only other subject on which I want to say a word is provincial law and order. After reading the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, I reread the Report of the Statutory Commission, and I found that the noble Marquess had taken the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack somewhat to task for having been in danger of misleading the House on the actual recommendations of the Simon Commission. I think that he himself unwittingly fell into error by suggesting that what the Simon Commission had said was that they recommended the transfer of law and order, subject to the fact that there would be a strong Centre (which I do not argue about for the moment) and subject to the fact that there would be a European officer to take the portfolio of law and order in the Provinces.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I must interrupt my noble friend. I was not referring to the Simon Commission Report, I was referring to the speech of the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons on March 28, and in that speech my right honourable friend said that the Simon Commission only recommended law and order being transferred in the Provinces subject to two qualifications, he then mentioned the two qualifications. The important one was that there should remain responsibility at the Centre, and, having said that, he himself said that it might alter the views of any of us—himself included—having regard to the fact that these

455
qualifications no longer obtain. I was quoting from his speech.
LORD IRWIN: I apologise if I have misinterpreted my noble friend, but I do not honestly think I have. I perhaps used the wrong phrase, but what I had in mind was this sentence in his speech yesterday:
"In the first place there was the qualification that in its Report the Simon Commission contemplated that there should be a special European Minister in each Provincial Government to look after this particular side of the question."
It is that sentence which I challenge as not having been the recommendation of the Statutory Commission. My noble friend Lord Burnham is here, and will no doubt bear me out that the Statutory Commission said, if my memory serves me correctly, that there should be an official Minister in Provincial Governments.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: The Commission said it should be open to the Governor of any Province to hand the portfolio of Official Minister outside the Legislative Council.
LORD IRWIN: Quite; but that was at the discretion of the Governor, and the Statutory Commission expressly said they hoped it would be done in two or three Provinces, but they made it perfectly plain it was by no means certain he would be a European; he might be an Indian. That is why I ventured to correct the noble Marquess, for after all, it is a point of some substance, when he quoted the Simon Commission as saying there should always be a European Minister in every Province.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must Apologise to my noble friend if said that the Official Minister must be a European. He is perfectly right. He is an Official Minister, but not necessarily a European. But I also want to remind him that I did not dwell upon that side of it. The real point was that there must be no responsibility at the Centre; that is the important point. The White Paper says you must hand law and order over to the Provinces and you must have responsibility at the Centre. The Foreign Secretary says in his Report you must hand over law and order to the Provinces without any responsibility at the Centre, and the Foreign Secretary went on to say, now that he is a col-
456
league of my noble friend, in the House of Commons the other day, that the fact that that does not appear in the White Paper makes a tremendous difference, a difference which not only affects the minds of everybody but his own mind as well.
LORD IRWIN: I do not, of course, challenge what my noble friend has said with regard to the change that has been made. It is a change that. I think is justifiable on its merits. He would hold a different view, but it is a change that will be properly examined by the Joint Select Committee. With regard to the other matter, I very gratefully acknowledge that he accents my correction on the minor point, and for the rest I have no wish to fall into any controversy with him on the matter. May I say a word on the general question? Let there be co misunderstanding about this. With or without change of Central Government, if the attempt were made to withhold law and order from the Provinces, I would agree with my noble friend who spoke first, and regard it as perfectly useless to proceed with the reforms at all because all we should have done would have been to transfer land revenue and finance, and you would have made that great change for nothing. In the next place, let there be no doubt that the Moslem community would be as bitterly opposed to the refusal to transfer so-called law and order in the Punjab as the Hindu community would be anywhere else. Lastly, I cannot believe that the plan of reservation, making the Police a concentrated target for irresponsible criticism, can possibly be considered by anybody as a secure means of protecting them from maladministration. On the other hand it is, of course, perfectly evident that if you lay on the Governor the special responsibility of preserving tranquillity in his Province, if you tell him, as he will be told, in the Instrument of Instructions that he is to be alive to the connection between maintaining the tranquillity of his Province and the internal administration and discipline of the Police, you must also see that he has the means of 'adequate information as to what is going on to enable him to act.
My noble friend began earlier in the debate by asking me the question whether

457
or not this was adequately secured, and I would only say to him that if he or anybody else on the Joint Select Committee is able to show that in that direction the Governor has not sufficient powers, then that would be an evident flaw in the White Paper that would have to be made good. But, on the general question, I think I may be permitted to observe, with regard to the opinion of the Home Member which the noble Marquess quoted yesterday, that as far as I am aware the Government of India does not take the noble Marquess's view and that no Provincial Government, not even Bengal, which might be expected to be as alive to these difficulties as any Provincial Government, associates itself with it, even in the changed conditions to which the noble Marquess referred. AU these matters are of course proper matters for the Joint Select Committee, which I hope will be fully representative of all important sections of opinion, and I hope will discuss these matters calmly and with due deliberation.
One of the major tragedies of all this business has been the extent to which protagonists here and in India, so it seems to me, constantly play into one another's hands, creating new misunderstandings, and constantly digging deeper the foundations of old suspicions, thus immensely aggravating the task of moderate men, of middle opinion, in both countries. For my own part, I have never doubted that with a reasonable amount of good will on both sides it would be quite possible to reach a solution through which the Indians would find the reality of constitutional freedom, and we on our side would find British anxieties resolved and allayed, and I would therefore hope that in the next stages of this business we may all, here and those who come from India, approach it not in the spirit of men engaged in a grim struggle whether to acquire or retain power, but rather as partners in o great, most difficult, but most honourable enterprise, through the solution of which each country, Great Britain and India, may be able to do much for the assistance and strength of the other, and both much for that great society of which I hope each will always be proud to call itself a partner.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, last year in moving the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, I had to explain to your Lordships there were a large number of amendments to be made. I am glad to say that this year, particularly at this late hour, I have to tell your Lordships there are only two amendments, neither of which is of very great importance. They will affect the Air Force Act and not the Army Act, and they are both contained in Clause 4 of the Bill. As your Lordships know, the Government of India have decided to raise an Indian Air Force, which will be entirely Indian in its composition, although in its earlier stages it will be assisted by a loan of a few Royal Air Force officers and men in air instructional capacity. In consequence of that, under Clause 4 (1), it is proposed to give mutual powers of command to the officers of the two Services when units of the two Services are serving together at the same station or engaged in joint training or operations. The actual powers to be given in any specific circumstances will be decided between the Air Ministry and the India Office, and laid down in the regulations for the clause makes prevision.
In Clause 4 (2) it is proposed to provide that when the personnel of the Indian Air Force are attached as individuals to the Royal Air Force outside India they shall, subject to exception in special cases, become subject to the Air Force Act. If attached in India, they will remain subject to the Indian Air Force Act which, I understand, was passed in 1932. The remaining parts of Clause 4 are entirely consequential, and there is a clause which brings these changes into operation on the 30th day of April, instead of when the rest of the Act comes into operation outside the United Kingdom, the reason being that the Indian Air Force starts, I under-

459
stand, its existence from that day. There is nothing else in the Bill which differs from the normal form in which the Bill appears before your Lordships every year, and I do not think, therefore, that I need say anything further about it. I ask your Lordships to allow this Bill to be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House will tell us the business for next week?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, before we get to next week we have to finish this week. To-morrow morning there is to be a formal sitting of your Lordships' House in order that we may receive from another place the Bill with regard to trade with Russia which, I understand, is expected to reach its concluding stages there to-night. That meeting will be a purely formal one to give a First Reading to the Bill, and arrangements will be made to constitute a House.
On Tuesday next I propose to suggest that once again your Lordships' House shall meet at three o'clock. We have rather a heavy programme to get through, but I think it will probably be more for the general convenience that we should meet earlier on Tuesday than have a special sitting of the House on Monday. Monday is not a convenient day to many of your Lordships unless full notice is given. If we meet at three o'clock on Tuesday, first of all there will be a Motion in my name in similar terms to the Motion in another place with regard to the memorial tablet to the late Earl of Oxford. That will not take very long, and naturally will not be controversial. Then I propose to ask your Lordships to take the Russian Bill through all its stages on Tuesday. I shall propose that that be the next business on the Order Paper. The next will be a Motion for setting up the Joint Committee to which your Lordships have just agreed. The
460
names will be moved in another place, I believe, on Monday, and I propose that we should move our names on Tuesday so that the Committee may come into being before the Easter vacation. Finally, if my noble friend Lord Danesfort is still going to move it, there is the Performing Animals (Regulation) Amendment Bill which stands in his name for Second Reading on that day. I am afraid I shall have to ask the House to give precedence to the Government business. I am not quite sure whether in those circumstances Lord Danesfort's Bill will be taken on Tuesday, or whether it may possibly go over the Easter vacation.
On Wednesday there is the Committee stage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill. There is also a Motion by my noble friend Lord Dudley about railways, and there is the Committee stage of the Protection of Birds Bill. I ought to Lave said that the Committee stage of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill will be taken on Tuesday and the Third Reading will be taken on Wednesday. Those, I think, are practically formal stages in this House. Then on Thursday we meet at half-past eleven. It is possible, but I want to consult in other quarters first, that I may ask your Lordships to take on that day the final stages of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill. I think it depends a little on what happens in Committee on the Wednesday. Subject to that there will be no business except formal business on Thursday, and the Royal Commission.
It may be convenient if I go on to make a statement with regard to the adjournment. We adjourn on Thursday. In another place they are reassembling on Tuesday, April 25, and, I understand, they are taking the Budget on that day. I think it will probably be for the general convenience if we adjourn till Tuesday, April 25, so that in the event of any special business arising the House will be in session, but unless something unexpected occurs I would propose on Tuesday, April 25, to have merely a formal sitting and adjourn for a week until Tuesday, May 2.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for his statement.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, with regard to what has been stated

461
about the Joint Committee, I understand there are two or three distinct formal Motions as to place and time and so on. I would like to ask when they will appear on the Paper?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I did not know there were Motions beyond the Motion in regard to the names. If there
462
are any other Motions which are purely formal I will take them as soon as I possibly can afterwards. I will look into that matter, and the Motions, if there are any, will be put down at the earliest possible moment, on Tuesday or Wednesday as the case may be.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Petition of Messrs. Horne and Birkett, of 4, Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, Solicitors, praying for leave to present a petition of the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the London Society, praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, agents and witnesses against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 106 for presenting such Petition has expired: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table, and Standing Order No. 106 to be considered on Tuesday next in order to its being dispensed with in respect to the said Petition.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
The King's Consent signified; and Bill specially reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
KNUTSFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
Petition of the Urban District Council of Knutsford praying for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the acquisition by the Knutsford Urban District Council of the undertaking of the Knutsford Light and Water Company; to authorise that Council to supply water and gas; and for other purposes: together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto: Read, and referred to the Examiners.
MERSEY TUNNEL BILL.
Committed; The Committee to be pro posed by the Committee of Selection.